Mediated political communication, the Internet, and the new knowledge elites: prospects and portents

Abstract This paper argues that the phenomenal growth of the Internet requires a re-thinking of our assumptions about both the nature of political communication and the role of elites in the political process. We suggest that the Internet functions in a paradoxical manner. On the one hand, the Internet provides important opportunities for interactions between candidates and voters as well as new arenas for voter-to-voter discussion and interaction. On the other hand, the volume of political information available on the Internet, as well as the continued growth of other forms of mediated political communications, suggest that voters may be overwhelmed by the quantity and dubious quality of information on political candidates and issues. A likely outcome of this situation is the emergence of a new form of “information elite,” which challenges the traditional view that elites reflect considerations of power and wealth. We suggest that this elite can have a strong positive effect on democratic processes. We utilize Petty and Cacioppo’s Elaboration Likelihood Model of persuasion as a guide to understanding political communication and voter decision making in contemporary society and the role of the new information elite therein [ Petty and Cacioppo (1986) . The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In: Berkowitz, L., (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 19. Academic Press, New York, pp. 123–205]. ©

[1]  R. Entman Democracy without Citizens: Media and the Decay of American Politics , 1989 .

[2]  Robert W. McChesney,et al.  The Internet and U. S. Communication Policy-Making in Historical and Critical Perspective , 1996 .

[3]  Lawrence K. Grossman The electronic republic , 1995 .

[4]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media , 1988 .

[5]  P. Lazarsfeld,et al.  6. Katz, E. Personal Influence: The Part Played by People in the Flow of Mass Communications , 1956 .

[6]  John T. Cacioppo,et al.  The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion , 1986, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology.

[7]  Michael Pfau,et al.  Persuasive communication campaigns , 1992 .

[8]  C. Ryan,et al.  Prime Time Activism: Media Strategies for Grassroots Organizing , 1991 .

[9]  D. Hallin Sound Bite News: Television Coverage of Elections, 1968–1988 , 1992 .

[10]  Shanto Iyengar,et al.  How Citizens Think about National Issues: A Matter of Responsibility , 1989 .

[11]  R. Perloff The dynamics of persuasion , 1993 .

[12]  Murray Edelman,et al.  The symbolic uses of politics , 1967 .

[13]  Ernest Wittenberg,et al.  How to Win in Washington: Very Practical Advice about Lobbying, the Grassroots, and the Media , 1994 .

[14]  S. Iyengar Framing responsibility for political issues: The case of poverty , 1990 .

[15]  Murray Edelman,et al.  Constructing the political spectacle , 1989 .

[16]  T. White America in Search of Itself: The Making of the President 1956-1980 , 1982 .

[17]  Dennis T. Lowry,et al.  The Sound Bites, the Biters, and the Bitten: An Analysis of Network TV News Bias in Campaign ′92 , 1995 .

[18]  J. Keefer The News Media's Failure to Facilitate Citizen Participation in the Congressional Policymaking Process , 1993 .

[19]  Richard E. Crable,et al.  Managing issues and influencing public policy , 1985 .

[20]  S. Iyengar,et al.  News That Matters: Television and American Opinion , 1987 .

[21]  K. V. Beyme The concept of political class: A new dimension of research on elites? , 1996 .

[22]  W. Bennett News, the politics of illusion , 1983 .

[23]  W. Henry In defense of elitism , 1994 .

[24]  S. Iyengar,et al.  The Media Game: American Politics in the Television Age , 1992 .