I am writing a thesis about political blogging. I have done research for six months now and just started on the writing process this week. The thing is, I want this thesis to be a collaboration and not just my own work. I therefore want help to shape the design of the study and to point out the direction it needs to take.

I will therefore briefly present the research problem of the study and the direction I am going in so far:

Research problem: Can communication via blogs influence political campaigns and impact the outcome of an election?

This is what I want to discuss: How can we measure the impact of blogs on political campaigns and the outcome of an election?

This is how I want to approach the research problem: By comparing studies examining blog activity in American and European election campaigns from 2004 to 2007, the papers seek to locate different aspects of blogging that can be argued to impact an election campaign. However, since the landscape of online communication is a rapidly changing one, and research on the topic is limited, it will be necessary to seek information beyond academic sources. The reflections and thoughts of leading bloggers (and online experts) on their role in the direction of a campaign will supplement the data that already exist on the topic and hopefully bring to light new dimensions not yet considered.

Findings in existing studies will be criticised and compared to the theoretical views of the subjects being studied. By locating opinions and statements represented by bloggers and online communication experts the paper will point out errors and limitations of existing studies and further present new ideas about how we can measure impact of political blogs.

So, I am very interested in hearing different opinions about the study's approach to the subject: Is this an interesting approach?

Any suggestions to how we can measure the impact of blogs?

"As the smoke began to clear after Election Day, two things seemed clear. Though the netroots have forever changed how campaigns raise money and find votes, the results demonstrated that they cannot yet win elections on their own. But the Democratic Party cannot win major national elections without the netroots", wrote Nicholas Confessore in a New York Times article November 12. I must have missed it, because I just spotted it on the Institute for Politics, Democracy and the Internet website. Confessores article is good. It looks at the relationship between the netroots and the Democratic Party during the election campaign, and offers a honest and balanced take on the question we all want to know: What impact did the netroots have on the election outcome.

Here is an excellent article about Arianna Huffington, the baby-boomer blogger and founder of The Huffington post. I believe that the level of obsession that Arianna talks about is what will make really drive blogs in the next few years, especially as communities develop around them. Rather than newspapers or magazines and general news sites, I think that we will begin to see sites like popurls that simply filter through and amalgamate more specific sites. Rather than the current system where journalists are simply professional writers discussing many topics, amateur citizens will become experts in one specific field. What this could mean for the future of campaigns is that candidates (or corporations) will not just have one blog about themselves, but will perhaps have many different blogs. Each one will be able to attract a different segment of the audience and the conglomerate of blogs will be more effective than on broad blog.
Also, I kind of think that Arianna is a babe.

I found this paper on weblogs role in political campaigns by some help from a Norwegian based blogger today. Haven't had time to read it yet, but I will. The paper was presented at BlogTalkReloaded in Vienna, Austria this month and aims to estimate the potential of weblogs as a campaigning instrument.

According to the authors the paper present some answers to the question of whether campaigning via weblogs can be a success.

For more accademic resourses on bloggings role in political campaigns visit this link.

Guest blogger: Paull Young.

Paull is known for creating Australia's first student PR blog, Young PR, and has been heavily involved at Forward -- an online springboard for new and upcoming PR professionals. Paull started the Anti Astroturfing Campaign together with Trevor Cook of Corporate Engagement in July this year.

...to view the articele with links go to Blog Campaigning

What is Astroturfing?

Astroturfing is the practice of creating fake entities that appear to be real grassroots organizations, when in fact they are the work of people or groups with hidden motives and identities.

Astroturfing is a deceptive and deceitful practice - and while it is often blamed on public relations, it is really only carried out by unethical individuals who lack the savvy and intelligence to persuade people with an honest argument.

Leading Australian PR blogger Trevor Cook and I started the anti-astroturfing campaign to tackle the issue. We aimed to lead a debate on the issue amongst PR bloggers and encourage PR practitioners, professional associations and big PR agencies to confront and oppose the practice. If you're new to the topic - visit the anti-astroturfing campaign to view a huge collection of resources focusing on the topic.

How is astroturfing used in politics?

Astroturfing is used for political purposes more than any other. This is because a real grassroots organization is an extremely powerful political entity. If people care enough about an issue to organize around it, it will hold great political power.

It is incredibly difficult to create a real grassroots organization. A large number of people need to passionately care about an issue to organize around it, and even if there are large numbers of people who believe in a certain issue - this does not mean that they will necessarily organize around it.

As a result, unethical operators will (on occasion) try to create an illusion of real grassroots support in order to influence people through deception. It is much easier to create a fake organization and try to make it look real then to help nurture and give voice to real opinions from real people.

So while the building of grassroots support for an issue is a valuable communication tactic - helping give voice to real opinions held by real people. The creation of Astroturf groups - putting forward fake opinions or using fake people to promote a cause with hidden motives - is not.

Astroturfing and online communication

New online tools make astroturfing much easier to carry out, but they also make it much more difficult to get away with.

In an environment where anyone can create an authentic looking website, blog, podcast or vlog; it is extremely easy for astroturfing groups to create a seemingly authentic fake organization. It is easy to hide your identity or put forward your point of view with anonymity; and the ease of creating fake people or putting forward false viewpoints is attractive to unethical operators attempting to promote an unpopular cause.

However, the nature of the blogosphere means that astroturf operations are often gleefully uncovered - much to the chagrin of the scoundrels hiding behind them. Blogs are successful because of their authentic voice and passionate ideas held by real people. Anything that doesn't ring true or appear authentic will be investigated and uncovered. There is an army of bloggers out there who understand that astroturfing undermines everything they believe in - and they won't be backwards in attacking fakes in their neighbourhood.

An Example: The Infamous Al Gore YouTube video

My points above are demonstrated by the well known `March of the Penguin Army' episode.

A video was posted on YouTube (apparently made by a real, concerned individual acting on his own beliefs) that was highly critical of Al Gore's views on climate change. This eventually caught the attention of a Wall Street Journal reporter, who noticed that the video was advertised on Google. Why would a supposedly amateur video have advertisements?

The industrious Post reporter contacted the individual who posted the video. They claimed to be a college student and refused an interview. The reporter then dug a little deeper and found that the `college student's' email address stemmed from Washington PR firm DCI Group. And one of DCI Groups major clients? Exxon - who have a vested interest in opposing climate change.

This led to a blog storm and you can read all the coverage on this page at the anti-astroturfing campaign.

This example shows just how easy it is to kick off an astroturfing campaign online - but it also shows how easy it is to get caught, and the justifiable anger and disgust that results.

For more information on astroturfing, spend some time investigating the many resources available at the anti-astroturfing campaign page.