Public relations techniques for leaders in a crisis: Mackenzie King and John Curtin in the Canadian-Australian War Alliance, 1941-1945
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During their Pacific war alliance, the Canadian and Australian prime ministers initiated public relations techniques that secured journalists' support, providing insights for developing positive media relations in the contemporary global financial crisis. As popular leaders, Canada's Mackenzie King and Australia's John Curtin used their backgrounds in news management and journalism to set precedents in government-media interactions. Yet there has been a lack of publications on their success as public relations strategists to persuade journalists and citizens to endorse their leadership in this alliance. King and Curtin advanced the use of relatively new media to convey symbolic messages that they were trustworthy leaders, sharing similar values and challenges as working-class audiences. Their expansion of the prime minister's traditional use of the press, radio, and newsreel films created more opportunities for citizens to engage with political leaders and the government. By initiating more two-way discussions with journalists, they generated mainly favourable news coverage about their alliance. This paper investigates their use of interactive news interviews, practiced rhetoric, rehearsed gestures, expressions, and other media techniques to communicate with more citizens, based on the concepts of the public sphere and democratic governance developed by Habermas and Castells. Their techniques aided the development of more contemporary public relations practices in Canada and Australia. These tactics are relevant for today's leaders when interacting with public audiences in diverse media to develop a shared understanding of common goals to resolve the global financial crisis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.060 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".