Since studying the government, campaign and citizen uses for “digital democracy” my previous perceptions have changed. The dynamic of just how impactful digital tools are is more robust than many people may perceive.

Indeed, there are many issues that are still being worked out and developed in the digital democracy and e-government realms. However, the ways in which modern tools are facilitating politics, fundraising and the voice of the people is staggering. The digital tool trends now have hard evidence and real results to back-up the arguments for their use. We have seen record-breaking elections and fundraising results thanks to digital media tools.

One area of particular interest to me is that of the business opportunities created by these new tools and techniques. Wow. What a great time to leverage being an expert on the subject of digital democracy. In addition, many of the applications used in e-government can be applied to nearly any public outreach campaign.

While many organizations and officials are still weary of change, they look to experts to help them navigate the digital world. To some extent this seems to mean finding someone who has experience, but moreover someone who is not shy to jump in and explore the unchartered waters. The uses for digital tools have not been fully maximized and there is still room for new optimization, particularly while there are so few limits and definitions set.

It is common knowledge that new media are being used, but the extent to which they are instigating real results is often overlooked, or simply not considered. The behind-the-scenes look at its uses is eye opening.

These are significant times of change as citizen voices are being heard in powerful new ways at the same time that political organizations are able to leverage digital media for their own good - equally as fast as one another. New digital media tools have an incredible staying power because of their ability to benefit people of all agenda-sets.

Robert J. Klotz addresses many intriguing points in the “E-Government” chapter of his book, The Politics of Internet Communication.  The relatively recent marriage between the Internet and the American government has created a system in which citizens can easily access public documents and one in which U.S. presidents conscientiously avoid the use of e-mail. An underlying theme in the age of digital media, however, is the recurring need for real human interaction. This theme can be supported by the presence of a digital divide, as outlined by Andrew Chadwick in Internet Politics.

While the Internet provides many tools to aid citizens, Klotz finds that e-government is not meeting its potential: “The Internet has not fundamentally changed how people interact with government. While not living up to the ideal of a widespread, fully integrated, online citizenry, e-government does advance the cause of openness and efficiency” (p. 104). As used by the government, the Internet exists to provide general information to the public rather than to fulfill transactional services. This leaves a need for human beings to administer services and handle interpersonal communications.

Similarly, Chadwick uncovers an unremitting need for human interaction as he confirms the presence of a digital divide in America. By proving that there is a gap between Internet users and non-users, he opens the door for acknowledgement of a continued need for person-to-person business. Social inequalities such as education, income, race and age play a role in Internet use and access. People who are unable or unwilling to engage in e-government require ongoing access to services the old fashioned way.

Voting is a modern-day example of a government transaction that still requires human interaction. According to the Washington Secretary of State Web site, there are currently no states in which Internet voting is allowed. Steps have been made to allow online voter registration, but online voting has not yet “materialized”:

Q: Does this system authorize voting online?

No. The online voter registration system is only for registering to vote, not voting online. Voting online is not authorized by state law in Washington or in any other state.

Klotz cites the hurdles to online voting:

 While informing people of how to vote poses no logistical challenges, actually providing the service of online voting is more demanding. It requires providing the actual mechanics for the vote and ensuring the validity of the vote. It must also meet these challenges in an accessible way (p. 105).

Therefore, in addition to the prevalent human need for personal interaction, the government itself adds to the need, as it has not yet perfected its own use of digital technology. Despite future efforts to improve e-government, a population will remain that will not follow the trend. Internet-dropouts and those alienated due to their social role will remain a step behind modern technology. For these reasons, traditional transactions and human interaction will maintain a presence in the digital age.

“Government, the entertainment industry, and corporate America better get ready. The American people are going to learn how to organize themselves and then watch out.”  

− Joe Trippi

Political campaign manager and revolutionary Joe Trippi says it best on page 57 of his book, The Revolution Will Not Be Televised. The Internet has brought about a means of digital advocacy that is disrupting established patterns of control and making it easier for groups of all sizes to have a voice, in contrast to the traditional top-down communication methods. As Robert J. Klotz examines in The Politics of Internet Communication, the Internet brings unparalleled benefits to interest group and political party advocates.

The key factors Trippi and Klotz address include the Internet’s ability to: quickly mobilize groups and individuals, disseminate mass amounts of information to large audiences at little cost, and level the playing field for advocates of varying resource levels. On the Internet, both mainstream and minor groups have a voice. “People who want to change the world and have just been waiting for that moment when someone figures out how to get them all together” are finally uniting, thanks to the Web (Trippi, p. 57). Parallels can be drawn between these two works and relevant examples can be seen in modern day practices.

In his book The Revolution Will Not be Televised, Trippi shares his experiences as a pioneer of political outreach via the Internet. He finds that the Internet is “transforming communications” and “making people talk to each other again” (p. 54). In his campaign work, Trippi witnessed the gap between politics and technology close and a divide emerge between those who “got it” and those who did not. Many political party leaders, campaigns, the media, and business people were — and are still — clinging to old methods and ideas and “don’t frickin’ get it” (p. 51). The Internet is turning tradition on its head with bottom-up communication and its ability to engage people.

The Howard Dean for America campaign, lead by Trippi, was a forerunner in the use of the Internet for campaigning. Trippi cites it as the “big, messy beginnings of a revolution” (p. 50). He acknowledges the need to jump in and test the Internet waters – a theme reflected by other authors as well, since there is little to lose when the costs are so low. He cites the 2000 McCain presidential bid as the first campaign to use the Internet, but a movement far ahead of its time. It was the “Newton of political campaigns” and clearing the roads for future online tactics.

Klotz would agree with Trippi that we are beyond the information age and on to the empowerment age. A transformation of the distribution of power is taking place. People and groups of all resource levels now have the tools available to have their voice heard. Klotz cites examples of how organizations ranging from hate groups to political parties to AIDS activists have an active presence on the Web and a proven ability to mobilize the public.

In the past, a strong media presence was reserved for those who could afford the space. Klotz notes that political parties, although unequal off-line, are equal online: “While minor political parties can afford less than 1 percent of the television advertisements of major parties, they effectively have 100 percent of the websites of the major parties – each party has one primary site” (p. 88). This enforces Trippi’s recognition of a media/communications revolution and transfer of power.

With relevance to the present day graduate studies of Mary McGlohan at Carnegie Mellon University, Klotz acknowledges that the “reinforcement of beliefs” (p. 85) is a common effect of Web based discussion groups. Klotz quotes a Cyberpolitics study by Kevin Hill and John Hughes which found that discussion threads were three times more likely to emphasize the ideological Right than the Left” (p. 85). McGlohan found there was, indeed, a reinforcement of beliefs on the Web. People often use discussion groups to share ideas with like-minded peers. Regardless of the ideological emphasis, the Web brings people together and thereby assists with the coordination of groups and increased communication.

Although Klotz states that Cyberspace is an environment that favors minor parties, one should be aware that online support does not necessarily translate to the same support offline. The Dean campaign is an example of a well-supported online campaign that did not translate into real-world votes. It will be a curious study to see how 2008 presidential candidate Barack Obama’s online efforts translate. His represents one of the most well-done online campaigns to date. Will Obama’s become the latest example of a Dean campaign, or the next major step in the empowerment age?

In “Web Campaigning: Introduction and Overview” by Kirsten A. Foot and Steven Schneider, the foibles of U.S. political campaigns are exposed. These foibles are not the traditional snafus that make the news, rather they reflect new-age risks associated with the prevalence of digital media.

Digital technology has emerged as an important player in candidates’ political campaigns. In fact, the medium has developed into such a key aspect of democracy that entire job fields for e-politics campaign managers and brokers have emerged to help politicians shape their image, aid public affairs knowledge and capitalize on the new opportunities afforded. Through the aforementioned article and Philip Howard’s New Media Campaigns and the Managed Citizen, we gain insights into these areas and learn the new opportunities that the Web has created for business in politics. Even local companies have taken advantage of this free market.

THE BUSINESS OF HELPING POLITICIANS SHAPE THEIR IMAGE

Before a large audience at a 1996 presidential debate, Bob Dole embarrassingly forgot to say the final “dot” in his attempt to show his digital prowess and promote www.dolekemp96.org. Similarly, during a vice-presidential debate in 2004, Dick Cheney misdirected debate viewers to “factcheck.com” rather than “factcheck.org,” resulting in the redirection of viewers to a site in the Cayman Islands and then to a site promoting his opposition.  

Foot and Schneider quote a campaign site producer who amusingly notes politicians’ general lack of technological knowledge: “These guys don’t have a clue as to how this should work.”

The business opportunities for e-campaign managers to step-in and mold both the message and delivery means of a candidate’s campaign are blatant. Foot states the importance of a candidate’s Web presence, “It is necessary for all kinds of political actors to have a presence…in order to be credible among the growing population of Internet users in the U.S.”

From Web site creation and management to blog posts and online branding, a career field has emerged to help politicians maintain their online presence. Such Web outlets serve as yet another opportunity for politicians to spread their message. As Morris of GrassrootsActivist.org defines it, “E-politics is what happens when one person uses a good technology to project their own interests into the right places” (Howard, p. 101).

Whether by private agencies/campaigns or non-profit organizations, the Web is being used to push political messaging ranging from policy measures to candidate identity. The Web makes activity transparent and traceable, creating an even stronger incentive for an organization to assign a professional to manage its message.

Howard concisely notes, “The process of representing and manipulating public opinion heavily depends on consultants with skills in the use of communications media” (68).

LOCAL RELEVANCE

At a local level, the importance of such strategists can be seen through companies such as The Connections Group:

A full-service consultancy dedicated to helping our clients achieve success in communicating clear, concise and effective messages. Our strategy — whether in political challenges, private sector goals or agency projects — remains constant: You need the right message going to the right people at the right time, several times, in a variety of ways.

For political campaigns, The Connections Group utilizes a range of mediums including Web site development to spread a client’s message.  

Another local organization working to create influential messages for political/public policy campaigns is Mass Affairs.

With cutting-edge social networking, multi-media messaging, dynamic database, cyber-advocacy and recruitment technologies, Mass Affairs can assist any business or citizen group seeking to influence public opinion.

Just as TV and other traditional media are declining in importance, Mass Affairs believes that traditional public policy and commercial marketing campaigns no longer achieve optimum results. Mass Affairs can provide the proven grassroots experience and new state-of-the-art technologies required to make a real difference in the public’s attitudes and actions. 

 This organization heeds particular attention to the use of the Internet as today’s cutting-edge tool for influence. It is also interesting to note the company’s statement that “traditional media are declining in importance.”

The readings “Web Campaigning: Introduction and Overview” and New Media Campaigns and the Managed Citizen lay the groundwork for an understanding of the need for and use of e-politics campaign managers. Organizations nation-wide and locally are taking advantage of the business opportunity to help fulfill the need of campaigns and develop an online presence for a candidate or issue.

The effect of negative political campaign advertising has been questioned for decades. Following is an overview of two studies that seek to identify the role of such advertising and a glimpse at modern-day techniques used for measuring political messaging. Examples of current campaign advertising practices are included as well. The big picture suggests that while there may be some downfalls to negative advertising, campaigns will continue to utilize them.

The book Taking Sides: Clashing Views in Mass Media and Society offers two articles designed to show contrasting viewpoints regarding the role of negative campaign advertising. The article “An Exploration of the Effects of Negative Political Advertising on Political Decision Making” provides evidence that negative campaign advertising can cause certain negative effects. The article “Accentuating the Negative”argues that negative advertising has a secure place in political campaigns despite its effects. The editor’s choice of utilizing these particular articles to show the “yes” and “no” sides of negative campaign advertising is intriguing, as neither article whole-heartedly dismisses the use of negative campaigning. It would be a more compelling contrast if the two articles were absolutely polar in stance. 

These two articles relate to Philip N. Howard’s book, New Media Campaigns and the Managed Citizen, which addresses the role of digital technology in political campaigning. Focused primarily on the use of hypermedia and campaign management, Howard also touches on political advertising and tactics used in measuring the effectiveness of negative ads.

In contrast to in-person focus groups that traditionally lead the ad testing world, Howard describes how DataBank.com’s MessageTester software is able to electronically “run the ad to a thousand people and measure their feedback” (p. 81). Within just a couple of days, DataBank.com is able to identify the ad that will best suit a campaign’s target demographic and dismiss ads that may be too negative.

A range of political campaign advertisement styles can be found in use today. To use the labels defined in the article “An Exploration of the Effects of Negative Political Advertising on Political Decision Making,” positive, comparative and negative advertisements exist. Darcy Burner utilizes all three techniques in her Congressional campaign. By viewing ads produced by one candidate, we are able to see how her message is portrayed in each fashion.

An example of a positive ad is the Darcy Burner “Giving Children the best Possible Education” ad which touts the purported benefits that she brings to the table without giving mention to any opposition.

According to the aforementioned article, a comparative ad “communicates negative information about a targeted candidate,” using direct candidate comparisons. An example is the “New Solutions for the Economy” ad comparing Dave Reichert to Darcy Burner in which Reichert is defamed before Burner’s positive ideas for change are introduced.

An example of a negative ad is Darcy Burner’s attack on Dave Reichert: “Is Dave Reichert Independent or Ineffective?”  The ad does not compare her views to his and only mentions her name at the end of the ad in order to segue to “I approved this message.”

Despite the warnings of the negative effects of negative campaign advertising, candidates continue to utilize them. This post and additional information on the findings from each of the works mentioned above can be found on the subsequent tabs of this Web site.