Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorRomarheim, Anders Grindlia
dc.date.accessioned2016-07-06T09:15:13Z
dc.date.accessioned2016-10-04T08:20:16Z
dc.date.available2016-07-06T09:15:13Z
dc.date.available2016-10-04T08:20:16Z
dc.date.issued2005
dc.identifier.citationWorking Paper, NUPI. 23 p. NUPI, 2005
dc.identifier.isbn82 7002 115 6
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11250/2412698
dc.description-
dc.description.abstractPolitical communication comes in various forms. The first part of this paper presents some variants of political communication, and provides a set of definitions of such communication. A centre of gravity is along the borderline and overlap between rhetoric and propaganda. It is argued here that rhetoric unlike propaganda has a potential for deliberation. Propaganda is inherently hostile towards debate and discussion. This reluctance towards debate and discussion has at times been evident as regards the Bush administration’s war on terrorism. The second part of the article deals with propaganda from the Bush administration aimed at quelling debate. All the principals from the first George W. Bush administration (2001-2005) took part in this strategy. Most of the material presented here is explained in more detail in Anders G. Romarheim (2005). “Crossfire of Fear: Propaganda in the US War on Terrorism” Hovedoppgave i Statsvitenskap, ISV, UIO.
dc.language.isoeng
dc.titleDefinitions of strategic political communication
dc.typeResearch report
dc.date.updated2016-07-06T09:15:13Z
dc.identifier.cristin975939
dc.subject.keywordDiplomati / Diplomacy


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record