23

Digital Democracy

How the Internet Has Changed Politics

Leticia Bode, Stephanie Edgerly, Ben Sayre, Emily K. Vraga, and Dhavan V. Shah

Using the Internet

Over the past two decades, the Internet has increasingly become part of the everyday life of US citizens. Seventy-one percent now report using the Internet on a daily basis, and their activity online is no longer limited to emailing and checking NCAA scores (Pew Internet & American Life Project, 2009). Citizens are using the Internet in new ways: to find information and products, to entertain themselves, and to communicate with others in ways that extend beyond email. And with each passing year, the Internet offers more opportunities for information and communication than ever before. As it continues to become part of the everyday existence of most US citizens, it becomes increasingly important that we understand the role of the Internet in communication and politics.

The Internet has fundamentally changed the way we communicate and interact with the world. Twenty years ago, email was not a reasonable substitute for a phone call or letter. Fifteen years ago, you had to mail checks to pay bills. Ten years ago, no one watched videos online, and five years ago, it was “normal” to lose touch with friends over the years. Now we have instant communication, greater bandwidth, and a more networked and integrated Web 2.0. For better or worse, the Internet impacts the way US citizens go about their daily lives.

That impact has spread into the realm of politics as well. Candidates increasingly rely on the Internet to raise money and to connect with voters (Pew Internet & American Life Project, 2008; Trippi, 2004) and once in office, use the Internet to provide access to an ever-increasing range of information on governmental policies and activities. But if candidates, politicians, and the public rely increasingly on the Internet for information, this raises the question: How does the Internet change politics?

The Internet, Sociability, and Politics

Platonic theory suggests that politics, stripped to its core, is an interaction between people. To understand the impact of new media on politics, we must first understand whether and how people have changed their interactions as a consequence of the development of new media. Moreover, sociability is linked to the mutual generation of social capital, which has been the focus of a great deal of research on online communication and politics because of its relation with civic and political participation (Wellman, Quan Haase, Witte, & Hampton, 2001; Chapter 21, this volume).

Sociability and Interaction

The impact of the Internet on sociability was one of the first questions addressed by a new brand of academic: the Internet scholar. There was great concern that time spent on the Internet would displace time spent interacting with friends and family. On the other hand, the Internet offered the potential for increased interaction, lowering the cost of communication, and limiting some of the problems caused by distance.

Most well-known of the scholarship indicating a negative relationship between Internet use and sociability is a study by Kraut and colleagues in 1998. Employing longitudinal data, the authors suggested that their data supported a time displacement theory for Internet use: time spent online was taking away from time spent in person interacting with one's social circle, leading to depression and loneliness.¹ Although these impacts were relatively small, the findings fueled the debate about the potentially negative relationship between Internet use and sociability. However, Kraut's time displacement theory was challenged by Wellman and Hampton (1999), who argued that the Internet was not displacing communication with family and neighbors but was instead replacing time spent alone at home. They concluded the Internet actually facilitates the establishment of ties with multiple social milieus, and fosters cross-cutting ties across social groups.

By 2001, however, scholars began to agree on one core principle – it matters not only whether one uses the Internet, but how. A series of major works were published in 2001 and 2002, acknowledging that “utopian claims and dystopic warnings based on extrapolations from technical possibilities have given way to more nuanced and circumscribed understandings of how Internet use adapts to existing patterns, permits certain innovations, and reinforces particular kinds of change” (Dimaggio, Hargittai, Neuman, & Robinson, 2001, p. 307). With this in mind, Nie performed a meta-analysis that suggested a spurious relationship existed between sociability and Internet use, and instead indicated that the same factors that promote sociability (namely education and wealth) also correlate with Internet use (Nie, 2001). Conversely, he also found some support for a time displacement theory to explain findings of a negative relationship between Internet use and sociability, which was corroborated by research which followed (Nie & Hillygus, 2002). Other studies contributed to a more refined understanding of the impact of Internet use on sociability, suggesting that the impact differed depending on the strength of the social tie in question (Papadakis, 2003; Pew Internet and American Life Project, 2000). In general, research since this time has found positive impacts of Internet use on well-being and sociability (BCS, 2010).

More recently, research has moved to explore emergent venues, including wireless Internet “hotspots” and social network sites, to answer new questions related to politics and sociability. If people are online not only in traditional places (such as the home or the office), but also in parks and public spaces, are they likely to become more insulated from the outside world? On the one hand, people using wireless Internet in public spaces are less exposed to diverse others because they are less interactive in that physical space. On the other hand, those users are likely to communicate with more diverse acquaintances online than are mobile phone users (Hampton, Livio, & Sessions, 2009). Therefore, preliminary research suggests that the expansion of the Internet to new locations can have mixed benefits.

The growing use of social network sites (SNSs) has also been acknowledged by the scholarship on Internet use, politics, and sociability. Early results indicate SNSs tend to have positive impacts on sociability. Notley (2009) finds that online social networks provide “at risk” youth with valuable opportunities for social inclusion. Others find that for the average youth, online social networks have become essential to daily life: “serv[ing] as a space for: (1) emotional support, (2) relational maintenance, and (3) self-presentation” (Greenhow & Robelia, 2009 p. 1141). A notable exception is a Chinese study, which found depression in youth correlated with Internet use (Rabin, 2010).

Although Internet use is now generally considered to have positive consequences for sociability and interaction with others, some scholars still worry about the Internet's impact on society as a whole. Cass Sunstein has written extensively about his concern that the customizability of the Internet will lead to an echo chamber, in which people are exposed only to like-minded others and the topics that they choose (2008). The concern is that such customization leads to polarization and limits some of the benefits of cross-cutting messages that exposure to a diversity of viewpoints should promote, like tolerance (Mutz, 2006).

Sociability and Social Capital

Another aspect of sociability is social capital (see Chapter 21, this volume). Drawing upon the work of Putnam (2000), we conceive of social capital as the connectedness of individuals, the ties within and between groups, and the norms of trust and reciprocity in these connections. Understood this way, social capital has political consequences, as it is correlated with civic and political behaviors such as volunteering and voting (Shah, 1998).²

Generally speaking, scholars have found a positive relationship between Internet use and social capital. In a case study by Syrjanen and Kuuti, “IS [information systems] aided the formation of an infrastructure for social interaction, through collective conversation, action, and interaction space, which can be seen to facilitate the creation of new knowledge and thus the formation of social capital” (2004, p. 41). Others agree, suggesting that Internet use provides an additional forum for social capital, rather than transforming or diminishing it overall (Quan-Haase & Wellman, 2004).

Others argue that the Internet has a more nuanced impact on social capital, and its generation depends on the type of Internet use in question. For example, using the Internet for information-seeking purposes has been linked to positive social capital generation, whereas recreational Internet use has the opposite effect (Shah, Kwak, & Holbert, 2001). Similarly, the amount of Internet use also matters, as heavier users are more likely to participate politically and civically (Wellman, Quan Haase, Witte, & Hampton, 2001). Moreover, the type of community generated online may also have disparate impacts on social capital generation: communities based on geographic associations are likely to increase face-to-face interaction, whereas more disperse communities may decrease social capital (Blanchard, 2004).

New research on Internet use and social capital has also focused on the burgeoning use of social network sites. Ellison and colleagues find that Facebook use not only promotes traditional social capital, but also results in a new kind of social capital, “high school social capital,” relating specifically to maintaining ties after geographical relocation (Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe, 2007). Other studies considering social networking sites also find support for various manifestations of social capital, including life satisfaction, social trust, civic engagement, and political participation (Valenzuela, Park, & Kee, 2009).

Summary and Future Research

Research on the relationships between Internet use, sociability, and politics has come a long way. As Wellman puts it, it is now that “the real analysis begins with more focused, theoretically-driven projects” (2004, p. 127). New trends in Internet proliferation, and the further incorporation of Internet use into the daily lives of most people are likely to modify the relationships we now see. Importantly, we should focus on developing theories that can be applied to future changes to the Internet. One thing is clear: “The Internet is helping each person to become a communication and information switchboard, between persons, networks, and institutions” (Wellmann, 2004, p. 127). Understanding the changing dynamics between the Internet, institutions, and individuals will be paramount for future research investigating Internet use, social outcomes, and political behavior.

News and Politics Online

As the Internet has developed and expanded, the focus of research has gone beyond the question of general Internet use and its effects to consider how people are using the Internet as a source of political information, and to what effect. A basic tenet of democratic theory is that voters' choices must be based on informed thinking about political issues, so it is only natural that as online media have gained attention at the expense of offline outlets, political communication scholars have increasingly scrutinized the performance of the Internet as a source of political information.

Early research on online news was characterized by two extreme viewpoints: utopians anticipating the emergence of direct democracy as a result of the world of information and communication that would be at everyone's fingertips (see, e.g., Coombs, 1998), and their dystopic counterparts predicting a cacophony of misinformation, narrowcasting taken to undemocratic extremes, and the general displacement of publicly significant news and information in favor of an expanding set of entertainment distractions (see, e.g., Sunstein, 2008). Bruce Bimber's (1998) “accelerated pluralism” is a significant exception to early research regarding online news.

Noting that the overall media system was already undergoing a process of fragmentation, Bimber's contention was that the introduction of online news would have the effect of speeding up this process. Bimber acknowledged the tenuousness of prognosticating about the future of a medium in its infancy, but expressed some doubt that the Internet would undermine the influence of established elites, and did not see the Internet as something that would “restructure the nature of community.” Grounding his account in models of political participation and psychology, Bimber granted some chance that the Internet would foster media that were more independent from elites and interest groups and more representative of the public, and he argued that it would greatly expand the accessibility of public information. However, what Bimber most confidently anticipated was a diminishment of established media's capacity to set the political agenda. The new media system would be less effective for established institutions and more tailored to the aims of issue-based group politics.

Bimber's early doubts about the Internet enabling a populist infusion to politics are still debated. For example, recent presidential campaigns have revolutionized fundraising by making use of the Internet. In 2000, McCain enjoyed some surprise online fundraising success after performing well in early primaries. Four years later, Howard Dean rode an unexpected wave of online campaigning and fundraising to emerge as the early frontrunner in the Democratic nomination campaign, relying to an unprecedented extent on large numbers of small donors. In 2008 Obama set new records in fundraising for a presidential campaign garnering more than $650 million. More than half of that money came from increments of $200 or less, much of which was collected online (Luo, 2008).

Based on campaign fundraising alone, there does seem to be evidence of the Internet providing a boost to populist strains of US politics. At this stage, however, it is trickier to gauge the extent to which the Internet is changing the nature of community organizing and group formations – the other of Bimber's two doubts. Online political communities can be found in the blogosphere, in social networks, and on the websites of political campaigns, but the goals of political organizing – mobilizing people to attend rallies, and turn out on election day – are still largely offline phenomena, suggesting that effective online organizing must still pair with real-world activities to be successful. The dynamics of political campaigns are in flux, and the Internet is by no means the only factor.

Exploring the psychological impact of online news, several studies have examined the varying effects of online news due to differences in information structure and consumption. In one experimental study comparing knowledge acquisition from paper and online versions of a story, Althaus and Tewksbury (2002) found that, in contrast to the regularity of professional TV and print publications, the lack of coherent, consistent cues online, as well as the decreased organization of information, resulted in less integration of information. They argued that newspaper readers had learned cues that differentiated a long-form story “above the fold” on the front page and a short item relegated to a back section of the paper. Online formats, at least at the time, had not developed such consistent cues. Along those lines, early studies showed decreased learning as a result of the “non-linearity” of news websites (Eveland & Dunwoody, 2002). More recent work, however, suggests that the nonlinearity of websites does not inhibit learning in its entirety, but changes the type of learning that takes place. Although linear sites (which mimic print news) encourage factual learning, nonlinear sites increase knowledge structure density – allowing a more interconnected understanding of the world (Eveland, Cortese, Park, & Dunwoody, 2004).

The early utopian view of online news championed the low cost and increased access to political news and information. Recent research, however, has shed empirical light on how individuals actually consume online information. The notion of “googlearchy,” put forward by Hindman, Tsioutsiouliklis, and Johnson (2003) examined the popularity of websites using complex searching and crawling tools, counting links in a manner similar to search engines themselves (also see Hindman, 2009). They argue that the Internet seems to be dominated by a very small number of websites, in spite of a multitude of sites available. However, it is unclear whether this finding holds in the changing environment online, where search engines are but one means of arriving at a particular website.

Summary and Future Research

Looking forward, many questions need to be explored further about the nature of news and politics online. While early online political information was dominated by major news sources with an offline presence, the nature of political information available online is changing. Today's Internet users are confronted with a cacophony of online information, including traditional news, blogs, user-generated sites such as Wikipedia, and more. Research must now focus on how these burgeoning news sources – often without an offline presence – compare to their more traditional antecedents.

A second trend to consider is the growing concern that traditional media cannot make money providing content online at no cost. If the professional media follow through with increasingly sincere threats to make users pay for online information, it could mean that a brief era of egalitarian access to information will end as information becomes accessible only to those users who are willing to pay for it. It is also worth remembering that the influences of the Internet on politics are still just a subplot in the large domain of how politics is playing out in these times, regardless of the tools and methods being used.

Blogs

Although traditional news sources remain among the most visited websites, people are increasingly seeing the Internet as a place for more than news (Pew, 2008a). Many now visit a variety of online information sources, including political blogs. According to Farrell and Drezner (2008), a blog can be defined as “a web page with minimal to no external editing, providing on-line commentary, periodically updated and presented in reverse chronological order, with hyperlinks to other online sources” (p. 2). The growth of political blogs in the last decade has been astounding: from a relatively unknown medium in 2004, when Howard Dean's blog “changed politics” (Trippi, 2004) to their heavy use in 2008, when over a quarter of US voters used blogs for political information, an increase that is likely to continue, as younger voters are most likely to turn to blogs for information (Pew, 2008b).

The rise in political blogs has not gone unrecognized by scholars. Research has emphasized two domains: the content available on blogs, including the motivations of bloggers, the potential for selective exposure, and perceptions of media credibility, and the consequences of blog readership for processing and learning, interpersonal trust, and participatory democracy.

Content on Blogs

One of the primary roles of political blogs is to provide readers with information from other sources, inserting commentary on traditional news and serving a watchdog function over the government (McKenna & Pole, 2008). This content closely matches bloggers' reported extrinsic motivations – informing people about relevant information, serving as a political watchdog, and critiquing mainstream media (Ekdale, Namkoong, Fung, & Perlmutter, 2010). Although internal motivations (such as formulating new ideas) are also important, it is extrinsic motives which lead bloggers to post information about political candidates and to participate offline, establishing a clear link between bloggers' reported goals, blog content, and political blogger relations with the larger political sphere (Ekdale et al., 2010).

The ability of readers to self-select into content is an important consequence of the new media environment (Mutz, 2007). People often take advantage of this ability, using primarily ideologically congruent news sources and political blogs (Iyengar & Hahn, 2009; Veenstra, Sayre, & Thorson, 2008), especially among those who perceive the media to be hostile to their views (Hwang, Schmierbach, Paek, Gil de Zuniga, & Shah, 2006; Hwang, Thorson, Borah, Cleland, & Perlmutter, 2007). The ability to select agreeable content may partially arise from the structure of blogs: blogrolling – or creating links to other blogs – allows blogs to link to like-minded spheres, and is especially prominent among conservative blogs (Adamic & Glance, 2005). However, substantial skew remains in these blogroll links, with a few highly ranked blogs receiving many links in, leaving a long tail of blogs with few links (Farrell & Drezner, 2008).

It is not only important to consider how bloggers believe they relate to a larger political sphere, but also to examine how blogs actually influence the environment. If blogs have the ability to alter the agenda of the mainstream media it may be less important that blogs are highly skewed and people are selecting into agreeable content. However, research on the agenda-setting power of blogs suggests the relationship is complex: while blog coverage – and posts on these blogs – can sometimes lead to more coverage in the news media, this relationship does not emerge for all issues and may even be negative when journalists move away from topics they think blogs have covered too extensively (Wallensten, 2007, see Chapter 1, this volume).

Implications of Blog Readership

The ability to expose oneself to primarily like-minded information may drive the perception among blog readers that blogs are one of the most credible sources of information (Johnson & Kaye, 1998, 2004). Because people tend to rate agreeable information as more credible (Kunda, 1987), they are likely to see the blogs they read – which tend to agree with their views – as highly credible.

But the question of media credibility does not stop there. Given that bloggers' goals include critiquing the mainstream media, and that blog content reflects this goal (Ekdale et al., 2010; McKenna & Pole, 2008), it is also important to examine how credibility is understood when multiple sources of competing credibility are contained on the same page. Research suggests that the blog context in which a news article is found can affect ratings of story credibility, even when the content of the news story is consistent (Greer, 2003; Thorson, Vraga, & Ekdale, 2010). Evaluations of news story credibility and source credibility – such as the website on which the story is found – are highly correlated (Greer, 2003), so that a news article found on a “credible” website like that of the New York Times should be rated more highly than the same story found on a less reputable website. However, beyond the source cue, the tone and position of the site also have an influence: repurposing of news content on an uncivil or politically incongruent blog highlights the credibility of the news story (Thorson et al., 2010). Of course, the target of the attack should matter: critiques of the news story itself, rather than political actors or policy proposals, may instead emphasize its flaws and lessen news credibility.

It is not only perceptions of the news story that change when it is moved into a new context. Changes in the formatting and structure of information online can also impact memory. Eveland and Dunwoody (2001, 2002) developed the theory of structural isomorphism, which suggests that the structure of the Internet, including use of hyperlinks, has the ability to mimic memory structures, altering the nature by which information is gained. However, these differences may not affect everyone equally: blog readers appear to have more closely linked mental networks on political issues, making them more susceptible to an ethical frame of a news story (Veenstra, Sayre, & Thorson, 2008). If the online information structure mirrors memory structures, more research is needed investigating how this interacts with people's predispositions to affect learning and opinion formation.

Examining one type of structural format unique to political blogs, the close juxtaposition of blog commentary and neutral news information may impact citizen learning. When a neutral and a persuasive source are closely intertwined – a format available on many political blogs – the possibility for source confusion in learning new information arises. When individuals are not motivated to carefully process the information – such as when they are lower in need for cognition or exposed to congruent blog commentary – they are more likely to confuse the source of their information (Vraga, Edgerly, Wang, & Shah, 2011). The effects on fact recall and source identification from changes in structure and tone are not limited to college students: even readers of political blogs are less able to identify the source of their information when faced with a more interspersed structure (Vraga, Edgerly, Wang, & Veenstra, 2009).

The question of whether political participation correlates with blog exposure is also important. Research suggests that political blog readers are highly participatory, and that this participation occurs in both new online expressive styles of participation, as well as more traditional offline formats (Gil de Zuniga, Veenstra, Vraga, & Shah, 2010). Exposure to like-minded blog commentary is an especially strong predictor of participation, mirroring offline research that suggests exposure to homogeneous opinions promotes greater political engagement (Hwang et al., 2007, Mutz, 2006).

Not all of the information encountered on blogs is likely to occur within this homogeneous echo chamber. Some researchers suggest that fears about the echo chamber online are overstated: although people do show some tendency to self-select congruent stories, the tendency to avoid incongruent stories is weaker than expected, and once confronted with incongruent information individuals spend substantial amounts of time reading it (Garrett, 2009). Furthermore, even attempting to view only congruent information does not mean that individuals avoid the opposition: in fact, blog posts may be more likely to mention the opposing party than their own (Koop & Jansen, 2009).

When exposed to attacking commentary, especially that couched in an uncivil tone, both positive and negative emotional reactions are aroused. When a blogger takes an uncivil tone in attacking the opposition, people feel proud of the blogger, whereas when their own party is being attacked, they feel angry (Fung, Vraga, & Thorson, 2011). This emotional arousal is differentially linked to action tendencies – anger spurs desires to “get back at” the blogger and mock her efforts, whereas pride deters people from these actions (Fung et al., 2011). Furthermore, negative emotional arousal is also linked to changes in social identity, less open-mindedness, fewer discussions with the other side, and greater desire to participate politically (Thorson, Fung, & Vraga, 2008; Vraga, Thorson, Fung, & Meyer, 2009). Ultimately, the arousal that can result from exposure to attacks on political blogs can result in both beneficial and harmful outcomes.

Summary and Future Research

Thus, scholarly research has begun to investigate the effects of this new form of media content available online. Research has demonstrated that blogger motivations have a substantial impact on the content they produce online – and differences in this content affect media perceptions, learning of new information, and desire to participate politically. Although citizen-authored communications have always been a part of political life, the growing readership and potential agenda-setting power of political blogs may be an important source of bottom-up communication led by the public. Future research needs to more closely examine not only who is publishing political blogs, but also who is commenting, to better understand this potential for the public to influence politics.

Of course, blogs are not the only, or even the most popular, location for citizen activity online. More and more people report increasing use of social networking sites, not only to connect with friends, but also to search for information and express their political preferences (Bode, Borah, Vraga, & Shah, 2009; Pew, 2008b). Therefore it is also important to study other sites of social interaction online to truly understand the potential of the Internet.

Online Public Sphere and Political Messaging

A growing line of research explores the transformation of the public sphere from one intrinsically linked to physical space to one existing in a virtual arena (Janssen & Keis, 2005). Dahlgren (2005) identifies three dimensions that impact the viability of an online public sphere. In the structural sphere, the Internet has institutional features – ownership, control, regulation, financing, legal protection – that direct attention to or from particular communication spaces. The representational dimension concerns the output of the media: fairness, accuracy, completeness, plurality of views, framing, and agenda setting. At the interaction level the Internet affords individuals opportunities to engage with media messages and with other individuals. According to Dahlgren (2005), the “cyber transformation of the public sphere” (p. 151) has been marked by growing commercialization of the Internet (structure) that serves to constrain use of media for civic purposes (representation), and overshadows deliberative exchanges with so many nonpolitical ones (interaction). Still, the Internet does offer possibilities for quality information exchange and improved civic engagement via online civic messaging (emailing a politician, organizing a social activity, etc.).

Formal Settings That Guide Online Deliberation

Many studies have explored the Internet's ability to link citizens for deliberative discussion. Jensen (2003) studied www.nordpol.dk, a Danish site designed to reduce barriers of communication between citizens and politicians. He found deliberation to more accurately characterize horizontal exchanges (citizen–citizen, or politician–politician), whereas vertical communication was characterized by information sought (citizen–politician) and provided (politician–citizen). Although politicians and citizens characterized the experience as a democratic success, it existed amid low overall participation among Danish citizens. Similarly, Cappella, Price, and Nir (2002) found that participating in a year-long online discussion during the 2000 presidential election elevated participants' argument repertoire; online interaction and group deliberation helped people state arguments for and against their own position.

Iyengar, Luskin, and Fishkin (2004) applied their deliberative poll (DP) framework online to test its ability to produce more informed individuals. Using voice recognition software, the weekly discussions were voice- rather than text-based and used a moderator to manage the speaking queue. As with face-to-face DP, participants were encouraged to submit questions to a group of experts, and answers were posted before the next meeting. The authors found that compared to a control group, online DP participants knew more about candidates and policy and showed more policy-based voting. This result may be especially telling considering the desired results were observed with a modest intervention of five one-hour online meetings.

Expression through Informal Social Channels

Interactive messaging tools (email, instant messaging, online chat rooms) provide individuals with opportunities to share political information and perspectives. Online communication can also help individuals organize to direct their actions toward common concerns. For example, 40% of email users in 2008 received an email encouraging political involvement, and 1 in 10 used email to encourage others to get involved in politics (Pew Internet & American Life Project, 2009).

Results are mixed on whether online discussion facilitates high quality interactions (Koop & Jansen, 2009). Some research has found that discussants in political Usenet newsgroups expressed viewpoints in a civil and polite manner (Papacharissi, 2004), chat rooms exemplified norms of viewpoint diversity and idea exchange (Stromer-Galley, 2003), and most postings on bulletin boards were related to or responding to earlier messages (Rafaeli & Sudweeks, 1997). However, other research suggests a tendency for Internet users to reject opinion diversity and provide content that is of little substance: online bulletin boards serve as ideologically congruent communities of interest, (Uslaner, 2004); online forums offer debates of the “Did so” “Did not” variety (White, 1997); and campaign blogs offer primarily negative posts, few reasons, and discouragement of opponents offering substantive comments (Meraz, 2006).

Social media sites are also becoming a forum for political expression and influence. According to data from the United States, 19% of Internet users post material on political or social issues or use social networks for civic or political activities (Pew Internet and American Life Project, 2009). Social media sites like YouTube and Facebook allow users to express views to a larger audience and reach out to other users and groups. Recent work by Bode, Borah, Vraga, and Shah (2009) suggests political use of Facebook predicts political participation and political engagement, and at increasing rates, during an election cycle. Similarly, in the 2008 elections YouTube played an influential role in terms of volume and tone of videos (Cortese & Proffitt, 2009) and in mobilization of young voters (Dalton, 2009). A comprehensive study of YouTube and California's Proposition 8 found that YouTube functioned as a space for same-sex marriage supporters to express themselves after the election (Thorson, Ekdale, Borah, Namkoong, & Shah, 2010). Videos were characterized by diverse reason-giving in commentary (Edgerly et al., 2009), and YouTube videos influenced traditional mass media coverage of Proposition 8 (Sayre, Bode, Wilcox, Shah, & Shah, 2010).

Other studies of YouTube present a more skeptical outlook on the site's ability to introduce new content and engage in political discussion, with Turkheimer (2007) and Milliken, Gibson, O'Donnell, and Singer (2008) finding negative political clips generate more attention, suggesting people may be drawn to sensational political videos on YouTube. In an experimental study, Towner, Dulio, and Pazdro (2009) found exposure to user-generated content on YouChoose '08, YouTube's official 2008 election page, increased cynicism among viewers. One study found YouTube videos averaged 1.6 comments per video (Carlson & Strandberg, 2007), and another that these comments were often negative in tone (Milliken et al., 2008).

Summary and Future Research

A key issue for political and civic expression online is its ability to carry over to the offline environment. Recent research has sought to clarify the relationship between online expression and offline civic behavior. Shah, Cho, Eveland, and Kwak (2005) found online and offline media both spur interpersonal political discussion and online civic messaging which predicts subsequent civic participation. The results of Shah et al. (2005) suggest the Internet's low barriers to entry for political and civic expression do not diminish its predictive power for offline civic activities.

Conclusion

The Internet is not likely to disappear, nor is its growing influence in the political realm. Whether it is the use of Twitter to coordinate Iranian protests, the record-breaking campaign to raise money for Haiti relief via text message, or the growing amount of government data available online, the Internet is facilitating sociability and political behavior in new and important ways. As a scholarly community, we must continue asking questions about how and why this occurs and investigate the potential implications of such changes.

Communication is essential in order for political life – voting, campaigning, and volunteering – to take place. The Internet is important for politics because it lowers the costs of communication and reduces the barriers of time and space, facilitating new kinds of communications. As Klotz puts it, “Interactivity makes the Internet a formidable medium for politics. Disseminating information, mobilizing, and citizen interaction lie at the heart of politics. The Internet is, therefore, well suited for political use” (2004, p. 5). The Internet can encourage voting (Tolbert & McNeal, 2003), allow for online political activities (Best & Krueger, 2005), and encourage political participation (Polat, 2005). It offers a place to communicate with individuals and with the general public (Ekdale et al., 2010; Stromer-Galley, 2003). Each of these behaviors contributes to democracy; the role the Internet plays in politics therefore cannot be denied.

However, much work remains to be done. The Internet is a frustrating beast to study, because it is a different creature from day to day. There is always a new innovation – social networking sites, video-sharing sites, microblogging sites – that alters what people are able to do online, thus changing the political culture online as well. Scholars must continue to press forward on questions examining online politics, even when they are difficult to study and rapidly changing. Furthermore, scholars must put more effort into developing models for the effects of Internet use that bridge disciplines, making these theories better equipped to deal with the shifts the Internet will bring to politics as the medium continues its one constant: change.

NOTES

1 Kraut came to different conclusions in a later paper, in which he determined that initial negative effects dissipated after the first years of Internet use. See Further Reading.

2 Though it is important to note that social capital does not always result in positive outcomes.

REFERENCES

Adamic, L. A., & Glance, N. (2005). The political blogosphere and the 2004 election: Divide they blog. Communications of the ACM, 36–43.

Althaus, S., & Tewksbury, D. (2002). Agenda setting and the “new” news: Patterns of issue importance among readers of the paper and online versions of the New York Times. Communication Research, 29, 180–207.

BCS, The Chartered Institute for IT. (2010, September). The information dividend: Why IT makes you “happier.”

Best, S. J., & Krueger, B. S. (2005). Analyzing representativeness of political participation. Political Behavior, 27(2), 183–216.

Bimber, B. (1998). The Internet and political transformation: Populism, community, and accelerated pluralism. Polity, 31, 133–160.

Blanchard, A. (2004). The effects of dispersed virtual communities on face-to-face social capital. In M. Huysman & V. Wolf. (Eds.), Social capital and information technology (pp. 53–74). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Bode, L., Borah, P., Vraga, E. K., & Shah, D. V. (2009, August). A new space for political expression: Predictors of political Facebook use and its democratic consequences. Paper presented at Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Boston, MA.

Cappella, J. N., Price, V., & Nir, L. (2002). Argument repertoire as a reliable and valid measure of opinion quality: Electronic dialogue during campaign 2000. Political Communication, 19, 73–93.

Carlson, T., & Strandberg, K. (2007, September.). Riding the Web 2.0 wave: Candidates on YouTube on the 2007 Finnish national elections. Paper presented at the meeting of the Fourth General Conference of the European Consortium of Political Research, Pisa, Italy.

Coombs, W. T. (1998). The Internet as potential equalizer: New leverage for confronting social irresponsibility. Public Relations Review, 24(3), 289–303.

Cortese, J., & Proffitt, J. M. (2009, August 5–8). A content analysis of the 2008 presidential candidates' YouTube sites. Paper presented at Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication Conference, Boston, MA.

Dahlgren, P. (2005). The Internet, public spheres, and political communication: Dispersion and deliberation. Political Communication, 22, 147–162.

Dalton, R. (2009). The good citizen: How a younger generation is reshaping American politics. New York, NY: CQ Press.

Dimaggio, P., Hargittai, E., Neuman, W. R., & Robinson, J. P. (2001). Social implications of the Internet. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 307-336.

Edgerly, S., Vraga, E., Fung, T., Moon, T. J., Veenstra, A., Yoo, W. H. et al. (2009, October). YouTube as a public sphere: The proposition 8 debate. Paper presented at the Association of Internet Researchers Conference, Milwaukee, WI.

Ekdale, B., Namkoong, K., Fung, T. K. F., & Perlmutter, D. D. (2010). Why blog? (then and now): Exploring the motivations for blogging by popular American political bloggers. New Media and Society, 1–18.

Ellison, N., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook “friends”: Exploring the relationship between college students' use of online social networks and social capital. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(4), article 1.

Eveland, W. P., Jr., Cortese, J., Park, H., & Dunwoody, S. (2004). How web site organization influences free recall, factual knowledge, and knowledge structure. Human Communication Research, 30, 208–233.

Eveland, W. P., Jr., & Dunwoody, S. (2001). User control and structural isomorphism or dis-orientiation and cognitive load? Learning from the web versus print. Communication Research, 28, 48–78.

Eveland, W. P., Jr., & Dunwoody, S. (2002). An investigation of elaboration and selective scanning as mediators of learning from the web versus print. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 46, 34–53.

Farrell, H., & Drezner, D. W. (2008). The power and politics of blogs. Political Choice, 134, 15–30.

Fung, T. K., Vraga, E. K., & Thorson, K. (2011). When bloggers attack: Examining the effect of negative citizen-initiated campaigning in 2008 presidential election. In L. L. Kaid & J. A. Hendricks (Eds.), Techno-politics and presidential campaigning: New technologies, new voices, new voters (pp. 83–101). New York, NY: Routledge.

Garrett, R. K. (2009). Echo chambers online? Politically motivated selective exposure among Internet news users. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14, 265–285.

Gil de Zuniga, H., Veenstra, A. S., Vraga, E. K., & Shah, D. V. (2010). Digital democracy: Reimagining pathways to political participation. Journal of Information Technology and Politics, 7, 36–51.

Greenhow, C., & Robelia, B. (2009). Informal learning and identity formation in online social networks. Learning, Media, and Technology, 34(2), 119–140.

Hampton, K. N., Livio, O., & Sessions, L. F. (2009, May). The social life of wireless urban spaces: Internet use, social networks, and the public realm. Paper presented at the International Communication Association Pre-conference Mobile 2.0: Beyond Voice, Chicago, IL.

Hindman, M., Tsioutsiouliklis, K., & Johnson, J. A. (2003, April). “Googlearchy”: How a few heavily-linked sites dominate politics on the web. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.

Hindman, M. (2009). The myth of digital democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Hwang, H., Schmierbach, M., Paek, H., Gil de Zuniga, H., & Shah, D. V. (2006). Media dissociation, Internet use, and anti-war political participation: A case study of political dissent and action against the war in Iraq. Mass Communication and Society, 9, 461–483.

Hwang, H., Thorson, K., Borah, P., Cleland, R., & Perlmutter, D. D. (2007, August). The blogosphere and participatory democracy: The role of hostile media perception in blog users' news source selection and expressive participation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Washington, DC.

Iyengar, S., & Hahn, K. S. (2009). Red media, blue media: Evidence of ideological selectivity in media use. Journal of Communication, 59, 19–39.

Iyengar, S., Luskin, R. C., & Fishkin, J. (2004, April). Deliberative preferences in presidential nomination campaigns: Evidence from the online deliberative poll. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC.

Janssen, D., & Kies, R. (2005). Online forums and deliberative democracy. Acta Politica, 40, 317–335.

Jensen, J. L. (2003). Virtual democratic dialogue? Bringing together citizens and politicians. Information Polity, 8, 29–47.

Johnson, T. J., & Kaye, B. K. (1998). Cruising is believing: Comparing Internet and traditional sources on media credibility measures. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 75, 325–340.

Johnson, T. J., & Kaye, B. K. (2004). Wag the blog: How reliance on traditional media and the Internet influence credibility perceptions of weblogs among blog users. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 81(3), 622–642.

Kellner, D. (1998). Intellectuals, the new public spheres, and techno-politics. In C. Toulouse, & T. W. Luke (Ed.), The politics of cyberspace: A political science reader (pp. 167–186). New York, NY: Routledge.

Klotz, R. J. (2004). The politics of Internet communication. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Koop, R., & Jansen, H. J. (2009). Political blogs and blogrolls in Canada: Forums for democratic deliberation? Social Science Computer Review, 27, 155–173.

Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Lundmark, V., Kiesler, S., Mukophadhyay, T., & Scherlis, W. (1998). Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being? American Psychologist, 53(9), 1017–1031.

Kunda, Z. (1987). Motivated inference: Self-serving generation and evaluation of causal theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(4), 646–647.

Luo, M. (2008). Obama recasts the fund-raising landscape. (2008, October 19). New York Times.

McKenna, L., & Pole, A. (2008). What do bloggers do: An average day on an average political blog. Public Choice, 134, 97–108.

Meraz, S. (2006). Analyzing political conversation on the Howard Dean candidate blog. In M. Tremayne. (Ed.), Blogging, citizenship, and the future of media (pp. 59–82). New York, NY: Routledge.

Milliken, M. C., Gibson, K., O'Donnell, S., & Singer, J. (2008). User-generated online video and the Atlantic Canadian public sphere: A YouTube study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Mutz, D. C. (2006). Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Mutz, D. C. (2007). How the mass media divide us. In P. S. Nivola & D. W. Brady (Eds.), Red and blue nation? (Vol. 1, pp. 223–248). Washington, DC: Brookings Institute Press.

Nie, N. H. (2001). Sociability, interpersonal relations, and the Internet. American Behavioral Scientist, 45(3), 420–435.

Nie, N. H., & Hillygus, D. S. (2002). The impact of Internet use on sociability: Time-diary findings. IT and Society, 1(1), 1–20.

Notley, T. (2009). Young people, online networks, and social inclusion. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14, 1208–1227.

Papacharissi, Z. (2004). Democracy on-line: Civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of on-line political discussion groups, New Media and Society, 6(2), 259–284.

Papadakis, M. (2003). Data on family and the Internet: What do we know and how do we know it? In J. Turow & A. Kavanaugh (Eds.), The wired homestead: An MIT Press sourcebook on the Internet and the family (pp. 121–140). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Pew Internet & American Life Project. (2000, May). Tracking online life. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center for the People and the Press.

Pew Internet & American Life Project. (2009, September). The Internet and civic engagement. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center for the People and the Press.

Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. (2008a). McCain's enthusiasm gap, Obama's unity gap. Washington, DC: Report from the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press.

Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. (2008b). Social networking and online videos take off. Washington, DC: Report from the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press.

Polat, R. K. (2005). The Internet and political participation. European Journal of Communication, 20(4), 435–459.

Quan-Haase, A., & Wellman, B. (2004). How does the Internet affect social capital? In M. Huysman, & V. Wolf (Eds.), Social capital and information technology (pp. 113–132). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Rabin, R. C. (2010, August 9). Behavior: Internet use tied to depression in youths. New York Times.

Rafaeli, S., & Sudweeks, F. (1997). Networked interactivity. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 2(4), Retrieved from http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol2/issue4/editorsintro.html

Sayre, B., Bode, L., Wilcox, D., Shah, D. V., & Shah, C. (2010). Agenda setting in a digital age: Tracking attention to California Proposition 8 in social media, online news, and conventional news. Policy and Internet, 2(2), Article 1.

Shah, D. V. (1998). Civic engagement, interpersonal trust, and television use: An individual-level assessment of social capital. Political Psychology, 19(3), 469–496.

Shah, D. V., Cho, J., Eveland, W. P., & Kwak, N. (2005). Information and expression in a digital age. Modeling Internet effects on civic participation. Communication Research, 32, 531–565.

Shah, D. V., Kwak, N., & Holbert, R. L. (2001). “Connecting” and “disconnecting” with civic life: Patterns of Internet use and the production of social capital. Political Communication, 18, 141–162.

Stromer-Galley, J. (2003). Diversity of political conversation on the Internet: Users' perspectives. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 8(3). Retrieved from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol8/issue3/stromergalley.html

Sunstein, C. (2008). Republic.com 2.0. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Syrjanen, A., & Kuuti, K. (2004). Trust, acceptance, and alignment: The role of IT in redirecting a community. In M. Huysman & V. Wolf (Eds.), Social capital and information technology (pp. 21–52). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Thorson, K., Ekdale, B., Borah, P., Namkoong, K., & Shah, C. (2010). YouTube and Proposition 8: A case study in video activism. Information, Communication and Society, 13, 325–349.

Thorson, K., Fung, T., & Vraga, E. K. (2008, May). How you feel makes you what you are: Partisan reactions to political incivility online. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Chicago, IL.

Thorson, K., Vraga, E. K., & Ekdale, B. (2010). Credibility in context: How uncivil online commentary affects news credibility. Mass Communication and Society, 13, 289–313.

Tolbert, C. J., & McNeal, R. S. (2003). Unraveling the effects of the Internet on political participation? Political Research Quarterly, 56(2), 175–185.

Towner, T. L., Dulio, D. A., & Pazdro, S. (2009, April 2–5). An experiment of campaign effects during the YouTube election. Paper presented at the Midwest Political Science Association Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL.

Trippi, J. (2004). The revolution will not be televised: Democracy, the Internet, and the overthrow of everything. New York, NY: Regan Books.

Turkheimer, M. (2007). A YouTube moment in politics: An analysis of the first three months of the 2008 presidential election. Unpublished manuscript, Occidental College, Los Angeles, CA. Retrieved August 28, 2009, from http://departments.oxy.edu/uepi/studentwork/07comps/Turkheimer-Comps.pdf

Uslaner, E. M. (2004). Trust, civic engagement, and the Internet. Political Communication, 21(2), 223–242.

Valenzuela, S., Park, N., & Kee, K. (2009). Is there social capital in a social network site? Facebook use and college students' life satisfaction, trust, and participation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14, 875–901.

Veenstra, A. S., Sayre, B., & Thorson, K. (2008, May). Sticking together online: Politicalparticipation and ideologically homogeneous blog consumption. Paper presented to the American Association for Public Opinion Research, New Orleans, LA.

Vraga, E. K., Edgerly, S., Wang, B. M., & Shah, D. V. (2011). Who taught me that? Repurposed news, blog structure, and source identification. Journal of Communication, 61, 795–815.

Vraga, E. K., Edgerly, S., Wang, M., & Veenstra, A. S. (2009, October). Feeling the heat: The effects of incivility and structure on fact recall. Paper presented at the Association of Internet Researchers, Milwaukee, WI.

Vraga, E. K., Thorson, K., Fung, T., & Meyer, H. K. (2009, August). Emotions vs. cognitions? Testing competing models of response to a media message in predicting participation. Paper presented at the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Boston, MA.

Wellman, B. (2004). The three ages of Internet studies: ten, five, and zero years ago. New Media and Society, 6(1), 123–129.

Wellman, B., & Hampton, K. (1999). Living networked in a wired world. Contemporary Sociology, 28(6), 648–654.

Wellman, B., Quan Haase, A., Witte, J., & Hampton, K. (2001). Does the Internet increase, decrease, or supplement social capital? Social networks, participation, and community commitment. American Behavioral Scientist, 45, 436–455.

White, C. S. (1997). Citizen participation and the Internet: Prospects for civic deliberation in the information age. The Social Studies, 88, 23–28.

FURTHER READING

Coleman, J. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95–S120.

Davis, R. (1999) The web of politics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Haythornthwaite, C. (2002). Strong, weak and latent ties and the impact of new media. The Information Society, 18(5), 385–401.

Haythornthwaite, C. (2005). Social networks and Internet connectivity effects. Information, Communication and Society, 8(2), 125–147.

Hill, K. A., & Hughes, J. E. (1998). Cyberpolitics: Citizen activism in the age of the Internet. New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield.

Huysman, M. & Wolf, V. (Eds.). (2004). Social capital and information technology (pp. 1–16). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Kraut, R., Kiesler, S., Boneva, B., Cummings, J., Helgeson, V., & Crawford, A. (2002). Internet paradox revisited. In J. Turow & A. Kavanaugh (Eds.), The wired homestead: An MIT Press sourcebook on the Internet and the family (pp. 347–384). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(11), 2098–2109.

Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 1–24.

Putnam, R. (1995). Bowling alone: America's declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6(1), 65–78.

Shah, D. V., Cho, J., Nah, S., Gotlieb, M. R., Hwang, H., Lee, N. et al. (2007). Campaign ads, online messaging, and participation: Extending the communication mediation model. Journal of Communication, 57, 676–703.

Shah, D. V., McLeod, J. M., & Lee, N. (2009). Communication competence as a foundation for civic competence: Processes of socialization into citizenship. Political Communication, 26, 102–117.

Stanley, J. W., & Weare, C. (2004). The effects of Internet use on political participation. Administration and Society. 36(5), 503–527.

Wallensten, K. (2007). Agenda setting and the blogosphere: An analysis of the relationship between mainstream media and political blogs. Review of Policy Research, 24(6), 567–587.

Wilhelm, A. G. (2000). Democracy in the digital age: Challenges to political life in cyberspace. New York, NY: Routledge.

Woodley, D. (2008). New competencies in democratic communication? Blogs, agenda setting and political participation. Public Choice, 134, 109–123.