In public relations and politics, spin is a form of propaganda, achieved through knowingly
providing a biased interpretation of an event or campaigning to influence public opinion about some organization or public figure. While traditional public relations and advertising may manage their presentation of facts, "spin" often implies the use of disingenuous, deceptive, and manipulative tactics.[1]
Because of the frequent association between spin and press conferences (especially government press conferences), the room in which these conferences take place is sometimes described as a "spin room".[2] Public relations advisors, pollsters and media consultants who develop deceptive or misleading messages may be referred to as "spin doctors" or "spinmeisters".
A standard tactic used in "spinning" is to reframe or modify the perception of an issue or event to reduce any negative impact it might have on public opinion. For example, a company whose top-selling product is found to have a significant safety problem may "reframe" the issue by criticizing the safety of its main competitor's products or by highlighting the risk associated with the entire product category. This might be done using a "catchy" slogan or sound bite that can help to persuade the public of the company's biased point of view. This tactic could enable the company to refocus the public's attention away from the negative aspects of its product.
Spinning is typically a service provided by paid media advisors and media consultants. The largest and most powerful companies may have in-house employees and sophisticated units with expertise in spinning issues. While spin is often considered to be a private-sector tactic, in the 1990s and 2000s some politicians and political staff were accused of using deceptive "spin" tactics to manipulate or deceive the public. Spin may include "burying" potentially negative new information by releasing it at the end of the workday on the last day before a long weekend; selectively cherry-picking quotes from previous speeches made by their employer or an opposing politician to give the impression that they advocate a certain position; or purposely leakingmisinformation about an opposing politician or candidate that casts them in a negative light.[3]
Cherry picking is a practice of using selective facts to present to the public. It refers to the farming practice of picking only ripe cherries.Selectively presenting facts and quotes that support one's position ("cherry picking"). For example, a pharmaceutical company could choose only two trials where their product shows a positive effect and ignore hundreds of unsuccessful trials, or a politician's staff could handpick short speech quotations from past years which appear to show their candidate's support for a certain position.
Non-denial denial
Non-apology apology
"" is an example of distancing language, commonly used as a rhetorical device, whereby a speaker acknowledges that a situation was managed inappropriately but evades any direct responsibility. The expression focuses on the action, omitting any actor, via the passive voice, and "mistakes" are framed in an indirect sense that does not imply intent. A less evasive active voice construction would focus on the actor, such as: "I made mistakes" or "John Doe made mistakes."
"Burying bad news": announcing unpopular things when the media is expected to be focusing on other news. In some cases, governments have released potentially controversial reports on summer long weekends. Sometimes "other news" is deliberately supplied.
[3]
Misdirection and diversion This is when a government leaks a story to the news to limit the coverage of a more damaging story that has been circulating. New Labour used this tactic to reduce the coverage of Foreign Secretary Robin Cook’s affair. This was achieved by leaking a story that a previous Governor of Hong Kong was under investigation by MI6.[3]
[13]
Limited hangout
Rewarding like-minded or amenable journalists with stories. During the of 1964, Harold Wilson formulated a list of journalists that he trusted to write stories that aligned with the government’s opinion.[3]
Rhodesia crisis
Preventing access to journalists or broadcasters that are reporting to the disliking of the spin doctor. An example is being ignored by New Labour in the build up to the 1997 General election due to an interview they held with Blair that asked difficult questions, leading to interviews being handed to other stations.[9]
the World at One
Some spin techniques include:
For years, businesses have used fake or misleading customer testimonials by editing/spinning customers to reflect a much more satisfied experience than was actually the case. In 2009, the Federal Trade Commission updated their laws to include measures to prohibit this type of "spinning" and have been enforcing these laws as of late.[14]
The extent of the impact of "spin doctors" is contested, though their presence is still recognized in the political environment. The 1997 General election in the United Kingdom saw a landslide victory for New Labour with a 10.3% swing from Conservative to Labour, with help from newspapers such as The Sun towards which Campbell focused his spinning tactics as he greatly valued their support.[15] The famous newspaper headline 'The Sun Backs Blair' was a key turning point in the campaign which provided New Labour with a lot of confidence and hope of increased electoral support.[16] The change in political alignment had an impact on the electorate, with the number of individuals voting for Labour that read switching newspapers rising by 19.4%, compared to only 10.8% by those that did not read switching newspapers; a study conducted by Ladd and Lenz.[17]
Roberts, Alasdair S. (2005). "Spin Control and Freedom of Information: Lessons for the United Kingdom from Canada". Public Administration. 83: 1–23. :10.1111/j.0033-3298.2005.00435.x.
doi
and Brooks Jackson (2007): unSpun: Finding Facts in a World of Disinformation, (Random House Paperback, ISBN978-1400065660)
