Abstract
This study applied the Functional Theory of Political Campaign Discourse to the July 25, 2010 Australian Prime Minister debate. Attacks were more common than acclaims, both of which occurred more frequently than defenses. Incumbent Prime Minister Gillard acclaimed more, and attacked less, than challenger Abbott. This contrast was particularly acute when the candidates discussed past deeds (record in office). The two candidates discussed policy more than character. When discussing general goals and ideals, they acclaimed more than they attacked. These results are compared with studies of political leaders debates in other countries and elections.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
