Evidently, my webhost and word press account are causing me some reader relation problems. Therefore, I’ve reposted a comment that would have been available on the last post in a perfect world where all websites run smoothly. Donna Oglesby, a veteran Foreign Service Officer (USIA) and Diplomat in Residence at Eckerd College, had this to say about “Public Diplomacy Debate Reflects Bigger IR Questions“:
continue reading…
Intermap
International Media Argument Project : Political Communication, Rhetoric and Public Diplomacy
By Craig Hayden
Bruce Gregory’s interesting keynote at the George Washington University’s Global Engagement event a few weeks ago triggered an interesting response by the esteemed Amb. William Rugh, a professor of Public Diplomacy at The Fletcher School, Tufts University (and renowned for, among other things, very important scholarly work on Arab media). Bruce Gregory graciously shared this email response, and his own rejoinder to Rugh, so that others in the blogosphere could weigh in. continue reading…
by Craig Hayden
As a student of rhetoric and argument studies (among other things), I am inclined to believe that controversy is a good thing. It reveals important fault-lines in public discourse, and may prove to be a productive resource for shaping and intervening in the public understanding of subjects under contention.
Not all public argument can be enlightening or productive. Case in point, the bemusing little dust up over on John Brown’s Notes and Essay’s Blog, where angry students at USC took issue with Brown’s insinuation about what constitutes a “serious” university, and the pretense of USC students of public diplomacy to organize themselves as the Association of Public Diplomacy Scholars.
Here is my response to the episode:
continue reading…
