|
"Campaign Website Research: The Way Forward"
By William Benoit
Schneider and Foot do an excellent job reviewing the “state of campaign web site research.” They identify two waves of campaign web research, argue that we should enter a third wave of campaign web research, and sketch some important directions for future research on this important medium. I want to take up a few related topics that have attracted my attention.
I think it is important to be aware of, and to conduct research into, the merging of media. I will offer two examples of what I have in mind here. First, during the 2007 presidential primary season, a Democratic YouTube debate has been held and a Republican YouTube debate is in the offing. These events are an attempt to meld two hitherto fairly distinct campaign media, debates and the Internet. Second, technology is also pushing this convergence of media: The IPhone, for example, combines telephone, email, and Internet (including music and music video). I do not argue that all media will collapse into a single combined media, but as these kinds of mergers occur, the political campaign media environment changes.
Despite my observations about mergers of campaign media, a second general point I want to make is that the various media retain distinct features. For example, we have argued that a well-designed web-page allows users to control the content of messages they receive (Benoit & Benoit, 2000; 2005). If candidates have sections of their campaign webpage on policy and biography, users can choose to examine one or the other (or both—and in the order they wish). Users can choose, for example, to ignore a television spot but they cannot choose to watch a broadcast spot that is about the topic that interests them the most. Similarly, if candidates have webpage sections on terrorism, jobs, education, taxes, health care, Social Security, and the environment (or whatever), the user can choose which topic or topics to read about—and which topics to ignore. Those exposed to spot ads on television have no control over the topics addressed in those spots. The Internet, unlike newspapers or radio for example, can make use of print, photos, graphics, audio, and video. Clearly the various media, including the Internet, have different features and capability.
Third, I think it is useful to continue to contrast the various political campaign media. These contrasts can be made on any message variable of interest, of course. Our content analyses of the 2000 and 2004 presidential campaigns investigated the functions and topics of tv spots, debates, candidate webpages, radio spots, convention speeches, and television talk show appearances (Benoit et al., 2003, 2007). Comparative research on media effects, as well as message content, is also important here. Different people use different media – well, different conglomerations or media—and we need to understand both similarities and differences among the various media options.
Clearly the Internet has arrived as an important campaign medium. Access is not universal (but of course everyone does not read newspapers), but the Internet is an increasingly important medium for candidates to reach voters and for voters to learn about candidates—and for voters to reach and interact with other voters. As Schneider and Foot note, use of campaign webpages spans national and local offices—not to mention third party sites, such as VoteSmart.com, or webpages by citizens. Schneider and Foot note that new web technologies “support alternative models of content creation and community construction.” Technology is continuing to evolve, with vital implications for both creators of webpages and users of Internet resources. Scholars are vigorously investigating this medium and that work will surely continue to grow.
William Benoit is a professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Missouri.
REFERENCES
Benoit, P. J., & Benoit, W. L. (2005). Criteria for evaluating political campaign webpages. Southern Communication Journal, 70, 230-247.
Benoit, W. L., & Benoit, P. J. (2000). The virtual campaign: presidential primary websites in campaign 2000. American Communication Journal, 3. Accessed 11/8/2004: http://acjournal.org/holdings/vol3/Iss3/rogue4/benoit.html.
Benoit, W. L., McHale, J. P, Hansen, G. J., Pier, P. M., & McGuire, J. P. (2003). Campaign 2000: A functional analysis of presidential campaign discourse. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Benoit, W. L., Stein, K. A., McHale, J. P.,Chattopadhyay, S., Verser, R., Price, S. (2007). Bush versus Kerry: A functional analysis of campaign 2004. New York: Peter Lang.
|
