Student Number: 1738276
How and why has political communication changed since the Second World War?
This essay will be conducting a critical analysis on the political communicative differences between the former Soviet Union and the Western world after the Second World War. To further understand this, the essay will be examining the interactive processes of communication amongst former USSR politicians and members of the USSR state in order to outline the social and economic gap between the Soviet Union created by its totalitarian approach. This will highlight the new adopted set of values in the undemocratic community and the emergence of modern economic growth in the West (Kappeler, 2015). By evaluating the fractured process of communication in an authoritarian regime, one will understand the importance of transparency within states in a time of crisis, such as the malleable post World War Two society.
To successfully operate an analysis on communication systems, one must first understand what is a system of political dialogue and the importance it plays within a state. Modern political communication relies on an interdisciplinary base that draws on concepts from political science, journalism, sociology, history and rhetoric (Kaid and Holtz-Bacha, 2008). Having a closer look at the concrete definition of political communication, one must first outline the term “production processes”, meaning, how rhetoric is created by political participants (Norris, 2004). This may include parties and share groups that convey messages via direct stations (Norris, 2004). This is comparable to political advertisements and secondary stations including broadsheets, radio and television (Norris, 2004). Subsequently, this process was closely observed during the post-war era, where experts focused their research on the improvement of political marketing campaigns and the rise of the class of political advisers, researchers and their closed societies (Norris, 2004).
Political communication is not, however, limited only to electoral affairs and to the way it transmits news its power lies in the ability to affect executive, legislative and judicial bodies (Kaid and Holtz-Bacha, 2008). The channels of political communication within an authoritarian state are not authentic, as they do not rely on free speech (Fensel, 2005). Meaning that the role of the journalist is merely to report affairs of the state without giving their personal opinion on the subject matter (Fensel, 2005). This results in a lack of transparency within the public communication sector in mediums such as television, newspaper, radio and the World Wide Web (Berners-Lee, Fischetti and Dertouzos, 2008). Central to this argument is the role of the audience, more specifically the reaction of citizens upon receiving political messages (Kaid and Holtz-Bacha, 2008). Dissecting the reactions of the public will allow for deeper understanding of the effects of political communication within post war societies...