Yakety-Yak, Don't E-Mail Back
The
Internet is a good place to learn about political candidates and campaigns--as
long as the information comes from just about anywhere but the candidates
themselves.
That's
the belief of many politically active Web surfers who were recently surveyed by
the Democracy Online Project at George Washington University's Graduate School
of Political Management. According to the poll of 1,205 Web surfers, 64 percent
say that they are likely to believe what they read online. But a scant 14
percent think that the information offered online by candidates is reliable.
Fifty-two percent put their greatest faith in Web sites sponsored by church
organizations, and just 39 percent say that a civic or news organization merits
similar trust.
The
survey also indicates that voters surf the Net to learn more about community
problems, read candidate biographies, and determine who to vote for.
Those
polled, however, appear less enthusiastic about forging an "interactive"
relationship with campaigns or candidates. Respondents are more concerned with
whether political sites can document their positions, observe privacy policies,
and disclose sponsorship than with whether they provide an e-mail contact
address.
Voters
might be less interested in exchanging comments with candidates online because
they fear that no one is listening, reasons David Sackett, a political
consultant with the Tarrance Group, which was commissioned by the Democracy
Online Project to conduct the surveys along with help from Lake Snell Perry
& Associates. Sackett believes that there's a historical skepticism among
voters, who question whether their individual voices will be heard, much less
heeded, by political candidates.
But to
a certain extent the medium is also having an impact on the message from
respondents. Online, voters can shop for candidates just as they would shop for
goods. "People are getting used to making choices on their own timetables,"
says Sackett, arguing that political Web sites have to be as thorough, as
responsive, and as up-to-date as commercial ones. "If we don't take the lead,
we're going to get hoisted on our own petards," says Sackett, apparently
referring to the cottage industry in political parody Web sites.
To
help improve campaign Web sites, Michael Cornfield, the research director at
Democracy Online Project, has produced an online campaign primer for
technologically challenged political junkies. Cornfield has also proposed a
national government directory of official candidate Web sites, to help steer
voters away from parody sites.
The
primer is 21 pages of basic tips on how to build a campaign Web site. Among
them: Buy a computer made in the last year or two, update information often,
design the pages with the same overall color scheme, and always make sure
visitors know how to get back to the home page. "These aren't politicos who are
going online," says Cornfield. "These are Net users who are sidling over to
politics. If they don't like what they see, they're gone."
Cornfield's proposal for the directory has come under fire from anti-government
and privacy advocates who tend to view government involvement in any endeavor
as a sinister machination. Cornfield responds by saying that the directory he
envisions would be a benign source of information, rather than a "Good
Housekeeping seal" of approval for political Web sites.
For now, eight states,
including Minnesota, North Dakota, and Virginia, have plans to include a line
for candidates to write in their URLs on the 2000 filing forms. And some will
post a list of official URLs on their state government Web sites.
