Did You See That Link I Forwarded? The Internet and Politics (Grade: 100%)

           The Internet has dramatically changed the face of American politics since 1996 (Pollard, Chesebro and Studinski, 2009). The Pew Internet and American Life project found that nearly half of the American population now has some significant link to the Internet (Pollard et. al, 2009). With the Internet fast becoming the leading source for political information for people aged 18 to 29 (Pollard, et al., 2009), it becomes necessary for candidates to understand and embrace this new technology. In this essay I will be discussing the contributions of the Internet in terms of political communication and how it has changed the political landscape. I will be looking at these in terms of three main sections: dissemination of information, campaign fundraising, and targeted marketing. In addition, I will be looking at the issues associated with these contributions in light of articles by David Zarefsky and Robert Putnam respectively. Lastly, I will discuss my own personal experiences as a voter and the way the use of the Internet has shaped my political views.

            The percentage of people who are using the Internet for news and information about political campaigns has more than doubled from 2000 to 2008 and the Internet is serving as a primary source for information about campaign news for Americans (Pollard, et al., 2009). One of the first places a voter can visit for information on a candidate is their campaign website. Most of these websites use a “text-based interactivity that includes predominantly written forms of expressions although some photographs and graphics are included” (Pollard, et al., 2009, p. 578). In addition to these campaign websites, many candidates now use social networking sites such as MySpace and Facebook to communicate with voters and the American public at large. Also, though not cited in the readings, there are many Senators and members of Congress who now have Twitter pages so they can actively answer questions and respond to “tweets” from their constituents. Even the President himself has a Twitter where most recent “tweets” direct people on how to find their nearest polling place for elections on November 2, 2010. President Obama also “tweets” about public events as well as television appearances. A quick check of President Obama’s Facebook page shows over 15 million friends, meaning people who have actively sought out his profile and “friended” it. If you aren’t a friend yet, the first page you see is a place to sign up for emails and a place to put in your zip code. The info page contains personal information as well as educational background. The “wall” functions as a place for videos, links, and websites that currently highlight the importance of voting and where to how to find your local polling place.

Each time a user “re-tweets” one of the President’s posts on Twitter or “likes” something on Facebook, the friends of that user are alerted to the action. Thus, as Pollard et al. asserts “younger voters tend to be not just consumers of news and current events but conduits as well –sending out e-mailed links and videos to friends and their social networks” (2009, p. 581). Clearly using not only a website but these other forms of social media, the President and other high profile politicians such as Nancy Pelosi, can distribute information through several channels as well as allow for the spread of this information across the social network through other users.

In conjunction with the use of websites and social networking, the use of video hosting sites such as YouTube have increased and helped to spread information as well. In the 2008 Presidential election, thousands of people posted comments and videos to YouTube for viewing by other Internet users (Holbert and Geidner, 2009).           Holbert and Geidner (2009) cite one example from the 2006 Virginia Senator’s race where the Democratic challenger, Jim Webb, put up a video of the incumbent, George Allen, making racist and insensitive remarks. While Allen was heavily favored in the race, Webb ended up narrowly winning. YouTube also sponsored one of the Democratic President Debates and allowed users to ask questions that were not normally addressed by news reporters and anchors (Pollard et al., 2009). Other sites such as Hulu allow users to not only view skits of Tina Fey as Sarah Palin (Holbert and Geidner, 2009) but to also watch political satire shows such as The Daily Show and The Colbert Report and the more conservative Bill O’Reilly’s Talking Points and Fox News Special Reports. Viewing Hulu recently reminds viewers that the site will be hosting live streaming election coverage on Election Day from their “Live Streams Lounge”. MSNBC provides viewers the opportunity to watch all of their shows via their website and in addition, provides podcasts for download to iPod and MP3 devices.

With the ability to embed videos from YouTube, Hulu, and MSNBC this allows many political bloggers to link to information that their readers may otherwise not find such as interviews, speeches, and debates to name just a few. In addition, if a user is visiting a specific video and viewing it on YouTube, a sidebar points them to related videos, which may either be other videos by that particular user or other videos that are either related to the content or a response to the content of the original video. As Holbert and Geidner point out “this feature can serve to aid users in guiding their experience through multiple video offerings –there is little reason to focus on a single video offering in isolation of all these other highlighted offerings” (2009, p. 350). The features of embedding and related videos help to dispense information over several sources.

In addition to the way candidates spread information to voters, campaign fundraising has also been shaped and changed by the Internet.  For instance, Howard Dean’s website Dean for America raised $15 million dollars online. This was done through mostly small, individual donations (Gronbeck and Wiese, 2005). Through aggressive on-line marketing, Section 527 (influence or issue) groups were able to raise well over the limit set by the U.S. government for individual campaigns. These excess funds were spent on the Internet through such groups as Moveon.org, America Coming Together, Swift Boat Veterans and POWS for Truth and Progress for America (Gronbeck and Wiese, 2005). Candidates and special interest groups are not the only ones who are benefiting from fundraising via the Internet. After the release of Michael Moore’s documentary Fahrenheit 9/11, one counter group, Citizens United, used Internet lists and phone banks to boost sales of their counterfilm, Celsius 41.11: The Temperature at Which the Brain Begins to Die (Gronbeck, and Wiese, 2005). Pollard et al. posit that the financial function of websites work in four ways: they provide donors with immediate and readily available ways to contribute, they provide a new venue to donation that traditional options cannot provide, they provide a way for donors to respond immediately to a candidate’s emergency financial crisis, and they provide a rally point for candidates and supporters through the use of donations (2009).

One of the ways that candidates can get voters to their websites and social networking sites as well as raise funds is through the use of targeted marketing. As Gronbeck and Wiese point out “the [Inter]Net has made personalized attention that much easier” (2005, p. 530). Rather than canvas hundred of houses, through the use of digital databases, volunteers are able to work from manageable lists that target key voters through the use of intricate data-filtering (Gronbeck and Wiese, 2005). In the digital world, “dynamic Web-based databases create tailored messages for specific individuals located in certain geographic regions and that fit certain demographic profiles” (Holbert and Geidner, 2009, p. 354). Gronbeck and Wiese point out “candidate web sites [ask] visitors for demographic information and political interests so that both postal and virtual mail could be shaped to them” (2005, p. 525). Therefore, by entering my email and zip code on President Obama’s Facebook page, I will more than likely receive emails and direct mail that will address senate, congressional, and proposition ballots in my district and urge me to vote for Democratic options.

Zarefsky (1992) wrote his article “Spectator Politics and the Revival of Public Argument” long before the wide-spread use of the internet but his five characteristics of mass media can be applied to the Internet. First is that “events are transient and volatile” (Sheckles, et al., 2007, p. 25). This means that when a candidate makes a particularly compelling or controversial statement, it can be quickly spread through the speed of any decent DSL connection. Christine O’Donnell’s campaign ad for the Delaware Senate asserting that she wasn’t a witch and she was just like you was covered by media outlets as well as posted to YouTube and political blogs within hours of it airing. Even a simple search of YouTube will find a “Christine O’Donnell’s Greatest Hits”, a video showing the numerous faux pas and missteps she has made this political season. Within days of the ad, Kristen Wiig was performing a satirical version on Saturday Night Live which could be found the next day on Hulu. The second characteristic for Zarefsky is “we avoid complex subjects” (Sheckles, et al., 2007, p. 25). This is perhaps one area that has been enriched by the Internet. Instead of being “unprepared to discuss in any depth the economic and political transformations” (Sheckles, et al., 2007, p. 25) one is easily able to find hundreds of political websites and blogs via Google that do nothing but discuss policy issues in dept. Most online versions of newspapers have comment sections and even political articles on AOL.com have a comment section. While one could debate the quality of the discussion, there is a place for it to occur. The third characteristic is “we simply what cannot be avoided through sound bites and visual images that stand in for a more complex reality” (Sheckles, et al., 2007, p. 25). While yes, there are blogs and websites devoted to political discourse, there are many others that simply rely on slogans and sound bites in order to present candidates and views. This may be one characteristic that will not change over time. Fourth is that “we magnify the trivial, obscuring the difference between the mundane and the profound” (Sheckles, et al., 2007, p. 25). With so many websites, there are going to be some that focus on the more trivial issues during an election but at the same time, you can find websites devoted to ballot initiatives, giving a wealth of information for anyone who seeks it out. Lastly, we have “debased political debate” (Sheckles, et al., 2007, p. 25). Given the use of YouTube in the Democratic debates, one can only hope that this may be a change that will continue so that debates will be less about format and who won and rather, the candidates answering the questions and concerns of the citizens. Zarefsky also claims that the country has turned into political couch potatoes. As Tian has found, this is simply not true of Internet users. Tian “has reported that a positive relationship exists among using the Internet for political information, deliberation, and participation” (Pollard et al., 2009, p. 580) which suggests that voters using the Internet are anything but passive.

In addition to Zarefsky, Putnam (1995) could not have been aware of the impact of the Internet on politics when he wrote “Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital.” It is ironic that while Putnam uses the idea of “social networks” in a purely face to face manner, that term has come to represent online sites such as MySpace, Facebook and Twitter, to name a few. Putnam’s idea of social capital can be applied to the Internet and how it has allowed for the growth of social capital. As Putnam himself suggests “perhaps the traditional forms of civic organization whose decay we have been tracing have been replaced by vibrant new organizations” (Sheckles, et al., 2007, p. 31). Candidate websites can become social networks themselves (Pollard et al., 2009). Take for instance, Howard Dean’s Dean for America website. Campaign supporters were able to interact with each other and thus were able to become campaign workers and volunteers either directly or indirectly (Pollard et al., 2009). The website used a database that allowed visitors to find other Dean supporters in their area or to join “Generation Dean”, a section of the site that functioned much in the way a social networking or dating site would (Gronbeck and Wiese, 2005). Other websites enhanced the social networking feature even further, allowing voters to post photos of campaign events and staff and volunteers to post pictures of busy local campaigns (Gronbeck and Wiese, 2005). Smart mobs and Meetups! organized people electronically to meet up in the real world (Gronbeck and Wiese, 2005). As Gronbeck and Wiese assert “these were not simply virtual communities; they were groups of citizens that organized and worked together both online and off” (2005, p. 531).

In my own personal experience, I have used the Internet in a variety of ways in terms of political communication. Last week I e-mailed my mother a progressive voting guide website link so that she could see which groups endorsed which candidates and how the progressive groups suggested people vote on ballot initiatives. During the last election, I joined several online groups that were mobilizing in California to help defeat Prop 8, a bill that would ban gay marriage in the state. While I do not live in California and do not vote in California, as a member of the Human Rights Campaign and having gay friends in California, this issue was of utmost importance to me. I sent out e-mails to family and friends in California, I posted protest videos to my Facebook page, I joined websites against the proposition. I even traveled to California to help a friend with his “NO H8” campaign. None of that would have possible without the internet as I stayed with a fellow member of the website, someone I had not met until the day I arrived in Los Angeles. On Facebook and Twitter, I have reposted videos from Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow, linked to progressive articles, as well as discussed my own political leanings. My friend, Laura, was one of the people that Pollard et al. mention as she went from a Dean supporter to a campaign worker for him in California. She and I e-mail each other daily about various political issues and she is always linking me articles on DailyKos or The Huffington Post. I have never voted in an election without using the Internet to inform myself of not only the candidates but the issues as well. I have also used the Internet through email and social networking to reach friends, family, and even strangers about candidates and issues I feel strongly about.

The Internet is an every day facet of life. As more people gain internet access via smartphones, video game devices, and home computers, candidates and ballot supporters need to be careful to use this new technology wisely. I have shown how they can use it to spread information, raise campaign funds, and target voters. I have also discussed the issues in regards to Zarefsky and Putnam. Lastly, I have discussed just a few of my personal experiences in using the Internet for political information. The face of political communication is changing with the Internet as Dan Carol put so succinctly “It’s politics at the speed of Internet” (Pollard et al., 2009, p. 574).