Characterizing the Uses and Gratifications of Online Communications for Political

Participation and Civic Engagement

2010-17-05

Adam C. Nisbet

CCTP-803

Georgetown University

A case study on the creators of DC for Obama

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION
2. BACKGROUND
3. PROBLEM
4. IMPORTANCE OF RESEARCH
5. QUESTIONS
6. METHODOLOGY
7. INTERVIEW
8. USES AND GRATIFICATIONS
9. SUSTAINABILITY
10. CONCLUSION
11. REFERENCES

1. INTRODUCTION:

Discerning the media effects of online messaging on an individuals’ likelihood to

participate in the political process has been the subject of much debate in recent years,

and many theorists have asked to what extent the Internet truly plays a role in a citizens’

relation to political activity and civic engagement.  Joe Trippi has said “the Internet is the

most democratizing innovation we’ve ever seen, more so even than the printing press

(2005, 235)(Hindman, 2).” However, other scholars such as Hindman have provided

technical data that supports the notion of a “Googlearchy” of political content online, a

pyramidal-type link structure that shows little evidence of the Internet progressing

political dialog to the lofty academic ideal of increased democratic deliberation

(Hindman, 38).

Scholars have been pulling for information regarding what influences audience

members decisions when choosing media based on uses and gratifications since the

2
1940’s (Katz, 509). Whether it is discerning a passive audience from an active

audience or examining an audience member’s needs, desires, and expectations in

receiving a certain type of media, the uses and gratifications model, at least, provides a

framework to evaluate specific decisions made toward political communication strategy.

However, much of the recent research on uses and gratifications concerning Internet

uses intends to measure the amount or quality of political information collected through

online sites and lacks detection of modes that intend to increase actual political

participation, whether online or offline. While Internet political uses may have evolved

during the 2008 election it has been documented since the 2000 election that “online

news consumption continues to be far from a dominant factor in campaign

communication (Farnsworth, Owen, 1).” This evidence has led many political scientists

to question the efficacy of the Internet to produce advances for democratic

communication and the spread of political information.

Could there be the possibility that some important communication modes have

been overlooked in popular scholarship? Several scholars have been doing research

on Internet participation outside the modes of social media, instead focusing on the

coordination and building of an online movement. Dave Karpf’s research focuses on

the immense power harnessed by a well managed email list such as with Moveon.org,

which has become the single largest interest group in America (Karpf, 2).

“MoveOn’s e-mail based action appeals moved well beyond the e-petition

the organization had been founded around. Through exhaustive message-testing

and the development of several innovative campaign tools, MoveOn developed a

3
 capacity for generating millions in small-dollar contributions, launching online and

offline oppositional tactics to the latest Bush Administration efforts, and

continually building a larger and larger list of occasional-to-frequent leftwing

political participants (Karpf, 11).”

There is no doubt that the management of an online membership list is one of the

key factors that help build a strong political movement online but can that same

communication structure yield real-life political participation such as canvassing or even

possibly provide increases in civic engagement?

This study seeks to find what potential effects exist when analyzing an online

coordinated political movement and if those effects are only limited in scope.  Although

the content creation and online activity may be from only a few opinion leaders, they do

influence others surrounding them within the network, online and in real life, which

allows them to be effective participants. Through means such as online social trust

these enablers may be able to create network connections and social incentives which

may not have occurred in previous elections. This study will seek to characterize a new

media users’ political socialization by analyzing evidence presented in an interview with

a content creator and campaign organizer during the 2008 campaign and see whether

political participation could be carried over to participation in post-election civic

engagement. If an organization were able to sustain participation after a partisan

election then the mode of communication may provide answers to what we have sought

as the primary source for signs of political engagement through online means.  

2. BACKGROUND:

4
 DCforObama is a political organization formed in early 2007 in Washington, D.C.

with the goal of supporting Barack Obama’s presidential campaign through volunteer

activities in primary states across the nation and as well as throughout the general

election. Many of the participants were first time volunteers in the political process,

while many were young or in college, the age range was very broad and the group was

incredibly diverse. During the period from October 2007 to November 2008 the author

observed this organization and their communication implementation. Adam L. Barr is

the founder of D.C. for Obama and the primary strategist behind this online movements’

communication plan.

3. PROBLEM:

Based on technical data related to Internet search queries and link structure

some theorists have made predictions that political dialog and political engagement

online is minimal with limited benefits for political deliberation online. Many argue that

high profile bloggers and content creators only represent a new breed of media elites

and that the Internet lacks the capacity to bring new advancements to political

socialization. Many of these studies lack attention to single issue websites, established

purely for the purpose of a grass-roots network or even a high profile campaign. Much

of the political activity coordinated online was not done through media websites or blog

sites but rather through sites such as my.bo.com or dcforobama.com.

4. IMPORTANCE OF RESEARCH:

5
 This project will explore the possible media effects which may originate within the

realms of social trust established by the content creators and their perceived self-

efficacy.  By characterizing the content creators’ motivations through interviews we may

be able to better understand the reach of their political involvement and their effects on

voting efficacy, effects on becoming involved in the political process, and ability to

sustain engagement, after election into civic life and community volunteering.  To study

the effects, it is easiest to study the usages and behaviors of the group that adapted

and promulgated this activity through the ground breaking election of Barack Obama. 

While many scholars are still puzzled about what happened during the 2008

election, this study will analyze the political uses of social media by this generation for

the purposes of political communication and campaign coordination.  Participants are an

engaged audience in this type of communication and because of virtual engagement

may establish communal trust.

5. QUESTIONS:

A few of the questions that were addressed in the interview with Adam Barr

included: Does there appear to be distinct evidence for the political socialization of

young people through new media?  Are there further opportunities? What values does it

propose?  Has there been a measurable drop off of DCforObama supporters since the

election or has the momentum carried over into civic engagement? Does the use of new

media involvement provide only short term benefits to the Democratic process?  Who

are the content creators?  What gratifications does it present for the audience?

6. METHODOLOGY:

6
 This study will seek to compile an account of this electoral group’s socialization

into politics through Internet participation.  Interview Adam L. Barr founder of DC for

Obama and the main content creator and promoter of this movement will discuss his

involvement and his strategy for developing communication tools for a very effective

grassroots campaign.  Adam will also describe changes, good or bad, to his support

group/organization after the election when the political organization was converted into

a civic engagement organization know as Organizing for America.  Mr. Barr's program

has been working to improve a specific elementary school in Washington, DC; the

Tubman School. This study will examine his experience with using new media as a way

to bring people into the fold for political activity and later for civic engagement. 

7. INTERVIEW

The origins of the DCforObama group happened shortly after the announcement

on Feb. 17; Obama said go online, get involved. Adam Barr followed this advice and

became involved; he had been the administrator on several listserves in the past but

never with anything political. He decided this would be a great step to become involved

in the political process and help a candidate he believed in. He felt that he understood

the “do’s and don’ts” of listserve management. He said he believed the role of admin

was to moderate rather than to send numerous messages or communication modes.

His communication program was highly effective and successful by the numbers alone,

but there is certainly something here that can give hints on the formulations of a political

movement online. After one month they had grown to only 300 members, but it was

7
still very early with nearly a year to go till the election. Early decisions in the

structuration of the communication model would provide enormous returns later on.

The first goal of the group was to recruit and build up a membership list. By this

time Adam Barr was the administer for the entire group by the end of Feb. 2007 at

which point he had been in communication with several of the consultants from Blue

State Digital, the firm that built Facebook, who had begun working for the Obama team.

Barr stated that at no time did he work for the campaign, or within close coordination

with the campaign, and that the DCforObama campaign was an entirely organic citizen

established movement. As we will see documented here, DCforObama may be an

entirely new form of campaigning mixed with citizen involvement. Among other things

the utility of the web and social media platforms gave this organization an advanced

ability to connect with people in close proximity, within DC. Could we be seeing the

advent of the “open-source” campaign, where citizens actually own and control part of

the campaign? A group of individuals, within close proximity, described by the title

“DCforObama” as opposed to a state-wide organization that may span 100’s of miles,

this group was effective, although they had the clear advantage of being from such a

politically concentrated area such as Washington, D.C.

“When considering the audiences motivations and desires, their goals in

participating, it’s easy to see that it is because they liked Obama, they went to

the website and did a few possible things either read content, watched videos,

made a contribution, or possibly searched for ways to volunteer – this was the

launch hub for the majority of members and the second form being through

8
 personal referrals or forwarded emails. Our model was based on organic

growth, word-of-mouth, buzz, and personal referrals – we focused on being

simple, web-savvy, and had to do very little recruitment work at all – we just let

the list build itself (Barr).” In the early stages, we were only online for a few

months until we had to establish real life meetings to coordinate events, establish

long-term goals of the group, and a communication program. We quickly

absorbed other groups that were smaller than ours, and our primary goal was to

form a movement not just an email list or a discussion board, but to get people

involved in real-life participation (Barr).”

The group was also entirely autonomous to the campaign and did all of their own

fundraising for trips and events. Therefore, this group was actually running their own

campaign parallel but entirely separate from the Obama organization; Barr stated that

the Obama team would not share email addresses with their group, so they relied on all

their own systems and functionalities to retain information.

With every event the group would become larger and would establish a greater

sense of communal trust and effectiveness. At first, fundraisers were not that rewarding

but over time they began to gain the trust of the community and could show that their

proceeds would make a huge impact through this viable political organization. The

organizations’ first bus trip was to South Carolina, and these consecutive trips would be

the primary events that built excitement for involvement and direct increases in

membership. After the first bus trip the group’s total membership jumped up to 900 and

this helped the group raise more funds and pay for other bus trips. It is important to

9
note also, that their entire fundraising solicitation program was administered online as

well with an online check system.

They would fund 4 buses for their next trip and while Barr said the most difficult

task was being able to consider how many people would actually attend when they

RSVP’d for the bus trip and who would actually show up, their membership jumped to

1300 members soon after. Barr stated that the success of this communication strategy

was that it didn’t actually rely too heavily on an anchor website but built satellite hubs on

nearly every social media website they could find including Twitter, Meetup, My.bo,

Facebook, Myspace, and nearly any other they could find. They found that discussion

in these areas was not productive and that people would rather receive a direct email

with simple yet explicit instructions on how to get involved. In this manner, the email

listserve became the most effective mode for establishing an effective communication

program.

By this time the email list had gotten so large the administration of the messages

and communications became more advanced to try to better anticipate the number of

individuals who would show up for events and be involved. Obviously, by offering free

bus trips to individuals who wanted to have an impact as a volunteer in the campaign

and travel to battleground primary states there was tons of enthusiasm for participation.

By the time the Ohio primary had come around DCforObama was able to send 5 buses

at a time for a weekend to Columbus, Ohio, and by the end of that primary had knocked

on nearly 100,000 doors in support for Obama. Each time DCforObama held a bus trip

event they would have twice as many people sign up for the next trip and half of those

10
numbers were new members. The way in which this organization grew displays a

certain amount of buzz propulsion considering that members who enjoyed their

experience would forward the membership emails to friends to join on the next bus trip.

8. USES AND GRATIFICATIONS:

When membership grew DCforObama began using methods of gauging the

likelihood of participation such as SurveyMonkey.com. From the beginning of

establishing the communication plan the group admin’s found that Facebook was not all

that useful for many reasons. First, they found that Facebook distanced their message

from the audience because many people have different settings and different usage

modes for that application making it difficult to reach your audience quickly and

effectively with precise information. Second, they found that there was very little

discussion taking place on Facebook as far as discussion boards and un-moderated

forums. Barr mentioned that people first go to the main campaign site first for Barack

Obama, then to the My.Bo.com portal, users would visit this site and then sign up to

volunteer or make a donation and never return – often waiting for the campaign to

contact them – but traditionally this would be a slow process. DCforObama recognized

this and was quick to respond to volunteer requests by activating members with instant

communication which met the needs of the volunteers to become further involved and

effective. Barr stated that Obama’s website was utilized very effectively in driving traffic

because the site was constantly providing new content which would cause repeat visits

to the site. However, Barr said that the stand-alone site, such as DCforObama.com, is

only the activator and after the audience member has visited the site the organization

11
must take steps to activate and engage them. He stated that growing a movement

online is very comparable to the motivations and goals of driving traffic, and web savvy

administrators understand that messages must be simple and clear, and that you

cannot provide too much communication or your message system will become

ineffective.

When asked if he thought his strategy was different than traditional modes of web

campaigning Barr’s answer was yes. Barr added that this multi-platform strategy

obviously could not have existed in the 2004 election. He noted that he was surprised

that discussion never took off on Facebook, which would support Hindman’s argument

that there is little opportunity for political discourse online. But Barr understood that

activating citizens into the process you have to get emails directly into their inboxes and

you need to have volunteer profile information such as addresses, phone numbers, and

affiliations. Basically, Facebook was not a tool that could be used to primarily organize

a political organization, and DCforObama was out to form a movement broader than

one social media platform.

“Once the election season had swung into full gear and Obama was the clear

nominee the list nearly doubled in a few short days from 3000 to 4500 and then

7000 members. There were over 900 new members in March alone (Barr).”

By this time, Barr knew that the organization had achieved the movement status

and that it was necessary to provide clear goals for the group to try to meet an

expanding sense of obligation to the membership. At each point he would provide solid

numbers of what they wanted to achieve weather it were fundraising goals or numbers

12
of houses to be contacted. This was a benchmark moment for this independently ran

organization because they were now outperforming the Obama campaign offices in

Virginia, DC, and parts of Maryland. All of these achievements happened with little to

no contact with the Obama campaign for advice or direction. Barr also stated that he

believe nearly half of the participants in DCforObama’s events had never participated in

the political process before as far as volunteering and canvassing for a candidate. That

is a clear indicator that Internet use was essential to increasing numbers of citizens

involved in the political process.

9. SUSTAINABILITY:

In short, the achievements of the DCforObama organization are phenomenal

when it comes to organizing a citizen’s movement through online communication,

however, to measure the effectiveness it may be asked if that level of participation could

be sustained after an election. Levels of political participation certainly vacillate

depending on the election season and when there is a presidential election there is

usually much more attention and involvement. What is very noteworthy about the

DCforObama communications program is that it was soon converted into a civic

engagement program, with the same type of infrastructure, used to aid a public school

in Washington, D.C. Barr stated that he did not simply convert the membership list from

DCforObama but instead asked for member’s involvement. By applying the same

infrastructure from DCforObama to the Tubman elementary school project and doing

the same type of canvassing and volunteer recruitment, Barr was able to take a

13
primarily Internet formed group from a campaign movement to civic engagement

movement.

This transition provides a fascinating view inside the goals and motivations of

applying an Internet communications program to get people further involved in their

community. Barr knew that if the service project was important enough to the members

they would be in and he believed that momentum from the campaign certainly boosted

his membership for the civic engagement program which has been kept entirely

separate from any political leanings. He has implemented the same canvassing

strategy to gain volunteers and donations for improvement of the Tubman elementary

school and he said that half of the membership roster in the civic group came from

DCforObama and the other half are new members. This community service project,

built on the same communication infrastructure and strategy as DCforObama, now has

over 900 online members involved. The service projects that they have brought to the

school include arts education, reading initiatives, green initiatives, tutoring services, site

clean-up, school supplies, and much more. This strategy also uses a broad range of

events to stimulate communal trust and activate the online membership.

10. CONCLUSION

Therefore, it seems that the primary mode for activating individuals into the

political process, as participants, through online means is through direct contact with a

clear message sent through email. Once a participant has “signed up” the campaign

has gained a new recruit and must provide information to quickly activate that individual

into real-life participation. It seems that in this fashion volunteers prefer a quick and

14
concise message about how to become involved and what steps to take, the easier for

the participant the more effective the message will be. This coincides with a theory that

Katz and Blumler’s present of an audience digesting media in a passive manner, as if

they want to become involved but don’t want to have to do the research to book the trip

themselves (Katz et al, 510). In many cases, the best that a volunteer can do it seems

is show up.

  Internet technology, such as new media, can only build a bridge between the

campaign and the participant and provide ease of use to further facilitate the needs of

the campaign. It is illegitimate to believe new media could create its own outcomes for

increased political dialog online or greater diversity in ideas inasmuch, a

democratization of political content. However, the Internet is effective as a tool for

increasing political participation when used across different platforms to cull

membership information to create direct contact with likely participants; most likely

through email. By documenting the strategic decisions made by DCforObama and

profiling their mode of communication operations we may better understand if this is a

true democratic movement carried out entirely online.

While scholars such as Hindman lambaste the Internet as a tool for the

advancement of democratic dialog this study attempted to analyze the uses and

gratifications, why people used new media or the Internet to receive political

communications, and if they feel it has had a long-term effect on their political

engagement. Although political discussion and even search queries for political related

news stories are only a small fraction of Internet use there is something vastly important

about what is taking place there and about how political information is being spread. It

15
seems that buzz and word-of-mouth referrals are just as important for online recruitment

and this evidence leads us back to the relevance of online social trust, or “virtual trust”

(Gibson, 6).   It appears that an effective communication strategy to increase political

participation in a movement through online media would not only be to recruit an

enormous membership list but to be able to activate that membership towards clear

goals in real-life participatory events. To do so, a campaign organizer must understand

the needs and desires of their participants to receive simple and direct email messages

that lead to quick activation into the political process, satisfying the individuals’

motivations to become involved in a communal collaboration involving social trust.

16
 

11. REFERENCES:

1. Alessandrini, M. 2008. ‘Getting Connected : Can Social Capital be Virtual ?’

Available at <http://www.webology.ir/2006/v3n4/a33.html> Accessed 25/07/09.

2. Barbara K. Kaye, Thomas J. Johnson, “Online and In the Know: Uses and

Gratifications of the Web for Political Information, Journal of Broadcasting &

Electronic Media, Mar2002, Vol. 46 Issue 1, p54,

3. Beaudoin, Christopher E. Explaining the Relationship Between Internet Use and

Interpersonal Trust: Taking into Account Motivation and Information Overload.

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 2008. 13 (550-568)

4. Best, Samuel J. and Krueger, Brian S. Online Interactions and Social Capital:

Distinguishing Between New and Existing Ties. Social Science Computer

Review 2006: 24; 395

5. Bimber, Bruce. Information and Political Engagement in America: The search

for effects of Information Technology at the Individual Level. Political Research

Quarterly; Mar 2001; 54, 1 pg. 53

6. Boulianne, S. 2009. ‘Does Internet Use Affect Engagement?: A Meta-Analysis

of Research.’ Political Communication. 26(2): 193-211.

17
7. Buckham, David. The Making of Citizens. New York: Routledge, 2000.

8. Cook, Timothy E., Governing with the News.  

9. De Zuniga, H. G., Puig-I-Abril, E. and H. Rojas. ‘Weblogs, traditional sources

online and political participation: an assessment of how the internet is changing

the political environment ’ New Media and Society 11(4): 553-574 21 at

http://faculty.washington.edu/pnhoward/publishing/articles/

daysandnights.pdf

10. Elihu Katz, Jay G. Blumler, and Michael Gurevitch, “Uses and Gratifications

Research,” Public Opinion Quarterly, Winter73-Winter74, Vol. 37 Issue 4, p509,

15p.

11. Feezell, Jessica; Conroy, Meredith; and Guerrero, Mario. Facebook is...

Fostering Political Engagement: A Study of Online Social Networking Groups and

Offline Participation. UC Santa Barbara, August 2009.

12. Foot, Kristen A. and Schneider, Steven M. Web Campaigning. The MIT Press.

2006.

13. Gibson, Rachel and McCallister, Ian. Virtual Social Capital, Political Attitudes

and Political Participation.

18
14. Graber, Doris. Mass Media & American Politics. Congressional Quarterly Inc.

2006.

15. Gueorguieva, Vassia. Voters, Myspace, and Youtube. The impact of Alternative

Communication Channels on the 2006 Election Cycle and

Beyond. Social Science Computer Review. 26 (3) 2008.

16. Harfoush, Rahaf. Yes we did : an inside look at how social media built the

Obama brand / by Rahaf Harfoush Berkeley, Calif. : New Riders, c2009.

17. Hartley, John, The politics of pictures: the creation of the public in the age of

Mass Media.

18. Henke, Jon. New Media Deserves Its Own Seat At The Table. Campaigns

and Elections. Consultants Corner. 11/2007 62-65.

19. Hindman, Matthew.  The Myth of the Digital Democracy. Princeton. 2009.

20. Jamieson, Kathleen Hall. Electing the President 2008. University of

Pennsylvania Press. 2009.

21. Jay G. Blumler, The Uses of Mass Communications, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage,

1975.

22. Jennings, M. K. and V. Zeitner. 2003. ‘Internet Use and Civic Engagement: A

Longitudinal Analysis.’ Public Opinion Quarterly 67: 311-334.

19
23. Johnson, Tom; Perlmutter, Dave. “The Facebook Election: New Media and the

2008 Election Campaign.” Special Symposium.

24. Karpf, Dave. The MoveOn Effect: Disruptive Innovation within the Interest

Group Ecology of American Politics. 2009.

25. Kavanaugh, A. L., Reese, D. D., Carroll, J. M. and M. B. Rosson. 2005. ‘Weak

ties in networked communities.’ Information Society 21(2): 119-131.

26. Kellner, Douglas. Media Spectacle and the 2008 Presidential Election. Cultural

Studies Critical Methodologies 2009; 9; 707

27. Kim, Y. 2008. ‘Politics as Friendship: The Impact of Online Social Networks on

Political Behavior.’ Paper presented at ‘Politics: Web 2.0: An International

Conference.’ Royal Holloway, University Of London.

http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_cittion/2/3/3/8/1/pages2

33811/p233811-1.php

28. Krueger, Brian S. Assessing the Potential of Internet Political Participation in the

United States: A Resource Approach. American Politics Research 2002; 30; 476

20
29. Milner, Henry. The Internet: Friend or Foe of Youth Political Participation.

Presented at the 5th Biennial conference ECPR, Potsdam, Germany September

10-12, 2009

30. O’Hanlon, Michael E. Opportunity 08 : Independent Ideas for America’s Next

President. Brookings Institution Press . 2007 LC Call Number: JK526 2008 --

.O77 2007eb ISBN: 9780815764649 9780815764663

31. Orr, Allison. Political Participation and Web 2.0. Conference Paper.

32. Owen, Diana. Media Fragmentation. Manuscript. Research at Georgetown

University. 2010.

33. University of New South Wales, School of Social Science and International

Studies. The Information Society, 21: 2, 119-131

34. Panagopoulos, Costas. Politicking online: the transformation of election

campaign communications / edited by Costas. New Brunswick, NJ : Rutgers

University Press, 2009

35. Shah, Dhavan; Cho, Jaeho; Eveland, William; Kwak, Nojin. Information and

Expression in a Digital Age: Modeling Internet Effects on Civic Participation.

Communication Research. 2005; 32; 531.

21
 36. Shirky, Clay. Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without

Organizations. Penguin. New York. 2009.

37. Stephen J. Farnsworth and Diana Owen, “Internet Use and the 2000 Presidential

Election,” Electoral Studies, Sep2004, Vol. 23 Issue 3, p415-429, 15p; DOI:

10.1016/S0261-3794(03)00029-5.

38. Williams, Christine and Gulati, Girish. What is a Social Network Worth?

Facebook and Vote Share in the 2008 Presidential Primaries.

39. Department of International Studies and Government Bentley College.

http://blogsandwikis.bentley.edu/politechmedia/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/apr-

sept-1.pdf

22