Wyniki wyszukiwania:

A book in the field of political science.

Murray Edelman holds a unique and distinguished position in American political science. For decades one of the few serious scholars to question dominant rational-choice interpretations of politics, Edelman looked instead to the powerful influence of signs, spectacles, and symbols of culture on political behavior and political institutions. His first, now classic, book, "The Symbolic Uses of Politics," created paths of inquiry in political science, communication studies, and sociology that are still being explored today.
In this book, Edelman continues his quest to understand the influence...

Thanks to the ready availability of political news today, informed citizens can protect and promote their own interests and the public interest more effectively. Or can they? Murray Edelman argues against this conventional interpretation of politics, one that takes for granted that we live in a world of facts and that people react rationally to the facts they know. In doing so, he explores in detail the ways in which the conspicuous aspects of the political scene are interpretations that systematically buttress established inequalities and interpretations already dominant political...

The Politics of Misinformation is an examination of how concentrations of social and economic power result in public languages of politics that are necessarily image-based, vague, and misleading in their denial of undemocratic tendencies. As a result, public discourses of democracy tend to be populistic, emotional, and likely to emphasize images of progress rather than structural inequalities in their formulations of public problems. In short, neither typical problem definitions nor solutions invite critical popular understanding or involvement in democratic politics.

The Politics of Misinformation is an examination of how concentrations of social and economic power result in public languages of politics that are necessarily image-based, vague, and misleading in their denial of undemocratic tendencies. As a result, public discourses of democracy tend to be populistic, emotional, and likely to emphasize images of progress rather than structural inequalities in their formulations of public problems. In short, neither typical problem definitions nor solutions invite critical popular understanding or involvement in democratic politics.