Is Spin in Politics a Good Thing?

The past decade has seen public opinion turn against the idea of “spin” and “spin doctors” in general, although its unrelenting prevalence suggests that it is not entirely a bad thing. The term “spin” is defined by the English Oxford Dictionary as “a bias or slant on information, intended to create a favourable impression when it is presented to the public” (Internet 1), while George Pitcher argues that it is “advocating a position without the backing of substance” (Pitcher 2003, p.136). These widely different definitions seem to suggest a controversy over the nature of spin, while the emergence of prominent “spin doctor” figures such as Bernard Ingham and Alastair Campbell have attracted a number of malign connotations and cynicism regarding their practices. Indeed, when Campbell resigned in 2003 Labour rebranded itself as a “spin-free zone” (Franklin 2004 [1994], p.54), seemingly implying that even the parties themselves publicly denounce it. Yet even this rebranding is in itself a product of spin, such that in the modern world of politics it has become an unavoidable and necessary political tool. Part of the reason for this is that “spin” is not entirely without its merits, and this essay will assess both the advantageous and damaging effects of “spin”, before arriving at the conclusion that it is far from a good thing.  

When reading a newspaper one would naturally expect it to cover all of the relevant and important issues of the day, providing the public with a daily accurate source of information. And while newspapers do deliver this in the main, the process of “spinning” makes it impossible for the reader to ever be fully informed. Working relentlessly to boost and protect the image of their Party, media advisers employ a number of tactics to ensure that those they represent are portrayed as favourably as possible. One way in which spin doctors manipulate the press is to mask or even completely hide unpopular aspects of government policy or to suppress damaging stories about politicians’ private lives. As a result, the electorate are not fully informed about key information on policy or the character of the politicians who are representing them, which raises the concern that “politics has become artificial and degenerate” (McNair 1999 [1995], p.42). As well as trying to make sure some stories don’t get out at all, media advisers also disguise “bad news” by releasing it at times when the media is otherwise unanimously focused on international crisis. For example, on 11 September 2001, then special adviser Jo Moore circulated an email round her staff saying, “It’s now a very good day to get out anything we want to bury. Councillors’ expenses?” (Internet 2). By manipulating the press and “slipping out” news that is important for the public to know of at times when it will almost certainly be overlooked, spin doctoring highlights a great lack of any moral judgement and a ruthless approach to democratic communication. Indeed, many journalists, politicians and the public believed that Moore should have been sacked (Franklin 2004 [1994], p.55), suggesting that “spin” is seen by many as a contrived and unlawful tactic. Therefore, it seems that spin is bad in the sense that it manipulates the reader and leaves them not fully aware of important information purely for the sake of protecting a Party’s reputation.