The Amateur

Computerist

Fall 2021 Toward a Second Netizen Book (Part 4b) Volume 34 No. 4b

Table of Contents

Forward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Page 1

Doing Democracy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 2

Netizens and the Vision for the Future of the Net . . . . Page 3

Netizen Journalism and the UN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 7

UN, China, Journalism in Era of the Netizen . . . . . Page 9

Netizens Expose Media Fabrications & Distortions. . . Page 14

Forward

This issue of the Amateur Computerist, Vol. 34

No. 4b, is the fifth issue in a series, each containing

articles that are the basis for possible chapters for a

second netizen book. The articles in this issue continue

to provide analysis and examples of an emerging new

journalism, this time focusing on journalism at the UN

and journalism exposing media fabrications in the

context of the vision of the netizen role in the present

and the future.

The first article “Doing Democracy,” celebrates

the introduction of the concept of the netizen by

Michael Hauben in 1993. In his essay, “The Net and

Netizens,” he identified and described the important

role of the online user in creating a new social insti-

tution, an electronic commons that had come to be

known as the Net. On the net, the previously isolated

individual could now communicate with and broadcast

to others around the world, sharing news and views

from a grassroots perspective. This first article seeks a

practical operational framework to explore the net and

the netizen as a model for democracy.

The second article applies the predictions of “The

Net and Netizen” to the ongoing struggle in South

Korea for more democracy. Already in 2002-2003,

netizens in South Korea were active in political

struggles and had helped elect a progressive president.

By 2008, online discussions and organizing led and

supported more than 100 nights of candlelight demon-

strations, protesting the next president’s conservative

plans especially the importation of poorly inspected

beef. Members of online cooking clubs, music so-

cieties, fashion clubs, sports fan clubs etc., brought

their online communities offline to the candlelight

political stage. Netizens brought their laptops and did

texting, live broadcasting and held online/offline

debates and discussions. The net and the netizens gave

rise to new forms of democratic expression, creating

an online and offline public square.

The next two articles look at netizen journalism

at the UN and about global politics. They see an

emerging alternative journalism in the era of the

netizen. This journalism is not tied to the national

interest of the dominant powers. It seeks instead to

overcome the manipulation by those powers of public

opinion characteristic of the international mainstream

media. The net and netizens make possible a more

serious attention to the importance of facilitating an

accurate channel of communication. By revealing the

actual forces at work, netizens are making it possible

to have a more accurate grasp of whose interests are

being served and what is at stake in the events that

make up the news.

The final article, “China and Syria: Netizens

Expose Media Fabrications and Distortions,” gives two

case studies. One is that of the anti-CNN website,

which took up to be a watchdog of international media

coverage of China. In the process of exposing the dis-

tortions prevalent at the time of the Beijing Summer

Olympics of 2008, the website developed an inter-

national discussion format so the world would better

know the real China and Chinese people could better

know the West. The widespread online netizen expos-

ure of distortions and bias in major examples of the

international mainstream media called into question

for many Chinese people their positive expectation

about Western media.

http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/

Page 1

The other case study examined reporting about

Syria in Spring 2011. As in the case of anti-CNN,

many net users realized that much of the so-called

documentation of Syrian government crimes was

suspicious. Using online search engines, original

sources were found and posted to prove that many

reports of supposed “crimes of the Syrian government”

were distortions and fabrication. Often crimes were

traced to the armed opposition itself. The article con-

cludes that the vision of netizens becoming more and

more a force in society continues to be relevant and

powerful.

[Editor’s Note: The following article was written to

celebrate the 10-year anniversary of the first posting

online in 1993 of “The Net and Netizens”. The article

below is reprinted from its publication in German and

English in the German online journal Telepolis on July

9, 2003. The English version is at:

https://www.heise

.de/tp/features/Doing-Democracy-3430319.html.]

Doing Democracy

Reflections on the 10 year Anniversary

of the Publication of

“The Net and Netizens”

by Ronda Hauben

This is a period marked by serious political

dissatisfaction around the world. There is the promise

of democratic societies, but the promise too often is far

removed from the reality of people's lives. Yet there is

the widespread yearning for a better world, for a

society where democracy is practiced, not merely

pretended. In this situation the question is raised:

“What does democracy look like? How does it fun-

ction? Are there any operational models to observe and

learn from?”

Fortunately, there is a model to be examined, a

practice to be investigated. Ten years ago, on July 6,

1993, a student, Michael Hauben,

posted a paper on

the Net. The title of the paper was “Common Sense:

The Net and Netizens.” The first sentences:

Welcome to the 21

Century. You are a

Netizen (Net Citizen), and you exist as a

citizen of the world thanks to the global

connectivity that the Net gives you. You

consider everyone as your compatriot. You

physically live in one country but you are

in contact with much of the world via the

global computer network. Virtually you

live next door to every other single netizen

in the world. Geographical separation is

replaced by existence in the same virtual

space.

It was a long paper so it was posted in three

separate parts: Preface,

Paper,

Appendix.

The paper introduced a concept, which has since

spread around the world, both online and off (see also

Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the

Internet).

This concept can provide a practical oper-

ational framework to explore a model for democracy.

Describing how he hoped to focus the paper, Michael

Hauben wrote:

The Net and Netizens: A Revitalization of

People Power, a Strengthening of People

Power. Bottom Up is the Principle of this

paper.

The interesting aspect of “The Net and Netizens”

is that it identifies and describes the important role of

the online user in creating the new social treasure that

had come to be known as the Net. The net.citizen, or

netizen, as Michael Hauben writes, was the active

agent in creating something new, the democratic online

content and form of the 1993 network of networks.

The netizen contributed information and viewpoints

that made it possible to consider an issue or problem

and come to a reasoned judgment or decision. Netizens

would help other netizens if they deemed it worth-

while.

The initiative that was being developed was from

the netizens themselves. Examples included a mailing

list by a person in Ireland summarizing the weekly

news and sending it out to over 1000 people around the

world who wanted to stay current with Irish news;

Usenet newsgroups like misc.news.southasia and

soc.culture.india which made it possible for people

from an area to continue contact with what was

happening; a mailing list to watch the prices of gas in

California to warn against price gouging. There were

many other examples that Michael Hauben provided

which he had learned from his research online.

The key aspect, however, of this new form of

democracy, was that the previously disenfranchised

reader could now broadcast to others around the world,

news and views from a grassroots perspective. Pre-

viously, there had been central control of the mass

media. Now the participant himself or herself, could

Page 2

provide information to the online world about an event

or an area of knowledge. Netizens also had the ability

to be citizen reporters, to offer a more wide ranging set

of view points and perspectives on issues or problems,

a broader basis from which to form one’s own opinion,

than hitherto had been possible.

Netizens could meet online, discuss issues and

problems, and from the process decide on the goal or

direction to pursue. Michael Hauben saw this process

as a way of revitalizing society, as a way that those

previously disenfranchised could gain power over both

their society and over their personal lives.

In this operating model of democracy, there were

no elections or representatives. Rather this embryo of

democracy was focused on the active participation and

contributions of the many in a manner not hitherto

possible. Michael Hauben described some of the broad

ranging ages and occupations of the more than 10

million computer users who, by 1993, were connected

around the world. At the time the computer networking

connections were made possible by gateways between

different networks, like the scientific and educational

Internet, the academic BITNET, the technical research

Unix UUCP and Usenet network, the Cleveland Free-

net for community people, and other networks.

While the netizen was an active contributor to the

developing social treasure, Michael Hauben realized

the need to make it possible for everyone to have

access to this new communication paradigm to realize

its potential. He writes:

This complete connection of the body of

citizens of the world does not exist as of

today, and it will definitely be a fight to

make access to the Net open and available

to all. However, in the future we might be

seeing the possible expansion of what it

means to be a social animal. Practically

every single individual on the Net today is

available to every other person on the Net

… . International connection coexists on

the same level with local connection. Also

the computer networks allow a more ad-

vanced connection between the people who

are communicating.

Although the path was difficult, Michael Hauben

also appreciated the importance of the goal. He writes:

Despite the problems, for people of the

world, the Net provides a powerful way of

peaceful assembly. Peaceful Assembly al-

lows for people to take control over their

lives, rather than control being in the hands

of others. This power has to be honored

and protected. Any medium or tool that

helps people to hold or gain power is some-

thing special and has to be protected.

The focus of democracy, as described in “The

Net and Netizens,” is on the people themselves, and on

their ability and achievements in determining the

nature and development of their society. It is on sup-

port for the ever increasing contributions of more of

the populace in the process.

Notes:

http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/.

2. http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/CS/Common_Sense1.txt.

http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/CS/Common_Sense2.txt.

http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/CS/Common_Sense3.txt.

http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/.

[Editor’s Note: The following is a slightly revised

version of a presentation made to a Social Movements

class at Barnard College in New York City in Nov.

2017.]

Netizens and the Vision for

the Future of the Net:

A Special Moment and

Netizens in Candlelight 2008

by Ronda Hauben

Part I – Context

First I want to offer a context for the origins and

importance of “The Net and Netizens; the Impact of

the Net Has on People’s Lives,” an article that became

the basis for Chapter 1 of the book Netizens: On the

History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet. Then I

will take a brief look at netizen activity in the 2008

Candlelight demonstrations in South Korea.

The article and the chapter are a collection of

some of the experiences made possible by the Internet

in what might be called the Dawn of the Internet’s

development. The author of the article, Michael

Hauben is also the co-author with me of the book. I

will refer to this book as the Netizens book in this talk.

The book was first put online Jan. 12, 1994 and then

Page 3

published in a print edition in May 1997.

In 1992-1993 Michael was an undergraduate

student at Columbia University and at the time he was

interested in studying communication and the potential

impact of the Internet. In 1992, he enrolled in a course

in ethics and computer science. The professor wanted

students to do a project, which was not based on infor-

mation from books.

The obvious possibility for Michael was to go

online and try to gather material about a question he

was deeply interested in, which was the impact that the

Internet would have on society.

The Internet had been in the process of develop-

ment for 20 years by this time. But it was only in

1992-1993 that it was becoming accessible to the

public and connections were becoming available to

people and institutions around the world.

So this was, one can say, a special moment when

Michael was able to be online at Columbia University

and able to do research for his class using the Internet.

There is another aspect of this moment that is

important to recognize. The research process creating

the Internet was in general a public process. Public

funds were used and during this period it was available

free to those with an educational purpose who had a

means of connecting. Commercial entities, during this

period were restricted in what they could do online.

Michael’s use of the Internet fell within its education

scope. In general those online did not pay time or

access charges for the time they were online. At the

time, there were also commercial networks like Comp-

userve where one did pay time charges for being

online. But also the U.S. government was claiming that

in the next few years it would make the Internet

commercial and turn it over to private corporations.

In planning his project, Michael formulated a few

questions and sent them out online, via some different

networks that were available and on mailing lists he

had access to. In the appendix to the book version of

Chapter I, there are copies of some of the questions

Michael posted online for his research.

Fairly quickly, he received a number of sub-

stantial email responses to his questions. He gathered

these, studied the content and then wrote the article he

called “The Net and Netizens: the Impact the Net has

on People’s Lives.”

Essentially what the “Net and Netizens” article

does is document a number of ways that the people

who wrote to him had found the Net to be a significant

contribution to their lives.

As I remember this period, those of us who had

gotten access to the Net were busy exploring what this

access would make possible.

For example, an Irish expat living in the England

was able to keep up with events in Ireland by reading

a weekly newsletter sent out online by a man who

worked for a computer company in Galway. A music

fan in the U.S. was able to learn from the Internet

about a Roger Waters concert held in Berlin one week

after the Berlin Wall came down and so was able to go

to Berlin in time for the concert. There were four com-

puter science researchers in different parts of the U.S.

who were able to write a research paper because of the

connectivity the Net made possible. There was a poem

written by two people using the Net together, which

one of the authors described as “a surprisingly good

poem.”

These are just a flavor of some of the different

contributions to people’s lives that the Net made pos-

sible which people online shared with Michael via

email or as comments on his posts.

There are two special aspects that he included in

“The Net and Netizens.” First is the reference to the

vision for the Internet that was put forward by JCR

Licklider whom Michael calls a “prophet of the net.”

Licklider was a psychologist and computer scien-

tist brought by the Department of Defense’s research

entity known as ARPA to be the head of its first

“Information Processing Techniques Office” (IPTO).

Essentially, Licklider recognized the important role

that the computer could play in human communication.

“When minds interact, new ideas emerge” was one of

his understandings that helped to guide the research for

the development of the Net. In a paper Licklider wrote

with another researcher, Robert Taylor, in 1968, they

recognized the creative role of the new forms of com-

munication that the Net would help bring into being,

and the collaborative activity that these new forms of

communication made possible.

Another significant aspect of the “Net and Net-

izens” article is the introduction and explanation of the

new identity of the Netizen that had emerged with the

development of the Internet.

Remember, the article was written in 1992-1993.

Yet it begins with a prediction for the future in the new

century that at the time was just a few years away.

The article opens with the greeting:

Welcome to the 21

Century. You are a

Netizen (a Net Citizen), and you exist as a

citizen of the world thanks to the global

Page 4

connectivity that the Net makes possible.

You consider everyone as your compatriot.

You physically live in one country but you

are in contact with much of the world via

the global computer network … .

It goes on to explain that the situation being

described “is only a prediction of the future, but a large

part of the necessary infrastructure currently exists….”

And this new infrastructure would make possible some

important developments. Among these Michael pro-

posed was that “a new world of connections would be

possible, from individual to individual or from indi-

viduals to the collective mass of those on the Net. The

old model of distribution of information from a central

network broadcasting company was being questioned

and even challenged. The top-down model of infor-

mation being distributed by a few for mass consump-

tion was no longer the only news. Now the formerly

excluded sections of society would have a means to

have a voice.”

But for these developments to be realized, there

would be the struggle to make access to the Net open

and available to all.

When Michael posted his articles like “The Net

and Netizens,” he was greeted with encouragement.

And the concept of netizen spread both around the Net

and then offline. For example one of the netizens

writing Michael was Philip Fleisser from Ottawa. He

encouraged Michael to put together his articles in a

book and to gather other articles as well which Phil

tentatively titled “Readings on the Emergence of a

Better World Due to the Participatory Nature of Public

Computer Networks.”

As the concept of netizen spread, Michael reco-

gnized that two different uses of the concept were

developing. In a talk he gave at a conference in Japan,

he pointed out that one use of the concept was to refer

to all users as netizens. But this was not the usage that

he had in mind for the concept when he introduced it.

For Michael the discovery of the emergence of the

netizens was based on the recognition of the empower-

ment that the Net made possible and he identified

netizens as those who used this empowerment to

contribute to the net and the larger world it was part of.

Michael reserved the use of the concept of Netizens to

describe such users.

In May of 1997, the Netizen book was published

in a print edition in the U.S. and in October 1997 it

was published in a Japanese edition. Five years ago in

2002 in South Korea some of the significant potential

of the netizens which Michael foresaw was demon-

strated, with the candlelight demonstrations and the

netizens electing the President.

Part II – South Korea and Netizens

Over the years there have been many examples

of researchers referring to netizen developments in

various parts of the world. Some of the most advanced

examples of both the research and practice of netizens

have been in South Korea.

There is a proud tradition of protest and sacrifice

on the part of South Koreans to win the minimal

democratic rights they have gained. Also South Korea

is one of the most wired countries in the world where

a larger percentage of its population, compared with

many other countries, have access to high speed Inter-

net connectivity.

My connection to South Korea began in February

2003 when I saw a headline on the front page of the

Financial Times newspaper that the new President of

South Korea had been elected by netizens. For me, of

course, this was a surprising and important headline.

I began to try to learn what was happening in

South Korea. I learned that many netizens in South

Korea had backed Roh Moo-Hyun who was a cand-

idate for the South Korean Presidency from outside the

political mainstream. Roh Moo-Hyun won the election

in the December 2002. That event and subsequent

events I learned about led me to understand that

already in 2003 netizens had become an important

phenomenon in South Korea.

I learned, too, that the Korean word for netizen is

, the same as the English word, though spoken

with a Korean pronunciation “netijeun.”

I was also encouraged to see that our book was

known in South Korea, and that over the years, several

commentators and scholars in South Korea have writ-

ten about the importance of the concept of netizens.

Part III – 2008 Candlelight Demonstrations

By the 2007 South Korean presidential election,

however, a law came into effect which penalized with

fines or even jail time netizens who tried to post online

about the election. And the posts were removed. That

censorship contributed to the conservative candidate

Lee Myung-bak being elected with the lowest percent-

age of the population voting in the election. Then in

April 2008, the newly inaugurated president Lee

Myung-bak met with the U.S. President George W

Page 5

Bush. On April 18 President Lee signed an agreement

to end the former restrictions on the import of U.S.

beef into South Korea.

The new beef import agreement provided that

beef of any cut, any age and with bone in, could be

imported into South Korea from the U.S. This was a

striking departure from the previous beef agreements

which since 2003 had required U.S. imports to meet

requirements designed to protect the South Korean

public against exposure to the human version of Mad

Cow Disease.

On April 29, a South Korean TV station aired a

documentary exposing the poor U.S. safety practices

in inspecting U.S. beef for Mad Cow Disease. Follow-

ing the program there was increased online discussion

about the problem of importing U.S. beef given the

minimal U.S. government inspection of this beef. In

response to a lot of online discussion about the beef

deal, a candlelight demonstration was called for May

2, 2008 by middle-school girls and high-school

students using their cell phones and a fan website

among other online sites. The efforts of some of the

members of one online group called “Soul Dressers”

helped organize toward the May 2 demonstration. Over

10,000 people are reported to have come to the demon-

stration. When that large turnout appeared at the dem-

onstration, many were surprised and it was decided to

continue the next day.

Then for more than 100 nights candlelight dem-

onstrations were held in South Korea protesting the

Lee Myung-bak actions and asking for regulations

against the import of what much of the South Korean

public deemed potentially unhealthy beef imports from

the U.S.

These demonstrations were nonviolent evening

vigils with candles. People of all ages and all walks of

life took part, from students to families, to older peo-

ple.

Though called to protest the U.S.-South Korean

beef agreement, the underlying demand of the demon-

strators was that the program of Lee and his conserv-

ative party not be allowed to take South Korea back to

the days of autocratic rule. There was also a call for

Lee Myung-bak’s impeachment.

People participated both online and in person at

the demonstrations. Among the participants were

“members of a cooking club, a classical music society,

a fashion club, a U.S. major league baseball watching

club,” and other similar groups on the Internet. “Some

of them joined the protests with their flags, distributed

snacks and water to fellow protesters and started fund-

raising for paid advertisements in daily newspapers.”

One researcher who described these various partic-

ipants and their activities noted that such online clubs

and groups had not previously engaged in politics. But

remarks made by some in the group led others to join

the online discussion and participate in trying to get a

harmful government policy changed.

Part IV – Closing Observation

In “The Net and Netizens,” Michael writes, “The

Net introduces the basic idea of democracy as the

grassroots people power of the Netizens.” One report

by the international TV channel France 24, agreeing

with Michael, describes what happened:

In South Korea a new form of democratic

expression has emerged via the Internet. Its

followers call themselves Netizens and

when demonstrating against the govern-

ment they carry their laptops to broadcast

the event live … .

One researcher, Min Kyung Bae poses the pro-

blem as the contrast between “Analog Government,

Digital Citizens.”

He documents how the South

Korean government continues to follow old, outmoded

ways from pre-digital days, while the netizens, the dig-

ital citizens, are acting in line with the new capabilities

and advances of the times. Min argues that, “The gap

between Lee’s 1980's style analog government and the

digital citizens of 2008 is huge.” He gives as one ex-

ample that the “Lee administration was more interested

in knowing who paid for the candles than in

understanding why people were holding them.” Min

explains that when Lee Myung-bak closed off the

Plaza to the public, the netizens took on to create an

online public square and from that online commons to

move the public back onto the offline public square.

Min ends his article with the call, “Analog polit-

icians must realize that the Internet offers an oppor-

tunity for a breakthrough to improve Korea’s stagnant

political culture. The candles lighting up Gwangh-

wamun Plaza are carrying the demand that repre-

sentative democracy evolve into a new form suitable to

the Internet age.”

Notes:

1. A 42 minute film, “Shall We Protest?” is online which

documents how the 2008 candlelight demonstrations in South

Korea were initiated by high school students. It can be viewed at:

Page 6

http://www.engagemedia.org/Members/shallweprotest/videos/S

hallWeProtest1.3en.ogv/, (in Korean with English subtitles).

2. Nathalie Touret, “South Korean ‘Netizens’ Take to the Streets,”

France 24 International News, June 18, 2008.

3. Kyung Bae Min, “Analog Government, Digital Citizens,”

Global Asia, Vol. 3 No. 3; Sept. 2008, pp. 94-103. Online at:

http://www.globalasia.org/v3no3/feature/analog-government-di

gital-citizens_kyung-bae-min.

[Editor’s Note: This is a slightly edited version of a

talk presented at “The International Conference on

Soft Power” on September 8, 2009, at the Tsinghua

International Center for Communication Studies, in

Beijing, China.]

Netizen Journalism

and the UN*

New Media and the Challenge of

Reporting from the UN

by Ronda Hauben

I want to share some lessons that have been

learned in the three years I have been reporting from

the United Nations (UN) as a resident correspondent

for the online South Korean newspaper, “OhmyNews

International.”

This past December, I won the Silver Award for

Excellence in Print and Online Journalism presented

by the United Nations Correspondents’ Association in

honor of Elizabeth Neuffer, a Boston Globe reporter

who died while on assignment reporting from Iraq.

In the brief remarks I made accepting the award

I referred to the importance of the judges presenting

this award not only for me, but also for other reporters

at the United Nations who are willing to write about

the issues or viewpoints that are rarely covered by the

mainstream western news media.

For example, one of the articles that was the

basis for the award was an article about a meeting of

the UN Security Council where there was discussion

over whether or not to have a public debate about the

issue of the Middle East.

The meeting took place on January 30, 2008. The

South African Ambassador to the UN at that time was

Dumisani Kumalo. Kumalo told the Security Council,

“My delegation believes that silence on the situation in

the Middle East is more dangerous than even meetings

where there might be a raising of temperatures or

heat.”

He was responding to a comment by the British

Ambassador Sir John Sawers, who proposed that per-

haps it was better not to have debates in the Security

Council on the Middle East since these issues brought

up expressions of strong differences among the

delegates.

These comments followed a week of discussion

among delegates marked by different views on Israel’s

action closing the border crossings into Gaza. This was

a year before the attack on Gaza by Israel in December

2008.

Some member nations of the UN claimed the

closure of the border crossings into Gaza was an action

contrary to the obligations of Israel as an occupying

power in the Gaza Strip. Another member of the

Security Council, notably the U.S., said that the issue

was that Israel was under siege and it was not appro-

priate for the Security Council to condemn Israel’s

actions. Instead the U.S. wanted a statement to con-

demn the rocket attacks being fired into Israel as

coming from “terrorists.”

After a number of days of various efforts, it

became evident that no agreement on the wording of a

statement by the Security Council was possible. This

led South Africa’s Ambassador to remind the members

of the Security Council that the United Nations “has a

special responsibility in supporting a peaceful res-

olution in the conflict in the Middle East.”

The Indonesian Ambassador to the UN, Marty

Natalegawa, agreed with Kumalo, telling the Security

Council that its silence on this issue “is indeed a deaf-

ening silence.”

This example of reporting about UN Security

Council issues helps to highlight a situation that

American journalism professors and media critics have

recognized as a problem with the mainstream media in

the U.S. These media scholars explain that much of the

U.S. media too often watches to see which side has the

most power and represents only that singular view of

an issue or phenomenon.

In reporting from the UN, what is interesting is

that there is often a range of views from different

nations on issues that are being discussed. But too

often nations, as in closed meetings or consultations of

the Security Council for example, do not make their

views on issues available to journalists at the UN. Only

when the full range of views is available to the press

and the public, is it possible to have a meaningful

public discussion to clarify what is in the public in-

Page 7

terest. The challenge for the media covering the UN is

to report on the broad range of views among different

nations on various issues, rather than on only the view-

point of the most powerful nation or nations.

There are a number of examples of issues where

there have been different views expressed by different

nations, but too often one view continues to dominate

mainstream western media coverage. These issues

include:

1. What is happening in Darfur.

2. Security Council action regarding North Korea.

3. Security Council action regarding Iran.

4. Security Council action on the listing and delisting

of individuals or organizations related to Security

Council Resolution 1267.

For example, on the issue of Darfur, the book,

Saviors and Survivors: Darfur Politics and the War on

Terror, by Columbia University Professor Mahmood

Mamdani, presents a different narrative of the problem

in Darfur than that presented by much of the main-

stream western media.

The book is based on a five

year study of the current conditions and the factors

leading up to the current situation.

Mamdani presents significant evidence that the

changing weather patterns and environmental condi-

tions in Darfur, along with the role Great Britain

played as a colonial power, changed the conditions

which formerly had made possible coexistence among

the different strata of Darfurian society. This account

has been discussed in blogs, in online reviews, and in

Youtube videos, as well as in programs aired by the

Iranian English language news on PressTV. Journalists

familiar with Mamdani’s book had the facts and

analysis to determine that what is happening in Darfur

is not a genocide but instead a civil war.

Another challenge to the mainstream media

narrative is being presented with respect to the report-

ing about North Korea and the Six Party talks. Some

scholars of Korean studies and some media sites on the

Internet have presented the frustrations of North

Korean negotiators, rather than focusing on the point

of view of the American government, as in the reports

by the mainstream western media.

The book, Meltdown by the former CNN journ-

alist Mike Chinoy, along with articles by U.S. re-

searchers like Leon Sigal and Rob Carlin, also help to

make the case that the position the U.S. government

presents on the problem related to North Korean nu-

clear development is a problem that needs to be under-

stood from the perspective of North Korea’s need for

a means of defense to protect itself from hostile U.S.

actions.

In analyzing the problem with the mainstream

media in the U.S., W. Lance Bennett, Regina G.

Lawrence, and Steven Livingston, authors of the book

When the Press Fails, explain that the “American

mainstream news code favors those who wield the

greatest power, even when what they say is subject to

serious challenge.”

A presentation of different perspectives on inter-

national issues is the basis for a better understanding of

these issues, than is any single viewpoint. Just as

American mainstream media coverage of U.S. related

issues is harmed by the fact it is too often limited to

one dominant viewpoint, similarly, for an understand-

ing of complex international issues, it is important that

various views be presented and debated publicly in the

international media and at the UN, rather than only

during closed door consultations. This is, I want to

propose, a means to develop not only a more accurate

understanding of the issue. It is also the basis for a

form of journalism that presents a process of debate

over the facts and analysis of an issue or phenomenon,

rather than just the presentation and acceptance of one

viewpoint or one conclusion.

The form of journalism that offers this broader

perspective on issues, a journalism that provides for a

debate on such issues, I call netizen journalism. Net-

izens and the new Internet media help to make this

broader discussion of issues possible.

Scholars like W. Lance Bennett and his col-

leagues point out the poor practices of the mainstream

U.S. media. In order to be able to develop a form of

international media that can present a broader point of

view of issues, it is important to understand this

critique and encourage the debate over different views.

Similarly, when considering the issue of soft power, as

has been discussed at this conference, it is important to

critique practices used by other nations, rather just

adopting what may be poor or deceptive practices. I

propose that one goal for journalism is to foster better

communication among nations and peoples. A media

to facilitate such communication is needed every-

where. Communication between peoples and between

nations is based on an equality between those involved

in the act of communicating. Thus communication is

different from exerting power in the process, whether

it be soft power, in the terms advocated by Joseph Nye,

or other forms of power.

As one former Tsinghua student, Lili Xiao, who

Page 8

did her master’s degree paper studying netizen discus-

sion of the Tibet riots of March 2008, recently wrote

about the goal of netizens and so also, of netizen

journalism: “Maybe in some ways we are part of the

netizen family because we want communication to

help connect people so there is a better world.”

Notes:

1. Ronda Hauben, “Security Council Fails to Act on Gaza Crisis

‘The silence is deafening,’ says Indonesia’s UN Ambassador,”

OhmyNews International, February 7, 2008. Online at:

https://

www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/ACn17-2.pdf, pp. 6-9.

2. Ronda Hauben. “Untangling the False Narrative of a ‘New

Humanitarianism’ for Darfur [Book Review] Mahmood

Mamdani’s ‘Saviors and Survivors’,” OhmyNews International,

March 31, 2009. Online at:

https://blogs.taz.de/netizenblog/2009

/03/30/the_historical_roots_and_reality_of_the_darfur_conflict

_book_review_of_saviors_and_survivors_by_mahmood_mamd

ani_/

3. Ronda Hauben, “U.S. Policy Toward North Korea Fails to

Engage [Opinion] UN Security Council should be neutral in its

dealings with North Korea,” OhmyNews International, June 6,

2009. Online at:

https://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/ACn28-1.pdf, pp.

27-29.

4. W. Lance Bennett, Regina G. Lawrence, and Steven Livings-

ton, When the Press Fails, University of Chicago Press, Chicago,

2007, p. 30.

5. See for example: Ronda Hauben, “Netizens Defy Western

Media Fictions of China,” OhmyNews International, May 9, 2008.

Online at:

https://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/ACn20-2.pdf, pp. 7-9.

*A version of this article appeared at:

http://blogs.taz.de

/netizenblog/2009/10/18/netizen_journalism_and_the_un/.

[Editor’s Note: The following article is a version of a

talk given in Beijing in July 2012 at the April Café and

Salon.]

The United Nations, China

and Journalism in the Era of

the Netizen

I. – Introduction

I am happy to be here today and to accept Rao

Jin’s invitation to make one of the first presentations at

April Café and Salon.

The title of my talk is “The United Nations,

China and Journalism in the Era of the Netizen”.

As Jay mentioned in his talk today, this year,

2012 is the 15

anniversary of the publication of the

English and the Japanese print editions of the book

Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the

Internet.

To mark this occasion I wanted to try to under-

stand the significance of this anniversary with respect

to ongoing development of the Internet and the Net-

izen. Coming to China this year was an impetus to

review my previous visits to China and the interesting

events I was able to take part in related to netizens

during these visits.

In 2005 when I first came to Beijing, it was

because Beijing was the host of the XXII International

Congress on the History of Science. At the conference

I presented a paper on “The International and Sci-

entific Origins of the Internet and the Emergence of

the Netizens.” At the time there was a lot of new con-

struction going on in Beijing and the city appeared to

be new and developing. It appeared to be an appro-

priate place to present a talk on the importance of

internet development. With the continuing develop-

ment of the Internet the phenomenon of the netizens

was becoming more important to understand.

My second trip to Beijing was in April 2008

when I was invited to give a talk at the Internet Society

of China. In my talk I asked the question “Is this is a

new Age, the Age of the Netizen?” Also during this

trip I was invited to give a talk on “The Global Media

and the Role of Netizens in Determining the News.”

This talk was for a journalism class at Tsinghua

University. On the day the talk was scheduled, there

was a meeting between students at Tsinghua Uni-

versity and several journalists from the International

Federation of Journalists. The students at Tsinghua

University were angry about the Western media

coverage of China. They told the journalists their com-

plaints. The journalists seemed surprised and found it

difficult to respond. In the process I met students who

were part of the anti-CNN web site that was created to

challenge the falsifications about China that were then

appearing in the Western press.

One of the reasons for my trip in September 2009

was to participate in the First China Netizens Cultural

Festival Celebration Day event sponsored by the Inter-

net Society of China. This Netizens Festival Day was

observed on September 14, 2009.

For this Netizen Day event, a stage was set up in

front of the Beijing CCTV Tower. I was invited to

present background on the development of the Netizen.

Page 9

I gave a short introduction about the discovery of the

emergence of the Netizens. This was presented in

English with a Chinese translation and the event is

captured in a video on Youku.

I described how in 1992-1993, Michael Hauben

who was then a Columbia University student, sent out

a set of questions across the networks asking users

about their experiences online. He was surprised to

find that not only were many of those who responded

to his questions interested in what the Net made

possible for them, but also they were interested in

spreading the Net and in exploring how it could make

a better world possible. Based on his research Michael

wrote his article “The Net and Netizens.”

The netizen, Michael recognized, was the emer-

gence of a new form of citizen. This was a citizen who

was using the power made possible by the Net for a

public purpose, and who was not limited by geograph-

ical boundaries. The Net for Michael was a new social

institution and the discovery of the emergence of the

netizen was the special contribution that he made to

the field of network study.

The first Netizen day event held in China was the

first official recognition of the netizen anywhere in the

world. It was a celebration to honor the fact that the

phenomenon of the netizen continues to develop and

spread and to be recognized as a new and important

achievement of our times. It was fitting that it was in

China with its many millions of netizens pioneering

the use of the Internet that there is a day to celebrate

Netizens.

When I returned to New York in 2009 after my

visit to China, I went to an event at the Chinese

Mission to the UN. On the way into the Mission, there

was a rack with magazines about China. A magazine

in the rack caught my attention. It was the July 5, 2009

edition of the magazine NewsChina The title of the

issue was “The Netizens’ Republic of China.”

The magazine was filled with articles document-

ing the impact of the Net and Netizens on what is

happening in China. It presented several examples of

netizens speaking out in discussions in online

discussion groups and forums. In an article titled

“Netizens, the New Watchdogs,” the writer, Yu

Xiaodong wrote, “It is the newly emerging Internet

media, in particular, citizen journalism that has filled

the need to kindle political discussion in China leading

many to conclude that Internet media has become the

mainstream itself rather than a peripheral form of com-

munication.”

Based on these experiences I wrote an article

with the title “China in the Era of the Netizen.” In the

article I explained my sense that something significant

is happening in China. Beijing, I wrote, was being

developed as a world class city with the benefit of

contributions made possible by the Internet and by

netizens. “So perhaps a special characteristic of

Beijing has to do with the emergence of the Netizen.”

The NewsChina issue of the magazine helped to clarify

that there were those in China who also recognized

that netizens were crucial actors in the development of

China.

I have had subsequent visits to China, in which

I have been encouraged to give talks about Netizens

and about the development and spread of the Internet

and its potential impact on China.

What seems significant about these experiences

is that there is interest and support for netizen devel-

opment in China that I haven’t found elsewhere in the

world.

This introduction brings me to the subject of the

talk I want to give today. This talk is about a problem

with the mainstream western media and how the Inter-

net and netizens are creating a needed alternative to

solve this problem.

II. – The Global Political Situation

The current international situation raises import-

ant questions for discussion and analysis. In a complex

world, how can one have a means to understand what

is happening. While the mainstream western media

often project one view of the world, online discussion

and analysis have begun to play an ever more import-

ant role in offering alternative viewpoints and analysis.

Around the world there has been a recognition

that the mainstream western media can play a harmful

role for those trying to develop an accurate under-

standing of the events of our times. This problem is

often obvious in online comments and articles by

netizens.

One such situation occurred in 2003 when the

U.S. media promoted the false claim that Iraq had

weapons of mass destruction. The U.S. used this false

claim as the pretext to invade Iraq. But there were no

such weapons in Iraq.

The question was raised among scholars in the

U.S. about the poor quality of U.S. journalism. How

would it be possible to prevent the U.S. media from

making similar false claims in the future. One answer

was to recognize that there is a serious problem with

Page 10

much of the mainstream U.S. media. Instead of the

U.S. media presenting the debate of different view-

points on an issue, or acting as a watchdog over the

U.S. government, this media presents only the

dominant viewpoint of those in power. In so doing the

mainstream U.S. media helps to strengthen those in

power even more.

Exploring a similar problem, Michael wrote an

article titled, “The Effect of the Net on the Profes-

sional News Media.” He considered what the effect of

both the netizen and the Internet would be on the

future of the news and news media. He recognized that

a new form of news was in its infancy.

Michael saw that this new form of news was

evolving into a new paradigm which would include

both the contributions of netizens and the capabilities

of the Internet. Describing the frustration of many

netizens with the traditional media that they had to rely

on before the Internet, Michael wrote, “Today, simi-

larly, the need for a broader and more cooperative

gathering and reporting of the News has helped create

the new online media that is gradually supplanting

traditional forms of journalism.” What is this new form

of news and what are its characteristics?

With the creation and the spread of the Internet,

the emergence of a new form of citizenship, known as

netizenship, has developed. Along with this new form

of citizenship, a critical and vibrant form of online

journalism is emerging. I call this journalism netizen

journalism. I propose that this new journalism has at

least two important aspects.

One is that it encourages serious research into the

background, context and political significance of the

conflicts of our times, conflicts like those in Libya or

Syria. Another important aspect of this new form of

journalism is the application of this research to the

writing of articles or to comments in online discus-

sions on issues of public concern, and in response to

both mainstream and alternative media articles. Often

the comments by netizens on these issues include

criticism of false claims like the claim that there were

weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Video news and

oral interviews can also be examples of netizen jour-

nalism if they meet the above criteria.

At a conference held in Russia last March,

Dmitry Medvedev, who is now the Prime Minister of

the Russia Federation, presented a speech describing

the need to recognize the problem of media manip-

ulation of public opinion in the international arena.

Medvedev particularly referred to the Syrian

situation.

“A very active media campaign unfolded with

respect to Syria,” he explained. “I will not now discuss

the nature of these events,” he said, “but what is clear

is that this media campaign has little to do with the

task of ending violence as rapidly as possible and

facilitating the national dialogue that we all want to

see.”

Medvedev proposed that such a media campaign

against a country presents “the new security dimen-

sion.” Such a security danger needs to be recognized

and exposed.

“Today we are witness to persistent attempts,” he

explained, “to make mass manipulation of public opin-

ion a tool in international relations.”

A somewhat different approach to the problem

Medvedev has pointed out is offered by the political

scientist Karl Deutsch.

In his book Nerves of Government, Deutsch

explores problems of communication that develop in

politics. He proposes that it is helpful to look at the

problems that develop in government or in the govern-

ance of other political organizations as if such organ-

izations are a nervous system consisting of channels of

communication and feedback. Deutsch writes, “Men

have long and often concerned themselves with the

power of governments, much as some observers try to

assess the muscle power of a horse or an athlete.

Others have described the laws and institutions of

states, … as the skeleton or organs of a body. This

book,” Deutsch explains,“concerns itself less with the

bones or muscles of the body politic than with its

nerves – its channels of communication and decision.”

Deutsch goes on to explain that “it might be

profitable to look upon government somewhat less as

a problem of power and somewhat more as a problem

of steering and communication.” He maintains that, “It

is communication, that is, the ability to transmit mes-

sages and to react to them, that makes organiza-

tions….” He proposes that this is true for the cells in

the human body as it is for the “organization of think-

ing human beings in social groups.”

Deutsch raises the question, “To what extent are

failures in the steering (i.e. of the problems that

develop) of an organization due to the absence of some

crucial communication link not to the presence of

some evil elements?”

While Deutsch is allowing for the situation where

a problem in communication is responsible for a fail-

ure in the functioning of an organization, Medvedev is

Page 11

presenting the problem of media manipulation in

international relations as a problem where the “se-

curity” danger must be recognized.

Considering Medvedev’s warning about the

security danger presented by media manipulation, and

Deutsch’s warning that a communication problem can

lead to a breakdown in an organization, I want to look

at some examples of United Nations Security Council

experience and consider the significance of the prob-

lems in communication reflected in these examples.

The example I will focus most on, is that of the

role of the UN in what is happening in Syria.

In my treatment of Syria, I want to focus on the

Houla massacre as the situation to analyze in order to

understand the media war at the UN over Syria.

The Houla massacre occurred in Syria on May

24, 2012.

This was but a few days before Kofi Annan, the

joint Arab League-UN envoy, was planning a visit to

Syria.

Immediately after the massacre there was a

media campaign to blame the Syrian government for

the deaths (there were over 100 deaths). A short time

later, an alternative account was made available by a

Russian online media group Anna News. This news

team for an online site visited the area where the

massacre occurred the following day. Their report

appeared on a number of alternative news sites soon

after the massacre.

The reports from the Anna News team, and other

netizen news reports, challenged the mainstream

western media claims that the Syrian government was

responsible for the killings.

Similarly, the Syrian government conducted a

preliminary investigation. They provided witnesses

that the massacre was carried out by armed insurgents

and criminal elements.

If one were to read or hear mainstream western

media accounts of the massacre, however, they mainly

present what they claim is happening from the point of

view of the armed opposition in Syria. The armed

opposition presents an account of events which

demonizes the Syrian government. There had been a

number of instances when the accounts from the armed

opposition have been shown to be false.

Along with the different set of information

presented by the Syrian government, there is the

information in the alternative media that I refer to as

netizen journalism. Netizen journalism will challenge

distortions and other problems in the news coverage

provided by the mainstream western media. In the

aftermath of the Houla massacre, a number of articles

documenting the role of the armed insurgents in

carrying out the Houla massacre appeared on alter-

native media sites.

I want to propose that this form of alternative

media which I call netizen journalism, is setting up a

communication channel different from that of the

mainstream western media.

What has been interesting has been to not only

consider the two different channels that these different

forms of news represent, but also to look at how the

different actors at the UN relate to these different

communication channels.

In April, the UN Security Council authorized a

mission of 300 unarmed observers to monitor what is

happening in Syria and to try to encourage a cease fire

of the conflicting parties. This mission is called the

UN Supervisory Mission in Syria or for short

(UNSMIS). When the Houla massacre first occurred,

UNSMIS went to investigate the massacre. The initial

response of UNSMIS was that there were two views of

what had occurred and who was responsible presented

to them.

Then in response to a request from the UN

Security Council that UNSMIS do an investigation,

Major General Mood, the commander of UNSMIS said

that a report had been prepared in June.

He submitted the report to Ban Ki Moon.

In his article “General Mood: ‘Two Versions’ of

the Houla Massacre” posted by John Rosenthal, June

26, 2012, Rosenthal writes that “At the June 15 press

conference General Mood went on to say that the

mission had assembled a report about the massacre,

including the details of witness interviews and that this

report had been submitted to UN headquarters in New

York. This raises an obvious question,” writes John

Rosenthal, “Why has this report not been rendered

public?”

Similarly, UN Security Council members report

that they have not received the report.

When journalists asked the Secretary-General’s

spokesperson what happened to Mood’s report and

why it wasn’t given to the Security Council, they were

told that it had been given to various members of the

UN Secretariat. But as journalists at the UN asked,

“Why not to the Security Council?”

One of the original purposes for the UNSMIS

mission, according to Kofi Annan, was “to see what is

going on” so as to be able to “change the dynamics.”

Page 12

This past April, Annan said, “We continue to be

hampered by the lack of verified information in assess-

ing the situation … . We need eyes and ears on the

ground. This will provide the incontrovertible basis the

international community needs to act in an effective

and unified manner, increasing the momentum for a

cessation of violence to be implemented by all sides.”

Yet when UNSMIS did create a report, it was

withheld from the Security Council by the Secretary

General of the UN.

At a press conference to mark the beginning of

the Chinese Presidency of the Security Council for the

month of June, China’s Ambassador Li Baodong, re-

ferring to the Houla massacre, said:

“Now we have different stories from different

angles. Now we have the story from the Syrian govern-

ment, and from the opposition parties, and from differ-

ent sources.” Since the Security Council “has a team

… on the ground,” he said referring to UNSMIS, “We

want to see first-hand information from our own peo-

ple” He hoped this would make it possible to put the

different pieces of information together and to come

“to our own conclusion with our own judgment.”

This acknowledgment that there are different

views of what had happened in the Houla massacre

and that there is a need to get accurate information

from an on the ground investigation is an important

step for a member of the Security Council to make.

This challenges the armed opposition claims that their

account is the only account of what is happening in

Syria.

In a recent paper I am working on titled, “The

Role of Netizen Journalism in the Media War at the

United Nations” I document some of the various forms

netizen journalism has taken in the media war on

Syria.

There are many articles and videos posted on a

number of web sites challenging the mainstream media

version of the events in Houla and explaining the facts

that demonstrated that the massacre had been carried

out by the armed insurgents and local criminals.

With these articles acting as a catalyst, the main-

stream German newspaper, the Frankfurter Allge-

meiner Zeitung carried two articles condemning the

armed insurgency for the Houla massacre. The titles of

the articles translated into English were “Syrian Rebels

Committed Houla Massacre” and “On the Houla

Massacre: The Extermination.”

In the longer paper I am working on on the

Media Warfare at the UN, I consider the strength or

weaknesses of the netizen journalism coverage of two

other examples and consider its impact on the Security

Council action in these examples.

III. – Conclusion

The issue raised by this preliminary presentation

concerns the need for serious attention to the import-

ance of facilitating an accurate channel of commun-

ication with respect to the issues being considered by

the Security Council. This will make it more difficult

for the media manipulation that Medvedev identified

as a serious security concern to succeed.

In the situation of the Syria conflict, the fact that

General Mood’s report on the Houla massacre could be

withheld from the Security Council for more than a

month and that there is not yet any indication of when

it will be given to the Security Council, represents a

serious problem. This indicates that there is a problem

with the communication channels at the UN with the

integrity of these communication channels. This is an

example of what happens when a communication

channel can be blocked.

In a press conference held in March of 2011

when China assumed the month long rotating Security

Council presidency, Ambassador Li Baodong referred

to the international media as the “16

member of the

Security Council.”

While Ambassador Li Baodong was then referr-

ing to the mainstream media, it is important to recog-

nize that there is a new form of journalism emerging.

This new journalism is being created by netizens,

many of whom are dedicated to doing the research and

analysis to expose the interests and actions that are too

often hidden from view. By revealing the actual forces

at work, netizens are making it possible to have a more

accurate grasp of whose interests are being served and

what is at stake in the events that make up the news. If

such a journalism can help to provide the UN with a

more accurate understanding of the conflicts it is con-

sidering, it can help to make more likely the peaceful

resolution of these conflicts.

Notes:

1. See “Kofi Annan tells UN We Need Eyes and Ears on the

Ground,” April 26, 2012. Online at:

https://blogs.taz.de/netizen

blog/2012/04/26/kofi-annan-briefing/.

2. https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/un-s-annan-calls-syria-situati

on-bleak-1.1286096.

3. A summary of Li Baodong’s press conference marking the

Chinese Presidency of Security Council for the month of June

Page 13

2012. June 4, 2012 can be seen at: https://www.un.org/press/en

/2012/120604_SC.doc.htm.

[Editor’s Note: The year, 2012, marked the 15

Anniversary of the publication of the English and

Japanese print editions of the book Netizens: On the

History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet by

Michael Hauben and Ronda Hauben. To help celebrate

this anniversary Ronda and Jay Hauben participated in

a salon on July 22 in Beijing which launched the April

Café and Salon. What follows is one of the presen-

tations.]

China and Syria: Netizens

Expose Media Fabrications

and Distortions*

by Jay Hauben

My story is about netizen activity in China. But

to be sure there is netizen active in virtually every

society. I will add an epilogue about the Syrian crisis.

Netizen activity takes many forms. Anti-CNN and my

epilogue about Syria are examples of netizens as

watchdogs over the mainstream and online media, but

anti-CNN is also an example of the value of discussion

forums.

Netizen as a vision of something new emerging

and as a concept of scholarly interest was first ana-

lyzed in the research of Michael Hauben at Columbia

University starting in 1992. Michael Hauben wrote that

he became aware of “a new social institution, an

electronic commons developing.”

He found social and

political issues being discussed with seriousness in this

online community which the conventional media and

his school courses rarely if ever covered or covered

only from a narrow angle.

Hauben found that there were people online who

actively use and take up to defend public commun-

ication. They support open communication and oppose

disruptive online behavior. He recognized this as a

form of network citizenship.

At the time, a net user who defended the net was

often referred to as a “net.citizen.” Hauben contracted

net.citizen into “netizen” to express something new. It

is an online, non-geographically based, social identity

and net citizenship. He wrote, “My research demon-

strated that there were people active as members of the

network, which the words net citizen did not precisely

represent ... . The word citizen suggests a geographic

or national definition of social membership. The word

Netizen reflects the new non-geographically based

social membership … .”

The online self-identity and practice of netizen-

ship spread around the world. Two uses of the word

netizen emerged. It is necessary to distinguish between

all net users and those users who participate construc-

tively concerning social and political issues in forums

and chat rooms or on their blogs and microblogs. This

second category of net users comes online for public

rather than simply for personal and entertainment

purposes. They act as citizens of the net and are the

users I feel deserve the name netizen.

To be clear, not all net users are netizens. In 1995

Michael Hauben wrote:

Netizens are not just anyone who comes

online. Netizens are especially not people

who come online for individual gain or

profit. They are not people who come to

the Net thinking it is a service. Rather they

are people who understand it takes effort

and action on each and everyone’s part to

make the Net a regenerative and vibrant

community and resource. Netizens are peo-

ple who decide to devote time and effort

into making the Net, this new part of our

world, a better place.

My usage is that of Michael and similar to that of

Haiqing Yu who writes, “I use ‘netizen’ in a narrow

sense to mean ‘Net plus citizen’ or ‘citizen on the Net’

… . Netizens are those who use the Internet as a venue

for exercising citizenship through rational public

debates on social and political issues of common

concern.”

I add, also, that netizens are not only

“citizens on the net” but also “citizens of the net”

signifying those who actively contribute to the devel-

opment and defense of the net as a global commun-

ications platform.

With this concept of netizen, I want to argue that

anti-CNN was a netizen activity and prototype of the

watchdog function that netizens are beginning to play

in China and around the world.

On March 14, 2008, Tibetan demonstrators in

Lhasa, the capital of the Tibet Autonomous Region in

China, turned violent. A Canadian tourist and the one

or two foreign journalists who witnessed the situation

put online photos, videos and descriptions docu-

Page 14

menting the ethnically targeted violence of the rioters

against citizens and property.

That was even before the Chinese media started

to report it. The Chinese media framed the story as

violence against Han Chinese and Muslim Chinese

fomented by the Tibetan government in exile. Much of

the mainstream international media like BBC, VOA,

and CNN framed the violence as the result of dis-

criminatory Chinese rule and Chinese police brutality.

Wide anger was expressed by many Chinese

aboard when they discovered that some of the media in

the U.S., Germany, France, and the U.K., were using

photos and videos from clashes between police and

pro-Tibetan independence protestors not in China but

in Nepal and India to support that media’s claim of

violence by Chinese police. One poster wrote:

Xizang terrorists raided Lasha (Lhasa),

they killed more than 10 innocent people

and destroyed others’ properties. But west-

ern media called such a terror a ‘peaceful’

protest. Ridiculous, isn’t it? Many western

media simply say: People died in the pro-

test. This implicitly tells their audience or

readers that Chinese government killed

protests.

Do they dare mention who died? who

attacked whom? and who killed whom?

Amazing, isn’t it? Other than that, they dis-

torted the facts by using pictures from

violence in other countries and commented

as what happened in China.

The poster followed his post with links to 15

examples of distortions.

A digital slideshow was put online which con-

tained a narrated presentation (http://www.youtube

.com/watch?v=uSQnK5FcKas&feature=related)

of 11

mislabeled photos inappropriate for the articles with

which they appeared. It spread widely in cyberspace

inside and outside of China.

The slideshow contains some of the photos that

were put online to show the distortions and false

narrative of many international mainstream media.

Very crudely, the major media used photos from

elsewhere to support their false story of Chinese police

brutality in Lhasa in March 2008.

Within a few days of the appearance of the in-

accurate reports, Rau Jin a recent Tsinghua University

graduate launched the anti-CNN website. He explained

that after being part of netizen anger and discussion, he

wanted to “speak out our thoughts and let the west-

erners learn about the truth.”

The top page of anti-CNN featured articles,

videos and photos documenting some of the alleged

distortions in the coverage of the Tibet events. The

website also had forum sections first in Chinese then

also in English.

The organizers set as the goal of anti-CNN to

overcome media bias in the western media by fostering

communication between Chinese netizens and netizens

outside of China so that the people of the world and of

China could have accurate knowledge about each

other. They wrote on their website, “We are not

against the western media, but against the lies and

fabricated stories in the media.”

Anti-CNN was chosen as the site name, Qi

Hanting, one of the organizers said, “because CNN is

the media superpower. It can do great damage so it

must be watched and challenged when it is wrong.”

But the site was not limited to countering errors in the

reporting of CNN. It invited submissions that docu-

mented bias or misrepresentations of China in the

global media.

Rau Jin quickly received from net users hundreds

of offers of help to find examples of media distortions.

He gathered a team of 40 volunteers to monitor the

submissions for factualness and to limit emotional

threads. Rau Jin and his group decided on some rules.

Name-calling or attacks on individuals or groups were

to be deleted. Emotional posts were not allowed to

have follow-up comments.

Forum discussions were started on the topics:

“Western Media Bias,” “The Facts of Tibet” and “Mo-

dern China.” In the first five days the site attracted

200,000 visits, many from outside of China. At its

maximum, the site received millions of daily hits. Over

time, serious threads contained debates between Han

Chinese and both Westerners and Tibetan Chinese and

Uyghur Chinese trying to show each other who they

were and where they differ or where they agree.

Many visitors from outside China posted on the

anti-CNN English forum. Some expressed their crit-

icism of Chinese government media censorship. In the

responses to such criticism, some Chinese posters ack-

nowledged such censorship but argued (1) it was easy

to circumnavigate, (2) that all societies have their

systems of bias or censorship and (3) that netizens

everywhere must dare to think for themselves and get

information from many sources.

One netizen with the alias kylin wrote, “I can say

free media works the same way as less-free media. So

Page 15

what’s most important? The people I’d say … . If peo-

ple dare to doubt, dare to think on their own, do not

take whatever comes to them, then we’ll have a clear

mind, not easily be fooled. I can say, if such people

exist, then should be Chinese … the least likely to be

brainwashed, when have suffered from all those

incidents, cultural revolution, plus a whole long history

with all kinds of tricks.”

Often there are expressions of nationalist emo-

tions in Chinese cyberspace, for example calls for

boycotting Japanese or French products. After the riot

in Lhasa, there was an upsurge of nationalist defense

of China including on anti-CNN.

At least some moderators on anti-CNN however

were opponents of nationalism, arguing that it is a

form of emotionalism and needs to be countered by

rational discourse and the presentation of facts and an

airing of all opinions.

Moderators often answered Chinese nationalists

with admonitions to “calm down and present facts.”

While nationalist sentiment and love of country and

anger appeared often on the anti-CNN forums, the op-

portunity for a dialog across national and ethnic

barriers is an expression of the internationalism

characteristic of netizens.

Chinese citizens in general know that the main-

stream Chinese media have a long history as a con-

trolled and propaganda press. On the other hand, there

was a wide spread assumption among people in China

that the mainstream international media like CNN and

BBC are a more reliable source of information and

alternative viewpoints.

The widespread online exposure of distortions

and bias in major examples of the international main-

stream media called into question for many Chinese

people their positive expectation about Western media.

The exposures also attracted the attention of others

who questioned whether the so-called Western main-

stream media is any less a propaganda or political

media than the Chinese mainstream media.

Over its first year, the anti-CNN website had

become a significant news portal. After a year, there

was a debate to determine its future. Some of the

founders left. The site continued with separate forum

sections in Chinese and English but became less

focused than it was before on exposing media bias.

Today [2012], the April Media Group founded

by Rau Jin is a continuation of anti-CNN. It has

Chinese and English language websites both known as

M4. Recently M4 had its comment section closed

while the Chinese government decided how it would

deal with a major political scandal.

For me the special significance of anti-CNN was

that it took up the important task of a media watchdog,

but especially a watchdog over the most powerful

media like CNN and BBC. In an article “The Com-

puter as a Democratizer”

Michael Hauben argued for

the crucial role in a society of a watchdog press.

In every society, major sectors of the media serve

the current holders of power. Now, with the internet,

there is an emerging media and journalism which tries

to serve society by watching and criticizing the abuses

of those with power. Anti-CNN provided for the whole

world an alternative to the established media which

was distorting the truth about the Lhasa riot.

The net users who launched anti-CNN took for

themselves a public and international mission, using

the net to watch critically the main international media.

In the process there was discussion and debate on

difficult social and political questions. They and those

from China and around the world who take up the

exposures and discussion and debate are examples for

me of netizens.

I want to add a short epilogue to the story of

anti-CNN. This is about Syria in 2011.

Some time in early March 2011, protest demon-

strations in Dara’a in Southern Syria were given a

violent component. On March 17 or 18, 2011 armed

people attacked policemen in Dara’a, killing seven.

Media reports said at least four other people were

killed at that time.

The Syrian state media framed the

story as “armed gangs attacking security forces and

public property.” Western and Gulf satellite media

quickly framed the story that “the Syrian government

is killing its own people.”

This time there was very early a massive use of

videos and photos purporting to document the “crimes

of the Syrian government,” not only in or on the

Western and Gulf satellite media, but also on websites

and Facebook and Youtube and with tweeted links.

As in the case of Tibet, many net users realized

that much of this so called documentation was sus-

picious. Using online search engines, original sources

were found and posted to prove that many supposed

“crimes of the Syrian government” were distortions

and fabrication. Often crimes were traced to the armed

opposition itself.

I did a brief online search using a search engine

and in microblogs and Facebook on the phrase ‘Syria

Distortions’. I found net users and groups in the U.S.,

Page 16

Tunisia, Palestine, Syria and elsewhere who were able

to show that many of the videos and photos were from

many places other than Syria.

At blogs like Tunisian Quest for Truth and

Uprooted Palestinians

and on their related Facebook

pages I found exposures of online media distortions

that were very similar to those done at the beginning of

anti-CNN.

These sites also turned up as links sent out as

tweets and the photo exposures on these sites then also

appeared on many websites. The photos were found to

be from the Civil War in Lebanon, from gang murders

in Mexico, from Israeli atrocities in Palestine, rebel

crimes in Libya, but they were all labeled as Syrian

government atrocities.

Some were found to be photos of mass demon-

strations in support of the Syrian government doctored

to claim these were in support of the armed uprising.

I found an ongoing online war between the

fabricators and the exposers. The exposures often

attract a set of comments supporting the effort to have

an accurate narrative. But I have not yet found where

the exposures have been turned into discussion forums

as happened on anti-CNN.

In my short search I also found the website Moon

of Alabama.

On that site a detailed exposure ap-

peared when the U.S. Government distributed satellite

photos claiming to show military shelling of the city of

Homs. Moon of Alabama looked at Google Maps and

Google Earth satellite photos to demonstrate for

example that some of the satellite photos were of a

Syrian military training base not of shelling of the city

of Homs.

Similarly the blogger argued that each of the

claims by the U.S. government about these photos was

false. The same blogger also viewed a video purported

to be a one hour live video cast from the shelling of the

city of Homs. The blogger wrote a script to guide

viewers so that the level of fabrication was apparent.

In addition to the research bloggers who find and

expose fabrications and distortions, there is a growing

number of journalists, websites and news sources

which provided an alternative account of the crisis in

Syria and a critique of the Western and Gulf state

media narrative about Syria. Among these are the

Center for Research on Globalization, Voltairenet,

Syria360, Russia Today (RT), Prensa Latina from

Cuba, to name a few.

A serious analytic, research journalism with a

public purpose is emerging which attempts to give a

solid base so net users can arrive at an accurate

understanding of crises and situations like that in

Syria. Ronda Hauben calls such journalism “netizen

journalism.”

My conclusion is that the vision of netizens

becoming more and more a force in society continues

to be relevant and powerful. The net continues to

empower people toward a greater participation in more

and more aspects of their societies. As with the

anti-CNN website and with the opening of an altern-

ative channel of information, news and analysis in the

Syria crisis, netizens are becoming a force not only in

domestic politics but in international politics.

* This presentation was accompanied by slides which can be seen

at:

http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/beijing2012/j-china2012-

april-cafe.ppt.

Notes:

1. “Preface: What is a netizen” in Netizens: On the History and

Impact of Usenet and the Internet, Michael Hauben and Ronda

Hauben, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, 1997,

p. ix. Also, an earlier version is online at

http://www.columbia

.edu/~rh120/ch106.txt.

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid.

4. “From Active Audience to Media Citizenship: The Case of

post-Mao China” in Social Semiotics, Vol 16 (2), June 2006, page

304. Online at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2331955

20_From_Active_Audience_to_Media_Citizenship_The_Case_of

_Post-Mao_China.

5. See for example the blog entry by Kadfly, March 15, 2008

http://kadfly.blogspot.com/2008/03/lhasa-burning.html (access re-

stricted), the report on March 15 by Al Jezeera http://www.you

tube.com/watch?v=zfnBVKrzX6Y, the video posted on YouTube

by cali2882 on March 15, 2008. http://www.youtube.com/watch

?v=JZLzKBvvGMg. There was also a reporter for The Economist,

James Miles who was in Lhasa and described on March 20 the

riots in a CNN interview as “ethnically-targeted violence” and the

Chinese police response as gradual and cautious. See,

https://ru

core.libraries.rutgers.edu/rutgers-lib/363 71/PDF/1/play/.

6. See for example post by FIA_cn, on the Militaryphotos.net

website on March 23, 2008, “Who Lie about Xizang (Tibet)

Violence and How!” at:

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums

/archive/index.php/t-130727-p-6.html.

7. “Riot in Tibet: True face of western media” posted by

dionysos615 on YouTube on March 19, 2008,

https://www.you

tube.com/watch?v=uSQnK5FcKas.

8. Quoted in China Daily, April 2, 2008.

9. Quoted in “Chinese netizens’ war against western media” April

3, 2008 by ruxincindy (Cindy Ru) online at:

http://jmsc.edublogs

.org/2008/04/03/chinese-netizens-war-against-western-media/.

10. Interview with anti-CNN webmaster Qi Hanting, April 19,

2008, translated from Chinese. See Ronda Hauben, “Netizens

Defy Western Media Fictions of China.”

http://www.ais.org/~jrh

Page 17

/acn/ACn20-2.pdf, pp.7-9.

11. The anti-CNN forum is no longer online.

12. Online at:

http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/ch106.x18.

13. See The Center for Research on Globalization, May 3 article

at:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=245

91.

14. Tunisians Quest for Truth, http://tunisianquestfortruth.wordpr

ess.com/ and Uprooted Palestinians, http://uprootedpalestinians

.blogspot.com/.

15.

https://www.moonofalabama.org/.

EDITORIAL STAFF

Ronda Hauben

William Rohler

Norman O. Thompson

Michael Hauben (1973-2001)

Jay Hauben

The Amateur Computerist invites submissions.

Articles can be submitted via e-mail:

mailto:[email protected]

Permission is given to reprint articles from this issue in a

non profit publication provided credit is given, with name

of author and source of article cited.

The opinions expressed in articles are those of their

authors and not necessarily the opinions of the Amateur

Computerist newsletter. We welcome submissions from

a spectrum of viewpoints.

ELECTRONIC EDITION

ACN Webpage:

http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/

All issues from1988 to present of the Amateur Computerist

are online at:

http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/NewIndex.pdf

Page 18