There was a lot of hype about how Web 2.0 technologies allegedly influenced the last Federal Election. However, research shows that much of the claimed impact of YouTube, MySpace, Facebook, blogs and other ‘new' media remains questionable at this stage. 

From July through to November as the election campaign rolled out traditional print and television media were awash with claims that wikis, blogs, vlogs as well as websites like Facebook, and YouTube were changing the way we deal with our politicians, and the way they deal with us.

A study carried out by the Australian Centre for Public Communication at the University of Technology Sydney found that most Web 2.0 type applications used by politicians and political parties failed to take advantage of the interactive ‘conversation'  features this technology provides.

In fact the study, titled E-Electioneering: Use of New Media in the 2007 Australian Federal Election [1], found that, in most cases, comments were turned off or moderated by ‘gatekeepers'. At the same time, only 20 per cent of politicians allowed direct e-mail contact, with most directing ‘Contact Me' via their staff. So much for engaging interactively!

And what really drives home the under-utilisation and misuse of Web 2.0 was that only one politician was prepared to allow negative and critical comments to be posted on his sites (well done Malcolm Turnbull).

As such, claims the recent Australian Federal election was the "YouTube election" or an ‘e-election' were greatly exaggerated.

UTS research found that while 60 per cent of Australia's 226 Members of the House of Representatives and Senators had a personal Web site, only 26 (11.5 per cent) had a MySpace site; just 15 (6.6 per cent) had a blog; only 13 (5.75 per cent) had posted videos on YouTube; just eight (3.5 per cent) had a Facebook site; and only seven (3.1 per cent) used podcasts.

However, this is not to say that Web 2.0 and interactive media are not changing the mediascape and the way politics is conducted. While the pollies and even Kevin 07 were extremely cautious about engaging openly and interactively with the public, political debate is receiving a boost from political interest and activist groups.

Significant interaction and public engagement was found on sites such as www.google.com.au/election2007 [2], particularly with Google Maps and ‘On the Record' which showed electorate boundaries and provided searchable information for voters, and on activist sites such as GetUp! (www.getup.org.au [3]) which claimed more than 200,000 ‘members' during the election (more than some political parties); Senator On-Line (www.senatoronline.org.au [4]) which stood political candidates in the election; and dedicated youth sites such as Election Tracker (www.electiontracker.net.au [5]).

Also, a range of blogs contributed incisive analysis and commentary and more accurately predicated the election result than mainstream media reporting opinion polls.

And, despite rather dismal efforts overall, some politicians have adopted new media with some success. Notable examples identified in the research, apart from Kevin Rudd's major online campaign, were Peter Garrett, Malcolm Turnbull, Bob Brown, Joe Hockey, Brendan Nelson, Peter Costello and Bob McMullan.

Also, analysis of mainstream media reaction to new media was simultaneously conducted by Media Monitors [6] and it confirmed considerable ‘intermediation' between mainstream and new media (i.e. traditional media picking up stories from blogs and other social and citizen media sites) and a fascination among journalists with internet spoofs, parodies and faux pas.

At this stage new media may not have not created a new public sphere of political discussion and debate where citizens can participate as equals or with at least a strong voice, but that's not to say that Web 2.0 and citizen and social media are failing. As Henry Jenkins says in Convergence Culture, change is gradual and conflicted and tensioned. The printing press did not change the world overnight. But over decades and centuries it transformed the world forever.

When politicians - and business leaders -  learn not to block critical and dissenting comments, but welcome them as part of debate and true engagement - these new media will begin to mature and realise their potential. In the meantime, there are likely to be many more tentative steps - and a few burned fingers and reputations.

The announcement by Lindsay Tanner at the CeBIT Australia 2008 conference [6] of the Federal Government's commitment to e-government and the launch of a trial blog for the public to directly engage with government is a sure sign that these new forms of media are here to stay and that they are going to change the way politics, business and community are done.

Jim Macnamara is Professor of Public Communication and Director of the Australian Centre for Public Communication at the University of Technology Sydney. He has previously held key roles as CEO of media research company, CARMA International, and Group Research Director of Media Monitors.