FAYETTEVILLE, Ark. — In the rampant mudslinging of the 2000 presidential election, it seems no mode of communication came out clean — not even the Internet. A new study by University of Arkansas researchers indicates that nearly three-quarters of the information posted on the major candidates’ websites comprised personal or political attacks on their opponents.

"The Internet is a relatively new vehicle of communication, but its audience is rapidly growing" said Rob Wicks, associate professor of communication. "It’s important that we find out how the web is being used — not only by the public but also by the people trying to transmit information to the public."

In a paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Wicks reported that nearly 35 million Americans used the computer to gather political information during the 1996 presidential election. In 2000, that number grew to more than 50 million people — nearly one out of every five Americans referring to the Internet for news and information about the campaign.

Such statistics show that in the span of just two elections, the Internet has evolved into a major source of political information and therefore an important component of political campaigns. Aided by graduate students Souley Boubacar and Kayla Johnson, Wicks set out to discover how each presidential candidate in the 2000 election used the Internet to present himself, to discuss key issues and to discredit his opponent.

The researchers downloaded more than 480 news releases, which had been posted on the homepages of George W. Bush and Al Gore during the final 50 days of the campaign. Using random sampling techniques, the researchers selected one-third of those releases in proportion to the number posted on each candidate’s website. The resulting sample of 162 releases consisted of 86 from the Bush site and 76 from Gore’s.

Boubacar, Johnson and Wicks then categorized each release according to the type of announcement (endorsement, poll result, policy statement, etc.), the topic addressed (education, taxes, etc.), whether it discussed personal characteristics of the candidate (integrity, values, experience, etc), and whether it contained attacks on another candidate.

They found that more than 72 percent of the releases posted on the candidates’ websites represented attacks. However, they found no significant difference in the number of negative releases posted by each candidate. Of Gore’s releases, 76 percent — or 58 — contained attacks. Bush’s sample yielded 59 releases — 69 percent — that represented attacks.

Further analysis showed that the issues most frequently attacked were Bush’s lack of political experience and qualifications and Gore’s questionable campaign conduct.

"Negative campaign tactics on the Internet aren’t much different from the ones you see on TV," Wicks said. "You can argue about whether negative campaigns affect voter turnout, but the truth is, if a candidate doesn’t make a contrast between who he is and who his opponent is, then he hasn’t given people a good reason to prefer him over the other candidate."

In addition to analyzing negativity on the web, the researchers also studied how each candidate used the Internet to convey his message and portray himself. They found that Bush and Gore used the new technology much in the same way that they used conventional media — providing biographies and photographs, soliciting funds and disseminating information about their platforms.

The study showed that the most commonly addressed issues on the web were education and social security — each representing 13 percent of the discourse presented through news releases. Other significant issues included taxes, foreign affairs, the environment and Medicare.

But in addition to acting as an outlet for information, the Internet has capabilities that traditional media lack, and Wicks believes that the 2000 election represented the first time that candidates began to take advantage of the web’s unique features. He also states that the way candidates used the Internet could be interpreted to infer certain values and commitments.

In the 1996 election, candidates’ homepages consisted mainly of verbal content. While text still dominated sites in the 2000 election, Bush and Gore enhanced their webpages by posting pictures and graphics. Looking at this imagery in a companion study, Wicks and graduate student Rebecca Tillery found a discrepancy between the candidates.

"Over the course of the campaign, Bush posted 67 images. Gore posted more than 500, and he frequently added the pictures and even employed some animation," Wicks said. "That’s entirely consistent with Gore’s emphasis on the importance of technology. By looking at the webpage, you can see his commitment is genuine."

Wicks also points out that the Internet has the potential to make campaigning much more interactive, and he believes candidates are just beginning to take advantage of that potential. For example, the ease and convenience of posting information on the web creates a certain immediacy. On the Internet, candidates can respond to allegations or issues raised by their opponents more swiftly than a television ad or newspaper article could ever allow them to do.

Further, because homepages represent a direct connection between candidates and the public, they open an opportunity for targeted marketing. Individuals who sign up to receive email announcements from a candidate may be asked to provide demographic information. This information can then be used to tailor distributions so that they provide the information most appealing to that individual’s interests and views.

"It seems likely to me that television is going to become the medium where general themes are repeated and stressed, while the Internet will provide much more specialized information," Wicks said. "We’re just at the threshold of the Internet becoming a major component of the political process. "

But Wicks also emphasizes that candidates are not the only people who need to learn how to use this technology. By seeking out information directly from the candidates, the general public needs to learn how to interpret that information, how to question it and weigh its credibility the way a professional journalist would.

"The Internet has opened up a direct connection between politicians and the public, and that seems very healthy to me — in a sense, very democratic," Wicks said. "But the public’s going to have to become much more savvy and learn to distinguish between good and bad information."