The Revolution of the Online Commentariat

The pyramid of Internet political functions consists of message (communications), money (fundraising) and mobilization. Atop that pyramid sits communications. Message drives money and triggers mobilization. Devoid of a compelling message to spur their use, the most advanced web tools will lie fallow. The impetus to use technology is always external to the technology; the impulse to connect and contribute begins with the inspiration to do so and the inspiration derives from the message.

Notwithstanding that hierarchy, the wave of Internet acclamation in the aftermath of the 2008 election has been focused primarily on mobilization and money, on networking tools and techniques, their effect on governance, and on the medium's capacity to generate eye-popping revenue. Less noted is the impact of the ever-growing online commentariat whose pointed opinions shape our worldview and whose influence on the 2008 election was nothing short of decretive.

Virtually every online venue that played a role in the '08 race provided a platform for public dialogue. Blogs, boards, news sites, YouTube, Twitter, and social networks large and small were inundated with millions of individual comments, the aggregate effect of which was to determine how voters viewed the candidates and the race. The democratization of opinion-making that began with the rise of the blogosphere reached a new level of maturity, the global discourse a new level of complexity.

It's hard to know how many members of the online commentariat participated in other political activities this cycle, how many formed or joined networks, canvassed, phone-banked, organized and donated using the web. It stands to reason that many did. But while the latter activities are justly heralded as evidence of a political/technological coming of age, the true revolution goes largely unmentioned, namely, that the sheer magnitude of publicly expressed opinions is changing the way we see the world - and as such, changing the world itself.

For the first time, we are thinking aloud unfettered and unfiltered by mass media gatekeepers. Events, information, words and deeds that a decade ago were discussed and contextualized statically in print or through the controlled funnel of television and radio, are now subjected to instantaneous interpretation and free-association by millions of citizens unencumbered by the media's constraints, aided by the optional - and liberating - cloak of anonymity.

This is transformative, not just because it is a web-driven enhancement of traditional political and social mechanisms (as we've seen with organizing and fundraising) but because it is a radically different way that the world processes information and understands itself. If there's one thing that makes the 2008 election an inflection point, it is this: that the context, perception, and course of events is fundamentally changed by the collective behavior of the Internet's innumerable opinion-makers. Every piece of news and information is instantly processed by the combined brain power of millions, events are interpreted in new and unpredictable ways, observations transformed into beliefs, thoughts into reality. Ideas and opinions flow from the ground up, insights and inferences, speculation and extrapolation are put forth, then looped and re-looped on a previously unimaginable scale, conventional wisdom created in hours and minutes. This wasn't the case during the last presidential election -- the venues and the voices populating them hadn't reached critical mass. They have now.

The contrarian (and even cynical) view is that this is just technological triumphalism, that all the articles and blog posts celebrating the web-fueled campaign greatly overstate the role of the Internet in the final outcome. Some writers have bucked the web-centric trend and published entire post-campaign analyses with barely a reference to the Internet. Even this die-hard Internet evangelist acknowledges that the web's role can sometimes be overstated, or at least misconstrued. The truth is that the Obama campaign was a triumph of integration more than technological innovation. It was the wildly successful marriage of time-tested political strategies and tactics, executed with acumen and discipline, seamlessly combined with cutting-edge technology and tied together with an empowering grassroots message. With a brilliant candidate at the helm. That, in itself, was innovative.

But even if we accept the fact that old-fashioned campaign machinery still matters - and it does - it would be a serious mistake not to recognize that political communication is forever altered. Never before have so many people conversed publicly and never before has the global discourse been so accessible, recursive, and durable. The impact is real: it is now axiomatic that the greater the number of online commenters discussing an event or issue, the more unpredictable its unfolding. The days following Sarah Palin's VP announcement illustrate the point.

How does this affect the triangle of media, political establishment, and online community? For the press and punditry, an important reversal: their agenda-setting role is eroded and they are now compelled to partner with the online commentariat for validation and legitimation. For the political establishment, the standard methodology - where strategists and pollsters conjure and test messages to be disseminated by media teams and press shops through traditional channels - is inadequate. Politicians and public officials must now contend with higher levels of risk and uncertainty that confound traditional communications strategies. They must posses the awareness and agility to navigate a churning ocean of opinion where every word, every press release, every policy paper, every speech, every document, every surrogate remark is recorded, magnified and repurposed by the online community. Image making and message crafting, enduring political arts once the back-room purview of a select few, are now in the public domain.

What is unclear is how the online activist community benefits. Bloggers - the heart and soul of the online commentariat - continue to be troubled by the chasm between their oversized real world impact and their disproportionately limited insider clout. Part of the challenge is figuring out how to leverage unpredictability, no easy task. And part of it is to distinguish between the community's active and passive power, John Locke's useful distinction between the power to receive change and the power to make it. I suspect the gap will close as the online community further expands and its emergent self-knowledge deepens. I certainly hope it does, since the community's overall thrust is progressive.

So, from my perspective, while it's intriguing to see how the new administration utilizes social networks and email lists to foster transparency and interactivity, it's even more fascinating to see how the online commentariat ultimately processes and influences future events and defines - and changes - them.

Follow Peter Daou on Twitter: www.twitter.com/peterdaou

Comments

[mjc]

This concept, citizen journalists writing and commenting on events of the day or opinions, has been talked about much lately. While I certainly don't consider myself a citizen journalist, I love having sites like HuffPo available where I can SOMETIMES speak my mind and my point of view; I say sometimes because not all responses get by the "moderator corps" here. And I have certainly seen some of the "bad" sides of such blogging, especially if the blogger has but one hero or heroine and there can be no dissent about the wonderfulness of that person. In addition it is so easy to have some vague memory of this or that statement and/or action and then to post it without real consideration as to the verity of some of the postings. I know this because I do it myself. A professional journalist SHOULD and perhaps does check facts and figures more often than the casual blogger. But then so much on a site like HuffPo IS opinion driven perhaps it is not so important. What really gets to me with online commentary is that certain half-truths, even lies, get repeated over and over even if refuted. Would that there was a way to halt that. Moderators don't always have the correct vision or ethical character either.

[dcdrifter]

How do the members of new media increase their "insider clout"? Money. I think that the online world should start focusing fundraising efforts on incumbents who support their message, regardless of how competitive their re-election might be.

http://voxp.wordpress.com/2008/11/19/show-me-the-money/

[frankly0]

The sad truth is that the online community is not more, but less discriminating, not more, but less independent minded, not more, but less informed and perceptive and subtle than the traditional media, and this last election cycle stands as proof of that.

Whatever "narratives" and "frames" that seize the traditional media, and incline them all into a harmonious recitation of their own preconceived views, is more than matched by the power of mob rule on the web to enforce points of view on dissenters, essentially drowning out competing voices. No one is more eager to adopt a talking point coming down from on high than a blogger who styles himself or herself as being part of the pack that is leading the way for their favored candidate. Rationality or common sense or critical thinking has little impact in this environment -- and neither should we be surprised that they don't. After all, the phenomenon of crowd psychology and mob rule was very well documented before the invention of blogs -- why should a blog, which is practically the perfect mechanism to enable that psychological process, not foster it, with all the ugliness known to attend it?

Personally, while I can see how blogs can sometimes serve a positive good, their capacity for degrading our thought and our politics strikes me as far more potent and uncontrollable.

[devans00]

We're lucky to be part of the transition from the old school mainstream mass media to a new kind of mass communications, online commentariat. It's still evolving to what it's going to be. Everyone around the planet still has the power to influence where it ends up.

The thing I like about the new public discourse is that we, the people, can hear each other's stories and points of view without the traditional filters. Anyone who can get online and figure out how to post can have their say. It's about as level a playing field as exists anywhere on the planet.

Some say that credibility and accountability are lost when anyone can spout off about anything. For most online conversations, it doesn't matter. I say it's more important or interesting to read unfiltered thoughts and opinions from anyone who wants to speak up, on any given topic and not worry about if it passes some arbitrary validity measure. The MSM can worry about that.

When I read an independent blog or comments reacting to an article, I'm not so concerned about how correct or authoritative the words may be. It's fascinating simply to get a view into someone else's alternate reality. Not everyone aspires to be a MSM subject matter expert and that's OK.

I suppose that those who think credibility and authority in public discourse is the be all, end all, are the ones having the hardest time wrapping their heads around the influence of the online commentariat.

[Sundialsvc4]

To be honest with you, Peter, I can only hope that "the online commentariat" will succeed in accomplishing EXACTLY ONE THING: that it will succeed in actually bringing "High Crimes" to criminal prosecution.

You see... even though the United States Constitution uses the term "high" crime, these crimes truly are "the lowest of the scum-bag lowest." Truly, for "any civil officer" in this Government to ... knowingly and purposefully ... use the Just Powers of his-or-her Office, either to "commit" or to "aid and abet" a Crime that has 300 million Plaintiffs, is an act that is Lower than the Sewer.

Unfortunately, Peter, we today find that our Government is chock-full of these Sewer Rats.

Even if we exclude the Rat-In-Chief, who is well on his way to a lucrative retirement in a Dallas suburb where non-Whites are Not Permitted (that is to say, "only if we let him..."), there are many hundreds of Rats surrounding him, including one particular Rat who has made it her unabashed business to protect all the other Rats from prosecution.

"The media" is more-than-willing to "spin" whatever story may be required ... because the companies that own them are well-entrenched with the Military Industrial Complex.

... but this perverse thing called "the Internet" is (dammit...) FREE SPEECH!!

"How t'hell did THAT happen?!?!?!"

[Heartsmart]

I do hope that the Internet will help circumvent the mass media control of the information. I think it is taking place but I am not sure that it is at a scale that does make a difference yet. First most media news is not interesting to begin with because most information that is "outside the box" is not identified by mass media including most web media. The typical left wing or right wing media and their black and white, linear, unconscious thinking is not part of the solution. However the web media does provide for some great sources of information on the fringes. So hurray for that technology because there are some great hearts and minds out there that now have more avenues of expression.

My new found concern however is that I find most web comments associated with blogs or articles to be undigested emotional venting, not kind, and most always about how "they" out there are not doing a good job (whoever they may be, take your pick). With that lack of self examination and self responsibility it dampened my hopes for any short term positive transformation of our societies.

[Sundialsvc4]

You can be absolutely certain that the folks who control "mainstream media" have wasted no time injecting a very large amount of "noise" into every blog they can think of.

You can ALSO, I think, expect that quite-a-few (legitimate) "voices that you hear" would be "unwashed."

But I truly do believe that, if 300 million people in the United States of America are given any sort of voice ... and if the thousands of millions of people in other countries are also given a voice ... the Internet truly IS "the political tidal-wave of the 21st century."

It just might well turn out to be the thing that de-rails "the military industrial complex."

How ironic that it all started as ARPANET...

[PATina]

Thank you for writing this article. I do feel like I "made a difference" by being an active participant in not only the normal political process... but also by my participation in various blogs and social networking sites.

I also believe that ultimately... this was the downfall of the McCain campaign. It seemed to me that they just never quite grasped how the internet could (would) be used to debunk a lot of their lies and smear tactics... so they just kept saying things that bloggers and commenters alike we able to debunk.

[NABNYC]

I just saw someone on one of the Sunday talkshows, a media person, taking an unprovoked jab at bloggers, and I wondered why this is such an unrelenting crusade among the media and some politicians. Then I realized: they blew it. The MSM had complete control of the news and analysis delivery system in the U.S., and they blew it.

They got the story wrong, missed the facts, endorsed and ratified criminal behavior, got used and manipulated or maybe participated willingly in using and manipulating the public. But it is largely due to the gross incompetence of the MSM that the blogosphere achieved such significance and success. When interested citizens found out the formerly-cherished top-level newspapers were lying, they turned elsewhere for information.

Bloggers to MSM: Out of the way, Junior. You blew it. Now it's our turn. http://NABNYC.blogspot.com

[toypiano]

Bravo! And I have to agree, the power of the InterTubes to fact-check was well harnessed during the election. It was the perfect tool for the job and left the MSM in the dust.

[Clairvaux]

Excellent post!

As good as the bloggers are here on Huffpost, I really prefer the Greek Chorus created by our commenters. They are often well informed and the resulting summations have a sarcastic, irreverent truthiness about them.

The Punditocracy of the MSM is on the way out.

[NeoWolfe]

Mr Daou,
I think it was a well written article, but, the point I agreed with the most, is that the role of the internet in the Obama campaign is OVER estimated. The campaign did not come asking me for money, at least until I went looking for them offering money. I contributed one hundred dollars during the primaries, even though I was out of work at the time. But, I did so because I had taken the time to learn what he stood for, including online research, but, mostly by listening to his speeches and the debates, and decided he was extremely intelligent and his past represented everything about changing the world for the better.
Recently, I received a robo email from Joe Biden asking for donation to pay off Hillary Clinton's campaign debt. That's not going to happen. Math said she couldn't win, but she kept on going.
My point is that yes, Obama brilliantly used a tool that allowed the general public to contribute small donations from their seat in front of the computer, which when amassed, totalled to staggering numbers, but, if it weren't for the eloquent message that played on the news, and in the debates, the tool would have been worthless. So, yes, the internet was a vital tool, but it was just part of an ideal partnership.
One last thought, most blogs are chaotic pandemonium. Echoed voices of the same fools who reelected George Bush. Election? Zero effect.

NeoWolfe

[ljmck]

If you live in a small town in Wyoming (where I don't anymore!), your local newspaper and broadcast news are generally pushing critical-t­hinking-an­d-analysis­-free political views. The Internet changes all that. By gosh, you can even check out the nasty rumors forwarded via email by your more benighted cousins. Look for some real efforts to shut this down from these areas.

[verhaftik1]

Likewise, may I recommend you in beautiful Wyoming look for ways to preempt such arcane attempts to muzzle data and your right to think for yourselves. Post your concerns if help is needed. It is America, after all.

[AkiraBergman]

Great piece. What we are witnessing is the beginnings of the formation of a global consciousness. Like the evolution of organic brains which follow a body to brain path, the body of the global humanity has matured enough now to demand for a brain. And like a miracle the Internet has arrived. It has been in the making for a while and followed a fairly predictable path. It is based on the symmetry of electromagnetism like the organic brains. Therefore it seems this change was in the cards from the beginning. Because of it's size it will follow reliable statistics and mirror the symmetry of the universe which favors unity, transparency and beauty. I wonder what else is in the cards. I regard myself so lucky to witness this. After all, I was born at the right time.

[richchaplin]

I don't want a global consciousness. Most people are sheep. The whole reason W got elected was that people "wanted to have a beer with him." I'm glad that more people are getting involved and --hopefully -- they will become better informed. But I have very little faith in the wisdom of the proletariat and hope that people that shape our policies -- whether elected, selected, or respected (online opinion makers) -- continue to be smarter than the average bear.

[AkiraBergman]

The mainstream is currently sheepish I agree. But it is mostly temporary role playing. Consider B&D on a large scale. Like horses and many other animals, humans are broken and trained easily from childhood by the demands of culture. We were not so sheepish before concentrated living started with the advance of farming and mass production. We just adapted to the demands of the new reality. Even most sheepish human will take charge when conditions demand. In fact most animals are similar, but humans took adaptability to new heights. The inner predation in humans is very strong. This accelerated the evolution. The new reality will bring new adaptations and new roles to play. I have learned to trust the universe through a lot of trials. It has a cruel way of teaching but rewards can be infinite. Listen to some Bach, refresh your faith, adapt and contribute to your best judgment. Reality is a mixture of what we are given and what we make of it.

[Shawn0965]

Nice article. Just a few problems, from my perspective;

1. While "bloggers" serve a useful puprose, many have annointed themselves as spokesperson for the majority, they aren't even close. The liberal left and the rabid right both have their share of nuts who speak for just themselves and their merry band of idiots.

2. Many on the liberal left are already doing a great job of marginalizing themselves by turning into what I would call whiners. The difference between "bitching" and "whining" is rather clear to me. People who bitch have some point of reference, whether it be personal experience or first hand knowledge of a topic to justify a complaint. Whiners just complain for the sake of having something to complain about: see David Corn, Jonathan Martin, Tim Carpenter and Chris Bowers.

3. Anonymity and Accountability are issues that need to be addressed. While anonymity may lead to greater input and discourse it also lends itself to less accountabiliy. We already live in a society that does not have as one of it's chief virtues accountability. The do anything, say anything society we live in needs to be forced to realize that words matter, and have a real world impact, the Lori Drew case is an example of that.

In my "opinion" if no one is happy, the PE is doing just fine.

[cathleen]

Great post. This "unfettered" access is driving the MSM mad. They only have themselves to blame. They have not been doing their jobs!

[Nyland8]

"How does this affect the triangle of media, political establishment, and online community? "

Well, for one thing, there is no triangle. The "online community" has, in some cases, already been elevated to the status of "media", effectively vaulting, tunneling, penetrating and otherwise circumnavigating the fortress walls once patrolled by the "gatekeepers".

In the same way the advent of the printing press "liberated" the Wholly Buy'bull from the monopoly of the Catholic Church, accelerating the Reformation and spawning Protest-antism, the Internet, for better or worse, represents another quantum leap in bringing "information" to the masses. And, just as in the aforementioned case, it will result in cults swirling in various eddy currents of misinformation, too.

8