Produser
having uttered aloud a well-known and fairly
strong profanity.
Professionalization (of political communi-
cation) Describes the ways in which govern-
ments and political parties have adopted the
practices of professionals in media communica-
tion, especially practices from the fi elds of public
relations, advertising and marketing. Indeed
a signifi cant number of such professionals are
now employed in the transmission of policies,
the nurturing of favourable images in the minds
of the public and of putting a ‘spin’ on aspects
of news. In short, news management – slick
presentation, use of the latest communication
technologies; not just at times of elections but
as elements of a permanent, ongoing campaign.
Leon Mayhew (1997) comments in ‘Th e new
public: professional communication and the
means of social influence’ in Ralph Negrine
and James Stanyer, eds, Th e Political Commu-
nication Reader (Routledge, 2007) that political
communication can be seen as dominated
by these professional specialists and their
tactics of ‘civic persuasion’, such as ‘sound-bite
journalism, thirty second political advertising,
one-way communication, evasive spin control
by public figures who refuse to answer ques-
tions’. David Farrell, Robin Kolodny and Stephen
Medvic (2001) in an article entitled ‘Parties and
campaign professionals in a digital age’, also to be
found in Negrine and Stanyer (ibid), argue that it
is of some concern that the replacement of ‘party
bureaucrats’ by such specialists is at the expense
of party philosophy and the involvement of
ordinary members.
Such professionalization of communication
risks public cynicism, a factor which inevitably
leads to fraught re-examinations of current
strategies of persuasion and a hunt for new ways
to win public trust. See news management
in times of war. See also topic guide under
media: politics & economics.
▶Brian McNair, An Introduction to Political Commu-
nication (Routledge, 2007); Nick Davies, Flat Earth
News (Chatto & Windus, 2008); David Miller and
William Dinan, A Century of Spin (Pluto Press, 2008);
Spinwatch – http://www.spinwatch.org.
Programme fl ow ‘In all developed broadcasting
systems,’ writes Raymond Williams in Television:
Technology and Cultural Form (Fontana, 1974),
‘the characteristic organization, and therefore
the characteristic experience, is one of sequence
or fl ow.’ Williams believed fl ow to be a chief prin-
ciple of programming; the process of organizing
a pattern of programmes, each one leading on
to the next; each one being a ‘tempter’ for thefor the purposes of featuring product placement’.
Promotion and endorsement are not permit-
ted and a logo at the beginning and end of a
programme will signify the use of product place-
ment. Programme sponsors will in future be
able to include their own products and services
in those programmes which they sponsor, while
sponsors’ logos ‘will be able to appear as brief
sponsorship credits during programmes’.
Commercial references are now permitted to
be ‘integrated within programming’ on radio.
‘However, broadcasters will have to ensure that
listeners are always aware when promotions are
paid-for.’ See http://www.ofcom.org.uk.
Produser Th at is, prod-user: in the age of network
communication, a term coined to describe how
users also produce and transmit online material.
See youtube.
Profane language The Latin derivation of
profane is pro fana, meaning ‘outside the temple’.
Profanity referred to anyone refusing to be initi-
ated into the ways of the temple, thus showing
a contempt for that which is sacred. Profane
language takes three main forms: religious,
excretory or sexual; and the questions asked
about such language are, why do people use
profanities, and what are the eff ects upon audi-
ence of the use of profanity?
J.D. Rothwell in ‘Verbal obscenity: time for
second thoughts’ in Western Speech, 35 (1971)
lists fi ve reasons for using profane language: (1)
to create attention; (2) to discredit someone or
something; (3) to provoke confrontations; (4) to
provide a type of catharsis or emotional release
for the user; and (5) to establish interpersonal
identifi cation. Profanity depends for its impact
on who is actually using it and in what circum-
stances.
Geoff rey Hughes in Swearing: A Social History
of Foul Language, Oaths and Profanity in English
(Penguin, 1998) argues that there has been a shift
in the focus of swearing in Western societies,
from the use of words linked to religion to those
associated with sexual and bodily functions and
the use of national and racial insults – although
the latter are not generally tolerated now. Th is
trend, he argues, is a refl ection of ‘the increas-
ing secularization of Western society’. Attitudes
to the use of such language have become
more relaxed and he comments that there is a
‘profusion of foul language and swearing in
modern times’. Of course tolerance for the use
of such language does depend to some extent on
context. John Berger recounts in a recent work,
Bento’s Sketchbook (Verso, 2011), that in 2008
he was asked to leave the National Gallery for