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. Here�s 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

Subscribe!
Subscribe





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.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Professional communicators control elections

By Richard Stanton - posted Monday, 2 August 2010


But he lamented the capacity of a candidate to make promises on the basis of truth; the promises will never be able to be truthfully redeemed at some point in the future given that they’re contingent upon contestable criteria and unknown future circumstances.

In other words, when circumstances change after the election - say for example the elected government discovers it has fewer dollars in the bank - then the pre-election promises dissolve like sandcastles in the rain.

In the New Public - the space where Mayhew places us in the early 21st century - undifferentiated rhetoric is so widespread that symbolic information and vague assertions have completely replaced discursive contests.

Advertisement

Discursive contests, or open forums, have been replaced by symbolic representation.

Undifferentiated rhetoric - the mass of information that comes to us from all sources that say how “unique” a particular brand or individual candidate is - fills all the available spaces, including microblogs such as Twitter, so that we have no clear view of the future or what we might expect from our elected representatives beyond tomorrow.

Mayhew’s argument is built upon the idea that professional communicators dominate public communication and public opinion, displacing the free public of the enlightenment with a new public subject to systematic persuasion and influence.

This is a public sphere in which the prospect of stakeholder citizens (voters and taxpayers for example) being able to make a connection between themselves and policy, is almost zero.

On each day of the present election campaign candidates, when asked direct questions by the news media, weave and dodge like they’re in the ring with Danny Green.

Which is probably why there is truth in a recent Tweet suggesting that the TV drama character Doc Martin be elected prime minister because we would, at the very least, know where we stand with him.

Advertisement

Mayhew concluded that we need serious rhetorical forums not given over to commerce in rhetorical tokens.

He argued that it is standard practice to advocate a positive position for an issue without specifying exactly how promised benefits from that position will materialise.

Witness health, education and primary industry as examples in the present campaign.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 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.us 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
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy