Page 191 - Information and American Democracy Technology in the Evolution of Political Power

P1: GYG/IJD/IBA/IJD
18:0
August 14, 2002
CY101-Bimber
CY101-04
0 521 80067 6
Political Organizations
part, the attention has centered on campaign web sites and their use as a
means of external communication that supplements television advertis-
ing. Campaign web sites have evolved from a novelty to a standard ele-
ment of campaigns in less than ten years, and a great deal of discussion
has ensued about what that means. Opinions vary, even among cam-
paign staff and political consultants. One official of a 1998 California
Senate race who was interviewed for this study claims that informa-
tion technology “changes the dynamics of politics” by creating a twenty-
four-hour candidate presence, combined with speed and new forms of
interaction. 173 Another official for a different California Senate candi-
date called new technology “irrelevant” because the Internet, with its
self-selection effects, cannot substitute for television. 174 Yet another Sen-
ate campaign staffer said, “You can’t not go online these days; you have to
have e-mail and a web site.” 175 An official at Stanton Communications,
a Washington-based public relations firm, claims that “the Internet is
totally changing how [public relations] practitioners work.” 176 An of-
ficial of Votenet, the Internet-specificadvocacy firm with more than a
little self-interest at stake, describes new technology as “the great equal-
izer” that can “make one person as powerful as a big company.” 177 These
disparate views constitute the first impressions of political professionals
experimenting with a new medium for political communication.
Given the manifest importance of mass media for the evolution of
campaigning in the second half of the twentieth century, the hypothesis
that contemporary changes in communication technology should affect
elections is plausible in general terms. It is important, however, to be
specific. One of the major lessons of the third information revolution

John Ashcroft (2000), John Brown (2000), Tom Campbell (2000), Matt Fong (1998),
and Ray Haynes (2000). For governor: Gray Davis (California 1998), Jim Talent
(Missouri 2000), and Matt Holden (Missouri 2000). Most of the interviews were
conductedbyDianeJohnsonandEricPatterson,doctoralstudentsintheDepartment
ofPoliticalScienceatUCSB.Somewereconductedbytheauthorand,wherenoted,by
Professor Richard Davis of Brigham Young University for a related research project.
173 Joe Wierzbicki, consultant to Matt Fong, telephone interview by Eric Patterson for
the author, Aug. 28, 2000.
174 Darry Sragow, Public Strategies, telephone interview by Eric Patterson for the author,
Aug. 16, 2000.
175
Darryl Ng, Assistant Press Secretary for Tom Campbell, telephone interview by Eric
Patterson for the author, Aug. 22, 2000.
176
Anonymous staff member, Stanton Communications, telephone interview by Eric
Patterson for the author, Aug. 1, 2000.
177
Jason Dell and Mike Tuteur, Votenet, telephone interviews by Eric Patterson for the
author, July 20, 2000.
174