AD Wars
Adversarial Advertising by Interest Groups in a New Zealand General Election
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 5903530 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Shirley Leitch (0000-0001-9073-7003), Juliet Roper (0000-0002-9524-5232) |
| Year | 1999 |
| Volume | 92 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 103-116 |
| Publication date | 1999-08-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Media International Australia (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1329-878X • E-ISSN: 2200-467X |
| Publisher | SAGE Publications Inc (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1177/1329878x9909200112 |
| OpenAlex | W2219780197 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 9 |
During New Zealand's 1996 general election, neo-liberal employment law became the subject of two opposing advertising campaigns. Although the campaigns confined themselves to a single piece of legislation, the Employment Contracts Act, they reflected a deep division within New Zealand society. This article examines the two campaigns which were run by the Engineers' Union and the Employers' Federation. At its core, the Engineers' campaign was a defence of collectivism both in terms of the values underlying trade unionism and, more broadly, of Keynesian social democracy, whereas the Employers' Federation campaign championed the ethic of individualism within a free-market economy. Such a clear ideological positioning was absent from the campaigns of the major political parties who fought for the middle ground during New Zealand's first proportional representation election. This article, then, examines how interest groups used network television to confront voters with a stark choice between an unasked-for neo-liberal present and an apparently discredited Keynesian past
Adversarial system · Collectivism · Democracy · General election · Ideology · Individualism · Legislation · Political economy · Political science · Politics · Sociology · Australian History and Society · Labor Movements and Unions · Law · Public Administration
| Citation velocity | historical |
|---|---|
| Highly cited | No |