From Broadcast to Netcast - PhD Thesis - Bonchek - 1997

From Broadcast to Netcast:
The Internet and the Flow of Political Information
A Thesis presented
By
Mark Seth Bonchek
To
The Committee on Political Economy and Government
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
in the subject of
Political Economy and Government
Harvard University
Cambridge, Massachusetts
April 1997

Abstract
This thesis examines the effect of the Internet on the flow of political information.
Case studies and an online survey test the hypothesis that the Internet is altering the
political communication structure in the United States. The current Broadcast Structure,
distinguished by the unidirectional redistribution of information by the press from
organizational issue-networks to public social-networks, is found to be giving way to a
new Netcast structure. This structure is distinguished by an omnidirectional flow of
information that bypasses the press as an informational intermediary and provides new
opportunities for political participation among privileged groups.
The hypothesized shift from a Broadcast to Netcast structure is tested using case
studies of the Internet and one of the first online surveys. Case studies include analysis
of the MN-Politics electronic mailing list, the alt.politics.homosexuality Usenet
newsgroup, an online petition to protect PBS funding, and campaign activity on the
World Wide Web. The online survey measures the demographics, usage, and political
activity of citizens and organizations obtaining White House electronic documents.
The thesis finds support for ten hypothesized effects on the flow of political
information. The hypotheses are derived from the unique properties of the Internet as a
communication medium and the literature on political, social, and economic behavior.
(1) An all-channel structure connecting active and attentive citizens, political
organizations, government, and the press produces (2) disintermediation, turning
traditional intermediaries into information brokers. (3) Virtual organizations arise around
shared interests rather than shared geography, (4) integrating social networks and issue
networks. The ability to redistribute digital information and maintain weak-tie networks

promotes (5) propagation of information and contributes to (6) an increased volume of
information and (7) the integration of personal, broadcast, and network media. The
importance of education and income for Internet usage and political participation
produces (8) a bias in favor of high-resourced individuals and organizations. Anonymity
and the ability to deliver targeted, customized messages produces (9) heterogeneity in
information sources and (10) the replacement of broadcasting with narrowcasting. There
is some evidence that the Internet is increasing political participation among
economically- and educationally-advantaged political agents.

Contents
1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................1
1.1 Contribution to the Literature ........................................................................................3
1.2 Hypotheses....................................................................................................................6
1.3 Organization .................................................................................................................8
2 Communication Media....................................................................................................10
2.1 Properties....................................................................................................................10
2.2 Internet........................................................................................................................16
2.3 Information Flow ........................................................................................................23
2.4 Summary.....................................................................................................................27
3 Communication Structures .............................................................................................28
3.1 Structures....................................................................................................................29
3.2 Broadcast Structure.....................................................................................................33
3.3 Issue Networks............................................................................................................34
3.4 Social Networks ..........................................................................................................36
3.5 Network Structure.......................................................................................................41
3.6 New Channels.............................................................................................................46
3.7 The Press ....................................................................................................................49
3.8 The Public...................................................................................................................50
3.9 Netcast........................................................................................................................51
3.10 Hypotheses..................................................................................................................54
3.11 Testing........................................................................................................................57
4 Mailing Lists....................................................................................................................62
4.1 Netcast Structure.........................................................................................................63
4.2 Political Content..........................................................................................................64
4.3 Political Agents...........................................................................................................68
4.4 Political Channels .......................................................................................................73
4.5 Case Study: Access Council .......................................................................................73
4.6 Case Study: Common Cause.......................................................................................76
4.7 Social and Issue Networks...........................................................................................82
4.8 Summary.....................................................................................................................84
5 Usenet Newsgroups..........................................................................................................85
5.1 Virtual Organization....................................................................................................87
5.2 Heterogeneity..............................................................................................................95
5.3 Media Integration......................................................................................................100
5.4 Disintermediation......................................................................................................108
5.5 Summary...................................................................................................................113
6 Online Petitions .............................................................................................................115
6.1 Online Petitions.........................................................................................................116
6.2 Propagation...............................................................................................................119
6.3 Resource Bias ...........................................................................................................129
6.4 Summary...................................................................................................................131
7 World Wide Web...........................................................................................................132
7.2 Narrowcasting...........................................................................................................134
7.3 Media Integration......................................................................................................136
7.4 Case Study: Republican National Convention...........................................................137
7.5 Case Study: Campaign ’96 .......................................................................................148

7.6 Summary...................................................................................................................157
8 White House Electronic Documents .............................................................................159
8.1 White House Publications System .............................................................................162
8.2 Survey Methodology.................................................................................................166
8.4 Propagation...............................................................................................................174
8.5 Narrowcasting...........................................................................................................177
8.6 Resource Bias ...........................................................................................................179
8.7 Summary...................................................................................................................184
9 Political Participation....................................................................................................185
9.1 Political Participation ................................................................................................186
9.2 Resources..................................................................................................................188
9.3 Engagement ..............................................................................................................193
9.4 Mobilization..............................................................................................................201
9.5 Data..........................................................................................................................204
9.6 Resources..................................................................................................................204
9.7 Engagement ..............................................................................................................206
9.8 Mobilization..............................................................................................................210
9.9 Summary...................................................................................................................214
10 Conclusion.....................................................................................................................215
10.1 Theory ......................................................................................................................216
10.2 Hypotheses................................................................................................................219
10.3 Evidence ...................................................................................................................221
10.4 Implications ..............................................................................................................224
11 Sources...........................................................................................................................227

Thanks
To my parents, Lawrence and Rita Bonchek, for making it all possible
To my grandparents, Henry and Florence Schreiber, for your perseverance and generosity
To my sister, Lisa, for always being there
To Carl Jette, for the art of inquiry
To James Beniger, for showing me how to think about communication
To James Alt, for your trust
To Ken Shepsle, for taking me under your wing
To Sandy Robbins, for showing me that communication is everything
To Randall Davis, for taking a chance on me
To John Mallery, for your brilliance and insight
To Roger Hurwitz, for your friendship and knowledge
To Sidney Verba, for your wise counsel
To David King, for your faith and perspective
To Janelle Shubert, for support and humanity
To Justin Sterling, for pointing the way
To Elizabeth Davidson, for your love and devotion
To the men of Sequoia, for your heart and your friendship
To Eric deRivera, for your inspiration and commitment
To Rich O’Keeffe, for your humor and spirit
To Todd Jesdale, for your cool
To Mike Logan, for starting a journey
To Dale Calverley, for your trust
To the Men and Women of New England, for keeping me from quitting
To Ken Anbender, Gail and Alan Cantor, for your community and contribution
To David Stone, for giving me a reason to finish
To the Netizens who appear on these pages, for your contribution and candor
And to everyone else who should be mentioned on this page, for your understanding.

Frontispiece
Because communication is the fundamental social process,
because man is above all an information-processing animal,
a major change in the state of information, a major
involvement of communication, always accompanies any
major social change.
- Wilbur Schramm
The deployment of technical media has a fundamental
impact on the ways in which people act and interact with
one another. This is not to say that the technical medium
determines social organization in some simple, monocausal
way; the deployment of technical media is always situated
within a broader social and institutional context which
limits the available options. But new technical media make
possible new forms of social interaction, modify or
undermine old forms of interaction, create new foci and
new venues for action and interaction, and thereby serve to
restructure existing social relations and the institutions and
organizations of which they are a part.
- John B. Thompson

“On the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog.”
- P. Steiner, The New Yorker
Your Papa knows not the difference between on-line or off-line,
But apparently cyber-space can be used to commend or to malign.
If affordably produced, and for the public more simplified,
One thing is certain, and can not be denied,
Each household will have a radio, a t.v., and an Internet alongside.
What a domino-effect field this new media opens up,
To manufacture these units, to repair them, even to advertise –
a pup!
- Henry J. Schreiber

1
1 Introduction
The flow of political information is a vital process in the political system
(Deutsch 1966, Fagen 1966). Individuals, organizations, and governments depend on
accurate and timely information to make decisions and coordinate their activities
(Converse 1990). The complexity of the political system requires political actors to
gather information from beyond their immediate environments (Nimmo and Combs
1983). Communication media such as newspapers, television, and the telephone are the
channels through which this information is gathered (McLuhan 1964, Schramm 1973,
Meadow 1980). As the ability of communication media to transmit information changes
over time, so does the flow of information (Pye 1965, Straits 1991). New media enable
actors to gather information from new sources in new locations, often in less time and at
less expense.
The Internet is a “unique and wholly new medium of worldwide human
communication” that enables political actors to transmit information at a low cost
independently of time and distance (U.S. District Court 1996). The unique transmission
capabilities of the Internet alter the flow of information between individuals, within
organizations, and throughout society (Sproull 1991, Hiltz 1993). This alteration in the
flow of information suggests an alteration in political behavior as well. The scholarly
literature demonstrates a relationship between the flow of political information and
political behavior. In particular, information has been found to be an important factor in
political participation (Verba 1995), political cognition (Sniderman 1991), public opinion

2
(Neuman 1986), political meaning (Neuman 1992), and political discussion (Gamson
1992).
The relationship between media, information, and behavior is summarized in
Figure 1. Political information is an intervening variable between communication media
and political behavior. Differences in the ability of communication media to transmit
information produce differences in the flow of political information. In turn, these
differences produce differences in political behavior by affecting individuals,
organizations, and communities’ knowledge and understanding of political actors, events,
and processes. Use of the telephone, for example, allows citizens to transmit information
immediately over large distances. The telephone produces a different flow of
information than the postal service, which takes much longer to transmit information over
the same distance. By distributing information more rapidly, the telephone enables
citizens to respond to political crises or emergencies that would otherwise be missed.
Figure 1: Model of Media, Information, and Behavior
Understanding the effect of the Internet on political behavior using the
media/information/behavior model requires answering four questions:

3
1. How does the Internet differ from other media in its transmission of political
information?
2. How do these differences in transmission affect the flow of political information
among political actors?
3. Which political actors are affected by the changes in the flow of political
information?
4. How do these changes in the flow of political information affect political actors’
behavior?
Political science has been slow to take up these questions. Only one panel at the
1996 American Political Science Association Meeting addressed the Internet directly and
as of July 1996 the major political science journals had yet to publish an article on the
effect of the Internet on the political process. This dissertation intends to remedy this gap
in the literature by examining the first three questions and developing an understanding
of the first half of the media/information/behavior chain. By exploring the connection
between media and information, this dissertation should assist future researchers
complete the chain by answering the fourth question and exploring the connection
between information and behavior on the Internet.
1.1 Contribution to the Literature
The dissertation contributes most directly to the field of political communication.
Three literatures in the field are particularly relevant. The first overlaps with media
studies and addresses the social and political effects of new communication media.
Noteworthy studies have been conducted on pamphlets (Goldsberry 1995), the telegraph
(Blondheim 1994), radio (Chester 1969, Reinsch 1988), the telephone (Aronson 1971, De
Sola Pool 1977), newspapers (Schudson 1978), television (Mickelson 1972, Ranney
1983), mass media (Benjamin 1982, Gordon, 1977), and electronic media (Abramson

4
1988). There are currently few studies on the effect of the Internet on political
communication and the political process. Notable exceptions are Aikens’ (1996a, 1996b)
papers on a Deweyan system of public opinion formation and the Minnesota electronic
democracy project, and the Haubens’ (1996) paper on the creation, development, and
impact of the Internet. This dissertation differs from these works in having an explicit
model of political behavior and in specifically addressing the flow of political
information as a dependent variable. Aikens’ work emphasizes public opinion formation
with a more normative focus, while Hauben’s research is more historical and prescriptive
about public policy concerns.
The dissertation is also a contribution to the literature on diffusion of information
(Savage 1981), an outgrowth of the literature on diffusion of innovation (Brown 1969,
Rogers 1971, 1995). The substantive contribution to this literature is the inclusion of the
Internet as a channel for diffusion. Previous studies have examined only personal and
broadcast media. The methodological contribution is a bridging of individual and
system-level analysis. Previous studies have examined information flow at the level of
the individual (Katz 1955), the organization (Graber 1992), and the political system as a
whole (Deutsch 1967). This dissertation bridges individual and system-level analysis by
considering the individual as the primary decision-maker within a communication
structure and political system (Stimson 1990).
Drawing on the recent critiques of rational choice as a model of human behavior
(Mansbridge 1990), the dissertation assumes that individual behavior is complex and
multi-dimensional. Social and psychological factors (Campbell et. al. 1960) as well as
rational self-interest (Alt and Shepsle, 1990) are important determinants of political

5
behavior. The interplay of these factors is assumed to depend on the social context
(Fischer 1977). In this dissertation, social context is approximated by social networks.
With whom a person communicates and about what they communicate are assumed to
influence that person’s behavior. The dissertation will take the mechanism for this
influence largely as a given, emphasizing the relationships between social networks and
the roles of the networks themselves more than the relationships (Holland and Leinhardt
1970, 1975) and roles (White et. al. 1976, Lorraine and White 1971) of individuals within
social networks.
The third literature addresses the flow of information within governmental
organizations. A number of studies have examined sources and flow of information in
Congress (Bimber 1991, Sabatier and Whiteman 1985, Maisel 1981), state legislatures
(Riffe 1988, 1990, Mooney 1991), and the bureaucracy (Graber 1992). Most of these
studies address the various channels of information used by legislators and bureaucrats
and the balance between both specialist and non-specialist information (Zwier 1979) and
technical and non-technical information (Webber 1987). This dissertation contributes to
this literature by evaluating the importance of the Internet as source for information from
political organizations and constituents.
An additional contribution arises out of the timing of the study. Currently, the
Internet is still a distinct medium. The television, the telephone, radio, and the Internet
each have their own devices. But the distinctions between these media are rapidly
blurring. It is already possible to use one’s computer to play CD’s, tune into a radio
broadcast, view a television program, surf the Web, and talk on the telephone. The
distinct effect of the Internet may be more difficult to measure as the delivery of these

6
channels blur together. In addition, the Internet is still used by a minority of the
population. Most citizens receive their political information from personal and broadcast
media. By analyzing the Internet today, the old and new communication structures can
be examined in juxtaposition and their differences noted more clearly. As use of
computer networks becomes more widespread, it will become more difficult to separate
out the specific effects of the Internet. This dissertation therefore contributes to the
literature by documenting the changes as they are occurring.
1.2 Hypotheses
How does the Internet change the flow of political information? The hypothesis
tested in this thesis is that the unique properties of the Internet create new channels for
political communication between political actors. Prior to the Internet, political actors
were restricted by the one-to-one transmission of personal media and the high costs and
one-to-many transmissions of broadcast media. As a result, there were few channels of
communication between citizens and political organizations. The press served as a
gatekeeper, gathering information via personal media, filtering that information, and
broadcasting it out again to its citizen-audience. This broadcast structure of political
communication, depicted on the left side of Figure 2 below, exhibits a limited set of
channels for political communication.
The Internet differs from other media in its transmission properties. Unlike
personal or broadcast media, the Internet is a many-to-many medium, supporting
communication among group members. Unlike broadcast media, the Internet has low
setup costs and supports two-way, interactive communication. Unlike many other media,

7
the Internet is very rapid and the cost of transmission is virtually independent of distance
or location. Finally, the Internet’s use of digital information allows for manipulation and
processing of the information along the transmission path.
These differences between the Internet and other media open new channels for
communication among political actors. Political organizations are able to communicate
directly with each other, bypassing the press as an intermediary. Citizens are able to
communicate interactively with existing broadcasters and many political actors become
their own broadcasters. Finally, new network-based channels open alongside existing
channels, supporting a greater variety and flow of political information. Together with
the existing channels of the broadcast structure, these new network channels create a new
Netcast structure depicted on the right in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Broadcast and Netcast Structures
Broadcast Structure Netcast Structure
The flow of information in the Netcast structure differs from the flow in the
Broadcast structure. Analyzing the unique properties of the Internet in combination with

8
the social characteristics of political communication yields the following hypotheses
about the effects of the Internet on the flow of political information:
1. An all-channel structure of political communication in which all political agents
are directly connected to each other
2. Disintermediation, i.e. bypassing of traditional intermediaries, and a shift from
gatekeeping to brokering for these intermediaries;
3. Formation of virtual organizations based on shared interests rather than shared
geography;
4. Integration of social and issue networks, such that personal relationships form
more easily around political issues and personal relationships are enhanced in
existing issue-oriented networks;
5. Greater propagation of political information through duplication and re-
transmission between social networks across weak-tie relationships;
6. Increased volume of political information;
7. Integration of personal, broadcast, and network media either simultaneous
transmission, repackaging, and rebroadcast;
8. Resource bias in who uses the Internet for political communication towards those
with higher income and education;
9. Heterogeneity of sources for political information, expanding the diversity of
opinion to which citizens have access and may be exposed to;
10. Narrowcasting of customized and targeted messaged to specific communities of
interest.
1.3 Organization
The thesis is organized according to the questions raised in the first section of this
chapter. Chapter 2 examines the question of how the Internet differs from other media in
its transmission of political information. Chapter 3 examines how these differences in
transmission affect the flow of political information among political actors. Chapters 4
through 9 test the hypothesized effects derived in Chapter 3 using case studies of Internet
mailing lists, Usenet groups, online petitions, World Wide Web campaign sites, and an

9
online survey of White House electronic document users. Overall, the analyses and case
studies are consistent with the hypothesized effects. Chapter 10 examines how these flow
effects may influence political participation. Survey results from White House document
users suggest that the Internet is creating new opportunities for political participation and
increasing the levels of political participation among high-resource groups already likely
to participate.

10
2 Communication Media
The first of our research questions is “How does the Internet differ from other
media in its transmission of political information?” The media ⇒ information ⇒
behavior model predicts that differences in transmission properties produce differences in
information flow. The purpose of this chapter is therefore to investigate the unique
properties of the Internet and their effects on information flow. The first section defines
communication and communication media and explicates the dimensions that
differentiate communication media from each other. The Internet is shown to possess
unique characteristics and transmission properties. The third section finds structural,
historical, and technical reasons for these differences. The chapter concludes by
hypothesizing the effects of these differences on the flow of information.
2.1 Properties
Communication media are the “extensions of man.” McLuhan 1964), machines
and social institutions “interposed in the communication process to multiply and extend
the delivery of information” (Schramm 1973). As the channels of communication, “the
very substance of human intercourse,” they have been considered both the skeleton (Pye
1963) and the nervous system (Deutsch 1967) for the body politic. They are the building
blocks from which the communication structure is built.
Each communicative act has a source or sender who originates the message, the
message itself, a medium for carrying the message, a receiver who interprets the message,
and possible feedback to the source from the receiver (Lasswell 1971, Shannon 1949).

11
Messages are made up of information, “the raw material of communication.”
Communication occurs when information is transmitted from a source to a receiver and
when that information has some affect on the receiver (see Figure 3 below).
Communication is therefore “the transfer of meaningful information from a source to a
receiver” (Graber 1991:4), “a process in which there is some predictable relation between
the message transmitted and the message received” (Katz and Kahn 1978:436).
Figure 3: The Process of Communication
The processing of information into an organized body of thought is the creation of
knowledge. Since the structure of communication in a society determines how
information flows, it also affects its ability to create, maintain, and utilize knowledge.
Communications is the web of human society. The structure of a
communication system with its more or less well-defined channels is, in a
sense, the skeleton of the social body which envelops it. The content of
communications is of course the very substance of human intercourse.
The flow of communications determines the direction and the pace of
dynamic social development (Pye 1963).
By influencing the flow of information and the creation of knowledge, media therefore
influence individual behavior, social organization, and the functioning of the political
system.
Media differ in their properties as channels for communication and their
capacities for transmitting information. Some media are better for carrying messages
over distances (telephone) while others are better for storing messages through time

12
(magnetic tape). Some media are better for targeting a message to a specific individual
(letter) while others are better for distributing messages to large audiences of people
(television). Media also differ according to the type of information they carry. Some
information is textual, some audio, some visual. Finally, media differ in the costs
incurred to utilize the medium for the transmission of information. Media therefore vary
along five dimensions: time, distance, audience, content, and cost. Differences among
media along any of these dimensions correspond to differences in the capacity to transmit
information. To the extent that the Internet differs from other media along these
dimensions, it will differ in its capacity for transmitting information.
Along the dimensions of time, media can be divided into synchronous and
asynchronous. Media that store and transmit messages through time are called
asynchronous media. A medium is asynchronous if there is a significant delay between
the time that a source sends the message and the time that is received. In some cases, the
source of the asynchronicity is slow delivery, while in other cases it is due to the storage
of the message until the receiver actually retrieves the message. Books, newspapers,
answering machines, videotapes, CDs and floppy disks are all asynchronous.
Synchronous media do not have a perceptible delay between the time a message is sent
and received. Synchronous media include the telephone, radio, and live television.
Related to the synchronicity of media is interactivity. Interactivity occurs when
the receiver can provide feedback to the sender in a way that affects the source’s
subsequent transmission. With true interactivity, the parties involved alternate roles as
senders and receivers in a dialogue. Telephone calls are usually interactive, whereas
television news broadcasts are not. Talk radio and television talk shows are partly

13
interactive because the source’s communication is affected by feedback from the
audience, although not all receivers are able to participate in the exchange.
Media can be further differentiated along the dimension of distance. Some media
are better able than others to transmit information across physical distances. Media that
transmit information in physical form are more limited than those that transmit
information in electronic form through wires or via radio waves. Newspapers, books,
letters, and compact disks represent information physically in paper, ink, and plastic.
These media must be physically transported from the source to the receiver, limiting its
reach and adding to its expense. Media that transmit information over wires or radio
waves are less encumbered by physical distance. Whereas a letter to another country
must be physically transported, a telephone call does not. Media such as short-wave
radio, television, telephone, and satellite transmissions are therefore more capable of
transmitting information across large distances.
Audience is the third dimension for comparing communication media. Media
differ in the size of the audience that can simultaneously receive a message. Some media
are personal media, connecting a single source with a single receiver. These media are
called one-to-one media and include telephone calls, letters, and facsimiles. Other media
broadcast messages from a single source to multiple receivers. These media are one-to-
many media and include radio, television, newspapers, and books. A third category is
many-to-many media. Many-to-many media enable multiple sources to communicate
with multiple receivers. Conference calls are an example of a many-to-many medium.

14
The fourth dimension for comparing media is content. Information can be
transmitted in the form of text, graphics, audio, or video. Media differ in their ability to
transmit different types of information. Letters transmit text effectively, but are
incapable of transmitting audio or video information. Radio is effective for audio
information, but incapable of transmitting video. Television is effective for audio and
video, but poorly suited for text.
Media also differ in their cost structures. Two types of costs are fixed costs and
marginal costs. Fixed costs are the initial or entry costs required for having the ability to
send or receive messages. The cost of a telephone is a fixed cost. Marginal costs are the
ongoing expenses involved in sending or receiving individual messages. The cost of a
phone call is a marginal cost. Fixed and marginal costs sometimes differ for senders and
receivers. Most broadcast media are expensive for senders and inexpensive for receivers.
The cost of purchasing and operating a television station, for example, is far more
expensive than purchasing and operating a television set.
The differentiating characteristics are summarized in Figure 4 below for some
common media. The first and second columns list the types of media according to the
relationship between the source and the receiver. One-to-one media are labeled personal
media, one-to-many media are labeled broadcast media, and many-to-many media are
labeled group media. Internet media are listed separately. The third column lists the
temporal relationship between transmission and receipt of the communication, either
synchronous or asynchronous. The fourth column indicates the capacity of the medium
for interactivity, either none, partial, or full. The fifth column indicates the capacity of
the medium for transmitting information across large distances, either local, regional, or

15
global. The sixth column indicates the speed with which the information can be
delivered over that distance, either slow or fast. The seventh column indicates the types
of information optimally transmitted over the medium—text, graphics, audio, or video.
The last four columns describe the cost structure for the medium. Fixed and marginal
costs for senders and receivers are indicated by low, medium, high. Only direct financial
expenses are considered in this column; other costs such as education or training are not
included.
Figure 4: Properties of Communication Media
Looking only at the non-Internet media, two patterns emerge. First, there is
typically an imbalance between sending and receiving costs. Fixed and marginal costs
are generally higher for the sender than the receiver. Second, there are some gaps in the
Medium Audience Time Interact Area Speed Type FC:Src/Rcv MC:S/R
Personal
Conversation 1-1 Synch Full Local Fast Aud/Vis Low/Low Low/Low
Letter 1-1 Asynch No Global Slow Txt/Graph Low/Low Low/Low
Phone Call 1-1 Synch Full Global Fast Audio Med/Med Med/Low
Voice Mail 1-1 Asynch No Global Fast Audio Med/Med Med/Low
Facsimile 1-1 Asynch No Global Fast Txt/Graph Med/Med Med/Med
Broadcast
Radio 1-Many Synch Part Regnl Fast Audio Hi/Low Low/Low
Television 1-Many Synch Part Global Fast Aud/Vid Hi/Med Low/Low
Lecture 1-Many Synch Part Local Fast Aud/Graph Low/Low Low/Low
Print 1-Many Asynch No Global Slow Txt/Graph Hi/Low Med/Low
Tapes/CDs 1-Many Asynch No Global Slow Aud/Video Hi/Low Med/Low
Movie 1-Many Asynch No Local Slow Aud/Video Hi/Low Med/Low
Mass Mailing 1-Many Asynch No Global Slow Txt/Graph Med/Low Med/Low
Group
Meeting M-Many Synch Full Local Fast Audio/Vis Low/Low Low/Low
Conf. Call M-Many Synch Full Global Fast Audio Med/Low Med/Med
Internet
E-Mail 1-1 Asynch Part Global Fast Text Med/Med Low/Low
Listserv 1-Many Asynch Part Global Fast Text Med/Med Low/Low
Web 1-Many Asynch No Global Fast All Med/Med Low/Low
Chat M-Many Synch Yes Global Fast Text Med/Med Low/Low
Usenet M-Many Asynch Part Global Fast Text Med/Med Low/Low
Virtual Conf M-Many Synch Yes Global Fast Au/Vi/Txt Med/Med Low/Low

16
possible combinations of characteristics. For example, there are no inexpensive global
group media. There are also no inexpensive, fast, global, text-based, personal media.
Comparing Internet media to non-Internet media, it is apparent that the Internet is
distinctive as a communication medium. No other medium (1) combines personal, group,
and broadcast communication, (2) features a moderate fixed cost and low marginal cost
for broadcasting, (3) provides for inexpensive global group communication, and (4)
enables inexpensive, rapid, global, text-based, personal communication.
2.2 Internet
Why does the Internet have such distinctive characteristics as a communication
medium? The answer lies in the design of the Internet, the nature of digital information,
and the properties of computer networks. The Internet is a collection of computers
connected together so that they can exchange information with each other. By itself, a
computer is merely a sophisticated calculator, a standalone information processing
machine. But connect two computers together so that they can exchange information,
and each computer becomes a communication device. From the 1950s through the
1980s, computers were largely standalone information-processing devices. Even in the
1980s, with the development of personal computing, computers were still used primarily
as standalone devices. Some computers were networked together, but mostly within
organizations as local terminals for mainframe computers. The breakthrough in the
1990s was the networking of millions of computers into a global network of computers
(Tesler 1995, Tapscott 1996).

17
A computer network is a collection of computers that are connected, or
networked, together using a protocol for exchanging information and a physical link, or
substrate, for transmitting the information. The protocol provides the rules that each
computer must follow in the transmission of information so that communication can
occur. Like a universal translator, the protocol enables computers to communicate
despite differences in operating systems, capabilities, and network connections. The
physical substrate carries the information between computers, usually through telephone
lines, wireless radio, coaxial or fiber-optic cable.
An internet (small “i”) is a network of networks. Just as networks connect
computers to computers, internets connect networks to networks. Like networks,
internets also have protocols and physical substrates. The internet protocols enable
networks with different operating systems and configurations to communicate with each
other. The internet’s physical substrate connects the networks to each other. The Internet
(capital “I”) is the largest internet in the world with nearly 10,000,000 hosts (Matrix
1996). A host is either a computer or a network that is connected to the Internet. Some
hosts are individual computers. Some hosts are networks with hundreds of thousands of
users. America Online, for example, is a single host.
What hosts on the Internet have in common is their use of a common protocol,
TCP/IP, as a language for sharing information with each other. TCP (Transmission
Control Protocol) converts messages into packets and re-assembles them at their
destination. IP (Internet Protocol) transports the packets through the network.
Transmitting information on the Internet is like moving one’s apartment in identically
sized boxes using United Parcel Service. The TCP protocol disassembles the information

18
and packs them into identically sized packets. The IP protocol ships them to their proper
destination. The TCP protocol then unpacks and organizes the information into its
original arrangement. The TCP/IP protocol allows almost any kind of computer or
network to connect to the Internet and exchange information with other computers and
networks. Vincent Cerf, one of the primary developers of TCP/IP, has said, “I take great
pride in the fact that the Internet has been able to migrate itself on top of every
communications capability invented in the past twenty years” (Diamond 1995:45).
The Internet is the product of the Cold War. In the late 1950s, the Pentagon
became concerned about the susceptibility of their communication system to nuclear
attack and the hostile conditions of war. The existing phone network was fragile because
a break in the circuit connecting two parties ended a call. An ICBM missile hitting a
central switch could wipe out communication to an entire region. In response to a request
from the Pentagon, the RAND corporation conceived a network that would route a signal
around any disruption and maintain communication: “There would be no obvious central
command and control point, but all surviving points would be able to reestablish contact
in the event of an attack on any one point [through a] redundancy of connectivity”
(Diamond 1995:42). In other words, the information would automatically take a detour if
blocked along any given path.
At the heart of this conceptually robust network was an invention called packet
switching. With a phone call, a connection is opened and maintained for the duration of
the call. Each message between sender and receiver is transmitted in its entirely exactly
as it is sent. Packet switching differs from a phone call because each message is broken
up into small “packets.” A packet consists of a message, a source, a destination, and a

19
history of the packet’s travels on the network. Each node in the network has instructions
to route these packets towards their destination using whatever network connections are
available. Dedicated computers called routers store maps of the network topology and
inform the nodes what paths are available between the source and destination. In this
way, the intelligence of the system is embedded in the system itself, rather than in a
single switching point vulnerable to malfunction or attack.
Until the 1990s, the Internet was primarily a network for the defense industry,
government and academic scientists, and university students. Members of the general
public connected to a computer network were usually connected to a local area network,
a dial-in bulletin board, or an online service such as CompuServe, but not to the Internet.
Not until the 1990s did corporate networks, bulletin boards, and online services begin
connecting their networks to the Internet.
In the early 1990’s, the number of host computers jumped from the thousands into
the millions. In 1981, fewer than 300 computers were linked to the Internet. By 1989 the
number had grown to 90,000 computers. By 1993, over one million computers were
connected. Over the next three years, the Net continued to grow exponentially as the
network passed its critical mass (Markus 1987, Rafaeli 1993), reaching over 9 million by
1996). Approximately 60 percent of these are located within the United States. The total
number of people connected to the Internet is estimated to be 40 million worldwide and
20 million in the United States.
The Internet is usually accessed from work, home, school, online services, and
public-access sites over dial-in lines or direct network connections. Dial-in lines are

20
typically slower than direct network connections. Users who access the Internet from
work or school are often subsidized in their usage by their institutions. Typical Internet
access charges are $20 per month not including phone bills and equipment. Most urban
users are able to use a local access number and avoid long-distance charges. Members of
online services typically pay hourly charges for connect time, which they can use to
access the Internet.
Just as the road system carries a variety of devices for transportation including
bicycles, cars, and trucks, the Internet allows for a variety of methods for communication
including electronic mail, chat groups, and the World Wide Web. Each has its own
characteristics and capabilities, but they share the use of TCP/IP and packet switching as
a method of transmitting information on the network. They also share the fundamental
property of low cost transmission of digital information across large distances.
Collectively, they give the Internet its capacities as a communication medium.
The most frequently used application on the Internet is electronic mail, or e-mail
(Schaefermeyer 1988). As its name suggests, e-mail is equivalent to sending a postal
letter, except the address is a destination on a computer network and the information is
stored digitally rather than written on a piece of paper. An e-mail sender enters the
address and message into a form on a computer connected to the Internet and “sends” the
message. The message is routed to one of the many computers known as domain name
servers located throughout the Internet which store information about where to find the
computer hosting the recipient’s e-mail account. When delivered to the destination
computer, an e-mail program on the destination computer stores the message in a file
called the recipient’s “mailbox” for retrieval at the recipient’s convenience.

21
A listserv uses electronic mail to create a one-to-many broadcasting medium. A
computer program on a host computer stores a list of electronic mail addresses.
Individuals can add or delete their address from the list by sending e-mail messages to a
subscription address at the host computer. Subscribers to the mailing list can send
messages to all other subscribers by sending a message to the address of the mailing list
at the host computer. When the host computer receives a message to that address, it
automatically rebroadcasts the message to everyone on the mailing list.
Usenet newsgroups, bulletin boards, and Web-based conferencing systems are all
types of “distributed message databases” and are similar to listservs (Johansen 1988).
Like listservs, they allow discussion and the exchange of information on a particular
topic. Unlike listservs, submissions are archived and must be retrieved by a reader. They
do not automatically appear in a user’s electronic mailbox. Usenet groups are the largest
form of distributed message databases and are open to any Internet user. There are
currently more than 15,000 Usenet newsgroups with at least 100,000 messages posted
each day. A variety of meeting and conferencing systems are also available through
private networks and proprietary software (Schrage 1990).
Chat facilities allow users to interact in real-time. Messages typed on one
person’s terminal appear virtually instantly on the other, allowing an interactive exchange
of text. Online services such as America Online and CompuServe have their own chat
systems, while the Internet has facilities such as Internet Relay Chat and WebChat.
Related to chat system are network-based telephone and video-conferencing facilities
such as CU-SeeMe. Both of these facilities extend the real-time exchange of text in chat
rooms to sound and video exchange.

22
Telnet, FTP (File Transfer Protocol), and Gopher services enable a network user
to access a computer elsewhere on the Internet remotely. Telnet gives the user direct
control over the remote computer as if he were on that computer directly. FTP gives the
user the ability to copy files between a remote and local computer. Gopher gives the user
the ability to navigate a directory on a remote computer and view the information
contained in its files.
The most versatile application on the Internet is the World Wide Web, an
application that uses a server program to make information available to anyone who has a
browser program such as Netscape or Mosaic. The World Wide Web (“Web”) is the
fastest growing application on the Internet. The number of web sites has grown from 130
in June of 1993 to 230,000 in June of 1996 (http://www.mit.edu:8001/people/mkgray/
net/web-growth-summary.html). Traffic on the World Wide Web grew from 39
megabytes per month in November 1992 to 3.1 million megabytes per month in
November 1994). Since its inception, the Web has been growing at an exponential rate,
doubling every three months. Although the growth rate is leveling off, the number of
Web users continues to climb (http://www.isoc.org/ftp/isoc/charts/90s-www.txt).
The Web was developed at CERN, a particle physics laboratory in Geneva,
Switzerland. Since particle physics is a highly collaborative enterprise, the physicists at
CERN were interested in a technology that would allow scientists around the world to
publish and retrieve each others’ research. The initial work in 1989 centered on the
development of a protocol for exchanging text, graphic, and sound information called
http, hypertext transfer protocol. By 1991 they had developed a Web server for
distributing information, and a Web browser for retrieving information. The Web

23
browser, running on a retriever’s computer, contacts the Web server, running on the
distributor’s computer, and requests a file containing the desired information. The server
then transmits the file to the browser, which displays the information for the retriever.
Files are given unique addresses called URLs, uniform resource locators. Most files are
written in a formatting language called html, hypertext transfer markup language, which
allows URLs to be imbedded in a way that links files together.
Documents on the Web can be text, sound, graphics, or video. Using a browser
program, an individual enters a URL address into his or her browser, which contact the
server program responsible for distributing the document with that address. The
information is then transmitted by the server to the browser and displayed on the user’s
screen. The primary advantage of the World Wide Web is that URL addresses can be
embedded in documents as hyperlinks so that a user can simply click on the address with
a computer mouse and have the associated document displayed on the screen. This
facility makes it possible to “surf” the Web by clicking from one document to the next
independently of where the document may be stored.
2.3 Information Flow
The flow of political information is a function of the supply and demand for that
information (Weatherford 1982, Fischer et al. 1977, Straits 1991). Demand arises from
citizens’ interest in politics, their partisanship, their affect, and their resources (McLeod
1981). The supply of information arises from political agents’ interest in producing and
distributing political information and the capacity for distributing that information. The
Internet increases the supply of information by increasing the capacity for distributing

24
that information. The specific ways in which the Internet increases the supply of
information can be summarized by six key concepts: propagation, narrowcasting,
automation, mediation, knowledge representation, and virtual organization. These
changes have potentially important political consequences because “even relatively minor
variations in communication structures can produce substantial differences in information
flow patterns and in the distribution of political influence” (Graber 1992:168; see also
Kessel 1983, 1984).
Propagation refers to the spread of information. It is a measure of the
“contagiousness” of information, of how many times a message is passed along from one
person to the next. Most news items do not propagate successfully—they are read and
forgotten without being discussed or distributed to anyone else. Good jokes, on the other
hand, do propagate successfully—they are told and retold from one person to the next.
The Internet promotes the propagation of information because of the ease with which
information can be forwarded. Forwarding information in a newspaper, magazine, or
letter requires the sender to physically clip the article and either fax or mail the letter.
Forwarding information in an email message can often be accomplished with only a few
clicks of the mouse.
The low fixed cost of broadcasting on the Internet, combined with its global
reach, provides Internet users with a low-cost publishing medium. Using ftp, telnet,
gopher, or the World Wide Web, information can be made available to people all over
world for dollars a month. As an added benefit, the information is retrievable at the
user’s convenience and can be tailored specifically to the user’s requirements or
preferences. Publishing on the Internet differs from traditional broadcasting because of

25
the ability to engage in narrowcasting. In traditional broadcasting, the same message is
distributed to the entire audience. Everyone in the country sees the same version of the
network evening news. With narrowcasting, different segments of the audience receive
different messages (Pepper and Rogers 1993). Newspapers and magazines accomplish
some narrowcasting through regional versions of the same paper or issue. Subscribers to
the New York Times outside of New York City, for example, receive a different version
of the newspaper than those who live within New York City. With the Internet, the
granularity, or degree of specificity, can move to the level of the individual. Each
subscriber to an online newspaper can receive his own newspaper, customized to his
specific interests and past reading habits.
The development of the Internet has paralleled an expansion in the role of the
computer from a computing device to a communications device. By combining
computing and communication devices, it is possible for an Internet-connected computer
to process the information that it transmits and receives. The Internet brings automation
and intelligence to the communication, saving time and expense and creating new
possibilities. Electronic mail, for example, can be automatically sorted and prioritized
according to keywords contained in the text (Malone 1987). Web sites around the world
can be categorized and indexed in large databases such as Alta Vista or Yahoo for search
and retrieval. Discussions can be automatically archived for future retrieval.
Autonomous software agents gather, interpret, and report on useful information (Foner
1993). Survey systems sends forms to recipients, process their responses, and format the
results in real-time without the need for human oversight or intervention (Mallery 1994b.

26
On the World Wide Web, databases can be integrated with Web server software to enable
users to track overnight express packages or order airline tickets directly.
The Internet performs an effective role as an intermediary by making it easy for
suppliers and consumers of information to find each other and communicate. Suppliers
benefit from the ability to make information available at a low cost, and consumers
benefit from the ability to search for and retrieve the information. In becoming its own
intermediary, the Internet bypasses or replaces many traditional intermediaries. Because
of the high entry costs of traditional broadcasting, most information suppliers were
required to attract the attention of the press to disseminate information to the public. On
the Internet, suppliers can distribute information directly to the public. The result is a
process of disintermediation in which broadcasters are no longer needed as gatekeepers,
filters, or intermediaries.
The ability to collect, store, compute, and distribute information on the Internet
facilitates knowledge representation. Network documents known as FAQs (frequently
asked questions), for example, document the accumulated knowledge on a particular
topic. As new information is found to contribute to the knowledge base, the FAQ is
updated for distribution and retrieval.
The capacity for anonymous and asynchronous communication allows for
diversity and heterogeneity in the sharing of information. Net users can participate in
discussions and exchange information without revealing their identity, avoiding such
otherwise deterring consequences as embarrassment or retribution.

27
The capacity for many-to-many communication in which costs are independent of
time and distance allows for the formation, organization, and maintenance of virtual
organizations or groups. These virtual groups are organized not around geography, as in
most traditional groups, but around common interests. Through the Internet, individuals
are able to find each other, share information, collaborate, and coordinate activities
regardless of time or place. Together with low-cost publishing, the proliferation of
virtual organizations organized around common interests supports narrowcasting, in
which broadcasters deliver targeted messages to small groups of Internet users who share
an interest in the content of the message. .
2.4 Summary
In their judgment against Internet censorship, the U.S. District Court ruled that
“the Internet is therefore a unique and wholly new medium of worldwide human
communication.” They based their ruling on four factors. “First, the Internet presents
very low barriers to entry. Second, these barriers to entry are identical for both speakers
and listeners. Third, as a result of these low barriers, astoundingly diverse content is
available on the Internet. Fourth, the Internet provides significant access to all who wish
to speak in the medium, and even creates a relative parity among speakers.” Their
conclusion supports the view that the Internet differs fundamentally from existing media:
“The Internet may fairly be regarded as a never-ending worldwide conversation. ... the
most participatory form of mass speech yet developed.” (U.S. District Court for Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, Civil Action No. 96-1458, June 11, 1996).

28
3 Communication Structures
In Chapter 1 we saw how the unique transmission properties of the Internet create
the capacity for new types of information flow. But information flow is not only a
function of the transmission properties of communication media. Information flow is
also a function of social organization and behavior. The ways that people organize
themselves, communicate with each other, and utilize communication media are
important factors in the flow of political information. The Internet can only be
understood fully in the context of the entire environment for political communication.
“In short, environment plays a crucial role in affecting the social flow of political
information” (Huckfeldt and Sprague 1987).
This chapter examines the full environment of political communication to
understand how citizens receive and distribute political information. The first section
presents the concept of a communication structure. A communication structure is the
system comprising the channels of communication, the agents that use those channels,
and the information carried over those channels. Traditionally studied within
organizations (Wigand 1988, Rogers 1976, McPhee 1985, Graber 1992), communication
structures will be applied here to the entire political system.
The middle sections present three types of communication structures. Broadcast
Structure refers to the pre-Internet system dominated by personal and broadcast media
and characterized by intermediation between political organizations and citizens through
the press. The communication structure in which people communicate solely by
computer network is given the label Network Structure. This structure is not intended

29
to describe a full communication environment, but serves as a useful juxtaposition to the
Broadcast Structure. The combination of the traditional Broadcast Structure with the
emergent Network Structure is hypothesized to yield a Netcast Structure. This hybrid
structure combines personal, broadcast, and network media and possesses distinct
patterns of information flow. The chapter concludes by summarizing these hypothesized
patterns of information flow.
3.1 Structures
A communication structure is a system comprising the channels of
communication, the agents who use those channels, and the information carried over
those channels. Communication structures occur at any level of organization, from
family, corporation, or city, to country, region, or globe. This study will focus on the
political communication structure in the United States, comprising citizens and
organizations in the United States using communication media to exchange information
about political affairs.
The primary agents in the U.S. political communication structure are the public,
the press, government organizations, and political organizations. Political agents are
connected by a variety of information channels. Personal media include face-to-face
meetings, personal letters, facsimiles, and telephone calls. Broadcast media include
radio, television, magazines, mass mailings, and newspapers. Channels can be either
one-way or two-way. Content in these channels varies according to the information
needs of the agents using them. The information may be text, audio, or video; fact or

30
opinion; discussion or announcement. Discussion requires a two-way channel, while an
announcement requires only a one-way channel.
Agents play different communicative roles. Some agents are suppliers of
information, using information channels to distribute information to other agents who are
information consumers. Some agents are intermediaries, gathering information from
suppliers, processing, filtering, and interpreting the information, and then re-distributing
it to consumers (Myers 1994). There is a need for intermediaries because the cost of
directly acquiring political information typically exceeds the benefit (Downs 1957).
Intermediaries reduce the cost of acquiring information. Citizens have a particular need
for intermediaries because they usually do not have direct contact with politics, especially
at the national level (Nimmo 1983).
Networks are sub-structures that lie within larger communication structures. A
network consists of agents, channels, and content. What differentiates a network is the
sharing of content among its members. The network of politicians, government workers,
consultants, lobbyists, reporters, and analysts that work in and around Washington D.C.
can be considered a network because of their shared information.
Communication structures can be depicted graphically using a simple schematic
representation. Figure 5: below shows the elements of the representation. Agents are
depicted by polygonal shapes. Channels are depicted by lines, with arrows representing
the direction of the information flow and patterns differentiating types of media.
Networks are depicted by dashed rectangles surrounding the agents and channels that
constitute the network.

31
Figure 5: Representation of Communication Structures
Communication structures are determined by technology, and social behavior.
Technology determines the properties of the channels and the kinds of communication
that can be supported. Social behavior determines how people use those channels for
communication and the exchange of political information. This social aspect of political
communication is particularly important.
Political behavior may be understood in terms of individuals tied together
by, and located within, networks, groups, and other social formations that
largely determine their opportunities for the exchange of meaningful
political information (Huckfeldt and Sprague 1987).
Historically, the most important intermediaries in communication structures have been
social networks and the mass media (Beck 1991, Chaffee 1986).
A sample communication structure is depicted in Figure 6 below. Sender (A)
initiates a communication to agent (B) via a one-way personal medium. Agent (B)
distributes the message to another intermediary (C) via a one-way broadcast medium.
Agent (C) passes the message along to a member of his or her network via a two-way
personal medium. One scenario that fits this template is a legislator (A) who sends a
letter to the editor of a newspaper (B), who publishes the letter, which is read by an
individual (C), who discusses the letter with a family member (D).

32
Figure 6: Sample Communication Structure
In order to understand the effect of the Internet on the U.S. political
communication, we will compare three different structures. The Broadcast Structure
describes the system of agents, channels, and content that existed before the advent of the
Internet. The Network Structure describes how agents use the channels of the Internet to
communicate and exchange information. The Netcast Structure describes the
communication structure when the Broadcast and Network Structures are combined and
agents have full use of all channels.
Broadcast Structure Network Structure Netcast Structure
Communication Structure
Without the Internet
+ Communication
Structure of the
Internet Alone
= Communication Structure
With the Internet

33
3.2 Broadcast Structure
Figure 7: Broadcast Structure
The Broadcast Structure of political information flow is depicted in Figure 7:
above. The press, government, and political organizations are connected via two-way
personal media in issue networks organized around political issues. The press draws
information from these issue networks and uses one-way broadcast media to distribute
the information to the public. Information than circulates within geographically-based
social networks comprised of co-workers, friends, and family.
In Figure 7, the contents of rectangle D are the members of issue networks:
government, political organizations, and the press. The personal nature of the
relationships and communication among these three political actors is indicated by the

34
solid arrows, A, B, and C. The broadcasting of information by the press to the public is
indicated by the dashed arrow extending beyond the boundary of the issue network into
the social networks G. Within the social networks, activist and attentive publics use
personal media F to discuss and distribute information gathered from the broadcast media
and personal experience. The larger arrow in the direction of the attentive public reflects
the greater volume in the flow of information from the activist to the attentive public.
3.3 Issue Networks
The concept of the broadcast structure is original to this research, but its features
are drawn from the literature on American politics. The concept of issue networks was
introduced by Heclo (1978) and validated by Gais, Peterson, and Walker (1984), Peterson
(1993), and Nyland (1996). Schlozman and Tierney (1984:276-77) describe issue
networks as “webs of policy activists within and without the government who are linked
by their common commitment and expertise with respect to a particular issue area.”
They find that issue networks characterize relations between the press, organizations, and
government institutions more accurately than earlier theories of iron triangles (Adams
1981) and sub-governments (Cater 1964). Membership of issue networks includes policy
or technical experts affiliated with public agencies, corporations, private groups, and
political organizations. The importance of seniority and the group norms typically
excludes members of the general public who do are not full-time activists (Stimson 1990;
also Laumann 1976, Fischer 1977). Because different aspects of an issue attract attention
from different parties, membership is fluid with temporary coalitions forming and
dissolving over time.

35
Communication within issue networks tends to be personal, utilizing one-to-one
media (Wilson 1973, Milbrath 1960). As noted by Schlozman and Tierney (1984:276),
“contacts between organized interest representatives and government policymakers entail
mutual exchanges of information and consultation and cooperation on policy matters
rather than simple one-way communications.”
The press relies on members of issue networks as sources for their articles and
broadcasts (Cohen and Young 1981, Entman 1989). These relationships tend to be
personal (Sigal 1973, Herman 1988, Gans 1979, Blumler and Gurevitch 1981). “Just as
elected politicians and appointed officials develop mutually dependent relationships with
these reporters, so do Washington lobbyists. The reporters depend on lobbyists (as well
as on government officials) for information about current and future developments in
their areas of concern. The reporters can be reciprocally useful to the lobbyists. From
reporters, lobbyists may glean information or insights into their opponents’ strategies
(Schlozman & Tierney 1985:179). Along with the personal nature of their relationships,
the press is also subject to the group norms, fluidity, and seniority that affects political
organizations and government officials. It is therefore appropriate to consider the press
as members of issue networks.
Although they are members of issue networks, the press also serves a role as a
bridge to the public. In the language of social network analysis, the press is a bridge
because they span the boundary of their social networks (Graber 1992:175, Rogers and
Rogers 1976). Drawing information from issue networks through personal contacts, they
then broadcast that information to the public. Although some information is available to
the public directly from political organizations (Rothenberg 1992, Schlozman and

36
Tierney 1984, Walker 1991) and the government, the press is the dominant channel
through which information flows from issue networks to the public (Graber 1984, Rubin
1981, June 1988, Ranney 1983, Bagdikian 1983). The expense of direct broadcast
prevents most organizations from contacting citizens directly (Cigler and Loomis, 1983,
Sabato 1981, Zeigler and Peak 1972, Paletz and Entman 1981).
Information typically flows in one direction from the media to citizens.
Journalists have little feedback on how well the information they present to the public is
“getting through” (Kiolbassa 1989). Letters to the editor, Nielsen ratings, readers surveys
and focus groups (Carper 1995), and circulation measures provide only crude and
unreliable indicators as to how the information is being received, processed, and
evaluated (Gans 1979, Robinson and Levy 1986).
3.4 Social Networks
We now turn our attention to the bottom half of the figure and the role of social
networks in the flow of political communication. Most citizens obtain their political
information from the mass media or from other citizens.
Political opinions are rarely determined by individual factors, but are
instead developed through attentiveness to the news media and through
participation in political discussions. ... It is this combination of personal
and mass media intermediation that provides voters with the opportunity
to learn about the political environment (Myers 1994:145).
The flow of information from other citizens is determined by the ways that people
organize themselves socially. “Any given individual can be visualized at the center of a
web of social ties radiating outward toward intimates, to casual acquaintances, and,

37
through them, to the wider society” (Weatherford 1982:117). These webs are known as
social networks (Wellman and Berkowitz, 1988).
The first studies of information flow in social networks were conducted by Paul
Lazarsfeld and his colleagues at Columbia University (Berelson 1954, Lazarsfeld 1948,
Katz 1955). Their studies of voters revealed the importance of personal relationships,
particularly friends and family, in the diffusion of campaign information. Their research
also proposed a two-step flow of information in which attentive members of the public
pass information along to inattentive members. After a revival of the field in the 1970s
(Sheingold 1975), research has demonstrated how new information spreads across social
networks (Savage 1981, Gamson 1992) and within social networks among parents
(Jennings 1983), spouses (Niemi 1977), male friends (Laumann 1973), neighbors
(Weatherford 1982), non-relatives (Huckfeldt 1987), and family (Straits 1991).
Most information flows within cohesive social groups of family, friends,
neighbors, organizational members, and co-workers (Burt 1987, Huckfeldt 1995).
Members of social groups tend to be socially and spatially proximate, i.e. they live near
each other and are similar in their demographic characteristics, social values, political
opinions, and economic resources (Chaffee 1986). Since the cost of acquiring
information from people who are close to oneself is low, and individuals are cost
sensitive in their information seeking (Downs 1957), most people turn to proximate
social networks for political information (Myers 1994) and for political recruitment
(Snow 1980, Tilly 1978, Oberschall 1973, Rosenstone 1993). Relatives are the most
frequent discussion partners for political issues, followed by co-workers, and neighbors
(Beck 1991).

38
Information also tends to flow between citizens who share similar political
preferences (Huckfeldt 1987). In a pattern known as homophily in the literature, people
tend to obtain information from people with whom they agree. “People do not often
discuss politics with those who disagree with them” (Beck 1991). Weatherford (1982)
finds that the desire for congenial discussion partners is more important than affective
factors such as trust and intimacy in the creation of social networks. Familial social
groups are the most homophilic, while friend and co-worker groups are less homophilic
(Straits 1991).
The flow of information between social networks is called propagation and occurs
primarily through weak ties (Granovetter 1973, Blau 1974). Two individuals have a
weak tie if the members of their respective social networks do not have relationships with
each other. Two individuals have a strong ties if members of their social networks are
likely to know each other. Without weak ties, social networks remain isolated from each
other and information stays within homogenous groups. With weak ties, information
moves between social groups and diffuses throughout communities. As we would expect
from the homophilic characteristics of social groups, individuals have less in common
with their weak ties than their strong ties (Myers 1994, Beck 1991). Demographically,
citizens with more weak ties tend to be younger, more educated, more affluent, and more
organizationally involved (Huckfeldt 1995).
Individuals and social networks can be classified according to their interest and
awareness of political issues. Some citizens are highly informed, interested, and attentive
to political issues, while others are uninformed, uninterested, and inattentive. Neuman
(1986) finds that “the mass public is stratified along a sophistication continuum”

39
comprising three publics. The inattentive or “apolitical” in the bottom stratum consists of
the 20 percent of the population who do not monitor political events and are unlikely to
be mobilized around any issue. The attentive or “mass public” in middle stratum consists
of the 75 percent who “monitor the political process half-attentively, but ... can be alerted
if fellow citizens sound the alarm.” The “activist” top stratum consists of citizens who
are active and attentive to political issues and exhibit an unusually high level of political
involvement. Because social networks are homophilic, social networks can also be
classified into these three groups.
Before television, social networks were the primary source of political
information. Most information spread by word of mouth. However, in the last few
decades mass media have become an equally, and possibly more, important source of
information (Bogart 1977, 1989).
While personal networks are universally regarded as important political
intermediaries, it is the mass media, especially television, which increasingly are seen as
the principal actors in the intermediation process. Because the media serve as prime
conduits for the flow of information from candidates and campaign to voters, they may
even be a primary source of information that is exchanged through personal networks
(Beck 381).
Mass media and personal networks are therefore interrelated in the ways that they
bring political information to the citizens. Some information comes directly from the
mass media while other information comes indirectly as citizens discuss information
obtained from the media. The general pattern of information flow between the press and

40
the public is depicted in the bottom half of Figure 7. Information flows via broadcast
media from the press to the public. Members of the public are grouped into either activist
or attentive social networks based on their interest in politics. Within these groups,
citizens are clustered into cohesive social networks by their geography and shared
political preferences. Information flows between these networks through weak ties. [The
inattentive public does not appear on the chart because they do not receive a significant
volume of political information.]
In summary, the broadcast model of political information flow is hierarchical.
“Information about politics penetrates these layers [of a stratified electorate] from the top
down” (Converse 1990:375). Information moves within issue networks through strong
ties and personal media. The public is typically excluded from these issue networks by
lack of interest, seniority, or expertise. The press serves as an intermediary, broadcasting
information from issue networks to the activist and attentive segments of the public. This
broadcast information, along with information derived from citizens’ own political
experiences, flows within social networks through strong ties and between social
networks through weak ties. Some information also flows between the activist and
attentive publics through weak ties. In a modified version of the two-step flow of
information, “individuals uninterested in politics ... may receive considerable exposure
to political information from politically motivated close associates” (Straits 1991:447).
By definition, the inattentive public is not exposed to political information.

41
3.5 Network Structure
Network theorists studying communication in groups and organizations have
found that communication structures can be categorized into four patterns of interaction
(Rogers and Rogers 1976). The four are the chain, wheel, circle, and all-channel patterns
as depicted in Figure 8. In a chain pattern, most members are intermediaries, receiving or
distributing messages to only two other members. The circle is similar to the chain,
except there is no end to the chain. In a wheel pattern, there is a single intermediary who
serves as a central clearinghouse for all communication. In contrast, the all-channel
pattern connects every member with every other member. A variation on the wheel
pattern is called an interlocking wheel pattern in which some of the peripheral members
communicate with each other, even though most information goes through the center.
Figure 8: Communication Patterns
The broadcast model most closely exhibits a wheel pattern. Some agents are connected
to other agents indirectly through gatekeepers or bridges in the center. The connection
between some of the peripheral nodes means that the broadcast model is an interlocking,
as opposed to a radial, wheel pattern. The press is at the hub of the wheel pattern, serving
a bridging function between the peripheral nodes.
Which pattern represents communication on the Internet? As we will see, the
network structure of communication on the Internet exhibits an all-channel pattern in

42
which all agents are connected to all other agents. As we saw in chapter 2, the unique
transmission properties of the Internet make it easier for citizens to connect and
communicate directly with each other. They enable citizens to find information relevant
to their interests, to locate other citizens who share those interests, to distribute
information broadly, quickly, and cheaply, and to coordinate virtual groups unrestricted
by space or time. Since citizens set the marginal cost of distributing and retrieving
information equal to the marginal benefit (Downs 1957:215), the low communication
cost “makes it rational for economic agents to acquire additional intelligence that is
pertinent to their decisions” (Leff 1984:258). As a result, the network structure in Figure
9, below, shows connections among all agents.
Figure 9: Network Structure
Evidence for the all-channel network structure of the Internet can be found in both
the empirical and theoretical literatures. Most empirical research has been conducted in

43
organizational studies of corporations and non-profit organizations. Finholt and Sproull
(1990) find that electronic-mail discussion-lists at a Fortune 500 firm enable “people to
receive information and make connections that otherwise would have been difficult or
impossible.” In their study of computer networking in a local government, Sproull and
Kiesler (1991a:103) find that “computer-based communication technology made it
possible to bypass traditional information gatekeepers, thereby leading to a change in
who had influence.” In another study, Sproull and Kiesler find that the “fully networked
organization” exhibits “distributed lattices of interconnections” (1991b:123). Malone
concurs, noting that computer-based communication networks give rise to a
“coordination-intensive structure” that depends on “many rapidly shifting project teams
and much lateral communication” (Malone 1991:133). Palme (1984) finds that use of E-
mail allows for “an increase of the circle of people with which [users] exchange
experience and ideas on a daily basis, and has meant that information and viewpoints can
be both disseminated to and collected from more people faster than was possible before.”
In the corporate environment, Sproull and Kiesler (1986) find that electronic
communication promoted two-way communication by fostering communication up the
organizational hierarchy from employees to management. Overall,
the more important organizational consequences may stem from the fact
that electronic group communication is as easy as one-to-one
communication. By simultaneously linking and buffering people,
electronic mail can reduce group coordination costs for conventional
groups, and it can support very large groups of physically separated people
that would be otherwise impossible (Sproull 1991a:35).
Although “there is no established research programme for considering how people
take part in politics through electronic communication” (Sachs 1995), the few empirical
studies that have been conducted support the all-channel model. The evidence suggests

44
that computer networks connect citizens, political organizations, the press, and
governments directly and bypass intermediaries. Garramone, Harris, and Anderson
(1986b) studied the Political Forum, a political computer bulletin board system (BBS)
initiated by a state senator and a university professor. Their research upheld Williams
and Rice’ (1983) contention that the Internet’s “potential for interactivity ... blurs the
lines between interpersonal and mass-mediated communication.” Some of the strongest
motivations for using the BBS were “to keep up with current issues and events,” “to
compare my ideas to those of others,” and “to understand what’s going on in state
government.” Overall, the computer network was found to promote direct citizen-to-
citizen and citizen-to-government communication.
Sachs’ (1995) studied PeaceNet, an international non-profit computer-network
connected to the Internet. Interviews with PeaceNet users led Sachs to conclude that
PeaceNet appears to provide an even greater range of coverage than the
large mainstream print and broadcast outlets along with an unprecedented
variety usually associated more with specialized publications ... The lack
of gatekeepers distinguishes the network from other media outlets (87-92).
PeaceNet enabled citizens to connect with other “like-minded individuals” and
obtain “unprecedented access” to policy experts. The “opportunity to reach a mass
audience has no equivalent in the traditional media environment, where access is limited
by, among other things, substantial costs.” The network was found to be particularly
useful for politically alienated individuals who otherwise find it difficult to locate each
other and whose opinions are poorly represented in mainstream media (Bennett 1989).
“Politically alienated individuals ... no longer have to go through the corporate media. ...
They have the capability for immediate, international mass communication with only
minimal financial and access restrictions” (p. 98).

45
Sachs’ findings confirmed the results of Downing’s earlier study of PeaceNet
(1989). Downing found that “the costs of using the system, compared to the costs of
doing the same task by more traditional methods, clearly highlight the advantages.”
Electronic mail was cheaper than printing, stamping, stuffing, and mailing letters;
shipping files electronically was cheaper than overnight express services; and computer
conferencing was cheaper and more flexible than telephone conferencing.
Tiger Li’s (1990) study of political activity by Chinese students in the United
States demonstrated the Internet’s ability to connect and organize citizens distributed
geographically. In July 1989, Chinese students began lobbying Congress to pass
legislation protecting them from reprisals by China for political protesting. Electronic
mail and newsgroups were used to coordinate leadership activities, organize
demonstrations and symposium, report on activities of Chinese consulate officers on
college campuses, and provide a “comprehensive, timely, and economical source of
information about China.” Li concluded that communication on the Internet
played a key role in the communication among the Chinese student
organizations in the U.S. Without such a network, the Chinese students
who are widely dispersed geographically could not have organized as a
whole to engage successfully in the highly coordinated democratic
activities since June 1989). ... They could afford neither the money nor
the time that would have been required for making phone contacts with
more than 100 organizations at one time (128-9).
Studies of the Public Electronic Network (PEN) also support the all-channel
pattern. PEN was established in Santa Monica, California in 1989 as the first interactive,
public computer network in a U.S. city. PEN provided free CMC services for Santa
Monica residents, allowing them to send and receive electronic mail and participate in
public conferences on a variety of topics. Through PEN, citizens were able to retrieve

46
information, discuss local issues with each other, and, to a limited extent, interact with
government officials (Varley 1991). The major product of the PEN system was a
community project sourced and organized from communication on the computer
network. The SWASHLOCK project obtained showers, washing machines, and lockers
for homeless people. A survey of PEN users found that PEN had at least a “moderately
positive” effect on “(1) information regarding local events, (2) ability to comment and
organize around local issues, (3) contact with and understanding of diverse others”
(Wittig 1996).
The most important differences between the network and broadcast structures are
the addition of new channels of communication between (A) political organizations and
the public and between (B) the government and the public, (C) the introduction of two-
way communication between the press and the public, and (D) a greater flow of
information among the activist and attentive publics.
3.6 New Channels
The new channels of communication between political organizations and the
public (A) and the government and the public (B) result from the capacity of the Internet
to support low-cost broadcasting/narrowcasting and two-way communication. As leaders
of two non-profit organizations have stated:
Electronic networking should be a perfect medium for nonprofits. It offers
broad and timely access to information; efficient tools for communication
and dissemination; and increased opportunities for collaboration
(Grunwald 1994).

47
Numerous studies have demonstrated that political information is a principal
reason why citizens join interest groups (Rothenberg 1992, Knoke 1988, King and
Walker 1992). Using traditional broadcast media, organizations and interest groups
spend a large amount of time and resources informing their members about relevant
issues and events (Schlozman and Tierney 1986). Electronic mail distribution lists and
web sites provide a low-cost and timely way of distributing targeted information to
members and other interested parties. The low-cost of narrowcasting and anonymity of
the Internet are particularly appealing as a way of distributing and publicizing
confidential or controversial information to a select audience. An online organizer for a
White Supremacist movement has commented that electronic communication
has had a pretty profound effect on a movement whose resources are
limited. ... Tens of millions of people have access to our message if they
wish. The access is anonymous and there is unlimited ability to
communicate with others of a like mind (Schneider 1995).
Use of the Internet by government offices would be expected to vary according to
the function of the office. Some government agencies, such as the Bureau of the Census,
are chartered to provide information to the public. The Internet provides these offices
with a low-cost medium for receiving and granting requests for information. The
combination of asynchronicity and narrowcasting enables an office to post information
on a computer server for retrieval at the user’s convenience without any subsequent
human intervention. This capability should be appealing to budget-constrained offices.
The Internet also provides government offices with a convenient way of fulfilling
the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act. Enacted by Congress in 1966, the
Act gives the public access to information held by the federal government. With a few

48
restrictions, the Act gives any person the right to request and receive any document, file
or other record in the possession of any agency of the federal government. The ability to
make information available to citizens and comply with the Act without the need for
human labor recommends the Internet as a desirable medium.
For legislators, the ability to make information available to constituents should
encourage the distribution of information on the Internet. However, the incentive to
receive information over the Internet is low. The non-geographic nature of the Internet
fits poorly with the geographic basis of our representative system. Legislators typically
focus their attention on their constituents (Fiorina 1974). The inability to distinguish the
geographic location of a citizen from his or her email address prevents the filtering that
would be necessary to avoid this problem. Furthermore, the ease with which citizens can
send email is a benefit for citizens but is likely to be a disadvantage for legislators.
Legislators tend to look for signals of strong constituent opinion (Hansen and Miller
1987). The low cost of sending email, like preprinted letters, tends to increase the
volume of correspondence. The “price of openness [in the all-channel pattern] may be
debilitating communications overloads for all network members” (Graber 1992:173).
Legislators typically discount the strength of the sentiment behind low-cost
correspondence. Although electronic mail is not weighted very heavily in their decision-
making for this reason (Browning 1996), many legislators still feel obligated to reply to
their mail. The result is a low-cost communication for the constituent but a high cost for
the legislator. The incentive for a legislator to communicate with constituents over email
may therefore be limited. As a result, the ability to broadcast information directly to

49
constituents may be more appealing to legislators than the ability to receive information
interactively.
3.7 The Press
Interactivity and the opportunity for a two-way flow of information between a
sender and an audience adds a new dimension to the relationship of the public to the press
(C). With the new capacities of the Internet, we would expect journalists to locate and
interview sources, conduct background research, and test story ideas online. We would
also expect the Internet to become a new medium for distributing journalistic content.
Reporting produced for offline media can be distributed over the Internet either
simultaneously with the offline version or as an archival copy. New content can be
produced for the Internet to take advantage of its interactive, hypertext, and multimedia
capabilities. Reporting can be customized for specific groups of readers, and interactive
capabilities can provide customization and instant feedback from viewers/
listeners/readers.
The ease with which information can be produced and distributed on the Internet
means there is still a need for gathering, editing, and filtering information. There is also a
need for credibility and context so that citizens feel that they are receiving accurate
information and can map the information into their existing knowledge base (Sniderman,
et. al. 1991). Because of their broadcasting experience and operations, the press is well
suited for these activities. The difference in the network model is that citizens have a
much larger range of information sources available to them. Geographic constraints and
capital requirements for newspaper delivery and television and radio broadcast do not

50
apply on the network. The press no longer has a monopoly position as an information
source. The role of the press in the network model would therefore be as an information
broker, rather than a gatekeeper, connecting suppliers and consumers of information by
providing expertise, context, and credibility.
3.8 The Public
The flow of information among the activist and attentive publics (D) changes in
the network structure because mediation, virtual organization, and the ease of
propagation makes it easier for groups to organize and maintain themselves. Olson
(1965:47) has described how the formation of groups is inhibited by
the costs of communication among group members, the costs of any
bargaining among them, and the costs of creating, staffing, and
maintaining any formal group organization. ... The larger the number of
members in the group the greater the organization costs, and thus the
higher the hurdle that must be jumped before any of the collective good at
all can be obtained.
Political entrepreneurs establishing voluntary organizations face the challenge of
maintaining a flow of information and communication sufficient to coordinate political
activity without a formal organizational structure or established roles and responsibilities.
Communication becomes a cost. As with any other cost, [the political
entrepreneur] has an incentive to communicate as cheaply as possible and,
hence, to use the most efficient means available for obtaining and
exchanging information with clients. ... Because he needs to know certain
things about members, then, as well as to transmit information to them, it
is important that the flow of information be two-way. ... It would be very
difficult and highly costly, after all, were [a political entrepreneur] to try to
make direct personal contact with hundreds or even thousands of potential
members, and his problems increase if the clientele happens to be
geographically dispersed or difficult to identify (Moe 1980).

51
The Internet provides such a two-way flow of information and enables entrepreneurs to
maintain low-cost communication with thousands of potential members. These networks
of weak ties have been found to be vital to the success of political mobilization and
education. The Internet is particularly well-suited to maintaining large networks of weak
ties through mailing lists and web sites. The ability to establish a wheel pattern on the
Internet within the larger all-channel pattern is particularly valuable.
It is not weak ties, per se that are useful but their tendency to be
centralized. Residents who are all bridged by the same weak tie—to a
parish priest, for example, are more likely to be mobilized than those
linked by the same number of weak ties distributed more widely through
cross-cutting associational memberships (Marwell and Oliver 1988).
The ability to centralize weak ties enables groups to reach “a critical mass of interested
and resourceful individuals [who] can coordinate their efforts.”
3.9 Netcast
What happens when the all-channel structure of the Internet is combined with the
wheel pattern of the broadcast world? If history is a guide, we would expect
augmentation rather than replacement. As new media have come into being, old media
have been used in new ways or become less important but they have not disappeared
(Abramson 1988). Newspapers and letters have persisted into the electronic age, and
radio has survived the growth of television. Broadcast media have their own unique
properties that suggest their continued viability. The newspaper is superior in its
portability and its ability to be scanned for information, radio is superior in its ability to
deliver information while people are engaged in other activities, and television is superior

52
in its ability to deliver real-time video. We would therefore expect the network structure
to supplement and augment the broadcast structure, not replace it.
The combined broadcast and network structures are represented in Figure 10
below. This Netcast structure includes all of the agents and channels contained in the
broadcast and network structures. Personal media connect government, organizations,
and the press within issue networks and activist and attentive publics in social networks.
Broadcast media distribute information from the press to the activist and attentive publics
in a one-way flow of information. Network media cross issue and social networks,
creating new links between the public and both political organizations and the
government. Two-way flows of information are introduced between the public and the
press. Information flow is also enhanced between members of the public as citizen-
publishers come into being and geographically distributed and marginalized individuals
are brought together in virtual organizations.
Figure 10: Netcast Structure

53
One important aspect of the Netcast structure becomes apparent when the
broadcast and network structures are examined in juxtaposition. Access to the broadcast
structure is much wider than to the network structure. Most citizens have access to
newspapers, radio, or television. But, as indicated by the dashed line representing
computer networks, only a subset of the population is on the Internet. Network access
and usage requires financial resources, technical skills, cultural familiarity, literacy, and
language skills (Dutton 1987). Internet users therefore tend to be English-speaking,
male, younger, affluent, White, educated, and technically skilled (Fischer 1995,
Tehranian 1990). Furthermore, income, education, and social status are correlated with
both computer usage and political participation (Verba et al. 1993, Verba et al. 1995).
Political communication and participation on the Internet is therefore likely to be
particularly skewed in favor of resourced individuals and organizations (Rubinyi 1989).
A second feature of the Netcast structure is cross-media migration. The
coincidence of personal, broadcast, and network media gives political agents a
multiplicity of channels for the receipt and distribution of information. In the broadcast
structure, information migrates from personal media to broadcast media and then back to
personal media as information moves from issue networks to social networks through the
press. The introduction of network media extends the opportunities for movement of
information across different media.
Because digital information can be stored, copied, and edited so easily, we would
expect information to move back and forth between network media and both personal and
broadcast media. Two factors motivate this migration of information onto and off of the
Internet. First, media differ in their distributional properties. Some media are therefore

54
better suited for some information than others. The optimal distribution of information
received in one medium may recommend a different medium. A citizen may post a news
item from the newspaper to an e-mail mailing list, or a reporter may use downloaded
information in a television report. Second, many citizens and organizations are not
online. In a modified two-step flow (Katz 1957), information can be downloaded from
the Internet and distributed using personal or broadcast media to reach populations
without network access.
3.10 Hypotheses
In this chapter, we have seen how media properties and social behavior determine
the communication structures that carry the flow of political information. The wheel-
pattern of the broadcast model is shaped by the use of one-to-one, personal media such as
face-to-face meetings and telephone calls, and one-to-many broadcast media such as
television and newspapers. The flow of information through these channels is shaped by
social behavior. Political organizations, government and the press organize themselves
into issue networks (Heclo 1978). Information flows from these issue networks to
politically active and attentive individuals through broadcast media. Within the general
public, information flows via geographically-based social networks. The central features
of this broadcast structure are the press as a gatekeeper between issue networks and social
networks, the one-way flow of information from issue networks to social networks, and
the reliance on personal media for distributing information within social networks.
The all-channel pattern of information flow on the Internet differs from the wheel
pattern of the broadcast structure. Electronic mail provides rapid and inexpensive

55
communication between individuals regardless of distance. Newsgroups, electronic
mailing lists, and bulletin boards allow groups to coordinate activities and share
resources. World Wide Web and gopher sites provide customized, inexpensive, and
timely distribution of text, audio, and video. Each political agent on the Internet is
connected with every other agent; each agent is a potential supplier and consumer of
information; and the transfer of information is relatively unrestricted by geographic or
temporal barriers. In this network structure, Internet users are able to distribute and target
information inexpensively to other network users, obtain information specific to their
interests at their convenience, and locate and organize other users with shared interests
independent of geography.
Combining personal, broadcast, and network media yields a Netcast model that is
denser, less centralized, and carries more information than the preceding broadcast
structure. Able to distribute and retrieve information directly from each other,
individuals and organizations are less dependent upon the press as an immediate source
of political information. The ability to transmit information independently of time and
space broadens the distribution of information and enables citizens to become less reliant
on sources in their local geographic areas. Because digital information can be stored,
copied, edited, and transferred easily, information migrates between personal, broadcast,
and network media.

56
Overall, the emergence of a Netcast communication structure is hypothesized to
result in a variety of effects on the flow of political information. These effects are
summarized in Table 1 below. The left-hand column provides the label for the effect; the
middle-column provides the hypothesized effect including its causal factors. The right-
hand column indicates which chapters in this study specifically test the hypothesized
effect.
Table 1: Hypothesized Effects of the Internet on the
Flow of Political Information
Effect Hypothesis Chapter
1. All-Channel
Structure
Because the Internet can be used for many-to-many, two-way
communication, and because the Net is accessible to all types of
political agents, the Internet will exhibit an all-channel pattern of
information flow among active and attentive citizens, political
organizations, government, and the press.
(4) Mailing Lists
(8) WH Docs
2. Disinter-
mediation
Because of the Net’s all-channel structure, and because
traditional intermediaries act as gatekeepers by editing and
filtering the delivery of political information, political actors will
use the Internet to communicate directly with each other and
bypass information gatekeepers.
(5) Usenet
(7) Web
(8) WH Docs
3. Virtual
Organization
Because the Internet reduces the transaction costs of
communicating across space and time, and because these
transaction costs are important barriers to collective action and
group formation, the Internet will be used by groups to organize
themselves around shared interests rather than shared geography.
(5) Usenet
4. Integration of
Social and Issue
Networks
Because social networks and issue networks are typically
separate, and because the Internet allows for social interactions in
groups spread out geographically and organized around shared
interests, social networks and issue networks will merge on the
Net.
(4) Mailing Lists
5. Propagation
Because the Internet reduces the cost of maintaining weak ties
and redistributing information, and because weak ties are central
to the flow of information across social networks, the Internet
will be an effective medium for the propagation of political
information across social networks.
(6) Petitions
(8) WH Docs
6. Volume of
Information
Because the Internet lowers the cost of distributing information,
because automation lowers the cost of retrieving information, and
because political agents are typically constrained by
communication costs, political agents will both distribute and
retrieve more information.
(7) Web
(8) WH Docs

57
7. Integration of
Media
Because digital information can be easily copied and translated
across multiple media, and because people use multiple types of
media to receive information, political information will move
between personal, broadcast, and network media.
(5) Usenet
(7) Web
(8) WH Docs
8. Resource Bias
Because resources such as education and income are critical
factors in both Internet usage and political participation, high-
resource individuals and organizations will be more likely to use
the Internet for political communication.
(6) Petitions
(8) WH Docs
9. Heterogeneity
Because the Internet allows anonymous communication with
people from different social networks, and because members of
the same social networks typically have the similar political
views, the Internet will increase heterogeneity in people’s
sources of information.
(5) Usenet
10. Narrowcasting
Because distributors can readily identify, target, and customize
the presentation of information to specific interest groups on the
Internet, political communication on the Net will consist of many
messages delivered to many small audiences (narrowcasting)
rather than few messages delivered to few large audiences
(broadcasting).
(7) Web
(8) WH Docs
3.11 Testing
The following chapters test these hypotheses using a combination of case studies
and a statistical analysis of results from an original, online survey of Internet users. The
case studies cover all of the major applications on the Internet: e-mail mailing lists,
Usenet newsgroups, electronic mail, and the World Wide Web. The survey was
administered to users of the White House electronic document publications service, one
of the first, and most widely utilized, sources for political information on the Internet.
The case studies and survey results are examined for evidence supporting or contradicting
each of the nine hypotheses.
Before testing each of the nine flow effects hypothesized to distinguish the
Netcast structure from the Broadcast structure, we must first establish the validity of the
communication structures model.

58
In the case of (1) disintermediation, the hypothesis will be supported if political
actors are using the Internet to connect directly with each other and bypass traditional
intermediaries. On e-mail mailing lists, for example, individuals and organizations would
be establishing and subscribing to mailing lists and distributing political information
directly to each other that would otherwise go through the press. The hypothesis would
be disproven if newspapers and television stations were the primary administrators of e-
mail mailing lists, and citizens received the same information via e-mail instead of from
newspapers or television broadcasts.
The hypothesis of (2) virtual organization will be supported if the Internet is being
used for group communication among individuals and organizations distributed
geographically. There should also be evidence that these groups would not have formed
or would not communicate as frequently if not for the low cost of communication on the
Internet. Signators of an online petition, for example, should be distributed widely across
the country, rather than concentrated in a particular metropolitan area as we would find in
a traditional, hand-signed petition.
The primary evidence for (3) the integration of social and issue networks is the
creation of new strong ties and social connections on Net-based forums organized around
specific issues. Discussions on issue-based e-mail lists and Usenet newsgroups should
reveal the formation of new strong-tie relationships. The hypothesis would be disproven
if group discussions on the Net are merely extensions of group communication already
taking place in other media. In this contrary case, the MN-Politics list would consist of
government officials, reporters, and lobbyists who already know each other through their

59
political activities, while private citizens would participate in discussions on other lists
with people who they know through their primary social networks.
Propagation (4) would be supported by the redistribution of information across
weak ties. Political information such as news, petitions, and official documents should be
passed along by individuals and organizations to others who might be interested in such
information. The hypothesis would be disproven if information is redistributed only to
political agents’ strong-ties or not redistributed at all.
In increase in the volume of information (5) should be apparent in both the
volume of distribution and of retrieval. Individuals and organizations should be making
more information available to others than they did previously or than they could with
other media. They should also be retrieving more information than they could or would
without the Net. On the World Wide Web, for example, Web sites should make new
information available and not just duplicate information otherwise available on other
media.
Integration of media (6) would be supported by the distribution of the same
information on network, broadcast, and personal media. Distribution can be
simultaneous, as when a news event is broadcast on television and posted to a Web site at
the same time. Distribution can also be sequential, as when a newspaper article is
published, and then excerpted into an email message and redistributed to others on the
Net. Information can also be pulled off of the Net and passed along using traditional
broadcast media or personal media. The hypothesis would be disproven if the

60
information on the Net originated on the Net and did not show up in personal or
broadcast media.
The hypothesized resource bias on the Net (7) towards higher income and more
educated political actors should be revealed in a disproportionate participation in political
communication and exchange of political information by high-resource individuals and
organizations. A representative sample of Net users, particularly politically active Net
users, should reveal a higher income and educational attainment than a representative
sample of the general population. The hypothesis would be disproved if politically active
Net users exhibit no statistically significant difference from a comparable group in the
general population.
Heterogeneity (8) should appear in the composition of political discussions on the
Net and the diversity of political agents’ information sources. The hypothesis would be
supported if agents use the Net to receive information from new sources and if this
information is more likely to contradict their existing beliefs. Evidence of heterogeneity
in newsgroups and mailing lists would be found in the presence of multiple viewpoints in
the discussions. The hypothesis would be disproven if agents’ use the Net to continue
gathering information from their primary social networks and if that information
reinforces their existing beliefs. Homogeneous discussions on newsgroups and mailing
lists would be evidence against the hypothesis.
Narrowcasting on the Net (9) would be apparent in the customization and delivery
of messages for specific constituencies. We would expect distributors to identify specific
target audiences (taking advantage of the virtual organizations in hypothesis 2) and

61
customize their message to that audience. Messages should be sent only to those mailing
lists and newsgroups likely to be read by interested individuals. There is some
narrowcasting possible with broadcast media, i.e. advertising on a sports program rather
than a soap opera, but we would expect a much finer granularity on the Internet. The
hypothesis would be disproved if the same messages were being distributed ubiquitously
on the Internet. Web sites, for example, would offer few choices and present the same
information to all visitor.

62
4 Mailing Lists
The following chapters test the ten hypotheses laid out in Table 1 using a
combination of case studies and statistical analysis. (1) Is there evidence for an all-
channel, Netcast structure of political communication? (2) Is the Internet establishing
direct connections between the public, political organizations, the press, and government,
shifting the role of the press from gatekeeping to brokering? (3) Are virtual groups
forming on the Net based on interests rather than geography? (4) Are these groups
primarily informational (issue networks), or do personal relationships form to produce
social networks? Are citizens and political organizations using the Internet to (5)
redistribute information more widely, and (6) distribute and retrieve a greater volume of
information? (7) Does information move between the Internet and traditional media? (8)
Are Internet users an elite population compared to non-users? (9) Are political
discussions on the Internet heterogeneous, or do groups use the Internet to become more
insular and homogeneous? Finally, (10) are messages distributed on the Internet
customized and targeted at small, focused groups, or are they standardized messages
broadcast to large audiences?
The case studies and statistical analyses test subsets of hypotheses on various
protocols and applications on the Internet. This chapter tests the hypotheses of all-
channel structures, and the integration of social and issue networks with the flow of
information in a sample mailing list, MN-Politics. The next chapter examines
disintermediation, virtual organization, media integration, and heterogeneity in a Usenet
newsgroup, alt.politics.homosexuality. The third chapter examines propagation of

63
political information and resource bias through the distributional flow of e-mail petitions.
The fourth chapter examines disintermediation, volume, media integration, and
narrowcasting on World Wide Web sites for the Republican national convention and the
1996 Presidential candidates. The purpose of these inquiries is to demonstrate
consistency with the model. Do these instances of political communication on the
Internet exemplify the hypothesized effects of the Netcast model on the flow of political
information?
4.1 Netcast Structure
If Internet mailing lists and the MN-Politics list follow an all-channel, Netcast
structure, we would expect that all four elements -- content, agents, networks, and
channels -- would be represented. The following analysis of the MN-Politics list finds
support for all four elements. Political content is exchanged among organizational,
governmental, press, and public agents in an integrated, all-channel structure combining
issue, social, and computer networks. Overall, the MN-Politics provides evidence for all
of the network media links in the Netcast structure (see Figure 11).

64
Figure 11: Mailing List Structure
4.2 Political Content
E-mail mailing lists are frequently organized around political topics,
demonstrating the presence of political content on the Internet. E-mail mailing lists work
by having individuals subscribe to the list through an electronic mail message sent to a
subscription address. A software program called a list manager automatically adds the
address to a subscription list stored on the host computer. Once subscribed, an individual
receives all submissions from other members of the list and is able to submit his or her
own comments. The list manager program automatically redistributes these messages
without need for human intervention. As of July 1996, there were 54,704 publicly
available mailing lists on the Internet (http://www.liszt.com). It should be noted that this
is a only a fraction of the total number of mailing lists. Most mailing lists are private,
internally managed by groups or organizations and not available for public subscription.
The MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab, for example, has nearly a thousand mailing lists for
various projects, classes, working groups, and activities.

65
The subjects of public Internet mailing lists are diverse. As examples of this
diversity, of the 54,704 lists, thirteen relate to baseball, fifteen to gardening, eleven to
paganism, and three to the dulcimer. There are thousands of lists that address political
issues in some fashion, and hundreds that focus exclusively on politics.
Table 2 categorizes 350 of the most popular politically-related mailing lists. The
two areas with the greatest number of lists are international affairs and public policy
issues. Most countries and regions in the world have an affiliated mailing list for issues
related specifically to that country or region. Similarly, most major policy issues have
related mailing lists for distribution of information and exchange of ideas.
Table 2: Political Mailing Lists
Domestic Affairs International Affairs
State and Local
5.4%
Countries
21.4%
National 2.0 Regions 8.9
Elections 0.9 Organizations 3.1
Sub-Total 8.3 Sub-Total 33.4
Politics Issues
Parties 2.6% Activism 0.6%
Ideology 2.6 Economics 3.7
Elections 2.0 Development 1.7
General 0.6 Foreign Policy 5.7
Education 2.3
Sub-Total 7.8 Environment 4.0
Firearms 1.1
Groups Health 3.1
Gender 2.6% Law 4.9
Sexuality 2.3 Politics 3.4
Religion 3.1 Public Policy 1.4
Race/Ethnicity 2.0 Social Issues 2.3
Country 0.9 Technology 1.1
Age 1.4 Urban 2.0
Occupation 0.6 Misc. 0.3
Sub-Total 12.9 Sub-Total 37.6
Assuming a typical message volume of ten messages per list, per day, these three
hundred and fifty lists generate over a hundred-thousand messages per month. Since the

66
number of politically relevant sites is in the thousands, the total number of political
messages on public Internet mailing lists exceeds a million messages a month.
In order to determine the existence of agents, channels, and networks, a single
mailing list was chosen for an in-depth content analysis. This analysis was designed to
reveal who is on the list (agents), with whom they communicate (channels), and the
nature of their relationships (networks).
The MN-Politics list is an established public mailing list on the Internet. The list
is organized by the Minnesota E-Democracy project, a
non-partisan citizen-based volunteer project, whose mission is to improve
Minnesota’s democracy through the use of information networks. It seeks
to increase citizen participation in elections and public discourse through
online civic forums and collections of important information.
The project was launched in the Fall of 1994 as a way of improving voter participation in
the 1994 elections. Citizens were able to ask questions of the candidates for governor
and the U.S. Senate, monitor online discussions between the candidates, retrieve position
papers and other campaign information online, and engage in online discussions with
other citizens (http://www.freenet.msp.mn.us/govt/e-democracy/article.txt).
Although established for voters to discuss the candidates and the campaign, the
purpose of the list has broadened since the 1994 election to become an
unmoderated Internet electronic-mail list for the sharing of information on
and discussion of Minnesota politics and public policy. Members of this
forum are encouraged to contribute campaign and election information,
announcements from Minnesota-focused political and civic organizations,
public policy and legislative information, and presentations on issues of
public interest.
The list encourages discussion from diverse political perspectives that is
respectful in nature. This forum is more about the presentation of ideas

67
and information than being right with one’s ideology. As the membership
broadens, the forum will seek to informational postings that represent the
diverse political scene in Minnesota.
(http://www.freenet.msp.mn.us/govt/e-democracy/1994/MN-Politics.html)
The MN-Politics list is tied to the mn.politics Usenet newsgroup through a one-
way electronic mail gateway. Any message sent to the MN-Politics list is automatically
submitted to the Usenet newsgroup as well. Citizens with a casual interest in the MN-
Politics list are therefore able to benefit from the list discussion. The gateway is one-way
in that Usenet postings are not automatically distributed to mailing list members.
Data on the MN-Politics list was obtained from publicly available sources on the
Internet. The E-Democracy project has established a World Wide Web site containing an
archive of the messages posted to the mailing list (http://www.freenet.msp.mn.us/govt/e-
democracy/mn-politics-archive/). Messages are collected for each month and a program
called Hypermail provides a list of the author and subject lines sorted by date, subject,
author, or thread (sequence of messages on a particular subject). Clicking on an entry in
this list retrieves and displays the individual message.
Volume on the list has varied with the election cycle. In October and November
of 1994 message volume peaked at over 17 messages per day. After the election,
message volume dropped to only a few messages per day until January of 1996 when
message volume climbed to over 10 messages per day. Excluding the message peaks
around election time, this level of message volume is within the typical range of a public
mailing list.

68
4.3 Political Agents
An analysis of MN-Politics subscribers was conducted to determine the types of
political agents represented on the list. Subscribers fall into two categories: active and
passive. Active participants post messages for others to read and their names appear in
the messages contained in the archive. Passive members, known as “lurkers,” are
subscribed to the list and receive the messages of others, but do not post their own.
Passive members complicate the analysis of a mailing list because their presence is not
revealed in the message traffic. Fortunately, the listserv program used to administer the
program can be used to reveal these passive members. A feature of the listserv program
is the “who” command that allows subscribers to retrieve a list of all of the other
members of the list. This feature is sometimes disabled by the list administrator for
security reasons, but not in the case of MN-Politics. By subscribing to the list and
sending the “who MN-Politics” command to the listserv program, a list of all subscribers
was obtained.
By combining the MN-Politics membership list with the list archive, a measure of
active and passive participation could be calculated. At the time of this writing,
participants were divided equally between active and passive. Of the 266 individuals
subscribed to the list as of July 15, 1996, 133 had posted a message since May 1, 1996.
An equal number were subscribed to the list but did not post a message. The data also
indicate that participation is highly skewed among those who do participate. During the
period of May 1 to July 15, 1996 there were 1049 messages posted to the list. The ten
most active participants posted 40% of these messages; the top twenty percent accounted
for 60%. The distribution of participation is listed in the table below.

69
Table 3: MN-Politics Participation
Number of
Messages
Number of
Participants
Share of
Messages
0 133 50%
1 47 17
2-4 29 11
5-9 24 9
10-24 21 8
25-49 11 4
50+ 1 1
Total 266 100%
A conversation on a mailing list is called a thread and includes the original
message and all of the subsequent responses. For example, subscriber A might post a
message, prompting subscribers B and C to reply. Subscriber A then posts a response for
a thread with a length of four messages. Note that although the archive organizes the
messages by thread, to the members of the list the messages appear only in chronological
order. Because the communication is asynchronous and some people do not check their
email regularly, replies to a posting may accumulate over a number of days. When
multiple topics are being discussed simultaneously, members must use the subject lines to
create a mental representation of the conversation.
Some messages prompt more responses than others. The table below shows that
over half of the messages did not receive a response. Slightly over a quarter of the
messages received between one and four replies. Overall, 20% of the subjects account
for 60% of the messages.

70
Table 4: MN-Politics Discussion Threads
Number of
Messages
Number of
Threads
Share of
Threads
1 182 54.0%
2 95 28.2
3-5 40 11.9
6-10 18 5.3
11-25 1 0.3
26-50 1 0.3
Total 337 100.0
Messages may not receive replies for a number of reasons. Some do not generate
sufficient interest to prompt discussion. Others are not intended for discussion. As we
saw earlier, mailing lists can be used as a one-to-many or many-to-many medium. Some
messages are intended as one-to-many broadcasts rather than as many-to-many
discussions. A notice of an upcoming meeting, for example, would be read by members
of the list but would not receive a posted reply. Since e-mail also supports one-to-one
communication, there may be replies that do not appear in the mailing list archive. Some
replies may be sent directly to the original author. Measures of frequency of replies are
therefore an indicator primarily of the extent to which the mailing list is being used as a
many-to-many medium.
An additional analysis was performed to construct a demographic profile of the
mailing list. The email addresses were parsed to determine the host computer of the
member. An Alta Vista search was then performed on the host name to determine the
nature of the host computer. For example, a member with an email address that reads
“johndoe@aol.com” accesses the Internet through America Online, the largest online
service, as indicated in the “aol.com” in the email address. As another example, a
frequent host name on the mailing list is “mnsmc1.mnsmc.edu.” A search on Alta Vista

71
reveals that this is one of the host computers for students and faculty at St. Mary’s
University of Minnesota.
The breakdown of 251 mailing list members in the table below reveals a
combination of educational, individual, organizational, governmental, and foreign
participants. Individuals accessing through online services, Internet service providers,
and freenets account for 58% of the membership. Individuals accessing through their
corporations, non-profit organizations, or from media outlets account for 10%. Media
members include subscribers from the Minneapolis/St. Paul Star-Tribune and National
Public Radio. Students and faculty at schools and universities account for 23%. Most of
these are at universities in Minnesota. Government sources at the local, state, and federal
level account for 9% and members who live abroad account for 1%.

72
Table 5: MN-Politics Point of Access
Private
Internet Service Provider 33.1%
Online Service 25.0
Corporate/Commercial 6.0
Freenets 2.8
Sub-Total 66.9
Education
Univ. of Minnesota 13.9%
Minnesota Universities 5.6
Out of State Universities 2.0
Tribal Colleges 0.4
K-12 Schools 2.0
Sub-Total 23.9
Government
State Agency 5.2%
State Legislature 2.4
State Senate 0.8
State Governor 0.4
U.S. House 0.4
Sub-Total 9.2
Total 100.0
From this analysis of the list membership, we have determined that all five of the
agent types are represented on the list: activist public, attentive public, organizations,
government, and press. The activist public can be considered those citizens on the list
who post regularly, while the attentive public is represented in the lurkers who monitor
the list by receiving messages but do not post any messages themselves.
This analysis also supports the hypothesis of virtual organization (3) by revealing
how the MN-Politics list provides a forum for individuals to organize themselves around
shared interests rather than geography. As the case studies in the next section will
demonstrate, the discussion on the MN-Politics list is unlikely to occur in personal media
and could not occur in broadcast media.

73
4.4 Political Channels
The presence of political content and the five agent types on the MN-Politics list
is consistent with the concept of communication structures, but does not distinguish
between the Broadcast and Netcast structures. The critical difference is whether the
channels of communication form an all-channel or wheel pattern. To distinguish between
these two patterns, the flow of information on the list was analyzed using a sample of
discussion threads. The first thread involved an announcement of an outreach program to
bring technology to outlying areas in Minnesota. The second included responses to a
solicitation for individuals interested in joining the board of directors for Minnesota
Common Cause.
4.5 Case Study: Access Council
On Monday, June 3, 1996, Tom Satre sent an electronic mail message to Mick
Souder, the list manager for MN-Politics, about an upcoming series of events. Mr. Satre
is the Director of the Government Information Access Council (GIAC), an office within
the Information Policy Office of the Minnesota state government whose mission is “to
improve public access to government information and help government become more
efficient, effective and responsive through the use of information technology”
(http://www.state.mn.us/ebranch/admin/ipo/giac.html). In addition to being the list
manager, Mr. Souder is the Internet Curriculum Specialist for TIES, a non-profit
computer consortium comprised of 49 school districts, and the President of Minnesota
Citizens Online (http://www.ties.k12.mn.us/~souder/).

74
Tom Satre’s message announced a statewide outreach plan called “’Plugging In’
Minnesota Communities,” an effort to “educate and inform communities on the value and
use of emerging Information Technologies and telecommunications.” The GIAC would
“lead the grassroots effort by hosting free, open-to-the-public town meetings in six
regions across greater Minnesota, and four events in the Twin Cities and surrounding
suburbs.” The message described the organization, purpose, and schedule of the
“Plugging In” campaign.
At Tom Satre’s request, Mick Souder forwarded the message to the MN-Politics
list. Mr. Satre and Mr. Souder would most likely have viewed the MN-Politics list as a
promising setting for advertising the campaign since the members had already expressed
their interest in the issue of government access and information technology by virtue of
their membership on the list. The posting of the announcement prompted a response
from Bob Shipman, a staff member of the Republican Caucus in the Minnesota House of
Representatives and a list member. Bob Shipman asked the list members to respond to
some questions regarding Mr. Satre’s post. Mr. Shipman wrote:
I’m concerned about what I see as the rapid growth a yet
another state/local bureaucracy - driven, as all
bureaucracies are, by other people’s money. The language
of Mr. Satre’s message seems to suggest that internet
access will soon become another “right” to be funded by the
“haves” for the benefit of the “have-nots.” ... I am
interested in your comments to the following (slightly
biased) questions: What is government’s role in the
expansion of information technology throughout society?
Should this expansion be market driven, or should
government (i.e. taxpayers) foot the bill to ensure that
the “have nots” can go on-line?

75
Bob Shipman’s post elicited five responses from list members over the next two
weeks. One respondent posted his response from a University of Minnesota account,
four from online services, and one from a member at Minnesota Public Radio.
The eight-message thread about the outreach plan is consistent with the all-
channel Netcast structure (see Figure 12 below). First, the list itself is an example of how
the network serves as an intermediary bringing people together around shared interests, in
this case electronic democracy and Minnesota politics. Propagation and low-cost
broadcasting is exemplified by the way in which (1) the initial e-mail from Tom Satre
was send to Mick Souder and then (2) forwarded to the entire list. Interestingly, the (3)
first response to the posting was from another government staffer. Two areas within the
Minnesota government were therefore connected in a public forum by way of the mailing
list. The exchange enabled members of (4-7) the activist public and (8) the press to
respond. It also enabled (9) members of the attentive public, i.e. passive members of the
list, to “listen in.” Government, organizations, the press, activists, and attentive members
of the public were all involved in a discussion about issues raised by a simple
announcement of a program and its schedule. In the broadcast model, the GIAC
announcement would have been issued as a press release that may or may not have been
picked up by the press, would have been edited or amended for publication, and would
not have prompted the debate over secondary issues that ensued on the mailing list.

76
Figure 12: Flow of Information on MN-Politics List
4.6 Case Study: Common Cause
The second thread concerns a discussion about Common Cause Minnesota.
David Schultz, the president of Common Cause Minnesota, posted a message to MN-
Politics on April 27, 1996 notifying list members of openings on the board of the
organization.
Common Cause Solicits Board Members
David A Schultz (schul064@maroon.tc.umn.edu)
Sat, 27 Apr 1996 09:58:01 -0500 (CDT)
Common Cause Minnesota is seeking new board members to head
its 4,000 plus member organization. Common Cause Minnesota
is committed to addressing the issues of campaign finance
reform, ethics reform, and other issues that influence the
integrity of the political and election process. We are
affiliated with the national Common Cause organization
located in Washington, D.C., and we work with them on a
variety of national issues.
In the last few years Common Cause Minnesota has
successfully lobbied on the state level for gift ban and
campaign finance reform legislation, and we are currently

77
working on proposals to revamp state ethics investigations;
change the legislative reapportionment process; and
institute limits on the ability of former executive and
legislative officials to lobby their former employers for
one year after leaving office. Additionally, we are
currently developing a WEB page on political information.
As a board member, you would help set policy for Common
Cause Minnesota and have the opportunity to address
political reform issues.
If you are interested in finding out more about Common
Cause Minnesota or would like to speak to someone about the
organization, contact me via e-mail or call the Common
Cause Office at 644-1844.
David Schultz, president
Common Cause Minnesota
schul064@maroon.tc.umn.edu
Three days later, an active member of the list replied “Can anyone join the club, or is this
strictly limited to Liberal Democrats?” Five hours later, Mr. Schultz responded with the
following clarification:
Re: Common Cause Solicits Board Member
Tue, 30 Apr 1996 20:03:27 -0500 (CDT)
Common Cause is not limited to liberal Democrats, but
instead is a nonpartisan organization committed to campaign
finance reform and empowerment of citizens in the political
process.
A historical note about Common Cause is in order. Common
Cause was founded by John Gardiner, a Republican who served
in the Johnson administration. Through the years, Common
Cause has continued to attract support from Republicans,
including Linda Smith, Republican Congresswoman from
Washington. She is one of the main authors of the current
bipartisan campaign finance reform bill that has been
introduced in both the House and Senate.
Common Cause welcomes all who are concerned with the issue
of money in politics or who otherwise care about the
integrity of our political system.
David Schultz, President,
Common Cause, Minnesota

78
Mr. Schultz’s response was poorly received by the original respondent, who replied:
Please don’t even try to tell me that Common Cause is
nonpartisan - besides John Gardiner back in the Sixties and
Linda Smith from Washington, I’d be very interested to
learn just how many Republicans have received your
blessings. Damn few, I’ll bet. I seem to recall a few
years back Dave Durenberger put together the toughest
campaign finance reform package to come out of Washington
in years, but good ole [sic] Common Cause Minnesota failed
to acknowledge its existance [sic]. A much weaker package
bandied about by Paul Wellstone got all the Common Cause
press. Common Cause’s ideology is based on the fraudulent
assumption that government financing is the only pure way
to fund congressional elections. Like motor voter and all
the rest of your phony reforms, Common Cause exists to fool
the public into adopting campaign reforms that play right
into the hands of Liberal Democrats.
How many registered Republicans are on your board, Dave?
And it appears from your email address that you’re
associated with the U of M. Your not writing this on the
taxpayer’s dime, are you????
Cynicism is an unpleasant way of saying the truth.
— Irv Anderson
Mr. Schultz responded to this post with the following reply:
Re: Common Cause Solicits Board Members
Wed, 1 May 1996 09:51:39 -0500 (CDT)
I appreciate your comments, but believe that many of them
misconstrue what Common Cause is or what we stand for.
First, you ask how many Republicans have received our
blessings? The answer is the same number of Democrats who
have received our blessings... zero. We do not endorse
candidates, we simply advocate issues. As i noted before,
the current bills on campaign finance reform before
Congress have BIPARTISAN support, and even Ross Perot has
endorsed it. At no point have we endorsed Linda Smith,
Paul Wellstone, or Ross Perot. Public officials are agents
of legisative [sic] change and we will work with
individuals who support the issues we are working on...
regardless of party or ideology.
[section deleted]

79
Again, I hold out an invitation to anyone, regardless of
party or ideology, who supports campaign finance reform to
work with us. According to a WALL-STREET JOURNAL poll (and
confirmed by many other sources), that over 80% of the
American public supports the type of political reforms that
Common Cause is addressing.
PS: Not that it is any of your business, but *no*, this e-
mail is not being undertaken at taxpayer expense. I have a
legitimate account at the U of Mn. Also, Common Cause is
not a tax-exempt nonprofit and therefore it receives no tax
support and people who donate to Common Cause receive no
tax benefit.
The response to this reply had a similar tone as the first, beginning:
Well Dave, I think the problem here is that Common Cause
has positioned itself as the self-appointed regulator of
human behavior when it comes to political campaigns. You
don’t give voters the credit of having the intelligence
needed to make informed decisions. Full disclosure - not
spending limits and taxpayer subsidies of political
campaigns - is the reform we need. Besides, the Supreme
Court has rejected those Common Cause causes as
unconstitutional.) If voters can look at a list of every
contribution a candidate receives, they can make up their
own minds and the candidates and their supporters are free
to excersize (sp?) their rights. The fact that indicator
of public support for mandatory taxpayer financing of
campaigns. Common Cause is stuck in an ideological rut....
After two more messages in this exchange, David Schultz replied
It is perhaps time to end this exchange since I sense a
certain frustration and lack of progress to your claims”
and offered the following proposition: “Finally, to move
this discussion into a new direction, let me pose two
questions. 1) Is our political system more or less
corrupt now than it was 20 years ago? If so, how is is
[sic] more corrupt and why? 2) What changes do you think
need to be made in our political system to make it more
fair and democratic?”
At this point, the discussion branched into three directions with posts from three
other members of the list. The first commented on the nature of the debate itself,
remarking on heated rhetoric of the participants. The second answered Mr. Schultz’s two

80
questions directly and summarized by saying that “despite Mr. Schultz’ articulate
presentation and defense of Common Cause’s proposals, I am far from sold that they
have the right idea.” The third took up the argument by Wally57823@aol.com that “Full
disclosure ... is the reform we need” and posted a series of messages with campaign
contribution information for leading Minnesota officeholders.
Full Disclosure Advance Warning
Jules Goldstein (julesg@metro2.k12.mn.us)
Wed, 5 Jun 1996 13:58:13 +0600
The June Federal Election Commission files are out and on
their FTP site.
The complete files are 20 megabytes zipped and 110
megabytes unzipped. they cover 5000+ candidates, 10000+
committees and 736,574 separate transactions.
I am in the midst of crunching the data and will soon be
posting contributor lists for federal candidates. The
lists will be large and this time will include summaries by
state of contributor and geographic state. I have no data
on emotional state.
The posted files included the amount of the contribution, the contributor, and the city,
state and occupation for individual contributors.
Amt From City St Occupation
500 First Bank System Political Participation Program
50 Phil Gramm for President, Inc.
200 Winthrop & Weinstine PA Political Fund
250 Minnesota Power Active Citizens Team
200 Northern States Power Employee Political Interest
Committee
500 Dayton Hudson Corp. Citizen’s Federal Forum
1000 Natl Lumber & Bldg Material Dlrs Assn PAC
250 Ankeny, Marie Wayzata MN Housewife
800 Arnold, Mark North Hudson WI Painewebber
...
The exchange on the subject of Common Cause is consistent with the all-channel
Netcast structure. As was the case with the outreach plan, the nature of the mailing list
and the negligible cost of message delivery appears to have attracted the initial

81
announcements. The alternative in the broadcast model for reaching politically active
citizens interested in technology and democracy would have been to issue a press release,
obtain or purchase a mailing list of some kind.
The thread also illustrates the two-way flow of information between political
agents who otherwise would have little contact. In the broadcast model, the
announcement of board openings through a press release or mailing would not have
elicited any feedback to the announcer. Because of the interactive nature of the mailing
list and the low transaction costs in a reply, members were able and had an incentive to
respond directly to the author.
The fact that 264 other people were “listening in” on the discussion also supports
the Netcast model. The exchange between Wally and David Schultz would have been
private if done through personal media such as the telephone, fax, or letters. The mailing
list combined personal and many-to-many media by facilitating a personal dialogue
witnessed by an audience. Interestingly, members of the audience were then able to ‘take
the stage’ by posting their responses and initiating new threads.
The thread initiated by Jules Goldstein about full disclosure of information
supports new connections between citizens and government, and citizens and citizens in
the Netcast model. Through the Internet, contribution information is available to anyone
online from the Federal Election Commission (http://www.fec.gov/). This information,
otherwise difficult or expensive to obtain, can be analyzed directly by individual citizens
through the use of computers and networks. Overall, the “full disclosure” thread on the
MN-Politics list reveals a flow of information from the government to a citizen activist,

82
analysis by the activist, and then the broadcast of the information from the activist to
other activists, attentive citizens, government, the press, and organizations.
4.7 Social and Issue Networks
The fourth hypothesis in Table 1 is the integration of social and issue networks
through the use of computer networks. The MN-Politics allows us to test this hypothesis
because the members of the list form an issue network around the topic of technology and
democracy. The hypothesis would be upheld if the list is also a social network, meaning
the members of the list have personal relationships beyond their shared interests.
Personal relationship theorists have found that socially-close, strong ties exhibit
characteristics including a sense of intimacy, voluntary investment in the relationship, a
desire for frequent contact, multiple social contexts, duration of the relationship, a sense
of mutuality, and shared social characteristics (Wellman and Gulia 1996). The MN-
Politics list displays many of these characteristics. Voluntary investment in the
relationship is given by the nature of membership. Shared social characteristics are not
known directly, but the nature of the subject suggests a fairly educated membership.
The duration of the relationships was measured by comparing the addresses of
members who posted messages over a one-year period. Of the 31 members who posted
messages in April of 1995, 5 were still posting messages a year later in April of 1996. Of
the 88 members posting in January of 1996, 38 were still posting three months later,
when 90 members posted. Based on these figures, the annual retention rate is 16% and
the three-month retention rate is 43%. It is not known how these compare to geographic

83
social networks, but it does demonstrate that there is a core group of members who
provide some continuity in the group.
A sense of intimacy and mutuality is suggested by the colloquial and informal
nature of the discussion. One message offered congratulations to a member of the list
running for state office.
Congratulations
Eileen P. Weber, RN (weber017@maroon.tc.umn.edu)
Wed, 8 May 96 09:06:02 -0500
Congratulations to Marc Asch, frequent contributor to this
network, on his DFL endorsement to regain his seat in the
MN House representing district 53B!
Good luck!
Eileen Weber
Another message announced the birth of a child.
Forgive this nonpolitical announcement: )
Carmen Largaespada (clargaespa@hhh-1.hhh.umn.edu)
Tue, 14 May 1996 17:33:48 -0500
My husband, Steve Boland, and I (sometimes mn-politics
poster Carmen Largaespada) would like to announce the birth
of our son, Andres Largaespada Boland. He was born on
April 25, 1996, at 2:06 am. He was 7 lbs. 7.5 oz. and
19.5 inches. We’re all doing fine, and I’m especially
happy I’m finally getting some time to log on once again.
OK, I guess I really ought to make this a legit post and
say something political. I think the good folks in
Northern MN should not have a majority say in how the BWCA
is regulated. They have a financial interest in the area.
I’m a big fan of The Free Market, but I recognize that the
market is not the best entity to enusre [sic] long-term
environmental health.
Carmen Largaespada
clargaespa@hhh.umn.edu
Humor is part of the discussion as well.

84
joke
ChumBill57@aol.com
Wed, 15 May 1996 14:21:09 -0400
I see where President Clinton has come out against same-sex
marriages. Clinton thinks that same-sex marriage means
having sex with the same person you are married to. ---
Jay Leno
4.8 Summary
Overall, the MN-Politics list supports each aspect of the Netcast structure. Each
of the five types of agents are represented on the list: active and attentive citizens, the
press, government officials, and political organizations. The topic of the list and the
nature of the discussion is evidence for political content. The interactivity supports the
all-channel pattern of information flow, and the combination of personal and issue-based
interactions supports the merging of computer networks, social networks, and issue
networks.

85
5 Usenet Newsgroups
Usenet newsgroups are one of the most distinctive aspects of the Internet, and can
be traced back to the Usenet network that preceded the Internet. Four of the hypothesized
flow effects can be tested on newsgroups: (2) disintermediation, (3) the formation of
virtual organizations, (7) integration of personal, broadcast, and network media, and (9)
heterogeneity in sources of information.
Virtual organizations result from lower organizational costs, which lower the
barriers to collective action and group formation. No longer constrained by the cost of
communicating across large distances and across time, groups are able to organize
themselves around shared interests rather than geographic and temporal proximity.
Heterogeneity results from the capacity for anonymous communication in expanded
social networks. Lower communication costs enable individuals to maintain larger
networks of weak ties. Because members of geographically-based social networks are
more likely share political views, communication across weak ties promotes
heterogeneity of information. Citizens are more likely to be exposed to new sources and
new ideas from outside of their immediate social networks (Huckfeldt, et. al. 1995, Beck
1991, Huckfeldt and Sprague 1987).
It would seem that heterogeneity and virtual organization are contradictory. How
can groups form around shared interests and still produce heterogeneity? After all,
virtual organizations should have a homogenizing effect, reducing exposure to new
sources of information.

86
This chapter evaluates the merit and compatibility of these hypotheses. Case
studies of Usenet newsgroup discussions demonstrate that both homogeneity and
heterogeneity are occurring simultaneously. Groups are forming around shared interests,
but heterogeneity occurs within those groups as people are exposed to new ideas and new
perspectives on the shared subjects of interest.
This chapter also evaluates the hypotheses of disintermediation and integration of
personal, broadcast, and network media. Disintermediation would be expected because
of the capacity for low-cost broadcasting; integration of media because of the fungibility
of digital information. Anyone with Internet access can freely post information to a
Usenet group, and there are Usenet groups on almost any topic. Newsgroups are therefore
expected to be alternative distribution channels for people excluded from traditional
broadcast channels. In general, whereas the analysis of the previous chapter emphasized
the network media links in the Netcast structure, this chapter addresses the
interrelationships of personal, broadcast, and network media as shown in Figure 13.
Figure 13: Netcast Elements in Newsgroups

87
5.1 Virtual Organization
Usenet newsgroups support the hypothesis of virtual organization (3) because
citizens use the newsgroups to organize themselves and communicate around shared
interestes, independent of time and geography. Often described as electronic bulletin
boards (Hardy 1993), newsgroups enable Internet users to post messages for others to
read. Like posts to electronic mailing lists, posts to newsgroups are made using
electronic mail. Unlike posts to electronic mailing lists, posts to newsgroups are
available to anyone on the Internet. To read messages in an electronic mailing list, an
Internet user must first subscribe to the mailing list. To read messages in a Usenet
newsgroup, one need only type in the name of the group to widely available programs
called newsreaders. Usenet postings are “threaded” in the sense that they can be
organized according to the topic being discussed. The threading facility allows many
conversations to occur simultaneously on the newsgroup without losing
comprehensibility. The figure below shows a portion of the display on the Netscape
newsreader for the alt.politics.homosexuality newsgroup.

88
Figure 14: Sample Listing of Newsgroup Postings
As of July 27, 1996, there were 15,264 newsgroups on the Internet
(http://www.liszt.com/). Usenet groups are divided into numerous categories. For
example, newsgroups beginning with the word “comp” are about computer-related topics,
while those beginning with the word “soc” are about social and cultural issues. Sample
newsgroups include comp.sys.mac.advocacy for those who advocate the use of
Macintosh computers, alt.music.beethoven for those interested in Beethoven’s music, and
misc.fitness.aerobic for aerobic instructors and their students. Not all newsgroups are
available to every Internet user. Site administrators determine which newsgroups are
available to their users. For example, of the 15,264 newsgroups available on the Internet,
4,364 were available to users accessing the Internet through the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology.
There are at least 209 newsgroups specifically devoted to politics and political
information. These 209 newsgroups are distinguished by the presence of “politics.”

89
“policy,” or some other clearly political subject in its name. The distribution of these
lists is given in the Table 1 below. There are hundreds of other newsgroups that carry
politically relevant information. The alt.religion newsgroup, for example, frequently
contains information about politics, but is not counted in the grouping.
Table 6: Political Newsgroups
Topic # of Newsgroups Share of Newsgroups
News 79 37.8%
Issues 30 14.4
International 25 12.0
State Politics 22 10.5
Organizations 14 6.7
City Politics 13 6.2
Activism 9 4.3
U.S. Politics 7 3.3
Political Parties 5 2.4
Ideology 5 2.4
Total 209 100.0
The only scientific study of the size of Usenet was conducted by Brian Reid at
DEC Network Systems Laboratory and revised by Benjamin Franz at Arbitron in 1995
(http://www.tlsoft.com/arbitron/). Their results are somewhat outdated as the number of
Usenet hosts has doubled since the time of the study (Matrix 1996 -
http://www2.mids.org/growth/internet/index.html). The data therefore significantly
underrepresent the size of the Usenet audience. However, they do provide an indication
of which newsgroups are the most popular. The data were generated from a survey of
Usenet newsgroup sites. Site administrators who volunteered to participate in the survey
ran a program on their servers that automatically tabulated readership of Usenet
newsgroups. A total of 357 sites participated in the survey, 0.11% of the total population
of 330,000 sites, yielding a sample of 59,683 readers (Arbitron 1995 -
http://www.tlsoft.com/arbitron/jul95/arbitron.summary.txt%20).

90
According to the study, in July of 1995 the top 10 newsgroups were related to use
of Usenet, sex, humor, and job listings. The leading newsgroup was read by 5.7% of the
total Usenet audience during the two-week period of the survey. Alt.activism was the
leading politically-oriented newsgroup during the period, with 1.3% of the audience.
Other popular political newsgroups included alt.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.clinton,
soc.politics, alt.politics.media, and alt.censorship. Interestingly, Reid study reveals that
political newsgroups generate a disproportionate share of the message volume on Usenet.
The 31 newsgroups with “politics” in the title have three times the message volume per
reader than non-politics newsgroups. Politics-related newsgroups are therefore more
discussion oriented than other newsgroups, which are more announcement-oriented.
The newsgroup alt.politics.homosexuality was chosen as a case study of the flow
of political information through Usenet groups. As its name suggests,
alt.politics.homosexuality is a forum for people to discuss issues and distribute
information related to politics and homosexuality. According to the 1995 study, 27,000
people read the newsgroup regularly with an average of 75 messages per day. Fifty-five
percent of the Internet sites who received Usenet groups in 1995 subscribed to the
alt.politics.homosexuality newsgroup. Sixty-eight percent of the messages were also
posted to other newsgroups (http://tile.net/tile/news/altp29.html).
We would expect virtual organization in the gay community, as exemplified by
the alt.politics.homosexuality and other gay-related newsgroups. The ability to discuss
gay politics anonymously suggests that the alt.politics.homosexuality would be used as a
virtual meeting place for gay individuals. Because of psychological barriers, social
taboos, and demographic distribution, some gay citizens find it difficult to meet other gay

91
citizens. The Internet provides an opportunity to meet homosexuals in other geographic
regions or other social networks. The ability to remain anonymous on the Internet is
particularly valuable for homosexuals who may fear discrimination or recrimination if
they were to communicate in other settings where their identity could be known.
The messages used in the study were posted to the alt.politics.homosexuality
newsgroup over a two-week period between July 9 and July 22, 1996. Like most news
servers, the MIT news server keeps messages for a period of two weeks. There were 493
messages posted to alt.politics.homosexuality between July 9 and 22, inclusive. Each
message contains 6 items of information, as shown below. The “Path” field shows the
sequence of Internet host computers that the message took from its origin to its
destination. In this case, the message started at ix.netcom.com, the computer used by the
author of the message to connect to the Internet and was passed along by 10 distinct
computers until it reached MIT and the Artificial Intelligence Lab where it was read by
the author. The “From” field shows the email address and name of the author of the
message as entered in his or her email software. The name can be actual or invented.
The “Newsgroups” field shows the newsgroups to which this message was posted. A
feature of the USENET system is that a single message can be posted to multiple
newsgroups. In this case, the author posted the message to five newsgroups. The
“Subject” field shows the topic of the message. A reply to an already posted message
will default to “Re: [subject of replied-to message].” The Date field shows the time of
posting. The remainder of the message contains the text of the message.
Path: ai-lab ! bloom-beacon.mit.edu ! tribune.meitca.com !
ulowell.uml.edu ! news.onramp.net ! news.netpics.com !
news.denver.eti.net ! panix ! news.columbia.edu !
sol.ctr.columbia.edu ! news.uoregon.edu !

From Broadcast to Netcast - PhD Thesis - Bonchek - 1997

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to From Broadcast to Netcast - PhD Thesis - Bonchek - 1997

More from Mark Bonchek