PublicWorldOpinion.org just released its report on international public opinion, internet censorship, and media freedom.

They polled 18,122 people in 20 nations: China, India, the United States, Indonesia, Nigeria, Russia, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Britain, Egypt, France, Iran, Jordan, Mexico, Peru, Poland, South Korea, Turkey, Ukraine, and the Palestinian Territories.

Some of the findings:

• 81% of people surveyed around the world say the media freedom is important.
• Around 51% of those surveyed worldwide prefer media freedom without government control – even if government controlled will prevent the media from publishing politically destabilizing information. This includes, interestingly enough, 96% of those surveyed in Peru.
• 71% of those polled in China say that “people should have the right to read whatever is on the Internet. Only about 21% agree with the government’s limitation on access to information online.
• 63% percent of those surveyed in Jordan and 44% of those surveyed in Iran do not endorse full access to the Internet.

What is the Internet useful for in political campaigns?

The general consensus of many of the “old guard” political consultants that I have come in contact with is that the Internet is not a successful tool for driving messages. This group believes that the best way to promote a campaign’s messages is through earned media and paid advertisements on television, cable, radio or print media. Messaging is considered the top priority of campaigns and is central to the majority of their actions. Part of this disbelief regarding the Internet’s potential among “old guard” consultants certainly derives from a fear that they can’t control their message online (something that has been debated online since the Dean campaign). However, many consultants believe that, regardless of online message control, it is impossible to convince people of anything through Internet tactics.

There isn’t a political consultant in their right mind who would advocate completely ignoring the Internet. However, the Internet is not considered to be the top priority in lower budget campaigns because political consultants don’t see evidence that the Internet can convince people that their candidate/cause is better than their opponent’s.

The real question boils down to this: What kind of medium is the Internet? Is it a reach medium? Or is it a reinforcement medium?

To clarify, I consider a reach medium to be one where a message distributed on the medium reaches and is consumed by a population of people. Thus, if the message is effective and the consumer is receptive, the message will impact the person’s opinion on the matter at hand. Television and the radio are the best examples of reach mediums. They both amass large audiences and more importantly they affect the opinions and decisions made by those consuming them.

Whereas, a reinforcement medium is one where people explicitly seek out opinions similar to their own and through consumption strengthen those opinions. Niche publications and ideologically affiliated publications are the best example of reinforcement media. There is certainly an argument to be made that certain television channels and radio stations are reinforcement media. However, as a whole I view media to fall on a spectrum falling somewhere in between a pure reach medium and a pure reinforcement medium.

“Old guard” political consultants would argue that based on people’s online habits, they use the Internet to reinforce preexisting opinions, rather than seeking out information from both sides of an issue in order to choose a stance. Unfortunately, there hasn’t been an academic study based on whether or not the opinion of “old guard” political consultants is accurate on this issue.

As such, one of IPDI’s next major research projects will be to look into the political information consumption habits of people. I believe any research must combine survey data similar to the Pew Internet & American Life Project with a controlled experiment that specifically watches people’s consumption habits.

We are looking for input on how such a study could be conducted. My current thoughts entail giving people a news story about a topic such as the economy, global warming or foreign affairs. Following the article the research subject would be provided with a list of stories from a variety of ideologically coded news sources, which they would be required to click on at least one. The experiment would be preceded and followed by a questionnaire regarding their views on the issues at hand, in order to determine how their opinion changed over the course of the exercise.

Do you think an experiment in this style would work? Do you have any ideas to improve the study? Please email me at akellner@ipdi.org.

Caveat: If the Internet is jus t a reinforcement medium, it isn’t necessarily a bad thing. There is fairly substantial anecdotal evidence that the Internet is very successful at rallying the base and invoking them to take action. A recent example is the number of people who have volunteered for the Obama campaign that was initiated and often carried out entirely online.

Right now, I’m watching the President of the Utah State Senate on my desktop.

Nope, it’s not a live stream of C-SPAN coverage. It’s not even footage on the Utah State Senate’s YouTube Channel (though there is that, too). There’s also a blog and a text message application and a podcast.

I’m watching Senate President John Valentine’s office on a live webcam. I can see what he’s doing and – most importantly – with whom he is meeting. So can you. Explorer users only (sorry, Mac and Firefox users) can go to http://senatesite.com/senatesight.html.

It feels intimate, open, and exciting – three words not always associated with the online communications of an elected officials. This afternoon, I talked with the creator of the SENATEcam, Ric Cantrell, the Chief Deputy of the Utah State Senate. Cantrell says the web cam “Serves to demystify the halls of power.” As he explains it, somewhere in Utah, an elementary student might access the web cam as part of a school project and realize, looking into the Senate President’s office that “this is what I want to do when I grow up.”

Why do I like it? Instead of talking about what he does all day, Senate President Valentine is showing it. He’s walking the democratic walk, not just talking the democratic talk.

Of course, there is the little voice inside me – the one who sat through several course on the philosophy of science. “But the web cam is just like a microscope,” says the little voice “and when you put things beneath a microscope – when you observe thing s—the way they behave starts to change.” But that little voice gets quieter and quieter the more I play with SENATEcam. A louder voice emerges, and it’s saying “FTW!!1!” Translation: “Cool!”

This post is guest-blogged by Bryce Cullinane, a graduating senior at SUNY Stony Brook.

I had the opportunity to meet with the acting Surgeon General today, it just so happens that he graduated from my university, SUNY Stony Brook. In his lecture he talked about child obesity and alcohol in college. It was a good lecture, but it was his demonstration of a TV ad that rattled me.

He played a spot showing NFL football players walking into the home of middle-age school boys, scolding them for their inactivity and encouraging them get outside and “P-L-A-Y, Play!” The sense of brilliance with which the Surgeon General bestowed upon the ad was shocking. It was like the southwest passage had just been discovered before our eyes.

After the lecture I asked him what he thought about the role that not only TV, but the internet held for educating the public. He told me that “it holds amazing potential.” Prodded further, he could only name “Facebook,” as an example. I asked him if his communication’s office was working on developing internet tools and strategy, and to this I got a frank, “no, but it is a really good idea.”

For a man whose duty it is to “protect and advance the health of the Nation through educating the public” I am a little concerned that using TV ads are considered cutting edge, and that developing internet strategy is a “really good idea.” These should be old news. Granted, the Department of Health and Human Services website does have useful information, but “flashy media” and interactive tools are almost non-existent.

I walked back to my dorm this afternoon a little skeptical. With internet resources like WebMD and newspaper health-blogs, will government health agencies become outpaced and out-legitimized by internet-savvy organizations? Or will they be able to cure their own digital diseases in time? Hold on to your stethoscope.

Rad Campaign just posted interviews with leaders in the nonprofit/social networking space.

We particularly like this quote from Tara Hunt, founder of Citizen Agency:

Using Twitter and Facebook to merely disseminate information is akin to just constantly withdrawing, but never depositing into your bank account. The power of these networks is in the connections people are making, which is the building of social capital. You build social capital through positive interactions - listening as much as you are talking, and responding to people as they talk to you. The more two way conversations you have on Twitter and Facebook, the more support you will gain for those messages you send out.

The Campaign Finance Institute just released its latest figures on small donors to the three major presidential candidates.

Here are my top notes:

March

Percent of contributions in March that came in amounts of $200 or less:

• Obama – 60%
• Clinton – 58%
• McCain – 18%

Cumulative

Amount the three major presidential candidates have raised from small (under $200) and large (over $200) donations since January 1, 2007

OBAMA

• $101 million from small donations.
• $83 million from large donations.

*CFI notes that Obama has raised almost as much from small donors as all the candidates raised combined by this point in the 2004 election ($105 million).

CLINTON

• $44 million from small donations.
• $82 million from large donations.

MCCAIN

• $16 million from small donations.
• $45 million from large donations.

Looking back at 2004

CFI suggests that we haven’t seen much of an increase in small donations since 2004. By this time in the 2004 cycle, Democrats raised 33% of their money from small donations and 48% from large ones. In 2007-2008, those figures are 37% and 46%.

In 2007-2008, Democratic and Republican candidates raised $135 million in small donations and $138 million more in large donations that the candidates in 2004.

Shannon Raybold is the Internet Director at the United Nations Foundation, where she oversees online organizing and fundraising for the Foundation and our campaigns. One of her recent campaigns is NothingButNets.net, which uses an online game to raise money for and build awareness about the Foundation’s anti-malaria program.

Shannon and I spoke by email about the campaign.

What did you create?

We created an interactive online game for our anti-malaria campaign, Nothing But Nets (www.NothingButNets.net). The game, Deliver the Net, shows supporters a glimpse of how their life-saving $10 donation of a bed net is distributed to those in Africa - it allows you to pick up the nets from a UN truck and jump over the hurdles to deliver the bed nets to awaiting villagers. And, each time someone plays the game and signs up, a generous donor will send a real bed net on their behalf. The game is educational and functional.

Why did you decide to use an online game?

We are constantly trying to reach out to new supporters as well as enable people to more fully understand the need and the steps that are taken to ensure the bed nets are delivered. Additionally, a generous (and anonymous) donor has committed to donating a real net for each new person who plays the game and signs up and we thought that such a generous offer should be accompanied with a new type of fun engagement.

How successful has it been?

It has been very successful, we’ve had over 10,000 people play the game, our traffic has more than doubled, and donations have also increased. After 20 days of gamming, we’ve been picked up by over 55 blogs.

What did you learn from doing it?

It was a longer, more complicated process to set it up than I thought it would be, but well worth the experiment! I also learned that what people want in terms of difficulty varies widely – I’ve gotten requests for much harder and others who find it difficult. I think we’ve reached a very different audience with this game and gotten them excited about how easy and cheap it is to prevent malaria which kills a child every 30 seconds in Africa.

I just wanted to link to a new Obama supporter-created online video that has been making waves in the Internet over the past couple days. Barack Obama as Rocky and Hillary Clinton as Apollo Creed.

Baracky: The Movie (note: I’m having trouble embedding this, so I have to only link)

I touched on political online video a few months ago here, and this new video definitely holds true with my earlier thoughts. At first watch, this video seemed to be a little wonkier than the all-appealing Yes We can, Hillary 1984 and Obama Girl videos. While I still believe that Baracky:The Movie’s target audience understands and closely follows electoral politics, it succeeds in drawing in the general public with its use of the Rocky theme, one that is especially fitting for today’s Pennsylvania primary. The metrics back up its viral appeal because as of today Baracky: The Movie has received over half a million views.

[cross posted at http://alexkellner.com]

Last week, Nate Wilcox of the Webstrong Group spoke to one of my graduate classes. Wilcox’s lecture entitled “Confessions of an Internet Hack,” overviewed the history of politics and the Internet. While much of the lecture wasn’t news to me as an avid follower of Internet politics, Wilcox said one thing that really struck me. Throughout the lecture he “named” each of the elections, and his title for the current election cycle was perhaps the best metaphor to describe the state of the current political Internet that I have come across.

Wilcox’s metaphor began by talking about the 2006 election. He discussed the innovations in mobilizing, messaging and fundraising online that were made in the election cycle. He compared these innovations to rock and roll bands in the late 1960s and early 1970s like The Beatles, The Rolling Stones and Pink Floyd. Moving on to the 2008 election cycle Wilcox said that The Beatles are to 2006 as Foghat is to 2008. In other words, no one would suggest that Foghat revolutionized the music scene or was even particularly innovative, but, regardless of that fact, they sold out gigantic arenas throughout the mid to late 1970s. The metaphor carries over to Internet politics because while very little innovation has happened online this election cycle (with perhaps the exception of the use of social networks), the effects of old innovations have had made a larger splash because the people are online in larger numbers (just as people were hooked on the rock and roll scene for Foghat).

I think when you look at the oft-pointed to evidence for why 2008 is “the first real Internet election” it backs Wilcox’s characterization. Ron Paul’s money bomb, Obama and Clinton’s online fundraising prowess, Obama’s offline movement with online roots and the campaign’s webpages themselves are all just extensions of developments that occurred in the 2006 election cycle. These events were more pronounced in 2008 because they involved more people and because they received more coverage in the press. This is not necessarily because the campaigns were doing anything drastically different; rather, there are more people comfortable with “new technology”, more people connected to the Internet and the press has become increasingly more likely to cover “Internet” stories in the mainstream press.

Now, I’m not sure that this means that we actually have reached the “first Internet election.” As a child of the millennial generation, The Beatles and Foghat were both before my time, but I have 12 hours of one of the bands and 0 minutes of the other on my iPod. The Beatles are still relevant in today’s music scene, even to someone born almost 20 years after Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band was released, and Foghat is largely forgotten. Perhaps this is carrying Wilcox’s metaphor slightly too far, but I predict that in 20 years, 2006 will be considered far more important year for the development of online politics than 2008. Whether or not it is “the first Internet election” is going to depend on how 2010, 2012 and beyond carry out as the Internet continues to evolve.

Is mobile culture making human beings a whole lot worse or a whole lot better? It depends upon who you talk to: western psychologists or user anthropologists in the developing world.

ZOMG Noes!

According to an article called “Homo Mobilis” in the April 10^th edition of The Economist, linguists and psychologists at schools like American University and MIT think that Western youth culture is on a slippery slope, and that our mobile phones are pushing us overboard.

Why? Well, when people text each other we use short hand, and we don’t always follow grammatical rules, making mobile language as varied and variable as Middle English poetry. If language is the primary vehicle for thought, the argument goes, then what does mobile shorthand say for the way people think and reason?

The article quotes MIT psychologist Sherry Turkle, who believes that gadget culture is changing us:

In the distant, landline-dominated past, she says, people thought: “I have a feeling so I want to make a call.” Young people today, including Ms Turkle’s teenage daughter, seem to be thinking instead: “I want to have a feeling, so I need to make a call.” What she means is that there is something inorganic, derivative and inauthentic about a lot of mobile communication. As a species, Ms Turkle thinks, we run the risk of letting the permanent wireless social clouds that surround us steal part of our nature.

The context here is obviously somewhat negative. We’re not evolving toward something greater. Rather, we’re becoming somewhat worse than our parents and grandparents. The medium is simply too just-in-time.

SMS FTW

But what does this say about the very positive role that mobile technology has played in the developing world?

In yesterday’s New York Times Sunday Magazine, author Sara Corbett wonders “Can the Cellphone Help End Global Poverty?” Corbett paints a strikingly different picture of the ways in which mobile culture is helping families across much of the world.

Corbett looks at mobile banking (Wizzit in South Afria and GCash in Philippines), farming cooperatives in Nepal aided by local sales agents who check market prices on their mobile phones (a project of International Development Enterprises), and phone ladies in Bangladesh, who function as mobile phone operators for their villages and change a small commission so that fellow villages can make and receive calls (a project of Grameen Phone LTD).

The same features that make mobile culture so threatening to scholars in the United States make it so valuable in the rest of the world. Corbett writes,

A “just in time” moment afforded by a cellphone looks a lot different to a mother in Uganda who needs to carry a child with malaria three hours to visit the nearest doctor but who would like to know first whether that doctor is even in town. It looks different, too, to the rural Ugandan doctor who, faced with an emergency, is able to request information via text message from a hospital in Kampala.

Neways

So give a mobile phone to a 17 year-old American girl, and she’ll devolve into a prehistoric being who can’t communicate properly or engage in healthy relationships. But give the same mobile phone to a 17 year-old girl in Bangladesh, and she’ll become an innovative entrepreneur?

Something doesn’t quite connect.

With the greatest respect for my colleagues at American universities (and for whistle-blowers in general), whose knowledge I greatly value and whose expertise in their chosen fields of discipline well exceeds my own, I think perhaps the time has come to stop viewing gadgetry, mobile culture, and the media consumption patterns of young people through a frame of fear, within the context that just because my kids do something differently, then it must be wrong. Let’s watch and see what happens. I think we might all be pleasantly surprised by how innovative mobile culture can be.