Washingtonpost.com: Live Online

How has the rise of the Internet changed American politics? How did major news organization Web sites affect the debate in the 2002 election? What can we expect in the future?

Lee Rainie, director of the Pew Internet & American Life Project, was online to discuss the Internet, the 2002 election and the impact of the Web on politics in general.

The Pew Internet & American Life Project is a research center that examines the social impact of the Internet -- or, how people's Internet use is affecting families, communities, health care, education, civic/political life, and work places. Prior to receiving the grant, Rainie was managing editor of U.S. News & World Report. He is a graduate of Harvard University. the transcript follows.

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.

Lee Rainie: Hello everyone. I'd like to thank washingtonpost.com for hosting this forum. I am the director of the Pew Internet & American Life Project, a non-profit research organization that looks at the social impact of the Internet. We conducted the survey we're discussing today with a "cousin" project funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts -- the Pew Research Center for The People & The Press. The director there, Andrew Kohut, has looked at technology use in politics for more than a generation and these new findings flow out of his longtime interest in the subject. Now, I'll turn to your questions.

Burke, Va.: I went to a few campaign Web sites last election sysle looking for rally information and speaking schedules. I found a lot of sites that didn't have rudimentary information like that. Mostly I thought the data available was weak, sometimes even the party affiliation of certain candidates wasn't clear. When do you think campaigns are going to use the internet to disseminate real information rather than an attempt to replicate some glossy flyer?

Lee Rainie: Politics, like a lot of subject areas on the Internet, has a mixed experience online. Some Web sites, especially the big news organization sites and many of the sophisticated interest group sites, are loaded with terrific, useful information that voters are anxious to get. But you're right that a great many sites, especially those of specific candidates and parties can be very limited. Most candidates still see their Web site as an electronic brochure for their candidacy.

Arlington, Va.: If current trends continue, how long will it be until the Internet is THE main source for political information?

Lee Rainie: I'm not sure if the Internet will get to be THE main source for political information for quite a white. We still believe it will take another 10 years or so for Internet penetration to reach the same level of penetration as cable TV and perhaps another generation for the Internet to be as embraced as broadcast TV. Even for those who use the Internet for political news and information, it is a supplemental, rather than primary source. It is clear, though, that for the most interested and civically engaged citizens, it will increasingly be important.

Oklahoma City, Okla.: Lee:

I have been an active particpant in MoveOn since its inception during the Clinton impeachment fracas. I have been impressed by its seriousness of purpose, its immediacy, and its ability to moblize people like me to write, call, and visit my representatives as well as contribute to races outside my own state. On the other hand, all of the candidates to whom I contributed lost in November (Carnahan, Kirk, Mondale). How effective is this operation in the larger scheme of things?

Lee Rainie: Many groups like MoveOn have found the Internet an invaluable tool for growing the organization, recruiting members, getting the organization's message out. At this stage, I think the Internet's primary role in politics revolves around organizational uses -- both for candidate and party organizations and for groups like MoveOn. The story about how average citizens use the Internet for politics is much less dramatic than how organizations are exploiting this new technology tool. The very fact that MoveOn exists is a testament to the power and reach of the Internet.

Alexandria, Va.: What are current polititians doing to adjust to the Internet? Anything besides a simple Web site?

Lee Rainie: Not much -- and that's the point. Not many candidates do more than use the Internet as a billboard/brochure for their candidacy. We'll know that the Internet has truly come of age in politics when lots of candidates host "virtual forums" and other virtual events online and when candidate sites themselves are MUCH more interactive so that citizens can engage the candidates online.

Arlington, Va.: Did you find a large age gap in your study?

Lee Rainie: The age profile of those who use the Internet for politics mostly mirrors the general profile of politically interested citizens. Baby Boomers are more likely to use the Internet for political news and information than younger Americans. However, one pretty hopeful sign that is emerging in our data is that the younger Americans (ages 18-35) who do use the Internet for politics are very politically and civically active. There is some hope that Internet use will encourage more young Americans to become involved at several levels -- in politics, or their local communities, or in organizations that have a strong Web presence.

Kansas City, Mo: Are undecideds going to candidate/party Web sites for information or is it mostly supporters? Does that impact what goes on the site?

Lee Rainie: We mostly see that people go to Web sites that support the political and issue viewpoints that they already endorse. Most Internet users are not dispassionate "learners" who are trying to assess all the information and all the candidates they are considering. When users are visiting partisan sites, they are usually there because they believe the information on that site will match their belief system. Undecideds do browse a bit more among news sites and candidate sites and interest group sites to see how the candidates stack up on their preferred issues.

Northern Virginia: If you were going to give a local political candidate two pieces of advice about setting up and operating a Web site, what would they be? Are there key elements that make campaign Web sites effective vs. ineffective in winning an election?

Lee Rainie: 1) Be active. Update the site a lot.
2) Be interactive. Let citizens have input and access to you and your staff.
3) Be thorough. Voters are anxious to see where you stand on the issues that matter to them, so post your position and, if it applies, your voting record on issues. Many voters will also give you lots of credit if you link to the sites of your opponent, key interest groups, local news organizations, other sources of political information. The Web is all about links!
4) Use email a lot. Let voters sign up for email alerts and send them out often. That will keep them connected to the campaign and perhaps provide some new source of campaign contributions to you.

Philadelphia, Pa.: What role might/should emerge for the AOLs and Yahoos -- which serve mass audiences -- play in providing free forums for political speech surrounding campiagns/election cycles?

Lee Rainie: The sites that have lots of traffic can be terrific places to act as virtual "commons" for public life. We saw lots of evidence after 9/11 that these commons areas were very important to people as they grieved, consoled one another, and hashed out policy options. Of course, these places can also become "flame" festivals where civil discourse is drowned out. Once the commons area is provided, it is up to users to make it a place where political speech is tolerated and the greatest number of voices can be heard.

Washington, D.C.: Sometimes a venue can have an impact beyond just the raw numbers of people who use it. What did your study find about the impact of the internet on rank-and-file political opinion leaders?

Lee Rainie: We didn't ask questions in quite the way that would allow me to give you a clear answer. But it's safe to say that fervently interested people in any walk of life -- politics, economics, astrophysics, religious ministry, quilters, chronically ill patients -- can find wonderful information and outlets for their interests and concerns online. The "impact" of the Internet in many areas directly relates to how passionate and engaged other Internet users are. So, in politics, that means finding the "insider" newsletters and blogs (Web logs, or online diaries) that seem to make sense or give you information and insights you don't get other places. People who really care about politics can be more plugged in and get to more information now than at any point in history.

Washington, D.C.: I read that most people who take online polls are Republicans -- what does that mean?

Lee Rainie: It means that no one should treat a Web poll as a true representative sample of the nation's public opinion on a candidate or issue.

Harrisburg, Pa.: Jesse Ventura has credited the Internet with assisting his election when he ran for Governor. How much difference did the Internet make in his race?

Lee Rainie: We haven't looked directly at this, but other studies have suggested the Internet was a big force for Ventura. He enlarged his base of supporters using the Internet, he kept them excited about his candidacy through email and regular updates of his Web site, and he recruited lots of volunteers via the Web.

Dupont Circle, Washington, D.C.: Basic questions: I know how I use the Internet to interact with the political world, but what behaviors have you identified and roughly how effective are each as a tool for making individual voices heard? What is the organization "MoveOn" a previous poster named?

Finally, it seems party leadership needs to wake up to the potential of the Internet. For example, Bill McBride's Web site offered only a downloadable PDF form as a way to contribute until the final weeks of the campaign (when an on-line form accepting credit card info was available). If Terry McAuliffe was touting this as a race near to his heart, you'd think he'd step in and make sure this basic fundraising capability was in place from the start. (You'd think a national party would provide either the technical expertise, a central server, or consulting to get all of their candidates on board with this.)

Lee Rainie: Most politicians report that it matters most to them if you show up at a rally or a meeting or a forum. That's the most effective way to have your voice heard. Letters and phone calls tend to come in second place. Emails and e-petitions come in after that. However, looking at the situation from the other direction, those looking to build a movement or activate interested citizens often think that going online is among the most effective ways to build the organization and pursue its agenda. So, it depends on how you want your voice heard in politics.

Most candidate sites are elemental and I agree it would be useful for parties or even political consultants to become better at helping candidates create a strong presence on the Web.

MoveOn is a group that emerged quite virally during the Clinton impeachment process. It's larger motto was "Censure and Move On," which meant that proponents did not want Clinton impeached. Supporters argued that the country should "move on" to other issues after quickly dealing with Clinton.

Arlington, Va.:
What type of specific information do people search out on political Web sites? How much influence have "blogs" made on the political landscape?

Lee Rainie: People look for issue-oriented information. They look for candidates' positions and voting records. About 39% of those who were getting news and information about this most recent campaign took an online poll. About 10% participated in chat groups at these sites, and 5% contributed money to candidates.

Blogs have not yet emerged as a big political force, but they are growing in importance in the larger news environment. Several analysts have argued that news-related blogs, especially those of conservatives, were instrumental in making the Trent Lott comments about Strom Thurmond into a big story.

Chantilly, Va.: How do new campaign finance laws affect fundrasing on the Internet? Is there a limit to how much assistance a national party can render to a candidate in producing a Web site?

Lee Rainie: I'm not sure if there is any specific provision related to the Internet in the new law. The same contribution limits apply to online and offline contributions. I don't know, though, if there are new restrictions about the role parties can play related to developing candidate Web sites. Anybody out there know the answer to this?

Washington, D.C.: What was the biggest surprise from your study?

Lee Rainie: One surprise is that the audience for political news and information is shifting a bit. That is a phenomenon that matches the broader changes in the character of the people who use the Internet. In the 1996 and 1998 election cycles, those who used the Internet for politics looked a lot like the Internet population overall. The group contained more men than women, more well-do-do people, more whites, and more Republicans. But since then, the Internet population has changed as more women, minorities, and people with moderate levels of income have gone online. So, in campaign 2002, there were more women and minorities than in the past getting political information. The political audience, though, still skews towards people who have a lot of Internet experience and those with higher incomes and education levels.

Lee Rainie: Things seem to be winding up now. Thank you for those smart questions. Anyone who wants to see the complete study about how people used the Internet during the most recent campaign can click on to http://www.pewinternet.org. The Campaign 2002 and the Internet report will be right at the top of the home page.

washingtonpost.com:

That wraps up today's show. Thanks to everyone who joined the discussion.

Stay Tuned to Live Online:
Howard Kurtz: Media Backtalk, Noon ET
Desson Howe: Behind the Screen, 12:30 p.m. ET
Post Magazine: Jake Tapper on J.C. Watts & the GOP, 1 p.m. ET
CQ on Gephardt Announcement, 1 p.m. ET
Kornheiser & Wilbon: The Chat House, 1 p.m. ET
Travel Talk, 2 p.m. ET
Astrologer Charlene Lichtenstein, 6 p.m. ET

Keep up with the latest in news, sports, politics and entertainment with washingtonpost.com e-mail newsletters.

Personalize your Post with mywashingtonpost.com. Get customized news, traffic, weather and more.

| |



	<img SRC="washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/liveonline/redesign/adv_discusssion.htm" width=125 height=110 border=0>