The rhetoric of public diplomacy and propaganda wars: A view from self‐presentation theory

Abstract

Abstract. Efforts by governments to affect foreign public opinion through direct communication – and in competition with rival governments – have been a stable and consistent feature of international diplomacy since the turn of the twentieth century. Yet public diplomacy and its use in propaganda wars has not been sufficiently theorized, a lacuna that this article seeks to address by means of the social‐psychological theory of self‐presentation and impression management. The discussion suggests that public diplomacy is a form of self‐presentation for social empowerment, in which rhetorical strategies and associated tactics are means of addressing image predicaments in foreign public opinion. The analysis is illustrated by means of the recent Israeli‐Palestinian conflict and its presentation in the official websites of the parties.

To Denounce, or Not To Denounce: Survey Experiments on Diplomatic Quarrels

“…Although these studies shed light on substantial characteristics of public diplomacy, it is not obvious what type of communication is more effective in situations where the opposing party also conducts diplomatic campaigns. Therefore, this study further develops important works highlighting competition in public diplomacy (Mor, 2007;Sheafer & Gabay, 2009) and explicitly examining interaction in domestic political campaigns (Carraro et al, 2012;Craig, Rippere, & Grayson, 2014;Garramone, 1985). This perspective is particularly important in studies of diplomatic quarrels because scholars emphasize strategic interaction in international relations.…”

“…What is the best strategy for a state to win international society over to its side? Although there is a growing literature on "public diplomacy" (Entman, 2008;Gregory, 2008;Leonard, 2002;Lord, 2006;Manheim 1994;Melissen, 2005;Mor, 2007;Sheafer & Gabay, 2009;Sheafer & Shenhav, 2009;Shenhav, Sneafer, & Gabay, 2010;Sheafer, Ben-Nun Bloom, Shenhav, & Segev, 2013, Sheafer, Shehave,Takens, & van Atteveldt, 2014, we still do not know what types of diplomatic statements are the most effective to persuade a foreign public when there are competing countries and messages. This contrasts with the rich literature in political communication on domestic political competition, including negative electoral campaigns (Ansolabehere & Iyengar, 1995;Ansolabehere, Iyengar, & Simon, 1999;Ansolabehere, Iyengar, Simon, & Valentino, 1994;Brooks, 2006;Brooks & Geer, 2007;De Nooy & Kleinnijenhuis, 2013;Fridkin & Kenney, 2004;Jasperson & Fan, 2002;Lau, Sigelman, Heldman, & Babbitt, 1999;Lau, Sigelman, & Rovner, 2007).…”

La diplomacia pública como herramienta de política exterior. Alcances teóricos y perspectiva peruana

“…Busca influenciar en la opinión pública de otros países en la dirección que marquen los objetivos del actor emisor (Gullion, 1965) (Manheim, 1994) (Noya, 2006, p.3) (Cull, 2009, p.57) (Mor, 2007, p.667) (La Porte, 2007.…”

The Language of Autocrats: Leaders' Language in Natural Disaster Crises

“…Do non-democratic leaders do the same thing? We investigate strategies for blame avoidance that have been popular in political discourse analysis (Bhatia, 2008;Dijk, 1998;Masters & 't Hart, 2012), political science (Mor, 2007) organizational psychology, and social psychology (Stapleton & Hargie, 2011). More specifically, a common tactic for leaders to navigate the scrutiny following a disaster is to shift the blame to others using "negative other" presentation tactics.…”