Lee Wilson - The Very Access of Democracy - Thesis Final

7/29/2019 Lee Wilson - The Very Access of Democracy - Thesis Final

1/60

The Very Access of Democracy:

The Internet, Blogs, and On-line Repertoires of Contention

By

Lee R. Wilson

A masters thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Political Science in partial

fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts, The City University of

New York

2008


2/60

Approval Page

This manuscript has been read and accepted for the Graduate Faculty in Political Science

in satisfaction of the requirement for the degree of Master of Arts.

Thesis Adviser Date

Approved

Executive Officer Date

THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK

ii


3/60

Acknowledgements

This project would be incomplete without thanking those who helped make it possible.

The professors at the City University of New York Graduate Center have been a

wonderful source of guidance and encouragement. My thesis adviser, Dr. John Krinsky,

has offered many helpful suggestions regarding the researching and writing of this

master's thesis. My classmates, Chris Agee and Ben Epstein, were also generous with

their sources and strategies for approaching this subject.

iii


4/60

Table of Contents

The Very Access of Democracy..........................................................................................1Appendix A........................................................................................................................43Works Cited.......................................................................................................................51

iv


5/60

The Very Access of Democracy

In this paper I follow the work of scholars who have discussed the impact of the

Internet on contentious politics, with the intent of describing an "On-line Repertoire of

Contention". Charles Tilly, godfather of contentious politics, defined a repertoire of

contention as arrays of contentious performances that are currently known and available

within some set of political actors (Tarrow and Tilly 3). Performances are relatively

familiar and standardized ways in which one set of political actors makes claims on

another set of political actors (Tarrow and Tilly 5). In 2001, Sasha Costanza-Chock

expanded the lexicon by describing a Repertoire of Electronic Contention, and in 2005

Brett Rolfe discussed an Electronic Repertoire of Contention. I have gone a step further

in defining contentious activity on the Internet; I intend to separate "Electronic" forms,

which can encompass any form of information technology, from those exclusively on the

Internet, what I will call an On-line Repertoire of Contention. This new phraseology

should clarify what is being discussed and is a more accurate term to use going forward.

Studies of the Internet's effect on repertoires of contention are complicated by two

factors. First, the relative newness of the medium and the resulting dearth of scholarly

work on the subject; second, the rapid and on-going change in both Internet technology

and availability renders some conclusions, amidst otherwise meaningful scholarship,

quaint. Myers' work, discussed below, is an excellent example of this. Published in 2001

and its solid theoretical base notwithstanding, its examples of Internet activism are

primitive by todays standards. Daniel Drezner and Henry Farrell also provide valuable

information regarding the influence of political blogs. But like other theorists, (Bloom;

Myers) Drezner and Farrell's expectations for the future of the medium are tempered by

1


6/60

the fact that at the time they were writing only 4% of Americans reported using blogs as

sources of political information. That number would increase dramatically in just a short

time, altering the political potential of the medium. Whatever its drawbacks, the body of

scholarship on Internet activism agrees on one point: the Internet has had a significant

impact on our society. The relations between individuals and each other, individuals and

institutions, individuals and the government, between organizations and the government,

etc. have all been affected. Discerning exactly what this impact has been has proven to be

more elusive.

It is my hope that this paper will overcome some of these obstacles and that its

conclusions will not be rendered obsolete so quickly. Perhaps I will fare no better than

any of my predecessors, but it is clear that the Internet as we know it in 2008 is vastly

different than the Internet of 2001. I cannot even take solace in Randy Stoeckers words

that by the time I am proven wrong no one will remember what I have said anyway (2).

Websites like Archive.org take regular pictures of websites and storing them since 1996.

How has the Internet, and blogs in particular, impacted repertoires of contention?

Does the Internet only serve as a magnifier of existing acts of contention, or has it

allowed activists to add new capabilities to their repertoire? To answer these questions I

will look at several examples of claim-making when the Internet was the primary

medium used to express the claim. I hope to determine: 1) Has the Internet in general

and blogging specifically resulted in new forms of contention among activists; if so 2)

What are these new methods of contention; and 3) How should we judge their success?

Background

2


7/60

Before I begin, it will be valuable to briefly describe the theory of contentious

repertoires in more detail. According to Charles Tilly,

The word repertoire identifies a limited set of routines that are learned,

shared, and acted out through a relatively deliberate process of choice.

Repertoires are learned cultural creations, but they do not descend from

abstract philosophy or take shape as a result of political propaganda; they

emerge from struggle. People learn to break windows in protest, attack

pilloried prisoners, tear down dishonored houses, stage public marches,

petition, hold formal meetings, organize special-interest associations. At

any particular point in history however, they only learn a rather small

number or alternative ways to act collectively (Tilly 2005: 26).

The learning of protest actions is not limited to the aggrieved protesters. Both potential

allies and opponents have also learned a somewhat limited set of acts, which constrain

the choices for, and responses to, collective action. The means of contention influences

societal relationships such as "police practices, laws of assembly, rules of association,

routines for informal gatherings, ways of displaying symbols of affiliation, opposition or

protest, means of reporting news, and so on." Tilly uses the analogy of improvisational

jazz music, or spontaneous skits by a troupe of actors to describe his idea of a repertoire

of contention (Tilly 2005: 27). Elsewhere he describes the repertoire of contention as a

paradoxical combination of ritual and flexibility - "People learn a limited set of

collective action techniques and they tailor to the immediate situation and to the

responses of other parties, e.g. antagonists, authorities, allies, observers, objects of their

action, and other people somehow involved in the struggle" (Tilly 1987: 33, 37). Perhaps

3


8/60

the most important aspect of repertoires of contention to keep in mind is that they do not

describe single acts, Tilly emphasizes that the repertoire is one of "interaction" (emphasis

in original) between actors. To extend the theatrical metaphor, a repertoire of contention

is (at least) a dialogue, not a monologue. "Repertoires of contention are the established

ways in which pairs of actors make and receive claims bearing on each other's interests"

(Tilly 2005: 27).

There is ongoing innovation within the learned repertoires of contention, but it

occurs at the fringe of the repertoire; rarely is there a sea change in repertoires which

completely change the old arrangements. The innovations that fail, (most) disappear,

while the innovations that succeed tend to get adopted by others until they become

institutionalized as a part of the repertoire. Once an innovation has become

institutionalized all parties must adapt to that new tactic (Tilly 2005: 27-28).

Additionally, the institutionalization of, and reaction to, innovations in repertoires usually

takes place over a considerable amount of time; typically measured in decades or

generations. But Tilly believes that it is possible to identify a "hinge" moment - usually a

watershed event when an old style is rapidly replaced by its successor (Traugott 46).

Could the Internet be that hinge?

On-Line Repertoires

Having reviewed the theory behind what a repertoire of contention is, we can now

ask how they made their way on-line. Different observers cite different examples, but

Stoeckers 1989 account of the Internets role in the Tienanmen Square occupation

appears to be the earliest. The Chinese government had been strictly censoring

information from activists, but e-mail was so new that the government was not able to

4


9/60

prevent them from coming and going. Activists used e-mail to inform the outside world

of their actions, and those outside of China used e-mail to relay reactions from around the

world to the activists. Information about the government's reaction provided tactical

information, as well as the knowledge that people around the world supported them, was

key to keeping the movement going (Stoecker 5). Since then, there have been a plethora

of accounts of groups using the Internet, e-mails, discussion boards, and various other

forums as a means of quickly and cheaply organizing and focusing collective action. Oft

cited among the early days of Internet activism are actions supporting the EZLN in

Chiapas, Mexico and the Battle in Seattle WTO protests in 1999 (Costanza-Chock; Jha

Nambiar; Myers; Stoecker). Costanza-Chock contends that Internet based contention may

have been an inevitable result of the change in relationships caused by the mass

movement of commercial activity from storefront, brick-and-mortar businesses, to

Internet based businesses. As both capital and commerce move to a virtualized realm it

opens up opportunities for groups to move their contentious actions to the virtual sphere

as well. Actions against physical sites may no longer be effective and in some cases may

have adverse effects, portraying activists as vandals, for example (16). As much as

activists tout the Internet as a means by which they can contest corporate and

governmental power, it may only be an arena of contention because those with power

first moved there. This sets up a strange dance between powerful groups and activists.

Both rely on the Internet to carry out their work, be it commerce or contention. The

opportunity for doing business on-line has resulted in another area where powerful

groups are potentially vulnerable to attack. The ability to use the Internet to make claims

on powerful groups has given activists another but there is also the danger that activists

5


10/60

become too reliant on the Internet. The technology and hardware that allow the Internet

to function are largely controlled by powerful groups, be they corporations or

government agencies. This control is the ultimate, if drastic, trump card to any form of

online contention.

Underlying all of these examples is the incredible growth the Internet has seen in

such a short time. The most recent report from the PEW Research Center stated that 24%

of Americans were regularly using the Internet to get information about the 2008

presidential campaigns. This is more than the number who stated they get news from

morning talk shows, radio talk shows, or cable television and represents a significant

incursion by a relatively new form of media into areas long dominated by the

traditional media (PEW 2008). Though it is not the same as the Internet at large, there

has been a significant increase in the amount of people getting information specifically

from political blogs. When Drezner and Farrell were writing in 2004 only 4% of

Americans reported using blogs as a source of political information (3). In March, 2008 a

Reuters news item reported that 22% of Americans read political blogs at least several

times a month. It also reported that an additional 23% read blogs occasionally, that is,

several times a year, and 56% reported not reading political blogs at all (Reuters).

These statistics are significant in light of recent research which showed that those

who got their news from the Internet were more likely to have engaged in political

discussion about the Iraq war in both online and face-to-face situations (Nah et al). In

the early days of the Internet, the ability of online communication to translate into face-

to-face communication was viewed with some skepticism and critics have often called

cyber-based relationships into question. They can't possibly be as firm or significant as

6


11/60

relationships cultivated through face-to-face communication can they? In fact, they may

not be - and that may be the key to the success of the Internet. Drawing on the work of

scholars such as Mark Granovetter, Stoecker asserts that the "weak ties" formed through

Internet organizing are precisely the kind necessary to build networks and are the basis

for recruitment (Stoecker 3-4). Compared with other mediums the Internet was the most

successful at promoting discussion in various forums. Newspaper use was positively

correlated only with face-to-face discussion and television news had no impact on types

of discussion viewers subsequently engaged in. Both face-to-face and online political

discussion correlated positively to the likelihood of an individual engaging in political

participation about the impending war in Iraq. Consumption of television news was

negatively associated with political participation (Nah et al 240). As I will discuss later,

there is significant other evidence that Internet use is positively correlated to increased

political participation.

Those are only some accounts of how and why contentious actions moved on-

line; I am sure that there are countless others. But the aim of this paper is not to

determine when, how, or why contentious repertoires went on-line; it is to determine

whether those repertoires changed in an online environment. Writing in 2001, Costanza-

Chock describes the bulk of electronic contention being the amplification, and extension

of traditional means of contention, (3) (it is likely, however, that this has changed with

some innovative forms taking share away from adaptive forms.) R. Kelly Garrett

describes the ability of activists to adapt existing tactics for use with Information

Communication Technologies, including the Internet, and to innovate new forms -

although there is a somewhat fuzzy boundary between the two (208). I will address each

7


12/60

of these categories as well as innovations in repertoires once they entered the on-line

realm.

Adaptation, Amplification, Extension, and Innovation

The first phase of the creation of an On-line Repertoire of Contention was the

adaptation of existing forms for use on the Internet. In nearly perfect agreement with

Tilly's theory of contentious repertoires, individuals turned toward familiar methods and

played out familiar roles. Sit-ins, and the commandeering of buildings, were a popular

and effective form of protest on college campuses during the civil rights movement of the

1960's. So when a group of Harvard students decided to protest the universitys unfair

labor practices in regards to their janitorial staff, they turned to a familiar performance:

the sit-in and eventually, a virtual sit-in. Some of the first virtual sit-ins were carried out

by the Electronic Disturbance Theater in 1998, most often in support of the Zapatista

movement in Chiapas, Mexico (EDC). Costanza-Chock describes an incidence of a

virtual sit-in that displays the adaptation of off-line tactics to an on-line arena, as well as

the diffusion of tactics from one group to another.

In early 2001, about 30 students from Harvard University's Progressive Student

Labor Movement (PSLM) staged an old fashioned sit in. The university had been paying

its janitorial employees below the legal rate. In protest, the students from the PSLM

occupied University administrative offices in an attempt to force the University to

comply with a City of Cambridge living wage ordinance that tied minimum salaries to a

cost of living formula. A tent city was build in front of the occupied building. This was

where rallies, music events, film screenings, and media visits originated and were

managed. After three weeks it seemed that media attention had plateaued and the

8


13/60


14/60

group while still being situated in the framework of familiar performances. In addition,

CWA became interested in incorporating virtual sit-in tactics into their own repertoire,

displaying a diffusion of tactics from one group to another (10-12). This example is

demonstrative of how and why certain tactics are adopted by a given group. [[Clemens

org form as frame]] It is no accident that the relatively new tactic of DDOS attacks was

attractive to the Communication Workers of America. The CWAs familiarity with

technology likely contributed to a certain logic of appropriateness which influenced their

decision to adopt the DDOS tactic. Additionally, framing the DDOS as a virtual sit-in

calls to mind the grassroots movements of the 1960s making it an appropriate tactic for

student activists to adopt on a university campus.

Not all examples of On-line contention are so easily categorized. In addition to

adapting existing repertoires to an on-line environment, existing repertoires have also

undergone a process of amplification as they made their way online. It is one thing to

name these processes of amplification, extension, and innovation, but it is far trickier to

discern what they actually are. When an act is amplified, can the result not be called an

innovation? Or, if the amplification takes place within an innovative medium, does the

repertoire undergo extension, amplification, innovation, or all three? It is not necessarily

true that a preexisting form of contention used on the Internet, whether through

amplification, extension, or innovation, does not constitute a new means of contention.

Indeed, McAdam et al. observe that in most cases innovative forms are not completely

new, changes are more like "creative modifications or extensions of familiar routines"

(49) and Garrett calls the act of adapting preexisting tactics for use online innovation in

10


15/60

and of itself (208). So we may have three terms which all describe the same thing: the

changes that occur when contention transitions from off-line to on-line.

Xxx reorganize

Several uses of the Internet allow a campaign to hone its message and to save

money. A campaign can use its supporters as a focus group, testing a video online before

purchasing advertising time to put it on television. Or, if the campaign has an in-depth

enough email list and blog presence, the video can generate enough attention online that

no advertising purchase is necessary. During the 2004 presidential election the Swift Boat

Veterans for Truth commercials were seen by more people online than on television. An

America Coming Together, (ACT) video featuring Will Ferrell was downloaded 1

million times and 30,000 viewers clicked through to enroll as ACT volunteers ("Internet

and Campaign 2004" 4). But the Dean campaign did not have a monopoly on Internet

fundraising. On several occasions the Kerry campaign sent out emails and tied a fund-

raising goal and time deadline to an important or newsworthy event. The campaign was

often successful at meeting these goals and deadlines thanks to repeat contributors

(Garrett 210). More recently, the Barack Obama campaign has had remarkable success

fund-raising from small donations. At the time this paper was written the most up to date

numbers showed 1.5million contributors had raised nearly $270million with 45% of that

coming in contributions of $200 or less (Open Secrets). Additionally, the ease of

contribution may actually serve to create stronger and more active groups. Building on

cognitive dissonance theory, the idea is that once someone has made a contribution he or

she will have a sense of obligation and commitment to a movement, and thus will be

11


16/60

more easily mobilized to work for it (Garrett 206). Fund-raising is obviously not new, but

the degree has changed dramatically. As with publishing, the fundamental act is the same,

but through adaptation to the Internet it becomes an innovation. If you don't think so, try

to achieve such high levels of funding so quickly through the mail.

Perhaps the most significant impact of the Internet on repertoires of contention is

its ability to quickly, cheaply, and effectively aggregate many small contributions for use

by activists or an SMO. Coordination costs have historically outweighed the benefits of

small contributions but new ICTs can be used to lower the associated overhead (Garrett

203). It costs a campaign the same amount to raise $100 as it does to raise $100 million;

the only investment is the software. Transactions are automatic and nearly instantaneous.

Contributions as small as $1 or $2 are easily aggregated into the system. The ability of

the Internet to pool and aggregate the contributions of many disparate contributors

magnifies and amplifies preexisting forms of contention to the degree that they resemble

something new. The Internet has allowed myriad organizations to organize, persuade,

frame, fund-raise, coordinate actions, etc. more widely, more easily, more quickly, and

more cheaply than ever before. These are familiar forms of contention, but the Internet

amplifies and extends them in a manner not seen before. Fund-raising is the most obvious

and most easily quantifiable example of this. Howard Dean was among the first to exploit

this feature of the Internet. His campaign shocked political pundits and forecasters with

higher than expected fund-raising numbers in 2004. Dean relied on thousands of

supporters who could give modest amounts, usually less than $100, many times over

when the campaign needed an infusion of cash, rather than seeking out the few donors

who could give the maximum $2,300 contribution only once. John Kerry used this style

12


17/60

in conjunction with seeking out large contributors with some success. During the 2004

Democratic Presidential primary, the Howard Dean campaign revolutionized the way the

Internet is used in political campaigns. The Pew commentary points out five areas of

innovation by the Dean campaign, led by Joe Trippi:

1) News pegged fund-raising appeals: Traditionally, campaigns would seek to influence

one of three motivating factors when asking for donations: access to decision makers, to

please someone, or to get rid of a pest, and to advance shared policy goals. The Dean

campaign, which was influenced by Moveon.org, showed a fourth way to motivate

constituents to donate - by setting out short term goals which immediate donations can

help the campaign attain. Often this took the form of asking supporters to help fund an

advertisement or to stage an event that would attract coverage and/or rebut accusations by

a rival. In July, 2003, for example, the Republican Party was holding a $2,000 per plate

dinner where Dick Cheney would be present. The word went out to the "Deaniacs" to try

to raise more money than the Republican event before it occurred. The Cheney event

raised $250,000 from 125 guests. Within 23 hours the Dean campaign raised over

$500,000 from 9,700 donors.

2) Meet-ups and other net-organized gatherings: In 2003, the Dean campaign created a

group on Meetup.com. The group eventually grew to several hundred thousand members

who held monthly Meetups until January 2005.

3) Blogging: The links and discussions among the hundreds of blogs posted on the Dean

website were another locus for strategy debate and organizing action. The idea for out-

raising the Cheney event originated on a blog. So did a vast letter writing campaign that

resulted in 115,632 handwritten letters sent to voters in New Hampshire and Iowa. The

13


18/60

Dean Defense Forces blog pointed out and organized telephone calls to media outlets that

published stories seen as unfair or inaccurate.

4) Online referenda: The Dean campaign put its motto, "You have the power" to the test.

When deciding whether or not to accept public financing for the campaign, it allowed its

Internet users to make the decision for the campaign by voting. The response was

overwhelming in favor of opting out and everyone voting "Yes" received a thank you

email along with a request for donations.

5) Decentralized decision-making: Aside from the previous four techniques the Dean

campaign basically allowed local supporters to campaign as they saw fit. Many observers

cite this lack of organization as a reason for the campaign's failure, but the new strategy

of combining the coordinating efforts of an organization with the passion and energy of a

movement could be a model for future campaigns ("The Internet and Campaign 2004" 2-

3).

Framing

Another form of innovation that blogs exercise lies in the ability to influence

public opinion, and create political pressure through publicity (Garrett 207). By virtue of

their speed of publication, blogs can frame events and media coverage. Drezner and

Farrell emphasize the rapid response aspect of blogs:

[blogs] have a first-mover advantage in socially constructing interpretive

frames for understanding current events. As a result, political

commentators will rely on blogs as sources of interpretive frames for

political developments. Under a specific set of circumstances - when elite

14


19/60

blogs concentrate their attention on a breaking story or an under-reported

story - the agenda-setting power of blogs may create focal points for

general interest intermediaries. Blogs have a low cost of real-time

publication. Immediately following an event of political consequence ...

bloggers have the ability to post their immediate reactions before other

forms of media can respond (Drezner and Farrell 2).

In addition, it is the unique relationship between the media, the blogosphere, and the

public that allows blogs to have this influence. Scholars have argued that the media can

raise certain issues into the spotlight and create the interpretive frames that shape and

constrain discussions of the issue and influence and limit public opinion. For especially

complex issues, the media, whether consciously or unconsciously, constructs frames that

eliminate complexity and nuance from the issue in order to make it easier for the public

to understand. But if the mainstream media constructs the frames through which the

public sees an issue it is possible for the blogosphere to act in the same manner towards

the media. Drezner and Farrell expect that while media outlets frame breaking issues they

will look to influential blogs for cutting-edge information, opinions, and reactions. If the

blogs reach a consensus, the media can use the blogosphere as a measure of interest and

opinion on the issue. Even if there is no consensus on an issue in the blogosphere it may

generate enough discussion to signal to mainstream media that it is a subject that deserves

attention. The media can be affected by the frames established on the blogosphere the

same way the public is influenced by the frames portrayed in the mainstream media

(Drezner and Farrell 17-18).

15


20/60

Of course, being the first to write about an event only matters if you are read.

How can we be so sure that the right blogs will be read by the right people? Indeed,

blogging has had overcome the derision leveled at it by critics in its early days. "The

typical blog is written by a teenage girl who uses it twice a month to update her friends

and classmates on happenings in her life (Drezner and Farrell 3, and Myers 8). At the

time, 2004, blogging was a part-time, voluntary activity. The average blog did not

generate any income for its owner. And an article in the New York Times stated, never

have so many people written so much to be read by so few (Hafner). So what is behind

the acceptance of blogs by members of the established media?

First, it was the popularity of blogs. Drezner and Farrell tested media attention to

blogs by using a Lexis-Nexis search to see how many articles mentioned the term

"weblog". Between 1995 and 1999 there were only eleven mentions. There were 56 in

2000, 128 in 2001, 272 in 2002, and 647 in 2003 (5). My own Lexis-Nexis search

returned 806 results for 2004, 980 for 2005, 994 for 2006, and 931 for 2007, indicating

that media discussion of blogs has leveled off. Further, media attention to blogs is at least

on par with that of other key issues. My Lexis-Nexis search results for the terms "climate

change" and "Barack Obama" both returned 1,000 articles for 2007. In 1999 the number

of blogs was estimated at 50; five years later the estimates ranged from 2.4 million to 4.1

million. A 2004 report by the Perseus Development Corporation, a consulting firm that

studies Internet trends, estimated that 10 million blogs would be created by 2005, a bit

more than doubling the number in existence at that time ("Web of Influence" 2). In April

of 2007, (the last date for which he provided information,) David Sifry the founder of the

blog tracking and indexing site Technorati, stated that his software was currently tracking

16


21/60

70 million blogs world-wide. Since 36% of these blog posts are in English, the size of the

English speaking blogosphere was 25.2 million blogs (Sifry, D). Though there is no

conclusive evidence to support this, it seems likely that the rapid proliferation of blogs

would have helped draw attention to the medium.

Second, Drezner and Farrell convincingly argue that the preexisting ties between

bloggers and mainstream journalists are responsible for the acceptance of blogs by

members of the established media. Prominent bloggers like Mickey Kaus, Andrew

Sullivan, and Joshua Micah Marshall all worked at established opinion journals before

beginning their blogs. Journalists first trusted the work of authors they knew to be

trustworthy. Then, Kaus, Sullivan, Marshall, and others began linking to other blogs

giving them their seal of approval, and trust in the blogosphere spread among the

mediasphere (15). Once these pioneers gave the medium some credibility numerous

institutions began to adopt the form. Journals and news magazines such as the New

Republic, Slate, Salon, New Criterion, the American Prospect, Reason, Washington

Monthly, and the National Review all either hired writers out of the blogosphere or

developed their own blogs in house. Newspapers with blogs include the San Jose

Mercury News, Christian Science Monitor, Chicago Tribune and The Guardian. (Drezner

and Farrell 6). Since publication of their article, numerous other publications have added

blogs to their online presence, indeed, in 2008 it is rare for a respected newspaper or

periodical to nothave a blog or some similar online presence. Established publications

also pulled talent from their own personal blogs and employed them as bloggers for the

publication. In March 2004, The Washington Monthly hired Kevin Drum and transferred

his blog to their website. Drum's blog had been receiving over 1.2 million unique visits

17


22/60

per month. In 2003 Slate acquired Mickey Kaus' blog. In 2006 Salon hired blogger Glenn

Greenwald. The American Prospect, MSNBC, the New York Times, and the Wall Street

Journal have all either published bloggers or hired them as regular contributors (Drezner

and Farrell 6-8).

In addition to journalists, academics were also among the early adopters of blogs.

Juan Cole, a history professor at the University of Michigan, is another example of media

attention elevating the status of a blogger. Cole is an astute observer of Middle Eastern

politics. He speaks Arabic, Persian, and Urdu, and reads some Turkish. He knows both

Middle Eastern and South Asian forms of Islam, and has lived in several places around

the Muslim world for extended periods of time (Cole). Cole began his "Informed

Comment" blog in 2002, and by 2004 he had gone from only being read in academic

journals to receiving 250,000 readers per month, appearing on CNN, NPR, and testifying

before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He now has a regular column on

Salon.com. "Cole's transformation into a public intellectual embodies many of the

dynamics that have heightened the impact of the blogosphere. He wanted to publicize his

expertise, and he did so by attracting attention from elite members of the blogosphere. As

Cole made waves in the virtual world, others in the real world began to take notice"

("Web of Influence" 4).

So some blogs are read, but how do they influence the framing of events? Key to

Drezner and Farrell's claim that blogs can provide interpretive frames is their evidence

that blogs are read by influential journalists and opinion makers. Drezner and Farrell

conducted a survey of 140 editors, reporters, columnists, and publishers asking which

blogs they read most often. Collectively 125 blogs were cited, but the top 10 blogs were

18


23/60

responsible for 74% of all citations, and the top 5 blogs accounted for 54%. But far from

conveying monolithic frames and opinions, the ethos and linked nature of the

blogosphere means that the top blogs can function as a summary of the blogosphere as a

whole. The political blogosphere follows a power law distribution. The nodes that

already have a large of ties are more likely to receive incoming ties from new nodes than

nodes that have few such ties further initial advantages are self reinforcing; nodes that are

rich in ties are likely to become even richer over time, generating a power law

distribution of ties across nodes (Drezner and Farrell 9-10). Further, by linking to other

sites one accumulates page views and establishes a good reputation. So there is self-

interest, not merely altruism involved in linking. The assertion is that because prominent

opinion makers read blogs, and blogs get the first crack at interpreting events due to their

rapid publication, the frames established by bloggers find their way into the public

discourse. The act of framing may not be a new form of contention, but blogs now make

it available to activists as well as the establishment.

Framing is a significant activity within the blogosphere because many bloggers,

especially the admittedly partisan bloggers, see their role as correcting the perceived

biases of the mainstream media. Because of this it is important to address blogs reliance

on the traditional news media. Koopmans quotes Gamson and Wolsfield at length:

"Movements need the news media for three major purposes: mobilization,

validation, and scope enlargement. Regarding mobilization, most

movements must reach their constituency in part through some form of

public discourse. Public discourse is carried out in various forums,

including the movement's own publications and meetings. But media

19


24/60

discourse remains indispensable for most movements because most of the

people they want to reach are part of the mass media gallery, while many

are missed by movement-oriented outlets. (...) Beyond needing the media

to convey a message to their constituency, movements need media for

validation. The media spotlight validates the fact that the movement is an

important player. Receiving standing in the media is often a necessary

condition before targets of influence will grant a movement recognition

and deal with its claims and demands. Conversely a demonstration with no

media coverage at all is a nonevent, unlikely to have any positive

influence on mobilizing followers or influencing the target. ( ...) Finally,

movements need the media to broaden the scope of conflict (... .) the

introduction and subtraction of players alters the power relations between

the contestants. Where the scope is narrow, the weaker party has much to

gain and little to lose by broadening the scope, drawing third parties into

the conflict as mediators or partisans" (Qtd In Koopmans 369).

As we saw in Stoecker's description of the use of the Internet during the Tiennamen

Square demonstrations, activists depend on the media to receive information in the

reverse direction. The mass media is how activists and movements become aware of the

standpoints of authorities, third parties, and the public at large on issues that concern

them. They learn about the reactions to their actions from the news. "The media is a

sounding board off of which both movements and authorities, counter-movements etc,

use to gain information on each others strategies views and behaviors, and adapt as a

result of these" (Koopmans 370).

20


25/60

Blogs xx move up

One tool that has emerged on the internet in recent years is the weblog, dubbed

blog for short. Blogs proliferated quickly and to such an extent that the interlinked

community they now make up has been termed the blogosphere and some of the

activists who post there are described as the netroots a neologism combining the terms

Internet and grassroots. Blogs started simply as on-line journals. People would publish

random thoughts, poetry, reviews, opinion, etc. Some of the most popular early blog sites

were Open Diary, which began in 1998 and was the first blogging site to allow readers to

comment on posts, and Livejournal, which debuted in 1999. The term "weblog" was

coined by Jorn Barger in December of 1997. In late 1999, Peter Merholz coined the

shortened form "blog", by breaking the word "weblog" into the phrase "we blog". The

etymology of the neologism continued to evolve as Evan Williams at Pyra Labs was t he

first to use "blog" as both a noun and verb. "To blog" means "to edit one's weblog or to

post to one's weblog". He also coined the term "blogger" - one who blogs, as the name for

Pyra Labs on-line publishing software. Bloggers' product popularized the term and the

medium. The ease of use virtually eliminated any barrier to creating a blog save Internet

access and coming up with something to say (History of Blogging).

Drezner and Farrell put the birth of the blogging age at the beginning of the

American "shock and awe" campaign against Iraq in March of 2003. "If the first Gulf

War introduced the world to the "CNN effect," then the second Gulf War was blogging's

coming out party" (Web of Influence 3). Iraqi bloggers such as "Baghdad blogger"

Salam Pax, and the "Baghdad Burning" blog, written by the anonymous "Riverbend" a

21


26/60

woman of mixed Shiite and Sunni background, became wildly popular. Both would get

book deals, and Pax signed a movie deal as well. Prior to and throughout the invasion

and occupation of Iraq, Pax, Riverbend, and dozens of other bloggers provided real time

analysis of and commentary on conditions. The two received millions of hits every

month and were influential in shaping the way the impacts of the war were reported.

("Web of Influence" 3-4).

If the Iraq war was the birth of blogging then the Ask the Dean Campaign post

described by Micah Sifry could be considered its first steps. At precisely 4:31pm (EST)

on April 23, 2003 Matthew Gross, a member of Howard Dean's campaign team, posted

an "Ask the Dean Campaign" thread at SmirkingChimp.com stating that Joe Trippi,

Howard Dean's campaign manager, would answer questions directly from Internet users.

It was, as Gross noted, "a seminal moment in Presidential politics...."(Sifry 2). For the

first time a political campaign was using the Internet to seek input directly from on-line

supporters and reply with direct, personal responses. The Dean campaign spoke of this

as a bottom up rather than top down form of organization, and it fit well with

Deans campaign slogan, You have the power (Sifry 3). Sifry considers this moment a

watershed because voters saw that they no longer had to depend on candidates or party

apparatus to lead the way forward. Individual participants now had the ability to

influence the direction their candidate took (Sifry 2). Gross credits the excited response

to this thread to organizational realities of the Democratic Party. In his view, many

liberal blogs, such as DailyKos, MyDD, Eschaton, and SmirkingChimp, were started

because the Democratic Party was too insular. It was too based on political insiders with

positions of influence and the membership afforded to individuals was little more than

22


27/60

writing donations checks (Sifry 2). By posting the Ask the Dean Campaign thread

Gross and Trippi opened up the campaign to the pent up demand of tens of thousands of

individuals seeking influence within their party. This group would eventually call

themselves the netroots. This episode shows the liberal blogosphere to be motivated

by both gaining influence within its own party as well as electoral defeat of Republicans.

Of course, the liberal blogosphere can only be influential if a candidate opens

themselves up to it. But the ability of bloggers to raise funds, frame, and organize, have

more often than not resulted in candidates courting the blogosphere rather than avoiding

it.

The blog straddles the adaptive and innovative categories. It is both an

adaptation of existing forms of contention, (e.g. the printing press, pamphlets, opinion

journals, discussion groups) as well as an innovation. The blog is an innovation in

several aspects. First, it changes both the access to, and content of, political speech. The

average person has little to no access to make claims through the "old media. If an

activist or an SMO disagree with an Op-Ed in a newspaper they can write a letter to the

editor and hope to be published. Or the group can stage a protest performance in Tilly

and Tarrows terms, that creates a spectacle that causes the media to pay attention. Or, if

they have the resources, over a period of time an SMO can insinuate itself into the public

discourse and eventually change the media narrative. The experience Charlotte Ryan

describes with the Media Research Action Project in Rhode Island is instructive in this

regard (Ryan et al.). Activists are fighting an uphill battle against framing that requires

resources to overcome. Blogs help tilt the playing field toward activists, though they do

23


28/60

not completely level the field. Blogging allows a movement to publicly make their

claims to millions of users simultaneously at virtually no cost except for the time it takes

to write. The blogs and the Internet allow activists to not only create their own media,

but to contest the mainstream media's portrayal of events. The MediaMatters website is

an excellent example of this. The ease and speed of publication as well as the linked

nature of the blogosphere and the relationship of bloggers to traditional media sources

allow stories that may otherwise be overlooked to receive more exposure. Blogs change

the content of political discourse because people use different language, lingo/slang, and

make self referential allusions to things that happen online. The blogosphere has quickly

established its own protocols of behavior and interaction. On some sites, for example, it

is considered rude to post the first reply to an article with simply the word: first, on

other sites this is tolerated. It is a bannable offense on most blogs to post under two

different identities, called sock-puppeting. Many blogs have a tradition of posting

pictures of their cats and dogs on Friday afternoons. Blogging can also be considered a

more in-depth form of political discourse because bloggers can, and most often do, link

to other material online to support their argument and/or provide context or background

information. Linking is a common practice in the blogosphere. Most bloggers place a

blogroll, a list of recommended blogs, on their front page. Within blog posts, bloggers

almost always cite sources, whether they are mainstream media or other bloggers, and

often link to supporting information elsewhere on the web. There are several motives for

this linking. The first is reputational. Backing up ones writing with sources gives readers

confidence that the author is providing reliable information. It allows them to vet the

bloggers work and determine if his or her conclusions are reasonable. The second

24


29/60

motivation for linking is more self-serving. Trackback technology allows bloggers to

see everyone who has linked to their post. This offers the potential of a smaller blog

being noticed by one of the more prominent blogs. It is common practice for bloggers to

post roundups of interesting items to an open thread on their blog on a nearly daily

basis.

Taking Names or, The Blogopticon

An especially insightful contribution from Garrett's work is the description of the

ability to quickly disseminate information through the Internet. This has often been used

to catch public figures in gotcha moments. Actions by bloggers can be linked to the

resignations of numerous officials and intellectuals. In June 2003 mostly conservative

bloggers kept the story of Jayson Blair, a New York Times reporter who had fabricated

stories, in the public eye. Mounting pressure resulted in Howell Raines' resignation as

editor of the Times in June 2003. Venerable newscaster Dan Rather was forced to resign

after ABC news was unable to authenticate documents pertaining to George W. Bushs

service in the National Guard during the Vietnam War. This time it was conservative

bloggers who were able to uncover the forged documents (Drezner and Farrell 6-8).

Senator George Allen of Virginia was an incumbent running for reelection in 2006, when

he was video-taped referring to one of his opponents staffers as macaca, a racial slur.

Liberal blogs constantly played the video, damaging Allens reputation. Allen lost the

election to Jim Webb. Whether or not the macaca video was directly responsible can

never be known for sure, but the controversy certainly made Allens reelection campaign

more difficult and sometimes even that can be regarded as a form of success. The classic

25


30/60

example of the blogosphere as watchdog is the comment that Senate Majority Leader

Trent Lott made while speaking at a birthday party for retiring Senator Strom Thurmond.

Lott expressed his opinion that we would have been better off had Thurmond won the

1948 presidential election. In 1948, Thurmond ran on a Dixiecrat platform supporting

segregation and denial of voting and civil rights to African Americans. This comment

was seen as idiotic and racist by both liberal and conservative bloggers. Thanks to

widespread blogging efforts the mainstream media was forced to pick up the story, and

two weeks later Trent Lott was forced to step down as Senate Majority Leader when his

racist comments were forced into the mainstream media by constant pressure from

bloggers (Drezner and Farrell 8; Bloom 4). Joel David Blooms excellent timeline of

events is included as an appendix to this paper. The mainstream media gave much credit

to political blogs: "The mainstream media was initially blind to his [Lott's] remarks

perhaps because it is used to such comments. But the blogosphere denounced the

remarks vigorously, and would not let up, finally forcing others to take notice

(Economist qtd in Drezner & Farrell 9). While gotcha politics are nothing new, the

difference here is who is calling gotcha. Garrett admits that these tactics have a long

history, but believes that new technologies provide for new mechanisms of collecting

information and distributing it to create publicity. There is hope that this could increase

political accountability. Elites are more likely to behave in a manner consistent with

citizen concerns if they work in an environment where they must assume their actions are

being observed and that news of any inappropriate action will quickly reach the public

(Garrett 207).

26


31/60


32/60

attest, and several activist groups have websites focusing on uncovering government

and/or corporate malfeasance. Two of the more prominent organizations that undertake

this sort of activity are the Sunlight Foundation and CorpWatch. The Sunlight Foundation

seeks to increase political accountability by making the flow of money, and therefore

influence, through Washington transparent. They host more than twenty websites each of

which focuses on a different industry or segment of the influence of money on politics.

They track, for instance, the career paths of lobbyists and government officials who may

become lobbyists, who they work for, and who they donate to. They track earmark

spending, the budgets of government agencies, government contract awards, and myriad

other aspects of government and political campaign finance. CorpWatch focuses on

exposing human rights violations, environmental crimes, fraud, and corporate corruption

around the world. Citizens and activists may now be able to surveil governments and

corporations, hopefully resulting in elites eschewing wrongdoing in the first place, and/or

revelations of malfeasance. But it is doubtful that these organizations and the blogosphere

can ever be as all encompassing as the panopticon. Nevertheless, if the comparison to the

panopticon is inaccurate, it is a difference of degrees, not of type.

But are Internet activists passive, simply waiting for a politician or public

intellectual to foul up on camera so they can mass distribute his or her gaffe around the

world, shaming them into giving up power; or does the Internet allow for more active

forms of contention? One blog that conducts such activity is DailyKos, and I will discuss

two methods of contention that occur on this blog.

DailyKos: The Blog as an Election Changer

28


33/60

DailyKos is perhaps the most popular liberal blog. Indeed it is ranked as the

second most popular news site on the Internet behind Drudgereport and ahead of Fox,

CNN, AOL, Yahoo, and MSNBC. It has over 150,000 members and receives an average

of 1 Million visits per day (Sitemeter). Further, the site recently counted its 1 Billionth

visitor despite the claims of Wall Street Journal columnist Dan Gerstein that the site was

in decline (DemFromCT).

The aim of the DailyKos, as stated by its founder and owner Markos Moulistas-

Zuniga, is electoral victory:

This is a Democratic blog, a partisan blog. One that recognizes that

Democrats run from left to right on the ideological spectrum, and yet we're

all still in this fight together. We happily embrace centrists like NDN's

Simon Rosenberg and Howard Dean, conservatives like Martin Frost and

Brad Carson, and liberals like John Kerry and Barack Obama. Liberal?

Yeah, we're around here and we're proud. But it's not a liberal blog. It's a

Democratic blog with one goal in mind: electoral victory (Moulistas).

But I digress. To achieve victory the electoral victory that Moulistas talks about,

DailyKos follows the plan of Howard Dean's 50 state strategy. The plan is to not allow

any Republican run unopposed for elective office, with a strong focus on Congressional

Representatives and Senators. In some cases governors races and state legislature races

are promoted, though this is less common. Whether or not the Democratic candidate

adopted by the "Netroots" is successful is not solely based on electoral victory, at least,

not in the short term. Knowing that it is difficult to defeat incumbent Congressmen,

29


34/60

bloggers like Kos look beyond the current election cycle. To them, an election is not a

zero sum game; they hope to succeed by spreading the oppositions resources too thin

and continually making their case until they win, fully realizing that this may take several

election cycles. The money and effort that must be expended to defend one Congressional

seat cannot be used to defend another. So perhaps the Democratic netroots candidate will

lose in 2004, and 2006, but the hope is that each year the race becomes more competitive

and that eventually the seat will change hands. With Representatives facing reelection

every two years there is a near constant opportunity to influence voters.

It is in this context of determining how successful blogs have been at changing

elections that the Collective Goods criterion described by Amenta and Young becomes

relevant. One example of collective goods is a new way to refer to members of a group

(Amenta and Young 24). The term netroots is a perfect example of this. It is a

relatively recent term most popularly coined by Jerome Armstrong of the blog

MyDD.com in 2002, (although neologism certifier William Safire has uncovered a

reference way back in 1995) (Safire). By adopting this term bloggers invoke the

intellectual tradition behind the grassroots organization of Saul Alinsky and his

bottom-up style of community organizing and appropriate it for the Internet era. Citing

Gamson, Amenta and Young describe the standards by which success is judged. A group

can achieve new advantages and acceptance as a legitimate mouthpiece for the group

it claims to represent (Amenta and Young 24-25). These categories do not fit the

blogosphere exactly, as it is not a monolithic movement working for a defined

constituency, (unless you count all registered Democrats, but even this big tent would be

too small since it is not only Democrats who benefit from Democratic policies.) The

30


35/60

blogosphere comes close to meeting the criteria for Cultural Collective Benefits. Blogs

certainly have an impact on cultural patterns that extend past the network of movement

participants (Amenta and Young 35). By forcing the traditional media as well as elected

officials to pay attention to them, the blogosphere has affected the way everybody

consumes political information. That is, all information will be influenced in some

measure, either by the mere presence of blogs functioning as self restraint, or rapid

response framing of issues. Blogs also get Collective Benefits from the State (Amenta

and Young 31). Even if blogs like DailyKos are not successful at electing candidates that

they support, it has gained greater respect of elected officials. At least on the left,

politicians now court the blogosphere; they post articles on blogs and attend conferences

and conventions organized by blogs. The YearlyKos convention is the most prominent

example of this. Organized by DailyKos bloggers without any help from Moulistas

himself, the YearlyKos convention just completed its third annual meeting, (in 2008 the

convention was renamed "Netroots Nation.) In 2006 the event featured prominent

Democrats such as Harry Reid, Howard Dean, Barbara Boxer, retired General Wesley

Clark, New Mexico governor Bill Richardson, Iowa governor Tom Vilsack, and former

Virginia governor Mark Warner; in 2007 eight of the nine major Democratic Presidential

candidates attended the convention for a debate moderated by bloggers.

DailyKos: The Blog as Policy Tool

When discussing DailyKos it is necessary to remain aware of the dichotomy

between Markos' intended purpose and the open nature of the site that allows users to use

it for basically anything they want. Jerome a Paris used it to write a series of diaries

31


36/60

counting down to $100 Oil. He has since started a $200 countdown (Guillet). One Pissed

Off Liberal (OPOL) makes political photo collages; Budhydharma makes artistic

parodies, like the unparalleled "The Wizard of Oil" (Budhydharma). The open nature of

DailyKos is a reflection of Markos significant investment in Scoop brand software in

2003 or 2004, and continual upgrades of that system. DailyKos now runs on a custom

made platform. DailyKos has shown the ability to influence policy makers. A number of

prominent Democratic elected officials have written on the site, (the site confirms the

authenticity of these celebrity posts). Howard Dean, John and Elizabeth Edwards, John

Kerry, and Ted Kennedy are some of the elected officials who have posted diaries on the

site. Kerry began posting at the site soon after its creation as his user ID number of 52

attests (Kerry).

But aside from whatever influence DailyKos may have gained from working to

get candidates elected and fundraising, perhaps the most innovative use of the blog has

been its use as a tool to craft policy positions. In 2005 several DailyKos users, who call

themselves Kossacks, began a project called Energize America 2020. It is a

comprehensive and compelling 20-point plan developed by informed citizen activists to

wean the U.S. from its fossil fuel addiction and provide the U.S. with Energy Security by

2020, and Energy Freedom by 2040 (Energize America). The effort was led by Jerome

Guillet, who goes by the nom du blog Jerome a Paris. The plan is more in depth and

visionary than many put together by well funded think tanks (McKibben). The plan was

written by dozens, if not hundreds of Kossacks over a two year period. Site members

repeatedly posted diaries, (basically the DailyKos term for an article, or journal entry,)

and engaged in lively discussion on the topic. In 2007, the work and expertise of these

32


37/60


38/60

stories and aggregate information from multiple sources in real-time. In the world of the

24-hour news cycle blogs remain fresh while a newspaper with fresh news in the morning

could be out of date by the afternoon.

The second constraint Drezner and Farrell describe is more astute. Political actors

are using the information discussed on blogs to predict future news cycles and head off

potential crises or scandals before they achieve widespread media attention. They are

becoming more adept at responding to blogs and other forms of online contention (20).

The Internet has so changed the way citizens interact with the United States government

that the Congressional Management Foundation, a non-profit organization that works

closely with Congressional offices, has produced a four-phase report from 2005 to 2008

describing the changes in citizen activity and the Congress' response. The Congressional

Management Foundation, (CMF) had unprecedented access to congressional staffers

while compiling their reports. They met in focus groups with House and Senate Chiefs of

staff, House legislative directors, Senate correspondence managers, and House and

Senate Systems Administrators. They used online surveys to get information from House

Chiefs of Staff, House correspondence staff, Senate senior managers, and Senate office

managers (Communicating with Congress 2005: 9-10.) The first report by the CMF,

published in 2005, describes the actions the U.S. government is taking to deal with the

surge in Internet activism. Congress received four times more communications in 2004

than 1995 with all of the increase coming from Internet-based communications. The

total number of communications was over 200 Million (Communicating with Congress

2005: 8). But members of Congress have learned how to deal with this influx. Most

congressional staffers reported that the utility of identical, mass produced, form messages

34


39/60

had little to no influence on a Congressmans position (CMF 8). This is bad news for

those who use form emails to lobby elected officials. There is however, another side of

the equation. Elected officials and their staffers reported that communicating with their

constituents was a high priority. They also reported that personalized communications

were far more effective than form letters, and that those who sent personalized

communication were far more likely to be involved in politics in their local community

(CMF 8-9). With this information constituents know better how to get the attention of

their elected officials, and officials know that the people they are dealing with are

engaged citizens, more likely to participate in the political process. Catering to these

individuals, from a reelection perspective, is a much better use of an officials time.

The 2005 Communicating with Congress report created a new definition for Internet

users who mostly consume political information: "Online Political Citizens". These are

individuals who had taken part in at least two of the following activities within 3 months

of being surveyed: contributed to a candidate or campaign online, received political e-

mail, forwarded or sent political e-mail, visited or posted comments on a political blog,

participated in a political chatroom, or visited a news website for news about politics and

campaigns, "are far more engaged, and as a result, more influential in their communities

than the general public"(Communicating with Congress 2005: 12). This jibes with

research which has found correlations between participation in online discussions and

increased political engagement measured by voting and civic participation (Nah et al

234).

Combined postal and email communications to the Congress has increased almost

300% since 1995, when the Internet was first used in congressional offices. The volume

35


40/60

of postal mail is about 25million pieces, and the volume of email is close to 175million.

However the average number of staff in a congressional office has remained basically flat

since 1984. The increased workload means that staffers cannot effectively manage the

deluge of mail (Communicating with Congress 2005: 14-17). "The people who are

calling or writing politicians to express their views are also more involved than the

general public in influencing public policy in other ways. They sign petitions, attend

public meetings, and are active members of advocacy groups. They express their opinions

by writing letters to the editor or calling radio or TV shows. They are engaged. Although

only a small percentage of a Member's constituents call or write in a given year, these

constituents appear to be influentials in their community (Communicating with Congress

2005: 13).

Congressional staffers were in broad agreement about several effects of the

Internet on Member-Constituent relations. The Internet has increased the number of

constituents who communicate with congressional offices - 92% agree or strongly agree;

Made it easier for constituents to become involved in the public policy process - 79%;

Made it easier for staff to communicate with constituents - 74%; Reduced the quality of

constituents messages to congress - 64%; increased constituents' understanding of what

goes on in Washington - 55%; Made Representatives and Senators more responsive to

their constituents - 48%. 96% of staff reported that if their Member of Congress had not

yet arrived at a decision individualized handwritten letters would have "some" or "a lot"

of influence. Form messages were less influential with form postal letters and form

emails having influence on only 65% and 63% of Members respectively. Indeed,

personalization seems to be the key. Personalized emails and faxes were said to influence

36


41/60

a Member's decision by 94% and 91% of those interviewed, respectively.

(Communicating with Congress 2005: 19-20). Internet form letters have been

overwhelming the ability of Congressional staffers to effectively respond to

correspondence. Individualized letters or emails get a nearly 100% response rate, whereas

form letters and emails average about 93% response rate in the House and 56% response

rate in the Senate. The CMF anonymously quotes House Correspondence Staffers who

told them, "I wish that outside groups would understand that overwhelming our office

with form letters does more harm than good for their causes." and, "One hundred form

letters have less direct value than a single thoughtful letter generated by a constituent of

the Member's district." (Communicating with Congress 2005: 29). Additionally,

Congressional staffers doubt the legitimacy of form letters and emails. 50% believe that

they are being sent without the knowledge of the signee. That is, they believe that activist

organizations are simply adding the names of their members to form emails and then

sending them to Congressional offices. These are statements which should be pinned to

the wall above every bloggers computer. The calls to sign on-line petitions or send

automatically generated form e-mails to elected officials are ubiquitous. If activists do

not pay attention to the way their target reacts they risk lobbying themselves into

ineffectiveness.

In the 2008 Communicating with Congress report the term "Online Political

Citizens" appears to have been replaced with "Poli-fluentials" to refer to citizens who

participate in political activity online. This group is nearly seven times more likely than

the general public to be influential; the make their opinions known through various media

and are far more likely to participate in political activity than the general public

37


42/60

(Communicating with Congres 2008: 6). The study provides much valuable information

regarding those petitioning Congress and Member's responses. Almost half, (44%) of

Americans contacted a Senator or Representative within the last five years. Those

individuals tended to be more politically active than the population at large

(Communicating with Congres 2008: 10-11). And since the populations of Internet users

and voters show significant overlap: 69% of registered voters are Internet users, and 63%

of those who voted in the last election are Internet users it makes sense for

Representatives and Senators alike to pay attention to their most active constituents

(Communicating with Congress 2008: 7).

There are lessons in this data for grassroots activists. They must lobby Congress

with the most effective methods, not simply barrage them with information. They must

also widen the view of their campaigns. Focusing solely on legislative, or electoral,

victory is short sighted. Campaigns must focus on the larger relationship of their

movement with the Congress. The Internet allows many more groups the ability to lobby

their elected representatives for support on a particular issue. However, just because

something can be done does not mean it ought to be done in every case. Groups need to

lobby strategically and consider the impact their strategy will have, not only on the

debate in question, but on the overall relationship of the activists to the government

(Communicating with Congress 2008: 40-41).

Despite the many stories of popular websites and successful online contention,

there are a significant number of activist organizations for which the Internet has not been

a boon. Successful online contention is not as easy as it sounds. Dotorganize is a non-

38


43/60

profit organization seeking to maximize the power of the Internet among social activism

groups. Their 2006 report described the success and failures activists have had using the

Internet to further their cause.

First, despite the demonstrated ability of some organizations to quickly raise

money over the Internet, monetary issues could pose a problem for groups seeking to

build reliable Internet networks in the first place. Nearly 60%, or 217 out of 367 groups

surveyed, reported a yearly budget of $500,000 or less and 29% reported a budget of less

than $100,000. Indeed, their survey found that regardless of the size of the organization

organizers reported they were not able to take advantage of online tools due to monetary

(57%), time (45%), and lack of staff expertise (34%). Most organizations were incapable

of managing their database of contacts and had difficulty embracing new technology such

as blogs and wikis. 59% were "frustrated or really struggling with technology" issues. A

large number of organizations stated they lacked the capacity to make use of even basic

forms of Internet activism, e.g. 39% did not have email newsletters and 47% had no way

to accept donations online. Organizers were not able to integrate their data across

platforms and different forms of technology. They have their information on various

Excel spreadsheets, in Outlook contacts, and some even on paper. These systems are

usually separate and organizations have great difficulty, and spend too much time trying

to organize and sort out this information (Dotorganize 6-8, 15).

Most organizations are interested in using the latest Internet tools but do not know

how to go about implementing them. No "Best Practices" have been established. Beyond

the Microsoft Office family of products, Dotorganize found that organizations were using

39


44/60

40 different applications, the majority of which were used only by 5-10 organizations

each. Organizations do not have a grasp of basic uses of technology. Many do not collect

email addresses from site visitors, do not send mass emails, blog, provide material for

download, and do not process donations online (Dotorganize 10).

Many organizers suffer from a lack of information. 46% of organizers wanted to

use older technologies such as bulletin boards or forums that are not regarded as being

very effective. Meanwhile the same percentage expressed no interest in social networking

tools, which have become extremely popular. Many organizers do not seek out new

technology because they either do not understand its strategic value or do not believe it

exists. Text messaging has been shown to be an effective organizing tool, but 55% of

respondents explicitly stated that they were not interested. Others lamented that there was

no way to target emails to certain legislators, when, in fact, there is (Dotorganize 12).

This must remind us that in the field of contentious politics success is the exception

rather than the rule. Perhaps we have overreached just a bit in the extent to which the

Internet aids activists. Those interested in fostering online contention must make the

effort to look below the surface, past the massive organizations which recieve plentiful

news coverage at those which do not yet appear on the radar and indeed, may never

appear but for out looking. We only hear from the movements that have in one way or

another been able to attract the attention of media and are considered relevant enough by

other social actors to elicit public responses from them (Koopmans 372).

Finally, R. Kelly Garrett recognizes that using technology to add to the repertoire

of contention is also potentially limiting to activists. Once, using the Internet for

40


45/60


46/60


47/60

Appendix A

Timeline of the Trent Lott scandal (Bloom).

Thursday, December 5

Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott spoke at a party honoring outgoing Senator

Strom Thurmond on his 100th birthday.

Friday, December 6

ABC Producer Ed OKeefe, present at the party, ran a story on the incident in a

4:30 AM broadcast, but network executives apparently stopped it from being

included in the more popular Good Morning America (or any other ABC venue

except for The Note).

At 10:54 AM (EST) journalist Tim Noah posted the quotation on Chatterbox, his

weblog for Slate magazine, along with a quote from Thumonds 1948 campaign.

At 11:09 AM journalist Joe Conason uploaded a rare second post of the day to his

column on Salon.com, titled Trent Lott waxes nostalgic about the segregationist

era:

If there remain any Democratic voters in Louisiana, of any color, who

wonder why they should bother to vote in the special Senate runoff there,

perhaps they ought to consider yesterday's remarks by Trent Lott whose

power will be much enhanced if Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu is

defeated.

At 1:21 PM, blogger Atrios joined the fray on his blog,Eschaton, reminding

43


48/60

readers just exactly what Strom Thurmond stood for during his 1948 presidential

run, and offering his own suggestions as to which problems Lott might have

been referring to.

At 3:20 PM, blogger Joshua Micah Marshall weighed in on his blog, Talking

Points Memo, with the following recollection:

Thurmond ran as the presidential candidate on the "States-Rights

Democrat" or "Dixiecrat" ticket a candidacy that was based exclusively

and explicitly upon the preservation of legalized segregation and

opposition to voting rights and civil rights for blacks.

At 4:00 PM CNN aired an extensive interview of Lott by Jonathan Karl forInside

Politics, but Karl did not ask him about his statement at Thurmonds party.

At 5:11 PM, Tapped, an anonymous blog at The American Prospect, quoted the

story from The Note and opined:

What about the national media? Tom Daschle complains after Rush

Limbaugh has been comparing him to the Devil for a year, and the

Beltway media is all over the story making Daschle look like a pathetic

whiner. Trent Lott, soon to be the Senate's majority leader, is caught on

tape reminiscing fondly about a segregrationist presidential campaign, and

we hear nothing (although, since The Note is read widely, that might

change). What gives?

Atrios, Conason, Noah, Marshall and Tapped are all liberal bloggers, but by 9:15

PM, conservative University of Tennessee Law Professor and blogger, Glenn

44


49/60

Reynolds, posted an entry on his own blog,Instapundit, agreeing that TRENT

LOTT DESERVES THE SHIT he's getting from Atrios and Josh Marshall.

At some point in the day, Lotts spokesman, Ron Bonjean, issued a brief

statement: "Senator Lott's remarks were intended to pay tribute to a remarkable

man who led a remarkable life. To read anything more into these comments is

wrong."

Saturday, December 7

The Washington Posts Thomas Byrnes Edsall picked up the story, with the

headline Lott Decried For Part Of Salute to Thurmond: GOP Senate Leader Hails

Colleague's Run As Segregationist. The article pulled no punches, adding

disapproving quotes from African American Congressman John Lewis (D-GA)

and Republican strategist and journalist William Kristol, as well as an approving

comment by Gordon Baum, CEO of the white supremacist Council of

Conservative Citizens.19 However, its placement on page A6 of the Posts

Saturday edition drew little attention from the mainstream press, which seemed to

accept Bonjeans explanation.

Things really got going from there, although still largely not in the mainstream media.

Blogger, author, andNew York Times technology columnist, Virginia Postrels

blog, The Scene, put it this way later the same day:

OUT, OUT DAMNED LOTT: Trent Lott must go. He's a disgrace to the

South, to the Republican Party, to the U.S. Senate, and to the United States

of America.

CNNs Mark Shields made the Lott quotation the subject of his Capitol Gang

45


50/60

Outrage of the Week, with the following remark: To his credit, Strom

Thurmond changed dramatically. Why, then, does Trent Lott romanticize an era

of hate when black Americans were truly oppressed? Bob Novak responded that

Lott was joking.

Sunday, December 8

Lott faced tough questioning on NBCsMeet the Press and CNNsLate Edition

with Wolf Blitzer, but ABC, CBS and Fox skipped the story.

National Public Radio ran a fluff piece on Thurmonds birthday party that

featured a Lott quote that suited the feel-good nature of the NPR story but ignored

the controversy:

Somebody once said, and Im not quite sure where I got this, but I heard it,

and I loved it, and it applies to Strom Thurmond: Youth is a gift of

nature. Age is a work of art. This, ladies and gentlemen, is a work of art.

Monday, December 9

Former Bush speechwriter and conservative Republican strategist, David Frum,

stopped short of demanding Lotts resignation, but used strong words in his on-

line journal for The National Review, demanding a real retraction and apology,

with a specific repudiation of segregation (1:15 AM).

AsNewsweekhit the newsstands its readers had to look pretty carefully not to

miss the only reference to Lotts quote, which appeared without comment on their

Perspectives page. Time and US News neglected to do even that much.

Perhaps the strongest words from any on-line conservative came from Jonah

Goldberg at 9:57 AM in The National Reviews The Corner column:

46


51/60

His remarks saying that wed be better off if Strom Thurmond had won

the 1948 election as a Dixiecrat at Thurmonds 100th birthday party

were incandescently idiotic according to any criteria (See, David Frums

excellent piece for the details). On the facts, Lotts comments were dumb.

Morally, they were indefensible. Politically, they served to confirm the

suspicions of millions of blacks and liberal whites about what is in the

hearts of conservatives and Republicans while earning him nothing but a

smile from a 100 year-old man.

Lott made his first attempt to apologize personally for the remarks: "A poor

choice of words conveyed to some the impression that I embrace the discarded

policies of the past. Nothing could be further from the truth, and I apologize to

anyone who was offended by my statement.

At 11:16 PM, Conservative journalist and blogger, Andrew Sullivan, joined the

fray in his independentDaily Dish blog, using strong words as well:

TRENT LOTT MUST GO: After his disgusting remarks at Strom

Thurmond's 100th birthday party, it seems to me that the Republican Party

has a simple choice. Either they get rid of Lott as majority leader; or they

should come out formally as a party that regrets desegregation and civil

rights for African-Americans. Why are the Republican commentators so

silent about this? And the liberals?

Tuesday, December 10

The New York Times addressed the issue for the first time, but buried it on page

47


52/60

A28. The article placed Lotts Monday apology in context:

Earlier in the day, Mr. Lott had issued a statement that stopped short of an

apology, saying his comments were made in the spirit of a lighthearted

celebration. His later expression of contrition came after a reporter

pointed out to his office that former Vice President Al Gore had called on

him to apologize. Mr. Lott's spokesman said the apology was not in

response to Mr. Gore but came solely out of personal concern for this

misunderstanding.

Howard Kurtzs daily online media column (or blog?) for The Washington Post,

Media Notes, focused on the Lott story. Kurtz was particularly harsh on the

mainstream media:

Trent Lott must go!

That, at least, is the consensus of online pundits.

What, you weren't aware that the Senate majority leader was in hot water

for appearing to embrace the segregationist cause?

Perhaps that's because, until this morning, most major newspapers hadn't

done squat on the story.

Which is hard to understand for this reason: There were cameras rolling.

It's on tape. It was on C-SPAN, for crying out loud.

If a Democrat had made this kind of inflammatory comment, it would be

the buzz of talk radio and the Wall Street Journal editorial page would be

calling for tarring and feathering. But Lott seems to be getting something

48


53/60

of a pass.

When Lott finally apologized yesterday, the big papers jumped on the

story. But why did they wait so long?

As a report from Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting, (FAIR), a liberal media watchdog

organization, put it:

Finally, on December 10, all three network nightly news shows weighed

in, along with ABCs Nightline; that morning had seen the first New York

Times coverage of the story, and the first wave of scolding editorials

(Washington Post; New Orleans Times-Picayune; Ba

Lee Wilson - The Very Access of Democracy - Thesis Final

Documents