Logics of narrative and networks in US public diplomacy: Communication power and US strategic engagement

Hayden, Craig

doi:10.1080/13216597.2013.775070

Cited by 29 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…While several studies have considered American efforts to engage publics in the online environment (Hayden, 2012(Hayden, , 2013Khatib et al, 2012;Metzgar, 2012;Newsom and Lengel, 2012;Vanc, 2012;Cull, 2013), with some studies focused specifically on countries in Northeast Asia (Seo, 2009;Lu, 2011, 2013;Lee and Jun, 2013;Seo and Kinsey, 2013), such work has considered only the intent of outreach efforts. No study known to us has systemically analyzed the actual content produced by a US embassy, evaluating it for evidence of characteristics understood to be representative of effective relationship management techniques.…”

Section: Pd 20mentioning

confidence: 98%

“…In the American context, the Obama Administration has prioritized engagement in the practice of public diplomacy, arguing it must 'connect with, listen to, and build long-term relationships with key stakeholders' (Obama, 2009, p. 4). Although the concept of engagement is not new, it has taken on new significance during the Obama Administration with this emphasis on two-way communication between foreign publics and public diplomacy practitioners via interactive communication technologies such as social media (Comor and Bean, 2012;Hayden, 2013;Rugh, 2014). One well-publicized example of American emphasis on the use of social media technologies has been the Department of State's 20/100/100 program intended to help embassies double their social media followers over a 100-day period (United States Department of State and the Broadcasting Board of Governors Office of the Inspector General, 2013).…”

Section: Literature Review Engagement In Public Diplomacymentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Tweeting the pivot? The United States and PD 2.0 in Northeast Asia

Metzgar

Lu²

2015

Place Brand Public Dipl

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study considers US public diplomacy efforts in Northeast Asia in the context of the country's foreign policy 'pivot' toward the region. Focused specifically on American efforts to communicate online with publics in China, Japan and South Korea, this research examines embassy social media feeds in order to characterize the most visible aspects of American PD 2.0 in the region. Findings indicate that despite the interactive potential of these online tools, the US approach to public diplomacy in the online context remains overwhelmingly unilateral, with one-way messaging the norm and instances of engagement with the target publics exceedingly rare. Implications of these findings are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Pd 20mentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Literature Review Engagement In Public Diplomacymentioning

confidence: 98%

Tweeting the pivot? The United States and PD 2.0 in Northeast Asia

Metzgar

Lu²

2015

Place Brand Public Dipl

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In contrast, the notion of soft power in conjunction with public diplomacy has been criticized because soft power exhibited a fundamental contradiction between the concepts of new public diplomacy and influence (Nossel 2004;van Ham 2008;Hayden 2012;Pamment 2012). Meanwhile, a revised conceptualization of soft power resulted in various new and differentiated concepts of power: integrated power, meaning leading alliances and converging such divisions as defense, homeland security, diplomacy, energy, and foreign aid (Gilboa 2008); smart power, the combination of, or the balance between, hard and soft power (Gilboa 2008;Nye 2009;Kounalakis and Simonyi 2011;Litvinsky 2011); social power, the capacity to establish norms and rules where actors' actions interact (van Ham 2010;Melissen 2013).…”

Section: Soft Power and New Public Diplomacymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In line with this scholarly debate, Tuch (1990) argued that public relations should be defined and considered in the context of globalization, and Signitzer and Coombs (1992) further develop the linkage between public relations and public diplomacy. Subsequently, scholars in communication studies contributed to the development of public diplomacy by applying the lens of communication to public diplomacy theory and practices (Leonard 2002;Jönsson and Hall 2003;van Ham 2008;Rasmussen 2009;Pamment 2011;Hayden 2013), or by incorporating national branding concepts using marketing points of view (Potter 2009). In recent studies, with the rise of private actors, a need for public-private partnerships has been strongly recommended as well (Pigman and Deos 2008;Cowan and Arsenault 2008).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Bridging the Theoretical Gap between Public Diplomacy and Cultural Diplomacy

Kim¹

2017

kjis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As public diplomacy has undergone a paradigm shift in the information age, cultural diplomacy remains loosely defined as a strand of public diplomacy, yet there has been little explanation as to why this was so. Rather, cultural diplomacy has been underestimated in recent diplomatic activities. The combination of new public diplomacy and soft power has become the formula for how international cultural exchanges and programs work in contemporary diplomatic activities and has brought a new perspective on arts and culture as a means of soft power. The present study aims to uncover the missing pieces in cultural diplomacy as a subset of new public diplomacy and delves into what complicates the definition of cultural diplomacy. The study concludes that new cultural diplomacy should be considered as an intersectional concept of new public diplomacy and international cultural relations.

show abstract

“…69 Recently attention has been paid to the realisation of successful organised persuasive communication with respect to »public diplomacy« in the context of the Internet-based contemporary information environment. 70 The extent and penetration of organised persuasive communication is poorly understood by academics. Indeed, the principle theoretical accounts outlined earlier in this article rarely go beyond identifying the propensity of journalists to defer to official sources when shaping news agendas and frames.…”

Section: Contemporary Approaches To Influence and Controlmentioning

confidence: 99%

Media empowerment vs. strategies of control: Theorising news media and war in the 21st Century

Robinson¹

2014

ZfP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Media empowerment vs. strategies of control: Theorising news media and war in the 21 st Century OverviewConflict defined the 20 th century with the two world wars shaping the geo-political context for almost the entire century. The 21 st century has seen no let up, with two major US-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan dominating the foreign policy agendas of Western governments and the militarised response, the so-called »war on terror«, to groups such as Al Qaeda. At the same time, the last 100 years have witnessed the rapid emergence of new forms of mass communication, including wireless radio, newsreels and cinema, mass circulation newspapers, television and the Internet. Right from the start, the power of communication in wartime was fully recognised: From the deployment of Nazi propaganda masterminded by Goebbels through to the creation of the Ministry of Information in Britain, tasked with the »maintenance of moral«, media became an integral part of national war efforts. Today, governments devote significant resources in order to shape the information environment in their favour and, in doing so, win a global battle for »hearts and minds«. This article provides an overview and assessment of the ways in which political communication scholarship has sought to understand and explain the importance of news media vis-à-vis war and international politics. The aim is to review existing approaches that have shaped debates over the last 30 years and to critically evaluate the significance of major contemporary debates over new communication technology and organised persuasive communication (also frequently referred to as propaganda, perception management or strategic communication). Of course, news media are only one part of much broader communications media and analysis of mediums such as cinema and popular entertainment are of importance. But news media, including its contemporary online variants, remain the central site upon which information about war and conflict is disseminated. For this reason much of the relevant scholarship focuses on news media and this fact is reflected in the contents of this article. The article proceeds in three sections. The first section reviews the elite-driven orthodoxy that has traditionally informed our understanding of wartime media-state relations.

show abstract

Logics of narrative and networks in US public diplomacy: Communication power and US strategic engagement

Cited by 29 publications

References 31 publications

Tweeting the pivot? The United States and PD 2.0 in Northeast Asia

Tweeting the pivot? The United States and PD 2.0 in Northeast Asia

Bridging the Theoretical Gap between Public Diplomacy and Cultural Diplomacy

Media empowerment vs. strategies of control: Theorising news media and war in the 21st Century

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About