Cyber democracy’s failure to launch the federal election: An essay on Cyber democracy in Australia 2013

Off Campus & Assignment Handling Services Division of Information Services Nathan Campus GRIFFITH UNIVERSITY QLD 4111

ASSIGNMENT COVER SHEET Open Universities

Australia

Student details

Name Stieve De Lance

Student Number s2862137

Unit details

Unit code Comms 160

Unit name New Media Theory

My tutor Deborah Thomas

Unit Convenor David AdairAssessment Item details

Assignment number 2

Due date Mon 16th September

Word count

Extension granted No Yes

Extension date

Is this a resubmission? No Yes

Resubmission date

ACADEMIC INTEGRITY DECLARATION

Breaches of academic integrity (cheating, plagiarism, falsification of data, collusion) seriously compromise student learning, as well asthe University’s assessment of the effectiveness of that learning andthe academic quality of the University’s awards. All breaches of academic integrity are taken seriously and could result in penalties including failure in the course and exclusion from the University. Students should be aware that the University uses text-matchingsoftware to safeguard the quality of student learning and that yourassignment will be checked using this software. I acknowledge and agree that the examiner of this assessment item

1



Australia

may, for the purpose of marking this assessment item: reproduce this assessment item and provide a copy to another

Griffith staff member; and/ submit this assessment item to a text-matching service. This web-

based service will retain a copy of this assessment item for checking the work of other students, but will not reproduce it in any form.

Examiners will only award marks for work within this assignment that is your own original work. I, hereby certify that : except where I have indicated, this assignment is my own work,

based on my personal study and/or research. I have acknowledged all materials and sources used in the

preparation of this assignment whether they be books, articles, reports, lecture notes, authoritative websites, or any other kind of document or personal communication.

I have not collaborated with another student or person in planning, developing and writing this assessment item.

This assignment has not been submitted for assessment in any otherunit or at any other time in the same unit.

I have not copied in part or in whole or otherwise plagiarised thework of other students and/or other persons.

I haven’t made this piece of work available to another student.

Providing this declaration falsely is considered a breach of academicintegrity. I have retained a copy of this assessment item for my own records. Date: 15th September 2013 Stieve De Lance

(Type your name above as an electronic signature)

Assignment checklist: Place an X in the boxes to confirm you have completed the following (double click on the box and change the value to ‘checked’). Do not

2



Australia

submit your assignment unless you have fulfilled these requirements and checked all the boxes.

I have named this assignment file correctly with myname in the following format:

My_Surname_Firstname_Assignment_Title.doc ORMy_Surname_Firstname_Assignment_Title.docx

I have completed all the required information on the first page of this assignment correctly.I have used Times or Times New Roman, 12pt font, single line spaced with normal margins and page numbers, and justified the text for my assignment.I have used only black text and a white background with no other colour, pictures, borders or other unnecessary presentation (unless expressly instructed otherwise). I have ensured that if subheadings are required in this assignment, they are shown in the body of my text in bold or capital letters only. I have in-text referenced correctly using author, date and page number. I have included a Reference List at the end of this document, which includes the full bibliographic reference for every source, correctly referenced in the required style as per the Referencing Guide used in this unit.

3



Australia

Comms 160 New media theoryCyber democracy’s failure to launch the federal election: An essay onCyber democracy in Australia 2013Stieve De Lance

“Australia’s democratic system is like a healthy individual with about of the flu. It’s not seriously ill, but somewhat off colour.Citizens feel disillusioned, cynical and discontented with how thesystem is working. Three years of a hung parliament has probablymade them more jaded than usual. The 24-hour media cycle means thatthey are constantly assailed by political noise. And with thefederal political race evenly poised, stunts and insults trivialiseand degrade the debate.” (Michelle Grattan, 2013)

Utilising the media coverage and social media statistics, this essaywill examine the 2013 Australian Federal Election as a case study,looking at the relationship between cyber democracy and actualelection outcomes. It will explore disconnects between digitalconversations, lobbying momentum through new media and audiencereach. The convergence of traditional media, the growth of socialmedia use and capitalist influence over information prominence andproliferation effect democratic discourse but by how much and does itreally put ballots in the box? By examining the evidence, this essaywill argue that cyber democracy in Australia is at presentdisconnected from electoral processes to cause any real measurableimpact on electoral results and wide scale democratic change.

The Australian example of cyber democracy is not an insular movementdevoid of any connection to traditional public discourse; rather itis largely led by it and reactive to it. An examination of all socialmedia traffic that can be identified as politically motivated duringthe election campaign reflect in part, the efforts of organisationssuch as GetUp, political parties and individuals via micro bloggingto counterbalance or capitalise on the domination of traditionalmedia (Appendix B). In the 2013, Australian Federal Electiontraditional media has been utilised and restricted for politicalcampaigning purposes as never before. Rupert Murdoch’s News Ltdempire declared an open season on the Labor party running front pages

4



Australia

with Labor MPs dressed as Nazis, headlines such as the infamous ‘kickthis mob out’ and a sustained campaign against any opinion other thanone that favours the NLP (McCallum, 2013). This cultural hegemony wasalso extended to TV, Radio and online advertising were alsorestricted to advertisements encouraging dissent, GetUp’s TVcommercials were initially taken up – then dropped by the Seven,Nine, and Ten networks with the commercial only appearingaccidentally on some of their digital networks (Dahlberg, 2007 ) (ABCMedia Watch, 2013). Despite the restricted access to traditional andcommercially owned media, GetUp claims that it reached over 4,582,533voters and that its actions directly increased voter enrolment by 30per cent through its efforts on social media and direct marketingtechniques (Appendix D). While these claims cannot be independentlyverified, it still stands that its actions failed to significantlyimpact with its pro Greens and Labor sentiment not translating to thepolls; which recorded a swing against the Greens and Labor. Anotherconsideration must be that individuals using new media for politicalcommunication are already engaged in the political process with setviews and intentions to vote. (Gibson, 2008.) Bourgeois generation Xand Y dominate this audience demographic with the wider social mediaaudience failing to engage via edited/filtered feeds. The largestgroup of active voters (those who actually vote), the baby boomers,tended not to engage with the mediums that carried the message andwhen they did, used them for different purposes leaving themunexposed to the messages (Appendix A). The way in which socialmedia works with filtered feeds is cyber democracy’s biggest flaw; inthat if you (or your friends/followers) are not interested in asubject then it will not show in your feed. Using social media tointeract with audiences that share different interests than the oneyou are promoting is difficult and can be perilous. When the NLPsponsored a post ‘How well do you know Tony’ on its Facebook page,one that quickly enraged Facebook users who found the paid for(termed ‘sponsored’ by Facebook) placement in their feeds offensive.Considered timeline spam by many Facebook users, the post became abillboard for anti Abbott sentiment. This post was counterproductiveto the message’s aims and oppositional readings and sharing of thepost exacerbated the problem (Hall S. , 1980) (Fiske, 1992) (AppendixE).

5



Australia

Political leaders have long hoped to harness the power of new mediato increase participation in the democratic process and see itspotential but also wrestle with the practicality of doing so. RobinCook, Senior UK Labor politician and former Foreign Secretary saysthat new ways should be forged to connect the new widened publicsphere with actual voting. He said, "There is a connection waitingto be made between the decline in democratic participation and theexplosion in new ways of communicating. We need not accept theparadox that gives us more ways than ever to speak, and leaves thepublic with a wider feeling than ever before that their voices arenot being heard. The new technologies can strengthen our democracy,by giving us greater opportunities than ever before for bettertransparency and a more responsive relationship between governmentand electors" (Martin Thomas, 2008). This utopian hope for democracyis yet to be realised and may not be at all possible within a Westerncontext. The big hope is that somehow the internet will revolutionisedemocracy within a western setting now that mainstream media with itsconcentrated commercial ownership, political bias and self imposedgate keeper status are no longer the largest or most prolificrepresentations of Hambermas’s ‘public sphere’ (Habermas, 1962 trans1989). This ideological vision for the internet as a public spherereveals cyber democracy and the internet as a bourgeois institutionintended to share information without intervention or socialpressures (Duelund, 2010). The reality of the use of the internetand social media for cyber democracy is far from inclusive and isdominated by pre-engaged X and Y generations. This does howeverrepresent a vigorous interactive community that uses individualtwitter accounts to bypass censorship and moderation of early forumboards and official political pages that often have commercial orparty political interests (Hartley, 1996). This fishbowl ofpolitical discourse operates to the exclusion of the disengagedyounger generations and technologically less able baby boomers+ whoalso happen to be the largest voting block in Australian politics(Australian Electrol Commission, 2013). Social demographer andpolling expert Mark McCrindle, however dispute claims that the socialmedia presence or Australian cyber democratic movement isunrepresentative. Mark says that when people do anything on mass, itis significant and has an affect. He said, “Numbers tell the story,anything that captures the attention of the nation creates change.

6



Australia

It influences actual real life (as opposed to only online) democracy;it causes policy and sometimes leadership change. Yes it is fair toconsider the technological access and predisposition of the audiencebut as the Clubs NSW campaigns have shown older Australians engageonline when it matters to them.” He also points to a growing socialpresence of all demographics and that whilst some groups may not beinteracting with organisations like GetUp or tweeting with hash tags,they are still interacting in a social media context – its just thatit may not be as easily measurable. Older people also havesignificantly different views (statistically speaking) to that ofyounger people and if social media forums are discussing politics ina way that is not of interest or in a way that appeals to them theyare less likely to engage. “The oldest age group of voting age (65+)is roughly twice as politically active after elections as theyoungest group (18-24), although less engaged in trying to influencedecisions there are different patterns to how younger age groups gettheir political news. Some 32 per cent of the 18-24 age group and 28per cent of the 24-34 age group use Facebook, Twitter and othersocial media to alert them to political news compared to only 4 percent of those over 65 years old. While only 2 in 10 of the 18-24 agegroup use websites as the major source of their political news thatfigure rises to 3 in 10 for those 65+ (Macnamara, 2013). McCrindlealso says that the discrepancy between the traditional polls, socialmedia and the election results was due to the methodology for datacollection. “Polls and to some extent social media analytic toolsare inflexible and have not been completely accurate. Robo-pollinghas probably reached its maximum effectiveness and people areirritated and less willing to participate by automated surveys andare more honest in person-to-person polls. The methodology is notreally keeping up with the times.” He also says that the framing andpublishing of the results affects people’s confidence in polls andanalytics. Pointing to the example of the News Ltd. Press publishingpolls that have a negative view of the Labor party he said, “I don’tbelieve that polling professionals would deliberately slant theresults based upon who has commissioned the results but thepublishing of the results, by whom, where and how extensively can beproblematic” (McCrindle, 2013). As with polling, cyber democracyshould be contextually to find the meanings of any media in thepublic sphere. It must be looked at through they scope of the time,

7



Australia

place, social context and political influences at play (Fiske, 1992).Polling however appears to remain the dominant force behind politicalmedia coverage with traditional media outlets and political partiesgiving polling statistics more stock than social media metrics as arepresentation of society. The ANU study of electoral trends foundthat “Political opinion polls are an inescapable part of everydaylife. Government or opposition policies rarely see the light of daywithout some poll evidence to gauge the public’s response to them.Party leaders are constantly evaluated against their poll ratings,not least by their colleagues, and consistently low ratings can oftenspell a leader’s demise. And not least, Prime Ministers callelections when they consider the polls to be most favorable to them.(Juliet Pietsch, 2011)”

Political engagement via the internet (social media and new media) isthe holy grail of political campaign strategists; the internet offersa side step around costly traditional media to directly interact withaudiences (Australian Electrol Commission, 2013). Across thespectrum, inroads to engage audiences have been often clumsy andunsophisticated. Sandra Jobson, new media journalist, author andExecutive Director of Cyber Sydney says that Australia is only usingsocial media in an ineffective scattergun approach in an attempt toinfluence voting habits and that its strategic implementation of newmedia tactics are well behind that of countries like the US. Shesaid, “Rudd's shaving selfie probably made more people think he wasstupid, but also probably didn't make them change their vote in anyway whilst the American use of social media in the recent electionswas a completely different kettle of fish - and very affective. Thiswas because they had two main aims: firstly to get people to thepolls by identifying them, finding out as much as they could aboutthem, then approaching them in person and secondly to raise smallsums of money for the campaign” (Jobson, 2013). The AEC (AustralianElectoral Commission) found that the current state of internetpolitical discourse fails to reach wider audiences because ‘Asubstantial proportion of social media use is personal andentertainment-orientated, focussed on self-identity construction andwhat organisations regard as trivia; social media are usually open toanyone to comment’. It goes on to warn that social media oftendisseminates criticism, spoofs, parodies, ‘send-ups’ and satire and

8



Australia

that it represents ‘risks to assess and manage’(Macnamara, 2013).Indeed the most engaged that the wider audiences became throughoutthe election was to view and share political gaffs such as NLPCandidate, James Diaz fumble his way through an interview (McKenny,2013) and One Nation candidate Stephanie Banister gained worldwidenotoriety ignorance and malapropisms (Olding, 2013) (Google, 2013).The most prolific Facebook sharing of images were that of traditionaleditorial and campaign images altered with Photoshop and otherediting programs to add slogans reframing the original images withina new political context often utilising intertextual elements ofother social media or political texts. This politicising of artthrough altered reproduction speaks to the disenfranchised but canalso act as a leveller revealing truths. Images Abbott and Ruddmerged into a single face to demonstrate the similarity in policy andethics but also comment on the personality politics of the 2013election (Exinfoam, 2010) (Benjamin, 1968). Specifically for socialmedia The Wikileaks party created a video that was a parody of JohnFarnham’s 1986 pop hit ‘You’re the voice’ that was extensivelysocially shared and cited throughout traditional media as a news itemDespite some traditional media having an oppositional politicalstance to the Wikileaks Party, the video. This video was an exampleof cut through to audiences with different political sentimentsunlike the heavily key message driven party political advertisementsmade for social media by NLP and Labor party (Appendix C). Thisreading of images and texts and altering the meaning was also asignificant indicator and tool of audience pessimism and ambivalenceamongst social media users who felt disenfranchised from thepolitical process (Fiske, 1992) (Enzensberger, 1970).

Examination of twitter sentiments, hash tag tracking and social mediametrics reveals a different picture to that of political pollingleading up to the election and indeed to the election results. Giventhat there is no one established and accepted method of trackingsocial media an examination of the major tracking bots such asHootsuite, Sentiment 140 and Social Mention reveals that sentiment,likes and mentions swing wildly depending on the mainstream newscoverage of the day and is often tribal and reactive (Bell, 2011)(Appendix B). The sheer number of total mentions, tweets andsentiment may be too diffuse to accurately quantify for any complete

9



Australia

scientific analysis but clear trends do occur. The social mediatraffic also reflected influence of traditional media sentiment. Thedominant view from traditional communications channels filteredthrough conversations. People tended to share articles and newsitems that confirmed their political point of view, rarely sharingimpartial or disagreed views. In this sense, the dominant viewcreates the most critical mass (Hall S. C., 1978) (Hall, 1980). Thesocial media immediately after the election was significant in itstraffic but also polarised in its sentiment, attitudes werevitriolic, pessimistic or recriminatory. A majority of the postelection social media posts could be classified as ‘trolling’; thenew media adjective for an online bullying that often remainsanonymous. This shows how different cultures access and utilise cyberdemocracy. Australians are primarily using it to vent, which isentirely different to the Arab Spring example where new media wasutilised to mobilise audiences to action. The difference may be thata prevailing democratic system may alleviate the need for cyberdemocracy preventing it from reaching its full potential (El-Ibiary,2013). Western audiences could also see political discourse over theInternet as a dangerous pastime in current national securityenvironments, exposing users to risks not just from other users thatmay disagree with users views and ‘troll’ them but also fearsurveillance from authorities. The US PRISIM surveillance programhas been revealed to have captured the data of Australian Citizensand the US have also widened their national security investigationsto include anyone who may express sentiments that may not concur withthe US Government (Nick O'Malley, 2013). This wide scale and oftenunlawful government surveillance has led to suspicion amongstaudiences that holding political views online may lead to a userending up on a watch list or a visit from the Authorities (Axtman,2002). The prevailing Abbot government’s proposed internet filteringpolicies, increased Australian Government surveillance of internettraffic and collaboration with PRISIM combined with governmentsincreasingly close links with traditional news organisations may alsolead to increased user fears (AAP, 2012). Hackers incensed withapparent collusion by some journalists with the US surveillance andattempts to limit free speech took control of the Whitehouse PressCorps Twitter handle to out news organisations that met with the USAttorney General on the matter. The hacker wrote “RESOLVED: Any

10



Australia

Member of any "News" Organization that met with AG Holder today is nolonger to be trusted as a valid news source. @whpresscorps”(Huffington Post, 2013). A move to connect voters to actual onlinevoting is also precarious because at present voting is anonymous andany online attempts could be open to tracking voters intentions.

Despite the problematic nature of measurement, social media andinternet communications, it is indeed democratic by definition butdoes not yet have universal representation. It may not therefore be acomplete democracy but in part contributes to one and withoutrecognition of it; Australian democracy would be by definition -incomplete. In ‘Dimensions of Radical Democracy’ Chantal Mouffe says“democracy can only consist in the recognition of the multiplicity ofsocial logics and the necessity of their articulation... [With] nohope of final reconciliation. That is why radical democracy alsomeans the radical impossibility of a fully achieved democracy”(Mouffe, 1992 ). The Australian 2013 Federal Election teaches usthat without the impetus of undemocratic rule, cyber democracy thatis still in its infancy, acts more as a barometer of thetechnological demographics sentiment rather than a force for change.Predictions of this election becoming one decided by Twitter (Will J.Grant, 2010) have been somewhat optimistic, not because people didnot engage, nor was it because significant numbers failed toparticipate. It was other contributing factors such as representationof demographic and translation of sentiment to voting intention thatlimited its effectiveness. The incredibly negative campaigns centredon personality politics by both the NLP and Labor and biased mediacoverage encouraged tribalism and trolling rather than politicaldiscourse about policy. When individuals did vote on an actualballot paper, it was a decision as to whom they wished to run thecountry rather than on Twitter, where it was often an opinion as towho was irritating them on a particular day.

List of references

11



Australia

Will J. Grant, B. M. (2010). Digital Dialogue? Australian Politicians' use of the Social Network Tool Twitter. Australian Journal of Political Science , 45 (4).

Australian Electrol Commission. (2013, August 12). Electoral statistics. Retrieved from http://www.aec.gov.au/Enrolling_to_vote/Enrolment_stats/elector_count/2013/elector-count-election-2013.pdf

Axtman, K. (2002, Januarry 8). Political discent can bring federal agents to the door. Retrieved from The Christian Science Monitor: http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0108/p1s4-usju.html

AAP. (2012, November 14). Australian governments increase internet surveillance . Retrieved from http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/australian-governments-increase-internet-surveillance/story-fn59niix-1226516541141

ABC Media Watch. (2013, September 9). The Ad that didnt get up. Media Watch.

Bell, I. (2011, August 7). Cyber-democracy or e-mob rule? . Sunday Herald.

Benjamin, W. (1968). The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. (H. Arendt, Ed.) London: Illuminations. Fontana.

Exinfoam. (2010, October 29). The question of politics in an age of satirical reproduction. Retrieved from Exinfoam: http://exinfoam.wordpress.com/2010/10/29/the-question-of-politics-in-an-age-of-satirical-reproduction/

El-Ibiary, R. (2013). Social Media as a New Democratizing Public Sphere in Egypt. Session 4b: Cyber-Policy and Cyber-Democracy and their Impact on National and Global Politics 2 8th Global Conference. American University, Cairo.

Enzensberger, H. M. (1970). Constituents of a Theory of the Media. Modern Occasions Anthology, 13 - 38.

12



Australia

Duelund, P. (2010). Jurgen Habermas, The structural transformation ofthe public sphere: an inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. International journal of cultural policy, 16 (1), 26 - 28.

Dahlberg, L. (2007 ). Rethinking the fragmentation of the cyberpublic: from consensus to contestation. New Media & Society, 9 (5), 827-847.

Fiske, J. (1992). British Cultural Studies and Television Criticism. In R. C. Allen (Ed.), Channels of Discourse Reassembled (pp. 254-90).

Gibson, R. L. (2008.). The Australian Public and Politics On-line: Reinforcing or Reinventing Representation? Australian Journal of Political Science, 43 (1), pp. 111–31.

Google. (2013, September 14). Stephanie Banister reported around the world. http://www.google.com.au/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=stephanie+banister+reported+around+the+world&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=wU80Ur3bF4byiAeH-oD4Cg.

Huffington Post. (2013, May 31). White House Press Corps Website, Twitter Feed Appears To Have Been Hacked. Retrieved from Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/31/white-house-press-corps-hacked_n_3364164.html

Habermas, J. (1962 trans 1989). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a category of Bourgeois Society. (T. B. Lawrence, Trans.) Cambridge: Polity.

Hall, S. C. (1978). Policing the Crisis: Mugging, the State and Law and Order. London: Macmillan.

Hall, Stuart (1980): 'Encoding/decoding'. In Centre for ContemporaryCultural Studies (Ed.): Culture, Media, Language. London: Hutchinson.

Hartley, J. (1996). Popular reality : journalism, modernity, popular culture. London:St. Martin's Press.

13



Australia

Hootsuite. (2013, September). Australian Election 2013. Retrieved September 11, 2013, from www.hootsuite.com: https://hootsuite.com/australianelection2013

Juliet Pietsch, a. M. (2011). Trends in Australian political opinion: results from theAustralian election study, 1987-2010. Australian National Institute for Public Policy and ANU College of Arts and Social Sciences, Public Policy.

Jobson, S. (2013, September 12). Election 2013 cyber democracy. (S. D. Lance, Interviewer)

Nick O'Malley, B. G. (2013, June 7). Australians at risk in US electronic surveillance program. Sydney Morning Herald.Macnamara, S. B. (2013). E-LECTORAL ENGAGEMENT: MAINTAINING AND ENHANCING DEMOCRATIC PARTICIPATION THROUGH SOCIAL MEDIA. University of Technology, Sydney. Australian Electoral Commision.Martin Thomas, D. B. (2008). Crowd Surfing: Surviving and Thriving in the Age of Consumer Empowerment. A & C Black.

McCallum, M. (2013, September). Murdoch's war on Labor. The Monthly (93).

McCrindle, M. (2013, September 12). Polling and Cyberdemocracy in thewake of the 2013 Election. (S. D. Lance, Interviewer) Sydney, NSW, Australia.

McKenny, L. (2013, August 6). Diaz and confused. Retrieved from SMH: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/diaz-and-confused-candidate-misses-the-points-20130806-2rb1v.html

Michelle Grattan, M. E. (2013). HOW DO AUSTRALIANS IMAGINE THEIR DEMOCRACY? AUSTRALIAN SURVEY OF POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT FINDINGS 2013. Canberra:ANSZOG Institute for Governence: University of Camberra.

Mouffe, C. (1992 ). Dimensions of Radical Democracy: Pluralism, Citizenship, Community. . London: Verso.

14



Australia

Olding, R. (2013, Aug 8). SMH. Retrieved from When Stephanie got her facts wrong: One Nation candidate makes gaffe after gaffe in TV interview: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/when-stephanie-got-her-facts-wrong-one-nation-candidate-makes-gaffe-after-gaffe-in-tv-interview-20130808-2rive.html#ixzz2ebiSS6XZ

Wider Reading

Davis R. G., 1975, Hans Magnus Enzensberger, A Marxist media analysis: Jump Cut: A Review of Contemporary Media no. 8, pp. 25-271975, 2004 http://www.ejumpcut.org/archive/onlinessays/JC08folder/Enzensberger.html

Dewan Rakyat, 2003, `Cyber democracy can work with proper planning', New Straits Times, Apr 8, 2003, http://search.proquest.com.libraryproxy.griffith.edu.au/docview/266758777?

Enzensberger Hans Magnus, 1974, The Consciousness Industry, NY: Seabury

Frechette, Julie, 2005, Cyber-Democracy or Cyber-Hegemony? Exploring the Political and Economic Structures of the Internet as an Alternative Source of Information, 53.4 (Spring 2005): 555-575,664.

Harris Louis, 2001, Report: European governance and cyber democracy

Himmelsbach Helmut, 2008, 15th Plenary Session of the Congress, 27-29 May, Tuesday 27th May, Speech by Mr Helmut Himmelsbach, Chamber of Local Authorities (translated from the original in German), Electronic Democracy and Deliberative Consultation on Urban Projects,https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1298817&Site=

Katz Jon, 2000, Cyber Democracy and the public sphere, Slashdot, http://features.slashdot.org/story/00/10/17/1848204/cyberdemocracy-and-the-public-sphere

Mark Poster 1995, CyberDemocracy: Internet and the Public Sphere,

15

http://features.slashdot.org/story/00/10/17/1848204/cyberdemocracy-and-the-public-sphere

http://features.slashdot.org/story/00/10/17/1848204/cyberdemocracy-and-the-public-sphere

https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1298817&Site

http://search.proquest.com.libraryproxy.griffith.edu.au/docview/266758777

http://search.proquest.com.libraryproxy.griffith.edu.au/docview/266758777

http://www.ejumpcut.org/archive/onlinessays/JC08folder/Enzensberger.html

http://www.ejumpcut.org/archive/onlinessays/JC08folder/Enzensberger.html



Australia

University of California, Irvine, http://www.humanities.uci.edu/mposter/writings/democ.html

Quitney Janna, 1995, Cyber Democracy: Internet and the Public Sphere:Mark Posters predictions, Elon University School of Communications, http://www.elon.edu/predictions/prediction2.aspx?id=JQA-0498

Debbie Rodan (2011) The prospect of the internet democracy, Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies, 25:03, 453-456 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10304312.2011.562967

Shehla Rashid, 2013, paper 204, Quotable Quotes from SAFoE, http://www.internetdemocracy.in/2013/01/29/third-south-asian-meeting-on-the-internet-and-freedom-of-expression-blog-10/

Appendix A - Social media users and statistics for Australia

http://theonlinecircle.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Australian-Facebook-Performance-Report-Feb-2013.pdf

http://frankmedia.com.au/2013/05/01/social-media-statistics-australia-april-2013/http://www.socialbakers.com/facebook-statistics/australia

Appendix B – Election social media statistics and coverage

http://www.socialmention.com/search?t=all&q=Labor+Party&btnG=Search

http://www.socialmention.com/search?t=all&q=NLP&btnG=Search

http://www.sentiment140.com/search?query=Australian+Election&hl=en

http://www.socialmention.com/search?t=all&q=Auspoll&btnG=Search

http://www.socialmention.com/search?t=all&q=Tony+Abbott&btnG=Search

http://www.socialmention.com/search?q=Australian+Election&t=all&l=&filter=&sort_by=source&tspan=m

16



http://www.socialmention.com/search?t=all&q=Tony+Abbott&btnG=Search

http://www.socialmention.com/search?t=all&q=Auspoll&btnG=Search

http://www.sentiment140.com/search?query=Australian+Election&hl=en

http://www.socialmention.com/search?t=all&q=NLP&btnG=Search

http://www.socialmention.com/search?t=all&q=Labor+Party&btnG=Search

http://www.socialbakers.com/facebook-statistics/australia

http://frankmedia.com.au/2013/05/01/social-media-statistics-australia-april-2013/

http://frankmedia.com.au/2013/05/01/social-media-statistics-australia-april-2013/



http://www.internetdemocracy.in/2013/01/29/third-south-asian-meeting-on-the-internet-and-freedom-of-expression-blog-10/



http://www.internetdemocracy.in/author/shehla/

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10304312.2011.562967

http://www.elon.edu/predictions/prediction2.aspx?id=JQA-0498

http://www.elon.edu/communications



Australia

http://www.socialmention.com/search?t=all&q=Kevin+Rudd&btnG=Search

http://www.socialmention.com/search?t=all&q=AusVotes&btnG=Search

http://www.sentiment140.com/search?query=Tony+Abbott&hl=en

http://www.sentiment140.com/search?query=Kevin+Rudd&hl=en

https://hootsuite.com/australianelection2013

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-07/an-world-social-media-reaction-as-australia-votes-2013/4942920

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/ten-social-media-moments-of-the-2013-campaign-20130906-2t9vv.htmlhttp://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/social-media

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-06/sprokkreeff-social-media-election/4866960

http://2013electionwatch.com.au/

http://socialmediamonsterau.wordpress.com/2013/01/10/social-media-and-the-2013-australian-federal-election-and-the-social-winner-is/

http://www.onesmallplanet.com.au/auspol-ausvotes-australian-federal-election-2013/

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/will-social-media-be-the-real-election-winner-20130822-2scm4.html

http://www.oneyoungworld.com/blog/what-can-we-learn-about-australian-election-through-social-data

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/8/14/technology/will-social-media-really-decide-election

17












http://2013electionwatch.com.au/



http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/social-media

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/social-media

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/ten-social-media-moments-of-the-2013-campaign-20130906-2t9vv.html

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/ten-social-media-moments-of-the-2013-campaign-20130906-2t9vv.html



https://hootsuite.com/australianelection2013

http://www.sentiment140.com/search?query=Kevin+Rudd&hl=en

http://www.sentiment140.com/search?query=Tony+Abbott&hl=en

http://www.socialmention.com/search?t=all&q=AusVotes&btnG=Search

http://www.socialmention.com/search?t=all&q=Kevin+Rudd&btnG=Search



Australia

Appendix C – Political images altered for social media use

Author/creator unknown 2013: Intertextual references from Kony 2012 and the Obama campaigns in a comment on the lack of political choice in the 2013 Australian Federal Election.

18



Australia

Fifi & Jules Comedy duo 6 September Facebook post received over 8000 likes and over 14000 shares

Wikileaks election video http://youtu.be/tg3-b8LZwNc

19

http://youtu.be/tg3-b8LZwNc



Australia

Appendix D – GetUp emails and Facebook posts

13 September 2013 – GetUp Australia email (bold lettering included inoriginal email)

Need some inspiration? Watch this: http://www.getup.org.au/we-did-this-together

Dear Stieve,

More than 6,000 volunteers. 2.4 million independent party scorecards.TV ads that reached approximately 4,582,533 viewers of voting age, nationwide. And online ads too – including our headline-making campaign to call the Murdoch press to account – that reached another 2,366,700 people, despite the networks' attempts to censor us.

Click here to watch the highlights of our movement's biggest electionever, powered by GetUp members like you.

20

http://www.getup.org.au/we-did-this-together?t=dXNlcmlkPTExNDc4LGVtYWlsaWQ9Mjc2Nw==





Australia

http://www.getup.org.au/we-did-this-together

The election post mortem will invariably have the pundits analysing, the parties jostling for position, and the public – depending on who we voted for – wondering, cheering and worrying about what happens next.

This I know: we'll be ready. Click here to watch the story you won't find anywhere else.

Thank you –

Sam

ENDS

11 September 2013 GetUp email (bold lettering included in original email)

Dear Stieve,

Whichever way you look at it, that was quite the election.

For the GetUp community, this was our biggest effort ever. Here's just some of what you achieved: Enrolment efforts that allowed over 162,000 people to vote who

wouldn't have otherwise been able to, and saw voter enrolment shoot up by over 30 per cent.

TV ads that reached approximately 4,582,533 Australians; online ads that reached another 2,366,700. Think about that for a moment; we reached 30% of Australians with GetUp advertising - despite the commercial networks refusing to show our ad.

Reaching 3 million voters with our independent scorecards on election day. GetUp member volunteers handed out more than 2.4 million physical scorecards directly to voters at polls on the day and we reached a further 554,000 Australians through our online OzVotes app, advertising in battleground electorates around the country and through social media. And that's just the

21






Australia

beginning.You'll want to check out this feel-good video and hear from GetUp members (from the ages of 15 - 92) about how they made a difference this election:

http://www.getup.org.au/we-did-this-together

Now we stand together, facing a new political landscape on which to campaign for the issues we care about. In some ways it matches long standing predictions, but there's been plenty of surprises too (... the Sports Party?) and, naturally, lots of questions about what happens next.

Even in the days since the Election result was announced, GetUp members have been taking matters into their own hands. Without any prompting, but knowing the writing on the wall, more than 10,000 people have signed and shared a petition in support of saving the Great Barrier Reef in the last 48 hours alone. When the Environment Minister takes office next week, one of the first things they will see will be a hand delivered petition signed by 165,000 GetUp members.

That's proof of the importance of our movement during this new era of

22

http://www.getup.org.au/we-did-this-together?t=dXNlcmlkPTExNDc4LGVtYWlsaWQ9Mjc1MQ==

http://www.getup.org.au/we-did-this-together?t=dXNlcmlkPTExNDc4LGVtYWlsaWQ9Mjc1MQ==



Australia

politics. Now more than ever we need to rally together to stand up for what we believe in. And when we do, we won't be alone. This Election, voters were torn between a squabbling government and a relentlessly negative opposition. But on many issues we care about, Australians broadly agree.

On Election Day, GetUp commissioned a unique "issue exit poll" to seewhat voters had in mind when they put this new government in power. The results? Yes, people voted for a change -- but the polling clearly shows the majority of Australians are still in favour of stronger action on climate change, still opposed to coal facilities in the Great Barrier Reef and would not support funding cuts to the ABC and SBS.

We live in a largely progressive country with a newly elected conservative government, and it's time to step up. But we will only be powerful when we act together. That starts right now.

Making progress in this new era will require all we have to give. We'll need to look for common ground in some of the usual places and through alliances we might find surprising. We'll try some tactics that look familiar. We'll also try some completely new and innovativeapproaches to working together.

Whatever comes next won't be easy. But right now, the GetUp communityis larger, more vibrant, diverse and more energised than it's ever been. No matter what comes next, I'm proud and confident we can rise to the challenge by facing it together.

Thanks for all that you do,

Sam McLean, National Director for the GetUp team

ENDS GetUp election pledge page – Page is 2013 despite typographic error on the page listing it as 2010

23



Australia

ENDS

24



Australia

GetUp How to vote card 2013

25



Australia

Appendix E – Sponsored Facebook posts

Appendix F – Interviews

Sandra Jobson – Via email Date: 11 September 2013 6:03:11 PM AEST

Firstly, how do you prefer to be described, Title/expert/other?Journalist and internet worker new media

The general election has highlighted the disconnect between cyber democracy and actual democracy - in that the sentiment of voters and social media traffic does not reflect the results in the ballot box.What would explain this disparage?Firstly, the voters' minds were made up long before the election, on the whole.Secondly, younger people mainly use social media for other purposes

26



Australia

and they are often oblivious to politics.Thirdly, the main media covered the election very thoroughly and would have penetrate throughout the community even by taxi drivers orshopkeepers. You cannot isolate social media from all the other types of media.

Organisations like GetUp claim to mobilise people towards engaging inthe political process - is there any evidence for this or was its audience already engaged but merely seeking a platform?I don't think GetUp had any influence.

The use of the internet differs greatly between generations, social class and economic reality. Is cyber democracy the utopian playground of the bourgeois gen X&Y?

Eventually social media will morph into over-all digital communication. We will vote online and information will come to us online more and more as time goes on.

Has viral media coverage such as political gaffs (Diaz's pillars of the economy interview or Sophie Mirabella’s reaction on the ABC's Q&Ato Simon Sheikh's faint) had an effect in the ballot box?

It would be hard to tell because these gaffes were also shown and re-shown on TV, talked about on radio, reported in newspapers. Of course the social media helped the gaffes go viral. But it would be difficult to tell what real influence the social media had in this respect.

Does political internet campaigns really cut through or are they simply fodder for opponents (Rudd’s shaving cut photo, the 'Do you know Tony' LNP FB posts and Turnbull et al. unbranded web pages)?

At this stage, Australia is only using social media in a scattergun way to try to influence voting habits. Rudd's shaving selfie probably made more people think he was stupid, but probably didn't make them change their vote in any way. The American use of social media in the recent us elections was a completely different kettle offish - and very effective. This was because they had two main aims:

27



Australia

1. To get people to the polls by identifying them, finding out as much as they could about them, then approaching them in person.

2. To raise small sums of money for the campaign.ENDS

Interview with Mark McCrindle, McCrindle Research, Sydney Australia 11 September 2003 via telephone – Interviewer: Stieve De Lance

How do you respond to criticisms that cyber democracy in Australia isunrepresentative in that it is primarily a younger demographic that participates and older people have less access to technology – does this negate the effectiveness or relevance of the movement?

“It is a fair criticism that its mostly gen X and Y and also that itsprobably a bourgeois activity and has elitist sentiments, but this ischanging. You need to view the results of the activity through the demographic of the participants. Social media does start wider discussions in which real change can be achieved in wider society.”

“Numbers tell the story, anything that captures the attention of thenation creates change. It influences actual real life (as opposed toonly online) democracy; it causes policy and sometimes leadership change. Yes it is fair to consider the technological access and predisposition of the audience but as the Clubs NSW campaigns have shown older Australians engage online when it matters to them.”

“Some groups may not be interacting with organisations like GetUp or tweeting with hash tags, they are still interacting in a social mediacontext – it’s just that it may not be as easily measurable. Older people also have significantly different views (statistically speaking) to that of younger people and if social media forums are discussing politics in a way that is not if interest or in a way thatappeals to them they are less likely to engage.” The polls leading up to the election predicted a landslide win for the coalition and this did not happen nor did it reflect the political discourse online – how can you explain this?“Polls and to some extent social media analytic tools are inflexible and have not been completely accurate. Robo-polling has probably

28



Australia

reached its maximum effectiveness and people are irritated and less willing to participate by automated surveys and are more honest in person-to-person polls. The methodology is not really keeping up with the times.”

Did the publishing of News Ltd polls (polls done by organisations owned by News Ltd.) and polls done by media organisations that were the views of the readers/viewers/listeners effect the credibility of the polls?

“I don’t believe that polling professionals would deliberately slant the results based upon who has commissioned the results but the publishing of the results, by whom, where and how extensively can be problematic”

“There are biases in polls, in samples, in the questions and in the communicating of the polls but the results should be clean. When there is talk of bias it is because of the methodology – landlines, under 25’s etc.”

“News organisations publishing the polls effects the framing and perception of the results, it affects democracy. Polls also take a significant amount of news coverage, possibly too much because they have the power to change people’s perception.”

29

Cyber democracy’s failure to launch the federal election: An essay on Cyber democracy in Australia 2013

Documents