There is a democratic ideal that many subscribe to, that politics is discussed in an informed way within society. However this is predicated on the public being educated and informed, not simply driven by headlines and media hype, and that there is some level of interest in politics; in particularly parties, governments and policy proposals and outcomes. Much of the literature on the crisis of democracy highlights a lack of these key social underpinnings and blame either politicians, media or the public or all of them for disengagement. Many, including myself, have highlighted how new media can bridge the gap between the public and the political. Whether it is opening up access to information, or allowing citizens to participate in forums, sing petitions, the Internet has allowed greater contact between the political actors and the public.

However, reading a recent book by Philip Howard New Media Campaigns and the Managed Citizen, there is an alternative and less positive view of the impact of the Internet on the democratic public sphere. Following an empirical analysis of how campaigners use the Internet to target messages at specific citizens based on in-depth profiling of their consumer and political bhevious, his concluding comments are thus: "Political leaders, lobbyists, and campaign staff have proven quite adept at creating minorities, rather than just following majorities, directing public opinion, not just obeying it, and managing the contemporary performance of citizenship." What concerns Howard is that as we move beyond the marketisation of politics where the political consumer is sovereign, ways are being discovered to regain control of the desires of citizens. As citizens log into political sites they become channeled to information the site creator wants them to see, the cookies that hold information about them also become guides to certain pages made bespoke for them and people like them, thus the information they receive is carefully controlled in order to restrict their engagement.

Now these people are already highly engaged in politics, but they are seeking filters of information. they may sign up to find out party messages on a range of issues, however as they do this the site is mining their computer for information. Are they pro or anti abortion, gun ownership, are they ethical shoppers, do they have children, where do they shop and what does that say about their economic status, what is their address etc, etc. of course this is a study based in America, the sophistication is far higher than that of UK political campaigning. However this hints at a more pessimistic outcome of online political activism. As news is filtered to citizens they become reliant on those filters and led by them, and so channeled towards information the campaigner wants them to see and not the unrestricted open access that idealists see the Internet providing. This of course is great for campaigners, but is this ethical and is it desirable to have a citizenry who do not question due to the restricted information they receive? Or is it actually a dangerous tactic, are campaigners more likely to be exposed as they tailor information and run the risk of saying whatever to please the receiver? Is this a purely US-based issue anyway? An interesting and thought provoking read that has some parallels at the moment but potentially coudl slowly creep into society without anyone noticing.