Suchergebnisse

Political communication is an interactive process concerning the transmission of information among politicians, the news media, and the public. We can identify three distinct stages in the evolution of political communications – premodern, modern and pastmodern, which simultaneously transformed political organizations, the news media and the electorate. In the premodern stage, much political communication was subordinate to relatively strong and stable political institutions and beliefs. In the modern, faced with a more mobile electorate, the parties increasingly professionalized and adapted their communications to the news values and formats of limited-channel television. Postmodern – still emerging stage of political manipulation with media abundance. Political manipulation is a type of message aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of people. Often, instead of impartially providing information, political manipulation can be deliberately misleading, or use fallacies, which, while sometimes convincing, are not necessarily valid. The object of this master job is manipulation in political communication. The main goal of this master job: to analyse the process of manipulation in political communication and explore specific tools of manipulation. The main problem of political communication is that politicians no longer formulate their policies on grounds of principle and rational argument, but do so in consideration of the perceived need to "play well" in the media, and to please of public opinion. In other words we can say that politicians trying to manipulate on the political communication stage. The main conclusion of this job: how often people come to know about manipulation of politicians and news media, how often they are exposed and themselves become part of the evidence and information on which people make their political judgements.

On purpose to analyse a certain part of social world it is useful to apply a concept of field introduced in the field theory of French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu. Field is a structure of relations between the objective positions occupied by its agents. Lithuanian political science field was chosen as the object of the research. The main problem analysed in the article is the "origin" of different perceptions of political science If only individual experience affects these perceptions, how could we explain the fact that some beliefs are more typical to certain groups of scientists and are not inherent to other groups? The investigation using semi-structuralized survey method was executed. Eighty-eight Lithuanian political scientists took part in the research. Received data was analysed by multiple correspondence analysis technique and other methods of statistical analysis. It was identified that those political scientists who own the highest academic and scientific capital tend to support a vision of political science not oriented towards practical politics. These results might be interpreted as demonstrating the above mentioned interests to impose such perceptions of political science which could be the most useful to the scientists and as confirming the hypothesis of the research.

On purpose to analyse a certain part of social world it is useful to apply a concept of field introduced in the field theory of French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu. Field is a structure of relations between the objective positions occupied by its agents. Lithuanian political science field was chosen as the object of the research. The main problem analysed in the article is the "origin" of different perceptions of political science If only individual experience affects these perceptions, how could we explain the fact that some beliefs are more typical to certain groups of scientists and are not inherent to other groups? The investigation using semi-structuralized survey method was executed. Eighty-eight Lithuanian political scientists took part in the research. Received data was analysed by multiple correspondence analysis technique and other methods of statistical analysis. It was identified that those political scientists who own the highest academic and scientific capital tend to support a vision of political science not oriented towards practical politics. These results might be interpreted as demonstrating the above mentioned interests to impose such perceptions of political science which could be the most useful to the scientists and as confirming the hypothesis of the research.

On purpose to analyse a certain part of social world it is useful to apply a concept of field introduced in the field theory of French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu. Field is a structure of relations between the objective positions occupied by its agents. Lithuanian political science field was chosen as the object of the research. The main problem analysed in the article is the "origin" of different perceptions of political science If only individual experience affects these perceptions, how could we explain the fact that some beliefs are more typical to certain groups of scientists and are not inherent to other groups? The investigation using semi-structuralized survey method was executed. Eighty-eight Lithuanian political scientists took part in the research. Received data was analysed by multiple correspondence analysis technique and other methods of statistical analysis. It was identified that those political scientists who own the highest academic and scientific capital tend to support a vision of political science not oriented towards practical politics. These results might be interpreted as demonstrating the above mentioned interests to impose such perceptions of political science which could be the most useful to the scientists and as confirming the hypothesis of the research.

On purpose to analyse a certain part of social world it is useful to apply a concept of field introduced in the field theory of French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu. Field is a structure of relations between the objective positions occupied by its agents. Lithuanian political science field was chosen as the object of the research. The main problem analysed in the article is the "origin" of different perceptions of political science If only individual experience affects these perceptions, how could we explain the fact that some beliefs are more typical to certain groups of scientists and are not inherent to other groups? The investigation using semi-structuralized survey method was executed. Eighty-eight Lithuanian political scientists took part in the research. Received data was analysed by multiple correspondence analysis technique and other methods of statistical analysis. It was identified that those political scientists who own the highest academic and scientific capital tend to support a vision of political science not oriented towards practical politics. These results might be interpreted as demonstrating the above mentioned interests to impose such perceptions of political science which could be the most useful to the scientists and as confirming the hypothesis of the research.

The relationship between money and politics and the regulation of the money role in politics have long become one of the most important and persistent questions of democratic government. Various countries in the world, including Lithuania, are trying to find the best political finance mechanisms to reduce political corruption related to political finance, and to ensure the transparency by engaging in public debate, and changing the legal regulation of political finance. This article analyzes political party finance, regulatory changes and its consequences in Lithuania, with particular emphasis on sources of funding restrictions, limitations reasons, arguments and possible consequences. The main aim of the article is to find out whether the permanent change of financing of political parties and regulatory prohibitions actually help or can help to ensure the transparency of political finance in Lithuania. First, the article provides an overview of the political finance systems. Second, the analysis of political party funding regulations in Lithuania, identifying the key stages of the regulatory changes and trends, is provided. Third, the article analyzes possible consequences of the current political party funding mechanism.

The relationship between money and politics and the regulation of the money role in politics have long become one of the most important and persistent questions of democratic government. Various countries in the world, including Lithuania, are trying to find the best political finance mechanisms to reduce political corruption related to political finance, and to ensure the transparency by engaging in public debate, and changing the legal regulation of political finance. This article analyzes political party finance, regulatory changes and its consequences in Lithuania, with particular emphasis on sources of funding restrictions, limitations reasons, arguments and possible consequences. The main aim of the article is to find out whether the permanent change of financing of political parties and regulatory prohibitions actually help or can help to ensure the transparency of political finance in Lithuania. First, the article provides an overview of the political finance systems. Second, the analysis of political party funding regulations in Lithuania, identifying the key stages of the regulatory changes and trends, is provided. Third, the article analyzes possible consequences of the current political party funding mechanism.

The relationship between money and politics and the regulation of the money role in politics have long become one of the most important and persistent questions of democratic government. Various countries in the world, including Lithuania, are trying to find the best political finance mechanisms to reduce political corruption related to political finance, and to ensure the transparency by engaging in public debate, and changing the legal regulation of political finance. This article analyzes political party finance, regulatory changes and its consequences in Lithuania, with particular emphasis on sources of funding restrictions, limitations reasons, arguments and possible consequences. The main aim of the article is to find out whether the permanent change of financing of political parties and regulatory prohibitions actually help or can help to ensure the transparency of political finance in Lithuania. First, the article provides an overview of the political finance systems. Second, the analysis of political party funding regulations in Lithuania, identifying the key stages of the regulatory changes and trends, is provided. Third, the article analyzes possible consequences of the current political party funding mechanism.

Over the last few decades, political philosophers have been formulating the identity of their discipline not merely in terms of their inner objective. An aggressive attack of political scientists contributed significantly towards the perception of the identity of political philosophy. The definition of the purpose of political philosophy became dependent on the existence of a strong external opponent. This was hardly the case with the political philosophers representing the former generations. They contributed towards development of political philosophy without thinking about guard against representatives of other sciences. During the last few decades, political philosophers have come up with the definition of the purpose of their discipline. But they do not adhere to it in their real philosophical investigations. This non-adherence is caused not by the lack of professional ethics, will power or by dissimulation. Political philosophy as a discipline is too broad and controversial to be enclosed in the framework of a single definition of purpose. The definition of the purpose formulated during several decades of debates with political scientists, is oriented towards the external rather than internal use.

Over the last few decades, political philosophers have been formulating the identity of their discipline not merely in terms of their inner objective. An aggressive attack of political scientists contributed significantly towards the perception of the identity of political philosophy. The definition of the purpose of political philosophy became dependent on the existence of a strong external opponent. This was hardly the case with the political philosophers representing the former generations. They contributed towards development of political philosophy without thinking about guard against representatives of other sciences. During the last few decades, political philosophers have come up with the definition of the purpose of their discipline. But they do not adhere to it in their real philosophical investigations. This non-adherence is caused not by the lack of professional ethics, will power or by dissimulation. Political philosophy as a discipline is too broad and controversial to be enclosed in the framework of a single definition of purpose. The definition of the purpose formulated during several decades of debates with political scientists, is oriented towards the external rather than internal use.

Over the last few decades, political philosophers have been formulating the identity of their discipline not merely in terms of their inner objective. An aggressive attack of political scientists contributed significantly towards the perception of the identity of political philosophy. The definition of the purpose of political philosophy became dependent on the existence of a strong external opponent. This was hardly the case with the political philosophers representing the former generations. They contributed towards development of political philosophy without thinking about guard against representatives of other sciences. During the last few decades, political philosophers have come up with the definition of the purpose of their discipline. But they do not adhere to it in their real philosophical investigations. This non-adherence is caused not by the lack of professional ethics, will power or by dissimulation. Political philosophy as a discipline is too broad and controversial to be enclosed in the framework of a single definition of purpose. The definition of the purpose formulated during several decades of debates with political scientists, is oriented towards the external rather than internal use.

Over the last few decades, political philosophers have been formulating the identity of their discipline not merely in terms of their inner objective. An aggressive attack of political scientists contributed significantly towards the perception of the identity of political philosophy. The definition of the purpose of political philosophy became dependent on the existence of a strong external opponent. This was hardly the case with the political philosophers representing the former generations. They contributed towards development of political philosophy without thinking about guard against representatives of other sciences. During the last few decades, political philosophers have come up with the definition of the purpose of their discipline. But they do not adhere to it in their real philosophical investigations. This non-adherence is caused not by the lack of professional ethics, will power or by dissimulation. Political philosophy as a discipline is too broad and controversial to be enclosed in the framework of a single definition of purpose. The definition of the purpose formulated during several decades of debates with political scientists, is oriented towards the external rather than internal use.

There are two ways of looking at the relationship between politics and imagination. Imagination is a capacity to create images and objects that directly cannot be perceived. As such imagination often is perceived as a capacity to create make-believes, taking us away from the reality, therefore imagination should have no role in the political world. Contrary to this position, one can overall deny the clear distinction between reality and imagination, due to the fact that political works is made from values, believes, myths, stories – all that separates the world of political from the world of nature. Both positions have their own faults. The first one ignores and fails to explain the various influences on the political – such as myths, beliefs, and religious arguments. This position largely treats policy knowledge as though it were a matter of rational calculation. The second – drives towards the Baudrillard-like view of the world made if simulacra and signs failing at the same time to draw a distinction between make-believes and the products of imagination that have real political effect. The objective of the article is to research the relationship between politics and imagination.

There are two ways of looking at the relationship between politics and imagination. Imagination is a capacity to create images and objects that directly cannot be perceived. As such imagination often is perceived as a capacity to create make-believes, taking us away from the reality, therefore imagination should have no role in the political world. Contrary to this position, one can overall deny the clear distinction between reality and imagination, due to the fact that political works is made from values, believes, myths, stories – all that separates the world of political from the world of nature. Both positions have their own faults. The first one ignores and fails to explain the various influences on the political – such as myths, beliefs, and religious arguments. This position largely treats policy knowledge as though it were a matter of rational calculation. The second – drives towards the Baudrillard-like view of the world made if simulacra and signs failing at the same time to draw a distinction between make-believes and the products of imagination that have real political effect. The objective of the article is to research the relationship between politics and imagination.

There are two ways of looking at the relationship between politics and imagination. Imagination is a capacity to create images and objects that directly cannot be perceived. As such imagination often is perceived as a capacity to create make-believes, taking us away from the reality, therefore imagination should have no role in the political world. Contrary to this position, one can overall deny the clear distinction between reality and imagination, due to the fact that political works is made from values, believes, myths, stories – all that separates the world of political from the world of nature. Both positions have their own faults. The first one ignores and fails to explain the various influences on the political – such as myths, beliefs, and religious arguments. This position largely treats policy knowledge as though it were a matter of rational calculation. The second – drives towards the Baudrillard-like view of the world made if simulacra and signs failing at the same time to draw a distinction between make-believes and the products of imagination that have real political effect. The objective of the article is to research the relationship between politics and imagination.