Greater Accessibility or Just Expanding the Digital Divide?

Obama did it. Clinton did it. Richardson did it too, and so did a candidate for Young Dems. What do all these politicians have in common? They all announced online!

Standing in the middle of a poor, primarily minority neighborhood in Indianapolis "What we need in the United States is not division" Robert Kennedy told us on the night of Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassination. Perhaps that is what all the candidates were trying to avoid. But Joe Klein didn't start Politics Lost with this speech to tell us about how the divide was conquered -- but rather, how it was created. According to Klein, RFK's speech was possibly the last of presidential candidates' spontaneity.

Announcing over the internet provides a controlled setting. But it also goes along with the theory that it gives more people access to the candidate and to interact with the candidate. (See Personal Democracy Forum: The Flattening of Politics.) But is the accessibility provided over the internet really providing greater accessibility to the overall population or is it providing greater accessibility to a particular, self selecting, possibly elite group of individuals?

According to a Pew Internet & American Life Project Report, "[a]s of May-June 2005, 68% of American adults, or about 137 million people, use the internet, up from 63% [in 2004]. 32% percent of American adults, or about 65 million people, do not use the internet and not always by choice. Certain groups continue to lag in their internet adoption, including Americans age 65 and older, African-Americans, and those with less education. For example:

• 26% of Americans age 65 and older go online, compared with 67% of those age 50-64, 80% of those age 30-49, and 84% of those age 18-29.
• 57% of African-Americans go online, compared with 70% of whites.
• 29% of those who have not graduated from high school have access, compared with61% of high school graduates and 89% of college graduates.
• 60% of American adults who do not have a child living at home go online, compared with 83% of parents of minor children."

But the trend of internet usage by those with disabilities is more dismal. "In May-June of 2001, about 38% of adults with disabilities used the Internet" according to the National Organization on Disability.

The socio-economic divide cannot be ignored. Nearly 19 million Americans simply do not have access with nearly 4 million saying that it’s too difficult to get and another 3 million saying that it is too expensive. Of those that feel that they can afford internet, the type of connection that they have vary greatly and that in itself can effect how much access they truly have. 30% of adults, or over 60 million Americans, have a dial-up connection. Have you tried watching a video with a dial-up connection recently?

So does broadcasting over the internet provide greater accessibility to either the message or the candidate than an old fashion rally? That is unclear. An old fashion rally might get broadcast over the radio or on television. Access to both of those media types is much greater. However, many local news channels now carry clips of online videos and radio shows discuss the internet. But a greater number of people can see the announcement than would physically be able to at a rally, if for no other reason than size of the host facility.

The real question with these announcements is who the audience is and does accessibility matter? The target audience with Richardson, Obama, and Clinton, are primary voters. There are few, if any, studies on internet accessibility of primary voters or what percentage of internet users in American are US citizens and are eligible and registered to vote.

Primary voters, Democratic or otherwise, are in and of themselves, a select, elite group. By providing more widespread access to the primary candidates, the pool of potential primary voters is likely increased and therefore, potentially more representative of the US population. However, by the same token, older Americans, minorities and others with poor internet access are now more likely to be excluded from the pool potentially creating greater inequity and therefore expanding the digital divide in political access.