Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. HereÔŅĹs how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.

 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate


On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.


RSS 2.0

Professional communicators control elections

By Richard Stanton - posted Monday, 2 August 2010

Professional communicators control the present election campaign.

If you’re not paying a professional to set up your strategy, to create your email list, to come up with the promises that you make to your voters, then you’re way behind the curve.

Professional communicators do what American sociologist Leon Mayhew said they do - they exert enormous influence on the public, and the consequent political rationalisation erodes the social organisation of public opinion.


No wonder Julia Gillard wants a citizens’ assembly to take charge; she must have read Mayhew’s work and knows that the promises she makes can’t possibly be kept.

Mayhew’s last work was his most important.

It was entitled The New Public: Professional Communication and the Means of Social Influence and it explains perfectly how and why professionals have come to control all aspects of the communication process, from politics and elections, to what goods we choose to buy from our supermarkets.

Mayhew reflected on the lost “centre” of society and the consequence that citizens are incapable of understanding its modern complexity due to the work of professional communicators in constantly shifting the ground.

Mayhew was concerned about the serious disconnection that’s developed between politicians, political candidates, and their citizen stakeholders.

He was deeply anxious that the public was unable to comprehend the degree to which it was being influenced and persuaded, but at the same time he wanted to believe that deep down, we knew precisely what was going on.


The professional communicators most reviled by Mayhew are public relationists, advertisers, and marketers, all representing client-based political communication as consumable product, and seeking immunity from any “redemption of tokens” most often associated with solidarity between client and consumer.

Immunity from the redemption of tokens is a complex way of saying that politicians and candidates don’t have to act on the promises they make.

Mayhew wanted the redemption of rhetorical tokens by and for members of the public to include demands that politicians and candidates provide specific evidence about their promises.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

4 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Richard Stanton is a political communication writer and media critic. His most recent book is Do What They Like: The Media In The Australian Election Campaign 2010.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Richard Stanton

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 4 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy