Scott Ruzal, The Age of Digital Citizenship and New Media

Running Head: DIGITAL CITIZENSHIP
The Age of Digital Citizenship and New Media Scott D. Ruzal Rutgers University
Digital Citizenship 2 Introduction

Over the course of the previous decade, social networking and internet communication platforms have become an essential component of the disciplinary literature of media and politics. How researchers perceive the development of this new media as a means for broadcasting to mass audiences in the 21st century has not only shaped contemporary attitudes regarding the use of digital communication, but it has framed our understanding of current events according to how the marketplace of ideas is affected by digital citizenship and civic engagement. Moreover, the ways in which new media continue to blend with traditional media, enhancing characteristics such as instantaneous transmission and audience participation and feedback, is creating hybridized media platforms that mature according to how users choose to interact with them. It is for these reasons that just as researchers begin to develop an understanding of the nuanced effects that new media has on civic engagement and communication, even more innovative media technologies are devised that obscure the significance of previous research. As Macnamera (2008) explains in his report on digital democracy for The Australian Centre for Public Communication, the term new media is broadly used to describe various concepts relating to digital and internet media technologies, including the specific applications used for one-to-one or one-to-many communication (5). Examples of these new media characteristics have emerged in the form of reader polls, comments accompanying online news articles,
Digital Citizenship 3
professional news media outlets aggregating stories according to popularity, independent news and information aggregates, forum usage and online community development, and personal weblogs. Websites and online communities such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Wikipedia, and Reddit also provide users with a variety of tools for broadcasting information and soliciting public opinion among both friends and complete strangers. Other more politically-minded websites such as MoveOn.org and Change.org seek to equip their users with tools and information for building their own public advocacy campaigns and organizations that may have a real-life impact on policy reform. As roughly 30.2% of the worlds population now has access to these new media technologies (Internet World Stats, 2011), researchers are looking to social networking as a fundamental paradigm shift in the way humans connect with one another toward collective action designed to address issues of public concern. Furthermore, a common theme within contemporary media and politics research is whether the rise of new media has brought about an emergence of the commercialized mass-media platform directly to the public sphere, a key ingredient of the networked information economy proposed by Harvard Law Professor Yochai Benkler (2006, p. 185).
Statement of Research Purpose

Does the relative anonymity and impersonal interactive elements of new media serve as a conduit for activating citizenship and
political autonomy? Is open participation conducive to the quality of information vetted by professional news organizations and private citizens? Questions such as these make up some of the core research problems being examined by academic professionals studying the profound effects that new media technologies may have in changing the relationship between media and politics. In the following literature review, several theoretical frameworks will be addressed relating to how new media has altered civic engagement in lieu of a Habermasian public sphere. The purpose of this study is to contextualize some of the core arguments made by prominent researchers studying media and politics in an attempt to better understand how new media may act as a legitimate means of participation in political discourse.
Resolving Mainstream Mass Medias Democratic Deficit

Analyses of traditional media consolidation of ownership and civic engagement within this establishment suggest that mainstream mass media has become a significantly antidemocratic force its influence over U.S. communication policy-making and, to varying degrees, worldwide democratization (Herman, & Chomsky, 1988; McChesney, 1996, 2000; Jacobs, 2000; Djankov, McLiesh, Nenova & Shleifer, 2003). Despite the commercial and cultural hegemony of traditional media, many independently cultivated digital media platforms have managed to thrive financially over the past decade, undeterred by exclusion from the system of consolidated media ownership that directs the flow of advertising revenue to the majority
of commercial mass media outlets (Jenkins, 2006, p. 65). Tim OReilly, founder of OReilly Media, attributes this deviation from traditional business models to the advent of media applications designed to take advantage of so-called Web 2.0 software principles, which refers to a second generation of Internet-based services and applications characterized by an extensive capacity for collaboration among a user base and high levels of interactivity or overlap between users and administrators without requiring any prior knowledge of computer programming (OReilly, & Battelle, 2004). In Web 2.0: New Challenges for the Study of E-Democracy in an Era of Informational Exuberance, Chadwick (2009) outlines seven themes that may be used to describe the extent to which Web 2.0 has effect on civic engagement: The Internet as a platform for political discourse; the collective intelligence emergent from political web use; the importance of data over particular software and hardware applications; perpetual experimentalism in the public domain; the creation of small scale forms of political engagement through consumerism; the propagation of political content over multiple applications; and rich user experiences on political websites (p. 19). While Chadwicks theoretical framework identifies the contextual elements by which online civic engagement is primarily limited to the degree of end-user connectedness, Macnamera (2008) concludes in his content analysis of how new media was used during the 2007 Australian federal election that most Web 2.0 type media used by Australian political candidates and organizations specifically for political communication were under the influence of corporate administration and
gatekeepers of public opinion who sought to retain the traditional one-way model of information dissemination (p. 10). However, his findings also suggest that new media users in 2007 had not yet fully realized the potential of personal weblogs and social networking as venues for political discussion. In other words, this could imply that the first generation of amateur new media users was not adequately exercising the power of social media applications for participatory democracy and claims-making within the public arena (p. 47).
The Changing Nature of Civic Engagement and Public Sphere

Marateas (2008) examination of the emergence of the blogosphere within the context of Hilgartner and Bosks (1988) public arenas model of social problem construction evaluates the mechanical advantages of new media. His findings indicate that contemporary social media applications enhance the ability of claims-makers to have their voices heard in the diagnoses of social problems and competition for public attention (p. 139). Additionally, the carrying capacity and relative cost efficiency of social media in its function as a conduit through which ordinary and not-so-ordinary citizens express their views... and influence a policymakers decision making suggests that new media technologies can be vastly more useful than traditional media to fringe social groups seeking public recognition or influence over policy-making (p. 142).
A similar argument pertaining to the changing nature of civic engagement is made by Burgess et al. (2006), who contend that active citizenship is not solely identified by exercising the right and freedom to express ones own political culture and beliefs through new media. Instead, new media has elevated the act of participation within the public sphere to include everyday activities concerning life, leisure, critical consumption, and popular entertainment alongside traditional notions of political discourse (p. 1). In developing their theoretical framework, Burgess et al. depart from the Habermasian ideal of the public sphere that envisions a ubiquitous space in which individuals can participate in the political process through critical-rational discussion of topics that are of mutual interest, resulting in the mediation and dissemination of public opinion (Habermas, 1992). Rather than limit civic engagement to a particular mode of discoursecritical reasonthe argument is made that new medias capacity for creativity and user generated content can satisfy active citizenship within a socio-cultural public sphere (Burgess et al., 2006, p. 6). Hermes (2005) logic relating to the relevance of popular culture is used as a fundamental principle in Burgess et al. (2006) for evaluating how cultural citizenship affects shared meanings amid political discourse and inclusive socio-political identities: Cultural citizenship as a term can be used in relation to less formal everyday practices of identity construction, representation, and ideology, and implicit moral obligations and rights (Hermes 219). Under these guiding principles, several case studies are analyzed in
an effort to connect the use of creative social media platforms such as Flickr, which offers tools for the independent distribution of original content, as forms of civic engagement. Their findings suggest that everyday creative practices supplemented by the use of new media technologies constitute civic engagement in the form of what Habermas (1996) terms episodic publics the ephemeral everyday encounters in taverns or trains where citizens negotiate (or, in rationalist terms, deliberate) matters of shared concern; or, occasional publics where groups of citizens gather for particular occasions (the rock concert, the public funeral) (Burgess et al., 2006, p. 12). Rheingold (2008) analysis of the potential for new media to encourage civic engagement among young people using the Internet is one such example of how civic engagement can be solicited to specific cultural publics. Using survey results and anecdotal evidence to convey the pervasiveness of participatory media within the lives of U.S. teens, Rheingold argues that teenage access to the Internet largely transcends socioeconomic divisions, thereby eliminating many of the barriers to entry for participation in the public sphere through direct experience with online publishing, discourse, debate, cocreation of culture, and collective action (p. 102). By teaching youths how to make use of their public voices at an early age, it is hypothesized that access to new media technologies will increase the individuals desire for active citizenship (p. 103). Rheingold concludes by reiterating an argument made by University of Leeds Professor Stephen Coleman that the education of todays youth requires that particular attention be given to these new media technologies, as
they will undoubtedly continue to shape the future of communication and how public opinion is formed. Therefore, we must recognize and take advantage of the present transformation in the way young people engage with one another and perceive the world through a digital lens, Rheingold argues: that active use of networked media, collaboration in social cyberspaces, and peer production of digital cultural products has changed the way young people learn and that their natural attraction to participatory media could be used to draw youth into civic engagement (p. 115). Rheingolds argument was empirically substantiated later that same year by a content analysis of student Facebook groups conducted by Fernandes et al. (2008) during the 2008 U.S. presidential election. Their findings indicated that Facebook had a positive impact on the desire of college students to facilitate political discourse among their peers as well as to engage in civic advocacy. The data also suggests that although students participating in online political discussion were inclined to embed themselves within exclusive social circles that served to reinforce their prior support for a particular candidate, Facebook was an effective tool for those supporters who sought to organize on a local level, seek out new members, and express their grievances with opposing candidates (p. 671). Fernandes et al. (2008) conclude that there is great potential for Facebook and other social networking platforms to cultivate future civic engagement among young voters who seem to find themselves naturally at home in an online environment (p. 672).
Digital Citizenship 10 The Emergence of a Networked Information Economy

The conclusions drawn by Maratea (2008), Rheingold (2008), and Burgess et al. (2006) make up the constituent parts of what is now being designated as the networked information economy, or the emergence of a knowledge-based economy characterized by the enhanced autonomy of individuals, the shift from a mass-mediated public sphere to a multidirectional networked public sphere, and the practical elimination of communication costs as a barrier to public speech (Shapiro, & Varian, 1998; Benkler, 2006; Castells, 2009). As information societies struggle to keep up with the evolving consciousness of digital citizenship and new media, Benkler (2006) argues that the structural apparatus of the commercial mass-media environment is conferred upon private citizens whose experiences and observations are now potential motives for public communication (p. 213). He expounds his conceptual understanding of new medias democratizing effects on civic engagement and media economics subsequent to U.S. Supreme Court opinion established in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union (1997): The Web is thus comparable, from the readers viewpoint, to both a vast library including millions of readily available and indexed publications and a sprawling mall offering goods and services. From the publishers point of view, it constitutes a vast platform from which to address and hear from a worldwide audience of millions of readers, viewers, researchers, and buyers. Any person or organization with a computer connected to the Internet can publish information. Publishers include government agencies, educational institutions, commercial entities, advocacy groups, and individuals
Through the use of chat rooms, any person with a phone line can become a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox. Through the use of Web pages, mail exploders, and newsgroups, the same individual can become a pamphleteer. As the District Court found, the content on the Internet is as diverse as human thought. According to Benkler, the argument that new media serves as a catalyst for political discourse and civic engagement is supported by its capacity to offset two major injustices perpetuated by commercial mass media: (1) the inordinate amount of influence traditional mass media gives owners over public opinion, and (2) its tendency, when owners do not dedicate their media to exert power, to foster an inert polity (p. 220). Over the course of developing his argument for the significance that the networked information economy has on the liberalization of the public sphere, he uses empirical data relating to how networked models of distribution support the spread of data that have no relative ties to popular opinion. He also refutes numerous criticisms of the qualitative impact digital media has on civic engagement and its ability to promote diversity of opinion from the bottom-up. Because of these emerging systems, Benkler writes, the networked information economy is solving the information overload and discourse fragmentation concerns without reintroducing the distortions of the mass-media model. Peer production, both long-term and organizedas in the case of bloggingis providing some of the most important functionalities of the media (p. 271).
Digital Citizenship 12 Conclusion

The literature relating to new medias effect on civic engagement within the conceptual framework of a Habermasian public sphere confirms that there is great potential for the future of the Internet and social networking to enhance the ways in which individuals communicate both among their peers and with government. While instances of active digital citizenship have been identified by researchers in a limited capacity, new media technologies appear to be somewhat premature as legitimate means of mass communication and access to the public sphere. Conclusive evidence used to illustrate how new media characteristics are transforming communicative boundaries is also very much incomplete, as the sudden appearance, exponential growth, and multifaceted use of new media have encumbered researchers attempting to keep up with developing social networking trends. However, the plurality of conclusions drawn in the literature indicate that new media is indeed beginning to cause profound changes within the realm of media and politics, and the Internet is rapidly emerging as a primary venue for civic engagement and political discourse. Whether social networking platforms will prove to be equally as effective for informed citizens to coordinate their knowledge into majority public opinion and the enactment of real policy change is a question that still requires further study and observation.
Research Proposal
This qualitative study is designed to illustrate the ways in which new media may or may not undermine the dominance of commercially owned media organizations in the U.S. by facilitating engagement with the public sphere among private citizens on a comparable scale to traditionally broadcast mass media. Collected data will also demonstrate whether new media elevates user competencies in picking and choosing messages that resonate most with their individual worldviews, thereby reinforcing participation within the marketplace of ideas and legitimizing the political speech of private citizens in shaping overall public opinion.
Research Methodology and Dataset

The independent and dependent variables will be measured by collecting data through a cross-sectional survey, in which a questionnaire using a Likert-type ordinal scale will be administered to a random sampling of 3,500 computer literate U.S. citizens, aged 18 to 65 years old, who have access to the Internet. The sample size was chosen to ensure at least 1,000 complete responses will be received (conforming with the average sample size for public opinion polls) and to conceivably reduce the margin of sampling error to less than 3% for the estimated percentage of the whole U.S. population. Dependent variables. The dependent variables will consist of the extent to which new media users engage in political discourse and/or experience active citizenship.
Independent variables. Four independent variables will assist in composing questions that will gauge how participation in the political process is affected by new media user perceptions: (1) the perceived degree of transparency in government, (2) the perceived legitimacy of U.S. democracy and (3) trust in traditional mass media outlets, and (4) the perceived impact of digital citizenship on the political process as a whole. The mean average of responses to a question that corresponds to a particular independent variable will be used to qualitatively infer the scope of new medias effect on democratization and political engagement. New media user perceptions will then be cross-referenced with three separate worldwide freedom indices used to measure and rank perceptions of corruption, democracy, and press freedom among national populations. Perceived government transparency will be measured against the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) on which the United States was ranked 22nd worldwide with a score of 7.1 (Transparency International, 2010). Perceived legitimacy of U.S. democracy will be measured against the Economist Intelligence Units Democracy Index on which the United States was ranked 17th worldwide with a score of 8.18 (2010). Perceived legitimacy of traditional mass media outlets will be measured against the Press Freedom Index on which the United States was ranked 20th internationally with a score of 6.75 (Reporters Without Borders, 2010).
Digital Citizenship 15 Research Hypotheses

This research study will test and determine the validity of the following hypotheses: 1. H-1a. Users who exhibit greater exposure to new media technologies will express greater perceptions of transparency in government. H-1b. Users who perceive greater levels of transparency in government will be more likely to engage in political discourse and acknowledge active citizenship.
2. H-2a. Users who exhibit heightened sensitivity to interaction on social networking platforms will express greater perceived legitimacy of U.S. democracy. H-2b. Users who perceive greater legitimacy of U.S. democracy will be more likely to engage in political discourse and acknowledge active citizenship.
3. H-3a. Users who exhibit greater exposure to new media technologies will be more likely to express diminished levels of trust in traditional mass media outlets. H-3b. Of those who express diminished levels of trust in traditional media outlets, frequent social networking users will be most likely to acknowledge greater activation of citizenship through digital media.
4. H-4a. Users who believe that digital citizenship has a significant impact on the political process as a whole will be more likely to engage in political discourse through new media. H-4b. Of those who engage in political discourse through new media, frequent social networking users will be most likely to claim new media promotes access to, and enlargement of, the public sphere. The following questionnaire will be administered to research participants in order to address the aforementioned questions and hypotheses:
Digital Citizenship and New Media Research Questionnaire

This research study is designed to measure the ways in which new media technologies may or may not have a significant effect on how users perceive and/or participate in the political process. The study will also gauge how new media may or may not affect widespread public opinion on a similar scale to traditionally broadcast or published mass media. Collected data will demonstrate whether new media elevates user competencies to engage civically within the concept of a public sphere. The public sphere is defined as a ubiquitous space in which individuals can participate in the political process through criticalrational discussion of topics that are of mutual interest, resulting in the mediation and dissemination of public opinion.
This questionnaire will be used to develop an understanding of new media for conceptual analysis within the field of media and politics. Please help us to further understand the dynamic relationship between media and politics by answering the following questions according to your sincerest experiences and opinions. It should take roughly 35 minutes for you to tell us about yourself and your experience with new media technologies. The questionnaire is anonymous and will not affect any new media services, software, or hardware that you currently use. Please DO NOT put your name or initials. 1. Do you own a computer? ____________ (If answer is no, skip to #3) 2. How many years have you owned a computer? ____________ 3. Do you have access to the Internet? ____________ (If answer is no, skip to #5) 4. How many years have you had access to the Internet? ____________ 5. How many people in your household own a computer? ____________ 6. How many people in your household have access to the internet? ____________ 7. How many hours (estimate) do you use a computer on a typical day? ____________ 8. How many hours (estimate) do you use the Internet on a typical day? ____________ 9. How many hours (estimate) do you use the Internet on a typical day? ____________ 10. Do you use social networking platforms (i.e. Facebook, Twitter, Linked.in, etc.)? ____________ (If answer is no, skip to #13) 11. How many years have you used social networking platforms? ____________
12. How many hours (estimate) do you use social networking platforms on a typical day? ____________ Please rate your assessment of the following statements on a scale that ranges from one to five, with one indicating you strongly agree with the statement and five indicating you strongly disagree with the statement. 13. I post regular updates to a blog, community forum, social networking, or microblogging website.
1 Strongly Agree 2 Agree 3 No Opinion 4 Disagree 5 Strongly Disagree
14. I interact with many people online, some of whom I do not know in real life.
15. I keep up with current events in the news.

16. I actively participate in political discussion among friends.

17. I actively participate in political discussion among strangers.

18. I am an avid user of social media on the Internet.

19. I try my best to vote in all statewide and federal elections.

20. I am confident in my understanding of major political issues.

21. Discussion of political issues on the internet is far more objective than among traditionally broadcast or published mass media outlets.
22. Most people are misinformed in their perspective on political issues.

23. I receive the majority of my political news from sources on the Internet.
24. The majority of politicians and government officials are detached from the issues that affect real Americans.
25. Many politicians and government officials are incompetent in their role as public servants.
26. The internet is a reliable source for gathering information on current events.
27. The internet allows me to keep up with government activities in ways I wouldnt ordinarily be able to.
28. I actively participate in political discussion online.

29. I feel comfortable expressing myself online in a public forum.

30. Social media is a powerful tool for political activism.
31. I feel comfortable expressing my political opinions on social networking websites.

32. The Internet offers more specialized content than my local newspaper.
33. Users of social media are more informed than cable news network audiences.
34. I refine my political beliefs according to information I gather online.

35. Social media enables me to contribute to overall public opinion.

36. The internet magnifies the discussion of current events and political issues.
37. I first hear about most political events on the Internet.

38. I first hear about most political events on social networking websites.
39. I would be less likely to think about or discuss politics if I did not have access to the Internet.
40. I feel that I have engaged my duties as an active citizen.

41. I feel a sense of fulfillment by staying knowledgeable of contemporary political issues.

42. I put my knowledge of political issues to good use.

43. The Internet strengthens my confidence in the power of American democracy.

44. Social networking platforms enable people to hold their political representatives accountable for their actions.
45. Digital citizenship is an embodiment of the future of government and politics.

46. Contemporary new media technologies enrich my life as a citizen of the United States.
47. All traditional mass media will eventually be replaced by digital media.
48. I have access to my government representatives through social networking platforms.
49. I am content with the way in which my government representatives act on my behalf.
50. Restricted access to the Internet would be a detriment to American democracy.

Are there other comments you would like to let us know about?
Thank you for your feedback!
References
Benkler, Y. (2006). The wealth of networks: how social production transforms markets and freedom. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Castells, M. (2009). The rise of the network society: the information age: economy, society, and culture volume i. Hoboken, NJ: WileyBlackwell. Chadwick, A. (2009). Web 2.0: New Challenges for the Study of EDemocracy in an Era of Informational Exuberance. In I/S: A Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society, 5 (1), 9 41. Columbus: Ohio State University. Retrieved June 18, 2011 from http://www.is-journal.org/V05I01/Chadwick.pdf
Djankov, S., Nenova, T., McLiesh, C., & Shleifer, A. (2003). Who owns the media?. Journal of Law and Economics, 46(2), 341-382. Economist Intelligence Unit Ltd., (2010). Democracy index 2010. London, UK: Retrieved from http://www.eiu.com/democracy/ Fernandes, J., Giurcanu, M., Bowers, K. W., and Neely, J. C. (2010) The writing on the wall: a content analysis of college students facebook groups for the 2008 presidential election. Mass Communication and Society, 13: 5, 653 675 Habermas, J. (1992) The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. (Trans. Thomas Burger). Cambridge: Polity Press. (1996) Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Cambridge, Polity Press. Herman, E., & Chomsky, N. (1988). Manufacturing consent: the political economy of the mass media. New York, NY: Pantheon Books. Hermes, J. (2005). Re-reading popular culture. Hoboken, NJ: WileyBlackwell. Lambert, J. (2002). Digital Storytelling: Capturing Lives, Creating Community. Hilgartner, S., and Bosk, C. (1988). The rise and fall of social problems: a public arenas model. The American Journal of Sociology 94, 5378.
Internet World Stats (2011). World internet usage and population statistics. Miniwatts Marketing Group. Retrieved June 18, 2011 from http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm Jacobs, R. N. 2000. Race, Media, and the Crisis of Civil Society. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: where old and new media collide. New York, NY: NYU Press. O'Reilly, T., & Battelle, J. (2004). Opening welcome: the state of the internet industry. Proceedings of the Web 2.0 Summit. Retrieved from http://conferences.oreillynet.com Macnamera, J. University of Technology Sydney, Australian Centre for Public Communication. (2008). E-electioneering: use of new media in the 2007 australian federal election. Broadway, NSW. Maratea, R. (2008). The e-rise and fall of social problems: the blogosphere as a public arena. Social Problems, 55(1), Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/pss/10.1525/sp.2008.55.1.139 McChesney, R. (1996). The internet and US communication policy-making in historical and critical perspective, Journal of Communication, 46: 98-124. (2000). Rich media, poor democracy: Communication politics in dubious times (Rev. ed.). New York: New Press. Rheingold, H. (2008). Using participatory media and public voice to encourage civic engagement." Civic Life Online: Learning How
Digital Media Can Engage Youth. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2008. 97118. Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 852853, and 896897 (1997). Reporters Without Borders, (2010). 2010 world press freedom index. Paris, France: Retrieved from http://graphics.eiu.com/PDF/Democracy_Index_2010_web.pdf Shapiro, C., & Varian, H. (1998). Information rules: a strategic guide to the network economy. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press. Transparency International, International Secretariat. (2010). Corruption perceptions index 2010. Berlin, Germany: Retrieved from http://www.transparency.org/content/download/55725/890310

Scott Ruzal, The Age of Digital Citizenship and New Media

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Scott Ruzal, The Age of Digital Citizenship and New Media

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Running Head: DIGITAL CITIZENSHIP

Digital Citizenship 2 Introduction

Statement of Research Purpose

Resolving Mainstream Mass Medias Democratic Deficit

The Changing Nature of Civic Engagement and Public Sphere

Digital Citizenship 10 The Emergence of a Networked Information Economy

Digital Citizenship 12 Conclusion

Research Methodology and Dataset

Digital Citizenship 15 Research Hypotheses

Digital Citizenship and New Media Research Questionnaire

15. I keep up with current events in the news.

16. I actively participate in political discussion among friends.

17. I actively participate in political discussion among strangers.

18. I am an avid user of social media on the Internet.

19. I try my best to vote in all statewide and federal elections.

20. I am confident in my understanding of major political issues.

22. Most people are misinformed in their perspective on political issues.

28. I actively participate in political discussion online.

29. I feel comfortable expressing myself online in a public forum.

31. I feel comfortable expressing my political opinions on social networking websites.

34. I refine my political beliefs according to information I gather online.

35. Social media enables me to contribute to overall public opinion.

37. I first hear about most political events on the Internet.

40. I feel that I have engaged my duties as an active citizen.

41. I feel a sense of fulfillment by staying knowledgeable of contemporary political issues.

42. I put my knowledge of political issues to good use.

43. The Internet strengthens my confidence in the power of American democracy.

45. Digital citizenship is an embodiment of the future of government and politics.

50. Restricted access to the Internet would be a detriment to American democracy.

Thank you for your feedback!

You might also like