Few politicians have faced public humiliation over their favourite biscuit, but Gordon Brown’s interview on the Mumsnet website highlighted the growing role of new media in setting the political agenda [Ref: Daily Mail]. Regardless of the truth of ‘Biscuitgate’ [Ref: First Post], David Cameron was quick to exploit the opportunity, announcing that the Conservatives would use such sites as part of governmental policy [Ref: Guardian]. Many argue, however, that the growing numbers using the internet to voice their opinions, produce citizen journalism or spearhead campaigns has much greater potential than political rivals scoring points off each other. In 2009 the micro-blogging site Twitter became famous for its role in reporting on the Mumbai terrorist attacks, documenting political oppression during the Iranian elections, and exposing attempts to curb free speech during the Trafigura case in the UK [Ref: Guardian]. At a time when public faith in politicians is at a low [Ref: Daily Telegraph], the success of Barack Obama’s presidential campaign in the US [Ref: webinknow.com] and former deputy PM John Prescott’s online reinvention [Ref: Guardian] suggest that use of the blogosphere is the best way for politicians to engage the public with the political sphere, discuss policy and restore faith in mainstream politics [Ref: Daily Telegraph]. Critics, however, point out that the blogosphere is an unaccountable medium which gives voice to angry and populist sentiments which have no place in politics. Does politicians’ use of social media offer a positive way to engage an apathetic public, or is it a distraction from developing a more coherent and inspiring political vision?

The Fifth Estate?
Before the summer of 2009 Iran was widely regarded as one of the most secretive democracies in the world. But the protests following the alleged corruption of the elections became widely publicized as Iranian citizens were able to report directly on events as they happened using sites like Twitter and Facebook, without being filtered or censored by the state or mainstream press [Ref: Financial Times]. In the UK, an attempt to ban reporting of parliamentary questions on the investigation of Trafigura was publicised widely in the unregulated and instantaneous world of the blogosphere, causing law firm Carter Ruck to back down and provoking fierce debate on UK libel law [Ref: Guardian]. Shortly afterwards many of the same Twitter users led protests against journalist Jan Moir for a controversial article on the death of singer Stephen Gateley [Ref: Huffington Post]. Famous Tweeter Stephen Fry argued that social networks were ‘a new and potent force in democracy’ [Ref: stephenfry.com]. But others have voiced reservations [Ref: Guardian], pointing out that the anonymity of the web allowed those with vested interests to distort reports of the Iranian elections [Ref: Daily Telegraph], and that many of the ‘Twitterati’ are part of the same liberal media elite they claim to challenge.

‘Smeargate’ and the politics of spin
For many, the ‘Smeargate’ scandal is a textbook example of politicians’ use of the web. The scandal centred on Gordon Brown’s then ‘spin doctor’, Damian McBride, conspiring to publish ‘smear’ attacks about Conservative ministers (and their families) on Derek Draper’s apparently independent and anonymous blog [Ref: Independent]. Bloggers such as Guido Fawkes claimed McBride’s subsequent resignation as a victory for the blogosphere over the spin-obsessed mainstream press [Ref: The Times]. Some say bloggers’ irreverence and lack of regulation is exactly the kind of opposition needed to counter the spin doctors, in the same way satirical magazines such as Private Eye challenged the Establishment in earlier times [Ref: Guardian comment is free]. But some would counter that those publications had editorial control and journalistic standards, which offer checks and balances not available to self-publishers. One editor of an online magazine observed that the affair was more an expression of political exhaustion within the elites, and the blogosphere is a natural extension of the cynical, anti-political mood fuelled by the mainstream media [Ref: spiked]. Does the openness of the blogosphere bring more engagement by those outside the political elite, or does its use as another vehicle for smears and rumours exacerbate anti-political trends?

Mass innovation or unruly mob?
Much is made of the democratising impact of the blogosphere in allowing voters more of a say in how they are governed. Debate has been provoked by Charles Leadbeater’s conception of ‘We-Think’ [Ref: Open Democracy]which argues that internet resources such as Wikipedia give credence to the wisdom of crowds, and that innovation and participation in policy and governance is best encouraged by individuals working together rather than imposed from above. But, argues Nick Cohen, the shallow and impersonal nature of the internet creates an atmosphere of angry, populist reaction, which soon fizzles out and is no substitute for real world political engagement [Ref: Guardian comment is free]. Moreover, some observe that politics is about individuals fighting over what is best for the collective, and that ‘We-Think’ is dangerously close to ‘group-think’ [Ref: spiked]. What we really need, it is suggested, is a return to a public sphere in which we can have this frank political contestation, rather than a ‘cultish interactivity’ ruled by individual opinion and single-issue groups [Ref: Guardian]. Yet in a political sphere dominated by party systems, think-tanks and corporate interests, Tim Montgomerie thinks the internet is still the best hope for political revolution because it directly involves the people [Ref: Spectator].