electric town hall

E L E C T R I C TO W N H A L L :
F A C E B O O K A N D T H E PA R L A N C E O F T H E E - C I T I Z E N
April Cole Worley
Master of Public Policy program, California Polytechnic State University
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to April Cole Worley, Department of
Political Science, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA 93407
Contact: aworley@calpoly.edu

TA B L E O F C O N T E N T S
Abstract 3

Figure 1A. Anatomy of a Facebook page, simplified 3
Electric Town Hall and the E-Citizen 4

Democratic Communication Government 2.0 Style; The Literature 5

Democratic Communication Government 2.0 Style; The Three Models 6

Table 1. The three models of online democratic communication and their indicative metrics 7

The Birth of the E-Citizen 8

Electric Town Hall 11
Research Design 14
! Introduction 14

Research approach 14

Metrics 15

Table 2. The three models of online democratic communication and their indicative metrics as adapted to

Facebook 15-16

Data Collection and Analysis 16

Limitations 18
Analysis; The Reveal 19

San Francisco;The Activists 20

Figure 1. Online communication model by type and relevance with examples, San Francisco 20

Figure 2. Relative user comment activity as defined by size of name, San Francisco 21

Figure 3. Flaming of San Francisco’s most active users 23

Figure 4. San Francisco Mayor’s office Facebook post themes 24

Figure 5. Citizens of San Francisco Facebook user comment themes 24

Chicago;The Contenders 25

Figure 6. Online communication model by type and relevance, Chicago 26

Figure 7. Relative user comment activity as defined by size of name 26

Figure 8. Communication model breakdown of Chicago’s most active Facebook users 27

Figure 9. Conversations between active users; flaming in red 28

Figure 10. Smiling in an online network of college students (e.g. Fowler & Christakis, 2012) 29

A Tale of Two Mayors 30

Figure 11. Facebook post topics generated by the Mayors of San Francisco and Chicago, count 30

Figure 12. Facebook post topics generated by the Mayors of San Francisco and Chicago, percent 30

Social Media;A Discussion 32
Conclusion and Recommendations 34
Works Cited 36

A.Worley/ELECTRIC TOWN HALL 2

Abstract
With the rapidly growing use of social networking sites such as Facebook, many
governments are getting “connected”, thus potentially opening up multi-directional lines
of communication with its citizens. However, to date, very little systemic research
explores the quality of this new mode of communication and recent research reveals
mixed results. Proponents of government use of social media claim that getting
connected increases social capital while enhancing the quality of democratic
communication with constituents. Critics maintain that government social media pages
only offer citizens the facade of democratic communication. A review of the literature
reveals that conclusions about the relative benefits or losses stemming from
government use of social media are based on relatively assumptive data. Using data
generated from a discourse analysis of Chicago and San Francisco’s Facebook pages, this
research utilizes three established models of online democratic communication (e.g.
Freelon, 2010, Dahlberg, 2001) to identify the parlance of users and assess the quality
of interactions occurring between government and its citizens on Facebook, the world’s
most popular social networking site (Lichtenstein, 2010). My analysis reveals that the
communication models most commonly expressed on the two government Facebook
pages appear in clusters as reflected in social network theory (e.g. Fowler & Christakis,
2008) and are not those associated with democratic communication. Additionally, the
high levels of flaming and advocacy behavior expressed on Facebook by users may
stymy democratic communication, thus I recommend that governments stop treating
Facebook like social media and more like an electric town hall.
Keywords: Electronic town hall, democratic communication, social media, e-gov
Figure A1. Anatomy of a Facebook page, simplified
February 10 at 2:52pm · Like · 1
One Good Deed Chicago @Karen: Snow requests in the 8th
ward are being managed by your alderman, who has opted in
to help. We will forward your comments to her office. Thank
you.
February 10 at 3:02pm · Like
Tony Scozzari This mayor sucks when it comes to removing
snow. No plows on Ridge between Clark and Broadway. HE
WILL NOT GET MY VOTE AGAIN
February 10 at 4:08pm · Like
Casey Thomas It was clean enough to eat off the streets in
fron of his house though.
Saturday at 5:12am · Like
Lucie Love Redlightstar Really, this should be about picking
up garbage in the summer. that's the real problem.
Saturday at 8:20am · Like
Chicago Mayor's Office
Crews are getting into position for the coming storm and reporting back
to snow command on road conditions. We’re getting ready for a storm
that is expected to be heavy at times. The plow tracker is now live. Drive
safely.
City of Chicago :: Plow Tracker
www.cityofchicago.org
Like · Comment · Share · February 10 at 10:36am ·
12 people like this.
Paul Conrad Hopefully you do a better job than last time--
though it would be impossible to do any worse.
February 10 at 10:49am · Like · 5
Adam Bertucci " into postion"= sitting idle.
February 10 at 10:52am · Like · 4
Code for America congrats!
February 10 at 10:58am · Like
Marty Vander Vaart paul is bitching cause they dont do
anything and adam is bitching because they are. no win
Share
Write a comment...
5 shares
Peter Ryan Worley Home
Original post
Profile picture
& User name
User comment post
How many people like
this post by clicking like

Electric Town Hall and the E-Citizen
Each new communications technology, from the telegraph to cable television, seems to spark a new
wave of enthusiasm regarding the potential of communications technology to transform democracy.
Now the internet is being celebrated as a means by which democracy can be strengthened and
extended. Like earlier incarnations of electronic democracy, a wide variety of claims are being made
about the internet’s democratic potential.
Lincoln Dahlberg (2001, p. 157)

The growing popularity of social media has raised questions about its use by government as
a way to communicate with its citizens, and vice versa. Proponents of government use of social
media claim that government use of Facebook and/or Twitter, for example, enhances the quality of
democratic communication with constituents. Critics maintain that citizens continue to choose
more traditional ways to communicate with their government because the majority of e-
government applications, including social media, do not facilitate bidirectional dialog. Either way,
there have been calls by citizens to enhance the quality of their social media communications with
their government, but governments worldwide are having a difficult time responding to this call.

While many studies on online communication have focused on few “exemplary deliberative
spaces”, what remains unknown is “the extent to which rational deliberation can be realized in
general online debate” (Dahlberg, 2011, p. 860) as might occur on Facebook. Additionally, as
reliance on the internet and social media as a tool for communication continues to grow, further
research is needed not only to assess whether or not governments ought to invest in the political
infrastructure needed to meet the communication demands of their citizens, but also to investigate
the quality of interactions governments can offer citizens via social media and what effect the open
platform provided by social media, such as Facebook, has on democratic communication.

This research first reviews the prevailing definitions and trends of online democratic
communication and then discusses current findings regarding citizen and government’s goals for,
and uses of, social media via Facebook. A contextual analysis of San Francisco and Chicago’s
mayors’ Facebook pages will be conducted to assess the quality of parlance and dominant
communication models expressed on the two pages. Conclusions about democratic

communication as it occurs on the two Facebook pages will be drawn by measuring the levels of
varying communication models.
Democratic Communication Government 2.0 Style; The Literature. In the early 2000s 64
percent of citizens who used government webpages were seeking information, not communication
(Streib and Thomas, 2003). In many ways, this reflects the nature of the traditional government
webpage as unidirectional, from government to citizen, and not bidirectional where a two-way
dialogue can take place between a citizen and his or her government. Studies conducted during
this time on the nature of Government 2.0 identified its primary shortfall as being a lack of
interactivity between the government and its citizens (Streib et al., 2003).

As the amount of information and services generated by governments via the internet
increased from 2005 to 2009, there still was “little deployment of electronic technologies...that
more directly engage citizens in discussion, debate or decision making” (Welch, Hinnant, & Moon
2005, p. 372) despite the increasing amount of time citizens spent engaging each other via social
networking sites (Kittilson & Dalton, 2008) during this period. According to the Pew Internet and
American Life Project, 20 percent of internet users in 2006 frequented social media sites (Smith,
2010).

Despite the high hopes many scholars had during the 2005-2009 period that social
networking sites were going to revolutionize democratic communication through a blossoming
virtual civil society (Kittilson & Dalton, 2008), presently, scholars generally agree that the way in
which citizens communicate with their government is in a period of “transformative flux”
characterized by a communication asymmetry (Friedland, 2010). On one end of the
communication stream resides the citizens who are limited in their venues of political expression
and deliberation yet feel the need to be civically active, and on the other end lies the government
that is having “trouble responding to this need” (2010, p. 367).

Following communication trends and reflecting the hopes of scholars in the 2005-2009
period across Europe and the United States, some scholars still believe that social media may be a
way to address the communication asymmetry that stymies democratic communication between a
government and its citizens. They claim that in order to “improve public communications and

enrich democracy” a new “civic culture” must emerge that reflects the need for a “new civic
commons in cyberspace” (Coleman & Blumer as cited in Friedland, 2010, p. 367).

This new civic culture is characterized by deliberative political interactions that are “ongoing
rather than episodic” that take place in “trusted spaces of everyday communication rather than
being confined to official zones of electoral manipulation” (Coleman & Blumer, 2009, p. 80). Based
on the results of Coleman’s large e-governance survey of British citizens, 80 percent were in
support of an online venue such as described above in which to discuss and debate policy issues
(2009, p. 180).

While enhanced democratic communication may be the ultimate policy goal of
governments and their citizens when using social media, the realities involved with “getting there”
may prove to be challenging. In their book The Internet and Democratic Citizenship, Coleman and
Blumer argue that while social media and the internet aid grassroots political groups in organizing
and gaining supporters (communitarian model), this outcome is unrelated to the level of
receptiveness on behalf of the government in terms of their policy decision making process (2009).
In other words, while citizens may desire the ability to influence political outcomes through use of
bidirectional e-government applications and social media platforms, “the necessary political
infrastructure to do so is lacking” (2009, p.18).
Democratic Communication Government 2.0 Style; The Three Models. Leading scholars across
varying disciplines offer many ways in which to define and measure the elements that constitute
democratic communication. These elements range from linear metrics such as the level of
responsiveness of an agency to its citizens (e.g. la Porte, Demchak & de Jong 2002) to more
nuanced frameworks that evaluate communications on a multi-dimensional continuum using three
different models (e.g. Freelon, 2010, Dahlberg, 2001) as shown inTable 1.

Table 1. The three models of online democratic communication and their indicative metrics
(e.g. Freelon, 2010, p. 1175)
Model of
democratic
communication
Indicative Metric
Liberal individualist Monologue
Personal revelation
Personal showcase
Flaming
Communitarian Idealogical fragmentation
Mobilization
Community Language
Intra-ideological questioning
Intra-ideological reciprocity
Deliberative Rational-critical argument
Public issue focus
Equality
Discussion topic focus
Inter-ideological questioning
inter-ideological reciprocity

Dahlberg’s three models of online democratic communication are shown in Table 1.
Dahlberg found that evaluating online political communications required a new, more inclusive
framework to “broaden the scope of online political forum research from ‘online deliberation’
narrowly to ‘online political discussion’ more broadly” while maintaining its connection to “distinct
notions of democratic practice grounded in traditions of political theory-liberalism,
communitarianism and deliberation” (Freelon, 2010, p. 1175). In essence, Dahlberg found that
applying three communication models rooted in traditional political theory allowed for an inclusive
framework that more readily captured the parlance and complexity of the types of discourse that
occurs online when compared to one model narrowly defined by deliberation alone.

The three models include liberal individualist, communitarian and deliberative. The liberal
individualist democratic communication model is characterized by “self-interest” and “personal
expression” (Freelon, 2010, pg. 1175). The liberal-individualist views digital democracy as a means
for information and personal viewpoint transmission (Dalberg, 2011). For example a Facebook
user posting a rant about how a particular new law would effect his or her life, or the sharing of an
inflammatory opinion about the President, would fit the liberal individualist model because the
intent of the user is solely self-interested.

The communitarian model sets itself apart from the liberal individualist model by being
defined by group cohesion rather than self-identity (2010), and is often advocacy based in its
approach to communication. Like the liberal individualist model, the communitarian model is
rooted in pre-established values and beliefs (Habermas, 2006). Additionally, it also often makes use
of ideological-fragmentation in the form of political slogans without leaving room for outside
discussion. An example of the communitarian model in the context of social media would include
a Facebook user posting “Go Green!”, “Vote Pro-Life” or urging other users to show support for
the Occupy Wall Street Protests by posting a call for mobilization, such as “Join the 99%!!”.
Examples may also include community language that speaks on its own behalf, such as the various
incarnations of the popular chant: “What do we want (fill in the blank)?! When do we want it?!
Now!”

In contrast, the deliberative model involves debate and discussion on politically relevant
topics and views the expression of “private interests as important for enabling individuals to arrive
at informed decisions” (Dahlberg, 2001, p. 158). This model of online communication is the most
widely valued by both citizens and policy makers because it is in alignment with the underpinnings
of democracy. In 1960 President Dwight D. Eisenhower addressed the importance of an informed
and deliberative citizenry when he said, “Since public opinion is the only force that has any validity
in democracy, it must be an informed one” (p. 305). Deliberative online communication is
characterized by interaction between users with the intent of remaining receptive to the best
possible outcome regardless of personal or group beliefs. On Facebook this could look like a
discussion between users on the topic of a new ballot initiative where each participant in the dialog
exchange thoughts and ideas about the issue at hand for the purpose of making informed decisions
upon entering the voting booth. In this study, the level of deliberative communication will be used
as a metric in which to measure the democratic
The Birth of the E-Citizen. Many scholars argue that e-governance in general has had a negative
affect on the quality of communication between citizens and their government. Welch, Hinnant and
Moon (2005) found that while citizens are “generally satisfied” with online government information
services, they are “dissatisfied with interactivity efforts” (p. 382). Addressing this issue of e-
government’s lack of interactivity, Stayert (2000) argues that government websites “reduce the
citizen to a customer” (p. 3) due to their emphasis on customer service based applications. In

support of this assertion, a 2002 study on the websites of the 55 most populated cities in the
United States found that the move to e-governance was characterized by a paradigm shift from
public servant oriented services to one of customer service (Ho, 2002).

A second study found that most California municipal websites were service oriented, and
did nothing to encourage citizen participation (e.g. Musso, Weare & Hale, 2000) thus supporting
the argument that “street-level bureaucracy” is becoming a “screen-level bureaucracy” by
eliminating the opportunity for many citizens to interact directly with public servants (Bovens &
Zouridis, 2002, p. 176). Rerouting citizen access to their government without their explicit approval
may explain why although government social media use is on the upswing, the telephone remains
the key vehicle of communication between a citizen and his or her government (Smith, 2010).

Although e-services may offer the government an affordable and efficient way to conduct
their business, citizens seeking democratic communications with their government do not
necessarily want to be viewed as customers and treated as such. Coleman and Blumer (2009)
found that reducing citizens to customers does not support democratic communication because
citizens who want to participate in civic life only want to do so if they feel they are being listened
to efficiently.

Contrary to the findings of Coleman and Blumer that citizens do not participate in civic life
due to being treated as customers by their government (2009), Dalton believes that citizens do not
participate in traditional electoral politics due to a paradigm shift, particularly among the young
adults, where citizens now view themselves as “political customers” (Stoll & Hooghe, 2004) driven
not by the themes put forth by and in the political arena, but by issues that arise in every day life
(Dalton, 2008). In other words, citizens’ lack of political participation is not due to not being heard
by their government, but because a cultural shift has occurred that is moving citizens “away from
participation with formal, hierarchical political institutions” due to a “distrust of political authorities”
toward the “relatively anarchical and individualized structure of the internet” (Jensen, 2011, p. 9).

Other scholars have pointed out the potential positive outcomes e-governance and social
media can have for citizens and policy makers alike. Sheryl Sandberg, CEO of Facebook, claims that
“technology gives a name and a face-a true identity-to those who were previously invisible, and it

turns up the volume on voices that may have otherwise been too soft to hear” (Sandberg, 2011, p.
50). Sandberg offers evidence of this by concluding that the 2011 Arab Spring could not have
occurred on the scale that it did without social media (2011). As for the beneﬁts to policy makers,
some scholars believe that the use of social media by government increases levels of social capital
thus buttressing citizen trust in government (Thomas, 1999).

An example of social media enhancing social capital is Coleman and Blumer’s idea of the
“new civic society”. According to Coleman and Blumer, the new civic society is deﬁned by the
conversational communications between government and citizens that social media may be able to
offer in the close future (2009). Potentially, this can be achieved via Facebook due to its
conversation supported framework; i.e. the government posts information in regards to an
upcoming ballot initiative, and ideally, because multiple users can openly comment on the post,
directed toward fellow users or the government itself, deliberative discourse follows.

Coleman and Blumer also include blogs, free online journals, in their vision of the new civic
society. They argue that blogs are becoming the “sophisticated listening posts of modern society”
because they “lower the threshold of entry to the global debate for traditionally unheard or
marginalized voices” (2009, p. 88). Woodly agrees, and adds that while traditional media continue
to reach “far more people than the most popular websites” there is evidence that “blogs may have
direct and/or indirect effects on political outcomes” due to the nature of their “immediate,
horizontally linked1 dialogical space” that “has the effect of expanding the scope of public space”
and provides a “structure that is closer to conversation than any traditional news medium” (2008,
p. 109). Woodly believes that the popularity and success of blogs is directly related to citizen
disappointment with a degrading free press (2008). Other scholars may argue that the popularity
of blogs, as well as social media platforms such as Facebook, may be a result of an increase of
“attitudinal and behavioral estrangement from objects of the political system” (Jensen, 2009, p. 4),
such as deliberation, in exchange for a more autonomous vantage point characterized by liberal
individualist and communitarian communication models that reinforce the shared viewpoints of a
group, (Feelon, 2010) i.e.“preaching to the choir”.
1 Horizontally linked refers to ability to link blogs to other social media platforms and websites via instant feed.

Additionally, the issue of anonymity among bloggers and their followers may produce
negative externalities when it comes to online democratic communication. In the proceedings
from the 2010 Alliance for Innovation Conference, Bryer writes that informal observations of
anonymous blogs “suggests anonymity may harm civility, thus preventing full benefits of dialogue
and discourse from being achieved” creating a trade-off between full privacy and civility (Sara &
Thomas, 2010, p. 78). Friedland agrees, and writes that “the network society connects individuals
loosened from social structure via complex social and communication networks that increase both
autonomy and anomie (2010, p. 364).

Where blogs fail structurally in many ways to make room for successful deliberation among
users, social media is built for deliberation. However, whether governments are capitalizing on the
democratic communication platform that social media has to offer, is rapidly moving from a
discussion of possible outcomes to a viable venue for observational studies, such as this one. What
has been established is that citizen use of government blogs and social media is relatively low.
According to the Pew Research Center’s 2010 report on e-governance, only 13 percent of internet
users read the blog of a government official or agency and only five percent followed or became a
fan of a government official or agency on Facebook (Smith).

A review of the literature reveals that while e-citizens are currently enjoying the liberal
individualist and communitarian models of online democratic communication through unidirectional
Government 2.0, applications, blogs and e-democracy initiatives that meet citizen desire for
bidirectional communication, venues that fit the deliberative model are still largely lacking
(Dahlberg, 2011). However, some scholars believe that social media may prove to be the new
deliberative venue that will reverse the down trend civic engagement and enhance democratic
communication (Freelon, 2010).
Electric Town Hall. According to Shapiro, multi-directional web-based communication streams as
characterized by the deliberative model may be “one of the most potentially democratic aspects of
the Net” (1999, p. 15). However, whether governments are fulfilling their potential for democratic
communication via the web is largely unknown due to the relative newness of the use of social
media. Some researchers have argued that the use of government web applications may enhance
and deepen democratic feelings by encouraging civic participation and government accountability

(Roberts, 2002). Although a noble idea, this will only be true if the goal of government
communications, including the use of social media, is to enhance democratic communication by
incorporating the views of citizens in decision making processes (Welch et al., 2005).

Two interrelated challenges face government when opening up bidirectional
communication streams via social media: resources and message control. The first challenge is that
successful social media use requires resources. Facebook and Twitter for example, need
communication strategies, social media protocols, personnel and time to ensure the efficiency of
their operation. This type of staffing/time constraint problem stymieing a government’s ability to
keep up with technology trends is common and was the most cited reason why many
municipalities opted out of a web presence in the early days of the internet (Norris & Kraemer,
1996).

In other words, in order for the government to meet the evolving communication demands
of its citizens,“the organization must change, and change requires time” (Welch et al., 2005, p. 387).
During a recession, when governments are scaling back and resources are tight or non-existent,
many may find they do not have the time or personnel necessary to manage social media. This
creates a Catch-22 when one of the main criteria of citizen satisfaction with e-government is
defined by access to “interactive communication” (p. 378).

Control of the message is the second challenge governments face when using social media.
When discussing the White House’s use of Twitter and Facebook, New York University professor
Clay Shirky told the NewYorkTimes that “the loss of control you fear, is already in the past. You do
not control the message, and if you believe you control the message, it merely means you no
longer understand what’s going on” (Lichtenstein, 2010). In the same article, Jared Cohen of the
State Department’s policy planning staff and avid Twitter user said that “the 21st century is a really
terrible time to be a control freak” (2010). Cohen’s tweets range daily from topics such as global
politics: “Guinea holds first free election since 1958”, to his enthusiasm over his favorite television
shows:“Yes, the season premier [sic] of Entourage is tonight, soooo excited” (2010).

Control of content may become problematic when the lines of purpose behind the use of
social media by bureaucrats and elected officials become blurred or crossed. While citizens

acknowledge that human beings run their government, being reminded of their “normal-ness” in
the form of a tweet about an HBO mini-series for example, may produce unintended externalities;
while some citizens may find this type of personal information endearing or relatable, others may
find it unprofessional or unbecoming of a civil servant. Control of content may also prove to be an
issue within the context of the internet’s “loosened social structure” described by Friedland (2010,
p. 364) in regards to the kind of comments users post to a Facebook “wall”, or open forum, which
may ultimately set the tone for the entire page.

Additionally, in order to foster trust and encourage citizen use of government social media
pages, quality is key, according to ForeSee, the firm that compiles the quarterly American
Satisfaction Index (2011). “Social media is no longer nice to have, but a necessity,” said Larry Freed,
Chief Executive Officer of ForeSee. “The good news is that federal departments are participating
in social media; the bad news,” he concluded,“is that efforts are happening at a variety of levels, and
the effect can be muddled for citizens.” (2011, p. 6).

The liberal individualist and communitarian models tend to be prevalent in e-government
applications, which would support Jensen’s paradox that individuals and groups are becoming
“increasingly politicized” while at the same time participating in electoral politics less (2010, p. 3).
For example, currently the White House uses a “We the People” app (website tool application)
that allows citizens to start a petition based on a political issue, gather signatures via email and
social media and submit it to the White House for review. The app is communitarian in nature
because it grants direct access from petitioners to their government, but does so by mobilizing a
single issue via a group. The “We the People” app does not offer a venue for open deliberation
prior to signing the petition as in traditional in electoral politics.

Conversely, President Obama has a Facebook page that allows for comments, but due to
the sheer volume of followers, spam postings and the presence of monologuing and flaming2
(characteristic of the liberal individualistic model of online democratic communication), efficient and
successful dialogue and debate of relevant political issues is rare, thus leaving the desired realm of
deliberative democratic communication relatively uncharted.
2 Flaming refers to the act of being inflammatory or acting as agitator (Dahlberg, 2001).

Research Design
Introduction. Using data generated from a contextual analysis of a 60-day snapshot of the
Facebook pages for the city of San Francisco and the mayor’s ofﬁce in Chicago, the aim of this
research is twofold: one, to explore the way in which governments use social media to
communicate with their citizens, and two, to evaluate the parlance between those citizens in order
to identify online communication themes.

A review of the literature shows that many scholars argue that e-governance in general has
had a negative affect on the quality of communication between citizens and their government (e.g.
Welch et al., 2005). Others believe that the internet has the capability to host successful multi-
directional communication platforms that could potentially revolutionize democratic
communication between a government and its citizens (e.g. Shapiro, 1999). This study does not
intend to reinforce the logic behind either side of this debate, rather the goal is to explore the
“multiple realities” (Sidney, 2002, p. 258) that occupy the complex world of democratic
communication within the realm of Facebook using a three step content analysis method of
investigation. Results will explain the qualities of government use of Facebook within the context
of three online democratic communication models to investigate whether the most desired models
of online democratic communication, the deliberative model, is taking place, and if so, to what
degree.
Research approach. A contextual analysis of San Francisco and Chicago’s Facebook pages will
employ three operationalized models of online democratic communication to identify and
categorize communication trends (e.g. Freelon, 2010):
•Liberal individualist. Characterized by expressions of personal interest, attitudes or opinions
•Communitarian. Advocacy minded in its approach; communal, mobilizing.
•Deliberative. Identiﬁed by many scholars as being the gold standard of democratic
communication (Streib et al., 2003), this model is characterized by discussion of public issues using
reason and questioning.

This project utilizes content analysis as the primary research method in which to investigate
the raw Facebook data based on its appropriateness for deriving meaning from complex discourse
(Sidney, 2002). The discourse that takes place in the realm of Facebook is not complex in subject
matter necessarily, but complex in its communication stream multi-directionality.

In other words, Facebook hosts “conversations” in which many different voices are all being
expressed simultaneously and asynchronously creating an environment comprised of layered
realities. Sidney states that content analysis is useful for dissecting discourse, such as that that takes
place on Facebook, when “the presence of multiple realities reﬂects the inherent complexity of the
social world” (2002, p. 258).
Metrics. Democratic communication trends will be identiﬁed as they appear in a 60-day point-in-
time snapshot of the two city-run Facebook pages. Building upon Freelon’s three models of online
democratic communication, this study adds social media indicators to his original framework in
order to build an initial concept and coding dictionary in which to begin identifying the types of
online democratic communication styles occurring on Chicago and San Francisco’s Facebook pages.
Table 2. The three models of online democratic communication and their indicative metrics
(Freelon, 2010, p. 1175) as adapted to Facebook.
Model of
democratic
communication
Indicative Metric Facebook indicators Facebook examples
Liberal
individualist
Monologue
Personal revelation
Personal showcase
Flaming
Multiple exclamation
points
All capitalization
Profanity
“I like/want/need/am...”
“You are/need...”
Flattery/personal
sentiments
Links to other sites
Rhetorical questions
“You are a JOKE of a city!
You are the FIRST city I
want to see BURN IN
HELL!!!!” -SF FB
“Congrats Mayor Lee!” -SF,
FB

Model of
democratic
communication
Indicative Metric Facebook indicators Facebook examples
Communitarian Ideological fragmentation
Mobilization
Community Language
Intra-ideological
questioning
Intra-ideological
reciprocity
“City/county/government
should...”
“Private sector...public
sector”
Question marks
Ideology markers:
“market forces”
“democrats”
“republicans”
In group/out group
language
“We want/need/are...”
Hijacking
“City jobs should not pay
less than the private sector.
In fact, market forces will
more or less force the City
to pay the same for
equivalent work once we
reform the absurd pension
system that pays retired
state, county and municipal
employees up to 75% of
their highest pay for 30-40
years following a retirement
that may come when the
workers are in the early to
mid 50s.” -Chicago FB
Deliberative Rational-critical argument
Public issue focus
Equality
Discussion topic focus
Inter-ideological
questioning
Inter-ideological
reciprocity
Response follows topic
thread
Response answers a
question
No ﬂaming
No in group/out group
language
Rational in nature
Question marks denoting
inquiry
“Why should I donate more
money to programs that I
already pay taxes for???” -SF FB
user 1
“I would guess these are
programs that are likely
underfunded, have greater
demand than capacity, the
donations are tax deductible
providing incentive to give, and
already have a framework to
provide a service to the public.
Also, you can choose whether
or not you'd like to give which
from my understanding of
economics is different than
paying a tax.”-SF FB user 2
Data Collection and Analysis. In this study, I utilize a three-step process to gather and analyze the
data collected from the two Facebook pages. Other researchers have utilized a similar three-step
process for discourse analysis on different source materials (e.g. Sidney, 2002). First data will be
gathered by collecting all of the content within San Francisco and Chicago’s Facebook pages over
the same 60-day period, from November 6, 2011 to January 6, 2012. The 60-days will be a
“frozen” snapshot in time, meaning that any comments added to posts that occurred within this
time period that do not occur within the set 60-days will not be taken into account for my analysis.
The frozen snapshot in time was captured by printing out 60-days of Facebook posts and
accompanying user comments on January 7, 2012. A sixty day timeframe will be used to account

for potential national trend influence as well as standard holidays and workload. All comment
threads will be expanded to reveal the full conversational content of each post.

The second step will include an inductive analysis by reading through all of the comment
threads and postings on the two Facebook pages to identify emergent communication themes.
During this step, data may be identified and organized using an evolving concept dictionary, lists of
high frequency words and collocations, those words that are often found in small groupings.
Additionally, data will also be collected on the parlance and quality of interactions occurring
between users as they relate to Freelon’s three models.

Finally, in the third step, each post and comment will be coded according to its most
applicable model of communication. Many of the posts and comments may fit into multiple models
due to the intrinsic complexity of communication, therefore some posts and comments may be
disaggregated. This will allow for a discussion of the frequency of different communication models
as well as their potential interaction. Further, such disaggregation allows for the identification of the
most common forms of online democratic communication taking place on the two Facebook
pages.
An example of a Facebook comment disaggregation may look like:
City of Chicago Facebook post: “City jobs should not
pay less than the private sector. In fact, market forces will
more or less force the City to pay the same for
equivalent work once we reform the absurd pension
system that pays retired state, county and municipal
employees up to 75% of their highest pay for 30-40 years
following a retirement that may come when the workers
are in the early to mid 50s.”
-November 19, 2011
•Liberal Individualist: “should not” = personal revelation,
“absurd pension system” = flaming, entire post =
monologue
•Communitarian: “private sector”,“city jobs” & “market
forces” = ideological fragmentation,“once we reform” =
mobilization and community language,“private sector”
vs. public sector = intra-ideological reciprocity

In the example above, the Facebook comment is categorized as both liberal individualist
and communitarian thus generating one data point for each of the two relevant models. Because
the entire post is a monologue, it fits into the liberal individualist model, however, some of the
wording elements fit the communitarian model. Disaggregation, in this case, refers to not only a
division of the comment into separate parts, but a marked observation of macrocosmic themes as

well as microcosmic verbiage, i.e. parlance. Posts are coded by model of online communication and
entered into an excel spreadsheet for analysis. Descriptive statistics are used to illustrate results.

Additional collected data will include basic statistics to contextualize Facebook activity for
San Francisco and Chicago. This will include the number of government posts with no user
response as well as number of government responses to user comments, total number of page
followers, what the topic of the government posts are and whether or not user posts were
relevant to that topic and the number of users who interact with other users. This data allows for
deeper understanding regarding the trends and patterns of overall Facebook use as an important
factor in developing norms about online democratic communication.

San Francisco and Chicago were chosen for this study due to their established social media
use; each city has maintained a Facebook page for over one year. Thus, the longer a municipality
had used social media, the more comfortable their citizens would be in using it, and therefore their
Facebook pages would yield the most data regarding normative and active patterns of online
democratic communication.
Limitations. Since the methodology in this study builds upon the work of many scholars who have
already tested the indicators used in this research, personal interpretation of conversational tone
by the researcher is the main limitation to the validity of the study. However, clearly set
communication indicators as discussed in table 2 will greatly decrease the event of subjective
interpretations occurring.

The key limitation in regards to the reliability of this research is addressing a blind spot in
the breadth of scope of how government use of Facebook effects democratic communication. This
research can only measure democratic communication as it occurs on Facebook and can not
measure the outward effects government use of Facebook has on democratic communication as it
occurs outside of Facebook. For example, a user may view a post from the Mayor’s ofﬁce about a
potential veto of a Board of Supervisor’s resolution, talk about it with a friend in a deliberative
manner and become civically involved around the issue of the veto. This display of government use
of Facebook induced democratic communication can not be measured in this study.

The second issue of reliability is one of sampling. A frozen 60-day point in time snapshot of
Chicago’s and San Francisco’s Facebook pages is only going to be representative of that particular
time and may not be reﬂective of the cities’ overall Facebook use. The snapshot may also not yield
results that can be applied to government use of Facebook in general due to several factors
beyond the scope of this study, such as urban versus rural internet use and shifting political climates.

Another sampling issue pertains to that of the users of government Facebook users. This
study will only be able to capture the comments and posts of those who use Facebook, thus it is
only a measure of how Facebook users use government Facebook pages, not the general public.

Additionally, there will never be consensus on what democratic communication looks like.
This study seeks to address this issue by using established metrics and their relative indicators in
order to produce the best possible example of democratic communication while acknowledging
the subjective, albeit limited, nature of this study.
Analysis: The Reveal
“We found that what modern people are doing with online social networks is what we’ve always
done-not just before Facebook, but before agriculture.”
James Fowler
Professor of political science and medical genetics , University of California, San Diego3

The frozen 60-day point in time snapshot yielded 991 separate user comments. The mayor
of Chicago’s Facebook page contained 662 comments while the mayor of San Francisco’s page
contained 329, a little less than exactly half of Chicago’s. Given the disparity in user comment
trafﬁc, the two Facebook pages were analyzed separately, in order to bring special attention to
differences and similarities between the communication models as they appear on the two pages.
Additionally, each comment was disaggregated if applicable, as previously described in this paper, in
order to capture multiple communication models occurring simultaneously.
3 As quoted in Jake Miller’s article “Dawn of Social Networks” http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/pressreleases/dawn_of_social_networks/

San Francisco; The Activists. My analysis showed that the most dominant model of online
communication on the mayor of San Francisco’s Facebook page was liberal individualistic. Sixty-one
percent of all comments expressed this model of communication, followed by its collective cousin,
communitarian, at 37 percent. Only 2 percent of all communications expressed on the page within
the 60-day snapshot was deliberative in nature and conduct.

Of the combined 98 percent liberal individualistic and/or communitarian comments, over
50 percent contained elements of ﬂaming. Only 27 percent of all user comments appearing on the
pages were appropriate, or relevant, to the original post, suggesting strong liberal individualist and
communitarian issue-based advocacy behavior. This can be explained by a handful of users
“hijacking” the full 60-days of posts by bombarding the page with their own “Save the Frogs”
agenda comment postings following a mayoral veto of a Board of Supervisor’s decision to turn a
historic golf course over to the Parks Department on December 19th. In fact, 57 percent of all
user comments within the 60-day period, despite the Mayor’s post topic, called upon the Mayor to
“Save the Fogs” creating a virtual communication black-out for all other users.
Figure 1. Online communication model by type and relevance with examples,
San Francisco
Total
Liberal Ind.
Communitarian
Deliberative
Flaming
Relevant
0 100 200 300 400
93
159
10
178
293
329
Number of comments
I really like this
mayor but
unfortunately still
live in Africa.
These technologies will be disruptive
(in a positive way) only if they can be
used by the City to deliver the same or
better service for signiﬁcantly less cost.
As this would mean probably fewer city
employees, I have my doubts it can be
implemented. But I would be happy to
be proved wrong.
You are just like a
Republican
Congressman-full of
crap and [a] hedonist
By vetoing the
legislation without ever
meeting with
environmental groups
you have labeled
yourself as ANTI-
ENVIRONMENT and
damaged San
Francisco’s reputation
as a progressive leader...

In the proceedings from the 2010 Alliance for Innovation Conference, we recall that Bryer
writes that informal observations of anonymous blogs “suggests anonymity may harm civility, thus
preventing full benefits of dialogue and discourse from being achieved” (Sara & Thomas, 2010, p.
78) due to online anomie (Friedland, 2010). According to this theory, if flaming behaviors such as
those found on anonymous blogs, prevent deliberative discourse, then the amount of flaming taking
place on the mayor of San Francisco’s Facebook page undoubtedly has a negative effect on the
likelihood of democratic communication occurring. For example, the Mayor posted an
announcement of a memorial service for a local activist, Warren Hellman, and within minutes the
“Save the Frogs” group “hijacked” the post thread causing one user to comment: “Couldn’t agree
more with the Mayor’s sentiments regarding Warren Hellman, but what is up with all these posters
hijacking with the Sharp Park [“Save the Frogs”] stuff? Sort of offensive, folks.” In this example,
advocacy based communitarian action “harmed civility” thus stymying the dialog of other users.

Additionally, although the Mayor of San Francisco’s Facebook page had 1,161 “likes” (or
followers of the page so that, unless blocked, the posts of the Mayor’s office appear in the user’s
“feed”, or collective forum containing all of the recent posts from all of the user’s “friends” and
“likes”), relatively few users actively participate on the page as demonstrated below in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Relative user comment activity as defined by size of name, San Francisco


There are two main active users and four supporting users on San Francisco’s mayoral
Facebook page, as demonstrated in figure 2. The two most active are: Lac Do, who is responsible
for 12% of all comments occurring on the page within the 60-day period, and Kaitlyn Bryer at 9%.
None of the six main users contributed comments that fit the deliberative model of online
communication. It is also important to note within the context of democratic communication, that
the Mayor of San Francisco is not one of the active users, in fact, the Mayor’s office did not respond
to any of the questions or statements set forth by any of the users in their comments within the
60-day timeframe.

Of the 329 total comments, there were three incidences of users responding to other
users over the 60-day period: one to ask the “Save the Frogs” group to stop “hijacking” the page,
one to tell the “Save the Frogs” group to “Get a life!” and one to thank another user that
complimented her in his comment post. In all three cases, the conversation thread ended after the
first comment response. The lack of user conversations may be partially explained by the strategic
comment “hijacking” of the “Save the Frogs” activists that stymied the likelihood of conversation by
flooding every comment thread with their own agenda rhetoric.

Relevance, or whether the user comment addressed the Mayor’s initial post topic was also
an issue amongst the main users. Only 2% of Kaitlyn Bryer’s comments were relevant since each
post was in regards to the Sharp Park veto (“Save the Frogs”), and only 8% of Lac Do’s comments
were relevant. On two occasions Lac Do’s comments used the word “Occupy!” signaling his
support of the “Occupy Wall Street” movement that has been active across the country since
September of 2011 in protest of the negative outcomes associated with capitalism. However, many
of Do’s comments addressed the communitarian themes characteristic of the “Occupy Wall
Street” movement: police corruption, failed banking institutions and distrust of government.

The impact of irrelevancy is unclear as it relates specifically to the behavior of other users,
however, it is clear that the overall parlance of the Mayor of San Francisco’s page is not defined by
the Mayor, or even by local electoral political themes, but by a small group of active users who use
the page as an expression of their liberal individualist (Lac Do, personal grievances coupled with
“Occupy Wall Street” themes) or communitarian activism (Kaitlyn Bryer and the “Save the Frog”
alliance).

Figure 3. Flaming of San Francisco’s most active users

By comparing the overall communication model outcomes in Figure 1 paired with the
prevalence of flaming of the main users in Figure 3, it can be concluded that the mayor of San
Francisco’s Facebook page is dominated by liberal individualistic and communitarian models of
communication with strong flaming undertones and is entirely void of the deliberative
communication as described in Coleman and Blumer’s “new civic society” (2009).

The communication models expressed by San Francisco’s active Facebook users also reflect
the general paradigm shift away from civic “participation with traditional, hierarchical political
institutions” (Jensen, 2009, p. 4), while countering the theory that this shift is moving toward an
internet fueled sphere citizens connect and discuss issues with each other and their government.
The shift away from traditional political institutions appears to materialize in the strong advocacy
behaviors of the main users, i.e. it is possible that Do and Bryer view their activity on Facebook as a
form of civic participation, however, there is no evidence of an actual discussion of issues taking
place, despite that fact that the Facebook platform is built for discussion due to its allowance of
endless comment threads.

In support of the observation that wholesale evidence of citizens discussing political issues
with each other and their government on Facebook is relatively non-existent, is the conversation
topic asymmetry occurring between citizens and their government. For example, the Mayor of San
Francisco’s dominant post themes are jobs, transportation, civic outreach and education, while the
dominant comment themes of users are the Sharp Park veto (“Save the Frogs”) and anti-
establishment (“Occupy!”) themes as illustrated in figure 4.
Flaming
52%
Non-flaming
48%
Kaitlyn Bryer
Flaming
33%
Non-flaming
67%
Lac Do

Figure 4. San Francisco Mayor’s ofﬁce Facebook post themes
Figure 5. Citizens of San Francisco Facebook user comment themes
Crime & Saftey
3%
E-Gov
10%
Technology
3%
Community invitation
14%
Civic outreach/Education
29%
Jobs/transportation
42%
Liberal ind. sentiments
11%
“Occupy”/Anti-Establishment
19%
“Save the Frogs”
71%
Thank you Mayor Lee for keeping
the peace and building bridges!
Congratulations Ed for winning
the SF mayor’s race!
Abandoning the job
creation, economic
development, and
community beneﬁts that
redevelopment has
provided San Francisco for
decades is simply not an
option.

Tolbert and McNeil assert that “internet use has been linked to greater levels of political
information which is said to facilitate political participation” (Jensen, 2009, p. 9; Tolbert & McNeil,
2003 as cited in Jensen 2010). However, within the context of government use of Facebook, the
findings of my study are contrary to Tolbert and McNeil’s assertion. The level of political
information offered by the Mayor’s office via its Facebook page appeared to have little or no effect
on the level of political participation of its users as evidenced in the topic asymmetry and lack of
examples of the deliberative model of communication that is associated with traditional political
participation.

In conclusion, while it may be hyperbolic to use Facebook examples as evidence, or lack
thereof, of overall political participation, it is relevant to note that the analysis of the Mayor’s
Facebook page revealed little evidence of “one of the most potentially democratic aspects of the
Net” (Shapiro, 1999, p. 15). Additionally, as evidenced in the large amounts of flaming,
communication topic asymmetry and advocacy based comment hijacking on the Mayor’s page,
clearly Clay Shirky was correct about social media when he told the NewYork Times that “the loss
of control you fear, is already in the past. You do not control the message, and if you believe you
control the message, it merely means you no longer understand what’s going on” (Lichtenstein,
2010). My study illustrates how the Mayor of San Francisco does not control the message on his
own Facebook page, instead, a small handful of active users do, making the page a reflection of their
own agendas while drowning out the “voices” of other users.
Chicago;The Contenders. The analysis of the Mayor of Chicago’s Facebook page was conducted
using all 662 user comments occurring within the 60-day snapshot, 96 percent of which were
relevant.4 Seventy-two percent of all user comments fit the liberal individualistic model, 19 percent
were communitarian in nature while 9 percent were deliberative. Chicago’s page contained 123
cases of users responding to each other, however, 57 of the responses contained elements of
flaming which eliminated the comment from being categorized as deliberative. Additionally, the
Chicago Mayor’s office responded to user comments on ten occasions within the 60-day snapshot
to answer questions, clarify information and on two occasions, explain why an inappropriate user
comment was removed.
4 Twenty-seven percent of San Francisco’s Mayors page were relevant.

Figure 6. Online communication model by type and relevance, Chicago

At the time of the snapshot, the Mayor of Chicago’s Facebook page had been “liked” by
6,654 users, however, similar to the Mayor of San Francisco’s page, a few active users dominant the
parlance of the page. Note that unlike San Francisco, Chicago’s Mayor’s office appears in the top
ten active users on the facebook page.
Figure 7. Relative user comment activity as defined by size of name
Total
Relevant
Liberal Ind.
Communitarian
Deliberative
Flaming
0 175 350 525 700
225
66
144
547
633
662
Number of comments
Hi Debra, the Mayor feels very strongly about
helping Chicago’s homeless. Did you see that we
announced a new plan to prevent and end
homelessness? -Chicago Mayor’s Office

The two most dominant users, Casey Thomas, who uses the vocabulary of the “Occupy”
movement, and Debra Yates, who alternately posts comments defending and criticizing the Mayor’s
posts, are diametrically opposed politically and often engage in heated insult exchanges even when
they both disagree with the mayor. Occasionally, Melissa Hake-Schofield, who uses largely left-wing
rhetoric, joins the banter on the side of Thomas. Michael Lester’s comments would fit the
deliberative model due their rational explanations of government operations had they not also
often contained small insults directed at the “ignorance” of other users, primarily Thomas. Joe
Smiglelski’s parlance is mainly sarcastic and dominated by the theme of taxation. Overall, this fiery
banter creates a fiercely interactive tone on the page, which can be better illustrated by examining
the levels of flaming expressed by the three most active users,Thomas,Yates and Lester in Figure 8,
and by viewing the communication matrix in Figure 9.
Figure 8. Communication model breakdown of Chicago’s most active Facebook users

Despite the levels of flaming, we notice that there is a considerable amount of deliberative
communication happening on Chicago’s page, which was largely absent from San Francisco’s page.
However, the interactive conversation analysis, as defined by the quality of interactions between
users, reveals that many of the deliberative exchanges became vulnerable to attacks once posted,
particularly from Thomas and Hake-Schofield, if they seem to support the Mayor in any way. In
one instance, after users began posting insulting messages directed at the Mayor, one user asked
the group in his comment “If you hate the Mayor, why are you in his page??? Do you have nothing
better to do than hate? Please get help. You are obviously miserable.”
Non-flaming
40%
Deliberative
19%
Flaming
40%
Yates
Non-flaming
7%
Flaming
93%
Thomas
Non-flaming
55% Deliberative
21%
Flaming
24%
Letser

Figure 9. Conversations between active users; flaming in red

While the primary focus of this research is to identify elements of democratic
communication via the deliberative model within the context of government Facebook pages, a
social networking lens deepens our understanding of the “multiple realities” (Sidney, 2002, p. 258)
existing on the Mayor of Chicago’s Facebook page. Research shows that happiness occurs in
clusters within a social network, as does unhappiness, and those that are connected to happy
people tend to be happier themselves (e.g. Fowler & Christakis, 2008). “Happiness, in short, is not
Cool it, Michael, Mrs.
Emmanuel is going to
get jealous!
-CaseyThomas
Casey, you commented
on the wrong post.
Debra, you’re right we
must do something
about our homeless
situation.
-Michael Lester
The City is creating 2,400
green jobs” Notice how the
Mayor is talking credit for
what we are paying for in
rate hikes.
- Joe Smigielski
Oh, well, I guess it’s alright
then, Michael. That
REALLY answers my
question...
-Melissa Hake-Schofield
Joe, isn’t that the job of the
mayor, to manage the
revenue brought to the city?
You talk as if Raham is the
only Mayor that’s utilized the
city’s tax dollars.
- DebraYates
Melissa,The 2012
Mayor’s Office budgeted
payroll has been
decreased by 19.4% w/
17 fewer positions than
the 2011 payroll. And
Debra is correct, the size
of the City COuncil is
determined by the State.
-Chicago Mayor’s Office

merely a function of personal experience,” writes Fowler, and Christakis, leading scholars in social
network analysis,“but also is a property of groups. Emotions are a collective phenomenon” (Miller,
2012).
Figure 10. Smiling in an online network of college students (e.g. Fowler & Christakis, as cited in
Miller, 2012)

The social network cluster in figure 10 of smiling college students resembles the
conversation matrix in figure 9 in two ways. One, it can be inferred by the number of interactions
and communication models expressed among the core user group that these active users qualify as
a centralized social network cluster surrounded by less active and less centralized users. Two, the
parlance of the core user group appears to be a “collective phenomenon” (Miller, 2012). For
example, Michael posted a deliberative comment, but once that comment was “attacked” by
Thomas, he immediately responded with flaming. This type of action was duplicated by Yates and
Hake-Schofield as well, in varying configurations, as displayed in figure 9.

When viewed as social network clusters defined by the levels of deliberation and flaming
instead of by smiling as in Fowler & Christakis Facebook and happiness study (e.g. 2012), the results
of my study begs an intriguing question: If clusters of happy people seem to stick together and
clusters of unhappy people seem to stick together, can other metrics besides ‘happiness’ be applied
to these clusters, such as communication model trends? If so, following this line of logic, it appears
that the levels of democratic communication occurring on government run Facebook pages is
largely the result of the collective communication behaviors of the dominant social network cluster.
Figure 10. Key
Node color:
Yellow = Most happy
Blue = Least happy
Green = Intermediate

A Tale of Two Mayors. The Mayor of San Francisco’s dominant Facebook post topics are jobs and
housing, while Chicago’s posts focus more on education and Mayoral civic outreach (i.e. the Mayor
volunteers at the soup kitchen). Over one-third of both the Mayors of San Francisco and Chicago
posts are about education, Mayoral civic outreach and to announce invitations to public events. At
least ten percent of both city’s posts announce Government 2.0 applications and innovations.
Figure 11. Post topics generated by the Mayors of San Francisco and Chicago, count

Figure 12. Post topics by generated by the Mayors of San Francisco and Chicago, percent
Jobs, Housing
Education, Civic Outreach
Public Invitation
Tech Industry
Gov’t 2.0
Crime/Safety
Environment
Good Government
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
8
2
2
7
3
11
24
6
0
0
2
7
2
10
22
29
Number of posts
Good Government
13%
Environment
3%
Crime, Safety
3%
Gov’t 2.0
11%
Request User Response
5%
Public Invitation
17%
38%
Jobs, Housing
10%
Chicago
Crime/Safety
3%
Gov’t 2.0
10%
Tech Industry
3%
Public Invitation
14%
31%
Jobs, Housing
40%
San Francisco

The most obvious difference between the way the Mayor of San Francisco and the Mayor
of Chicago communicate via their Facebook pages is evidenced in their relative participation, or
lack thereof, within the comment threads on their own Facebook pages. The Chicago Mayor’s
office responded to users’ comments ten times over the 60-day snapshot supporting a perception
of interactivity between the Mayor and his constituents. On two occasions, these comments were
to explain why an inflammatory or inappropriate post was removed, while the eight other
comments were to clarify facts being disputed by users. The San Francisco Mayor’s office did not
respond to any user comments within the 60-day snapshot giving the impression that the Mayor’s
office used the Facebook page as an unidirectional outlet for press releases, not as a bidirectional
tool to communicate with citizens.

However, while the Mayor if Chicago’s responses to comments were deliberative in their
approach, they often incited more directed flaming on behalf of the more active users and had little
affect on the enhancement of deliberative communication among the dominant users who rarely
strayed from their established patterns of communication. An example of this occurred on
November 16, 2011 when users were commenting on a post by the Mayor’s office announcing the
passing of the city budget. Some users were commenting about the need to “cut the number of
aldermen” and lower the Mayor’s salary (Melissa Hake-Schofield). The Mayor’s office responded:
“Melissa, the 2012 Mayor’s Office budgeted payroll has been decreased by 19.4% w/ 17 fewer
positions than the 2011 payroll. And Debra is correct, the size of the City Council [aldermen] is
determined by the State”. The Mayor’s comment was followed by another call to “Cut the number
of aldermen”, five other budgetary proposals, four of which contained flaming, and one from
Thomas, one of the dominant users, that claimed that it “seems like the Chicago Mayor’s Office
only answers the easy questions.”

In some ways, my analysis reveals that government participation on its own Facebook page
appears to have little effect on the enhancement of deliberative communication among users. This
may be explained by users not reading through comment threads before posting due to a lack of
interest or time, neither of which support the assumption that citizens are actively seeking to
engage in democratic communication within the context of social media. Or it may be that
inconsistent Facebook participation in comment threads by government is not enough to establish

a central locus of deliberation, which may negatively effect users who wish to engage in deliberative
conversations but feel driven away by the parlance of the key players.
Social Media;A Discussion. While my study has shed some light on a small number of the issues
facing governments, citizens and Facebook by contributing a contemporary conversational analysis
to the literature, ultimately, it has created more questions than it has answered. These questions
highlight the importance of further research into the area of government use of Facebook and its
effects on democratic communication. In this section I will explore those questions and how they
came to be. To set the stage, a discussion of the tandem roles social networking theory and online
communication theory play in this study is necessary.

While the Mayor of Chicago’s Facebook page leant itself to being analyzed using social
networking theory due to its higher level of deliberative communication, social networking theory
can also offer some interesting insights for the Mayor of San Francisco’s page. For example, if we
were to view San Francisco’s “Save the Frog” group not as a deliberative social cluster bound by
interactions, as we see on Chicago’s page, but as a central cluster defined by collective activism, we
note that these central activist clusters play a pivotal role in controlling the message on the page,
thus having a negative effect on the possibility of online deliberative communication occurring.

Keeping in line with social networking theory, if users who flame on Facebook tend to stick
together, as users who lean toward issue specific liberal individualist or communitarian advocacy
behaviors do, then essentially non-core cluster users who do not flame or who wish to engage in
deliberative discussion, get pushed to the periphery where the likelihood of achieving their desired
interaction is minimized.

In 2011, Dahlberg queried about “the extent to which rational deliberation can be realized
in general online debate” (p. 860). The conversational analysis I conducted for this research reveals
that within the context of the two government Facebook pages, the extent of rational deliberation
is largely limited for two main reasons: the message is controlled by a small cluster of active users
and flaming stymies and repels deliberative discourse.

Take the example of the San Francisco Facebook user who wished to express his
condolences after the Mayor announced the death of a local activist in a post. The user had to
post his comment about the deceased activist amidst a barrage of “Save the Frogs” rhetoric. He
thus concluded his comment by telling the “Save the Frogs” group that “hijacking” the comment

thread of a deceased individual was offensive. There was no response to the offended user from
the Mayor’s office, or the “Save the Frogs” group, calling into question the idea that Facebook is the
“trusted space of everyday communication” (Coleman & Blumer, 2009, p. 80). If users who wish to
post relevant or deliberative comments are not supported by the page administrator, in this case,
the Mayor of San Francisco’s office, or the core user cluster, the “Save the Frogs” group, what affect
does that have on the likelihood of users treating government Facebook pages as a “trusted space”
where deliberative communication can occur? Based on the findings of my study, I would argue
that in general, there is evidence to illustrate that Facebook is not a trusted space where
deliberative communication can occur, thus supporting Friedland’s theory that the “network society
connects individuals loosened from social structure via complex social and communication
networks that increase both autonomy and anomie” (2010, p. 364).

Additionally, most supporters of government use of social media and many scholars that
study online communication often overlook the simple issue of message control that Jared Cohen
of the State Department’s policy planning staff captured so well in his discussion of social media.
Cohen said of social media that “the 21st century is a really terrible time to be a control
freak” (Lichtenstein, 2010). While this may be true, the fact remains that if governments are going
to meet the communication needs of its constituents, allowing a small core of active users “hijack”
the message is not in alignment with the communication goals set forth by government or its
citizens. However, as evidenced by the light participation of the Chicago Mayor’s office in the
comment thread on its Facebook page, despite government efforts of message control, the
message continues to be controlled by a handful of active users. This will certainly remain the
reality until governments make the commitment to take a more central role on their Facebook
pages.

Upon the launch of New York Mayor Bloomberg’s plan for a “Digital City”, the Mayor
encouraged city residents to use the new government run Facebook pages to “offer opinions,
engage in discussion, ask questions and participate in city-sponsored polls” (Montalbano, 2011).
Further investigation into New York’s new Facebook pages is needed to test these claims, however,
a casual glance at Mayor Mike Bloomberg’s page (the Mayor refers to himself as “Mike” on his
Facebook page) reveals more of the same: Facebook anomie characterized by irrelevance and
strong liberal individualistic and communitarian communication models colored with strong
elements of flaming.

In reference to social networking theory, Fowler asserts that “what modern people are
doing with online social networks is what we’ve always done-not just before Facebook, but before
agriculture” (Miller, 2012). If this is true, recommendations for governments who wish to have
more control over the message on their social media pages ought to respond accordingly. If the
relative anonymity of users (Sara & Thomas, 2010) and lack of social structure (anomie) (Friedland,
2010) on Facebook is having an adverse effect on democratic communication due to the fact that
people are simply doing what people have always done in social networks, then it may be argued
that social media is no place for government.

However, if governments choose to attempt to successfully evolve with the most current
communication venues, it will require that they maintain an active presence on their own Facebook
pages in order to not only let citizens know they are “listening”, but to facilitate an online dialog
that can lead to a flourishing online culture characterized by deliberative exchange.The challenge
will be for governments to meet the resource demands Facebook facilitation would require.
Additionally, governments would have to shift their perception of social media as simply a venue for
press releases and information dissemination to treating social media as an electric town hall.

Conclusion and Recommendations

A review of the literature reveals that citizens want more from Government 2.0 than just
customer service-they want interactive dialogue, however, governments are having a hard time
answering this call. Some scholars believe that the interactivity delivered by social media may be
the answer, others oppose this claim and assert that government use of social media has a negative
effect on democratic communication. I conducted a contextual analysis of the Mayor of Chicago
and San Francisco’s Facebook pages to measure the quality of democratic communication
occurring between government and its citizens. My analysis revealed that very little of the
deliberative exchange that characterizes democratic communication is currently occurring on the
two government Facebook pages. Additionally, the parlance and message of the two pages is not
set by the Mayors’ offices themselves, but by a handful of active, and often prone to flaming, users.

While Coleman and Blumer optimistically define the new online civic culture as being
characterized by deliberative political interactions that occur in “trusted spaces of everyday
communication rather than being confined to official zones of electoral manipulation” (2009, p.

80), they fail to address the manipulation generated by the users themselves, and the impact that
has on that “trusted space”, and democratic communication in general. In other words,
government Facebook pages look less like the casual social media we are used to, and more like
town hall meetings with no one at the podium. Thus, the following recommendation is based on
my assertion that a government Facebook page ought to be defined and treated as an electric
town hall.

My recommendation for successful government use of social media mirrors the old adage
“Go big or go home”. Governments need to either make the investment to participate fully on
their Facebook pages to position themselves as the center of their own social network, or simply
“go home” to avoid negatively affecting democratic communication. We recall from the literature
that in order to foster trust and encourage citizen use of government social media pages, quality is
key. “The good news is that federal departments are participating in social media,” said Larry
Freed, Chief Executive Officer of ForeSee, the firm that compiles the quarterly American
Satisfaction Index. “The bad news is that efforts are happening at a variety of levels, and the effect
can be muddled for citizens,” Freed concluded (2011, p. 6).

For governments who wish to “Go big”, successful facilitation of electric town hall dialogue
includes two key components: clearly stated rules of engagement to legitimately respond to flaming
and hijacking while avoiding unwarranted charges of “censorship” by citizens, and paying close
attention to the parlance that defines the message on the page to foster an electric town hall
characterized by inclusion and deliberation. However, my recommendation remains largely
untested, and as governments continue to increase their use of social media, further research will
be needed to definitively claim whether or not successful facilitation on social media pages is
plausible, or even possible.

For governments who lack the essential resources to “Go big”, or wish to “Go (or stay)
home” to avoid the “muddling” effect described by Freed (2011), it is comforting to know that
despite wide use of social media, citizens continue to use traditional communication venues to
contact their government. In fact, a 2010 study found that the telephone is still the most widely
used way that citizens contact their government (Smith).

Additionally, governments who choose to remain “old school” in their communication
venues may enjoy the added benefit of confining citizen flaming to brick and mortar where a
message has a face behind it, and governments have the opportunity to respond in kind.

Works Cited
Bovens, M., & S. Zouridis (2002). From street-level to system-level bureaucracies: How

information and communication technology is transforming administrative discretion and

constitutional control. Public Administration Review, 62, 174-84.
Coleman, S. & J. G. Blumler (2009). The internet and democratic citizenship:Theory practice and

policy. NewYork: Cambridge University Press.
Dahlberg, L. (2011). Re-constructing digital democracy:An outline of four ‘positions’. New

Media & Society, 13(6) 855-872.
Dahlberg, L. (2001). Democracy via cyberspace: Mapping the rhetorics and practices of

three prominent camps. New Media & Society, 3, 157-169.
Dalton, R. J. (2008). The good citizen: How a younger generation is reshaping american politics.

Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Fowler, J. H. & N.A. Christakis (2008). Dynamic spread of happiness in a large social network:

Longitudinal analysis over 20 years in the Framningham Heart Study. British Medical

Journal,

337:a2338.
Fowler, J. H. & N.A. Christakis (2012). Social networks and happiness. The third culture.

Retrieved from http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/christakis_fowler08/christakis_fowler08_index.html
Freed, L. (2011, October 25). Social media usage and citizen satisfaction update.

Retrieved from http://www.foresee.com/research-white-papers.
Freelon, D. G. (2010). Analyzing online political discussion using three models of democratic

communication. New media & society, 12, 1172-1190.
Friedland, L.. A. (2010). Communication and democracy in a networked society: Review essay

of media and political engagement and the internet and democratic

citizenship. The

International Journal of Press/Politics, 15, 362-371.
Habermas, J. (2006). Political communication in media society: Does democracy still enjoy

an epistemic dimension? The impact of normative theory on empirical research.

Communication Theory, 16, 411-426.
Ho,A. T. (2002) Reinventing local government and the e-government initiative. Public

Administration Review, 62, 434-444.
Jensen, M. (2009, April 27) Political participation, alienation, and the internet in Spain and the

United

States. Internet and Politics. Retrieved from http://internet-politics.cies.iscte.pt/spip.php?article170
Kittilson, M. K. & R. J. Dalton (2008). The internet and virtual society: The new frontier of

social capital. Center for the Study of Democracy, University of California Irvine.

la Porte,T., C. Demchak & M. de Jong (2002). Democracy and bureaucracy in the age of the

web: Empirical ﬁndings and theoretical speculations. Administration & Society, 34, 411-446.
Lichtenstein, J. (2010, July 16). Digital diplomacy. The NewYork Times Magazine. Retrieved

from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/magazine/18web2-0-t.html?pagewanted=all
Miller, J. (2012, January 25). Dawn of social networks. UCSanDiego News Center. Retrieved

from http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/pressreleases/dawn_of_social_networks/
Montalbano, E. (2011, May 16). NYC Digital government plan embraces social networking.

Information Week. Retrieved from http://www.informationweek.com/news/government/state-local/229500704?cid=email
Musso, J., C. Weare & M. Hale (200). Designing web technologies for local governance reform:

Good management or good democracy. Political Communication, 17, 1-19.
Norris, D. F. & K. L. Kraemer (1996). Mainframe computing in American cities: Myths and

realities. Public Administration Review, 56, 568-576.
Ofﬁce of the Federal Register. (1960). Papers of the president of the United States, Dwight D.

Eisenhower. Washington, DC: D. D. Eisenhower.
Sandberg, Sheryl (2011, November 28). Sharing to the power of 2012. The Economist,The

world in 2012, 50.
Shapiro,A. L. (1999). The control revolution: How the internet is putting individuals in charge and

changing the world we know. NewYork: The Century Foundation.
Sidney, M. S. (2002). The role of ideas in education politics: Using discourse analysis to

understand barriers to reform in multiethnic cities. Urban Affairs Review, 38, 253-276.
Smith,A. (2010,April 27). Pew Center: Government online. Retrieved from

http://

pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Government-Online.aspx
Stayert, J. (2000). Local governments online and the role of the president: Government shop

versus the electronic community. Social Science Computer Review, 18, 3-16.
Stolle, D. & M. Hugh (2004). Consumers as political participants? Shifts in political action

repertoires in Western societies. Politics, products, and markets: Exploring political

consumerism past and present. Michele, Follesdal & Stole, eds. New Brunswick, NJ:

Transaction Publishers, p. 265-288.
Streib, G.. & J. C. Thomas (2003). The new face of government: Citizen-initiated

contacts in the era of e-government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13,

83-102.
Svara, J., & Denhardt, J. (dEs.). (2010). Proceedings from Alliance for Innovation: The big ideas

conference. Decatur, GA: Bryer.

Thomas, J. C., & J. Melkers (1999). Explaining citizen-initiated contacts with municipal

bureaucrats: Lessons from the Atlanta experience. Urban Affairs Review, 34,

667-690.
Welch, E. W., C. Hinnant & M. J. Moon (2005). Linking citizen satisfaction with e-government

and trust in government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15, 372-391.
Woodly, D. (2008). New competencies in democratic communication? Blogs, agenda setting

and political participation. Public Choice, 134, 109-123.

electric town hall

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (17)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to electric town hall

Similar to electric town hall (20)

electric town hall