The Digital Divide and Intellectual Diversity

According to lecture, the digital divide "rests on the idea that the economic, social and political future will be driven by (and dependent on) computer and/or internet technology."

As technologies increasingly dictate how we communicate with each other, transmit information and interact with multimedia content, individuals lacking access to technology will be left behind. This trend ultimately polarizes the "digital haves" and the "digital have-nots."

Exploring digital divides in the context of online political activists exploits the societal dangers associated with this problematic consequence of technological innovation. The digital haves, or more simply internet users, can easily inform themselves on important subjects and arguments related to the economy, society and politics. More specifically, the online political activists I observed over the course of this semester are internet users who not only use the web as an information resource, but also participate in discussion forums, multimedia storytelling and citizen journalism. While these people have access to technology and are not faced with the same challenges of digital have-nots, they often operate in echo chambers.

Overall, online political activists reinforce their preexisting beliefs by interacting solely with likeminded individuals, in communities that align with their ideologies. This notion of echo chambers and reinforcing political beliefs was a reoccurring theme I observed throughout the project. Once I began researching Refocus Wisconsin, however, some positive observations contradicted this original analysis.

Refocus Wisconsin differs from the other activists I observed because it is mostly made up of policy experts, academics, business leaders and government officials. While the mission, content and community engagement is activist-like by nature, Refocus Wisconsin promotes intellectual diversity, objective debate and bipartisan problem-solving. Those who participate in the activism and those who follow the initiative have opportunities to expand their world views and challenge their existing beliefs.

As previously mentioned, online political activists and internet users traditionally consume political information that keeps them in their comfort zone. Refocus Wisconsin combats this by providing that same political information through a bipartisan lens, ultimately offering other activists an opportunity to make entirely objective decisions.

Indeed, this type of online involvement is encouraging. The political environments governing Wisconsin - and the nation - are emotional and polarized. As aggression and emotions continue stifling progress, more and more citizens will see the importance of bipartisan debate. More and more citizens will hopefully move outside of their comfort zone into arenas that might help them approach political differences in a "refocused" way.

Promoting intellectual diversity online is important, but this trend of political activism could further exploit the digital divide, leaving digital have-nots uninformed and further behind in future political thought.

In order for democracy to operate as it is intended to do, the gap between internet users and non-internet users must be narrowed. Those left behind risk falling victim to the same echo chambers we currently live in as the rest of society progresses toward a more objective, bipartisan approach to government. In fact - and I'm not trying to be dramatic - this could not only widen the information gap, but could also create a real-world disconnect between classes.

Looking back on my observational experiences with online political activists and their communities, it's obvious how important the internet really is in terms of community building, identity formation, the digital divide, bipartisan politics, participatory culture, norms of communication, etc, etc. My ethnographic research offered a unique opportunity to broaden my thinking and diversify my experiences in a way that I don't think I would've considered on my own. Practicum paper, here I come.

Professor Participates in Refocus Wisconsin

Ken Goldstein, professor, political science, University of Wisconsin-Madison, is one of the featured contributors and “activists” leading WPRI’s Refocus Wisconsin initiative.

During my first semester of college, I took Intro to American Politics with Professor Goldstein. Within the first few minutes of the first day of class, he captivated the lecture by challenging the 300+ students sitting in the audience to try and figure out his political affiliation.

That same semester I went to Professor Goldstein’s house with my section as a reward for having the highest average and since then I've heard him speak several times on campus and elsewhere. Also, I regularly watch the student-broadcasted show he hosts and supervises, “Office Hours.”

When I saw that Professor Goldstein was participating in this project, I thought it would be a great opportunity to analyze his contributions and activism from an online identity perspective.

Political activists and online identity is a major theme I want to explore in my practicum summary, so I’ll just briefly hit on some of my main observations and connections.

Goldstein’s online representations of self are strategic and abundant. He has clearly made it a point to strategically produce an objective persona.

Complete some simple background research and it’s obvious he is an accomplished academic with extensive research experience, innovative polling strategies and fresh ideas on the effects of political advertising in mobilizing publics. He has been featured on “liberally-biased” and “conservatively-biased” media outlets and has conducted polls for Democrat organizations, as well as Republican organizations.

He doesn’t have a personal homepage displaying his impressive credentials and areas of expertise; rather, Goldstein relies on his diverse associations and online activities to help drive his personal brand or identity.

I think it’s really interesting that Professor Goldstein has managed to maintain an identity – online and offline – as an objective expert who transcends biases at all costs. He is criticized from the left and the right for being too conservative or too liberal. Through and through, however, Goldstein upholds a levelheaded, objective approach to the media.

Here is an article where Goldstein is criticized for poll results that were allegedly altered by the conservative thinktank, WPRI.

Refocus Wisconsin fosters democracy

While the definition of democracy is complicated, most agree that an ideal democracy - driven by active and informed participants - is simply unrealistic. Today, everyone is bombarded with overwhelming amounts of information. So much information that it’s sometimes easier to flat out ignore what is going on. Overall, American’s are uninformed about current events but this makes sense because it is just too easy to only access information you care about and ignore the rest.

It’s reassuring to know, however, that citizens are forming different public communities online. Citizens, both informed and uninformed, are coming together, lobbying for their values and beliefs. From tea party rallies that supported Scott Walker, community newsletters endorsing Tom Barrett and online communities of experts sharing innovative solutions, American’s are coming together in some way or another to advocate change.

After researching the Refocus Wisconsin project, it seems as if popular consent is forming from the ground up in a sense. The activists on this site are not driven by political affiliations; rather, the individuals in this community are motivated by their personal beliefs and a desire to make Wisconsin the best it can be. The activists in this community have taken it upon themselves to deliberate and collaborate through the problems facing Wisconsin.

Democrats, republicans, liberals, conservatives, libertarians, moderates, independents and more have all come together as part of this community. Simply researching a few of these individuals with Google shows that they all have diverse ideologies and come from a variety of backgrounds. Not only are they recommending policy and going out into the community to find out what Wisconsin citizens think, but they are also holding public lectures and luncheons that open up their ideas to public criticism.

As far as I can tell, Refocus Wisconsin - despite being sponsored by the WPRI - is an objective group of political activists who simply want what is best for our state. This projects seeks to drive the state forward in order to guarantee long-term prosperity through intellectual diversity, community participation and ides driven by the needs of citizens, not political motivations.

It's difficult to maintain an ideal democracy driven by a public sphere offering equal opportunities for participation. Information comes and goes too fast for anyone to be considered an "ideal democratic participant." Refocus Wisconsin seems to take activists from all over the political spectrum to construct ideas and policies that can be debated openly, attempting to create a more effective democratic system in Wisconsin - a democratic system where more people can contribute ideas and be well informed by simply reading their recommendations.

Refocused on Refocus Wisconsin

For the first half of the practicum project I observed a nation-wide group of conservative political activists on RedState.com, a conservative community based on citizen journalism. I also immersed myself in Governor-elect Scott Walker's campaign initiatives on MyScottSpot.com and actively followed his activities during the last two months of his "Brown Bag Movement."

I thought I wanted to explore how political activists on the left from treehugger.com compared to those on the right, but realized it might be more interesting to see how conservative activists were reacting to Wisconsin's new leadership. Not only that, but the 2010 election cycle yielded major changes on a state and national level I felt were important to understand from both sides of the political spectrum.

I've refocused my attention on an interesting group of political activists from Refocus Wisconsin, a project taken on by the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute Inc. WPRI brands itself as Wisconsin's Free Market Think Tank. I.e., WPRI is a right-wing political activist community. Observing WPRI's new initiative, Refocus Wisconsin, has been fascinating. In fact, I'm blown away by what I've read, watched, researched and observed.

Before doing my serious research on Refocus Wisconsin, the inherent biases I developed while observing RedState.com and WPRI framed my thinking. I assumed the political activism carried out through Refocus Wisconsin was going to be citizen journalism-like with some libertarian scholars contributing policy recommendations here and there. I was wrong.

(Side note: The word conservative Republican has become synonymous with the Tea Party (a grassroots radical right-wing movement of Libertarians), which has become synonymous - especially in Madison, Wis. - with societal destruction. I'm not using this post to express my personal beliefs whatsoever; rather, I want to high light how inspiring the Refocus Wisconsin project has been. The objectivity, quality activism and high caliber activists from across the political spectrum forced me to rethink my assumptions about right-wing politics.

Here is Refocus Wisconsin's mission statement:

"Refocus Wisconsin is a bold project that seeks to provide a blueprint for a new Wisconsin. With the help of nationally respected writers and academics, the project examines Wisconsin's recent past and provides prescriptions for restoring the state's reputation for excellence."

Here is a recent video project that gives you a small, very small, taste of the work they're doing:

I'll end with a couple more observations about the political activism carried out through the project overall. They have a presence on Facebook, Twitter, Vimeo and Youtube channel. They are effectively reaching out across multiple platforms online and engaging Wisconsin citizens in real-world events such as luncheons and speaker series. Refocus Wisconsin does independent polling, issues policy papers, is active in local and state media outlets and has a surprising list of authors that engage community members through their activism.

The Refocus Wisconsin contributors come from different states, different interests and different political ideologies. Refocus Wisconsin is a project that prides itself on intellectual diversity and by bringing together intelligent and inspiring activists to better Wisconsin will, in my opinion, lead to prosperous solutions for the future, even if it is sponsored by a conservative-libertarian group. Good job, conservatives?

Republican to Democrat

While Wisconsin went from democrat to republican this week, I'm going from republican to democrat. For the first half of this project I focused my observations on two audiences within the online conservative republican political activists community: www.redstate.com and www.MyScottSpot.com. For the rest of the semester I'm going to observe two political activist communities for liberal democrats.

Looking back. I should have joined Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett's online community of democrats as he campaigned for Governor because that would've been the logical thing to compare and contrast with Scott Walker's community.

But, because I didn't think of that until writing this post just now (WOW), I went a different route. Currently I'm observing the political activists on www.treehugger.com. Through their forums, "interactive tab" and opportunities to get involved I'm already seeing some stark differences between how liberals and conservatives use the Internet.

One thing I've noticed early on, is that this community does a really good job of paralleling its online activity with real-world action whereas the conservative community, www.redstate.com, was really just a forum to write and complain.

I will continue observing Tree Huggerl however, I need to start observing another community here in Wisconsin for consistency. Does anyone know of a good online political activist community for liberal democrats in Wisconsin?

To Get You Thinking...

Last time I posed a few basic questions to better convey where I was coming from - questions that sparked my interest in the political activist communities I chose to participate in. To reiterate, I asked if anyone has heard of the book, Obama Zombies, by Jason Mattera? (It addresses Obama's use of social media and savvy marketing to build support for his campaign leading up to the 20008 election.)

I also asked myself, and all of you, how does Scott Walker's use of new technologies compare to that of the Democrats in the 2008 election? Is it effective? Has the Republican Party finally figured out that younger generations don't want to see billboards and yard signs? Digital natives clearly need interaction and technology to capture their attention.

While these questions certainly served as launch pad for some of my research and interests, I'd like to pose a separate set of questions related to my section of today's presentation on Internet Users and Audiences.

1. Are conservatives utilizing new technologies better than they were, say 2 years ago?

2. Do you think the internet encourages democratic participation? Think about the infrastructure. I.e., how do search engines work?

4. Do these Internet users subject themselves to homogenous audiences and echo-chambers by actively participating in RedState.com and MyScottSpot.com?

3. Are citizen journalism models that rely on user generate content effective ways to build communities online? What type of Internet user might you expect to use these platforms?

4. Does the element of "Fandom" created by Scott Walker's multi-platform campaign encourage emotion-based voting? What about in 2008?

Here is a brief quote from Baym's (1) article on Swedish music fandom:

"Fandoms pool and generate collective intelligence

and affect. Individuals create self concepts and self

presentations within fan groups. Some become well

known to other fans through fandom. These groups

also develop a sense of shared identity. Personal

relationships are formed amongst some members of fan

groups. Particular fandoms may have a shared ethos, but

disagreement within fan communities is both common

and, often, desirable. "

A New Approach

Since my last update I've written two additional articles for Red State, a site built on a citizen journalism-like model. To reiterate the problems I've encountered, some of the political activist communities I've joined have high barriers to entry. In order to start participating and forming relationships with other activists, your work - anything besides commenting on other people's work - must pass by a moderator before it is published. The first time around I wrote two "diary entries", this time I wrote two more and next time I don't think I'll write any. I've received zero feedback and that's really annoying. I.e., they're still pending review and I don't foresee this changing anytime soon since it's been over two weeks.

I'm going to continue commenting on other stories published on these sites to familiarize myself with the type of people using them, but to avoid any future citizen journalism woes, I've decided to join another political activist group specific to Wisconsin. The gubernatorial race intensifies daily as Scott Walker, Milwaukee County Executive, is up 9 percentage points over Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett. While this opportunity is relatively short-lived because it will be over after the November 2 election, it's still a great experience.

Again, in the interests of intellectual diversity, I've teamed up with Scott Walker's political activist community, MyScottSpot. Here, I've made a profile page, which is ultimately a pseudo-Facebook for conservative activists supporting Walker. (I have friends!) I've also connected with grassroots organizers and even received text messages inviting me to participate in rally events, door-to-door recruitment sessions and phone drives.



MyScottSpot compliments Scott Walker's Brown Bag Movement, an initiative that is branded as a simple solution to Wisconsin's complex problems. (You can actually get brown lunch bags with the "solutions" printed on them.) I'm waiting for some to be mailed to my house, HA! Anyway, I plan to explore this community deeper and observe it's evolution over the final month of his campaign up through election night.

Has anyone heard of the book Obama Zombies by Jason Mattera? It's an interesting book that addresses Obama's use of social media and savvy marketing to build support for his campaign. How does Scott Walker's use of new technologies compare to that of the Democrats in the 2008 election? Is it effective? Has the Republican Party finally figured out that younger generations don't want to see billboards and yard signs; rather, digital natives need interaction and technology to capture their attention.

These questions, along with others, are what I'll be looking to explore as I continue interacting with this online political activist group.

Political Activism: Barriers to Participation

As I began my ethnographic research into political activism on the Internet, I decided it would be interesting - and important for promoting intellectual diversity - to explore both ends of the political spectrum. I.e., I'm participating in extreme left-wing communities and extreme right-wing communities in order to compare and contrast the ways in which they communicate online.

To start, I identified a few celebrity-like activists on Facebook, Twitter and Google. (E.g., Vicki Mckenna, Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, John Stewart, Rachel Maddow, Sean Hannity, etc.)

From there, I looked into the recommended resources on their websites or personality-pages to determine which communities I wanted to participate in.

As an initial post, before my ethnographic research intensifies, I want to high light one significant observation: membership, participation and communication within these online communities has a high barrier to entry.

While most of the communities claim to facilitate easy and open communication, it's not always the case. For example, I joined one conservative community that lets interested users make an account, blog, comment and write "diary posts," which are longer, well-researched pieces. According to the site, the process works as follows:

"RedState’s day to day efforts are led by its Editor, Erick Erickson, and a talented and largely volunteer team of front page contributors. Anyone, however, can write at RedState. That makes RedState unique among right of center sites. Sign up for an account and you too can engage in the comments and post your own user diaries. The best stuff gets voted on by the community and the best of the best gets put on the front page for the world to see."

It was easy to make a user name and account, but I ran into trouble while navigating the various information outlets. On the one hand, I could make short blog posts and have them published immediately. On the other hand, I could make my private thoughts public through the "My Diary" section. In order to publish a post in your diary, however, it must first be approved by a moderator and then resubmitted for publishing.

All of these seemed easy enough on the surface, but at a very basic level it was difficult because a working knowledge of WordPress was required. Luckily, I'm familiar with the platform, but I have to ask: are the majority of people looking to post on this site well-versed in content management technologies such as WordPress? To me, this seems like an extreme barrier entry.

Moreover, my three Diary entries are still pending review. The focus of my entries were very relevant and newsworthy 1-2 weeks ago, but now... Who cares? There are other relevant, more timely issues, that are worth talking about. The combination of these two aspects make it difficult to participate and express opinions, ultimately creating a high barrier to entry that could eliminate a lot of potential contributors.

Sorry it's blurry, but do you think this seems like a lot of hoops to jump through in order to get your voice heard? Do you think that it's a little harder to become a citizen journalism of sorts than they make it seem? I would include links to the articles pending review, but I'm still waiting to hear back from the moderator. (Note: it's been 6+ days since I've submitted them.)