Excellent article and analysis. Ken Macnab clarifies and extends the same sorts of ideas that I've had about the "dog-whistle" politics that surround the most salient issues that our society faces in the 21st century.

However, given the sometimes quite vicious responses that my comments along these lines tend to elicit at OLO, I expect that Dr Macnab's observations will not be received well by the usual suspects in this forum.

Leigh's comment above is a good example of what to expect - however, one doesn't expect a dog to understand the nature of the whistle to which it so readily responds, does one?

Cheers Ken. I had never really understood the term 'dog-whistle politics' before I read this piece. Now that I do understanding the term, it explains a lot of the reasons I find politicans of both persuasions hard to listen to. I prefer direct honest communication and don't like feeling I'm being hood-winked with double meanings - it all feels rather un-Australian ;)

CJ, Ken,

I largely agree

Chris24,
I tend to have salt on hand for all mass media discussed issues.

The other part of your preference is that people simply want yes or no answers when there are none.
I hold that any simple answer to a complex issue(most are) either means,either it(the answer) or the question is deficient.
The idea that the likes of Abbott or Rudd says anything off the cuff is either naively preposterous or clearly indicative of their lack of ability.

Thank you, thank you and THANK YOU for "The Double Tongued Dictionary".

See:

http://www.doubletongued.org/index.php/citations/broccoli_journalism_1/

Leigh - the dog-whistle metaphor is quite clever. A dog whistle is audible to dogs but not to humans, so the analogy implies words or phrases that communicate to, and evoke a response from, a target audience while the rest of the electorate is oblivious.

I think the article mistakes some conventional political metaphor and imagery with dog whistling. Te phrases “thought police” and “black armband view of history” may resonate favourably with people of a particular worldview, but their meaning is equally transparent to those who don’t share that view.

I would also disagree that such use of language is the preserve of the right – work choices, social justice, economic rationalism, the politics of greed, etc – are all phrases used to pretty much the same effect by the left.

An interesting article.

It was illuminating to find out what dog whistling actually means.

From previous posts it is clear that it is news to CJ Morgan and his ilk who have been using the term indiscriminately and incorrectly.

Similar to the double entendre it has been used in politics from all sides for centuries.

Just look at Conroy's web filter which is "to protect the children" but has little to do with this, or Penny Wong who implies that the ETS is essential to saving Australia when without a global agreement it is useless.