John Corner is currently a Visiting Professor in Communication Studies at the University of Leeds and an Emeritus Professor of the University of Liverpool. He has written extensively on media history, institutions and forms in books and journals, including Television Form and Public Address (Hodder Arnold, 1995), The Art of Record (Manchester University Press, 1996) and Critical Ideas in Television Studies (Oxford, 1999). Recent work includes Media and the Restyling of Politics (co-edited 2003) and Public Issue Television (Manchester University Press, 2007 - with Peter Goddard and Kay Richardson). His research interests include political culture and non-news television and the ethics of political communication. He is an editor of the journal Media, Culture and Society.

This paper will first of all examine some reference points for regarding deception as a seemingly 'inherent' feature of modern political and social systems. What options do we really have in attempting to reduce or avoid deception in public and corporate life? How do institutional forms of deception relate to those of the private sphere? What has been the role of the growth of commercial society in increasing the scale and range of taken-for-granted forms of promotion in which 'management of the truth' plays a prominent part? In exploring these themes, the paper will refer to work on deception in classical Athens and the precepts of Machiavelli as well much more recent developments, including the influence of the latest commercial strategies on the communicative behaviour of public bodies and public offices. It will raise questions about the relationship between structure and action in the 'pragmatics' of deceptive practice as well as issues concerning definitions and levels.

Why is it that 'propaganda' is essentially used as a term of critique, describing a form of 'bad communication', and 'promotion' used as a term describing widely approved forms of political and corporate communication? What is the difference in terms of communicative ethics and responsibilities of honesty towards addressees? Among other writers, Arendt is very useful in guiding critical thinking here and there has been useful recent work from philosophers and political scientists on the nature of political hypocrisy.

The complex interplay between strategies to gain positive publicity, counter-strategies in response to negative meanings, and strategies designed to inflict negative meanings upon others will be reviewed. The 'special case' of denial will be examined as a key element of institutionalised political behaviour, one around which extensive journalistic activity has been generated both in its support and its exposure.

The way in which the media present both a promotional opportunity and a promotional risk to different kinds of 'player' will be assessed and the implications of new media applications at the level of norms, practices and uses will be brought into the account. The broader context of audience orientations will also be considered. If the public is becoming more openly sceptical about political and corporate discourse, does this mean that such discourse has reduced effectiveness, or is the situation more complex? What empirical findings are able to help us in assessing the nature of the relationships between promotional communicative intentions and promotional communicative consequences?

In a final section of the paper, the question of a strengthened and more effective public critique of institutionalised deception will be discussed, along with the issue of what structural, procedural and normative measures might be introduced to improve on current circumstances, allowing for international variations. In both cases, issues of practicality as well as of desirability will be given attention, including the crucial role of the media professions in any scenario of change.