Seminar paper from the year 2002 in the subject Communications - Media and Politics, Politic Communications, grade: 1, Macquarie University, language: English, abstract: There is a widely held perception amongst the general public that there is no genuine difference between propaganda and public relations. This is a view also advocated by some communication scholars who equate these two terms. The truth lies somewhere between this perception and the one stated in the introductory quote. Although there are a number of parallels between public relations and propaganda, there are also fundamental differences. The definitions of public relations are so numerous that it is difficult to give one which would find universal consent. For this paper and in order to illustrate the difference to propaganda most efficiently a definition, which stresses the importance of mutual understanding between the organisation and the public, as well as the benefaction to both, will be used. According to Long and Hazelton public relations is ”a communication function of management through which organisations adapt to, alter, or maintain their environment for the purpose of achieving organisational goals”.
Seminar paper from the year 2003 in the subject Politics - Region: USA, grade: 1, Macquarie University, language: English, abstract: ”Look, Mr. President, everything that the Secretary of Defense has been telling you this morning, I used to listen to with my French friends. They talked about the fact that there was always a new plan, and (...) that was going to win the day. And they believed it just as much as we're believing it sitting around the table this morning. I can tell you, however, that in the end, there was a great disillusion. And there will be one.” - George Ball, 1971 - In spite of the advice given to him by his Under Secretary of State, George Ball, United States President Lyndon B. Johnson decided on the 27th July 1965 to push ahead and increase military forces from 75,000 to 125,000 in Vietnam. With this decision, Johnson escalated the American intervention in Vietnam and made what has been seen as the ”formal decision for a major war” . The inability and, to an extent unwillingness, to foresee that the conflict was going to be as catastrophic as it turned out to be is what lead Robert McNamara, Secretary of Defence, to say that the Johnson administration’s ”greatest failure of all was Vietnam.” It was not until April 1975 and then under President Gerald Ford that the United States would finally withdraw from Vietnam, following a defeat of the South Vietnamese forces and a reunification of the country under the leadership of Prime Minister Pham Van Dong. With approximately 58,000 American casualties, not to mention the estimated 1,5 million Vietnamese killed, this military intervention continues to be seen as a sore point of American history .
Seminar paper from the year 2003 in the subject Politics - International Politics - Region: USA, grade: 1, Macquarie University, language: English, abstract: "Look, Mr. President, everything that the Secretary of Defense has been telling you this morning, I used to listen to with my French friends. They talked about the fact that there was always a new plan, and (...) that was going to win the day. And they believed it just as much as we're believing it sitting around the table this morning. I can tell you, however, that in the end, there was a great disillusion. And there will be one." - George Ball, 1971 - In spite of the advice given to him by his Under Secretary of State, George Ball, United States President Lyndon B. Johnson decided on the 27th July 1965 to push ahead and increase military forces from 75,000 to 125,000 in Vietnam. With this decision, Johnson escalated the American intervention in Vietnam and made what has been seen as the "formal decision for a major war" . The inability and, to an extent unwillingness, to foresee that the conflict was going to be as catastrophic as it turned out to be is what lead Robert McNamara, Secretary of Defence, to say that the Johnson administration's "greatest failure of all was Vietnam." It was not until April 1975 and then under President Gerald Ford that the United States would finally withdraw from Vietnam, following a defeat of the South Vietnamese forces and a reunification of the country under the leadership of Prime Minister Pham Van Dong. With approximately 58,000 American casualties, not to mention the estimated 1,5 million Vietnamese killed, this military intervention continues to be seen as a sore point of American history .
Seminar paper from the year 2002 in the subject Politics - International Politics - Region: Other States, grade: 1, Macquarie University, language: English, abstract: When speaking about democracy one has to be careful to distinguish between its two key areas: direct democracy and representative democracy. Direct democracy is largely associated with self-government of the people in ancient Greece. This Athenian democracy is something which, as population of states grew, was increasingly difficult to sustain. In, for example, Australia with a population of 19 million people direct self-rule which implies "time-consuming and unwieldy procedures", with the likely effect of paralysing and not enhancing governmental decision-making processes, is largely unthinkable. Hence, today in the 21st century when one speaks of democracies what is largely meant is a representative democracy. Although remnants of direct democracy remain in aspects such as referendums, generally voters hand over their power in regular elections to representatives to rule on their behalf. The emergence of the internet has inspired many critics to believe that it can be the answer to overcoming what they see as the temporary solution of representative democracies. They believe that the new media, the internet, will lead to a future in which "major policy decisions can be instigated, formulated, and decided by direct democracy.
Seminar paper from the year 2002 in the subject Politics - Region: Other States, grade: 1, Macquarie University, language: English, abstract: When speaking about democracy one has to be careful to distinguish between its two key areas: direct democracy and representative democracy. Direct democracy is largely associated with self-government of the people in ancient Greece. This Athenian democracy is something which, as population of states grew, was increasingly difficult to sustain. In, for example, Australia with a population of 19 million people direct self-rule which implies ”time-consuming and unwieldy procedures”, with the likely effect of paralysing and not enhancing governmental decision-making processes, is largely unthinkable. Hence, today in the 21st century when one speaks of democracies what is largely meant is a representative democracy. Although remnants of direct democracy remain in aspects such as referendums, generally voters hand over their power in regular elections to representatives to rule on their behalf. The emergence of the internet has inspired many critics to believe that it can be the answer to overcoming what they see as the temporary solution of representative democracies. They believe that the new media, the internet, will lead to a future in which ”major policy decisions can be instigated, formulated, and decided by direct democracy.”
Seminar paper from the year 2002 in the subject Politics - Region: USA, grade: 1, Macquarie University, language: English, abstract: In 1996 a group of distinguished American historians rated Franklin D. Roosevelt, the 32nd President of the United States, one of the country’s greatest. He shared his place with George Washington and came second only to Abraham Lincoln. Roosevelt’s contemporaries were less unanimous about the president who served four consecutive terms from 1933 until he died in office in 1945. His supporters saw him as a political Robin Hood, establishing a social welfare system and ensuring that the poor and disadvantaged in American society were cared for. His critics viewed him as a power hungry Sheriff, dastardly advancing his individual interest in a successful career.
Seminar paper from the year 2002 in the subject Politics - International Politics - Region: Other States, grade: 1, Macquarie University, language: English, abstract: When the Australian Labor government announced the deployment of a naval contingent to the Persian Gulf on the 10th August 1990, Prime Minister Bob Hawke described the commitment as being "proportionate to the interests we have at stake" . What Hawke refers to in his statement is the importance of national interests in the formulation of foreign policy and a country's reaction to world events such as Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. This paper will analyse to which extent the Prime Minister's claim to have acted in and proportionate to the national interest is true. In order to be in a position to answer this question, one has to agree on a definition of the term "national interest".
Under Attack makes a new contribution to the field of international relations in general and the study of international law and armed conflict in particular, in two core ways. First, it links information from varying disciplines, most notably international relations and international law, to form a comprehensive picture of state practice and the challenges it poses to the legal rules for the use of force. Secondly, it organises the information in such a way to identify two core groups of contemporary justifications used by states: humanitarian reasons and self-defence, both with their sub-categories. At the core of this book is the question of how state practice since 1990 has challenged the long-established legal regime on the international use of force. Are we merely witnessing a temporary and insignificant challenge to international law or are the rules genuinely under attack?
Seminar paper from the year 2002 in the subject Politics - Region: Other States, grade: 1, Macquarie University, language: English, abstract: When the Australian Labor government announced the deployment of a naval contingent to the Persian Gulf on the 10th August 1990, Prime Minister Bob Hawke described the commitment as being ”proportionate to the interests we have at stake” . What Hawke refers to in his statement is the importance of national interests in the formulation of foreign policy and a country’s reaction to world events such as Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. This paper will analyse to which extent the Prime Minister’s claim to have acted in and proportionate to the national interest is true. In order to be in a position to answer this question, one has to agree on a definition of the term ”national interest”.
Thank you for visiting our website. Would you like to provide feedback on how we could improve your experience?
This site does not use any third party cookies with one exception — it uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and to analyze traffic.Learn More.