Blogs in American politics: from Lott to Lieberman

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the rhetoric and reality of the impact of political blogs in the specific context of American politics, where online, mainstream media and academic accounts suggest blogs have had significant impacts on political communication. Design/methodology/approach This paper examines three high profile events in which blogging has been implicated as particularly influential, and re‐evaluates them in the context of established political science approaches. These events are the resignation of Trent Lott in 2002; Howard Dean's presidential campaign of 2003‐2004; and the Connecticut primary challenge to Joe Lieberman in the 2006 Senate mid‐term elections. Findings Re‐evaluating these cases in the context of established theories of American politics suggests that the perception of blogs as a progressive new force, that can be decisive in a politician's success or failure, is an over‐optimistic and over‐simplified interpretation of the nature and consequences of this new form of political communication. Originality/value This paper provides a much needed first step in integrating the rhetoric of commentary on blogs in American politics with established political science, allowing for a more balanced and contextual consideration of the political roles of blogs than that provided by the blogosphere and its proponents to date.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 14 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.