Journal of Information Technology & Politics special issue on "Politics: Web 2.0" published

Edited by Andrew Chadwick. Click here for the Taylor and Francis journal page. See below for the table of contents.

  • Introduction: The Internet and Politics in Flux - Andrew Chadwick
  • Realizing the Social Internet: Online Social Networking Meets Offline Social Capital? - Josh Pasek, eian more, and Daniel Romer
  • Typing Together? Clustering of Ideological Types in Online Social Networks - Brian J. Gaines and Jeffery J. Mondak
  • Building an Architecture of Participation? Political Parties and Web 2.0 in Britain - Nigel A. Jackson and Darren G. Lilleker
  • Norwegian Parties and Web 2.0 - Øyvind Kalnes
  • The Labors of Internet-Assisted Activism: Overcommunication, Miscommunication, and Communicative Overload - Rasmus Kleis Nielsen
  • Developing the “Good Citizen”: Digital Artifacts, Peer Networks, and Formal Organization During the 2003–2004 Howard Dean Campaign - Daniel Kreiss
  • Lost in Technology? Political Parties and the Online Campaigns of Constituency Candidates in Germany’s Mixed Member Electoral System - Thomas Zittel
  • Internet Election 2.0? Culture, Institutions, and Technology in the Korean Presidential Elections of 2002 and 2007 - Yeon-Ok Lee
  • The Internet and Mobile Technologies in Election Campaigns: The GABRIELA Women’s Party During the 2007 Philippine Elections - Kavita Karan, Jacques D. M. Gimeno, and Edson Tandoc, Jr.

Trophy photos from Afghanistan

A colleague has pointed out that photos of British troops killed in Afghanistan are appearing on jihadist websites. Click here, for instance, and scroll down. The original poster praises the 'mighty warriors of Taliban' and talks of their courageousness. He uses derogatory names and titles for the fallen British soldiers. When their names are written, they are proceeded with, “Allah's damned enemy X”. All others praise the work of the Taliban and pray for more death inflicted on the foreign troops. There is nothing too sophisticated here. But do the families of the dead troops realise these images are being used this way? Is this an occupational hazard of digital media to which everyone must adapt?

Deliberately failing to explain Afghanistan?

 

On the Today programme on Radio 4 this morning, the head of the British Army, Gen. Sir Richard Dannatt, consistently failed to explain why British forces are in Afghanistan. Despite the shift in public opinion in the last few days against British involvement in Afghanistan, all Dannatt could say was:

“A high number of deaths inevitably makes you question what we are doing, how we are doing it. The conclusion one has to reach is, going right back to basics on this, that this mission is really important”.

Yes it is important – but why? Just saying something is important is not enough to convince listeners. He went on, “Things are much clearer if you flip the coin and look at the other side and ask ‘What if we were to pull out unilaterally? What if we were to just come out of this mission?’”

So: what if? What would happen? He didn’t say. How about: it would appear a victory for the Taliban, it would weaken Britain’s position with NATO, it would damage relations with the US, it would undermine the credibility of future British interventions, it would make the death of British troops in Afghanistan seem pointless ... and no doubt many other reasons.

The British Army appears to lack a strategic narrative about why it is in Afghanistan at all. It is when the absence of justifications for policy occurs that opposition voices have space to provide alternatives. Consequently, in the last few days, allied to the increase in British casualties, there has been a proliferation of suggestions that Britain withdraw from Afghanistan - a clear, intelligible alternative. If they want to close the debate down the British Army - and the government - need to find a way to frame and justify the war and not be afraid to keep repeating it. This is not rocket science, and the failure to take this action suggests the army is happy for a public debate about a withdrawal to take place.

Shifting Securities project data available

Data is now publicly available from the ESRC-funded project, Shifting Securities: News Cultures Before and Beyond the 2003 Iraq War. This qualitative study includes approximately 145 interviews, focus groups and ethnographic reports with news publics in different UK cities, and 30 interviews and focus groups with military and government policymakers, BBC and Channel 4 newsmakers, and various security "elites", from 2004-2007. To request access to the data, click here for the project page at the UK Data Archive. This is rich data from an important period for security, legitimacy and multiculturalism in the UK.

We would welcome researchers making use of it. We also invite opportunities for comparative research (contact M.Gillespie@open.ac.uk or Ben.OLoughlin@rhul.ac.uk).

2009-08-11: Andrew Chadwick to present at ASA Conference Thematic Session

Andrew Chadwick will be presenting a paper to the American Sociological Association's Annual Conference in San Francisco in August. Details below.

Chadwick, A. (2009) 'The Internet and Democratic Engagement: Granularity, Informational Exuberance, and Political Learning' Presentation to the American Sociological Association Annual Conference (Thematic Session on 'Democracy 2.0?: Participation and Politics in New Media') San Francisco, August 8-11.

Roundup: Twitter, social media and the Iran election

Useful AP story on the Independent's website. Related Independent article here.

Coverage on BBC Radio Four's The World At One (featuring a brief interview with yours truly).

Sky News interviewed me at lunchtime and it sounds like they will be running a useful story this evening (sorry for the shameless self-promotion).

Guardian article mentioning possible IT security director's leak here.

Election hashtag search here.