Public Diplomacy

Gilboa, Eytan

doi:10.1002/9781118541555.wbiepc232

Cited by 10 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…1 China’s communicative practices are either described as a means of public diplomacy (d’Hooghe, 2015; Hartig, 2016), a soft power push (Barr, 2011), or as propaganda activities (Brady, 2015). Public diplomacy, as indicated above, can be understood as the communicative undertaking to wield soft power, to present a favourable image of a country and to help win hearts and minds (Gilboa, 2016). The ultimate aim of influencing people leads to the debate about whether those activities ‘are manipulative “propaganda” or valid “public diplomacy”’ (Zaharna, 2004: 219).…”

Section: Conceptualizing Public Diplomacy As International Political mentioning

confidence: 99%

Rethinking China’s global ‘propaganda’ blitz

Hartig

2019

Global Media and Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

China’s global communication activities are mainly perceived as sinister propaganda to mislead international audiences, and related discussions exemplify Western unease about China’s global communication efforts. While not trivializing these efforts, this article objects to some of the assessments and argues in favour of a critical but open-minded engagement with China’s global communication activities. Such an approach should pay attention to potential audiences and should closely scrutinize the real-life circumstances of China’s communicative practices and put them into perspective for its audiences. The article highlights these aspects by analysing the screening of a video in New York City’s Times Square in Summer 2016 and one version of the China Daily supplement, China Watch.

show abstract

Section: Conceptualizing Public Diplomacy As International Political mentioning

confidence: 99%

Rethinking China’s global ‘propaganda’ blitz

Hartig

2019

Global Media and Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As a whole, public diplomacy pursues a wide range of objectives across diverse fields, ranging from reducing prejudices, generating sympathy and understanding for a nation’s ideals, goals, policies, and model of society to building positive images and relationships, facilitating closer political ties or alliances and encouraging tourism and foreign direct investments (Löffelholz et al , 2014). Therefore, the “essence” of public diplomacy is to present the “ good impression a country seeks to make on the public of another country” (Gilboa, 2016, p. 1298, emphasis added).…”

Section: Public Diplomacy As International Political Communicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Pamment (2013) hints indirectly at this issue as he mentions his research is about “the conduct of public diplomacy by nation states when dealing with other, friendly nation states” (p. 2, emphasis added). Gilboa (2016, p. 1298) points out that in times of conflict, public diplomacy “is used to defend an actor’s policies and attack those of the enemy” and a study of the EU’s public diplomacy toward Australia and New Zealand hints to the issue of western attempts “to define a normative and democratic ideal of public diplomacy” which focuses on mutuality, exchange, encounter, and reciprocal communication (Altman and Shore, 2014, p. 351).…”

Section: Public Diplomacy As International Political Communicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deterrence by public diplomacy

Hartig

2017

JCOM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the growing public diplomacy literature as it focuses on the crucial, but so far largely unnoticed negative dimension of public diplomacy by analyzing information campaigns targeting unwanted people as one instrument of public diplomacy. Design/methodology/approach Using the cases of Australia and Germany this paper analyses the public diplomacy narratives of these two countries and contrasts those with the messages both countries communicate to potential migrants/refuges through a number of information campaigns. Based on this assessment the paper highlights the negative dimension of public diplomacy and discusses how this negative dimension influences the conduct of public diplomacy. Findings Both cases clearly exemplify that public diplomacy is no altruistic affair and that public diplomacy is facing new challenges due to this concurrence of opposing images it aims to communicate. It further illustrates that this negative dimension not only challenges the understanding of public diplomacy, but at the same time exemplifies a communicative predicament which, it is argued, cannot be solved satisfactory and requires a trade-off between deterrence and attraction. The predicament arises from the dichotomy of presenting a positive image of a country to produce endorsement and sympathy as well as to attract tourists and investment, while at the same time communicating a negative image to deter uninvited people from entering the country. Practical implications Referring to this communicative predicament, the paper suggests that those campaigns are unrewarding for two reasons: first, they apparently do not achieve their objectives and at the same time undermine other public diplomacy initiatives. Originality/value The paper highlights the normally neglected fact that public diplomacy is not only concerned with presenting a positive image of a country and winning hearts and minds, but that public diplomacy also has a negative dimension which needs more academic analysis and practitioner’s attention.

show abstract

“…As an emergent multidisciplinary area of scholarship, public diplomacy draws from disciplines such as international relations, mass communication, political science, peace studies, and law (Gilboa, 2016). The term was originally coined in 1965 by former U.S. ambassador Edmund Gullion as an alternative term to Soviet propaganda that was widely used during the Cold War (Cull, 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As originally conceived by Gullion, the practice of public diplomacy is focused on the cultivation of positive public opinion in foreign nations. Recognizing that publics, and within these elites, can at times influence their government’s foreign policies (Gilboa, 2016), nations aspire to positively interact with the citizens of foreign nations. This central assumption serves as the bedrock of public diplomacy research and practice and is best represented by Joseph Nye’s (2004) soft power concept.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mediated Public Diplomacy Redefined: Foreign Stakeholder Engagement via Paid, Earned, Shared, and Owned Media

Golan¹,

Manor

Arceneaux

2019

American Behavioral Scientist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mediated public diplomacy literature examines the engagement of foreign audiences by governments via mediated channels. To date, scholars have examined the competitive contest between global rivals in promoting and contesting one another’s frames as reflected in global news media coverage. Recognizing the meaningful impact of social media platforms, along with the global rise of government-sponsored media organizations, the current study builds on previous mediated public diplomacy scholarship by expanding the scope of the literature beyond the earned media perspective to also include paid, shared, and owned media. The article presents a revised definition of the term mediated public diplomacy along with a case study of government to foreign stakeholder engagement via the social media platform, Twitter.

show abstract

Public Diplomacy

Cited by 10 publications

References 9 publications

Rethinking China’s global ‘propaganda’ blitz

Rethinking China’s global ‘propaganda’ blitz

Deterrence by public diplomacy

Mediated Public Diplomacy Redefined: Foreign Stakeholder Engagement via Paid, Earned, Shared, and Owned Media

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About