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.

Perhaps its a signal of what Senator Obama called the “political silly season” last night, but the New York Times ran another controversial story recently. Oh, perhaps its not quite as enthralling as sexual innuendo regarding presumptive Republican nominee John McCain, but it might be enough to get a few technogeeks to fisticuffs (or at least a LAN contest of World of Warcraft).

Simply put, Barack Obama is a Mac and Hillary Clinton is a PC.

The article, remiscient of attempts to read into the Bush campaign by analyzing their bumper sticker, looks at the Web sites of the Obama and Clinton camps. The metaphor is intentional, and (for obvious reasons) the interpretations of the campaigns will line up with the media-created story arcs.

That said, there is certainly an argument being made here. As the Internet becomes ubiquitous, we will expect a smooth, classy, high-tech, user-friendly….Mac-like experience? As the generation of narcissism and self-esteem classes grows into their 20’s and 30’s, we will expect to be catered to with nice visual effects and a user-friendly, “do-not-shout” pitch.

Obama-Jobs ‘08: The Wave of the Future.

IPDI’s very own financial director, Chris Brooks, who moonlights on campus as the chairman for the George Washington University College Republicans, made CNN last week. In a short three-minute video you can see here, Chris and a few other GW students managed to get their two cents in about college-age voters’ use of the Internet.

Chris, like most of us here at IPDI, is a compulsive Web surfer and admits as much in the video. While this expression of love for 24/7 access to the candidates might scare off a few Luddites (mostly because that’s all that is really left of that movement…just a few), Chris is a good example of how plugged-in young voters can enjoy greater breadth of knowledge about the candidates than our parents’ generation could through newspapers and once a night newscasts just by heading over to the dot-coms for the news networks or junkie sites like RealClearPolitics.

And I am not just saying this because Chris is the guy who fills out my paycheck…although a small blogging bonus could never hurt!

This piece on Inside HigherED amused me.  A couple of years ago (2005) the MPAA put out a release stating that college students were responsible for 44% of the movie industry’s domestic losses.  To be honest, I find that number quite impressive.  Especially since the MPAA said that college students only made up 3% of the population.

The truth is that the MPAA’s number is way off.  They are putting out a 2007 release that lowers the number to a much more believable 15%.  They attribute the initial number to an “isolated error”, but I will give them credit for at least owning up to the mistake.  It’s more than I expected from the MPAA.

Last night, the much-hyped news segment on Facebook, was aired on 60 minutes. If you didn’t happen to catch it, you can find it here.

The interview didn’t elicit any new information to those of us who have been following Facebook and its spheres of influence from the beginning. However, it does signify a small landmark-of-sorts, in the sense that the traditional media rarely acknowledges web2.0. And 60 minutes is as traditional media as it gets.

In the interview Lesley Stahl mentioned, albeit briefly, Facebook’s influence on politicians and campaigning

Stahl: You know, it used to be, first, you went on “Face the Nation” if you were a candidate; then well, no, you went on “Letterman.” Now it seems the candidates have to be on Facebook. Are you changing the way candidates are running for president?

Zuckerberg: Well, I think because politicians can communicate with tens of thousands of people at the same time, it’s pretty effective for them in campaigning.

While clearly these observations aren’t earth-shattering, it is nice to see a slight departure from mundane horse race coverage, and attention being paid to innovation in the campaign process instead. 2007 was a landmark year for Facebook, but it certainly wasn’t the only online application or website that deserves recognition for its achievements in the political and technology spheres. To fill that void, I want to mention IPDI’s Golden Dot Awards which will be presented at the 2008 Politics Online Conference this March 4-5. The Golden Dots recognize the best and most exciting online achievements and ideas in the 2007 calendar year in the following categories:

• Technology Impact Moment-of-the-Year
• Online Politician-of-the-Year
• Online Dream Team
• Best Website: Federal Candidate
• Best Website: State and Local Candidate
• Best Website: Issue Advocacy Campaign
• Best eGovernment
• Best Blog- eCampaign
• Best Blog- Political Coverage
• Best Blog- Issues and Advocacy
• Best Mobile/Text Messaging Campaign
• Best Podcast Series
• Best Networked Campaign
• Best Vlog
• Best Political Web Video
• Best Political Animation/Mash-up
• Best Online Collective Action Effort
• Best Online Get-Out-The-Vote Campaign
• Best Online Political Application
• Poli-Tech Innovator-of-the-Year
• Best Online Political Advertising Campaign

If you feel that you, your organization or company or anyone else that you know should be honored for their online political achievements in 2007, please go to the Politics Online website and nominate them. Nominations close on January 30, 2008. In February, the winners of each award will be voted upon by the public on the POLC website.

Last week, I moaned about why I thought the CNN/YouTube Republican Presidential Debate was a little bit off. I wanted to see more substance and less circus.

This week, I invited a group of new and traditional media practitioners and analysts over to IPDI for lunch and conversation. We wanted to begin a conversation about what future technology-powered debates should look like.

You can read our memo at: http://www.ipdi.org/uploadedfiles/Future%20tech%20debates.pdf

Not a free for all

Part of our conversation centered on the role that gatekeepers play in the debate process. Most of the room coalesced around the idea that holding free-for-all style voting online to set the debate agenda and determine which questions will be asked. The room felt that some kind of gatekeeper or mediator was needed to add order and structure to the debate and keep the process fair. In other words, we thought that some control was good. We tried to think of recommendations that balanced the need for order and some control with our desire to make the debate agenda-setting process more transparent and interactive.

New model wanted

At the same time, we couldn’t ignore the fact that the great American presidential debate model is beginning to feel a little outdated, an aging device from a broadcast era. We felt that in order to engage the viewers and voters of the future, the debate model itself most adapt to changing expectations and media consumption habits.

Here are our recommendations:

1. Balance the role of the debate mediator, whether that mediator is a broadcast media company, political party, or technology company, in setting the debate agenda and selecting questions with a representative sample of the American public. This can occur in many ways. For example, one possibility is developing a focus group comprised of partisan and centrist members of the American public to help select questions and engage in providing commentary and follow-up question during the debate – online and on television.
2. Make the traditional post-debate coverage more interactive. Instead of following up with the candidates and pundits, incorporate questions, comments, and push back from the audience. Ask the candidate’s follow-up questions from an online forum or offline focus group. Incorporate comments from live bloggers or people texting into the debate.
3. Publish the debate mediator’s criteria for selecting questions and setting the debate on the Internet and allow moderated feedback from the public.
4. Use the Internet to generate substantial discussions about policy before, during, and after the debate.
   1. Before – Consider allowing each candidate’s campaign to use a portion of your website to post policy position papers or other forms of online media, and make these positions and opinions easily accessible, searchable, and comparable by the public.
   2. During – Consider incorporating different channels of live communication and publishing into your webcast or broadcast. This might include, for example, publishing an online “fact checking squad” that researches statements the candidate’s make and publishes the results online in real time. Allow campaign staffers to post evidence that supports their candidates’ statements in real time. Another idea might be to publish ongoing comments from a panel of issues experts.
   3. After – Incorporate the comments of live bloggers and online audience members into post debate commentary and interviews with the candidates. Ask on- and offline focus group members to discuss what they felt were key moments from the debate.
5. Create and post community guidelines on all debate discussion fora to generate a spirit of respect and quickly remove abusive or spam posts.
6. Use technology that is ubiquitous and uncomplicated, so that even those who are familiar with wikis or posting video will feel comfortable participating.
7. Establish anti-sabotage measures on all online fora and voting mechanisms to prevent people from gaming the system.
8. Use split screens on television broadcast so that users without high speed internet access can follow the dialogue and participate in the discussion by as many ways as possible – text message, email, phone calls, instant message etc.
9. If you want to generate substance-driven user-generated content, such as web videos, questions, or commentary, then make your “ask” specific and policy-focused. For example, ask people to contribute questions that address a specific policy issue or set of policy issues.

Epilogue

We post these recommendations as a strawman. We certainly don’t have all the answers, and we hope that further reflection and discussion will enhance the dialogue and perhaps lead us to a more nuanced understanding of how technology should and will shape the future of presidential debates in the future.

Please add to the discussion. Email your ideas to ipdi@ipdi.org.

Thinking about blogging from the ’08 Olympics next year? Watch out – you could be putting yourself at risk. That’s what the Committee to Protect Journalists warns online and offline journalists as many media outlets and individual bloggers prepare for the summer games.

According to a report released by CPJ in August, nineteen domestic online writers are now imprisoned by the Chinese government. That report, Falling Short, largely looks at domestic accounts of press censorship – emphasis on the term “domestic.” In fact the Chinese government appears to have more of an interest in controlling domestic online and offline media than controlling messages in foreign press.

What’s startling about the report isn’t necessarily its depictions of censorship, jailings of journalists, or harassment from local political leaders (although they do provide a sharp contrast to what we tend to expect in our own country). Rather, what strikes one the most is the report’s list of suggestions for foreigners covering the Olympics, including recommendations of topics to avoid and a list of tips for detained writers.

The publication includes the following dialogue, taken from an English phrasebook for police. The handbook uses a scenario of a police officer trying to stop a reporter for covering the Falun Gong:

Chinese Police Officer: “Excuse me, sir. Stop, please. It’s beyond the limit of your coverage and illegal. As a foreign reporter in China you should obey China law and do nothing against your status.”

Foreign Reporter: “Oh, I see. May I go now?”

Chinese Police Officer: “No. Come with us.”

Foreign Reporter: “What for?”

Chinese Police Officer: “To clear up this matter.”

Reporters representing major media outlets are one thing. After all, they are often backed by large, prestigious corporations. What might happen if an individual online journalist replaces the reporter in the scenario?

To view CPJ’s list of tips and to read more about the media in China, visit http://www.cpj.org/Briefings/2007/Falling_Short/China/.

There’s a creepy scene at the beginning of the 1971 film Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory in which Charlie and a strange man stand outside the gates of the chocolate factory. The man, referring to the factory, says “nobody ever goes in; nobody ever comes out.”

This is all well and good in factories. But what’s a government to do when information about the goings-on instead its borders appear to threaten state security? The same thing: shut down the gates.

That’s what the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) did in Burma a few weeks ago when the less than 1 percent of its citizens who do have Internet access used it to post camera phone pictures and blogs about protests in Rangoon. The power of citizen media, the stirring images it produced, and the growing support for the protestors within the global community, led the government to shut down the country’s two ISPs, Myanmar Posts and Telecom (MPT) and Bagan/Myanmar Teleport (BaganNet) sporadically, then completely, then sporadically between September 29 and October 16. The idea was to prevent citizen coverage of the protests from reaching outsiders and outside signs of support and solidarity from reaching its citizens.

Now, the OpenNet Initiative tells you how the government did it in its latest report, Pulling the Plug. Author Stephanie Wang writes,

Burma provides a rare example of a government also taking extreme measures to keep information from escaping its borders. In pulling the plug on the Internet Burma became only the second country to resort to such drastic action; in 2005 King Gyanendra of Nepal declared martial law and briefly shut down the Internet, along with international telephone lines and cellular communications networks.

Like any factory with a security threat, the government didn’t stop at shutting the gates. It also started identifying protestors using protest footage. Wang reports that security forces in Mandalay checked motorcycle registrations against footage of the protests, pinpointing and cracking down on protestors using the same medium as the citizen journalists.

The point of the crackdown might have been to prevent nothing from coming in and nothing from going out, but that doesn’t mean that something wasn’t circulating from within. Wang alludes to the incident as an illustration of the power of citizen journalism to share up a nation and a global community.

But there is something else, something just beneath the surface, something about a government watching and adopting the tactics of a dissident citizen force. If a government wants to keep up with techno-powered dissidents (even in a country with one of the smallest Internet populations in the world), it behooves the government to quickly, nimbly and quietly (or not so quietly) think and even act like a dissident.

Going where the presidential campaigns themselves have not yet tread, WashingtonPost.com just released its Issue Coverage Tracker widget.

Geared a young audience that might not journey to the WashingtonPost site every hour or even every day, the tool allows user to display breaking news content about their favorite presidential candidate.

Via MediaPost:

While driving traffic back to the Web site is one of the goals behind the widget, exposing The Washington Post brand to a younger reader base that may not be familiar with it–via sites like Facebook and MySpace–is equally important.

The focus – on making customizable news portable for a young audience – is an important theme. We see it as just another step away from the tired line that young voters only care about “boxers or briefs” when it comes to presidential candidates.