This article was downloaded by: [Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana]

On: 18 September 2014, At: 13:16

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Political Marketing
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wplm20
The Web 2.0 Election: Does the Online
Medium Matter?
Terri L. Towner
a
& David A. Dulio
a
a
Oakland University , Rochester, Michigan, USA
Published online: 23 Feb 2011.
To cite this article: Terri L. Towner & David A. Dulio (2011) The Web 2.0 Election: Does the Online
Medium Matter?, Journal of Political Marketing, 10:1-2, 165-188, DOI: 10.1080/15377857.2011.540220
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15377857.2011.540220
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
The Web 2.0 Election: Does the Online
Medium Matter?
TERRI L. TOWNER and DAVID A. DULIO
Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, USA
The 2008 U.S. presidential election saw the first significant
integration of Web 2.0 technologies; however, scholars know little
about how Web 2.0 sources influence political attitudes. To address
this, the authors test the effects of exposure to various Web 2.0
sources during the 2008 U.S. presidential election. They find that
young adults exposed to television network sites and candidate
Web sites consider them more trustworthy and high-quality than
YouChoose 08 and Facebook. Moreover, YouChoose 08 viewers
exhibit more government cynicism, whereas those exposed to can-
didate Facebook pages have a heightened sense that they influence
the political system. Last, the authors find that YouChoose 08 and
Facebook viewers were more likely to vote on Election Day.
KEYWORDS ABCNews.com, candidate Web sites, Facebook,
political campaigns, YouChoose 08, young voters, YouTube,
2008 U.S. presidential election
INTRODUCTION
Internet use in American elections has certainly evolved since the first
campaigns began employing them in the 1990s. Each election cycle brings
a new permutation with new applications and innovations that go beyond
the last. In 1996, the first candidates to use the Internet employed Web sites
as simple digital yard signs for their campaigns (Casey 1996). During the next
An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Midwest Political Science Association
2010 annual conference in Chicago, IL. The authors wish to thank Cathy Cheal, Shaun Moore,
Peggy Chiu, Marcus Kasper, Andy Drews, Justin Bauer, Katie Forzley, Joshua Cline, Brett
Geschke, and Roger Larocca for their invaluable research assistance. The Oakland University
Department of Political Science supported this research.
Address correspondence to Terri L. Towner, Department of Political Science, Oakland
University, 426 Varner Hall, Rochester, MI 48309, USA. E-mail: towner@oakland.edu
Journal of Political Marketing, 10:165188, 2011
Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1537-7857 print=1537-7865 online
DOI: 10.1080/15377857.2011.540220
165
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d

A
u
t
o
n
o
m
a

M
e
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n
a
]

a
t

1
3
:
1
6

1
8

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

election cycle, Web use became more widespread and candidates started to
find other uses for the Internet, most notably as a tool to raise money. Con-
gressional candidates used basic (relative to today) technology and applica-
tions to solicit contributions (Dulio et al., 1999). It was in the presidential
campaign of 2000, however, that the Internet first made headlines as a
campaign tool. John McCain, in his battle with George W. Bush to win the
GOP nomination, turned the Internet into a major fundraising tool and made
history by raising $2.7 million within 3 days of winning the New Hampshire
primary (Price 2004). In 2004, however, the Internet truly burst onto the
scene as a campaign tool. The campaign of Howard Dean for the Democratic
presidential nomination, with the help of Web guru Joe Trippi, took Internet
use to new heights. The Dean campaign built on previous successes and con-
tinued to break fundraising records, at one point raising $4 million per day
(Price 2004) and raising $27 million online during the campaign (Vargas
2008). Moreover, Dean utilized the Web in a way that had not been done
before, particularly, as an organizing tool by using Meetup.com to encourage
supporters to connect through local meetings. This new Web use was also
tremendously successful, as thousands of meetups, involving nearly
200,000 individuals, ultimately took place (Price 2004).
The 2008 presidential election continued to expand the Internets scope
and reach in campaigns. Important developments for 2008, particularly the
introduction of Web 2.0 technology, took place prior to the beginning of
the election cycle. Web 2.0 tools, which include blogs, wikis, social book-
marking, virtual worlds, social networking sites (SNSs) (e.g., MySpace, Face-
book, and Twitter), video-sharing sites (e.g., YouTube), and photo-sharing
sites (e.g., Flickr), offer a collaborative approach to the Internet, allowing
information sharing and interaction on the Web. They have changed the
way online information flows and, as a result, helped shape the 2008 cam-
paign online.
1
Candidates for office, most notably at the presidential level,
used these new applications and again advanced Internet campaigning. Con-
sidering just the Obama and McCain campaigns, each viewed the Internet as
a tool to help their fundraising, persuasion, and organizational activities to
run more efficiently and effectively (Germany 2009).
The Obama and McCain campaigns each employed Web 2.0 tools includ-
ing YouTube, MySpace, and Facebook. While both candidates looked to Web
2.0 opportunities, the Obama team invested more and found more success.
The Obama campaign committed to the Internet early. In 2007, it spent $2 mil-
lion on software and hardware (Clayton 2010, p. 137). In addition, the cam-
paign spent more than $2.5 million on Internet advertising early in the
primary season (Frantzich 2009). What is more, the Obama campaign devoted
great amounts of staff resources to the Web. It had several teams of staffers
dedicated to online operations (Clayton 2010). Most interesting, however, is
that the Obama team hired Chris Hughes, the cofounder of Facebook, to be
their director of online organizing and to create the SNS MyBarackObama.com.
166 The Web 2.0 Election
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d

A
u
t
o
n
o
m
a

M
e
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n
a
]

a
t

1
3
:
1
6

1
8

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

The Obama teams concentration on social networking paid off.
They far outpaced McCain on Facebook and MySpace throughout the cam-
paign. Early in January 2008, Obama had more than 183,000 Facebook
friends, while McCain had only 17,000 (McCain did not even have the
most friends among GOP candidates at the time, as Texas Congressman Ron
Paul hadmore than 61,500). By November, Obama hadnearly 2.4 millionFace-
book friends while McCain managed only about 620,000 (Gulati 2010).
The influence of another Web 2.0 application was felt early on in the
2008 race, as both John Edwards and Hillary Clinton announced their candi-
dacies with video announcements on YouTube rather than traditional press
conferences. Again, taking only the Obama and McCain campaigns, Obama
had a decided advantage. By the end of the campaign, Obamas channel
on YouTube had more than 1,800 videos posted, while McCain had only
330 (Heffernan 2008). Each had the same goal associated with the use of
YouTube: free advertising (see Gueorguieva 2008). Many times, both cam-
paigns called press conferences to announce or unveil a new advertisement
that had yet to air but was posted online. The campaigns then relied on the
press to take the ad from YouTube or their Web site and broadcast it in their
news coverage (Heffernan 2008).
The advantage of Web 2.0 tools is that politicians can control the infor-
mation flow, something that journalists and media organizations have tra-
ditionally managed during an election campaign. That is, the power of
mainstream media players to control when and how candidates are pre-
sented to the public is diluted. Now, politicians can use Web 2.0 tools to
directly shape the way a story is viewed by the mass public.
Both the Obama and McCain campaigns also had negative experiences
with YouTube. The medium is a double-edged sword for campaigns, as it is
driven by user-generated content; the campaigns are users, in that they can
post videos on YouTube, but so is anyone else with a video camera. These
other users posted videos that the campaigns would not have wanted poten-
tial voters to see (Gueorguieva 2008), including video of Obamas former
pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright or his former associate and domestic terrorist
William Ayers, and McCains remarks at an event where he sang bomb Iran
to the tune of the Beach Boys hit Barbara Ann.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Although research on Web 2.0 sources has begun to clarify the linkages
between political knowledge and participation, few scholars have con-
sidered how political information on Web 2.0 sources influences attitudes
toward media, government trust, political efficacy, and political participation.
We turn to research on blogs, another Web 2.0 source, as a foundation for
our research. Similar to SNSs and online video sites, blogs are an open forum
T. L. Towner and D. A. Dulio 167
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d

A
u
t
o
n
o
m
a

M
e
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n
a
]

a
t

1
3
:
1
6

1
8

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

for information exchangeas messages from candidates reach voters with-
out commentary or analysisto which voters can then respond.
Some blog research (Kim 2006; Johnson and Kaye 2004) suggests that
Web 2.0 content may be viewed as more trustworthy and credible than main-
stream sources. For instance, blogs are considered as independent from
corporate-controlled media (Andrews 2003; Regan 2003; Singer 2006) and
represent a solution to media bias, providing news and perspectives unavail-
able or ignored by traditional outlets (Cristol 2002; Johnson and Kaye 2004;
Wall 2006). On the other hand, some studies suggest that blogs and other
Web 2.0 content may not be viewed as high-quality information sites. In their
study of Howard Deans Blog for America, Kerbel and Bloom (2005) find
that issues are among the least discussed topics; rather, the authors note that
blogs are a territory where essentially anything goes, as people are free to
post the most trivial, ridiculous, and fantastic ideas in frank language that
would never be permitted on network television (2005, p. 22). That is, blogs
are often attacked for not publishing accurate, high-quality information.
Unlike mainstream media, blogs do not strive for objective and balanced
coverage. Instead, bloggers are open about their political agendas, reporting
from their personal views. This could degrade the credibility and standing of
blog content. We expect that these reasons could extend to other Web 2.0
sources; however, the evidence regarding the opinion of the quality and
credibility of blog content is fairly mixed. Thus, we investigate the following
research questions: Does exposure to campaign information on Web 2.0
sources increase levels of trust in Internet sources to cover political events
fairly and accurately? Will those who view Web 2.0 sources be more likely
to highly rate the Internets performance in covering politics?
As Kerbel and Bloom (2005) suggest, all types of political information can
be accessed on Web 2.0 sites. Internet studies provide evidence that Web users
are mainly there for entertainment purposes, evenwhentheyare visiting a polit-
ical site. Bimber and Davis (2003) find that the most common reason respon-
dents visited presidential candidates Web sites in 2000 was browsing,
which they note is a recreational activity (p. 115). Kaye and Johnson (2002)
also find that entertainment is one of the main motivations of people seeking
political information via the Web. The same may be true for other Web 2.0
sources. YouTube content does not always contain substantive political infor-
mation. Indeed, the most watched videos are entertainment-focused (Madden
2007; Owen2010). Baumgartner andMorris (2010) showthat users of social net-
works and online videos are more likely to pay attention to news that covers
entertainment. Most important, previous studies find that entertainment infor-
mation with a political message does not positively influence attitudes toward
government (Kaid et al., 1981). Does exposure to political information on
Web 2.0 sources increase levels of government cynicism among young adults?
As discussed above, some scholars believe that the medium could lead
to increased political engagement and participation. Observers of Web 2.0
168 The Web 2.0 Election
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d

A
u
t
o
n
o
m
a

M
e
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n
a
]

a
t

1
3
:
1
6

1
8

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

content are also confident. Kerbel and Bloom (2005) note that blog postings
help to energize readers participation and is a new form of civic engagement
because it can make people feel that their activity will make a difference.
Similarly, Zuniga et al. (2009) find that people seeking information from
blogs are more likely to engage in online discussion, campaigning, and par-
ticipation. In addition, Lawrence et al. (2010) find that readers of political
blogs participate in more political acts than those who do not read blogs
or who read exclusively nonpolitical blogs. Beyond blogs, Baumgartner
and Morris (2010) show that young adults who get political information from
video-sharing sites and SNSs are more likely to participate in online political
activities, such as forwarding a political e-mail or signing a Web petition. Yet
the influence of Web 2.0 sources on offline political participation, such as
voting, is unclear. Pasek et al. (2009), for example, find that use of SNSs sig-
nificantly increases offline civic engagement; however, Baumgartner and
Morris (2010) find that those who use social networks for news are not more
likely to vote, sign a written petition, or boycott. Therefore, we ask the fol-
lowing: Does exposure to campaign information on Web 2.0 sources
increase levels of political efficacy among young adults? Will those exposed
to social networks, online video-sharing sites, and candidate Web sites have
higher levels of political participation?
FROM THE WEB TO WEB 2.0
Web 2.0 applications offer online sources that were unavailable or under-
used in previous presidential elections. A Pew Research Center (2008a) sur-
vey conducted 2 weeks prior to Election Day showed that nearly 60 percent
of voters had gone online to find election information or to communicate
with others about the campaign. The most common activity found in this
report was watching videos online; 39 percent of voters said they had
watched some kind of campaign-related video online. In addition, about a
quarter of voters said they had visited the candidates Web pages. SNSs were
not as popular as other online information, as only 8 percent of all voters said
they had visited these kinds of sites for campaign information. However,
among younger voters, Web 2.0 applications were major sources of infor-
mation; 65 percent said they had watched campaign videos online, and
nearly 60 percent had read a blog, visited a candidates Web site, or used a
SNS for information (Pew Research Center 2008a).
A number of scholarly studies examine how the Internet affects political
participation and knowledge, offering a mix of findings. For example, past
and recent research hails the Internet as an important medium that is posi-
tively related to political knowledge (Drew and Weaver 2006; Kenski and
Stroud 2006; Norris 2000; Shah et al., 2001; Sotirovic and McLoed 2004; Xenos
and Moy 2007). Other scholars, however, are not as optimistic (DiMaggio
T. L. Towner and D. A. Dulio 169
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d

A
u
t
o
n
o
m
a

M
e
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n
a
]

a
t

1
3
:
1
6

1
8

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

et al., 2001; Jennings and Zeitner 2003; Johnson et al., 1999; Wei and
Ven-hwei 2008). Furthermore, the Internet is often considered a tool that
can improve the democratic process, renewing citizens enthusiasm for polit-
ical involvement (Corrado and Firestone 1996; Grossman 1995). Several
scholars find that the Internet has a positive influence on citizens civic par-
ticipation, mobilization, and engagement (Castells 2001; Shah et al., 2001;
Sweetser and Kaid 2008), whereas others suggest that Internet use has stimu-
lated relatively few participation effects (Bimber and Davis 2003; Katz and
Rice 2002; Scheufele and Nisbit 2002).
What explains these varied findings? One possibility is that many of these
fail to differentiate among types of Internet sources. Indeed, the Web is not a
single news source; rather it consists of several distinctive types, features, and
designs of online sources. An all-inclusive approach does not do justice to the
varied options available to the information consumer. As noted above, this
was clearly seen in the 2008 presidential election when we consider the vari-
ous political sources on the Web: YouTube, Facebook, MySpace, online
newspapers, television network Web sites, candidate sites, blogs, and others.
While there is some research on blogs (e.g., Lawrence et al., 2010; Pole
and McKenna 2007; Zuniga et al., 2009; Zuniga et al., 2010), studies that
address the empirical links between other Web 2.0 sources, such as SNSs
and online video sites, and political attitudes are limited. These studies, lar-
gely conducted during the 2008 U.S. presidential election, find that young
adults who get news and information from social networks learn very little
information about politics and the candidates (Baumgartner and Morris
2010; Towner and Dulio 2010; see also Pasek et al., 2009). Unlike other
online sources, Towner and Dulio (2010) conclude that only attention to
campaign information on presidential candidate Web sites significantly
increases knowledge of candidate issues. Regarding the link between SNSs
and political participation, the findings are more mixed. Pasek et al.
(2009), for example, find that online social networking significantly increases
offline civic engagement. Baumgartner and Morris (2010) conclude that those
who use SNSs and online video sites for news are not more likely to vote or
participate in offline activities; however, users are more likely to engage in
online political activities.
Clearly, then, the influence of Web 2.0 sources on political attitudes
requires further examination. To date, a majority of studies relating to social
networking, online video sites, and politics focus on how these new technol-
ogies are being used by the public and political candidates (Gueorguieva
2008; Gulati and Williams 2010; Williams and Gulati 2008). In addition,
empirical studies establishing causal links between these Web 2.0 sources
and political attitudes either examine only one type of source (Pasek et al.,
2009) or combine them into one latent variable (Baumgartner and Morris
2010; for an exception, see Towner and Dulio 2010). These drawbacks pro-
vide a starting point for our work, as we not only investigate the influence of
170 The Web 2.0 Election
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d

A
u
t
o
n
o
m
a

M
e
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n
a
]

a
t

1
3
:
1
6

1
8

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

specific Web 2.0 applications (YouTube videos, Facebook profiles, and can-
didate Web sites) but also place these in the context of another online source.
THE POLITICS OF WEB 2.0
In addition to examining differences in distinct Web 2.0 tools, we argue that
these Web 2.0 sources are outlets for informationuser-generated content
that is typically not consumed during an election cycle. User-generated
content is defined as information that is not news disseminated by a
corporate-controlled media outlet or attached to a professional entity practi-
cing quality control. Rather, user-generated content is outside the corporate
agenda in mainstream media (Owen 2009). For example, the content on the
presidential candidates Facebook pages were posted by the presidential
campaigns and included updates from campaign staff, insider information,
candidate endorsements, and other material. These sites also include more
traditional candidate information, such as stump speeches or television com-
mercials. The latter is considered user-generated rather than mainstream
campaign information, as the candidates and campaigns are users as well.
Moreover, citizen users could post text or video responses to content posted
by the campaigns. For instance, YouTubes YouChoose 08 channel fea-
tured videos about the presidential race created by the general public that
included issue-related commentaries, videos from the campaign trail, attacks
on the opponent, satirical or humorous sketches, and other information not
written or created by a trained journalist.
There are other important differences between traditional news infor-
mation and user-generated content. Traditional news sites, such as a network
television site or an online newspaper, invoke the same editorial processes
as their print forms (Flanagin and Metzger 2000, p. 516). User-generated
content, however, is not subject to the same professional standards of objec-
tivity or editorial oversight found in the mainstream press (see Bennett 1996;
Gans 1979).
In short, it is our contention that Web 2.0 or user-generated sources
presidential candidate Web sites, video-sharing Web sites, and SNSsare
very different. We argue that each site has distinctive features and tools,
which stems from the sites unique purposes. Thus, we expect that each
Web 2.0 source will have varying effects on attitudes toward Internet sources,
government cynicism, efficacy, and political participation. For example,
Pasek et al. (2009) find that Facebook and MySpace users have different
levels of political knowledge, civic engagement, and interpersonal trust, lar-
gely due to the sites distinctive users and functions. Drawing on literature on
Internet campaigning (Bimber and Davis 2003; Gulati and Williams 2007;
Kamark 2002; Williams et al., 2002), we discuss how popular Web 2.0 sources
used during the 2008 presidential election differed with regard to their level
T. L. Towner and D. A. Dulio 171
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d

A
u
t
o
n
o
m
a

M
e
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n
a
]

a
t

1
3
:
1
6

1
8

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

of informational content, involvement and engagement, mobilization, and
interactivity. In addition, for each source, we describe the amount of
user-generated content that appeared from the public and the campaigns.
As we note below, these Web 2.0 sources had several things in common,
but they also differed significantly in features and services provided.
YouTube
During the 2008 campaign, both Obama and McCain maintained a channel
on the video-sharing site YouTube. In general, this site allowed candidates
to upload and share videos, allowing them to freely and broadly dissemi-
nate campaign messages to a wide audience (Gueorguieva 2008; also see
Gulati and Williams 2010). That is, YouTube videos are open to the public;
one does not have to be a member or registered user. In March 2006, the
candidates YouTube channels and videos were combined into one location
entitled YouChoose 2008 (Vargas 2007). On YouChoose 08, the candi-
date channels contained some informational content in text, particularly
the candidates biographical and contact information, party identification,
number of subscribers, and latest comments, but much of the information
was delivered via video. For example, under the The Presidential Race
and Politicians to Watch on YouChoose 08, the candidates posted daily
videos of stump speeches, rallies, fundraisers, and other events that were
generated by the campaign itself, the national party organization, or other
campaign supporters. YouChoose 08 also included the Playlist, which
featured five election videos created by the public. These videos included
issue-related commentaries, videos from the campaign trail, attacks on the
opponent, and satirical or humorous sketches. Unlike the other sections,
the Playlist videos were posted and controlled by YouTube rather than
the campaigns. In addition, the campaigns could not control the related
videos that appeared alongside posted videos. As a result, the
user-generated content found on YouChoose 08 was from both the candi-
date and the public. Therefore, political information ran the gamut from
candidate policy statements to advertisements produced for television to
candidate gaffes, satire, or parody.
Regarding involvement and engagement, YouChoose 08 users could
communicate with candidates by posting text or video comments on cam-
paign videos, establishing a two-way connection. Other users could view
these comments and respond to previous postings, creating a video Web
log (or vblog). This voter-to-voter communication contained a variety of
comments, some endorsing and others criticizing the candidate. Candidates
could remove inappropriate or inflammatory comments as well as block
users. YouChoose 08 users could also subscribe to candidate videos. By
subscribing, users would be notified on their YouTube home page when
candidates uploaded a new video. YouChoose 08, however, did not provide
172 The Web 2.0 Election
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d

A
u
t
o
n
o
m
a

M
e
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n
a
]

a
t

1
3
:
1
6

1
8

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

space for individuals to electronically donate money or volunteer, learn how
to register to vote or vote absentee, or find polling locations. Indeed, the lat-
ter was often mentioned in campaign videos; however, there was no separate
section for these features, as was often found on candidate Facebook pages
and Web sites. While YouChoose 08 did not offer space for volunteer
sign-up, mobilization toolsparticularly sharing, embedding, and down-
loading campaign videoswere available to viewers. For example, users
were able watch a campaign video and then forward the video link to their
friends. Viewers could also embed the video link on their Web page or social
networking profile. Last, considering interactivity, YouChoose 08 did not
allow candidates to conduct live video chats with viewers. Thus, voter inter-
action with the campaign or other users in real time was restricted.
Facebook
In the 2008 election, candidates used both YouChoose 08 and Facebook to
deliver their campaign message to voters. Unlike YouTube, however, Face-
book is in the business of connecting people, allowing individuals to
communicate with friends, family, and coworkers. Specifically, Facebook per-
mits users to make their list of connections visible to others and to traverse their
social networks (boyd and Ellison 2007). Both Obama and McCain created and
frequently updated a personal profile on Facebook known as a fan page,
which could be viewed by registered and unregistered Facebook users. The
informational content on the candidates Facebook pages was much broader
than on YouChoose 08 and ranged from text to videos. In particular, the
pages included candidate biographical and contact information, candidate
interests, family photos, photos from the campaign trail, videos of stump
speeches and rallies, event listings, notes from the candidate and campaign
staff, and information on voter registration, polling locations, donating money,
and volunteering. In addition, candidates had more control over their content
on Facebook, as they directly posted material from the campaign, the national
party, or other supporters. Unlike YouChoose 08, Facebook managers did not
post their own political content. As discussed below, however, Facebook users
could post comments and content on the candidates pages.
To engage with candidates on Facebook, users could become a candi-
dates fan. Similar to YouChoose 08, this enabled fans to post comments
on and like the candidates videos, photos, links, and other content, which
could be viewed by all users. Fans could also post content, such as photos,
links, and videos, on the candidates walls, which could range from support-
ive to unsupportive candidate material. Candidates could also delete
comments as well as block fans. When candidates posted new content, this
information would be listed on fans News Feed and candidates Mini-
Feed. Thus, each time fans logged in to Facebook, they received the latest
candidate information. Facebook, however, went beyond simply delivering
T. L. Towner and D. A. Dulio 173
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d

A
u
t
o
n
o
m
a

M
e
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n
a
]

a
t

1
3
:
1
6

1
8

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

the campaigns message to fans: It actively engaged and involved fans in the
campaign. As Gueorguieva (2008) notes, SNSs functioned differently than
YouTube, as Facebook promoted voter registration, recruited volunteers,
and asked for donations. For example, Obamas Facebook page provided
a section under Boxes that helped individuals find where to vote on
Election Day.
Furthermore, Facebook surpassed YouChoose 08s mobilization tools,
making participating easier. For instance, Facebook profiles are customiz-
able. Users could display their political interests to their friends by adding
an I support Obama button on their profile or creating and join political
groups, such as John McCain for President or One Million Strong for
Obama. Users could further share their political opinion, remind friends
to vote, and post links to voter registration sites by updating their status mes-
sages, wall postings, and messaging friends. The users friends could view all
of this content, as it is listed in their News Feed. Friends can also comment on
News Feed postings, thus facilitating conversations about politics. The Face-
book pages also included downloadable videos, photos, and other material
as well as links to purchase campaign gear. Regarding interactivity, Facebook
offered Chat, a form of instant messaging, which allowed candidates to
communicate with fans in real time; however, there is no evidence that this
occurred during the campaign. Interactivity between Facebook users during
real-time campaign events, particularly live presidential debates, was com-
mon. For example, a Facebook group for the first presidential debate
(The 2008 Presidential Debate at Ole Miss) allowed users to post comments
while the candidates debated.
Candidate Web Sites
In 2008, Obama and McCain had regularly updated Web sites that were vis-
ited frequently by online consumers (Smith 2009). The informational content
of candidate Web sites has been widely examined by scholars (e.g., Benoit
and Benoit 2005; Bimber and Davis 2003; Davis 1999, 2005; Selnow 1998;
Tedesco et al., 1999). In general, sites include biographical sketches, contact
information, family photos, links to speeches, issue and policy positions, and
complementary news stories. Obama and McCains Web sites were no differ-
ent, except they included numerous opportunities for individuals to donate
money, volunteer, plan events, and register to vote (Project for Excellence
in Journalism 2008a). Much of the sites informational content was text, but
they also contained other formats, such as streaming and downloadable
audio and video. In addition, a majority of the content was generated by
the campaign, but information from the national party, the media, and other
supporters was also included. Unlike YouChoose 08 and Facebook, all
content was controlled by the campaigns, as there was little space for
competing voices.
174 The Web 2.0 Election
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d

A
u
t
o
n
o
m
a

M
e
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n
a
]

a
t

1
3
:
1
6

1
8

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

Obamas and McCains Web sites offered numerous features for engage-
ment, involvement, and mobilization. For example, the sites allowed indivi-
duals to customize the Web site, register for information updates, write a
personal blog, subscribe to RSS feeds, personalize their own page, and link
to external social networks (Project for Excellence in Journalism 2008a). Much
of the information was from the candidate to user, as two-way communication
with the campaign was largely limited to blog commenting. Similar to
Facebook, candidate Web sites provided users a means to donate online,
volunteer their labor, register to vote, find polling locations, and sign petitions.
Along with blogs, the sites connected people via personalized pages, MyBar-
ackObama or McCainSpace, which functioned as an online community for
supporters. In contrast to Facebook fan pages, however, this community was
restricted to registered users only and was not publicly available. These pages
allowed supporters to create a profile, find and message friends, find local
events, raise funds, and volunteer. In addition, these pages were a key mobi-
lization tool, as they encouraged online as well as offline activities. For
example, MyBarackObama asked members to blog, join online groups,
host events, call neighbors, and canvass neighborhoods. All Web site users
could access the sites Web badges; downloadable material, such as yard
signs, fliers, and information cards; and campaign paraphernalia for purchase.
Last, interactivity with the candidates in real time was limited, but the sites
occasionally offered live chats with campaign staff and volunteers.
Overall, these Web 2.0 sites are similar in that they provided user-
generated campaign content to the public. As noted above, the informational
content on each site was comparable, all offering viewers the candidates bio-
graphies, contact information, and issue and policy positions. Yet each Web
2.0 site was different, particularly regarding engagement and mobilization
tools. Unlike YouChoose 08, Facebook and candidate Web sites were both
more likely to involve and engage users by providing a means to donate or
volunteer online. In addition, mobilization tools were more prevalent on
Facebook and candidate Web sites than YouChoose 08. On the other hand,
candidate Web sites restricted many mobilization tools to registered users,
limiting connectivity. Last, these Web 2.0 sites offered different levels of
campaign-controlled, user-generated content: YouChoose 08 contained con-
tent that was directly from the campaigns as well as uncontrolled videos from
the public. Facebook had content from the campaigns and the public, mostly
controlled by the campaign. The candidates Web sites largely contained con-
tent directly from the campaign.
STUDY DESIGN
An experiment was conducted to examine the effects of Web 2.0 sources on
young adults. The experiment allowed us to control the sources subjects
T. L. Towner and D. A. Dulio 175
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d

A
u
t
o
n
o
m
a

M
e
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n
a
]

a
t

1
3
:
1
6

1
8

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

viewedfor example, exposure to a particular Web pageand enabled us to
make causal statements about exposure to Internet sources. We recruited
participants from introductory-level courses in political science at a
medium-sized public university. Using a convenience sample of college stu-
dents in experimental studies has been a topic of debate because undergrad-
uates are not representative of the general population (Mook 1983; Sears
1986). However, we focus on college students because the Pew survey noted
above shows that young adults are more likely than older adults to visit or
obtain online political information from Web 2.0 sources. The percentages
decline as age increases, with those 55 and older rarely using these sources
(Pew Research Center 2008a).
Interested participants were asked to arrive at a university computer
laboratory on October 22, 2008. To increase realism, we conducted the
experiment during the general election campaign 1 week after the last presi-
dential debate between Barack Obama and John McCain and almost 2
weeks before Election Day. Once seated at the computer, subjects read
the survey instructions and were then linked to the online survey. During
the survey, subjects were instructed to view campaign content on a Web
page, which was randomly assigned, for 20 minutes. We believe 20 minutes
is an accurate representation of the time young people spend with political
news, as the Pew Research Center (2008b) reports that citizens spend an
average of 9 minutes getting news online on a typical day. To ensure
exposure to the Web pages content, all subjects were asked to complete
a Web page evaluation sheet. Subjects were also instructed to evaluate
any campaign content they wished but not navigate away from their
assigned Web page. This approach maintained control over exposure to
the stimulus Web pages while also retaining a realistic browsing experience
on an actual Web page. By presenting subjects with political information
that they would normally view online, we offer a good test of the effects
of highly selective Internet sources. As a result, experimental realism is high,
boosting external validity. This allows us to generalize our results to other
young adults. Mundane realism, however, is low, because participants
viewed online content in a computer laboratory rather than in the real
world. Yet the latter does not pose a threat to internal validity (Aronson
et al., 1990; Kinder and Palfrey 1993). After exposure to the Internet
sources, all participants responded to questions about Internet source per-
formance and coverage, campaign interest, political efficacy, and govern-
ment trust. Subjects were also asked a series of demographic questions,
such as their race, gender, age, and year in school.
A total of 218 students participated in the experiment and were ran-
domly assigned to one of five experimental conditions. The first group
(n43) viewed the YouTube channel YouChoose 08. The second group
(n43) looked at campaign information on Obama and McCains profiles
on Facebook. The third group (n46) viewed Obama and McCains
176 The Web 2.0 Election
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d

A
u
t
o
n
o
m
a

M
e
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n
a
]

a
t

1
3
:
1
6

1
8

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

presidential candidate Web sites. The fourth group (n43) looked at
similar content, but this condition was presidential campaign content on a
television network Web site, specifically ABCNews.coms Politics page.
The control condition (n43) also viewed a Web page, but it contained
sports coverage (ESPN.com) rather than campaign information. See Table 1
for summary statistics of observable characteristics by experimental
condition.
ABCNews.com was selected as a fourth condition for several reasons.
First, unlike YouChoose 08, Facebook, and candidate Web sites, ABCNews.
com contained campaign information reported by journalists. That is,
ABCNews.com provides a comparison between user-generated and
journalist-generated content. Second, television network Web sites are also
an important online information source for young people. For example, of
online political users, 72% of young people (1829) got their information
about the 2008 elections from television network Web sites (Smith 2009).
Third, similar to their affiliated television channels, network news sites report
a broad array of events and issues whereas cable news sites, such as
CNN.com and MSNBC.com, report a more narrow selection (see Project for
Excellence in Journalism 2008b). Last, of those young adults (18 to 29 years)
who got most of their news about the presidential election from television,
many used ABC News (13 percent) rather than CBS (8 percent) or NBC
(10 percent) for campaign information (Smith 2009).
Although many experimental studies expose subjects to real, live Inter-
net content (Tewksbury and Athaus 2000; Xenos and Kyoung 2008), we
identified three problems with this approach. First, subjects may be exposed
to stimuli uncontrolled in the experiment. In this experiment, possible con-
founding stimuli would be information not obtained from the respondents
assigned Web page or information that was not about politics or the presi-
dential campaign. The latter is most likely to occur if subjects strayed from
their assigned Web pages. To account for this possibility, we tracked and
recorded the Web page and content viewed by each respondent. Based on
the tracking data, we later removed 11 respondents for straying from their
assigned Web page and 4 who did not view any Web pages. Therefore,
TABLE 1 Summary Statistics for Observable Characteristics by Experimental Condition
YouChoose
08
Candidates
Facebook
profiles
Candidate
Web sites
ABCNews.com
Politics page Control
Variable M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD
Party
identification
2.76 1.28 2.86 1.06 2.91 1.32 2.43 1.17 2.86 1.29
Gender 0.31 0.467 0.46 0.505 0.58 0.499 0.33 0.474 0.36 0.485
Race 0.79 0.415 0.76 0.435 0.89 0.321 0.74 0.441 0.85 0.366
T. L. Towner and D. A. Dulio 177
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d

A
u
t
o
n
o
m
a

M
e
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n
a
]

a
t

1
3
:
1
6

1
8

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

among the remaining respondents (N203), we are assured that few con-
founding factors interfere with the treatments purity. Most important, the
tracking data act as an additional treatment check, allowing us to confirm that
subjects viewed their assigned Internet source.
Second, we cannot control the Web pages format and structure. A close
inspection of YouChoose 08, the candidates Facebook pages and Web sites,
and ABCNews.coms Politics page, however, revealed some similarities.
These Web pages included hyperlinks to video clips, textual articles, other
Web pages, and advertisements, allowing consumers to click around, reading
and watching content on topics that interested them. These Web pages, how-
ever, did differ slightly in format. YouChoose 08 largely listed videos by the
respective candidate, allowing viewers to select videos based on the sponsor-
ing candidate. ABCNews.coms Politics page did not categorize articles and
videos according to candidate. Instead, the latest headlines and videos are
presented in a menu-based or directory format. The candidates Facebook
pages offered a list of recent postings, which included comments, announce-
ments, links, videos, and photos, on a public writing space known as a wall.
The Facebook page also had a series of tabs, functioning as a menu or direc-
tory, to direct viewers to more information, photos, events, and notes. The
home pages of both candidates Web sites offered a drop-down toolbar for
issues, media, content about the candidate, a content flipper of current
postings, and links to find events, register to vote, donate money, and volun-
teer.
Third, we cannot control Web 2.0 sites informational content. As dis-
cussed above, however, much of the content posted by the campaigns
was similar, particularly candidates biographies, contact information, and
issue and policy positions. On the day of the experiment, YouChoose 08
and the candidates Facebook pages and Web sites included numerous cam-
paign advertisements, videos of stump speeches and rallies, and press
releases, all similar in topic and subject matter. In some cases, identical con-
tent from the campaign is posted across Web 2.0 sources. For example, the
Obama campaign posted the same video of Barack Obama speaking in
Miami, Florida, on YouChoose 08 and on his Facebook and Web pages. This
is not surprising for several reasons. First, the same campaign staffers and
consultants usually monitor and maintain all online sites, posting similar con-
tent on each site. Second, each campaign sought to send a clear and consist-
ent campaign message using online sources. Of course, content from the
general public, particularly individuals comments to campaign material
and blog responses, may differ across sources. ABCNews.coms Politics
page also contained campaign information, such as on public opinion polls,
analysis of candidate campaign strategy, stump speeches, and general cam-
paign news, but this content was generated and posted by ABCNews.coms
journalists.
2
178 The Web 2.0 Election
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d

A
u
t
o
n
o
m
a

M
e
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n
a
]

a
t

1
3
:
1
6

1
8

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

RESULTS
First, we examine the influence of the Web 2.0 sources and the ABCNews.
com Politics page on attitudes toward Internet sources, particularly per-
formance ratings and cynicism. Two indicators measure the latter. First,
respondents agreed or disagreed with the following statement: I trust sources
on the Internet to cover political events fairly and accurately (1 strongly dis-
agree, 3 neither agree nor disagree, 5 strongly agree). Second, we asked
respondents about the quality of Internet political coverage: Overall, how
would you rate the performance of Internet sources in covering politics in
America? (1 poor, 2 only fair, 3 good, 4 excellent). Ordered probit
models are estimated by regressing attitudes toward Internet sources on indi-
cators of YouChoose 08, ABCNews.coms Politics page, the candidates
Facebook page, and the candidates Web site exposure (1 exposed, 0 no
exposure; the control group is the omitted category). We also control for
the standard demographic variables: party identification, gender, and race.
3
Column 1 in Table 2 shows that exposure to content on YouChoose 08 and
the candidates Facebook pages and Web sites did not influence Internet
source trust. Instead, subjects exposed to ABCNews.coms Politics page
were significantly more likely to trust Internet sources to cover political events
fairly and accurately. Specifically, holding all other variables constant, respon-
dents who viewed content on ABCNews.coms Politics page had a 0.48
probability of trusting Internet sources.
4
In contrast, YouChoose 08 viewers
had only a 0.22 probability of trusting Internet sources. Respondents exposed
to candidates Facebook pages and Web sites had a 0.27 and 0.34 probability
of trusting online content, respectively. This suggests that young adults view
mainstream television network sites, such as ABCNews.com, as more trust-
worthy than other types of online content. This is likely a result of the substan-
tial amount of user-generated contentfrom both candidates and the
publicon Web 2.0 sites. That is, the political content presented on Web
2.0 sources is considered biased, rarely offering objective, neutral, or investi-
gative coverage of political issues. Mainstream campaign information is
simply viewed as more credible.
Similarly, column 2 in Table 2 shows that respondents exposed to
ABCNews.coms Politics page had a 0.49 probability of highly rating Inter-
net source coverage of politics in America. In addition, those who saw the
candidates campaign Web site had a 0.50 probability of highly rating Internet
political coverage, a slightly more substantial effect than those viewing
ABCNews.coms Politics page. No such significant relationship existed
for those who were exposed to YouChoose 08 and the candidates Facebook
pages. This suggests that young people consider some user-generated sites,
particularly candidate Web sites, as higher-quality. We can also conclude that
candidate Web sites are unique relative to other Web 2.0 sources. In contrast
T. L. Towner and D. A. Dulio 179
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d

A
u
t
o
n
o
m
a

M
e
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n
a
]

a
t

1
3
:
1
6

1
8

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

to Facebook and YouChoose 08, candidate Web sites contain user-generated
content directly from the candidate rather than the public. Young adults could
find factual information on the candidates as well as their stance on policy
matters without competing voices. Overall, the above findings suggest that
sites with less user-generated content from the public are viewed as more
trustworthy and higher-quality political information.
We then test the effects of these conditions on government attitudes,
particularly trust and political efficacy. To measure government trust, an
additive index of four survey items was created.
5
The four items were aver-
aged to yield an index ranging from low to high, with a low score indicating
more government cynicism. Confirming our expectations, the ordered probit
estimates show that participants in the YouChoose 08 condition were signifi-
cantly less likely to have trust in government (column 3 in Table 2). The mag-
nitude is somewhat strong, with YouChoose 08 viewers having a 0.47
probability of government cynicism (all other variables held constant). This
relationship did not exist among respondents exposed to ABCNews.coms
TABLE 2 Perceptions of Government Trust, Internet Sources, and External Efficacy by
Experimental Condition
Trust
Internet
sources
Rating
Internet source
political coverage
Trust in
government
External
efficacy
Conditions
YouChoose 08 .155 (.255) .300 (.270) .592

(.289) .185 (.254)

ABCNews.com
Politics page
.548

(.242) .653

(.256) .161 (.259) .182 (.238)

Candidates
Facebook
profile
.187 (.251) .267 (.265) .283 (.263) .417

(.249)
Candidates
Web site
.250 (.242) .725

(.256) .271 (.266) .200 (.238)

Controls
Republican
(1 strong Dem,
5 strong Rep)
.028 (.065) .186

(.069) .016 (.069) .016 (.065)

Male .013 (.166) .054 (.173) .004 (.177) .150 (.164)
Race (1 white,
0 nonwhite)
.194 (.210) .159 (.216) .307 (.238) .131 (.207)
a1 1.82 1.86 2.44 1.10
a2 0.688 0.876 1.39 0.266
a3 .141 .960 .232 .084
a4 1.82 0.550 1.40
a5 1.69
a6 2.31
Log likelihood 240.06 191.47 220.74 270.28
v
2
(7) 7.53 20.0

11.5 4.41
N 187 187 150 188
Note. All estimates are ordered probit coefficients with standard errors in parentheses.

p <.10;

p <.05;

p <.01 (one-tailed).
180 The Web 2.0 Election
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d

A
u
t
o
n
o
m
a

M
e
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n
a
]

a
t

1
3
:
1
6

1
8

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

Politics page and candidates Facebook pages and Web sites. These find-
ings suggest that exposure to YouChoose 08s user-generated content leads
to increased cynicism toward government. As we discussed previously, You-
Choose 08 contains content from the public, particularly satirical skits, sar-
castic commentary, scathing personal attack ads, and music videos that
could not be controlled by the campaigns. This type of political coverage
exacerbates public distrust of government and politicians, encouraging
young adults to question the governments value and actions.
Next, we examine whether exposure to various Web 2.0 sources will
increase young adults external political efficacy. To gauge external political
efficacy, participants were asked the following: How much do you agree or
disagree that people like you dont have any say about what the government
does? (1 strongly disagree, 3 neither agree nor disagree, 5 strongly
agree). When one has strong external efficacy, they believe that their involve-
ment in politics is effective and that the government will respond to their
demands. As such, strong external efficacy is associated with higher political
participation (Balch 1974; Converse 1972; Niemi et al., 1991). In column 4 in
Table 2, we see that respondents exposed to the candidates Facebook pages
were significantly more likely to believe that they influence the political sys-
tem. Specifically, respondents viewing Obama and McCains Facebook pages
had a 0.45 probability of higher external efficacy (all other variables held
constant). Indeed, this effect is moderate, but it suggests that young people
exposed to content on candidates Facebook pages are more likely to believe
that they can make a difference in politics. That is, joining a political group,
adding an I support Obama profile button, posting political content, and
becoming McCains fan may enhance feelings of efficacy. Exposure to
ABCNews.coms Politics page, YouChoose 08, and the candidates Web
sites did not influence external political efficacy among young adults. Due
to Facebooks interactive features, it is reasonable to expect that its viewers
have higher efficacy. Facebook users were not passive recipients of political
information. Instead, they could make their political opinions known and
play a more visible role in political events. Then, users may feel that social
networks give them the opportunity to influence government and political
leaders in ways that go beyond the conventional methods, such as letter writ-
ing or attending campaign rallies. Thus, this finding offers evidence for the
contention that interactive communication formats may heighten political
efficacy.
Next, we test the influence of the Web 2.0 sources and the ABCNews.-
com Politics page on political participation. To measure political partici-
pation, we asked subjects whether they expected to vote in the national
elections in November (1 yes, 0 no). We realize this is a prospective mea-
sure of a vote that may not be cast; however, it offers us a gauge of an
individuals willingness to participate politically. Table 3 shows the results
from a probit regression in which expected vote is estimated as a function
T. L. Towner and D. A. Dulio 181
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d

A
u
t
o
n
o
m
a

M
e
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n
a
]

a
t

1
3
:
1
6

1
8

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

of the same predictors used in Table 2. We find that young adults exposed to
YouChoose 08 and the candidates Facebook profiles were significantly
more likely to expect to vote. Specifically, holding all other variables con-
stant, respondents who viewed YouChoose 08 and Facebook had a 0.49
and 0.47 probability of voting, respectively. Respondents in ABCNews.coms
Politics and candidate Web site conditions were not more likely to partici-
pate in the November election. In contrast to the findings of Baumgartner
and Morris (2010), this suggests that young adults using Web 2.0 sources,
particularly video-sharing sites and social networks, for political information
may be more likely to mobilize and engage in offline politics. Regarding
Facebook, these findings are not surprising, as users had higher levels of
external efficacy. As noted above, Facebook promoted many types of online
to offline political activity, such as voter registration drives, rallies, and online
volunteer sign-ups. Indeed, candidate Web sites offered unique mobilization
tools, but unlike Facebook, many of these were restricted to registered sup-
porters. Interestingly, one would not expect exposure to YouChoose 08 to
boost participation, as the site contained few involvement and mobilization
tools. Our post hoc reasoning for this relationship is based on our previous
finding: YouChoose 08 exposure increases government cynicism. Thus, as
young people become more skeptical about government, perhaps this
encourages them to change it.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Our findings point to an important conclusion for those interested in how
Web 2.0 applications (and other Web sites) influence candidate campaigns.
TABLE 3 Voting Expectation by Experimental Condition
Expect to vote in 2008
presidential election
Conditions
YouChoose 08 1.24

(0.534)
ABCNews.com Politics page 0.876 (0.524)
Candidates Facebook profile 1.01

(0.522)
Candidates Web site 0.802 (0.522)
Controls
Republican (1 strong Dem, 5 strong Rep) 0.162 (0.110)
Male 0.532

(0.267)
Race (1 white, 0 nonwhite) 0.051 (0.323)
Constant 1.78

(0.575)
Log likelihood 62.99
v
2
(7) 12.7

N 184
Note. All estimates are probit coefficients, with standard errors in parentheses.

p <.10;

p <.05;

p <.01 (one-tailed).
182 The Web 2.0 Election
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d

A
u
t
o
n
o
m
a

M
e
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n
a
]

a
t

1
3
:
1
6

1
8

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

In short, the medium matters. Our experimental data demonstrate that differ-
ent types of Internet sourceseven within those classified as Web 2.0have
different effects on users. Participants who viewed material on the candi-
dates Web sites were more likely to rate these sources as being of high qual-
ity, in contrast to those exposed to YouChoose 08 and Facebook. Those
exposed to YouChoose 08 were found to have a higher likelihood of cyni-
cism compared to those in other conditions. Moreover, those who examined
information on Facebook were more likely to have higher internal efficacy.
We believe that these various effects are driven by the differences in the
sources. A particular mix of types of information produces distinct effects
on users. This has important implications for candidates and their campaign
advisers. If certain types of information lead to certain types of attitudes, the
different types of Web tools can be maximized in terms of their effect. This
may be most notable in our finding that those who were exposed to
YouChoose 08 and Facebook were more likely to report that they would
vote in the election. Knowing that the information contained on these sites
can lead to participation is important information for candidates and their
advisers.
There is also important information for another electoral actorthe
pressin our findings. In general, we find that sources featuring a great deal
of user-generated content do not lead to participants having a great deal of
trust in the information on those sites, but a mainstream media site
ABCNews.comdid. This tells us that the public still sees differences
between more traditional news information and information produced by
users.
We should be clear, however, to note a limitation in our study. Because
of the small sample sizes in each experimental condition, our results should
be taken as an informative first step in identifying the effects of Web 2.0
applications during an election. More work needs to be done on the same
questions we ask here with larger samples and varied research designs.
Although our samples are limited, we believe that these results point us in
the right direction for studying the differences between online mediums.
In addition, it is clear from journalistic accounts of how the candidates
campaigns used Web 2.0 tools that the campaigns were concerned with inter-
nal campaign organizational activities when using Web 2.0 technology.
Obama utilized Facebook (as well as his own SNS) extensively to recruit
volunteers and to contact others in their own network of friends. It is clear
from other work that personal interaction with a friend or associate can be
an important determinant of vote choice (see, for example, Beck at al.
2002; Huckfeldt and Sprague 1995). The 2008 candidates certainly saw that
and, Obama especially, took advantage of what Web 2.0 tools, such as Face-
book, offered. Even with a tool like YouTube, campaigns seemed to use it as
an intermediary step to persuasion. For example, when campaign staffers
post a new television commercial on YouTube, they are not looking for
T. L. Towner and D. A. Dulio 183
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d

A
u
t
o
n
o
m
a

M
e
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n
a
]

a
t

1
3
:
1
6

1
8

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

YouTube to play a role as a persuasion tool: They are looking to generate
earned media and coverage of that spot in traditional news outlets. Cam-
paigns seem to be using Web 2.0 applications in ways that take advantage
of the benefits of what they have to offer.
NOTES
1. Some also label Weblogs or blogs as a Web 2.0 application, but blogs made their appearance in
the late 1990s, even if it was in a limited number.
2. In general, ABCNews.com presented balanced coverage of Obama and McCain, giving roughly
equal space to both candidates as well as comparable positive and negative coverage. Balanced coverage
of political candidates is expected on ABCNews.com, as the mainstream press is subject to journalistic
norms of objectivity and neutrality (Bennett 1996; Gans 1979).
3. To tap partisanship, we use the traditional 5-point item, running from 1 for strong Democrat to 5 for
strong Republican. Gender was coded 0 for females and 1 for males. Race was coded 0 for blacks, Asians,
and nonwhite Hispanics, and 1 for whites. The sample consists of 41 percent males and 59 percent females
of whom 78 percent are white, 10 percent are black, 2 percent are Asian, 1 percent are nonwhite Hispanic,
and 5 percent are members of other races. Twenty percent are strong Democrats, 19 percent are
Democrats, 34 percent are Independents=no preference, 16 are Republicans, and 10 percent are strong
Republicans. The mean age is 19.69 (SD2.73).
4. The ordered probit coefficients are z-scores; therefore, the predicted probabilities are obtained
using a table of standard normal distribution.
5. Government trust was based on the following: (a) How much of the time do you think you can
trust the government in Washington to do what is right? (1 never; 2 some of the time; 3 just about
always; 4 most of the time) (b) Would you say the government is pretty much run by a few big interests
looking out for themselves or that it is run for the benefit of all the people? (1 government run by a few
big interests; 2 government run for benefit of all) (c) Do you think that people in government waste a lot
of the money we pay in taxes, waste some of it, or dont waste very much of it? (1 waste a lot; 2 waste
some; 3 dont waste very much) (d) Do you think that quite a few of the people running the govern-
ment are crooked, not very many are, or do you think hardly any of them are crooked? (1 quite a
few crooked; 2 not very many crooked; 3 hardly any are crooked) Cronbachs alpha equaled 0.60
for the trust index.
REFERENCES
Andrews, P. (2003). Is Blogging journalism?. Nieman Reports, 57(3), 6364.
Aronson, E., P. C. Ellsworth, J. M. Carlsmith, and M. H. Gonzales. (1990). Methods of
research in social psychology. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Balch, G. (1974). Multiple indications in survey research: The concept sense of
political efficacy. Political Methodology, 1, 143.
Baumgartner, J. C. and J. S. Morris. (2010). MyFaceTube politics: Social networking
Web sites and political engagement of young adults. Social Science Computer
Review, 28(1), 2444.
Beck, P. A., R. J. Dalton, S. Greene, and R. Huckfeldt. (2002). The social calculus of
voting: Interpersonal, media, and organizational influences on presidential
choices. American Political Science Review, 96(1), 5773.
Bennett, W. L. (1996). An introduction to journalism norms and representations of
politics. Political Communication, 13(4), 373384.
184 The Web 2.0 Election
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d

A
u
t
o
n
o
m
a

M
e
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n
a
]

a
t

1
3
:
1
6

1
8

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

Bimber, B. and R. Davis. (2003). Campaigning online: The Internet in the U.S.
elections. New York: Oxford.
Benoit, P. J. and W. L. Benoit. (2005). Criteria for evaluating political campaign
webpages. Southern Communication Journal, 70(3), 230247.
boyd, d. m. and N. B. Ellison. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and
scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210230.
Casey, C. (1996). The hill on the Net: Congress enters the Information Age. Boston: AP
Professional.
Castells, M. (2001). The Internet galaxy: Reflections on the Internet, business and
society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Clayton, D. M. (2010). The presidential campaign of Barack Obama: A critical
analysis of a racially transcendent strategy. New York: Routledge.
Converse, P. E. (1972). Change in the American electorate. In A. Campbell and P. E.
Converse (Eds.), The human meaning of social change. New York: Russell Sage
Foundation.
Corrado, A. and C. M. Firestone. (1996). Elections in cyberspace: Toward a new era
in American politics. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute.
Cristol, H. (2002). News in the digital age. The Futurist September-October 89.
Davis, R. (1999). The Web of politics: The Internets impact on the American political
system. New York: Oxford University Press.
Davis, R. (2005). Presidential campaigns fine-tune online strategies. Journalism
Studies, 6(2), 241244.
DiMaggio, P., F. Hargittai, W. R. Neuman, and J. P. Robinson. (2001). Social implica-
tions of the Internet, Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 307336.
Drew, D. and D. Weaver. (2006). Voter learning in the 2004 presidential election: Did
the media matter?. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 83, 2542.
Dulio, D. A., D. L. Goff, and J. A. Thurber. (1999). Untangled Web: Internet use
during the 1998 election. PS: Political Science and Politics, 32(1), 5359.
Flanagin, A. J. and M. J. Metzger. (2000). Perceptions of Internet information credi-
bility. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 77(3), 515540.
Frantzich, S. E. (2009). E-politics and the 2008 presidential campaign: Has the
Internet arrived? In W. J. Crotty (Ed.), Winning the presidency 2008. Boulder,
CO: Paradigm.
Gans, H. (1979). Deciding whats news. New York: Pantheon Books.
Germany, J. B. (2009). The online revolution. In D. W. Johnson (Ed), Campaigning
for president 2008: Strategy and tactics, new voices and new techniques. New
York: Routledge.
Grossman, L. (1995). The electronic commonwealth. New York: Penguin.
Gueorguieva, V. (2008). Voters, MySpace, and YouTube: The impact of alternative
communication channels on the 2006 election cycle and beyond. Social Science
Computer Review, 26(3), 288300.
Gulati, G. J. (2010). No laughing matter: The role of new media in the 2008 election.
In L. J. Sabato (Ed) The year of Obama: How Barack Obama won the White
House. New York: Longman.
Gulati, G. J. and C. B. Williams. (2007). Closing the gap, raising the bar: Candidate
Web site communication in the 2006 campaigns for Congress. Social Science
Computer Review, 25(4), 443465.
T. L. Towner and D. A. Dulio 185
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d

A
u
t
o
n
o
m
a

M
e
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n
a
]

a
t

1
3
:
1
6

1
8

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

Gulati, G. J. and C. B. Williams. (2010). Congressional candidates use of YouTube in
2008: Its frequency and rationale. Journal of Information Technology and
Politics, 7(23), 93109.
Heffernan, V. (2008). Clicking and choosing. New York Times November 14: 22.
Huckfeldt, R. and J. Sprague. (1995). Citizens, politics, and social communication.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Jennings, M. K. and B. Zeitner. (2003). Internet use and civic engagement: A longi-
tudinal analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 67, 311334.
Johnson, T. J. and B. K. Kaye. (2004). Wag the blog: How reliance on
traditional media and the Internet influence perceptions of credibility of
Weblogs among blog users. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly,
81(3), 622642.
Johnson, T. J., M. A. Briama, and J. Sothirajah. (1999). Doing the traditional media
sidestep: Comparing the effects of the Internet and other nontraditional media
with traditional media in the 1996 presidential campaign. Journalism and Mass
Communication Quarterly, 76(1), 99123.
Kaid, L. L., W. M. Towers, and S. L. Myers. (1981). Television docudrama and polit-
ical cynicism: A study of Washington: Behind closed doors, Social Science
Quarterly, 62, 161168.
Kamark, E. C. (2002). Political campaigning on the Internet: Business as usual?. In
E. C. Kamark and J. S. Nye Jr. (Eds.), Governance.com: Democracy in the Infor-
mation Age. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Kaye, B. K. and T. J. Johnson. (2002). Online and in the know: Uses and gratifica-
tions of the Web for political information, Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic
Media, 46, 5471.
Katz, J. E. and R. E. Rice. (2002). Social consequences of Internet use: Access, involve-
ment, and interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kenski, K. and N. J. Stroud. (2006). Connections between Internet use and political
efficacy, knowledge, and political participation. Journal of Broadcasting &
Electronic Media, 50(2), 173192.
Kerbel, M. R. and J. D. Bloom. (2005). Blog for America and civic involvement. The
Harvard International Journal of Press=Politics, 10(4), 327.
Kim, D. (2006) Abandoning traditional news? Examining factors influencing the
displacement effects of online news on traditional news media. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Southern Illinois University.
Kinder, D. R. and T. R. Palfrey. (1993). Experimental foundations of political science.
Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Lawrence, E., J. Sides, and H. Farrell. (2010). Self-segregation or deliberation? Blog
readership, participation, and polarization in American politics. Perspectives
on Politics, 8(1), 141157.
Madden, M. (2007). Online video. Retrieved April 1, 2010, from http://www.
pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2007/PIP_Online_Video_2007.pdf
Mook, D. G. (1983). In defense of external invalidity, American Psychologist, 38,
379387.
Niemi, R. G., S. C. Craig, and F. Mattei. (1991). Measuring internal political efficacy in
the 1998 National Election Study. American Political Science Review, 85(4),
14071413.
186 The Web 2.0 Election
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d

A
u
t
o
n
o
m
a

M
e
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n
a
]

a
t

1
3
:
1
6

1
8

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

Norris, P. (2000). A virtuous circle: Political communication in postindustrial
societies. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Owen, D. (2009). Media mash-up: The press in the YouTube election. In L. Sabato
(Ed.), Get in the booth. New York: Longman.
Owen, D. (2010). Media in the 2008 election: 21st century campaign, same old story.
In L. Sabato (Ed), The Year of Obama. New York: Longman.
Pasek, J., e. more, and D. Romer. (2009). Realizing the social Internet? Online social
networking meets offline social capital. Journal of Information Technology and
Politics, 6(34), 197215.
Pew Research Center. (2008a). Liberal Dems top conservative Reps in donations,
activism. Retrieved April 1, 2010, from http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/
464.pdf
Pew Research Center. (2008b). Audience segments in a changing news environment.
Retrieved March 1, 2010, from http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/444.pdf
Pole, A. and L. McKenna. (2007). Blogging alone? Political participation and the
blogosphere. Taubman Center for Public Policy, Brown University.
Price, T. (2004). Cyberpolitics. CQ Researcher, 14(32).
Project for Excellence in Journalism. (2008a). McCain vs. Obama on the Web: A
study of the presidential candidate Web sites. Retrieved May 1, 2010, from
http://www.journalism.org/node/12772
Project for Excellence in Journalism. (2008b). The state of the news media 2008: An
annual report on American journalism. Retrieved March 1, 2010, from http://
www.stateofthemedia.org/2008/narrative_overview_intro.php?media=1
Regan, T. (2003). Weblogs threaten and inform traditional journalism. Nieman
Reports, 57(3), 6870.
Scheufele, D. A. and M. C. Nisbet. (2002). Being a citizen online: New opportunities
and dead ends. The Harvard International Journal of Press=Politics, 7(3),
5575.
Sears, D. O. (1986). College sophomores in the laboratory: Influence of a narrow
data base on social psychologys view of human nature. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 51(3), 515530.
Selnow, G. W. (1998). Electronic whistle-stops: The impact of the Internet in
American politics. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Shah, D. V., J. M. McLeod, and S. Yoon. (2001). Communication, context, and com-
munity: An exploration of print, broadcast, and Internet influences. Communi-
cation Research, 28(4), 464506.
Singer, J. B. (2006). Journalists and news bloggers: Complements, contradictions,
and challenges. In A. Bruns and J. Jacobs (Eds), Uses of Blogs, New York: Peter
Lang.
Smith, A. (2009). The Internets role in campaign 2008. Retrieved March 1, 2010,
from http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2009/The_Internets_
Role_in_Campaign_2008.pdf
Sotirovic, M. and J. McLoed. (2004). Knowledge as understanding: The
information processing approach to political learning. In L. Kaid (Ed.),
Handbook of political communication research. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
T. L. Towner and D. A. Dulio 187
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d

A
u
t
o
n
o
m
a

M
e
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n
a
]

a
t

1
3
:
1
6

1
8

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

Sweetser, K. D. and L. L. Kaid. (2008). Stealth soapboxes: Political information effi-
cacy, cynicism and uses of celebrity Weblogs among readers. New Media &
Society, 10(1) 6791.
Tedesco, J. C., Miller, J. L., and Spiker, J. A. (1999). Presidential campaigning on the
information superhighway: An exploration of content and form. In L. L. Kaid
and D. G. Bystrom (Eds.), The electronic election: Perspectives on the 1996 cam-
paign communication. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Tewksbury, D. and S. L. Althaus. (2000). Differences in knowledge acquisition
among readers of the paper and online versions of a national newspaper.
Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 77(3), 457479.
Towner, T. and D. Dulio. (2010). The Web 2.0 election: Voter learning in the 2008
presidential campaign. In L. L. Kaid and J. A. Hendricks (Eds.), Techno politics
in presidential campaigning: New voices, new technologies, and new voters.
New York: Routledge.
Vargas, J. A. (2007). YouTube gets serious with links to candidates. The Washington
Post. Retrieved April 1, 2010, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/
content/article/2007/03/01/AR2007030101849.html
Vargas, J. A. (2008). Campaigns experimenting online to see what works. The
Washington Post. Retrieved April 1, 2010, from http://www.washingtonpost.
com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/02/AR2008020202073.html
Wall, M. (2006). Blogging Gulf War II. Journalism Studies, 7(1), 111126.
Wei, R. and L. Ven-hwei. (2008). News media use and knowledge about the 2006
U.S. midterm elections: Why exposure matters in voter learning. International
Journal of Public Opinion Research, 20(3), 347362.
Williams, C. B. and G. J. Gulati. (2008). The political impact of Facebook: Evidence
from the 2006 midterm elections and 2008 nomination contest. Politics &
Technology Review, 1(1), 1121.
Williams, C. B., A. Aylesworth, and K. J. Chapman. (2002). The 2002 e-campaign for
U.S. Senate. Journal of Political Marketing, 1(4), 3963.
Xenos, M. A. and K. Kyoung. (2008). Rocking the vote and more: An experimental
study of the impact of youth political portals. Journal of Information Tech-
nology & Politics, 5(2), 175189.
Xenos, M. and P. Moy. (2007). Direct and differential effects of the Internet on polit-
ical and civic engagement, Journal of Communication, 57, 704718.
Zuniga, H. G. D., E. Puig-I-Abril, and H. Rojas. (2009). Weblogs, traditional sources
online and political participation: An assessment of how the Internet is changing
the political environment. New Media & Society, 11(4), 533574.
Zuniga, H. G. D., A. Veenstra, E. Vraga, and D. Shah. (2010). Digital democracy:
Reimagining pathways to political participation. Journal of Information
Technology & Politics, 7(1), 3651.
188 The Web 2.0 Election
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d

A
u
t
o
n
o
m
a

M
e
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n
a
]

a
t

1
3
:
1
6

1
8

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
4