The Role of the Internet in Presidential Campaigns

Posted by James W. Chesebro
November 1, 2009

By Timothy D. Pollard, James W. Chesebro, & David Paul Studinski

The rise of the Internet may be a particularly important development for the process of democratization, due to its potential for interactive, horizon- tal linkages breaking down the traditional boundaries of space and time, and facilitating oppositional voices, new social movements, and transna- tional advocacy networks, despite the highly uneven distribution of these technologies around the globe.

Harvard University political scientist Pippa Norris (2004, p. 118)

One of my fundamental beliefs from my days as a community organizer is that real change comes from the bottom up. And there’s no more powerful tool for grass-roots organizing than the Internet.

Barack Obama (2008, p. C1)

It’s politics at the speed of Internet. Dan Carol, Obama political campaign strategies

(in Rutenberg, 2008, p. Y17)

This essay examines the various roles and functions of the Internet predominantly in the Democratic primaries from January 1, 2008 through June 3, 2008. After tracing the emergence of the Internet in presidential campaigns since 1996, three functions of the Internet during the 2008 primary campaigns are examined. First, Democratic can- didates employed their Web sites to create ideological unity, involvement, and commit- ment among their supporters and as a foundation for a new source of campaign funding, especially among small donors. Second, the Internet provides a foundation for tracking, if not predicting, the success of specific candidates at different stages in the campaign process. Third, while only an emergent force, the Internet increasingly appears to be func- tioning as an independent, if not discrete, sociopolitical system with unique modes of interaction, its own rules and procedures, and ultimately its own standards and guide- lines for presidential campaigns. It is concluded that while the Internet can be usefully viewed strategically as an instrument to be manipulated by political candidates, it may be appropriate to also examine the Internet as a unique and discrete social system with its own ethos, pathos, and logos.

The Internet has transformed a host of sociocultural institutions, and in its May 2007 report, the Pew Internet and American Life Project concluded virtually half of the American population is now significantly linked to the Internet. Recent developments in the Internet, such as Web 2.0, have dramatically increased ‘‘the ability of people to use a range of information and communication technology as a platform to express themselves online and participate in the commons of cyberspace’’ (p. i). Indeed, in that same report, Horrigan (2007, p. ii) has concluded that a little over one-third of Americans can be classified as ‘‘elite tech users,’’ employing the Internet both for significant definitions of their identity and to maintain their productivity at work. Specifically, some 8% of Americans are ‘‘deep users of the participatory Web and mobile applications,’’ another 23% are ‘‘heavy, pragmatic tech adopters’’ who ‘‘use gadgets to keep up with social networks or be productive at work.’’ Another 10% ‘‘fully embrace the functionality of their cell phones’’ and may not use the Internet often even though they ‘‘like how’’ it ‘‘connects them to others.’’ And, finally, 10% of the population ‘‘have invested in a lot of technology,’’ although they find the ‘‘connectivity intrusive and information something of a burden.’’

Thesis Statement, Preview, and Context of this Analysis

With the growing importance of the Internet in the lives of many Americans both socially and economically, it is not shocking to anticipate that the Internet is influen- cing processes that dramatically affect the outcome of presidential campaigns. Indeed, in this paper, we want to argue for four interrelated propositions:

First, the Internet has been exerting an ever-increasing role in presidential campaigns since 1996;

Second, the Internet is serving critical information and financial functions in presi- dential campaigns, increasingly eclipsing the role of other media, especially forparticularly significant demographic political groups most likely to affect the future of the American political system; Third, the technologies provided by the Internet allow for a host of unobtrusive ways to measure changes and transformations previously unavailable during presidential campaigns; and, Fourth, these observations about the role of the Internet lead us to suggest that the current popular conception of the Internet might be reconsidered, if not redefined, especially when presidential campaigns are ongoing.

Simultaneously, we recognize that not all of these propositions can or necessarily should be applied to all stages of every presidential campaign. Depending on the spe- cific candidates, changes occurring within the culture at the time, specific circum- stances and situations, attitudes and experiences of various blocks of voters, and even the existing configurations of media, we fully anticipate that the Internet will function in different ways or in degrees. For example, the roles of the Internet during the Democratic primaries (e.g., Alterman, 2008, pp. 85 & 328–329) would be differ- ent than how the Internet might function during political conventions (e.g., Johnson, 2008), or during the general election campaign (e.g., Hollihan, 2009, pp. 215–221). Given the relatively recent emergence of the Internet and the volatile circumstances that has controlled the various stages of the presidential campaign process, we adopt the exploratory and heuristic role of critic as researcher in this analysis (Bowers, 1968; Wood, 1997, p. 61). We intentionally seek to remain open and exploratory as we examine the diverse functions, often paradoxical, served by the Internet within the specific area of the Democratic primaries from the Iowa primary held on January 3, 2008 through the June 3, 2008 Montana and South Dakota primaries. We fully anticipate that variations from party to party exist in how the Internet is used, and we fully expect that the Internet functions in different ways in convention and general election campaign contexts. These additional applications constitute areas for addi- tional and future analysis and research in subsequent examinations. With this context in mind, we turn to our first consideration, a historical analysis of the Internet in presidential campaigns.

Historical Internet Development in Presidential Campaigns

The first political campaigns on the Internet occurred in 1996 (Graff, 2007). Selnow (1998) has specifically suggested that 1996 was the first year that political campaigns used the Web for ‘‘mass campaigning.’’ Yet, in many respects, political Web sites were used in the same way that a printed brochure or billboard is viewed. Once a Web site was created, the information conveyed was essentially treated as universal and unchanging. Accordingly, while 1996 marks the first year political campaigns used the Internet, it should be noted that few political campaigns used the Internet, there is no indication of massive use, and there is no evidence of any significant effect on election outcomes.

The first significant use of Web sites occurred during the 2000 presidential campaign. Both the Bush and Gore campaigns created, sustained and changed their Web sites throughout the course of the campaign. In 2005, Benoit and Benoit provided a comprehensive and detailed analysis of these two Web sites, comparing them along some 60 specific Web site design features as well as the issues that each Web site examined. Indeed, while not a stated objective of the analysis, we have found it useful to view these 60 some features as the foundation of a basic grammar and rhetoric of structural variables defining political Web page persuasiveness. Benoit and Benoit reached four conclusions: (a) The Bush and Gore Web sites were predo- minantly the same: Of the 61 categories in which judgments were made, these two campaigns were similar in about 70% of the categories; (b) in terms of Web site navigation, Gore’s menus presented voters with too many choices (with five separate menus), while Bush had one menu on the left with 11 choices; (c) in terms of overall irritability: Gore’s material did not fit the page without scrolling, with seven levels to click through; and (d) in terms of information breadth and depth, several impor- tant topics were missing on the Gore page (e.g., taxation, Medicare=Medicaid, Health Care) while Bush also provided poll results and endorsements on issues. In this kind of analysis, specific Web site variables are not always demonstrated to be important in terms of campaign outcomes, and it is unclear that the Web sites them- selves were used by enough people at critical and central moments in the campaign to make a significant difference in terms of the election outcome. At this point, then, Web sites have yet to be demonstrated to be a decisive factor in the outcomes of presidential campaigns.

While not a presidential campaign year, 2002 may well have been an important, if not decisive, Web site year in Congressional campaigns and outcomes. A few findings here are outstanding (Pew Research Center, January 5, 2003 & March 21, 2003):

By the 2002 Congressional election, some major conclusions had clearly emerged:

Likewise, local political officials had also begun to use Web sites for political objectives:

Overall, it would seem that two conclusions about political campaigning on the Internet in 2002 are warranted. First, Web sites used ‘‘text-based interactivity’’ that includes predominantly ‘‘written forms of expressions,’’ although some photographs and graphics are included. Text-based presentations seem ‘‘more conversational’’ or ‘‘live’’ if there is immediacy, personal presence, and multivocality. Second, Web sites were predominantly a ‘‘pull’’ media experience since the Web user must seek out the candidate’s Web site and choose what information to view.

The 2004 presidential campaign clearly demonstrated the potential power of the Internet in influencing campaign processes, if not election outcomes. Endres and Warnick (2004, p. 322) have reported that ‘‘By early summer 2003,’’ some ‘‘ten presidential campaigns had already established an active Web presence for the 2004 presidential race.’’

Specifically, the Internet strategies employed by Howard Dean in the 2004 presi- dential campaign deserve special attention, for Dean—more than any other politi- cian at the time—used his political Web site in ways that constitute a model for candidates in the 2008 presidential campaign. Specifically, Dean recognized the inter- active features of the Internet, and his Web site allowed his supporters to provide feedback, and even to shape specific policies and platforms for Dean. Additionally, the Web site itself became a social network, and his campaign supporters could inter- act with each other, ultimately becoming campaign workers indirectly and often directly. Finally, Dean’s Web site became a central vehicle for raising funds for his campaign. As Gallup concluded on January 20, 2004: ‘‘And as the 2004 election fast approaches, presidential candidate Howard Dean, who has mobilized a legion of political supporters online, has proven the effectiveness of the Internet as a campaign tool.’’ As Enders and Warnick (2004, p. 322) aptly summarized the campaign, the ‘‘Howard Dean’s campaign web site played a prominent role in Dean’s overall campaign strategy.’’

Additionally, it should be noted that the Dean campaign reflected what American pollsters were finding among those who voted. Gallup (2004, p. 1) reported some significant changes in the source of political information for Americans:

Data from a January 2004 survey show that today, nearly half (49%) of Americans use the Internet at least occasionally to get political or candidate information, while 28% say they do so frequently. Slightly more than a third (35%) say they never log on to get political or candidate information.

Because Gallup polling typically finds that about a third of Americans don’t use the Internet at all, these data suggest that most Internet users are getting at least some political information from the Web. Finally, Gallup also had reported that Internet political news use was correlated with education level: As educational levels increased, the Internet was used more frequently as a source of political information.

While a Congressional election year, a powerful shift toward the Internet was recorded in 2006. Writing for the Pew Internet and American Life Project, Rainie and Horrigan (2007, p. i) reported that ‘‘The number of Americans who got most of their information about the 2006 campaign on the internet doubled from the most recent mid-term election in 2002 and rivaled the number from the 2004 presidential election year. In all, 15% of all American adults say the internet was the primary source of campaign news during the election, up from 7% in the mid-term election of 2002 and close to the 18% of Americans who said they relied on the internet during the presidential campaign cycle in 2004.’’

In the 2008 presidential campaign, the Internet continued to grow in significance as s source of political information and news. Pew Internet & American Life (April 15, 2009) reported that ‘‘three-quarters (74%) of internet users went online during the 2008 election to take part in, or get news and information about the 2008 cam- paign. This represents 55% of the entire adult population and marks the first time - . . . that more than half of the voting-age population used the internet to connect to the political process during an election cycle’’ (p. 3). More specifically, the Pew Research Center (June 29, 2009, p. 1) has noted that ‘‘last fall 44% of Americans got political news online, double the number who used the internet for internet news in 2000. In fact, the internet is now on par with newspapers as a major source of cam- paign news for Americans. A quarter of all adults (26%) got most of their election news from the internet, compared with 28% who got their election news from news- papers. Fully 60% of Americans who use the internet got political news online in 2008. Among this group, 12% logged online everyday for political news fix and 7% did so multiple times over the course of a typical day.’’

While the Democratic contenders received far more press coverage than the Republican candidates during the 2008 primary campaigns, and as the Democratic presidential campaigns unfolded, both the Obama and Clinton Web sites became increasingly important (Pew Research Center, 2008, May 28). Much as Benoit and Benoit (2005) found in terms of the Bush and Gore Web sites in 2000, the official Obama and Clinton Web sites are also remarkably similar. The home pages feature both candidates as family members and both are set against shaded blue backgrounds often associated with highly trustworthy human beings. The Web sites are updated every day, featuring new endorsements and relevant news stories as they occurred as well as vividly featuring the bright red ‘‘donate’’ button.

Beyond their own Web sites, both candidates had extremely active profiles on ‘‘MySpace.’’ The number of friends listed for both candidates grew dramatically as the campaign unfolded. Additionally, other Web sites became involved in the cam- paign itself. For example ‘‘YouTube’’ sponsored one of the Democratic Presidential Debates, and YouTube users did ask each candidate questions that were not normally asked by news reporters and anchors from the television networks. Finally, the Inter- net is also the site for Web pages specifically designed to attack each candidate. The ‘‘counter-pages’’ focus on a variety of different issues depending upon who or what organization had created the Web site.

Functions of the Candidates’ Web Sites

While each candidate Web site might be examined for a host of different associations and images that fostered and contributed to each candidate’s overall campaign image, two major functions of all of the political candidates’ Web sites seem overwhelmingly clear and decisive.

Ideological Unity for the Campaign

Political candidates’ Web sites function as news sources for a variety of information and news items that might not easily be available on a consistent basis through more traditional media such as newspapers and television. Smith and Rainie (2008, p. ii) have reported that the percentage of adults who have looked online for news or infor- mation about political campaigns has increased from 16% in the Spring of 2000 to 40% in the Spring of 2008, with the percentage of people looking for a political cam- paign ‘‘on a typical day’’ increasing from 3% in the Spring of 2000 to 17% in the Spring of 2008. In terms of specific candidates’ Web sites, the Internet is a critical source of information and news about the campaign, especially for those 18 to 24 (31% for Obama and 20% for Clinton). In greater detail, the Pew Research Center (January 11, 2008) has reported:

The Internet is living up to its potential as a major source of news about the pre- sidential campaign. Nearly a quarter of Americans (24%) say they regularly learn something about the campaign from the Internet, almost double the percentage at a comparable point in the 2004 campaign (13%). Moreover, the Internet has now become a leading source of campaign news for young people and the role of social networking sites such as MySpace and Facebook is a notable part of the story. Fully 42% of those ages 18 to 29 say they regularly learn about the campaign from the Internet, the highest percentage for any news source. In January 2004, just 20% of young people said they routinely got campaign news from the Internet.

In this regard, Tian (2006) has reported that a positive relationship exists among using the Internet for political information, deliberation, and participation. While using the Internet for political information has far exceeded its use for political deliberation and participation, Tian maintained that it is ‘‘reasonable to assume that an increasing number of people will be using the Internet for political deliberation and participations’’ (p. 136).

Beyond receiving political information from the Internet, this group of voters also uses political information in different ways than others. In this regard, Adecco USA’s January 2008 (Scripps, 2008) survey suggested that 61% of those 18 to 29 also talk more about politics, compared to the 50% who talk about politics in other age groups. Finally, while consuming political information on the Internet at amazing rates and speed, Stelter (2008) has also reported that ‘‘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. And, in return, they rely on friends and online connections from news to come to them. In essence, they are replacing the professional filter—reading The Washington Post, clicking on CNN.com—with a social one.’’ More specifically, a December survey by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found that half of the respondents over the age 50 and 39% of 30- to 49-year-olds reported watching local television news regularly for campaign news, while only 25% of people under 30 said they did. Fully two-thirds of Web users under 30 say they use social networking sites, while fewer than 20% of older users do (Stelter, p. A23).

In this regard, some have sought to explain why television viewing is declining for this 18- to 29-year-old age group. Ansberry and Vranica (2008) have reported tre- mendous levels of political ‘‘ad saturation’’ on television. For example, on an average day in the Pennsylvania state capital of Harrisburg just before the Democratic pri- mary campaign, some 228 television ads ran, with ads run by Obama and Clinton running virtually all day long from early morning to late night.1

Especially for those 18 to 29, the Internet provides an alternative, if not primary, source of information about the political campaign. This information function is par- ticularly significant, if not unique, in an Internet context. The information provided on a Web site can easily become functional and relevant to the specific policies and platforms that evolve for a candidate. The Internet is unique in terms of other poli- tical information sources, because users are able to reformulate and work together in reorganizing information, making the information relevant for specific ends. Cast in more traditional Internet terminologies, information on a politician’s Web site can be strategic, because it is user generated2 and reformatted through collaboration. In this regard, the practices so readily observed on Wikipedia can serve more instrumental political objectives when political supporters recast and socially recombine informa- tion to constitute policies and platforms for a politician.

If a politician’s Web site encourages its political supporters to utilize the interac- tive function of the Internet, and as the two strategies of user generated content and collaboration emerge and increasingly control all those visiting a politician’s site, a web of identification could emerge that draws in more and more of those linking to the politician’s Web site. In other words, in this fashion, we think the user-generated and collaborative functions of a Web site can generate a grass roots social movement for a politician. The Web site becomes a kind of ‘‘voice of the people,’’ by the people, and for the people. Regardless of whether or not the politician unconsciously or explicitly attempts to shape this process, we think a politician may be wiser to cultivate such an image than to employ a top-down strategy when formu- lating a platform. The user generated and collaborative strategies are more likely, given the age group and experiences of extensive Internet users, to foster a broad based social movement for a politician, an end that we think most politicians ulti- mately need if they are to be elected and to govern wisely.

Fund-Raising Function

Political candidates’ Web sites function as a fund-raising vehicle. In this regard, the Web sites were amazingly powerful. While Howard Dean’s Web site had been praised for the $3 million it raised in 2004, Ron Paul’s campaign became particularly note- worthy because he raised $6 million in one day through his political Web site. And, while Dean did raise some $3 million with his Web site in 2004, during 2008, each of the Democratic political candidates raised over 10 times that amount during a single month during certain periods of the campaign (for a review of quarter-by-quarter financial reports by Obama and Clinton during 2008, see: Healy and Zeleny, 2008; also, see: Luo, Becker, & Healy, 2008).

The financial function of the Web site is particularly noteworthy in four ways.

First, these Web sites provide political donors with immediate and readily avail- able ways to contribute to a campaign when they are inspired to do so. The efficiency of Web sites as a fund-raising venue should not be understated.

Second, these Web sites provide a new, more populist venue that traditional donor options cannot provide. In a protracted and long political campaign, major donors can easily reach their $4,600 campaign limit. And, the number of such donors is inherently limited. However, the Web site allows for a massive number of small donors to contribute smaller amounts over longer periods of time when the need for such financial support is articulated.

Third, the Web site provides a ready venue for responding to a politician’s emer- gency financial crisis. The Internet can be accessed from anywhere in the United States at anytime. When candidates, such as Hillary Clinton, did announce they were in a financial crisis, supporters were able to respond immediately (see, e.g., Jacoby, 2008).

Fourth, supporting a candidate financially through the candidate’s Web site pro- vides a rally point for both the candidate and for the supporters of the candidate. Psychologically, the ability to immediately support a candidate financially provides a sense of involvement and commitment to principles and values the candidate stands for.

Digital Technologies as Unobtrusive Measures of Political Success

Particularly as the Democratic political campaign evolved, it became vividly clear that traditional predictive systems used to forecast election outcomes were not accurate. Indeed, they were frequently glaringly wrong (e.g., Jurkowitz, 2008; Kohut, 2008).

Figure 1 Hitwise Web Site Rankings

One measure of a politician’s success, especially for those 18 to 24, is the number of ‘‘friends’’ each candidate has on the Web site www.MySpace.com. In this regard, as of March 14, 2008, Senator Obama had 320,522 MySpace friends, compared with 189,737 for Senator Clinton, while Senator McCain had 48,451 (Gamerman, 2008, p. W10). Tracking the number of supporters over several month periods, ScreenShot (www.ScreenShot.com) (2008) has provided a similar kind of finding for ‘‘Facebook Supporters.’’

Another measure of a politician’s success is provided by the Web site Hitwise in its weekly reports of the ‘‘Top Presidential Candidate 2008 Web sites.’’ Hitwise tracks the percentage of Web site ‘‘hits’’ that each major candidate’s official Web site has received. For example, Figure 1 indicates, on February 16, 2008, the ranking Hitwise reported.

This Hitwise ranking is based upon all users clicking on any political candidate’s Web site. What is intriguing to note here is that the week before the Iowa primary (January 3, 2008), the Obama Web site had the highest market share. However, one week before the New Hampshire primary (January 8, 2008), Clinton’s Web site had the highest market share (see: Freierman, January 14, 2008). However, this sys- tem becomes extremely difficult to employ if more than one primary is held during a specific week. For example, during the Super Tuesday primary week (February 5, 2008), it was virtually impossible to understand or to predict how market share might reflect an election outcome in any specific state.

While a comprehensive prediction system has yet to emerge, some intriguing pos- sibilities seem to exist. We do think it would be valuable, however, to continually explore and try to develop such systems.

The Internet as a Political Variable

The Internet is evolving. We are now used to thinking about Web 1.0, and the kind of one-way information flow that moved from Web site to user. However, as MySpace and Facebook have become so popular, it is increasingly clear that users can control how and what a Web site is and becomes. These new Web 2.0 Web sites at least sug- gest that the Internet can undergo profound and significant transformations. Indeed, we fully anticipate that Web 3.0 Web sites—that allow users to search with various kinds of semantic programs—will mean that The Cult of the Amateur, described by Keen (2007), might easily be avoided (also, see: Kakutani, 2008). In any event, these kinds of transformations suggest that the Internet is capable of change, perhaps even radical change.

We have watched politicians use the Internet in dramatically new ways as they move from one presidential campaign to the next. While Howard Dean’s use of the Internet in 2004 was dramatically different from those who had preceded him, the changes in the Internet during the 2008 presidential campaign have been equally significant. Beyond the fact that the voters in the 2008 presidential election were more diverse than in any other presidential election (Pew Research Center, April 30, 2009), the financial transformation has also been at least 10 times, if not more, significant than what occurred in 2004. Likewise, the entire financial base of political support may ultimately shift from high-end to low-income donors. In all, we would not be surprised to learn at the end of the 2008 presidential election that the Internet gen- erated more income for political candidates than any other revenue source used by presidential politicians in 2008. Accordingly, we might aptly ask if the political mean- ing of the Internet itself should also be reconceived and understood in different ways.

While we must be tentative in our analysis at this point, we think it is now appro- priate to view the Internet as a massive social system (see, e.g., Bertalanffy, 1968; Brock et al., 1973). In this regard, as a system, the Internet has defined boundaries, and it is composed of a host of diverse economical, political, cultural, social, and interpersonal subsystems. As a system, the Internet possesses unique features, and these features mediate all of the subsystems within its broader boundaries. For exam- ple, solely within the context of the Internet, some political freelancers, especially ‘‘from people outside the political world,’’ have established counterattack Web sites designed to challenge and deny the claims and images of political candidates as well as use other Internet channels—such as YouTube—to attack candidates. For exam- ple, Robert Geenwald has run a series of videos on the Internet that portray Senator John McCain ‘‘as contradicting himself in different settings,’’ videos that have been ‘‘viewed more than five million times’’ (Rutenberg, 2008, p. Y17). Likewise, the video Yes We Can, which set Obama’s words to music, was viewed more than 18 million times online, first at YouTube, then on Obama’s campaign portal my.barackobama. com (Cohen, 2008). Similarly, especially for those who are regular users of MySpace and Facebook, candidates create their own pages for these Web sites, with special mes- sages that are updated by the campaign regularly, if not daily. The number of friends linked to each page—often in the hundreds of thousands—becomes a ‘‘campaign’’ message predominantly only for the regular visitors on these pages (e.g., Stelter, 2008). In these ways, in many respects, the political messages contained within the Internet can be appropriately understood as a world unto itself.

Accordingly, we anticipate that some individuals may experience different kinds of ‘‘culture shocks’’ as they move from the social system regulated by the Internet to the kind of social system mediated and regulated in everyday face-to-face reality. In this context, we can well imagine that political understandings achieved and decisions made within social and symbolic constrains of the Internet will be arrived at differ- ently and independently of the decisions made in everyday face-to-face realities.

We think that evidence of the independence of the Internet as a system existing sepa- rately from everyday face-to-face reality can be said to exist when a host of political platforms, policies, and ideologies begin to exist and are created within Web sites on the Internet but do not materialize in everyday face-to-face situations.3

Conclusion

Based upon its functions during the Democratic primaries in the 2008 presidential campaign, we conclude that the Internet should always be viewed as a potential variable affecting the processes and outcomes of presidential campaigns. While its functions and significance can vary in the different phases of presidential cam- paigns, the influence of the Internet should consistently be anticipated, examined, and assessed.

If the Internet is now a major political variable—a socialization variable in every sense of that word—then we would expect we can ask related questions about the Internet. First, do some Web sites, such as Facebook, create and sustain a philosophi- cal orientation that is more likely to promote some politicians rather than others (see, e.g., McGirt, 2009). In this regard, does such a philosophical orientation actually represent a new kind of ‘‘collective consciousness’’ or sense of community that affects how members of some Web sites ‘‘manage and adapt’’ ‘‘immense amounts of knowl- edge’’ that has been created by the Internet (Cascio, 2009, p. 96). Beyond the possi- bility that specific kinds of technologies might each generate specific philosophical and knowledge systems, more traditional questions should be addressed.

Within this context, three additional questions cross our mind immediately:

Does the Internet promote and possess a specific way of conceiving of ethos? Does the Internet possess a bias for one kind of pathos rather than another? and What kind of logos or logic=knowledge system is generated by the information and understandings processed by the Internet? We are not suggesting a return to classical rhetorical ter- minologies in asking these questions. However, we do think we might ask if the Internet can be understood, at certain times, as promoting and functioning as a collective entity, a shared consciousness and understanding, and a unique set of shared meanings that have been neglected by political communication analysts. In this regard, if the Internet does possess an identifiable ethos, it is also conceivable that its ethos probably undergoes changes and transformations on a daily basis, but nonetheless the Internet may possess an overall or overarching ethic, character, and sentiment that is worthy of identifying and maybe shaping our perception and understanding of what we think the Internet is and should be. Likewise, it seems conceivable that the Internet—as a collective entity—may have emotional and experiential meanings and associations that are influencing the perceptions and functions users make of the Internet. Finally, we think it is appropriate to ask if the Internet—as a collective entity—possesses patterns of logic, reason, and wisdom that emerge only when we use the Internet. We are unsure of the specific forms of ethos, pathos, and logos that might control the Internet, but we are extremely confident that such explorations are worthwhile.

Notes

[1] A similar kind of saturation can emerge from digital technology system when ‘‘robo-calls’’ are employed by political campaigns; see: Pew Research Center, April 3, 2008 (also, see: Belson, 2008).

[2] Perhaps the most powerful example of the meaning of ‘‘user generated’’ content occurs when it has been contrasted to event-driven content reflected in traditional television network pro- grams; see: Kohut (1998) and Project for Excellence in Journalism (2007).

[3] If we seriously adopt this ‘‘two world reality’’ as a foundation for an analysis, it would be conceivable to think of the two primary Democratic political candidates, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, solely in terms of a computer metaphor. Within this context, Cohen (2008) has suggested that ‘‘The difference between hillaryclinton.com and barackobama.com can be summed up this way: Barack Obama is a Mac, and Hillary Clinton is a PC.’’

References

Alterman, E. (2008). Why we’re liberals: A political handbook for post-Bush America. New York: Viking=Penguin Group.

Ansberry, C., & Vranica, S. (2008, April 22). Voters: Tuned in, turned off. The Wall Street Journal, p. A19.

Belson, K. (2008, July 16). For half a cent, a call that informs, and annoys. The New York Times, pp. A1 and A17.

Bertalanffy, L. V. (1968). General systems theory: Foundations, development, applications. New York: George Braziller.

Benoit, P. J., & Benoit, W. L. (2005, Spring). Criteria for evaluating political campaign webpages. Southern Communication Journal, 70, 230–247.

Bowers, J. W. (1968). The pre-scientific functions of rhetorical criticism. In T. R. Nilsen (Ed.), Essays on rhetorical criticism (pp. 126–143). New York: Random House.

Brock, B. L., Chesebro, J. W., Cragan, J. F., & Klumpp, J. F. (1973). Public policy decision-making: Systems analysis and comparative advantages debate. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers Inc.

Cascio, J. (2009, July=August). Get smart. The Atlantic, 304, 94–100. Cohen, N. (2008, February 4). Is Obama a Mac and Clinton a PC? The New York Times, p. C3. Endres, D., & Warnick, B. (2004, Summer). Text-based interactivity in candidate campaign web-

sites: A case study from the 2002 Elections. Western Journal of Communication, 68, 322–342. Freierman, S. (2008, January 14). The candidates’ Web sites: Market share of upstream traffic. The

New York Times, p. C8. Gallup Organization. (2004, January 20). 2004 campaign trail winds through cyberspace. Retrieved

January 20, 2004, from http://www.gallup.com/content/default.asp?ci=10321 Gamerman, E. (2008, March 14). Party animals: Inspired students are skipping spring break in Can-

cun to volunteer on presidential campaigns. The Wall Street Journal, pp. W1 and W10. Graff, G. M. (2007). The first campaign: Globalization, the Web, and the race for the White House.

New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Healy, P., & Zeleny, J. (2008, February 8). Clinton’s fund-raising success is outshined by Obama’s.

The New York Times, p. A16. Hitwise. (2008, February 16). Top presidential candidate 2008 web sites. Retrieved February 22, 2008,

from www.hitwise.com Hollihan, T. A. (2009). Uncivil wars: Political campaigns in a media age (2nd ed.). Boston, MA:

Bedford=St. Martin’s. Horrigan, J. B. (2007, May 7). A typology of information and communication technology users.

Retrieved May 7, 2007, from http://www.pewinternet.org

Internet in Presidential Campaigns 587

Jacoby, M. (2008, February 28). Clinton raises $35 million from 200,000 new donors. The Wall Street Journal, p. A6.

Johnson, H. (2008, August). Parties to history: Four political conventions that changed America. Smithsonian, 39(5), 42–53.

Jurkowitz, M. (2008, January 10). New Hampshire teaches news media a lesson. Retrieved January 10, 2008, from http://pewresearch.org

Kakutani, M. (2008, March 11). Why knowledge and logic are politically dirty words [review of Jacoby’s The age of American unreason]. The New York Times Book Review, p. 13.

Keen, A. (2007). The cult of the amateau: How today’s Internet is killing our culture. New York: Doubleday=Currency.

Kohut, A. (1998, June 8). Event-driven news audiences: Internet news takes off. Retrieved June 20, 1998, from http://www.pewresearch.org

Kohut, A. (2008, January 10). Getting it wrong. Retrieved January 10, 2008, from http:// pewresearch.org

Luo, M., Becker, J., & Healy, P. (2008, February 22). Donors worried by Clinton campaign spend- ing. The New York Times, pp. A1 and A20.

McGirt, E. (2009, April). Boy wonder: The untold story of how Chris Hugest, today only 25, helped create two of the most successful startups in modern history, Facebook and the Barack Obama campaign. Fast Company, 134, 59–65, 96–97.

Norris, P. (2004). Global political communication: Good governance, human development, and mass communication. In Frank Esser & Barbara Pfetsch (Eds.), Comparing political communication: Theories, cases, and challenges (pp. 115–150). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Obama, B. (2008, July 7). Quoted in B. Stelter. The Facebooker who friended Obama. The New York Times, pp. C1 and C3.

Pew Research Center. (2003, January 5). Political sites gain, but major news sites still dominate: Modest increase in Internet use for campaign 2002. Retrieved January 10, 2003, http:// pewresearch.org

Pew Research Center. (2003, March 21). Untuned keyboards: Online campaigners, citizens, and portals in the 2002 elections. Retrieved April 15, 2003, from http://pewresearch.org

Pew Research Center. (2008, January 11). The Internet’s broader role in campaign 2008. Retrieved January 17, 2008, from http://pewresearch.org

Pew Research Center. (2008, April 3). Robo-calls now top type of campaign outreach. Retrieved April 3, 2008, from http://pewresearch.org

Pew Research Center. (2008, May 28). Greater coverage of McCain, but public still focused on Obama. Retrieved May 28, 2008, from http://pewresearch.org/pubs/851/public-focused-on- obama

Pew Internet & American Life Project. (2009, April 15). The Internet’s role in campaign 2008. Retrieved June 29, 2009, from http://pewinternet.org

Pew Research Center. (2009, April 30). Dissecting the 2008 electorate: Most diverse in U.S. history. Retrieved April 30, 2009, from http://pewresearch.org

Pew Research Center. (2009, June 29). Online political news audience doubles one president later. Retrieved June 29, 2009, from http://pewresearch.org

Project for Excellence in Journalism. (2007, September 12). The latest news headlines—Your vote counts. Retrieved July 15, 2008, from http://www.journalism.org

Rainie, L., & Horrigan, J. (2007, January 17). Election 2006 online. Retrieved January 25, 2007, from http://pewinternet.org

Rutenberg, J. (2008, June 29). Political freelancers use web to join the attack. The New York Times, pp. Y1 and Y17.

ScreenShot. (2008, April 13). Democratic presidential candidates: Facebook supports. Retrieved April 16, 2008, from www.ScreenShot.com

Scripps Howard News Service. (2008, February 25). Employees walk fine line with political talk at work. The Star Press [of Muncie, Indiana], p. D1.

Selnow, G. W. (1998). Electronic whistle-stops: The impact of the Internet in American politics. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Smith, A., & Rainie, L. (2008, June 15). The Internet and the 2008 election. Retrieved June 15, 2008, from http://www.pewinternet.org

Stelter, B. (2008, March 27). Finding political news online, the young pass it on. The New York Times, pp. A1 and A23.

Tian, Y. (2006, May). Political use and perceived effects of the Internet: A case study of the 2004 election. Communication Research Reports, 23, 129–137.

Wood, J. T. (1997). Communication theories in action: An Introduction. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Download the Complete article here

3. Internet & Digital Communication