E-Publishing: Campaigning and Electral Analysis in Recent Australian Elections

Blogging the 2009 QueenslandStateElection:

A prospect for deliberative democracy?

An article for Media International Australia.

Abstract

The Internet has become an important tool in political communication in Australia. It is argued that, through political blogging, the Internet might provide scope for the expansion of deliberative democracy. This hypothesis is explored through analysis of the group political blog, Pineapple Party Time, which Crikey used to cover the 2009 Queensland state election. It is evident that the bloggers and the readers who commented on their posts were ‘political junkies’ (Coleman, 2003). Political junkies are people who are highly knowledgeable about and interested in politics. From an examination of the blog posts and the comments on them, Pineapple Party Time did provide for deliberative democracy but it was restricted to Crikey, in which the blog sat. For deliberative democracy to function to any extent all citizens need to have the access and knowledge to engage in deliberative discussion. Without these, Australia risks a tragedy of the digital public commons.

Dr Megan Kimber

Faculty of Education

QueenslandUniversity of Technology

Victoria Park Road

KELVIN GROVE QLD 4059

E-mail:

Tele: 3138 5922

Biography:

Megan Kimber writes on political accountability, ethics, leadership, education policy, civics, and e-politics. Her most recent publications have been on micropolitics, ethical dilemmas facing leaders, quality assurance in higher education, and the democratic deficit in Australian education policy.

Blogging in the 2009 QueenslandState Election

Blogging the 2009 QueenslandStateElection:

A prospect for deliberative democracy?

Abstract

Blogging in the 2009 QueenslandState Election

Blogging the 2009 QueenslandStateElection:

A prospect for deliberative democracy?

Introduction

During the 2009 Queensland state election the Internet was a significant feature of campaigning and political analysis. In this article I consider the analysis occurring in a key group political blog during the 2009 Queensland state election, Crikey’sPineapple Party Time, in relation to the notion of deliberative democracy. Examination of the blog posts and of readers’published comments on them indicates that Pineapple Party Time did provide for deliberative democracy but that it was restricted to the online newspaper, Crikey, in which the blog was published. For deliberative democracy to function to any extent all citizens need to have the access and knowledge to engage in deliberative discussion. Without these, Australia risks a tragedy of the digital public commons.

A face-to-face political culture and compulsory voting in Australia are significant factors in this analysis.Australian political culture seems to be based around the personal presence of local candidates (Gibson, et al., 2008; Gibson and Ward, 2008). It can be argued that compulsory voting ensures that Australians are more informed and less apathetic than in countries such as America where voting isvoluntary (Gibson, et al., 2008; Gibson and Ward, 2008; Kissane, 2009: 161-162).

Political culture and compulsory voting are important in understanding whykey Australian political bloggers are ‘political junkies’—people who are highly knowledgeable about and interested in politics (Coleman, 2003; Coleman and Wright, 2008). These bloggers comprisepolitical journalists, trained political scientists, and psephologists (those who use statistics to predict election results). Although it could be argued that the ability to comment on blogs doesraise the prospect of uninformed amateurs (which itself could be viewed as an elitist and deTocquevillian ‘tyranny of the majority’ argument), it would seem that not only were Pineapple Party Time bloggers political junkies but many of those who commented on their posts were also political junkies. Thus political blogging in Australiamight provide a space for deliberative democracy (e.g., Gimmler, 2001; Greco and Floridi, 2004; Quiggin, 2006; Thorburnand Jenkins, 2003)as these bloggers are not only highly knowledgeable and interested in politics but they used their knowledge to engage in informative analysis of political events such as election campaigns.

E-Campaigning in Australia—the 2009 Queensland State Election

As numerous writers have considered the 2007 campaign (e.g., Crook, 2007; Flew, 2008; Kissane, 2009; Macnamara, 2008a, 2008b), the 2009 e-campaign is considered briefly in this article to provide a context for the discussion on political blogging during that election. The focus here is on the two major parties—the ALP and the Liberal National Party (LNP)—and their then leaders, Anna Bligh and Lawrence Springborg (e.g., Rodrigues, 2009:10).

Both major parties used multilayered campaigning in the 2009 election. A multilayered campaign entails using both traditional means of campaigning such as meeting and greeting constituents, letterbox flyers, and television advertising along with Internet tools such as websites, Facebook pages, YouTube, and Twitter to target various groups of citizens. Both major parties had websites and their leaders had Facebook pages and Twitters (AAP, 2009; Rodrigues, 2009; Singer, 2009). A number of other politicians from both major parties had websites, Facebook pages and blogs. Interestingly, the LNP spent approximately $7 million on television advertising whereasthe ALP spent less than $3million on television advertising (Electoral Commission Queensland, 2009; Roberts, 2009). The importance the ALP attached to the Internet is evident in Bligh calling the election on YouTube prior to her visit to the Governor to seek a dissolution of parliament.

Of particular interest is the way in which Bligh used Twitter in conjunction with her face-to-face campaigning. A number of her Tweets related to the places that she visited, shopping centres in particular, the ALP local candidatesthat she campaigned with (e.g., Rodrigues, 2009: 10),and the constituents whomshe met. Thus it could be suggested that Twitter was integral part of the ALP’s campaign (Rodriques, 2009), perhaps even an extension of its face-to-face campaign. But, as Orr (2009) has reminded us, compulsory voting was also critical. Multilayered campaigning and compulsory voting, therefore, were significant in the Queensland ALP’s victory in the 2009 election.

There was a further dimension to the 2009 election campaign that had not been seen in any significant degree in previous Queensland elections; that is, political analysis in blogs that gained a significant profile. It is to one key group blog that was established specifically for the 2009 campaign that we now turn, Crikey’s Pineapple Party Time.

Blogging the 2009 Queensland State Election: An analysis of Crikey’s Pineapple Party Time

Political blogging has become an important element of the e-democracy landscape in Australia. Although blogs are relatively new as objects of political analysis in Australia (e.g., Garden, 2010: 20), Ward and Cahill (2007: 2) have suggested that blogs represent a ‘third age of political communication’ in which print and broadcast media lose their place ‘as the central channels of political communication’ to amateurs on the Internet (e.g., Keen, 2007). That is to say, blogs have been argued to have agenda-setting power (e.g., Garden, 2010).

It is such potential power of bloggers that concerns Keen (2007). Referring to political blogs in the United States, Keen (2007) has argued that the rabble of amateur citizen journalists has been undermining democracy. As indicated earlier, this tyranny of the majority (deTocqueville, 1835[1981]) argument cannot be applied to Australia for several reasons, the most important beingcompulsory voting, lack of a rigid class system, and a personal face-to-face political culture (Gibson, et al., 2008; Gibson and Ward, 2008; Orr, 2009). These features of the Australian polity have resulted in a citizenry that is less apathetic than in many other countries, where politicians must spend time and money to entice citizens to a polling booth before they can convince citizens to vote for them.

It has also been argued that the Internet, and political blogging in particular, might provide a space for deliberative democracy (e.g., Garden, 2010; Gimmler, 2001; Koop and Jansen, 2009; Thorburn and Jenkins, 2003; Janssen and Kies, 2005; Vromen, 2008: 80-82). One indication of the potential of blogging to open up spaces for alternative voices to be heard is that the Australian political blogosphere has been characterised as relatively leftwing as a consequence of the rightwing stance taken by The Australian in particular (Bruns, 2008; Cunningham, 2008; Flew, 2008; Garden, 2010; Nash, 2008). It is argued here that Pineapple Party Time did encourage some measure of deliberative democracy but that it was constrained by being limited to readers of the online newspaper, Crikey. We look here at whoPineapple Party Time’s bloggers were, the strength of the analyses in their posts, and the comments thatthese postsdrew.

Pineapple Party Time was a group blog that brought together several key bloggers—Possum Comitatus, William Bowe, and Mark Bahnisch. Possum Comitatus, who writes the blog Pollytics, became influential during the 2007 federal election due to the accuracy of his analyses in part because he asked different questions of the polling data than those that were beingasked by journalists working in the mainstream media (e.g., Nash, 2008). William Bowe has beencompleting a PhD in political scienceand writes the blog, The Poll Bludger. Mark Bahnisch established the group blog, Larvatus Prodeo.

Focusing on the 2009 Queensland election, journalist and blogger, Derek Barry (2009), has contended that the online newspaper’s, Crikey, Pineapple Party Time contained the ‘best analysis of the campaign’. Indeed, it could be argued that Australian political bloggers provided incisive analyses during both the 2007 federal election and the 2009 Queensland state election (e.g., Crook, 2007; Macnamara, 2008a; Rodrigues,2009).Barry (2009) believes that the analysis in Pineapple Party Time was ‘copious, astute, timely, and relevant … cover[ing] all aspects of the campaign’. Pineapple Party Time’s Possum Comitatus was the first analyst to call the election (Barry, 2009). While it could be argued that Barry’s comments are a blogger promoting other bloggers, Barry analysed television and print coverage as well as political blogs. Barry commented favourably on the brisbanetimes.com.au and the ABC’s Stateline but negatively on the Murdoch papers and on commercial television.

Pineapple Party Time’s psephology bloggers—Possum Comitatus and William Bowe—presented objective analysis for their readers. Possum Comitatus developed strong linkages with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s (ABC) Antony Green. Mark Bahnisch became a regular guest on ABC radio. While the status accorded to these bloggers implies the emergence of a third age in political communication (Ward and Cahill, 2007), Green’s high standing, the political science training of these bloggers, and the location of Pineapple Party Time within a newspaper—albeit one that is online and independent—indicates that amateurs do not reign supreme.

The strength and accuracy of these bloggers’ analyses bear out Bruns’ (2008) argumentthat Australia’s political bloggers are political junkies (Coleman, 2003) who have been gaining an important position as political analysts. In Britain, Coleman’s (2003; Coleman andWright, 2008) consideration of political junkies indicates that political blogging has the potential to enhance democratic discussion. Political junkies are highly knowledgeable about and interested in politics. They are committed to their candidate or their party. In Britain, Coleman’s political junkies tended to be men over fifty. The key political bloggers during both the 2007 Australian federal election and the 2009 Queenslandstate election were generally men who were deeply interested in and knowledgeable about politics. They were trained political scientists and trained psephologists. But these bloggers were in their 30s and 40s rather than in their 50s. It could be argued that Australian political junkies are younger than their British counterparts because citizens gain an early understanding of policy issues due to compulsory voting in Australia rather than voluntary voting as in the United Kingdom.This understanding heightens the prospect for deliberative democracy in Australia.

Simply asserting that political bloggers are political junkies, however, does not enable an assessment of the contribution of political blogging to democratic discussion. The subject matter of blog posts also needs to be examined, as do readers’ comments. Pineapple Party Time bloggers considered material that was both similar to and different from that presented in the traditional media, pointing to the blog as an avenue for deliberative democracy. Although readers’comments were partisan, they were generally informed and deliberative. Thus most commentators on Pineapple Party Time were also political junkies. Based on this analysis it can be suggested that political blogging can increase deliberative democracy. But the benefits are limited to those who can access the Internet, have the time to read blogs, and have the political knowledge to make informed comments. Without all citizens being able to contribute to discussion in an informed manner, Australia risks a tragedy of the digital public commons (Greco andFloridi, 2004; Quiggin, 2006).

Deliberative democracy

While technologies like the Internet can increase‘“people’s ability to hear echoes of their own voices”’ (Sunstein quoted in Drezner and Farrell, 2004: 21), the Internet has been seen by a number of researchers as a tool for enhancing democracy (e.g., Coleman, 2007; McCullagh, 2003; Smith, et al., 2009; Thorburn and Jenkins, 2003; Vromen, 2008; Montgomery, et al., 2004). Of particular interest here is the argument that the Internet might be harnessed for deliberative democracy (e.g., Garden, 2010; Gimmler, 2001; Janssen and Kies, 2005; Koop and Jansen, 2009; Thorburn and Jenkins, 2003; Vromen, 2008:80-82). In this article the Habermasian notion of deliberative democracy is used.

Deliberative democracy refers to the role of citizens in deliberating or discussing together to develop sound policy that is in the public interest. It is argued here that political blogging might provide citizens with the space to engage in deliberative discussion about political issues, thus enabling them to make more informed decisions about such issues. As Gimmler (2001: 31) argues, the Internet has the potential to strengthen deliberative democracy because social and political issues can be raised ‘within a sphere composed of deliberating citizens’. The focus is on the processes of deliberation, discussion, and opinion formation rather than on the decision itself (e.g., Dahlgren, 2005: 156; Habermas, 2006: 413; Vromen, 2008:81). This deliberative discussion is extra-parliamentary (Dahlgren, 2005). Drawing on Dahlberg (2001), in respect to deliberative democracy, the Internet is a:

means for an expansion of the (non-exclusive, centralised, relevant to all) public sphere for rational-critical citizen discourse. Discourse on deliberative sites is reflexive and respectful, reaching collective agreement for the public good. To be classified as deliberative … these sites need to be autonomous from state and corporate power (Vromen, 2008:82).

It is acknowledged that there are a number of understandings of deliberative democracy, and of the relationship between deliberative democracy and the Internet.It is also acknowledge that some people view the use of e-consultation by governments as potentially providing a space for deliberative democracy as citizens can comment directly on policy issues (Chambers, 2003; Cooke, 2000; Janssen and Kies, 2005). The understanding used here is that enunciated by Jűrgen Habermas (1992[1989];2006).

For Habermas, deliberative democracy entails robust discussion, with arguments being backed by evidence; that is, it involves reasoning. Habermas stresses equality, equity, inclusion, equal opportunity for participation, and diversity of views (Habermas, 2006: 413, 422; Gimmler, 2001; Huspek, 2007: 329-330). The deliberation of issues needs to be open and respectful (Habermas, 2006: 413; Huspek, 2007: 329; Reedy and Wells, 2008: 170). Habermas saw education as important in developing deliberative democracy (e.g., Habermas, 1992[1989]: 66; Englund, 2010:19; Murphy and Fleming, 2010:3-16). There is a:

presumption of reasonable outcomes [that] rests in turn on the assumption thatinstitutionalized discourses mobilize relevant topics and claims, promote the critical evaluation of contributions, and lead to rationally motivated yes or no reactions (Habermas, 2006: 413).

Education is also an outcome of public deliberation (Cooke, 2000: 947). Thus Habermas views deliberation as an essential part of the public sphere and as having an ‘emancipatory intent’ (Murphy and Fleming, 2010:6).

The public sphere refers to, ‘the sphere of private people com[ing] together as a public … to engage in [rational] debate …’(Habermas, 1992[1989]: 27) and to influence public power. It acts ‘as an intermediary system between state and society’ (Habermas, 2006: 412). Within the public sphere discussion must be open and discursive (Kellner, Deliberative discussion in the public sphere is directed towards the common or public good (e.g., Papacharissi, 2008:231). Harbemas (1992[1989]) believes that commericalisation has eroded the public sphere. While there have been numerous criticisms of the concepts of deliberative democracy, deliberative discussion, and the public sphere—many justifiable, these concepts have retained their currency (e.g., Macnamara, 2008b:9, 11; Kellner, Papacharissi, 2008).As Habermas (2006: 412) recently argued, the public sphere,along with ‘the private autonomy of citizens’ and democratic citizenship, forms ‘the bedrock of liberal democracies’. For Macnamara (2008b: 11),this argument is particularly the case for deliberative democracy as Habermasconsidersit to be ‘preferable to liberal traditions that privilege the libertyof private citizens and make fewer demands for participation’(Macnamara, 2008b: 11).

To ascertain whether Pineapple Party Time’s bloggers encouraged deliberative democracy, the subject matter of posts and their readers’ comments on them invite consideration. If Pineapple Party Time’s bloggers and readers were political junkies, then the deliberation necessary for democracy is likely to have occurredwithin the Pineapple Party Time community. Yet, because access to commenting on posts was restricted by a Crikeysubscription, it is unlikely that deliberative democracy extended far beyond the newspaper. However, the link between Pineapple Party Time bloggers and the ABC indicates that these bloggers had substantial impact on political analysis. This conclusion can be seen through examining political blogging in the 2009 Queenslandstate election.