shifting perceptions - win 2013 term
TRANSCRIPT
Shifting PercePtionS: We the PeoPleand the strategy behind the white house petitions platform
Austin Wright-Pettib one
university of washington, 2016 21.March.2013
191,000 petitions
10 million signatures
807 signatures per hour
Whitehouse.gov/WethePeoPle
your voice in our government
2
table of contentS
Introduction: A new tool for social engagementEarly interpretations: Media react to We the PeopleReassessment: Determining the purpose of We the PeoplePetitions old and new: Direct democracy over timeUnderstanding the data: Individuals and We the PeopleWe the People: A new form of political communicationThe first year: Changing media opinionsNew challenges: A lack of academic researchConclusion: A vast expanse awaitsWorks cited
46
1113162123242931
3
This paper was written for my personal academic use only. The positions presented are my own; they are not made on behalf of the Office of Digital Strategy and do not represent the views of the Administration
4
When the White House launched We the People in late 2011, the Office of Digital
Strategy pitched the platform as a new way to achieve the Obama Administration’s
goal of opening the doors of the White House to the general public. As an online
petitions platform, We the People promised to create a direct line of communication
and establish an unprecedented degree of connectedness between the White House
and its constituencies. Individuals would be able to create petitions, send them to their
friends, post them on their social networks, advocate for their cause, and, if the petitions
accumulated enough signatures, receive an official White House response. It was a new
way to connect and staffers suspected it would prove popular. After all, online political
participation had increased tremendously over the course of the Obama Administration’s
previous three years, their formidable social networks being among the most visible online.
We the People, continuing in this regard, was meant to encourage further participation,
provoking interest in the governing process by asking petitioners to submit ideas, which
“might not otherwise be the subject of conversation in Washington” (Cornish 2013). In all
this, what the staffers within the Office of Digital Strategy did not know – what they could
not know – was the incredible success their new platform would see in its first year and
a half.
Neither, it should be noted, did the general public. Within the first two months,
well over 12,000 petitions had been created with 77 surpassing the 5,000-signature
threshold the White House had designated as sufficient to merit an official response
(Phillips 2011). The novelty of the platform drew press and the general public, but many
skeptics suspected the excitement would wear off in time. That, at least, was the opinion
of J.H. Snider, president of iSolon.org and a Huffington Post guest columnist. Snider,
whose opinion was shared by a number of other journalists, penned a column in October
of 2011 predicting that We the People would “only have a short life … one that probably
introduction: a new tool for Social engagement
5
won’t extend past the President’s first term in office” (Snider 2011). The Wall Street
Journal, in a similar vein, took to its front page to question the legitimacy of the petitions
platform, noting the petitions focused not on those things the White House frequently
discussed, but on more fringe issues (Meckler 2011). “Please tell us the truth about E.T.”
journalist Laura Meckler titled her front page piece, referring to a petition seeking the
Administration’s acknowledgement of government contact with extraterrestrials (Meckler
2011). No matter that many of the petitions focused on things outside the narrow scope
Meckler speciously portrayed as encompassing in her article; it was the absurd that drew
headlines and fanned the skeptics’ flames.
Other journalists, however, in contrast to Meckler and Snider, seemed willing to
take a more tempered approach in their critique. Alexander Howard, of the National
Journal, announced the petitions platform to Journal readers in an early September 2011
commentary, saying, “[the White House has] given the nation a powerful new way to
use the Internet as a platform for collective action’ (Howard 2011). Powerful, because
the White House was showing a continuing commitment towards innovation and finding
novel ways to encourage engagement. Powerful, because the White House was actively
developing tools to increase participation. Powerful, because the White House had found
a way to modernize the political process through this guaranteed direct access channel.
Yet at the same time, potentially futile, for “there are still many questions that remain”
(Howard 2011). The White House was set to collect the email addresses of anyone
signing a petition, Howard reported: how would it handle its new collection? Similarly, the
announcement had promised an official White House response, but what would this look
like? Would they change policy on the basis of petitions? The answers were uncertain
and ambiguity surrounded the release.
6
early interPretationS: media react to we the PeoPleWhere the majority of media fell on this spectrum at first glance seems to be almost
entirely dependent on a researcher’s vantage point and their own predispositions.
Restricting the sampling size to eight high-traffic sources, however, reflects an attempt to
yield a broad picture and an encompassing view that gives a better sense of the overall
media perception.
The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post represent three
of the nation’s largest and most well-respected print publications. The Wall Street Journal
is the largest subscription publication in the United States (2.29 million subscriptions),
while the New York Times places third with 1.66 million subscribers (BulletinNews). The
Washington Post, with 489 thousand, falls in sixth (BulletinNews). All were prominent in
Washington and all have a nationwide appeal. Although We the People has not frequently
made its way into the printed sections of these papers, it has been repeatedly featured
on their respective sites, which, according to Quantcast.com (a site which measures
and quantifies online traffic) adds a combined reach of 33.9 million additional viewers/
mo. Taken as an aggregate number, only 28 locations are visited by more individuals on
a monthly basis (Quantcast)1.
Unfortunately the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times file relatively few stories
regarding We the People. Between 1 September and 31 October, 2011, the two months
following the announcement of We the People, the New York Times filed three stories
(unusually high, compared with later time periods), and the Wall Street Journal filed two,
both covering a petition to legalize marijuana. In contrast to this, the Washington Post
alone filed five stories. Between these 10 articles, the tenor ranged from the already
expressed skepticism of the Wall Street Journal to the more ambivalent position of the
New York Times, with the Washington Post falling somewhere in between.
1This number does not take into account the number of visitors who frequent multiple sites. That number – unique IP addresses, cross-referenced between sites to eliminate redundancies – is presumably much lower, although an exact number is not available.
7
It is, however, what they did not say – or, rather, what they did not publish – that is
of the most value. All three covered the marijuana petition. Additionally, the New York
Times mentioned a petition to dissolve the electoral college (Shear 2011) and the Wall
Street Journal described the aforementioned petition on extraterrestrials (Meckler 2011).
All three can be considered fringe issues in the sense that none of these issues have
seen recent developments within the federal government (shifts in stances or policy
announcements) and all spark significant controversy within their respective crowds.
That these publications chose to discuss these issues, rather than issues not immediately
linked to controversy, such as a petition to appoint the Chief of the National Guard to
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, seems to reflect the novelty of the platform. It should not be
surprising, however, that these papers chose to publish stories on these topics: it is
controversial and fringe issues that draw coverage seemingly because of their novelty
and the conflicting sides they animate.
This is valuable, in and of itself, and it allows researchers one way to segregate
prominent petitions from insignificant ones. Those submissions that receive such
mainstream coverage can be in many ways considered a success for they bring attention
to the engagement tools of the White House, subtly encouraging more people to take
part in the political process. They can also be considered a reflection of the media not
taking too seriously the White House petitions platform and, furthermore, they can be
considered limited because they cover only a narrow band of petitions. Nonetheless,
the White House recognizes the value of this reporting, and while it is overly generous
to say the New York Times’ reporting on a petition vindicates the platform in the eyes of
Administration officials, it is accurate to say that notes are made when these sites report
on We the People.
Among print publications, these three are the most notable, certainly, but as a single
organization National Public Radio reaches a larger audience. Twenty six million unique
8
listeners tune in to broadcasts every month, with 3.5 million additional viewers visiting
NPR.org (NPR.org). The station’s reporting emphasizes detail over topical treatment and
NPR holds particular sway among the highly educated: a viewer of NPR.org, according
to Quantcast, is almost twice as likely to have a graduate degree than the viewer of a
typical webpage. This makes NPR a valuable indicator to the White House of the news
received by the highly educated.
What, then, was NPR saying in the early months of We the People, September and
October of 2011? Notably, nothing. NPR filed their first story November 8, nearly two
months after the petitions site launched (Memmott 2011). What this indicates exactly
is a matter of some supposition. Most likely, We the People was simply not prominent
enough up until the time it released its first responses to merit coverage. Nevertheless,
what Memmott says in his article is revealing. In an off-hand remark Memmott notes,
“by the way, after initially saying it would respond to petitions with 5,000 or more online
signatures, the White House has raised the bar” (Memmott 2011). His seeming implication:
the White House does not want to respond to these types of petitions in the future.
That idea is somewhat vindicated when examining later coverage by NPR. Earlier
this year, the organization published two articles with negative sentiments, one focusing
on the new threshold and how “eliciting an official response to your petition just got
tougher” (Farrington 2013); another, discussing ways in which the site might be made
“better” (Cornish 2013). Last year, too, their coverage was ambivalent at best, with a 31
December article reporting on a “petition to end all petitions” (Demby 2012). Although not
outspokenly critical, that Demby and NPR chose to report and publish a story on such
a petition reflects a choice on the part of the news organization to give prominence to
those things critical of the Administration’s platform, rather than balancing their coverage
to include pieces on policy announcements and increased engagement by way of We
the People.
9
The Atlantic, however, has taken a more positive stance. Publishing the White House’s
announcement the day it was released, the Atlantic has since praised the platform
repeatedly. In the Monthly’s first story, reporter Chris Good said “the idea fits in with
Obama’s recent push for citizen activism” (Good 2011). Later articles by Nancy Scola and
Megan Garber, among others, have reinforced this praise of We the People, asserting the
petitions platform is “the future of Democracy” (Garber 2013). Well-established among
the highly educated, Quantcast.com reports site-goers as being 218% more likely to
have a graduate degree as compared to the typical web-user (Quantcast.com).
It should be noted at this point many of the ideas in this paper have been influenced
or inspired by the Atlantic’s reporting, particularly Scola’s piece, More than Gimmicks:
How Obama’s Tech Tools Are Shifting the Debate and Garber’s aforementioned piece,
The White House Petition’s Site Is a Joke (And Also the Future of Democracy). Scola’s
analysis of the site is acute, breaking down ways in which the White House is “nudging
conversations” through technology (Scola 2013). Garber, too, lays a detailed analysis
expounding on the reasons behind the White House’s decision to embrace the absurdity
of answering a petition to construct a Death Star (Garber 2013).
Similarly, TIME Magazine’s recent reporting on We the People has been influential.
Michael Scherer’s 2013 centerspread breaks down the reasons the White House
launched the platform, explaining in simple terms the strategic thinking which underlies
the site to TIME’s more mature audience (Scherer 2013). Not all reporting has been
positive, however, and it is interesting to contrast TIME’s earlier reporting with its more
recent. In September 2011, TIME published a column by guest writer Jerry Brito, focusing
on the Administration’s past handling of controversial issues, alluding to their lack of
openness and claiming it would be “interesting” to see how they handled politically
sensitive topics brought up in petitions (Brito 2011). Fast-forward a year and a half to
Scherer’s centerspread piece and the magazine is lauding the White House’s platform
10
as “a new public square” (Scherer 2013). What this seems to show is an evolution of
thinking on the part of TIME’s reporters. Replacing criticism with measured praise, the
magazine emphasizes the ways in which the site works to engage more people in the
political process. Ultimately, however, the magazine leaves it to the reader to decide the
full value of the petitions platform.
In contrast to TIME, Mashable.com took no time reaching its conclusion. Two days
after the site launched, Zachary Sniderman called We the People “conceptually a step
in the right direction” (Sniderman 2011). Although Mashable is not well-known outside
the tech, digital, and social media community it reports on, it is considered one of the
best sources available within that community. Quantcast measures 3.5 million visitors/
mo., placing it 403rd in its list of most heavily trafficked sites in the United States. In the
two months after We the People launched Mashable posted five articles on the topic,
more than any other site heretofore mentioned. The first was a simple announcement
with a link to the White House video describing the new platform, the second announced
a petition to stop SOPA and PIPA, the third refrained the second, the fourth discussed
submitted petitions and the fifth announced the release of one the first White House
petition responses. In each, the tone was distinctly positive, although at times slightly
sarcastic (Sniderman 2011). The second went so far as to fully adopt the White House’s
language, claiming the Administration would give successful petitions “serious thought,”
presenting the issues to “top policy makers” (Sniderman 2011).
This is great news for the White House. Mashable’s audience is mostly comprised of
youth under 18, meaning these people, who are more likely to go on and read tech over
policy news, are receiving a distinctly positive message regarding the Administration
(Quantcast).
Of all these sources, however, it is the Huffington Post which produces the most content
and has the largest readership. With 58.8 million U.S. visitors/mo., the Huffington Post
11
and its subsidiary sites are ranked 13th in Quantcast’s list of most heavily trafficked sites
(Quantcast). Their vast scope and heavy traffic makes them ideal for gauging the media’s
overall perception of issues, although their long list of guest columnists makes it more
challenging to understand the site’s general opinion. J.H. Snider, the aforementioned
guest columnist was – and remains – skeptical of the White House petitions platform,
but Lee Speigel, another guest columnist writing in late 2011, seems to find a certain
humor in the whole affair. “Start your intergalactic engines …” because the Administration
is going to respond to a petition on extraterrestrials, Speigel writes (2011). Covering
the absurd petition, Speigel neither condones nor condemns We the People, just as
the Huffington Post neither embraces nor criticizes the platform outright. By covering
the petition on extraterrestrials, however, rather than a less controversial one to, say,
stop animal homelessness, Spiegel seems to associate himself more closely with those
uncertain of the platform’s value.
In the first few months – and to an extent, extending to the present – media oscillated
between Speigel’s humorous take on We the People and Snider’s critical approach.
Some took the route of Alexander Howard and voiced cautious optimism. For a majority,
however, an air of veiled skepticism was the welcome granted to the White House’s most
recent attempt at social innovation.
reaSSeSSment: determining the PurPoSe of we the PeoPleYet even within the audience of skeptics and cautious optimists, there were early signs
of disagreement, signs that some initial critics may have been unduly harsh. In an article
released some weeks after We the People launched, Snider again took to the Huffington
Post, this time to counter Meckler’s Wall Street Journal story: “that’s exactly the point,”
Snider writes in response to Meckler pointing out that petitions focused on issues
unrelated to those covered daily by the White House (Snider 2011). While the skeptics
serve a valuable purpose, questioning the need for and the worthiness of innovation,
12
Meckler in her article seemed to be conflating the value of poling with that of petitioning.
Yes, the petitions focused on underreported issues ad dealt with items not typically on
the President’s agenda. That’s because they were petitions, and while polling is valuable
for bringing attention to the public’s opinion on current issues, petitions are valuable
for injecting new ideas into the debate and bringing attention to issues not necessarily
dominating the daily news cycle.
As Macon Phillips, White House Director of Digital Strategy, said in a promotional
video, “Americans have always used petitions to organize around issues they care about
… [and] we’ve come up with a better way to engage this activity online” (Phillips 2011).
From Phillips’ description, the purpose of We the People was to broaden the debate and
allow the government to engage with people on their own terms - to hear issues about
which the public cared, and empower their voices by granting individuals a seat at the
table alongside established Washington powers. The purpose was not simply to refrain
opposition to the Affordable Care Act or declare support for the President’s jobs plan.
Other channels existed for moving these ideas along.
We the People was meant to encourage new ideas and, as the initial petitions began
to cross the threshold, new focuses emerged. It was a sign that the debt debate, all-
consuming though it was in Washington, was not all-encompassing in the minds of the
country’s citizens. Several petitions on issues unrelated to fiscal policy quickly crossed
the threshold to merit a response. When one of the first ones gathered enough signatures
to ask that the President appoint the Chief of the National Guard to the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, President Obama announced the signing of a National Defense Authorization Act
accomplishing that very thing December 2011 (We the People 2011). Hailed as “the most
significant development” since the National Guard’s establishment by Guard historians,
the passing of the act is reflective of the platform’s early success (Staff 2012). Other
early petitions to receive responses included one requesting the Administration “crack
13
down on puppy mills,” another asking the President “protect children from dangerous
air pollution,” and a third attempting to ban horse slaughter. In their responses, officials
respectively announced a policy change, where the White House would improve the
oversight of commercial breeders; explained the Administration’s policy towards air
pollution; and looked at the ways in which the FDA was (and is) working to prevent the
abuse of horses. None of these were issues the Administration consistently talked about,
and none were ones frequently mentioned in the mainstream press. Yet in a show of
significant support they succeeded in gathering enough signatures to cross the requisite
threshold.
For what it’s worth, these platforms are not new in concept. They have been a bedrock
of American political participation since the country’s founding, serving the important role of
bringing to light the understated concerns of the general public. So important were petitions
historically, they were guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution and described
in the Declaration of Independence: “our repeated petitions have been answered only by
repeated injury,” Thomas Jefferson writes as justification for the colonists’ eponymous
demand (Jefferson 1776). They served an important role throughout the 18th and into the first
part of the 19th century, diminishing in influence only after Congress banned the discussion
of petitions as part of the 1830s Gag Rule (Visit the Capitol). Unfortunately for proponents,
that act also worked to diminish the influence of petitions in U.S. politics and, ever since, they
have struggled to regain prominence.
That hasn’t stopped people from organizing and filing petitions, however. Petitioners
can still be seen on the streets of any major city, soliciting signatures for their various
causes. And with the advent of the Internet, petitions have found new life online as a low-
risk form of political participation. ePetitions, as they are known, allow people to easily
involve themselves in issues they care about and participate in a process geared towards
affecting change in their community.
PetitionS old and new: direct democracy over time
14
Early ePetitions were little more than emails sent around, asking recipients to add their
name to the bottom and forward the message on to their friends. Intended to create
awareness around an issue and foster a desire for change, the email petition, as Randy
Paynter, founder and CEO of the online petition site Care2.com points out, was hardly
an effective replacement for its pen and paper cousin (Paynter 2011). “They spread like
wildfire but then disappeared into cyberspace with little to no resulting benefit” (Paynter
2011). The problem, in part, was that these petitions lacked punch. Without a central
organizer able to tabulate signatures and drive the campaign, they were little more than
strongly worded letters signed by scores of individuals. For the target recipient, they
created no inconvenience, no impetus for change, and no prolonged campaign; they
were passive attempts, a once-off, easily ignored.
This form of petitioning still
exists and it exemplifies both
the degree to which people
misuse and misunderstand
the power of online petitions.
Take for example the perennially cycling email petition explaining the Buffett Rule. In its
body the petition asks the reader to “forward this email to a minimum of twenty people,”
noting if everybody does this eventually the petition will reach the entire country. In no
way, however, is this an effective form of online organizing. Even supposing everyone
were to follow the advice of the creator, there is no way for him or her to measure the
email’s success, no way for him or her to know if everyone forwarded the email.
The end goal of this petition is to build awareness. Ironically, it does so in possibly the least
aware method available. It is simply outdated and without a means to track data, the petition
fails in its goal. Furthermore, even if it did succeed in building awareness – which, again, the
creator has no way of knowing – building awareness is only one part of creating change. It is
An email petition circulated in late 2012, detailing Warren Buffet’s plan to increase taxes on the wealthiest of Americans. [Source: email sent to [email protected] 4-Dec-2012]
15
the easiest and the most passive. Harder is creating an impetus for action on the basis of that
increased awareness. For that to happen there must be follow-up, a central organizational
structure, and an outlet for the petition. In this example, the supposed outlet is Congress, but
without a means to track the data and follow up with sustained activity, either online or offline,
it remains an idealistic proposition. Nothing more.
Ben Rattray recognized this fundamental flaw of the grassroots email petition when he
founded Change.org in 2007. Rattray built a platform to generate and deliver an email to
the target of a petition each time said petition was signed by a unique user (Change.org).
The effect he intended was the continual bombardment of a target recipient, a digital
siege against which the individual, corporation, or government could only acquiesce.
“Governments, companies, and individuals value their reputations,” Change.org’s
website advises (Change.org). Sustained public pressure of a great enough magnitude
will lead to change; that is the thinking behind Change.org.
It may sound far-fetched – online petitions have been the source of intense criticism
for seeming too easy – but the model works. Change.org was able to get the Bank of
America to rescind its policy of $5 credit charges in 2011 and Avaaz.org, the largest
online petition site with a specifically global focus, was able to pressure the Ugandan
Parliament in 2010 and 2011 to drop its “Kill the Gays” bill. On dozens of occasions
these websites have mobilized individuals and communities to affect political change,
using online pressure to affect offline action.
This has amounted to significant political power, which is only now beginning to be more
fully understood. In a way, We the People has built off this idea by encouraging would-
be petitioners to interact directly with the Obama Administration. By understanding and
accepting the power of the online movement, the Obama Administration has capitalized
on this nascent form of political activism, in effect shaping it into a new form of mainstream
political organizing.
16
But what does this movement look like, and how does it behave? In many ways,
as would be expected. People on WhiteHouse.gov tend to flit between pages, not
staying anywhere for more than a few minutes, according to statistics available on
Google Analytics. Beyond the White House website, they tend to cluster in well-defined
spaces corresponding to their communities’ interests: technology and social media for
younger generations, news and politics for older generations. According to data pulled
from Google Analytics and Alexa.com, demographic statistics, such as income, gender,
ethnicity, age, and political persuasion all influence which sites someone will visit, and
how long they will stay.
This is not groundbreaking, but it is beneficial for individual bloggers, company websites,
and government entities looking to quantify their audiences. Sites, such as Quantcast.
com, Google Analytics, and Alexa.com, among others, allow a user to break out visitors
into individual categories, assessing demographic traits to better tailor their message to
an intended audience. These analytics also let the White House see, for example, that
they will have a more difficult time using WhiteHouse.gov to speak to those earning a
lower wage, suggesting they should enlist other sites to help reach that audience.
This provides excellent information, all of which can then be used to tailor messages and
engage more people in the democratic process. Unfortunately little of this is applicable or
available to We the People. In marked contrast to Facebook, Twitter, and WhiteHouse.
gov, all of which have troves of analytics data readily available, We the People is relatively
strapped for information. As of yet, there are no systems available to fully analyze
demographic statistics, meaning the White House has little exact knowledge of who is
traversing this part of their site. Hopefully, with soon-to-be-released technology the Office
of Digital Strategy will be able to begin assessing this data, but for now researchers must
rely on traffic data from Google Analytics to discern possible trends.
underStanding the data: individualS and we the PeoPle
17
Looking at data from successful petitions, it is clear trends are present. Graph 1 shows
the daily pageviews for eight successful petitions as a percentage of the total number of
pageviews. Breaking the data out in this way allows one method for viewing petitions with
radically different numbers of total pageviews. Rather than seeing the total pageviews for
each day, which would drastically increase the scale of the graph, viewing everything as
a percentage of the total pageviews puts the different petitions on a more manageable
scale, while retaining the original shape of the graphs.
As Graph 1 illustrates, people are significantly more likely to view a petition immediately
after it is released. Almost 80% of the total pageviews on the 2011 petition to stop SOPA
came from within the first two days. After that, pageviews quickly dropped until they were
negligible seven days after the petition went public. Similarly, over 50% of the pageviews
on a 2012 petition to deport Piers Morgan occurred within the first five days. In fact, of
eight successful and popular petitions analyzed for this study, only two – a petition to
begin construction on a Death Star by 2016 and one to legalize cellphone unlocking
– received significant traffic after the first week, and both received significant press
Graph 1
18
attention. One other petition to place DC license plates on the Presidential motorcade
received a number of views after its first week, but these appear to be more of a random
occurrence than a well-organized movement. No press articles or other reasons could
be found to explain the situation and the total number of pageviews was low enough it
could have been a result of people clicking their way through the site until they arrived
on the page. These three anomalies aside, however, the data suggest most successful
petitions can be predicted within a week of their becoming public.
This knowledge is of use when attempting to predict the likelihood that the Administration
will be forced to issue a response and it makes sense, given what is known about the
way people behave online and the way in which the White House petitions site operates.
People access information that is readily available. That is why websites put links to other
pages on their site within a page – to minimize the effort people need to exert in order
to obtain additional information. Take the White House’s response to the petition calling
for the construction of a Death Star. Of the 2.8 million unique pageviews (the number
of unique IP addresses which accessed the petition response), nearly 100,000 people
clicked on a link to find out how to spot the International Space Station, according to
information released by the White House (Scherer 2013). The information was interesting,
and it was available with minimal effort, so visitors took the opportunity to access it.
The White House petitions page works in similar ways. With thousands accessing
the page each day, the petitions page on default loads the most recent petitions, which
allows visitors to see and sign those most current petitions of interest (to note, there
is also a feature to allow users to sort by most popular petitions, which helps explain
why older, but still popular, petitions continue to receive signatures). If a petition does
not receive significant support within the first few days - enough to move it to the list of
“popular” petitions, it becomes much more difficult to find. Only the three most recent
petitions are displayed on the side bar, and only the 20 most recent are on the default
19
display. The rest must be accessed by either having the direct link or clicking through the
“show more petitions” tab at the bottom of the page. Consequently, it requires more time
and greater effort to locate and sign a days-old petition, so the number of pageviews per
day decreases.
All of this changes if media locate a petition and publish a story. Once this happens
pageviews spike (drastically, in the two cases analyzed, see Graph 1). This is especially
true if the publication advertising the petition has a large following. Again, consider the
petition to begin construction of a Death Star. Graph 2 (on the following page) illustrates
the number of pageviews per day over a period of 35 days, this time as an absolute
number. The petition launched 14 November 2012, and, as Graph 2 reflects, the total
number of pageviews per day was relatively low for the first two weeks. Then, sometime
between 2 December and 3 December, 2012, the number of pageviews skyrocketed.
To conserve and respect the privacy of the White House specific numbers have been
removed from the graph and are referenced only sparingly in-text, but what graph 2
clearly illustrates at this point is a sharp spike in interest, which corresponds almost
perfectly with the release of the first press articles regarding the petition.
On 30 November, 2012, there was one story published which mentioned the petition
only in passing. By 3 December The Hill, the Washington Post, and the Huffington Post
had all picked up the news and published articles on their site. Politico and US News
also ran stories. The 623 signatures and 64,000 pageviews the site had received by
3 December quickly blossomed as people began to flock to the petition. The 64,000
pageviews became 100,000 pageviews, then over 500,000 within a week’s time. By
10 December Fox News reported 13,000 signatures on the petition, marking more than
a 2,000% increase in signatures in just one week, By 11 December that number was
17,000 signatures and by 13 December the petition had crossed the signature threshold.
The White House was obliged to respond.
20
It is almost certain that without this media attention the Death Star petition would
never have received the requisite number of signatures. It was simply trending too low
prior to 3 December to reasonably expect 25,000 signatures by 14 December. That it
did garner the necessary signatures reflects the power media have to drive traffic to the
White House website through their coverage of specific issues. This, too, is significant,
though also to be expected. For the White House, there is not much to be done when
it comes to promoting coverage of petitions, except by making them easier to find, with
the more headline catching ones staying in more prominent locations for longer periods
of time, but this carries with it significant political risk, for the Administration could be
seen as calculating and currying attention, rather than attempting to drive engagement.
The best option is to embrace the coverage, positive and negative, and view it is a free
way to increase traffic to the website.
With petition responses, on the other hand, the White House has much more flexibility.
As with all tools of political communication, We the People presents a significant
Graph 2
21
opportunity to change the dialogue with regards to specific issues.
we the PeoPle: a new form of Political communicationIt would be a mistake, however, to say that We the People was the first example of
the President’s adoption of existing online communications platforms for the purposes of
altering traditional forms of political communication. It is only the latest in a long string.
Through Facebook, Twitter, Google+, and Reddit, President Obama and his staff have
consistently and effectively innovated to use online tools in order to engage with an
increasingly diverse and disengaged audience. As TIME Magazine’s Michael Scherer
remarks in his centerspread piece,
“Thirty years ago, 50 million people watched the nightly news on TV. Now not even half that many do. And whole segments of the public have walled themselves off. How can Obama reach Rush Limbaugh’s audience, except through Rush Limbaugh?” (Scherer 2013)
The advent of the internet has changed the dynamic between politicians and the
constituents, creating the opportunity to not only change the dialogue, but the way
in which the dialogue is conducted. No longer do traditional news outlets serve as
the most effective means to disseminate one’s message, not when ways exist to
easily target audiences without media editorializing. We the People has tipped the
balance of power distinctly towards the Administration by giving the President and
his staff the ability to communicate directly with self-identifying, self-segregating,
and self-aggregating audiences. People who sign petitions give their email and their
permission to be contacted by the White House (We the People). They declare through
their signature the issues in which they are interested (We the People). Ultimately, the
combination of these results in petitioners effectively placing themselves on interest
lists, to be sent updates periodically when new policies or events pertaining to their
issues of interest are announced. But people who only view responses without signing
petitions are also experiencing the Administration’s new communications tools. They
22
are seeing a message free from media scrutiny. More than that, however, they are
seeing a message free from media scrutiny that they themselves have sought.
This is the other side of the coin, the reason the Obama Administration can afford
to expend political capital on a platform not uncommonly ridiculed by mainstream
media. People who petition the Administration for the Impeachment of President Obama
obviously do not support the President or his policies, but when they come to read a
petition response they are seeing an explanation from the Administration as to why they
think their actions have been proper. This is valuable, not for fanning the flames of the
opposition, but for engaging them and creating the opportunity for meaningful dialogue.
This type of communication is doubly valuable for showing that the Administration is willing
to engage with both sides of the debate, rather than simply riding off those who disagree
with the President and his policies. This may help explain why 66% of polled respondents
claim the Administration’s response was helpful to hear, according to numbers released
by the White House (Sabochik 2013). It may also explain why a majority of those polled
say they would create another petition (Sabochik 2013).
The approach is in many ways groundbreaking. In contrast to the opinion that only
lobbyists and special interests are heard in Washington, by way of We the People the
White House is actively encouraging individuals to participate in the political process.
As with more traditional ePetitioning platforms, the more people who sign a petition,
the more attention the Administration pays. This is to be expected. Participation-based
democratic processes rely on a chorus of voices for their significance. The development
to note is that the Administration is actively seeking greater participation; rather than
settling for citizen detachment post-Election Day, the Administration is using its petitions
platform to solicit ideas and ask for greater engagement. And they reward engagement.
When 500 thousand petitioners signed 33 petitions relating to gun violence, President
Obama used a video response to reach out to them directly (We the People 2013). Then,
23
after a highly contentious petition to deport Piers Morgan crossed the threshold, the White
House re-released their video statement from President Obama with an additional written
explanation by Jay Carney asking “When Discussing the Second Amendment, Keep
the First in Mind Too” (We the People 2013). In both cases, the Administration utilized
technology and the pre-stated interest of its audience to capitalize on its messaging
strategy and engage with individuals from diverse backgrounds on issues important to
them.
Now, in light of growing public participation, media are beginning to more fully recognize
the vitality and success of We the People. In the last two months, the number of signatures
and petitioners has skyrocketed, increasing from just under 4 million signatures in late
2012 to over 10 million at the beginning of February 2013 (Sabochik 2013). In the words
of the White House, the success has been so great they have had to “raise the signature
threshold” for a second time (Phillips 2013). According to Mr. Phillips, the number of
petitions had doubled in the two months previous to the announcement, with more of
them crossing the 25,000-signature threshold more quickly than ever before.
The increased popularity of the platform hasn’t stopped media rom criticizing the
announcement, however. Slate was especially vocal, asking in a bluntly worded headline,
“Is the White House Trying to Avoid Your Petition?” (Larimore 2013). It’s a pressing
question, certainly, but at the same time, various other petitions responses have drawn
overwhelmingly positive headlines, so the criticism seems somewhat arbitrary. The
Death Star response, for instance, was met with humor as media rushed to bargain
down to “an AT-AT walker” that the Administration should construct instead (Petri 2013).
In a similar vein, the response announcing the Administration’s support of cellphone
unlocking drew positive remarks within the tech community, with even Slate declaring
“Maybe WhiteHouse.gov Petitions Aren’t Useless” (Oremus 2013). The degree to which
the firSt year: changing media oPinionS
24
media opinion oscillates on the basis of individual petition responses would seem to
dull the criticism. And it has. Fewer articles devote time to lamenting the platform, with
more seeming to openly wonder what the next petition will be (Scherer 2013). Overall,
the tenor of the We the People debate has changed drastically over the past 16 months.
It seems those previously concerned with the platform’s validity are still concerned,
but in ways in which people critical of the Administration have always been concerned:
namely, the imbalance between those in power and those seeking to influence power.
Truthfully, as accurate as their criticism may be, this, it seems, is a healthy place to be.
We the People now straddles the divide between serving as a source for mainstream
and fringe news, with petitions as frequently generating policy proclamations as laughs.
new challengeS: a lack of academic reSearchPressing issues still surround We the People outside the media and political spheres.
Although press coverage of the petitions platform is immense, this contrasts with a
desperate lack of dedicated scholarly research. This can be attributed in large partto the
newness of We the People and the fact a vast majority of its data has not been made
public. For instance, save an exclusive group of 21 programmers who attended a White
House “hackathon” to examine the code for We the People, the general public has seen
only a few infographics worth of information.
This severely limits the potential for academic research on We the People, but this
fact alone cannot explain the near absence of research generally related to online
petitions. The demonstrable success of Change.org and Avaaz.org includes not only
their aforementioned campaigns to petition the Bank of America and the Ugandan
Parliament, but extends to thousands of other petitions large and small (Change.org).
They have successfully petitioned France to air the Paralympics, the USDA to rid U.S.
schools of pink slime, and prevented Bolivian President Evo Morales from cutting through
the Amazon, among many other successes (Change.org, Avaaz.org). Yet, despite these
25
successes, scholarly research remains at best difficult to find. JSTOR is one of the largest
online houses for scholarly books and
articles, but in searches containing the
terms “ePetitions,” online petitions” and
“Internet petitions” just 97 results were
returned, four of which were germane
and one of which was accessible
(JSTOR). Given the successes of online petitions this lack of research is puzzling and
disturbing. There seems no satisfying reason for it. On the one hand, it may reflect a
difficulty in accessing data surrounding petitions, in which case public entities and private
organizations should consider their obligations to release information so institutions can
begin to understand this revitalized form of direct democracy.
On the other hand, the lack of research may also reflect a larger prejudice against online
petitions. It has been held by some that online petitions and digital activism in general
are forms of “slacktivism,” effortless and by extension, meaningless forms of activism.
Unfortunately the term is misguided at best and specious at worst. Slacktivism has been
in use throughout the 2000s, fed equally by misunderstanding and skepticism, but as it
was originally construed slacktivism was not a pejorative, but a eulogism. It was a way
of praising those who involved themselves in grassroots activities to affect change in
their local communities (Christensen 2011). Quickly, though, it evolved into the pejorative
we now know it as. As put by a teacher quoted in the New York Times, Slacktivism is
“the desire people have to do something good without getting out of their chair” (Feder
2002). Sadly it is this idea that many, from prominent researchers to personal friends,
have come to accept.
As psychological and behavioral researcher, Malcolm Gladwell, asserts in line with
this traditional understanding of activism, activism is something that “requires strong tie
A comprehensive JSTOR search for material related to online petitions returned fewer than 100 entries, four of which were germane and one of which was accessible.
26
connections that help us persevere in times of danger” (Gladwell 2010). His argument,
which appears in a 2010 New Yorker article entitled Small Change, why the revolution will
not be tweeted centers around the story of the Greensboro sit-ins, which Gladwell claims
epitomizes strong tie connections and true activism. “We seem to have forgotten what
activism is,” Gladwell laments (Gladwell 2010). The strong ties, which rely on personal
connections and peer pressure have been lost in the ethers of online political participation.
What sustains social media connections is not direct, but indirect links. What creates
engagement online is not “high-risk,” but low-risk asks. “Social networks,” therefore,
“are effective at increasing participation [sic] – by lessening the level of motivation that
participation requires” (Gladwell 2010). In this, and at each point in this argument, Gladwell
is not incorrect, but his premise is flawed and in the latter half he seems to forget that
network connections, which are the basis of indirect connectedness, do indeed form
from and into hierarchical connections; connections, which, he says, are necessary for
true activism.
Any movement, whether organized in a hierarchy or as a network, spawns from a
person’s actions. Gladwell uses Wikipedia as an example of a network without a central
power structure, to“[direct] and [correct] each entry,” but Wikipedia does have a central
team which works to organize the website and maintain its servers while periodically
working with the public (Wikipedia). Yes, the site relies on a vast network of volunteer
editors for daily maintenance, but without the central team this collaborative endeavor
would not exist. Wikipedia is the perfect example of a network, but a network based on
an original hierarchical structure.
His argument is further undermined by the events that occurred throughout the Middle
East in 2011. Bands of online activists used social media to organize offline protests.
Eventually, the strongest voices emerged as leaders and, when Mubarak resigned, in the
case of Egypt, those leaders rushed to fill the power vacuum. Arguments can be made
27
that the moderate leaders’ efforts were unsuccessful given the continued unrest, but
that belittles their initial organizing achievement and is really beside the point. Network
connections can and do develop into hierarchical ones.
More than that, Randy Paynter argues in Slacktivism: Why Snopes got it wrong
about internet petitions, online activism “lowers hurdles [that] lead to more widespread
involvement” (Paynter 2011). Network connections and low-risk asks are useful, and
necessary in contemporary political participation because they create a means to get
involved, which can lead to further opportunities and willingness to engage.
Not all activism needs to be the high-risk activity Gladwell construes. In fact, the low-
risk activities he condemns are exactly the kind needed in contemporary society. With so
many believing their voice doesn’t matter, these low-risk, high-reward activities may not
always create the dramatic headlines the Greensboro Sit-Ins achieved, but they allow
people to feel and see the effects of their involvement. The people who received the
news the White House was opening access to publicly funded research; they made a
difference. The individuals who organized to legalize cell phone unlocking; they’re making
a difference. And the people who are working to stop Congress from enacting internet
restrictions through SOPA and its descendants; they, too, are making a difference.
Furthermore, online organizing is not as effortless as Gladwell makes it out to be.
Furthermore, online organizing is not as effortless as Gladwell makes it out to be. Despite
more than 10 million signatures over 158,000 petitions just 163 petitions have received
responses, with 4 additional awaiting a response (Sabochik 2013). This means the odds
of creating a successful petition are approximately 1 in 1000 (0.11%, to be more precise).
Suggested by this is that the organizing work necessary to make a petition successful
is tremendous. Broadening this to the thousands of petitions created daily across the
various online petition platforms, that success rate drops lower still2. Online petitions
2Because petition website are manifold and release numbers only periodically, an exact number is not available at this time.
28
are a low-cost way to get engaged in the community, but they are not effortless. On the
contrary, for organizers, they require dedication and a refined message (Change.org).
This makes the success they achieve all the more noteworthy.
As Paynter acknowledges in his defense of online petitions and digital activism,
naysayers and skeptics are “a dime a dozen” (Paynter 2011). What makes Gladwell’s
skepticism particularly worrisome and worth commenting upon is his influence in the
academic community and his continued commitment to remaining skeptical despite
a growing body of evidence suggesting his claims are baseless. As researchers and
educators with the power to influence the thinking of readers and students, Gladwell and
his likeminded colleagues have an obligation to consider new developments within their
purview open-mindedly. To act otherwise risks becoming obsolete.
Online activism has played a role in engaging greater numbers of individuals and
encouraging broader political participation. This is not an insignificant achievement and,
while it may not be activism in the same form as the Greensboro Sit-Ins, it does have
a purpose. Social media has altered the ways in which we communicate and organize
to affect political change. Hopefully scholars will begin to recognize this to a greater
degree than they have. Hopefully the skeptics’ voices will continue to die down. Hopefully
more research will be published as to the nature of online activism. Much of the media,
mainstream and alternative, has changed its stance. It’s time academia followed suit.
concluSion: a vaSt exPanSe awaitSIn the face of such continuing skepticism from the academic community, however,
the most promising answer is further engagement with the general public. The past 16
months have seen a definitive shift in opinion with regards to the media’s view of We the
People. The platform has been tremendously successfully in the public eye, and iit only
seems to be becoming more successful. Further research will come with time, as the
code and data for We the People are made public and the skeptics within the academic
29
community begin to lose ground to those interested in the research and community
building potential of online petitions.
When that happens, the research opportunities will be vast. Key to developing an
understanding of We the Pepole and online petitions in general will be studying the profile
of petitioners. Are they living in predominantly rural communities? An urban ones? Are
they Black? White? Rich? Poor? Do they cluster in regions? Are they spread across the
country? Are the answers to these questions dependent on the petition? A more robust
knowledge of the demographic information will allow the development of new tools
targeted at engaging more communities for longer periods of time. Maybe this will result
in more pageviews after that initial drop-off. Perhaps it will spur further media attention.
Whatever the result, such action will create opportunities for greater engagement, a
critical task in an age of disempowerment. Any tool to allay the concern that someone’s
voice is insignificant is worth investing in.
In More than Gimmicks, Nancy Scola concluded the White House was “nudging
conversations” with We the People, increasing participation in government and offering a
way for citizens to engage with the debate and move the dialogue forward (Scola 2013).
With more people online more often than not, the White House has used We the People
to reinvest in an age-old practice and rise above the partisan debate to engage with all
portions of the political spectrum – everyone from the Star Wars fan who wants to see
a Death Star light the sky to the reactionary conservative who hopes for the President’s
impeachment. We the People gives those concerned that their voice goes unheard an
outlet, a means to connect, and a way to create the change they hope to see.
It is a platform that cannot, must not, and will not go uninvestigated. It is a platform
that has proven its worth time and again, outlasting criticism and outmaneuvering would-
be Internet trolls. It is a platform that is very much the future of our Democracy.
30
workS cited: alPhabetzied Primary and Secondary SourceS1. “1820 - 1861: HOLDING THE UNION TOGETHER.” U.S.Capitol Visitors Center.
N.p.. Web. 20 Mar 2013. 2. A Big Change is Coming to WhiteHouse.gov. 2011. Video. YouTube Web. 20
Mar 2013. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKgCZAsGTfY&feature=play-er_embedded>.
3. Brito, Jerry. “How the White House’s New Online Petition System Can Be Kept Accountable.” TIME Tech. TIME Inc., 2 Sep 2011. Web. 20 Mar 2013.
4. Bufkin, Sarah. “Death Star Petition Urges White House To Build Killer Space Station.” The Huffington Post. AOL, 3 Dec 2012. Web. 20 Mar 2013.
5. BulletinNews. “Leading the News.” BulletinNEWS. Bulletin News, 20 Mar 2013. Web. 20 Mar 2013.
6. Christensen, Henrik Serup. “Political activities on the Internet: Slacktivism or political participation by other means?” First Monday. 16.2 (2011): n. page. Web. 20 Mar. 2013.
7. Cornish, Audie. “White House’s ‘We The People’ Petitions Find Mixed Success.” All Things Considered. National Public Radio: 3 Jan 2013. Web. 20 Mar 2013.
8. Demby, Gene. “White House Website Draws Petition To End All Petitions.” The Two-Way. National Public Radio, 31 Dec 2012. Web. Web. 20 Mar. 2013
9. Farrington, Dana. “White House Death Star Petition Wouldn’t Pass New Thresh-old.” The Two-Way. National Public Radio, 16 Jan 2013. Web. Web. 20 Mar. 2013.
10. Feder, Barnaby. “They Weren’t Careful What They Hoped For.” The New York Times. The New York Times Company, 29 May 2002. Web. 20 Mar 2013.
11. Foxnews.com. “Over 13,000 petition White House to build a Death Star.” Fox News. New Corporation, 100 Dec 2012. Web. 20 Mar 2013.
12. Garber, Megan. “The White House Petition Site Is a Joke (and Also the Future of Democracy).” The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 16 Jan 2013. Web. 20 Mar 2013.
13. Gladwell, Malcolm. “Small Change: Why the revolution will not be tweeted.” The New Yorker. Conde Nast, 4 Oct 2010. Web. 20 Mar 2013.
14. Good, Chris. “Video of the Day: Obama Wants to Hear Your Complaints.” The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 1 Sep 2011. Web. 20 Mar. 2013.
15. Goyette, Braden. “Petition to build a ‘Death Star’ garners 17,000 signatures on White House website.” New York Daily News. Daily News, L.P., 11 Dec 2012. Web. 20 Mar 2013.
31
16. Herb, Jeremy. “Petition: Obama should build Death Star.” The Hill. News Com-munications Inc., 3 Dec 2012. Web. 20 Mar 2013.
17. Howard, Alexander. “COMMENTARY: Got a Problem You Want the White House to Fix? E-Petition It!.” The National Journal. Atlantic Media Company, 10 Sep 2011. Web. 20 Mar 2013.
18. Indvik, Laura. “iPhone 4S Coming to 14 More Countries, First AT&T LTE Phones Arrive Sunday: Today’s Top Stories.” Mashable. Mashable Inc., 2 Nov 2011. Web. 20 Mar 2013.
19. Jefferson, Thomas. United States. National Archives and Records Association. The Declaration of Independence. Washington, 1776. Web.
20. Larimore, Rachael. “Is the White House Trying to Avoid Your Petition?.” Slate. The Washington Post Company, 13 Mar 2013. Web. 20 Mar 2013.
21. Meckler, Laura. “Dear White House: Please Tell Us the Truth About E.T.” The Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones & Company, 18 Oct 2011. Web. 20 Mar 2013.
22. Memmott, Mark. “White House: Government Has No Evidence Of Extraterres-trial Life.” The Two-Way. National Public Radio, 8 Nov 2011. Web. Web. 20 Mar. 2013.
23. Oremus, Will. “Maybe WhiteHouse.gov Petitions Aren’t Useless After All.” Slate. The Washington Post Company, 6 Mar 2013. Web. 20 Mar 2013.
24. Paynter, Randy. “Slacktivism: Why Snopes Got it Wrong About Internet Peti-tions.” Care2.com. Care2, 15 Feb 2011. Web. 20 Mar 2013.
25. Petri, Alexandra. “Coping with the White House rejection of the Death Star petition.” The Washington Post. The Washington Post Company, 14 Jan 2013. Web. 20 Mar 2013.
26. Petri, Alexandra. “Is the White House petition to construct a Death Star by 2016 what America needs?.” The Washington Post. The Washington Post Company, 3 Dec 2012. Web. 20 Mar 2013.
27. Phillips, Macon. “We the People Takes the Next Step: Responding to Your Pe-titions.” The White House Blog. The White House, 26 Oct 2011. Web. 20 Mar. 2013.
28. Phillips, Macon. “Why We’re Raising the Signature Threshold for We the Peo-ple.” The White House Blog. The White House, 15 Jan 2013. Web. Web. 20 Mar. 2013.
29. Sabochik, Katelyn. United States. The White House. Office of Digital Strategy. 2013. Print.
30. Scherer, Michael. “Why the White House Loves Your Death Star Petition.” TIME Swampland. TIME Inc., 31 Jan 2013. Web. 20 Mar 2013.
32
31. Schlesinger, Robert. “That’s No Petition, It’s a Space Station.” U.S. News & World Report. U.S. News & World Report, L.P., 3 Dec 2012. Web. 20 Mar 2013.
32. Scola, Nancy. “More Than Gimmicks: How Obama’s Tech Tools Are Shifting the Debate.” The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 5 Mar 2013. Web. 20 Mar 2013.
33. Shear, Michael. “A Petitioning System Goes to Pot, and More.” The New York Times. The New York Times Company, 26 Sep 2011. Web. 20 Mar 2013.
34. Snider, J.H. “The White House’s New We the People Petition Website.” The Huffington Post. AOL, 11 Oct 2011. Web. 20 Mar 2013.
35. Snider, J.H. “The White House’s We The People Petition Website: First Year Re-port Card.” The Huffington Post. AOL, 23 Sep 2012. Web. 20 Mar 2013.
36. Snider, J.H. “What Is the Democratic Function of the White House’s We The People Petition Website?” The Huffington Post. AOL, 20 Oct 2011. Web. 20 Mar 2013.
37. Sniderman, Zachary. “Alien Invasion Not Imminent, White House Says.” Mash-able. Mashable Inc., 7 Nov 2011. Web. 20 Mar 2013.
38. Sniderman, Zachary. “Public Gets Passive Aggressive on White House’s Petition Platform.” Mashable. Mashable Inc., 8 Nov 2011. Web. 20 Mar 2013.
39. Sniderman, Zachary. “Public Petitions Obama to Kill E-Parasites Act.” Mashable. Mashable Inc., 2 Nov 2011. Web. 20 Mar 2013.
40. Sniderman, Zachary. “This Week in Politics & Digital: The Public Speaks.” Mash-able. Mashable Inc., 23 Sep 2011. Web. 20 Mar 2013.
41. Speigel, Lee. “’We The People’ Petition Seeks Truth Of Alien Visits From Obama Administration.” The Huffington Post. AOL, 3 Oct 2011. Web. 20 Mar 2013.
42. Staff. “Top Guard officer joins Joint Chiefs of Staff.” Army Times. Gannett Gov-ernment Media, 4 Jan 2012. Web. 20 Mar 2013. <http://www.armytimes.com/news/2012/01/army-
43. Tau, Byron. “White House petitioners want a Death Star by 2016.” Politico. Allbritton Communications, 3 Dec 2012. Web. 20 Mar 2013.
44. Taylor, Chris. “Mr. President, Build This Death Star.”Mashable. Mashable Inc., 13 Dec 2012. Web. 20 Mar 2013.
45. White, Micah. “Clicktivism is ruining leftist activism.” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 12 Aug 2010. Web. 20 Mar 2013.
46. Wilson, Chris. “Dear President Obama: My White House petition requires your magical powers.” Yahoo! News. Yahoo!, 29 Nov 2012. Web. 20 Mar 2013.