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

[babaann]

I think the internet is responsible for the huge voter turnout .

[welshTerrier2]

We hurl all manner of wisdom into the vast cyberzone and somehow, as if by magic, our keystrokes transform the paths chosen by the power elite. No, I don't really believe that.

To quote an old song: "there's something happening here; what it is ain't exactly clear."

Without question, bloggers have gained a greater share of the national discourse. It's not clear, however, outside the narrow confines of election season when they are ripe for exploitation, that our voices in any way translate into national policy. Those we elect still see bloggers as just another constituency to be "managed."

Although we who write online have great potential to make changes, that potential has not yet been realized. Until we are able to demand a seat at the table and enforce at least parts of our agenda, we will remain powerless and exploited. To endorse candidates based on faith alone with no real contract to ensure follow-through is a very empty pursuit indeed. Those who think otherwise will learn that lesson the hard way.

[toypiano]

Well said, welshTerrier2. I'm not sure bloggers and the commentariat are regarded as constituents yet, though. If Steve Hildebrand is an indication, we're still pretty much the whinetariat, and unworthy at that.

At this point, a site like HuffPo has the potential to be a kind of commentariat hub, because of our numbers, but our purpose here is mostly just to read and comment on the articles. Huff could morph into something more robust and direct-action oriented for those who want to participate on that level, though I sincerely doubt that's in the cards. HuffPo 3.0?

[Stephen C. Rose - Huffpost Blogger]

Well taken.

This may be a Toynbean challenge and response phenomenon. The rise of the online commentariat seems evenly balanced by the collapse of at least some of the bulwarks of the offline mediocracy. The NYT is perhaps the most obvious candidate for a massively game-changing meltdown. (One wonders if they will ask for a bailout.)

In any case, the next question is how people will get paid online. For the lucky few this works out as a straignt professional change, from paper to console. But most will not find a way to make the income they need online.

I think the ultimate solution lies in having a huge pool, tied perhaps ISPs, which, like ASCAP or BMI, would distribute royalties to qualified sites or individuals on the basis of a combination of relevance, quality and popularity.

Things will probably remain anarchic for a while as we watch the offline house of cards tumbling and scratch our heads,

[eshalom]

My concern has been the predominant presence of youthful online faux progressives whose ignorant sexist and misogynist attacks against any woman on the national stage has become increasingly frightening.

An incredible number of those who post comments on this web site justify hate speech and hate crimes against women such as hanging Sarah Palin in effigy and Jon Favreau's recently photographed obscene behavior toward Hillary Clinton.

[leevntheus]

and this relates to the subject of the blog how?

[Stephen C. Rose - Huffpost Blogger]

I am tempted to say that this is in the eye of the beholder. The Web is a great place for a sort of self-customization of one's sociological take on things. Simply put we see what we see. As a person who effectively blogged against Palin without engaging in sexism (I saw her power immediately and her disaster in the making), I think there is little cause for alarm. The number of women who emerged this year, Senators who were unknown and many others, is a sign that the achievement of Hillary Clinton was genuine -- that the options for participation are more now than they were. We will see it in the composition of Congress over coming decades.

[curiousasheck]

A lot of younger people still do not understand the Internet was created by the Military for communications purposes and it's not their own exclusive domain that is off limits to Adults.
(Or their boss)

[curiousasheck]

And the other issue is how far do you go, where do you draw the line when it comes censoring comments you don't feel is appropriate for your audience and platform?

There's no easy answer.

[in4success]

get over it... hillary clinton's campaign was obscene. to her credit and my fascination she seemed to grow from the experience. i say good for her.

when are the baser, fanatical feminists and cross-dressing GOP trolls going to stop with this crap?

[Wozzeck]

"For the first time, we are thinking aloud unfettered and unfiltered by mass media gatekeepers. "
The gatekeepers are alive and well on the net. The Daily Kos, for example, has a resident pack of one- issue censors that ensure that opposing viewpoints are "hidden" from public view.
Even Bill Moyers' blog will tolerate only mild rejoinders.

[curiousasheck]

Those who are "wired" and use the internet constantly and exclusively day in and day out do tend to develop tunnel vision and lose sight of the bigger picture. "Surely everybody is doing this!"

Not quite yet.

However it is obvious the Internet as a communications medium now has a lot pull and influence in the sphere of everyday life. It also is a competitive market place. And then the social communities of
various types aspect of it.

Despite all this I still find the most amazing thing about the Internet is any average person has right at their fingertips enough information to become a PHD in just about any subject imaginable. You don't even have to go to school if your ambitious. Of course you won't get a "Piece of Paper" by self study if that's your goal attend a University.

The point I'm making is the Internet is the ultimate weapon against ignorance.

What more could you ask for?

[Indubio]

In some respects I agree with your statement. However, I would argue that any degree, especially an advance degree, is quite a bit more than a piece of paper or the sum total of all that was read during the acquisition of the degree. A single internet user will typically not seek out alternative opinions or intellectual criticisms of an idea with which s/he approves. As an example, The 2007 "The Israel Lobby"; how many folks at this web site read the abbreviated article as opposed to the complete book and are they aware of the differences? And how many people read the various criticism (positive and negative) of this book, which were every bit as illuminating as the book itself. A professional education typically means being exposed to all sides to any given perspective, formulating personal opinions that one must then debate and defend, and learning how properly and accurately express oneself. In short, one may certainly be self-taught but that's not equal to a college education let alone graduate school.

[leevntheus]

Perhaps if the "commentariat" achieved more results than daily shouting out into the void of space. The blogs and the internet media have yet to establish a "people's" internet - ironically the very thing we all thought the internet would BE...

While real world mechanisms have been adroit enough to exploit internet technologies to further their causes, the internet has yet to translate into the direct "power of the people" to communicate, organize, and effect change back onto the real world. In other words, yes, brick and mortar elections are influenced by ethereal internet "tools"; we have yet to see the "commentariat", born of the internet, grow on the internet, organize and mobilize power on the internet - then travel to the "real world" and transfer the energies and new power to real world institutions and mechanisms.

When the "commentariat" achieves effective boycotting, labor organization and striking, community organizing, protest mobilization, business creation and implementation, law making....­etc. in the "REAL WORLD" its time will have come. Until then....?

[NoMoFearNoMoHate]

What about the massive 'don't get gas today' email campaigns of a few years ago? Those achieved distinct if relatively useless results - it even made the MSM.

[UnknownSoldier]

its because it was stupid. You fill up the day before or the day after what was the goal. They didn't need a campaign to tell people not to buy gas it went to 4 dollars a gallon and people stop driving, and now with gas at its lowest point in years people still aren't driving.

[tchristin]

One thing that has started to bother me, is the intrusion of advertisements into the more popular blog sites (including this one). The headlines have become more about creating sensation than reflecting the facts in the article. It would also be very nice to find a blog site that encourages intelligent and respectful debate on topics of interest without excessive advertisement or censorship. Maybe a paid membership site would work well.

[000Jade000]

Ditto. I believe the AT&T advertisement for the Blackberry was the first to hit Huffpost after the election. I figured that since the Post was the #1 political blog during the election, they decided to advertise for others. But it's too much. And it's ironic if you think about it. How many of us here have complained about illegal wiretapping on the pages of Huff Post? AT&T has been compiling data on their customers before Bush even dreamed up his plan to spy on us. Yet we have to come here and be inundated by their ads as well as others.

[Marlyn]

I disagree. A paid membership would kill it for me. Does Russ Limbaugh have a paid membership? If he did, he would be powerless.

I don't like the ads, so I avoid them by adjusting my window. If the ads are so aggressive that I can't avoid them, I avoid the site altogether.

[Stirner]

A fine article! You must have read Alexander Kojeve's INTRODUCTION TO THE READING OF HEGEL. In this the final link between work (technology) and war (value debates) is fully explicated and philosophically convincing. Unhappily, Kojeve's profound interpretation of Hegel has been distorted into a sad and misleading caricature by such as Leo Strauss and Fukayama, who have been the pack-leaders of the unlettered neocons who have never read either Kojeve or Hegel. On this, check out Karl Rove's library. Nothing more than a bloated collection of American political trivia -- myopic to say the least. If you have a chance, advise Hillary to read Hegel's LECTURES ON THE PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY.