Ethical Decisions, New Media Campaigns, and Project Vote Smart

Howard (2006) in New Media Campaigns and the Managed Citizen examined the practices and decision-making of several companies that utilized new media to produce campaigns. More than an examination of norms and routines, Howard attempts to discuss the ethical problems that new media campaigns face, as well as the future implications for new media campaigns as well. Specifically, Howard discusses three common decisions that were made in these “hypermedia campaigns” that will have implications for future campaigns, which I will expand upon in this posting.

The first decision is data mining for profit by some of the organizations. Of particular concern is the mining of personal information, including credit charges, addresses, contact information, and other details that are sold to anyone who can meet the price tags associated with acquiring the information. Howard goes into some detail about how the practitioners dealt with an inner conflict between improving democracy and having to make profit to keep the project going. While I agree that generating income is a necessary evil in projects without benefactors like the organizations studied, it would seem that there are better opportunities to generate income than by marketing the credit histories and contact addresses of citizens. Of greater concern is that any data was marketed without the prior consent of citizens who participated on the discussion boards or in polling. In this regard, Howard (2006) is on the mark that this decision is problematic because the need to generate income may in this case undercut the desire of practitioners’ to help improve democracy. Considering the choices made, one has to question how well the organizations thought about how to improve society for its citizens.

The second and third decisions are related. The second decision that concerns Howard (2006 is the choice of practitioners to politically redline citizens by using mined data to strategically target campaigns to mobilize citizens that are most likely to agree with organizations or candidates on issues. The third decision was to focus campaigns in areas where campaigning clout was needed. I agree this was an opportunity to change the status quo from typical political campaigns or communication campaigns in general.

I question, however, the blame Howard (2006) leveled at the companies to who assist campaigns with the information and implants. There is no ethically sound explanation for using the mined personal data to target citizens, but the practice of targeting is a natural part of the campaign process. Campaigns make decisions about which audience to target because of budget and time constraints. Redlining takes place because if a campaign were to tailor messages for all audiences, they would run out of time and money at every critical point in the campaign (Denton, 2005). In addition, the desire to win on an initiative or in an election drives the decision to target campaigns in areas where more of a push is necessary. An immediate example is the use of moral referendums on the ballot in battleground states in the 2004 election (Denton, 2005).

Organizations target elites and contested regions over the general population because they are more viable to help accomplish the goal of passing an initiative or in getting a candidate elected. When new media companies are employed by campaigns to conduct these practices, it is because that is what the campaigns request from them. If critics like Howard (2006) want to reform the practice, we must find a way to get campaigns to address all audiences in a manner that is efficient in time and cost-effective. This problem is institutional in the American political system and the feasibility of running an effective campaign, not only the practices of these companies. Howard (2006) must qualify the blame leveled in this case, as companies seem to use new technology to complete traditionally effective campaign strategies in a more efficient manner. They are not the source of these decisions.

In addition to discussion these three decisions, Howard (2006) also compares the motives and rationale behind each of the four companies examined and how they practiced campaigns. He praises the pseudonominous GrassrootsActivist.org because of their use of technology and information to help citizens and community groups mobilize issue campaigns to help improve society. In this way, they seem to stay closer to the desire to improve democracy. Another current Web site for Project Vote Smart (http:// www.vote-smart.org/) provides a means for politically independent citizens to research candidates for each state and national election, to research policy issues on the ballot, and opportunities for citizens to volunteer, intern, or find work with their organization. This site seems to be morally grounded and interested in empowering citizens in the right ways. Perhaps not the most sophisticated in new Internet technologies, it does provide a variety of in-depth ways to learn the character, ethics, and issue stances of candidates.