Tweeting rumours


Should politics be concerned with truth? 

I do believe that to an extend it is morally appropriate/required that politics are concerned with truth, as politicians aim to improve a country for the better which can mainly be done while looking at the facts. However, most politicians are not concerned about the truth. They will speak from their mind whether such statements are 'true' or not, and whether or not it disrespects the public. The aim of politicians is to gain support and make sure they will be voted for. For example, we can all agree that Trump is loose with the truth. Also, as Will Rogers, an American actor, once said "If you ever injected truth into politics you have no politics".



To what extend can political rhetoric be free of propaganda?

Propaganda is information that is especially of a biased or misleading nature and used to promote a political point of view. For example, propaganda posters were used a lot during war. The definition of rhetoric is using effective language as a way to persuade the audience. The difference between rhetoric and propaganda is whether the arguments are presented one sided or not. When rewording the definitions and looking at personal knowledge on propaganda in communist countries, I believe that rhetoric is to persuade people into what to believe whereas propaganda is telling them what to do or to believe. However, rhetoric could be found on propaganda poster, as it is the language or "way" of persuading people while propaganda comes in the form of posters or flyers. 




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Human Sciences

The Mental Construction of Reality

What is language?