Talk:Political discourse analysis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] field/approach sub
I substituted "field" for "approach" in defining PDA because, to the best of my knowledge, PDA is not a separate DA method. As far as I know, the research that is conducted under this heading is conducted by DAists who would identify their method as something like Critical DA or whatever, rather than "political discourse analysis." I could be wrong, but I doubt it, given that I'm on most of the DA email lists and have never heard anyone ever refer to PDA as a separate method. Xianknelson 16:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)xianknelson
[edit] extra stubby
I'm mad at how short this article is. this is a frikkin sub-stub skizznologic3.1 17:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV
Not much needs to be said here. The article as it currently stands is more an essay than anything else. --jonny-mt(t)(c) 08:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] problemtic content
I agree with critique above adding:
The following is empirically untrue: "The purpose of political discourse is to create consensus among citizens as to which course of action will best solve a problem (such as poverty, crime, drug abuse, America’s economic health, racism) [2]." Much, if not most, political discourse has conflict as its purpose. To keep the consensus view, you would have to operate with a suspect idea of there being an underlying true strife towards consensus (and that would be one theory of political discourse, not a definition). Well, there is not consensus about that point of view. This of course not prevent anyone from studying the consensus aspect of political discourse. But, it doesn't work in a definition of political discourse.
There are also a lot of communicative ethics (e.g. "Destructive forms of political persuasion should be avoided") which is relevant in discussions of how political communication should be carried out. But, in a description of what political discourse is, it is secondary. Goebbels' speeches was political discourse, notwithstanding that they should have been avoided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjerke (talk • contribs) 19:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
