디지털화가 한국의 언론과 문학에 끼친 영향(2012년 12월 1일)

지난 달 중순 (11월 16~18일) 대만의 대중에서 열린 세계여기자작가협회(AMMPE) 제20차 회의에 참가했습니다. 세계 27개국에서 모인 여성 언론인들과 작가들을 만나 많은 것을 느끼고 배웠습니다. 이 회의 덕에 요즘과 같은 디지털 시대를 "So Lo Mo Era"라고 부른다는 것도 알았습니다. "So Lo Mo"는 "social, local, mobile"이라는 단어의 머릿글자입니다. 저는 AMMPE의 회원이 아니지만 대만 정부(주한 대만대표부)의 초청으로 참가하여 '디지털화가 한국의 언론과 문학을 어떻게 변화시켰는지' 얘기했습니다. 

아래에 제 얘기의 요점을 옮겨둡니다. 결론만 말하면 디지털은 내용(컨텐츠)을 담는 수단이라는 것, 그러므로 아무리 디지털화가 되어도 그 수단에 담기는 내용을 만들어내는 건 사람이라는 것, 좋은 내용을 만들어내려면 책을 많이 읽고 경험을 많이 하고 사람을 사랑하고, 그 사랑에 근거한 낙관을 지녀야 한다는 것입니다. 

How Digitalization Has Changed Journalism and Literature in Korea?

 

As I sit here at the World Congress of Women Journalists and Writers, I am reminded of a similar gathering I attended 26 years ago.

It was the International Women’s Media Conference, probably the first meeting of its kind held in Washington, D.C. If I remember correctly, it was sponsored by the U.S. government to provide an opportunity to get together for women journalists and scholars around the world. Participants were sixty women from the U.S. and the same number from outside – one each from sixty countries.

It was 1986 when Korea was under the rule of the military general-turned dictator, CHUN Doo-hwan. one of the first things he did after seizing power in 1980 through a coup was restricting freedom of speech at all levels and closing down many of the media institutions –- newspapers, broadcasting stations, and news agencies.

I still remember the late afternoons when I or other junior reporters carried the wet copies of my newspaper’s next-day edition to the military censors to get permission to print. The men in uniform would put red marks on articles they arbitrarily judged “harmful to national interests,” and we would hurry back to our newsroom with heavy hearts and replaced the ill-fated articles with others.

It truly was a humiliating experience. We Koreans had suffered a serious lack of the freedom of ｅxpression back in the 1970s under another general-turned dictator, PARK Chung-hee, but the previous experience didn’t make the recurring suppression any easier to put up with.

In the 1990s, freedom of ｅxpression gradually returned to Korea as former democracy fighters became the nation’s presidents. When President ROH Moo-hyun took office in 2003, he let his people enjoy virtually limitless freedom and that continued during his five-year tenure.

It was and is frustrating to note that we Koreans didn’t know how we could best use our freedom nor did we recognize what an open-minded head of government we had then. And, we paid the price before long: President Roh claimed his own life 15 months after he finished his term.

When President LEE Myung-bak succeeded Roh in 2008, I wasn’t the only one who foresaw the reduction of the freedom of ｅxpression and press. It is true Lee came to power through the legitimate process called “election,” but the way he administrated his government was not so democratic to say the least. He placed his loyalists at nearly all the public posts, paying no heed to criticism that they were not qualified for the job. He didn’t have to take coercive measures to restrict press freedom as his men were appointed to manage major media institutions.

I welcome digitalization for its contribution to enhancing freedom of speech and press in spite of some undesirable side effects. It is good to know that any state or governmental measure curbing freedom of ｅxpression would backfire as the words spread immediately on the Internet and kindle public protest.

Had the Korean society been as digitalized as now in his time, we might have saved President Roh. I can say this with confidence, because Korea now has, among other things, the world’s No. 1 Podcast “Naneun Ggomsuda.” The title can be translated into “I’m a sneaky trickster” as in the Economist magazine’s Jan. 16 article or into “I’m a Petty-minded Creep” as in the Wall Street Journal article of Nov. 9, 2011.

“Naneun Ggomsuda,” better known for its shorter form, “Naggomsu,” is listened to by millions of people through personal computers, smart phones and other digital devices. "Naggomsu" is not only the most popular podcast in Korea but also well-known overseas. It topped podcasts in the news and politics category of iTunes in August, last year.

Launching “Naggomsu” in April last year, show founder KIM Ou-joon and his co-hosts satirically said that they were dedicating the program to “His Highness President Lee Myung-bak.” As you can imagine, “Naggomsu” targets at lampooning the incumbent Chief Executive and his supporters. The hosts talk about political, economic, and social issues and podcast the recorded content.

In October last year, “Naggomsu” made an undisputable contribution to the election of a respectable civil activist who ran against a two-time lawmaker and ruling party candidate, as the mayor of Seoul, Korea’s capital.

Shortly before the election, one of the “Naggomsu” hosts reported that the government party candidate was taking skin care at a posh clinic where the annual membership fee was as exorbitant as 100 million won (approximately U.S. $90,000).

The report angered voters who were growing very sensitive about the widening gap between the haves and have-nots and the easy lives of public post holders at a time of national economic distress. The episode served as a major cause of defeat for the ruling party candidate.

As we can see in the case of “Naggomsu,” digitalization has eliminated physical boundaries and limitations for the flow of news and opinions and thus provides journalists and writers with greater opportunities to present their thoughts and works to wider audience through the Internet, Twitter, Facebook and other social networking services.

In the pre-digital years, broadcasting and newspaper journalists had deadlines for their reports whereas each minute and second was the deadline for news agency workers. Now, journalists working for such traditional media have to compete with their counterparts at on-line media for speed: All the media institutions have Web sites through which they have to turn out news minute by minute.

The competition to cater "the newest news" is fierce and the providers often resort to sensationalism rather than research or investigation of the subject they write about. They lure the Internet users -–whom we Koreans call “netizens”—with catchy headlines. once you click on a headline, chances are high for your disappointment as the content of the article is not what you expect to be or plain false.

These “journalists” are so preoccupied with making their headlines appealing that they don’t hesitate to do so at the cost of their mother tongue, which already undergoes distortion in the course of digitalized communication. It wouldn't be exaggeration to say that digitalization brings more benefits to the vain fame seekers than the truth seekers as the former tend to adapt better to the new gadgets and ways than the latter do.

The game must be especially hard for newspapers because they are published sometime after initial reports are made on-line on incidents and accidents. Newspaper companies also update their news on their Web sites, but papers are delivered to subscribers’ homes or show up at newsstands hours after the public hear or read about the news. In other words, newspapers are no longer “new” by the time they reach their readers. This is why the voice of doom rings loudly for the future of newspapers. Will the papers survive the doomsday? Let’s talk about it later.

In the mean time, journalism and literature, which once formed the profession of a small group of learned people, have become something for all owing to the development of digital technology.

In Korea, before the advent of the digital era, only newspaper, broadcasting, and news agency workers were regarded as journalists. To be called "a writer/poet/novelist," one had to have one's literary work selected by newspaper companies or magazines through due screening or have works published upon the recommendation of some established writers.

However, digitalization has silently removed all these barriers. Now, almost anyone can report on affairs around town and outside, express their thoughts on current issues, or do creative writing for the public. on-line journals have mushroomed and Blogs have emerged as another powerful, easily attainable tool of ｅxpression and exchange.

While the diversification of tools and easier access to them merit recognition, such a tendency may be accompanied by adverse effects that may do harm to journalism, if not civilization, in the long run.

For one thing, news articles on websites are usually given one-line headlines regardless of their values. Important news and opinions, and funny tidbits and sheer wastes are treated almost equally as far as their headlines are concerned. Such indiscriminate handling of news and views may cause confusion to Internet users as they appraise the affairs around them or throughout the world.

Before the digital era, journalists were trained to satisfy the basic principle of news writing based on one "H" and five "W"s – how, who, what, when, where and why, but few of them seem to meet the time-honored requirements these days. The proliferation of "unprofessional" journalists and writers may result in the dissemination of wrong or inadequate information and cause biased evaluation of events and situations.

Most Web sites that deal with news and commentaries offer space for readers’ comments at the bottom of every article and that often proves to be the hotbed of sensationalism, misinformation, rumors and foul language. Some people suggest removing such space, pointing out that these comments often go way beyond common sense courtesy.

The “real” journalists and writers may be disheartened by improper criticism, too. one vicious phrase may foul a literary work which the writer has created after countless sleepless nights. A journalist’s report finalized after time-consuming investigation may be branded as untrue by a jealous competitor. Fortunately, truth prevails in time in the field of journalism, and digitalization may advance the moment of justice to wrong accusations and fraudulent claims.

For creative writers, the most unwanted effect of digitalization seems to be the withering of book reading habits among people of all ages. Wherever you go in Korea, you see people glued to their smartphones on subway trains, buses, sidewalks and even behind the wheels. As many as 30 million people or 60 percent of the total population are reportedly “using” or "addicted" to such phones.

As the smartphone craze is sweeping Korea, less and less books are read there. Last year, a Korean adult read 9.9 books on average, which was one book less than the previous year. According to the Korea Culture and Tourism Institute (KCTI)’s report on Koreans’ reading habits, an average Korean read 12 books in the year 2007, but the volume kept on decreasing since. Three out of ten grown-ups read no books last year.

Electronic book reading increased markedly, but the tendency didn’t contribute much to keeping, let alone enhancing, the overall reading habits.

Then, is there any way by which writers can make ends meet?

The KCTI report suggests opening many neighborhood libraries. The report found a meaningful connection between people’s reading habits and public libraries. People living in the vicinity of libraries read far more books than those residing in areas without such facilities. Neighbors of libraries were found to talk more frequently about books than those living far from them.

I wonder if Taiwan is also seeing the fad of smartphones and the ebbing of reading habits. After observing the use or overuse of smartphones in recent years, I have tentatively concluded that smart are the phones but not the users.

If Taiwan is witnessing the decline of book reading as Korea, it may be time for our two countries to open more neighborhood libraries where people can read books, particularly of literature. I emphasize literature because it seems to be one of the greatest victims of the techno-centered digital era.

People seem more interested in collecting "knowledge and information" than exploring "humanity or human nature." As a result, we see an overflow of people who are "knowledgable" about certain topics but lacking in common sense and understanding of fellow human beings.

The libraries can also contribute to narrowing the digital divide by offering personal computers and Internet service to visitors free of charge.

Before wrapping up my speech, let me remind you of a question I raised earlier: Can newspapers survive the doomsday?

The only way newspapers may survive, if not thrive, would be securing people born with the journalist’s blood -- the blood that craves for truth and justice -- and a decent command of their native tongue. They need to be trained to fulfill the ever-crucial one "H" and five "W"s in article writing.

Being a journalist is like being a teacher or a priest. You are on payroll as the corporate workers but your job requires more, if not around-the-clock commitment. This is why I mentioned journalist's blood. You may wonder "what if there is no journalist blood left in the world?" If such a time comes, it would mean the end of journalism. However, things wouldn't go that way as there always are people who have innate yearning for truth and justice.

To outlive the “digital” era, newspapers should, instead of competing with on-line publications with stunning headlines, offer what the digital media often fail to do -- that is, in-depth, comprehensive reports and analyses of issues, among other things.

It is ironic that digitalization has greatly contributed to spreading the goodies, yet at the same time has been generating so many pseudo-journalists and writers by enabling everyone to write and multiplying outlets for all kinds of writings.

As I mentioned earlier, digitalization has erased national borders and that calls on both journalists and writers to delve into subjects of universal value. The single barometer that discerns the fake journalists and writers and the real ones is sincerity and truth. The noisier the fakes rave, the harder the real ones should do their job.

In a nutshell, digitalization has revolutionized the means of transferring contents but it still is people who create the substance. only those who read books, experience real life and think freely can produce enduring contents. The job of the writers and journalists is to remind other people of this point and striving to become such content creators themselves.

Although digitalization has changed several aspects of journalism and literature, one thing remains unchanged: That journalists and writers should write “truth" based on love for humanity. What we write today will become history tomorrow.

When I was attending the International Women's Media Conference 26 years ago, a radio interviewer asked me to comment on the meeting and I said, "I don't believe in talks." Perhaps, I was too frustrated to say otherwise because of the depressing situation in my country.

If a reporter asked me to talk about our conference today, I would say "I believe in talks." After more than two and a half decades of writing and living in an ever-changing world, I have come to believe that history is a plant that grows on love for humanity and optimism of the will and that I shouldn't stop being optimistic even when I am in a despairing situation.

Let’s do our best to write “truth and nothing but the truth” in a way spreading love and optimism, lest our age -- the “digital age” -- be called “Dark Age” in the history of journalism and literature. You may have heard about the wise King Solomon. You call the present times the “age of So Lo Mo” but the age of Solomo is not the “age of Solomon.”

Thank you for your attention.