Skip to main content

New competencies in democratic communication? Blogs, agenda setting and political participation

Abstract

Contrary to initial predictions Internet-mediated forms of communication have not become mediums of mass communication. Traditional media still reach far more people than even the most popular websites. Still, there is evidence that blogs in particular help mobilize opinions, and set the agenda for political elites such as journalists and politicians, while providing interested citizens with a new technology of knowledge as well as a surprisingly effective way to participate in politics. This study focuses on how the presence of blogs has altered the structure of political communication.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Bagdikian, B. (2000). The media monopoly. Boston: Beacon.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bennett, W. L. (1983). News and the politics of illusion. New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bennett, W. L., & Entman, R. (Ed.). (2001). Mediated politics: communication in the future of democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Carpini, M. D., & Williams, B. A. (2001). Let us infotain you: politics in the new media. In W. L. Bennett & R. M. Entman (Eds.), Mediated politics: communication in the future of democracy. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Cater, D. (1959). The fourth branch of government. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Dahl, R. (1956). A preface to democratic theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Drezner, D. W., & Farrel, H. (2007). Introduction: Blogs, politics and power: a special issue of Public Choice. Public Choice, this issue.

  8. Entman, R. (1989). Democracy without citizens: media and the decay of American politics. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Entman, R. (2004). Projections of power: framing news, public opinion, and U.S. foreign policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Fiorina, M. P. (1980). The decline of collective responsibility in American politics. Daedalus, 109, 25–45.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Gamson, W. A. (1992). Talking politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Gans, H. (1979). Deciding what’s news: a study of CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News, Newsweek, and Time. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Gitlin, T. (1980). The whole world is watching. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Horrigan, J., Garrett, K., & Resnick, P. (2004 October 27). The Internet and democratic debate. Pew Internet and American Life Project. Retrieved 16 November 2006 from http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Political_Info_Report.pdf

  15. Iyengar, S. (1991). Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Lippmann, W. (1922). Public opinion. New York: Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Luskin, J. (1972). Lippmann, liberty, and the press. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Marshall, J. (15 December 2004–23 June 2005) Archive. Talking points memo. Retrieved 16 November 2006 from http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/.

  19. McChesney, R. (1997). Corporate media and the threat to democracy. New York: Seven Stories Press.

    Google Scholar 

  20. McChesney, R. (2004). The problem of the media: U.S. communication politics in the 21st century. New York: Monthly Review Press.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Mermin, J. (1999). Debating war and peace: media coverage of the U.S. intervention in the post-Vietnam era. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. (2004 May 23). Bottom-line pressures now hurting coverage, journalists say. State of the news media 2004. Retrieved 16 November 2006 from http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=214.

  23. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: the collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuester.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Rosenstone, S., Behr, R. L., & Lazarus, E. H. (1984). Third parties in America. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Schudson, M. (1995). The power of news. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Schlozman, K. (1984). What accent the heavenly chorus. The Journal of Politics, 46, 1006–1032.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Tuchman, G. (1978). Making news: a study in the construction of reality. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Waldman, P., & Jamieson, K. H. (2003). The press effect: politicians, journalists, and the stories that shape the political world. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Deva Woodly.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Woodly, D. New competencies in democratic communication? Blogs, agenda setting and political participation. Public Choice 134, 109–123 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-007-9204-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • Political communication
  • Blogs
  • Democracy
  • Discourse
  • Agenda setting