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


Mayhew invested much time investigating rhetorical tokens and the redemption of influence.

Some of his ideas included deliberative forums such as direct debate, and widespread citizen forums in which competing material is placed in the same medium.

He also believed professional communicators produce anti-discursive models which are filled with dangerously high levels of useless information.

Advertisement

To provide balance in his “new public” he wanted to inject into it a news media with the capacity to filter the specialist rhetoric of professional presentation.

But instead of arguing the news media are objective and thus provide the mechanisms by which the new public can filter information to form objective opinion, he lamented that the news media have the same potential as the average citizen to be persuaded and influenced by sources and the anti-discursive models invoked by professionals.

What he should have added was the need for a clear distinction between the public sphere and the private sphere so that we can understand the relationship between public policy and public opinion.

When politicians and candidates talk about having “private conversations” and doing preference deals they make the mistake of widening the gap between them and the public they so desperately crave.

And the wider the gap, the more outrageous the rhetorical tokens.

If we think about this we might question more seriously whether the conversation over the leadership between Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard has a right to exist as private in a public sphere.

Advertisement

For Mayhew, the electorate is the legitimate bearer of public opinion which in turn is the creator of public policy and thus the source of legitimate governing power.

While professionals control political communication however, offering vague assertions instead of direct engagement on behalf of their client candidates, such a position is an improbability in Australia.

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