Université Sorbonne Nouvelle- Paris 3

Institut du Monde Anglophone

Spécialité : Etudes Britanniques, Nord-Américaines et Post Coloniales

An Attempt to Define Spin-Doctoring

Mémoire de Master 1 Recherche

Présenté par Mariya SNAZINA

Directrice de recherches Professeur Divina FRAU-MEIGS

Mai 2013

Table of Contents

Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1

I Examining the First Publications of Spin ............................................................. 5

I.1 Origin of the Term ..................................................................................... 5

I.2 Who Spins? ................................................................................................ 8

I.3 An Attempt to define Spin ....................................................................... 11

I.4 Blaming the Media .................................................................................... 13

I.5 The Difficulty in Defining Spin ................................................................ 15

II Returning to the Causes of Spin .......................................................................... 17

II.1 The Psychology of Spin ........................................................................... 18

II.2 Paid Elections ........................................................................................... 20

II.3 A Two Party System and Personality Politics ....................................... 22

II.4 The Federalist System and the Need to Pander .................................... 24

II.5 Spin and the Media .................................................................................. 26

II.6 Spin as Governing .................................................................................... 28

II.7 Additional Causes of Spin ....................................................................... 31

II.8 Television: the Demise of Objectivity .................................................... 32

II.9 Spin and the Debates ............................................................................... 34

III. Studying Spin in Its Various Forms ................................................................ 39

III.1 Pitching and Spinning ............................................................................ 39

III.2 Studying Pitch and Spin ........................................................................ 41

III.3 The Perpetuation of Pitch and Spin ..................................................... 46

III.4 Defining Spin-Doctoring ........................................................................ 47

Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 50

Bibliography .............................................................................................................. 52

Appendix 1 ................................................................................................................. 54

Introduction

The ultimate objective of this paper is to arrive at a functional definition of spin – or spin-doctoring.

A successful attempt will render a definition of spin which is neither too narrowly nor too broadly

defined. The constraints of this definition are given particular emphasis for the following reason.

Since the first use of the terms - spin and spin-doctoring - in a political context, these terms have

been applied to a multitude of varying circumstances. These circumstances, however, are not each

comparable to one another. In fact, some differ greatly from others. As such, the most efficient

approach to comprehending the usage of the terms, spin and spin-doctoring, will entail examining

each of these circumstances and determining the common elements between them. It is my

contention that this holistic approach will prove most felicitous in an attempt at defining spin and

spin-doctoring. Through this method, the constraints of the terms spin and spin-doctoring, will be

set in such a way that renders these terms as capable of describing the unique political phenomena of

spin-doctoring.

In the first part of this paper, the origin of the terms, spin and spin-doctoring, will be

examined. This will not only provide a starting point for the inquiry into the meaning of these terms

in a political context, but will also help me to understand the first circumstances to which these

terms were applied. Here, Jack Rosenthal‟s original New York Times editorial will be examined for

being the first publication to apply the terms, spin and spin-doctoring, to a political context.

William Safire‟s New York Times article, which examines Rosenthal‟s editorial, will also be

studied. Finally, those persons whom Safire and Rosenthal first refer to as spin-doctors will be

addressed by examining interviews conducted between them and National Public Radio (NPR).

This initial information will then be examined and matched with the work which other

researchers, such as Kenneth Hicks and Daniel Boorstin, have conducted in order to better

comprehend spin, spin-doctoring, and other similar political phenomena. Though Hicks‟ definition

of spin – or spin-doctoring – will be heavily referenced, I will attempt to refute a number of his

points. As well, drawing from the work of Hicks and Boorstin and from the information gathered

concerning the origin of spin and spin-doctoring, I will preemptively formulate a definition capable

of guiding the remaining inquiries in this paper. This definition will gain clarity as the paper

progresses.

The next step will be to consider the causes of spin and spin-doctoring. The purpose for

examining the causes of spin and spin-doctoring consists in the following. If the causes of spin and

spin-doctoring can be known, then it will be easier to distinguish veritable instances of spin and

spin-doctoring from those which appear to be, but actually are not, case of spin and spin-doctoring.

For instance, if I were to discover that the modern, „independent,‟ American media is a necessary

catalyst of spin and spin-doctoring, then I could rule out the possibility that spin and spin-doctoring

existed before the modern, „independent,‟ American media.

My analysis of the causes of spin and spin-doctoring will cover the following areas: (1) the

psychological state of mind which permits spin doctors to spin to American demos, thereby

corrupting the demos‟ ability to vote without bias; (2) the ludicrous amounts of funding which

politicians receive to fund their campaigns and employ elaborate and expensive spin tactics; (3) a

two-party political system in the United States which fosters ambiguous political platforms ,

personality politics, and ultimately an ideal forum for spin and spin-doctoring; (4) personality

politics which distract the demos from the factual content of a politician‟s political platform and

draw attention to aspects of his or her personality which are ambiguous and ripe for spin and spin-

doctoring; (5) a federalist system in the United States which fosters the need for politicians to

pander to certain states during elections and therefore employ spin tactics; (6) an „independent‟

media which sustains its fiscal productivity by focusing on spin and spin-doctoring rather than less

immediately appealing yet more vital factual information; (7) political debates – especially those for

the presidency of the United States – which are organized in such a way that factually derived,

logical points can always be hidden under a veil of spin and spin-doctoring; and finally (8) a culture

constructed around television which renders the political process a piece of entertainment for the

American demos. In my examination of this last point, I will demonstrate how the American demos

actually desires to encounter spin through the medium of the television. As well, it will be shown

how the television (as utilized by an „independent‟ media) is the ideal forum for spin and spin-

doctoring.

As these causes are examined, it will also be studied whether or not spin and spin-doctoring

are supported by the structure of the United States government. Here, I refer to the way in which

governmental officials rely on the media and tactics of spin and spin-doctoring in order to create and

make policy. In clarifying this point, it will additionally be shown how the definitions of spin and

spin-doctoring can be expanded. Spin and spin-doctoring need not only apply to political debates

and campaigns, but can also apply to methods employed by members of the government.

In the third and final part of this paper, I will: (1) examine spin and spin-doctoring in their

various forms, (2) determine which formulations of spin and spin-doctoring are most effective, (3)

and conclude by formulating a definition of spin and spin-doctoring constructed from the

information which I have gathered throughout this paper. My inquiry into Points 1 and 2 will be

conducted with reference to two studies conducted by Michael I. Norton and George R. Goethals.

In their studies, Norton and Goethals examine which combinations of pitch and spin work most

effectively together. A pitch is an attempt to convince the demos into accepting a certain mindset

before viewing a political event (The main difference between a pitch and spin consists in that a

pitch is proffered before, and not after, a political event.). Often times, a pitch and spin will work

together in such a way that their impacts are fortified by their duel use. Norton and Goethals

examine positive and negative pitches and their combination with positive and negative spins. Most

importantly, Norton and Goethals‟ studies demonstrate that pitch and spin are capable of producing

a real impact on the demos. As well, these studies show that spin and spin-doctoring is not

necessarily a spontaneous response to a political events, but also can be mediated before a political

event occurs. Lastly, these studies demonstrate that the combination of negative pitch and positive

spin can be most effective. Despite the assistance which these three aforementioned shall provide

me in defining spin and spin-doctoring, I will note one particular flaw with Norton and Goethals‟

studies. In attacking this flaw, I will show how pitching, spinning and spin-doctoring are more

effective than the results of Norton and Goethals‟ studies have demonstrated.

Taking into account the information gathered throughout this paper, I will then furnish the

following definition of spin – or spin-doctoring: acting to manipulate an ambiguous political event

by proffering a response – premeditated or spontaneous – in order to make a personal gain (political,

financial, or other) by exploiting the demos‟ desire for political information in the form of passive

entertainment. In some senses, this definition is broader than Hicks‟ definition, while in others, it is

narrower. As well, this definition represents the development with the terms - spin and spin-

doctoring – have undergone since first being published by Jack Rosenthal after the Raegan-Mondale

1984 presidential debates. My definition, however, does not embody all modern usages of the terms

- spin and spin-doctoring -, for many of these usages are found to be misapplied (especially when

they are employed in non-political contexts).

I.1 Examining the First Publications of Spin

Before the terms – spin and spin doctor – can be properly defined, it will be necessary to

inquire into the following: (1) the origin of the terms and the evolution of their usage; (2)

perceptions of these terms both by academics and persons (i.e. political staff, politicians, journalists

and members of the media) with exposure to that which the terms embody; and (3), the causes of

spin and spin doctoring and the various effects which they have produced on the United States

political and journalistic institutions. With such considerations, a definition will be formulated

which attempts to define these terms neither in too narrowly nor too broadly; in other words, the

definition must neither fail to capture spinning in its different forms, nor should it be so wide as to

embrace all manifestations of political manipulation and machination. Such an acute definition, as it

will be shown, can only be achieved by proceeding cautiously and placing credence only with those

sources which assist us in comprehending spin doctoring in its completeness.

I.1. Origin of the Term

In his 1986 New York Times article, entitled “On Language; Calling Dr. Spin,” William

Safire examines the etymology of the term, “spin,” and the phrase, “spin doctor,” and their

transmogrification into modern, political concepts.1

Concerning the term spin, he notes that the word

first acquired the additional meaning, “to deceive,” in the 1950s and then subsequently came to

signify a “twist” or personal “interpretation.” The phrase, spin doctor, he notes, is adapted from two

phrases:

(1) “play doctor, one who fixes up a limping second act”; and (2) “verb doctor, [which means] to fix

a product the way a crooked bookkeeper ''cooks'' books.”2 Safire attributes the first extension of

these terms into the political realm to Jack Rosenthal, who wrote a New York Times editorial two

years prior on the 1984 Ronald Reagan and Walter Mondale debate (Safire expresses that while the

New York Times does not formally attribute this editorial to Rosenthal, that if one were to “yell

'Spin Doctor!' down the 10th-floor hallway… [the] one to snap his head around with an explanation

[would be] Jack Rosenthal”). 3, 4

In his editorial, Rosenthal states:

1Online Internet webpage: William Safire Biography, William Safire (December 17, 1929 – September 27, 2009) was a former speechwriter, public relations writer, and special assistant to President Nixon, William Safire joined the New York Times as a Washington-based columnist in 1973 and won a 1978 Pulitzer Prize for his commentary. He also wrote the long-running column On Language for the New York Times Magazine. <http://www.biography.com/people/william-safire-9469180>, Last consulted 12/02/1988 2Online Internet webpage: William Safire. The New York Times: On Language Calling Doctor Spin. The phrase spin doctor was coined on the analogy of play doctor, one who fixes up a limping second act, and gains from the larcenous connotation of the verb doctor, to fix a product the way a crooked bookkeeper ''cooks'' books. <http://www.nytimes.com/1986/08/31/magazine/on-language-calling-dr-spin.html> Last consulted 16/05/2013 3Online Internet webpage: Jack Rosenthal biography, Jack Rosenthal, (8 September 1931 - 29 May 2004) an assistant managing editor of The New York Times, was an English playwright, <http://www.nytimes.com/1999/08/10/nyregion/jack-rosenthal-to-follow-gelb-as-head-of-times-foundation.html> Last consulted 20/01/2013 4Online Internet webpage. William Safire. The New York Times: On Language Calling Doctor Spin, The Times never lets on who writes what editorial, but yell ''Spin Doctor!'' down the 10th-floor hallway and the one to snap his head around with an explanation is Jack Rosenthal, deputy editor of the editorial page. <http://www.nytimes.com/1986/08/31/magazine/on-language-calling-dr-spin.html>,Last consulted 15/05/2013

Tonight at about 9:30, seconds after the Reagan-Mondale debate ends, a bazaar will suddenly

materialize in the press room of the Kansas City Municipal Auditorium. A dozen men in

good suits and women in silk dresses will circulate smoothly among the reporters spouting

confident opinions. They won't be just press agents trying to impart a favorable spin to a

routine press release. They'll be the spin doctors, senior advisers to the candidates, and they'll

be playing for very high stakes. How well they do their work could

be as important as how well the candidates do theirs. 5

The significance of this last sentence should not be overlooked, for it is demonstrative of

Rosenthal‟s opinion that the efforts of spin doctors are potentially as significant as those of the

candidates themselves. One may also note, that in his editorial Rosenthal does not examine and

define the implied circumstances in which spin arises (For the sake of this paper however, it will be

necessary to plumb these circumstances so that Safire‟s definition may be contrasted both with prior

and subsequent ones which will be examined later in this paper.)The first necessary circumstance

consists in that the spin doctors proffer their spin after, and in response to, a political event (i.e. the

debate). Secondly, it must be acknowledged that those being referred to as spin doctors are both

agents of the press and senior advisors to the candidates; the candidates themselves are not referred

to as spin doctors.

The analysis of Safire‟s article must capture one last point: although Safire considers

Rosenthal to have coined the term, spin doctor, he does not assert that the core components of spin

(e.g. narrative deception) have arisen with the debate which they were first used to describe; rather,

he suggests that they have been embodied previously in words such as Kopf-verdreher – a German-

Yiddish word meaning “mind-twister.”6 (Rosenthal‟s consideration here will serve as a significant

theme throughout this paper, for it will be shown that the aspects and behaviorisms which form part

5 Online Internet webpage.NPR : National Public Radio interview between Jack Rosenthal, Linda Wertheimer, Elisabeth Bumiller, Dayton Duncan, Lyn Nofziger on the history of the term “spin”, 2002, http://business.highbeam.com/436932/article-1G1-162251351/profile-history-term-spin-politics, Last consulted 15/05/2013 6Online Internet webpage: William Safire. The New York Times, On Language Calling Doctor Spin, A predecessor term from German and Yiddish is Kopf-verdreher, literally ''head turner,'' metaphorically ''mind twister''; when I explained to my future father-in-law a generation back that I was in the public-relations field, in which people's attitudes were modified at the introduction of persuasive arguments, he smacked his head and nodded ruefully, ''a Kopf-verdreher.'' < http://www.nytimes.com/1986/08/31/magazine/on-language-calling-dr-spin.html> Last consulted 15/05/2013

of the definition of spin-doctoring are those which have existed not only previously in the political

history of the United States, but even before that). Such considerations however, will not be enlisted

to surmount the claim that Safire‟s definition of spin-doctoring as unique; rather, their purpose will

be to demonstrate the evolution of spin-doctoring).

I.2 Who Spins?

Before continuing, one further matter must be clarified: although there has been a trend in

journalism to decry Reagan and his campaign advisers, especially Lee Atwater, as the progenitors of

spin-doctoring, Mondale and his campaign staff had, as well, acted to spin the post-debate scene. 7In

an interview with Elisabeth Bumiller, a journalist present at the Raegan-Mondale debate, describes

that the spinning was mutual: “The candidate‟s spokespeople and their campaign managers would

start saying, „He won. Let me tell you why he won. These are the great points he made. You know,

Mondale was nowhere.‟ And there would be, you know, the opposite on the other side.”8 Dayton

Duncan, who assisted with the Mondale campaign, admits to the efforts which he and his fellow

Mondale-campaigners took to spin doctor the post-debate scene.9 In his interview with NPR, he

states that he helped to invite senators, mayors and governors to the debate whom he knew

supported Mondale. Afterwards, he asserts these individuals would be invited into the waiting room

where the press corps would receive them; not surprisingly, the accounts which they afforded the

7 Online Internet webpage: Lee Atwater Biography, Lee Atwater (February 27, 1951 – March 29, 1991) was an American political consultant and strategist to the Republican party. He was an advisor of U.S. Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush and Chairman of the Republican National Committee.<http://www.in.com/lee-atwater/biography-170577.html>, Last consulted 20/02/2013 8Online Internet webpage: Elisabeth Bumiller Biography, Elisabeth Bumiller, (May 15, 1956- ) is an American author and journalist who is the Pentagon correspondent for the New York Times. <http://www.biography.com/search-results?q=Elisabeth+Bumiller>, Last consulted 20/02/2013 9 Online Internet webpage: Dayton Duncan Biography, Dayton Duncan, (March 4 1949- ) served as chief of staff to New Hampshire Governor Hugh Gallen, as national deputy press secretary for Walter Mondale in the presidential campaign of 1984. <http://www.iptv.org/iowajournal/story.cfm/412/feature>,Last consulted 20/02/2013

press favored Mondale (This tactic, by which a candidate‟s campaign staff asks a third party to offer

a post-debate analysis, will be examined later in the paper.).

Though each candidate‟s campaign staff employed tactics of spin-doctoring, there is a

general consensus that Reagan‟s advisors, especially Atwater, pursued spinning with a greater

intensity than their opponents. It is Atwater, in fact, who first referred to such tactics as spinning.

In his interview with NPR, Lyn Nofziger, recollects Atwater‟s comment: „“Now, you know, we‟re

gonna want to go out and spin this afterwards.”‟10

Nofziger states that on this occasion, he was

particularly disquieted with satisfying Atwater‟s command, for he thought it difficult to spin the

debate in which he thought Reagan had “not done well at all.” This is likely part of the reason why

Atwater was considered such a veritable spin-doctor, for as Nofziger states: “It would take a guy

like Lee Atwater, who not only understood what he wanted to do, but didn't have any qualms (about

doing it… [A] good spinner is not gonna worry whether or not the guy he's spinning to believes

him.”11

Nofziger‟s evaluation of Atwater must not be overlooked, for within it can be discovered

the type of moral attitude which accompanies a spin doctor. A spin doctor, regardless of his or any

other‟s perception of the truth, must confidently represent his or her candidate‟s arguments as if they

were actually favorable, for without the confidence of his or her opinion, the spin founders. As well,

it is evident that the veritable spin doctor must not possess any moral concern for his or her

audience, to whom he speaks only with the intention of manipulating and storytelling into accepting

the favorability of his or her client. In this way, spin-doctoring possesses a sort of negative

connotation (This connotation will be explored later in the paper; there, it will be discovered which

10 Online Internet webpage: Lyn Nofziger Biography,Lyn Nofziger, (June 8, 1924 – March 27, 2006), former Reagan communications director, Nofziger, was the man who addressed the press – and kept Americans calm – after the assassination attempt on President Reagan. <http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/25/lyn-nofziger-a-reagan-aide-remembered/>, Last consulted 25/02/2013 11Online Internet webpage.NPR : National Public Radio interview. It would take a guy like Lee Atwater, who not only understood what he wanted to do, but didn't have any qualms about doing it, and I don't mean that badly, but a good spinner's not gonna worry whether or not the guy he's spinning to believe him. <http://business.highbeam.com/436932/article-1G1-162251351/profile-history-term-spin-politics>, Last consulted 17/05/2013

formulations of spin allow the public to become privy to its disingenuous. According to Bumiller,

Reagan had a penchant for hiring individuals such as Atwater, for when he was in office, he

employed the services of former Secretary of State, Jim Baker. Bumiller thought that Baker was

disarming, full of candor, and capable of “always putting it [a problem] in the best possible light” –

in other words, a spin doctor.

In addition to surrounding himself with spin doctors, it can be said that Reagan himself often

resorted to practicing spin-doctoring; of course, the circumstances in which he spun were not those

which presented themselves immediately after the debate, but rather after incidents which happened

during his campaign. For instance, in his article entitled “In the Nation; Meet Dr Spin” Tom Wicker

a journalist for the New York Times, cites a number of examples in which Reagan attempted to spin

the unfavorable outcome of an event.12

The following is one, such example:

Secretary of State Shultz, seeming near tears, told a national television audience on Sunday

night that he was ''deeply disappointed'' by the summit failure. But by Monday a fully

orchestrated Administration, with the Doctor [Reagan] on the podium, was spinning out the

melody that ''breakthroughs'' and ''sweeping potential agreements'' (breathtaking phrase!) had

been achieved. 13

The essential difficulty with Reagan‟s use of these terms - “breakthroughs” and ''sweeping potential

agreements'' – consisted in that not only were they ambiguous and insubstantial, but also in

contradiction with Mikhail Gorbachev‟s own remarks on disarmament gathered from other news

sources. (Of course, whether Gorbachev or Reagan was telling the truth cannot be determined with

certainty.)

What must be noted here consists in that Raegan did not employ someone else to reinterpret

– or spin - the negotiations on disarmament. In the examples which we have looked at already,

individuals, such as Nofziger or Atwater, have been considered the spin doctors. Reagan was only

12 Lexis Nexis: Online Document Source. Article. Tom Wicker. The New York Times. In the Nation ;Meet Dr. Spin. 1986, Late City Final Edition, Last consulted, 10/10/2013 13 Lexis Nexis: Online Document Source. Article. Tom Wicker. The New York Times. In the Nation ;Meet Dr. Spin. 1986, Late City Final Edition, Last consulted, 18/10/2013

the subject of their spins. However, in the example at which we look in this section, Raegan resorts

to spinning by directly reinterpreting the events of his negotiations. It must be asked here: is

Raegan‟s reinterpretation of his negotiations for disarmament really an incidence of spin? In other

words, does it matter that Reagan is reinterpreting an event which concerns himself? We have seen

how Rosenthal‟s definition of spin doctor applies only to those persons who spun for Reagan and

Mondale. It seems, that it would not be damaging to the definitions of spin and spin doctor if we

were to extend their use to cases such as those observed in this section: simply because Reagan‟s

spin refers to himself, does not mean that it has lost its character as spin. In other words, it is still an

attempt to convince the public to interpret a past event in a particular way. For these reasons as

well, we should not have any difficulty in further extending Rosenthal‟s definition of spin to other

persons regardless of their relationship to the event which the spin concerns. For instance, if a

member of the media – with no loyalty to a particular party - spins an event for another type of gain

(e.g. a monetary one), we should not fail to see it as spin.

I.3 An attempt to define Spin

By now, it can be observed that spin-doctoring generally entails the following: firstly, a

political event which is ambiguous enough to be interpreted from multiple points of view; secondly,

a relationship between either the media and the demos, or political actors/ political staff and the

demos; thirdly, a lack of moral concern (of either the politician, his or her staff, or the media) for

affording the demos an honest account of the politically ambiguous event; and finally, the desire (of

either the politician, his or her staff, or the media) to manipulate the demos into accepting an

interpretation of events which is favorable to a political figure‟s position. Thus far, the

circumstances necessary for spin have been defined; however, spin itself still requires further

elucidation. As well, the circumstances of spin must be further analyzed in order to recognize spin

not only in its various forms, but also so that we may understand better why spin is employed and

with which degrees of efficacy.

At this point, I will now try to develop a definition of spin which I will be able to use

throughout the remainder of the paper. Though the term has appeared more and more recently in

multiple contexts – including commercial ones -, we will continue to focus on the term within the

circumstances mentioned immediately above. Few academic accounts of spin and spin-doctoring

exist; nonetheless, it shall be necessary to examine the few which do exist in order to gain an

unbiased, additional perspective. Such is the case, as all other accounts of spin are proffered by the

genre of professionals considered capable of spinning (i.e. members of the media and former

politicians).

In his article, entitled “The Anatomy of Spin: Causes, Consequences, and Cures,” Kenneth

Hicks attempts to clarify and then expand upon what proves to be an elusive definition of spin.14

In

addition to noting that spin often appears in the context of electoral politics, he likens the term to

what Daniel Boorstin has already described as a “pseudo-event.”15

Summarizing Boorstin, Hicks

notes that a pseudo-event possesses four characteristics: firstly, it typically arises because someone

has either “planned, planted, or incited it” (Boorstin uses the example of an interview to use in

general, yet a post-debate speech, report, etc... would satisfy this condition just as well); secondly,

the pseudo-event is addressed for the sole purpose of being addressed, or in other words, it is a

matter which the media wants to report not because it is an authentic piece of news, but simply

because they can report it; thirdly, the pseudo-event must be sufficiently ambiguous, for otherwise,

it would not generate the amount of potential perspectives necessary for captivating the public‟s

interest; lastly, the pseudo-event is a self-fulfilling prophecy (i.e. the content of the pseudo-event

becomes significant not because the pseudo-event is significant in-itself, but because the pseudo-

14 Online Internet webpage: Article. Kenneth Hicks. The Anatomy of Spin: Courses, Consequences, and Cure, <http://www.rsu.edu/faculty/khicks/essays/spin.htm>, Last consulted 17/05/2013 15 Online Internet webpage: Biography Danel Boorstin. Daniel Boorstin, (born 1914- 2004), American historian, was a scholar with broad interests. In 1962 he had published The Image: or, What Happened to the American Dream (reissued as a paperback in 1964 with a new subtitle, A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America). <http://www.answers.com/topic/daniel-j-boorstin>, Last consulted 12/03/2013

event is being reported).16

Boorstin‟s definition places particular emphasis on the media which

plans to cover the pseudo-event, which is intended to be an ambiguous sort of self-fulfilling

prophecy.

I.4 Blaming the Media

In likening the pseudo-event – which asserts itself through the media – to spin, Hicks

recognizes the significant role which the media plays in enabling spin-doctoring. This recognition,

however, is not unique, for Rosenthal, Atwater, and Duncan have each acknowledged spin-

doctoring as a response to the media‟s increasing desire to produce as much material as possible; as

well, each of those mentioned above (Rosenthal, Atwater, and Duncan) have noted that this desire

has been satisfied through technology.

In the following quote, Rosenthal affirms the media‟s ever-expanding desire to report additional

content:

What had used to be a quaint two news cycles [of post-debate discussion] turned into

a 24-hour news cycle. No story lasted for more than an hour. It had to be updated. So

you needed to get the opinion-making effect into play instantly. And so you created

in effect your own columnist, your own spin.17

Additionally, Duncan attributes the facilitation of reporting of this brand (i.e. reporting 24-hour news cycles)

to innovations in technology – particularly satellite-trucks which were placed outside of debate halls and

filled with reporters capable of immediately beaming their reports to the homes of viewers.18

In addition to crews of reporters in satellite trucks covering the immediate post-debate scene,

Hicks notes that spinning has been encouraged by other phenomena made capable by technology; in

particular, he mentions political television talk shows, which essentially provide “a stage for the

16 Online Internet webpage: Article. Kenneth Hicks. The Anatomy of Spin: Courses, Consequences, and Cure, <http://www.rsu.edu/faculty/khicks/essays/spin.htm>, Last consulted 18/05/2013 17 Online Internet webpage.NPR : National Public Radio interview. <http://business.highbeam.com/436932/article-1G1-162251351/profile-history-term-spin-politics>, Last consulted 10/05/2013 18 Online Internet webpage.NPR : National Public Radio interview. <http://business.highbeam.com/436932/article-1G1-162251351/profile-history-term-spin-politics>, Last consulted 17/05/2013

practitioners of spin." In this regard, Hicks asserts that spinning is not dissimilar from the pseudo-

event, for both spinning and the pseudo-event are supported by a media forum. As well, Hicks is

able to demonstrate the way in which the pseudo-event is akin to spinning with regards to the other

three points of Boorstin‟s list.19

Concerning point one, he notes that spinners plan responses to give in the post-debate interviews; in

this way, spin is not spontaneous. Points three and four are additionally represented in spin, for spin

is not only supported by mixture of opinions on ambiguous points, but also because spin serves as a

type of „“receptacle of the wishes of different people.”‟ By this last quote, it is meant that the public

often looks to spin doctors so that the spin doctors may rearticulate the words of politicians in such a

way that they can be found amenable to their expectations.

Though Hicks establishes these similarities, he remains hesitant to define spin:

Creating a perspicacious definition of spin is a more difficult task than it would appear.

Succinct definitions ignore its dynamic qualities, while exhaustive definitions create

conceptual vacuity that might include nearly all acts of political communication, including

those forms of expression that are more clearly unacceptable.20

I.5 The Difficulty in Defining Spin

Despite Hick‟s hesitancy to define spin, he reluctantly provides a definition for the purposes

of understanding his article:

Spin: attempts to reorient potentially embarrassing or ambiguous actions, (mis)statements,

and/or circumstances in such a way as to deflect, minimize, or refute critical attention from a

primary target (e.g. party, political actor, journalist or the journalistic profession).21

19 Online Internet webpage: Article. Kenneth Hicks. The Anatomy of Spin: Courses, Consequences, and Cure, <http://www.rsu.edu/faculty/khicks/essays/spin.htm>, Last consulted 17/05/2013 20 Online Internet webpage: Article. Kenneth Hicks. The Anatomy of Spin: Courses, Consequences, and Cure, <http://www.rsu.edu/faculty/khicks/essays/spin.htm>, Last consulted 13/05/2013 21 Online Internet webpage: Article. Kenneth Hicks. The Anatomy of Spin: Courses, Consequences, and Cure, <http://www.rsu.edu/faculty/khicks/essays/spin.htm>, Last consulted 15/05/2013

Hicks‟ definition may be adequate with regards to that which he wishes to achieve in his own paper.

However, his definition will not be sufficient for the purposes of this paper, for he has mistakenly

done that which he essayed to avert in defining spin: he defines it too shortly.

His failure lies in defining spin as a means of re-orientating unintentional actions; by such a

definition however, he disregards the strategic way in which spin doctors plan to spin even before

the spin-able action has been committed. To not pay attention to this aspect, is to ignore the type of

pitch and spin tactics which spin doctors employ (this point shall be subsequently discussed in

further detail below). Moreover, to assume that a spin must be employed to re-orientate potentially

embarrassing or ambiguous actions, (mis)statements, and/or circumstances, is to assume that spin

can be employed only when the spin doctor wishes to conceal something negative. This cannot be

the case however, for spin is often employed to augment actions, statements, and circumstances

which can be either neutral or positive. For instance, when Duncan enlisted the help of senators,

governors, and mayors to speak to the press corps in the post-debate waiting room, he was not trying

to alter something which had passed negatively, for many thought (even some of Reagan‟s own

staff) that Mondale had been more successful in the debate.22

In one last respect, Hicks‟ definition of spin can be found to be too short. Hicks notes that

spin is employed in order to deflect, minimize, or refute critical attention from a primary target.

While it may be true that spin is too ambiguous to be meaningful – or a primary target -, it cannot be

said that it is always employed to detract from more primary issues. In so far as spin is encouraged

by the media (see above), the opportunity to spin cannot always be seized by spin-doctors when they

wish to avert the public‟s attention. Rather, as we have seen in the post-debate scene of the Reagen-

Mondale debate, spin doctors sometimes spin to alter the public‟s views on an important event (i.e. a

presidential debate), and not to distract the public from it. The reason this is possible, is because

22 Online Internet webpage.NPR : National Public Radio interview. <http://business.highbeam.com/436932/article-1G1-162251351/profile-history-term-spin-politics>, Last consulted 10/05/2013

important political events, such as debates in particular, are often filled with just as much ambiguous

content as the spins themselves; in fact, for this very reason spinning is possible.

From my analysis of Hicks‟ definition of spin, I have been able to divine three which I shall

attempt to prevent in proffering my own definition: firstly, spin is not only a planned response, but

also often a planned response to a planned action; secondly, not only negative actions, statements,

and circumstances can be spun, but also neutral and positive ones; lastly, although spin can be

employed to distract the public‟s attention away from something more primary, spin is not always

utilized in this capacity and can be employed simply because the opportunity to employ it exists.

Therefore, it may be perceived that a more workable definition of spin must be able to account for

the nuances mentioned above. Before such a definition can be produced however, it will be

necessary to examine the additional causes and dimensions of spin.

II Returning to the Causes of Spin

It has been posited in the journalistic sources (Online interview on NPR and Jack

Rosenthal‟s editorial) which I have thus far consulted that spin arose from: (1) the media‟s

newfound ability and desire to report additional information on politically opinionated matters; and

(2) the willingness of politicians to satisfy the media‟s ever-expanding appetite. While this claim

should be given some credence, it must also be analyzed with some skepticism, for its creators were

directly involved with spinning themselves. In his academic article, Hicks examines the potential

causes of spin, and traces its formation to the following three conditions: (1) “the inevitability of

spin as a natural, human response to the ambiguities of political contestation”; (2) “features of the

American political system that encourage candidate-centered and personality-driven politics”; and

(3) “a First Amendment-protected media whose intimate and ambiguous relationship with political

actors creates an often problematic and irresolvable tension.”23

23Online Internet webpage: Article. Kenneth Hicks. The Anatomy of Spin: Courses, Consequences, and Cure, <http://www.rsu.edu/faculty/khicks/essays/spin.htm>, Last consulted 13/05/2013

II.1 The Psychology of Spin

Hicks justifies his first point( see above II.1 Returning to the Causes of Spin) by noting that

fundamentally, “people want to be understood as they understand themselves…”; as such, politicians

are inclined to spin ambiguous impressions of themselves to maintain their positive image (both for

themselves and for the public).24

This first point holds true not only for many modern American

politicians, but also for some of the first politicians of the country. For example, throughout the

nineteenth century, two personas were particularly popular in the United States: that of the rustic

man with agrarian origins, and the war hero. As such, many American politicians, including

presidents, from this time period have been noted for attempting to present themselves as having

such personas. Andrew Jackson attempted to embody both personas in his campaign, and showed

pictures not only of the cabin in which he grew up, but also regaled (potcheval) the public with war

stories.25 26

As well, one can note that even to this day, Lincoln is portrayed as a man of humble,

rustic origins. In his 1977 painting titled, “Young Lincoln,” even Norman Rockwell recognizes

these qualities in Lincoln by painting him with an axe (see Appendix 1). No doubt, this is a

testament to the immense impact which a politician can produce by trying to align his or her public-

image with his or her self-image. In fact, it may be possible even to extend Hicks‟ first point (see

above II.1 Returning to the Causes of Spin) , for not only does the politician wish to align his or her

self-image with his or her public image, but also is the public eager to accept the personal-image of

a politician, and especially that of a president (This point will be discussed in greater depth below,

where the significance of the president‟s image will be analyzed; there, it will also be shown how

the president‟s image facilitates the use of spin).

24 Online Internet webpage: Article. Kenneth Hicks. The Anatomy of Spin: Courses, Consequences, and Cure, <http://www.rsu.edu/faculty/khicks/essays/spin.htm>, Last consulted 13/05/2013 25Online Internet webpage: Biography on Andrew Jackson, Andrew Jackson, (March 15, 1767 - June 8, 1845), the seventh president of the United States from 1829 -1837. <http://www.reformation.org/president-jackson.html,> Last consulted 03/03/2013 26 Nicholas O’Shaughnessy.The Phenomenon on Political Marketing.The The Macmillan Press LTD. Hampshire and London, 1990.21

Hicks‟ first point must still be expanded however, for it does not encompass a second type of

psychological desire: the desire to manipulate people not so that they may accept a particular

personal-image, but solely for gaining a political advantage. After all, the primary end which

political candidates seek is not to convince the public to understand them in particular way, but to

gain the public‟s vote. By broadening my definition, it can be explained why candidates and their

campaign staffs often employ tactics which are purposefully created to portray their candidate in a

worse light. Leading up to the 2000 election between George W. Bush Junior and Al Gore, Gore‟s

campaign staff routinely discredited Bush as a poor debater and badgered him to accept a debate

with Al Gore, who was considered the superior debater; rather than responding to Gore‟s remarks,

Bush took his time to reply and allowed his image as a poor debater to pervade throughout public

opinion. When Bush finally debated Gore, both candidates performed admirably and almost

equally; however, because the public had been led to believe that Gore was an excellent debater and

that Bush was a subpar debater, the debate was seen as a victory for Bush. This tactic had worked

so well for Bush, that during the following 2004 Bush-Kerry election, John Kerry and Democratic

National Committee Chairperson, Terry McAuliffe, praised Bush as an excellent debater – a debater

so skillful that he had defeated the formidable Al Gore- in order to set Kerry up for the same type of

unexpected victory which Bush had sustained.27

Using Hicks‟ first point and those additional qualities which we have attached to it above, I

can now define the psychological condition which accompanies spin: it is the psychological desire

to convince the public into accepting a particular interpretation – an interpretation which can reflect

either positively or negatively on the person whom it is intended to benefit. As such, this

psychological condition is unaccompanied by moral considerations for the demos, for it permits the

spin doctor to deprive the demos of its ability to make an unbiased decision. In being unable to

27

Judith S Trent. & Robert V. Friendenberg.Political Campaign Communication. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, INC.Maryland.2008.294-295

make an unbiased decision, the demos loses the potential benefit which can be gained by the

democratic-republican process; in other words, people cannot be sure who can best lead them. Spin

not only undermines (razrushat‟) the people, but also the democratic process: democracy is literally

government by the demos (the majority), yet the demos cannot govern if it is deceived (obmanivat‟),

for then it is the deceivers who are truly governing (as they control the demos).

Not surprisingly, even spin doctors themselves are aware of the amoral quality of their work.

In his book, The Boogie Man: the Lee Atwater Story, Stefan Forbes reveals that after the popular

spin doctor, Lee Atwater, discovered he had a terminal brain tumor in 1990, his friends said that he

was “terrified he was going to hell… [and that]… he embarked on a desperate search for

redemption…”28

II.2 Paid Elections

There is one additional psychological consideration which must be taken into account here.

Moreover, while it does not support the institution of spin directly, it does support the means for

producing spin. Here, we refer to the gross expenditures of political campaigns. These are what

provide candidates with the ability to produce television and radio commercials and advertisements,

and to hire campaign staff for devising elaborate schemes on how to spin the content of political

campaigns. For example, in the 2008 presidential election, roughly $1,748,800,000 was spent on

the combined campaigns of presidential candidates. Of that amount, 1.3 billion dollars came from

private firms and persons. Moreover, of the entire amount, over 90% was spent by the Democratic

and Republican Parties. 29

Top political consultants can earn over a million dollars in one political election cycle: Richard

Viguerie, the political consultant of Republican Philip Crane, took in roughly 1.2 million dollars for

28 Online Internet webpage: Synopsis of the book The Boogie Man: the Lee Atwater Story.

<http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/atwater/etc/synopsis.html>, Last consulted 10/10/2013 29Online Internet webpage: Statistics on Presidential Elections.

<http://www.statista.com/statistics/216793/fundraising-and-spending-in-us-presidential-elections/>, Last consulted

01/05/2013

his services.30

As well, even more funding is spent on television advertising: “ninety percent of a

politician‟s advertising budget can go on television.”31

As O‟Shaughnessy notes, “television is

inescapable for politicians. The fact that air time can be purchased in large quantities enables new

men to buy entry into the political process: wealthy or rich supporters become a necessary

qualification for access… thus giving external groups significant power”.32

The question must be asked however, why is the American demos content with allowing

private business to fund wealthy candidates? Do they not care that politicians are essentially buying

their way into office? O‟Shaughnessy explains: “Earned wealth [in the United States], since it was

regarded as proof of social merit and attainable by anyone sufficiently determined, was permitted a

full role in politics… ”33

. He goes on to state: “And there is a tradition of lavish political

campaigning in America which translates readily into high expenditure on political marketing. This

is itself the result of cultural values, the notion that men are justified in using money to persuade as

for any other objective…”34

Here, O‟Shaughnessy statement can almost be taken to mean that the

American demos are willing to be persuaded – or even manipulated – by wealthy male political

spenders. Of course, many Americans would object to this themselves, yet television ratings do not

lie; most of the American voting population is tuned into the expensive political television

commercials for every night before the elections. One may question here as well: are political actors

really amoral for spinning if the public wants to hear their spin? The answer is no, and we shall

examine this matter in greater depth when examine the results of study conducted on spin.

II.3 A Two Party System and Personality Politics

30 O’Shaughnessy.The Phenomenon on Political Marketing, 131 31 O’Shaughnessy.The Phenomenon on Political Marketing, 47 32 O’Shaughnessy.The Phenomenon on Political Marketing, 46 33O’Shaughnessy.The Phenomenon on Political Marketing, 32 34O’Shaughnessy.The Phenomenon on Political Marketing ,39

Although multiple parties can present their candidates for any given presidential election,

two parties – the Democratic Party and the Republican Party – receive the vast majority of votes

each election. As such, the American political institution is better conceived of as a two party

system than a multiple party system35

. The existence of only two competitive parties, however,

produces a number of difficulties which allow spin to work its way into American politics. Hicks

explains this to be the case for the following reason: “each party must be preoccupied with

maintaining its current constituency while attempting to gain the constituency of the other party.”36

In order to accomplish this, candidates must not assume too specific of a stance on any particular

issue, for they risk alienating part of their vast constituency and losing the potential constituency of

their opponents. Therefore, candidates must take vague stances on issues. Such vague stances

however, can be easily spun as we have seen above (see the definition of spin). Though candidates

can take a vague stance in the public sphere, they are still required to make compromises and take

particular stances on issues, yet as Hicks notes, this is done behind the scenes in private “committee

negotiations”; the public, therefore, receives minimum exposure to the specific stances of the

parties. Rather, the public is addressed with a type of „“Us-Them”‟ rhetoric whereby people are

forced to side with one party and accept its broad ideals rather than its specific stances.37

The broad

ideals however, are not paired with these behind-the-scenes compromises. Being unpaired with

compromises, the broad ideals become ambiguous and therefore can easily be spun.

The broad ideals, which are referred to here, are embodied in the candidate and his or her

image. As such, the candidate‟s image, plays an important role in the elections. Once more it must

be noted however: the image of the candidate – or who the candidate really is in person – is not

always clear. It is the job of the candidate‟s staff and the media to convey this image to the public.

35Online Internet webpage: Statistics on Elections of each State. <270towin.com>, Last consulted 25/04/2013

36 Online Internet webpage: Article. Kenneth Hicks. The Anatomy of Spin: Courses, Consequences, and Cure, <http://www.rsu.edu/faculty/khicks/essays/spin.htm>, Last consulted 13/05/2013 37 Online Internet webpage: Article. Kenneth Hicks. The Anatomy of Spin: Courses, Consequences, and Cure, <http://www.rsu.edu/faculty/khicks/essays/spin.htm>, Last consulted 10/05/2013

Hicks notes that because the image of the candidate is so essential, the candidate must be careful –

especially in the primary elections – to maintain an image of “benign neutrality.” In other words, the

candidate must distance himself or herself from a specific stance which could damage his or her

image as neutral and alienate part of the public. The effect of this is to render the candidate‟s

position more ambiguous and therefore more spin-able, for the candidate and his or her staff can

more easily shift positions later in the election.

“Political Campaign Communication: Principles and Practices” by Trent and Friedenberg

describe the way in which candidates push to create their images. They note that in the 2004 Bush-

Kerry debates, Kerry attempted to appear as an extremely active leader: “On average, every eleven

seconds he suggested an action that he or his administration would take.”38

As well, during the war

in Iraq and 2004 presidential debates, Bush attempted to portray himself as a strong wartime leader

by making observations such as the following: „“I believe that I am going to win because the

American people know I know how to lead… And I made some tough decisions. But people know

where I stand… And that‟s how best it is to keep the peace.”‟39

Trent and Friedenberg also mention

Reagan, who attempted to maintain his image as a “kind, statesmanlike, religious family man,

seeking peace” by making such statements in the 1980 Reagan-Carter debates as: „“I believe with all

of my heart that our first priority must be world peace… I am a father of sons; I have a grandson… I

am going to continue praying…”‟40

Presidents have less power than many think (for much power

rests with the legislature, judiciary, and other branches of the executive). However, with their

personality – as conveyed through the media – they are able to extend their influence into those

other parts of the government to which they traditionally have less access.

II.4 The Federalist System and the Need to Pander

38 Trent. & Friendenberg. Political Campaign Communication, 298 39 Trent. & Friendenberg. Political Campaign Communication, 295 40 Trent. & Friendenberg. Political Campaign Communication, 293

Before continuing, some aspects of the American constitution must be analyzed, for they

additionally contribute to the existence of spin in the American political system. First, it must be

mentioned that the United States is a federalist nation. This means, that unlike in unitary nations,

substantial governmental power rests not only in the capitol of the nation, but also in each of the

state capitols. States, in this way, are somewhat independent of the central government, for they are

able to decide issues on matters such as gun control, abortion, driving laws, etc… This

independence means, however, that each state is represented as whole in the capitol; in other words,

each state is represented by a given number of representatives (or Members of the House of

Representatives), which it possesses based upon its size. In a presidential election, this means that

the more representatives which a state possesses, the greater its impact is in the election. When the

people of a particular state vote, they are voting to have their State favor a particular party. For

instance, if 90% of Californians vote for the Democratic Party and 10% votes for the Republican

Party, the state of California will be considered a supporter of the Democratic Party and all of its 53

Members of the House of Representatives will be obliged to vote for Democratic Party. Theses 53

Members (the number varies from State to State; for instance, Connecticut has only 7 Members in

the House of Representatives), are members of the Electoral College, and must vote according to the

majority vote of their State. In all there are 538 members of the Electoral College.41

This type of structure creates a need for presidential candidates to pander to certain states by

utilizing differing approaches to sway residents of each state to vote in their favor. In particular,

candidates will focus on States with a high number of Members in the House of Representatives and

which are likely to vote either way (Republican or Democratic). These States are often called Swing

States, not only because the residents can swing to either Party, but because these States can swing

an election in one direction or another. A good example of such a state is Ohio, which possess 18

41 Online internet webpage: Electoral College: <http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html> Last consulted 18/05/2013

Members in the House of Representatives. In the last thirty years, Ohio has voted Republican four

times and Democratic four times. This is to be contrasted with states such as Wyoming, which has 3

Members in the House of Representatives, and has voted for the Republican Party every year since

1964.

What must be derived from this information consists in that a system is produced whereby

presidential candidates must devote vast amounts of resources employing special tactics to gain

votes in Swing States. As O‟Shaughnessy notes, “in consequence [of that which is mentioned above

about State delegated power] the constitution unintentionally provides opportunities for political

propagandists to assert themselves”42

. In other words, there is a substantial amount of political favor

to be gained by making special appeals to various states. Such appeals must be tailored to the

interests of a certain State as well. This provides an opportunity for campaign staff and presidential

candidates to put a particular spin on their agendas when they advertise in each State. For example,

during the 2012 Republican Primaries in Florida, Newt Gingrich claimed that he endorsed

constructing an incredibly expensive moon colony. This was the first time he publicly endorsed this

plan, and this is why: he was speaking in Florida, where a large percentage of the population

depends upon jobs offered by NASA (The National Air and Space Administration). In effect,

Gingrich had spun what he had hitherto said about his budget policy by introducing his moon colony

plans to the only audience that would have condoned them.43

II.5 Spin and the Media

The power of the media has been considered to be so great that some have even labeled the

media as the forth branch of the United States government.44

The United States press is not only an

42 O’Shaughnessy.The Phenomenon on Political Marketing, 31 43 Online Internet webpage: Article. Amy Gardner, The Washington Post, Gingrich pledges moon colony during presidency, 2012. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/post/gingrich-pledges-moon-colony-during-presidency/2012/01/25/gIQAmQxiRQ_blog.html>, Last consulted 01/02/2013 44 Timothy E. Cook, Governing with the News.The News Media as a Political Institution.The University of Chicago Press. London. 1998. 164

independent institution, but as well it is protected by strong adherence to the First Amendment‟s

right to free speech. As such, Hicks points out “that the media‟s right to publish controversial or

embarrassing information remains essentially unchecked.” In other words, the media is neither

obliged by the government to report on certain matters, nor is it restricted in how it presents

information. Secondly, decisions such as Sullivan v. New York Times (1963) have further secured

the media‟s freedom by making it even more difficult for journalists to libel politicians. Lastly, as

Hicks notes, the media is a corporation, and as such, its primary agenda is to make money and not to

provide objective, educational information to the public. Rather than reporting on long standing

important issues, media members focus on minor ones which although are less significant, are

capable of providing more interest to the public and therefore a greater profit. Cook explains this

phenomena in further detail:

…to the extent that journalism organizes politics and wields power in the American

political system, it directs attention: toward episodic outcroppings rather than

continuing conditions; toward issues that fade quickly in public consciousness as

news persons begin to assume that the audience is getting bored…; and away from

abstract complexity toward simple, if not simplistic renderings of problems, policies,

and alternatives.45

In Cook‟s view, the media, in its current state, is incapable of adequately supplying the

public with political information: “journalists are not well trained, nor are news organizations well

equipped, to help weigh problems, set political agendas, examine alternatives, and study

implementation”; yet despite this, the public must rely on the media for accomplishing each of these

tasks. These tasks, of course, are rarely ever accomplished. For these reasons, spin enters into the

realm of politics and the media. The intense, logical study which each of the aforementioned tasks

would require is abandoned for the frivolous, more facile approach journalists can take in order to

report on petty issues. Furthermore, well researched information and factual material, is far more

45 Cook, Governing with the News.The News Media as a Political Institution, 167

difficult to spin than superficial stories and attitudes which the public can easily understand (and

which is sufficiently ambiguous enough for spin doctors to manipulate).

There is another sense in which the media is incapable of affording in-depth coverage of

political events. It derives from that fact that the media receives news in a type of pre-packaged

format from the government. Here, the media is less to blame than the government itself, for often

times, members of the media would have no other means of acquiring such information. This type

of pre-packaged format is specifically apparent in two different mediums: the “news release” and

the “leak”.46

What is significant with regard to these mediums, is that both can be altered by the

government in order to fabricate an event, and then to later manipulate – or put a spin on it. For

example, before major political events, such as speeches, the government issues a news release,

which “is written in the past tense but usually describes an event which has not yet happened…”47

In this way, the government is able to guide interpretations of the yet to be conducted event; in

effect, the spin comes pre-packaged with the event. The news leak is used in a similar way. A

member of the government will “leak” – or a small piece of information concerning a bigger event.

As journalists and the public speculate about the event, the government will gauge their responses.

If the government wants to lead discussion in a certain direction, another leak will be issued which

corresponds to the direction in which the government wants to lead the people. Each leak becomes

a link on chain of spin.

II.6 Spin as Governing

Above (see section I.8), it is mentioned that political persons, especially the president, can

exercise a substantial amount of power through the media. This must be further studied for the

purposes of this paper for the following reason. Spin is introduced through the medium of the media.

46 Daniel J. Boorstin. The Image. A Division of Random House, Inc., New York, 2012. 18-30 47 Boorstin. The Image, 19

If the government exercises power through the media however, then the exercise of governmental

power may be coupled with spin.

In book titled “Governing with the News,” Cook notes three reasons why politicians employ

the media to achieve governmental objectives. If one looks carefully, it can be observed that these

reasons are satisfied by “running the risk” of spinning:

First, making news can be making policy… particularly when the deeds are accomplished by

words. Second, making news can call attention to one‟s preferred issues and alternatives (and

build one‟s reputation in the process) and focus the public debate on their importance. Third,

making news can persuade others to adopt one‟s stance, whether explicitly… or implicitly

(by influencing the context of other‟s decisions…)48

It may be observed here, that spin is not only employed as a means for presidential

candidates to be voted into office, but also a means for elected presidents to govern.

It must then be asked: when did spin become a part of the government process? In section

I.2, paragraphs 5-6, a reference is made to Tom Wicker, who claims that Reagan used spin-

doctoring when he was in office. As it was shown in these paragraphs, Reagan‟s behavior paralleled

spin-doctoring in all ways except the following two: firstly, Reagan personally employed spin rather

than hiring someone else to spin for him; secondly, Reagan employed spin while he was in office

and not in order to gain office. In his article, “Spin: from Tactic to Tabloid,” Leighton Andrews

notes that the phenomenon of spinning while in office gained particular popularity during the Bill

Clinton administration.49

Although Andrews does not label Clinton as a spin doctor, he notes that a

number of Clinton‟s presidential advisors happily recognized themselves as spin doctors: “When

Clinton moved into the White House, he took his communications chief George Stephanopoulos

with him. In his autobiography (1999), Stephanopoulos accepts the term „the President‟s spin

doctors and confirms his role in running „the White House spin machine‟”.50

Andrews also remarks

48 Cook, Governing with the News.The News Media as a Political Institution, 124 49 Lexis Nexis: Online Document Source. Article. Leighton Andrews Spin: from Tactic to Tabloid, 2006. 50 Lexis Nexis: Online Document Source. Article. Leighton Andrews Spin: from Tactic to Tabloid, 2006, 36

at the amount of literature produced during the Clinton Administration in which spin doctoring is

referred to as a government activity: “John Maltese entitles his book on the role of the White House

Office of Communications Spin Control (Maltese, 1994). Summarizing the Clinton media machine,

political correspondent Howard Kurtz titles his book Spin Cycle (Kurtz, 1998). But it is perhaps

Kurtz‟s subtitle that is more telling: Inside the Clinton Propaganda Machine.”51

It would be difficult to assert exactly when spin-doctoring became a part of the American

governmental process. Even before the Reagan and Clinton administrations, American government

officials undoubtedly attempted to guide the public‟s perception of events. For instance, former

president, Franklin Delano Roosevelt (who served three terms from 1933-1945), enlisted the help of

newspaper-persons, playwrights, speech writers, and even poets. Roosevelt hired these persons so

that he may be assisted in his delivery of information to the public. He wanted to ensure that when

he gave a speech, it was interpreted in the way which he sought fit. When Roosevelt gave a speech,

the image of “a man of great warmth, natural spontaneity, and simple eloquence” was received by

the public, ultimately affecting how the public interpreted the content of Roosevelt‟s speech.52

Of

course, the writers which Roosevelt employed helped him create this image.53

Nonetheless, it would

be difficult to call Roosevelt a spin doctor, as I cannot say with certainty that Roosevelt satisfied the

physiological condition for spin which is mentioned above in this paper (see section II.2, paragraph

3). There is a possibility that Roosevelt hired his writing staff to help inspire the people, and not to

control their interpretation of events; after all, he was president during World War II.

I cannot, of course, assume that the Reagan and Clinton administrations possessed such noble

intentions. The evidence which we possess (from Raegan‟s campaign staff – see section I.2,

paragraph 2 – and Andrews‟ reference to Stephanopoulos above) suggests that both Raegan and

Clinton prepared themselves for addressing the public by hiring self-proclaimed spin doctors. For

51 Lexis Nexis: Online Document Source. Article. Leighton Andrews Spin: from Tactic to Tabloid, 2006, 36 52 Boorstin. The Image, 21 53 Boorstin. The Image, 20-21

these reasons, I am able to affirm that spin-doctoring (in the context of the American governmental

system) developed and took form during the Reagan and Clinton years. In this period, political

events were manipulated – or spun - for a confessed purpose: to bolster the image of the government

administrations. While the present-day administrations of politicians may not openly admit to spin-

doctoring, we can assert without hesitancy that spin-doctoring has not ceased to be their agenda.

Even senior members of the presidential press pool working during the Barak Obama administration

have made complaints against the vigorous spinning of Jay Carney, Obama‟s Secretary of Press.54

I have noted that spin-doctoring appears to be a veritable part of the American governmental

process. Of course, I can accept this position only if I can additionally accept that spin-doctoring is

not restricted to political debates. As the spin-doctoring which is presumed to occur in government

office bares resemblance to post-debate spin in all other regards, it appears reasonable to extend the

use of the term spin-doctoring to the realm of the American government.

II.7 Additional Causes of Spin

To this point, the following factors have been examined for causing spin: first, an amoral

psychological disposition which allows candidates and members of the government to manipulate

the demos into siding with them; second, political campaigns funded by gross sums of money; third,

a two party system which promotes the acceptance of ambiguous political stances; forth, personality

politics which are driven by the media and result in ambiguity; fifth, the way in which the American

Federalist system requires presidential candidates to invest great amounts of resources and time into

employing specialized tactics for gaining favor in particular states; sixth, a media - protected by the

constitution and the law – more interested in acquiring profits than providing the type of logical,

long-standing, and in-depth accounts which the public requires to make an informed decision; and

seventh, a government which relies on the media to carry out its job. I have also mentioned how the

54 Online Internet webpage. Article. Guy Adams. The Independent: Obama's spin doctor bruises hacks with 'nastygrams' <http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/obamas-spin-doctor-bruises-hacks-with-nastygrams-6281230.html> Last consulted 25/04/2013

availability of technological innovations has facilitated the growth of spin. This will be assessed in

greater detail below. As well, I shall look at the development of the presidential electoral process

and the way in which it has allowed spin to become a regular part of the campaigning and debate

processes.

II.8 Television: the Demise of Objectivity

The television is a significant enabler of spin for the following two reasons: (1) it turns

news-making and political advertisements into entertainment and (2) it helps to eliminate the

objectivity of the political process. In turning news making into entertainment, the objectivity of the

news has been replaced with unsubstantiated, ambiguous images which offer a wealth of potential

perspectives but little substantial content. “There is the superficiality of television news, its fitness

for conveying image rather than issue, and the short time period of the average news item”.55

No

longer is it only important what the candidate has said, but how he or she has said it. The

candidate‟s personality is no longer only expressed through the substance of his or her words, but

through his or her physical gestures, physical attributes, style of dress, and even through the sound

of his or her voice.

Television is as convincing as it is, because it removes the need to be active in one‟s search

for political information. One needs only to sit down in front of the television and wait until each

piece of news is solicited via either the news, commercials, or even daily programs. As

O‟Shaughnessy notes, “in comparison with more traditional mediums of propaganda, television is

less heroic, more domestic and more abundant: it engulfs us, part of the anti-heroism of the age, and

appeases our appetite for debunking.”56

In other words, it is an exceptional type of propaganda, for

few suspect it as propaganda. If the public is less active in its search for information as a result of

the television, then the public will be less inclined to determine whether or not the information with

55O’Shaughnessy.The Phenomenon on Political Marketing, 78 56 O’Shaughnessy.The Phenomenon on Political Marketing, 47

which it is being presented is spin or an honest attempt at an analysis. In this way, spin is supported

by the American people themselves, who happily spend, on average, 34 hours per week watching

television.57

The American demos is not only credulous of news reports however, but also of

political advertisements. Here as well, politicians have the opportunity to spin unperceived.

Politicians are not ignorant to the public‟s need to gather information passively via the news.

In fact, they realize how important the television is as a medium for information and take great

efforts to use it themselves. Their expensive television advertisement campaigns are a testament to

this. For example, an “unknown millionaire” by the name of Walter Wilkinson defeated the

incumbent Governor of Kentucky by spending four million dollars on television advertisements

which “promised „a new day of new ideas”‟58

In other words, an empty slogan and four million

dollars combined with the power of television was enough to persuade the public into choosing a

new governor. Of course, this is not an example of spin, as there is no event which is being spun;

rather, it is an example of the willingness of the American demos to believe in unsubstantiated

arguments provided through the medium of television.

Why does television advertising work? Studies have shown that “voters seem not to

distinguish between television advertising and television news… As well, other studies have shown

that the average voter is likely to forget information while remembering images – especially colored

images.59

In this way, the television has an advantage over other sources of reporting (e.g. the radio

and the newspaper). That which must be taken from these studies consists in this: the American

demos is susceptible to manipulation and spin provided through the medium of the television. They

cease to distinguish between the sources of information. They become less able to determine

whether or not they are being informed by an independent sources or by a political party with an

57 Online Internet webpage: Article. David Hinkley. The New York Daily Times. Americans spend 34 hours a week watching TV, according to Nielsen numbers, <http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv-movies/americans-spend-34-hours-week-watching-tv-nielsen-numbers-article-1.1162285> Last consulted 20/04/2013 58 O’Shaughnessy.The Phenomenon on Political Marketing, 61 59 O’Shaughnessy.The Phenomenon on Political Marketing, 62

invested interest in their vote. Even the importance of factual information is covered with the

repetition of words and the allure of colorful images. This is not to say that spin is possible only in

the context of television, but that it is far more believe on television, where it can be repeated with

ease and paired with images.

II.9 Spin and the Debates

Although presidential debates can be a great opportunity for the public to determine how

well each candidate is prepared to assume office, they are not a necessary part of the election

process. Presidential debates, of course, are not automatically informative either; in fact, very few

are. Most presidential debates of the last fifty years are what Trent and Friedenberg refer to as

“counterfeit debates.” 60

They are labeled as such not because they are worthless, but because they

have been influenced by the media in such a way as to lose their structure as a true debate. Trent

and Friedenberg cite a definition of what constitutes a true debate, and provide an example of a

presidential debate – the 1858 Lincoln-Douglas debate – which fits the definition. A true debate

entails: “(1) a confrontation, (2) in equal and adequate time, (3) of matched contestants, (4) on a

stated proposition, (5) to gain an audience‟s decision”.61

The Lincoln Douglas debate conforms to

this formula for the following reasons: (1) Lincoln and Douglas confronted one another by asking

questions and directly rebutting one another; (2) when Lincoln and Douglas debated, they discuss

one issue – slavery -, each talking for exactly one hour and a half in each of the seven debates; (3)

Lincoln and Douglas were matched by having equal chances to win the election; (4) the subject of

the debate was clear (see point 2); and (5) after the Lincoln-Douglas debate, the audience was able

to determine from the content of the debate itself who had won.62

Modern debates have diverged

from these conditions since becoming popular again in the twentieth-century. For example, in the

1960 Kennedy-Nixon debate (and in all presidential debates since then), the candidates are asked

60 Trent. & Friendenberg. Political Campaign Communication, 278 61 Trent. & Friendenberg. Political Campaign Communication, 277-278 62 Trent. & Friendenberg. Political Campaign Communicatio, 278-280

questions by the moderator, to whom they offer their responses. Secondly, candidates are not given

nearly adequate time to discuss issues in great depth.63

Lincoln and Douglas debated slavery for a

combined twenty one hours. On the other hand, Nixon and Kennedy debated on over ten topics,

discussing each for three to five minutes.

This is the main difference between the Lincoln-Douglas debates and modern debates. The

candidates are given so little time to discuss convoluted issues, that they are hardly able to say

anything of substance. For example, in the Lincoln-Douglas debate, Lincoln spent the majority of

those seven days trying to demonstrate the illogical position which Douglas had adopted on the issue

of slavery. In particular, Lincoln proved that the only two alternatives which logically followed

from Douglas‟ stance, either contradicted his own position or contradicted the rule of the Supreme

Court. It would have been impossible for Lincoln to make this point in three to five minutes; and as

such, the public would never have been able to determine from the debate whether Lincoln could

solve the issue of slavery. If Lincoln had been given three to five minutes, his argument would not

have nearly as clear; in fact, it would have been ambiguous (i.e. ambiguous enough for journalists to

interpret various meanings in it and spin it one way or another).64

The previous example is demonstrative of the following: spin is not necessary where there

the logical, well-developed, fact-based arguments of politicians are available. Douglas‟ campaign

staff could not have spun the debate results even if it had wanted. Douglas had had twenty one

hours to show how he could better handle the issue of slavery; if he could not accomplish that in this

span of time, then no one else could for him.

This must be contrasted with modern debates, such as 2012 Obama-Romney debates, where

the most significant issue – balancing the budget – is discussed in a significantly more superficial

63 Trent. & Friendenberg. Political Campaign Communication, 281-283 64 Trent. & Friendenberg. Political Campaign Communication, 281-283

manner. For instance, by the final debate, Mitt Romney‟s plan for balancing the budget is no more

detailed than the following:

I will get America working again and see rising take-home pay again. And I'll do it

with five simple steps. Number one, were going to have North American energy

independence. We're going to do it by taking full advantage of oil, coal, gas, nuclear

and our renewables. Number two, we're going to increase our trade… The

opportunities for us in Latin America we have just not taken advantage of fully.

Number three, we're going to have to have training programs that work for our

workers and schools that finally put the parents and the teachers and the kids first,

and the teachers union's going to have to go behind. And then we're going to have to

get to a balanced budget... And I'll get us on track to a balanced budget… Number

five, we've got to champion small business. Two-thirds of our jobs come from small

businesses… I want to bring it back and get back good jobs and rising take-home

pay.65

One must note, that none of these strategies are further examined in order to determine whether or

not they have the potential to work. In other words, never is it asked: (1) how will you take full

advantage of energy resources? (2) How will you initiate trade with Latin America? (3) How will

you create training programs? (4) How will you bring small business back? Of course, Barack

Obama does ask Romney how he will balance the budget, yet Romney responds only that he will

reduces taxes by five trillion dollars by closing “loopholes” in government spending. Romney never

explains which loopholes he will close however.66

Romney is not the only one who fails to explain his plans in further detail. For example,

Obama asserts: “…what I now want to do is to hire more teachers, especially in math and science,

because we know that we've fallen behind when it comes to math and science. And those teachers

can make a difference.” The only evidence which Obama provides to support this claim consists in

65 Online Internet webpage: Transcript (Presidential Debate between Obama and Romney) 2012 <http://www.npr.org/2012/10/22/163436694/transcript-3rd-obama-romney-presidential-debate> Last consulted 01/05/2013 66 Online Internet webpage: Transcript (Presidential Debate between Obama and Romney) 2012 <http://www.npr.org/2012/10/22/163436694/transcript-3rd-obama-romney-presidential-debate> Last consulted 01/05/2013

an interview which he conducted with teachers. Never does he support his claim with academic

studies, historical accounts, etc.67

The reason why each of these candidates are unable to further justify their arguments

consists in the following. In the 2012 presidential election, there were three debates, each lasting

one hour and a half long (i.e. 4.5 hours in total). Lincoln and Douglas had almost five times the

amount of time to present their arguments, and as a result their reasoning became clear. Romney

and Obama had not the chance to show the reasoning of their arguments, for if one notes, in each of

the debates they are routinely – in fact, almost every time – cut-off by either the moderator or their

opponent. For this reason, articles published after the debate focus not the components of either

candidate‟s arguments, but on their presentation. Consider the following article – which is one of

many of the type mentioned in the sentence above - published by The Times-Herald:

Some analysts focused on how Romney was playing it safe this time - or "playing for a draw," in the

words of Jonathan Paul, director of debate at Georgetown University. "That seemed to be his

strategy in the questions of foreign policy." In other words, first make no mistakes. "Romney's

purpose was not to lose," said Jerry Shuster, who teaches political communication at the University

of Pittsburgh. "He was underplaying, almost demure. Attack was not part of his strategy."68

Though this article is over a thousand words long, never does it mention the credibility of

either candidate‟s arguments. Rather, it focuses only on their presentation; in other words, it

discusses the impressions one should have from watching the debate. This is owes to the fact that

presentation is everything in debates, such as the 2012 one, of unsubstantiated claim, for there is

nothing else to critique. Even if the writer of this article, Jocelyn Noveck, wanted to talk about the

67 Online Internet webpage: Transcript (Presidential Debate between Obama and Romney) 2012 <http://www.npr.org/2012/10/22/163436694/transcript-3rd-obama-romney-presidential-debate> Last consulted 01/05/2013 68 Online Internet webpage: Article. Jocelyn Noveck. The Times-Herald, Presidential Debate impressions: Obama,

Romney square off for 3rd time, 2012, <http://www.times-herald.com/Local/Debate-impressions--A-reversal-in-body-

language>, Last consulted 15/04/2013

substance of the debate, she would have had nothing additional to say, for a claim cannot be

dissected if it is not supported by arguments.

In this way, I see another significant reason for the existence of spin: because of the structure

of political debates, it is difficult for members of the media to focus on the substance of the debate.

Rather, they examine the only thing which can be dissected: the debate tactics of either candidate.

Debate tactics are not clear however; neither are they entirely indicative the candidate‟s ability to

lead. As such, in examining these tactics, one has the opportunity to view them in such a way that

suits one‟s own interests. Here, I see that spin is - in part - a product of the modern debate structure.

Moreover, I see that spin is a product of a lack of information. Spinning is taking the little amount

of information which exists, and manipulating in such a way as to render even that little amount of

information more ambiguous than it was.

III. Studying Spin in Its Various Forms

To this point, I have examined the origin of the terms, spin and spin doctoring. As well, I

have looked at the causes of spin and studied the way in which these causes have allowed spin to

progress to the point where it now is. However, a definition of spin (or spin-doctoring) cannot yet

be attained, for those additional ways in which spin can be – and has been – utilized must still be

elucidated. Here, I refer to the combined use of pitching and spinning. Pitching and spinning

embodies the last quality of spin which must be examined; this consists in the premeditated use of

spin.

III.I Pitching and Spinning

In their article: “Spin and Pitch Doctors: Campaign Strategies and Televised Political

Debates”, Michael I. Norton and George R. Goethals conduct the spinning and pitching process in

the following way. A political party will pitch a certain idea before a political event takes places.

The pitch can be negative or positive; though, it is usually negative. The purpose of this pitch is to

frame the public‟s opinion of the political event which has not yet occurred. After the public has

interpreted the event in the way which the pitchers have planned, the spin will be proffered. The

spin proffered after the pitch works in a specific way by founding itself on the presumption created

by the pitch. A spin proffered after a pitch derives from two different sources: the pitch – which the

spin reaffirms - and the political event itself.69

An example of pitch and spin has already been provided above where personality politics is

examined. Before the 2000 Bush-Gore elections, Al Gore and his campaign staff routinely

demanded George Bush to accept his offer to debate. When Bush refused three times, Gore and his

staff drew attention to Bush‟s inability to debate by making attacks on him directly and through the

media. Rather than rebutting these attacks however, the Bush campaign staff accepted them as true.

Both directly and through the media, the Bush campaign staff published Bush‟s poor debating skills.

As a result, the public actually believed that Gore was a superior debater. This was the desired

effect of the pitch – to make the public think that Bush was a poor debater. The pitch itself was no

more than a few negative statements by the Bush campaign staff signifying that Bush was an

unskilled debater. After the debate – in which both candidates performed relatively well -, Bush and

his campaign staff proffered the spin that Bush, „an inept debater,‟ had been able to compete with

the „excellent debater‟ Al Gore. With the combined pitch and spin, the public was convinced that

Bush really had been a poor debater, but had performed well because of both how well prepared he

69 Lexis Nexis: Online Document Source. Article. Michael I. Norton and George R. Goethals, Spin and Pitch Doctors: Campaign Strategies in Televised Political Debates, 2004

had been and the superior quality of his policies.70

In truth however, as I have seen above, it would

have been impossible to determine whether Bush‟s policies were superior to Gore‟s policies, for the

format of modern presidential debates does not offer candidates a sufficient opportunity for

demonstrating policy superiority. (See section above) I can therefore see how the pitch and spin

tactic can alter the public‟s interpretation of even the factual content (i.e. political policies) of a

debate.

Here, I see that spin doctors use spin not only as a way of convincing the public to accept

their interpretation of a political event, but also as a psychological tactic. By allowing Bush‟s image

as a poor debater to permeate public opinion, the Bush campaign staff artificially reduced the

people‟s expectations. In artificially reducing the people‟s expectations, the Bush campaign staff

increased the likelihood that Bush‟s performance would be well received. Bush performed on the

same level as Gore, yet the pitch made his performance appear exceptional even in comparison to

Gore‟s performance. That Bush was perceived as exceptional - even when he did not perform

exceptionally – is demonstrative of the profundity of the psychological impact of the spin and pitch

tactic. The authors of the article “Spin and Pitch Doctors: Campaign Strategies in Televised

Political Debates”, Norton and Goethals explain why this tactic is so efficient by examining two

psychological studies of the effect: “People make more positive attributions when negative

information is followed by more positive information, both in evaluating themselves (Aronson and

Linder, 1965; Parducci, 1995) and others (Walster et al., 1966)”71

Other examples of the pitch and spin tactic can be observed in such cases as the Quayle-Gore

1996 vice-presidential debates. Leading up to the debate between these two candidates, Dan Quayle

70 Lexis Nexis: Online Document Source. Article. Michael I. Norton and George R. Goethals, Spin and Pitch Doctors: Campaign Strategies in Televised Political Debates, 2004 71 Lexis Nexis: Online Document Source. Article. Michael I. Norton and George R. Goethals, Spin and Pitch Doctors: Campaign Strategies in Televised Political Debates, 2004. 228-229

routinely claimed that because he had not attended an Ivy League School (e.g. Harvard, Yale, et

cetera) like his opponent Al Gore. The purpose of this pitch was to convince the public that Gore

possessed a superior chance of winning the debates. What must be noted here however, consists in

the following: even after Quayle and his staff released their post-debate spin, they were unable to

gain an advantage over Gore. There is the possibility that the pitch and spin tactic failed here simply

because Gore appeared to be the superior candidate despite the tactics of Quayle. However, there is

also another possibility, which requires further examination: did Quayle‟s pitch and spin tactic fail

because the public found it incredible?

III.2 Studying Pitch and Spin

In the studies conducted by Norton and Goethals, the tactic of pitching and spinning is examined

using various methods.72

The intention of the studies is to determine the efficiency and credibility

of various pitching and spinning tactics. The results which they discovered consist in the following:

“In Study 1, when no post-debate information was provided, lowering expectations for a candidate

led to lower ratings of performance. In Study 2, when positive feedback (a post-debate „„spin‟‟) was

provided after a low pitch, participants did rate performance positively, but only when the spin was

supplied by a credible media source”.73

The studies were conducted by placing 56 undergraduate students before a television, through which

the pitches, spins, and actual debate were presented. In Study 1, pitch for each of the candidates was

proffered in four separate ways: (1) positively and by the media; (2) positively and by the campaign

staff of the candidate; (3) negatively and by the media; and (4) negatively and by the campaign staff

of the candidate. In Study 2, the Study 1 was repeated with the addition of the two following types

of spin offered after the debate: (1) positive spin provided by the media; and (2) positive spin

72 Lexis Nexis: Online Document Source. Article. Michael I. Norton and George R. Goethals, Spin and Pitch Doctors: Campaign Strategies in Televised Political Debates, 2004 73 Lexis Nexis: Online Document Source. Article. Michael I. Norton and George R. Goethals, Spin and Pitch Doctors: Campaign Strategies in Televised Political Debates, 2004, 227

provided by the campaign staff of the candidate.74

The debate utilized in the study was the 1996

William Wield – John Kerry debate for Senator of Massachusetts. Norton and Goethals‟ previous

studies determined that the candidates generally did not perform equally in this debate as Kerry was

considered the victor by certain margin. This margin was considered the control. This particular

debate was chosen because candidates were expected to be less biased to candidates for the Senator

of Massachusetts than presidential candidates. It was also noted that the gender and pre-existing

political ideology of the test-subjects would not be a significant factor given the relatively moderate

stances of the two senatorial candidates and the information gathered by Norton and Goethals before

conducting the two studies.75

There is one difficulty which must be recognized in these studies

however.

Before continuing, this difficulty must be addressed. The test subjects do not represent the average

person, but rather represent the average university student. The problem which this creates consists

in the following. Because the university student is pursuing higher education, there is a greater

likelihood that he or she is better informed (or educated) than the average person. If the test subjects

are better informed than the average person however, then they are more likely to recognize when

and when not they are being manipulated. However, if they are more capable of recognizing this,

then they will also be more capable of recognizing when and when not they are being manipulated

by spin. Our observation here does not signify that the studies are not worth examining. Rather, I

must view the results cautiously. To accomplish this, I must recognize the possibility that pitch and

spin are more efficacious than they are made to seem in these studies.

The results of the first study demonstrated that in the absence of a post-debate spin, a positive pitch

produced more favorable results than a negative pitch. Here, it was shown that the positive pitch for

74 Lexis Nexis: Online Document Source. Article. Michael I. Norton and George R. Goethals, Spin and Pitch Doctors: Campaign Strategies in Televised Political Debates, 2004, 227-230 75 Lexis Nexis: Online Document Source. Article. Michael I. Norton and George R. Goethals, Spin and Pitch Doctors: Campaign Strategies in Televised Political Debates, 2004, 240-242

Kerry raised his margin of victory while the negative pitch lowered it. The results in the first study

also demonstrated that the source of the pitch did not affect its efficacy. These results align well

with the study mentioned in a section above concerning the influence of the television (see section

II.9, paragraph 4). However, the second studied demonstrated the contrary of the first study and the

study mentioned above in this paper. From the second study, it I concluded that the negative pitch

and positive spin tactic worked only where the positive spin was presented by an „unbiased‟ third

party (i.e. the media) and not directly by the candidate‟s campaign staff. Although Kerry won in

both cases, his margin of victory was greatly reduced when the positive spin came from his own

campaign staff.76

Though it seems reasonable that one would find a spin proffered by an interested

party to be less credible, this finding is dubious. For two reasons I can consider it dubious: first, this

conclusion contrasts with the results of the study mention in section II.9, paragraph 4, where it is

noted that people rarely make the difference between information provided directly by the

campaigning party and information provided by the media; secondly, the subjects of the second

study were university students, and therefore are excepted to be more incredulous of the source of

information than the average person.

Thus, while it may be possible to say that there is a tendency to find spin proffered by a political

party less credible, it cannot be confirmed that the average person would find this type of spin to be

less credible than spin presented from a third-party. Although further study is required to determine

the average voter‟s degree of credulousness with regard to pitch and spin presented directly by

political parties, a number of definite conclusions can be reached through this study. First, the tactic

of pitching and spinning is capable of producing an effect on the American voter. Norton and

Goethals‟ studies clearly show that ratings of the candidates were higher with the most successful

pitches and spins than they were in the absence of pitches and spins. Second, negative pitches

76 Lexis Nexis: Online Document Source. Article. Michael I. Norton and George R. Goethals, Spin and Pitch Doctors: Campaign Strategies in Televised Political Debates, 2004, 237-240

followed by positive spins generally produce more favorable results than pitches by themselves or

any other combination of positive and negative pitch and spin. 77

Lastly, as Norton and Goethals‟

study demonstrates, the psychological effect of these tactics – pitching and spinning - depends both

upon their own nature and the nature of the candidate. For instance, as Norton and Goethals

suggest, a low pitch / positive spin tactic may not work for a candidate in all situations, especially

where the candidate performs poorly in the debate. As well, a positive pitch may sometimes create

an expectation which a candidate is never able to fulfill and therefore harm the candidate‟s

chances.78

With regards to this last point, it cannot be overlooked at the candidate‟s performance plays

a significant role in the electoral process despite pitching and spinning. In other words, there is a

limit to what pitching and spinning can accomplish. The candidate‟s performance cannot drop

below the public‟s expected standards. Of course, as I have seen, much of a candidate‟s

performance is filtered through the mediums of television and media. The extent to which the

candidate‟s performance matters is difficult to judge. Just as well, so is it also difficult to assess the

extent to which pitch and spin matter. To determine exactly how important each of these factors are,

a study far more extensive than Norton and Goethals‟ studies would need to be conducted.

Norton and Goethals recognize this at the end of their paper, and suggest that more extensive study

would require the following: (1) a greater number of debates and wider range of subjects to interpret

them; and (2) the simultaneous exposure to pitching and spinning from both candidates. Norton and

Goethals emphasize the importance of this last point for the following reason: in actual debates, both

parties are pitching and spinning. This may explain the discrepancy between the results of Norton

and Goethals‟ Study 2 and the study mentioned in section II.9, paragraph 4. If both candidates are

77 Lexis Nexis: Online Document Source. Article. Michael I. Norton and George R. Goethals, Spin and Pitch Doctors: Campaign Strategies in Televised Political Debates, 2004, 242 78 Lexis Nexis: Online Document Source. Article. Michael I. Norton and George R. Goethals, Spin and Pitch Doctors: Campaign Strategies in Televised Political Debates, 2004, 240-242

pitching and spinning directly to the public (and not through a third-party such as the media), then it

would seem that pitching and spinning directly to the public has become the norm. If pitching and

spinning directly to the public is the norm, then people are less likely to recognize it as something

different (and ultimately as something deceptive).

the following: (1) discover the origin of the terms, spin and spin-doctoring; (2) examine the Perhaps

the subjects in Norton and Goethals‟ second study were less credulous of the pitching and spinning

given to them directly by one candidate because they recognized that the other candidate was not

attempting to manipulate them with such machinations.

III.3 The Perpetuation of Pitch and Spin

Here again, I am confronted with the very same difficulty which I addressed in section II.4,

paragraph 1: the two-party system. I can speculate that the norm of pitching and spinning directly to

the public persists because only two parties – each of which partake in this practice – have a

legitimate chance at winning major elections (e.g. presidential, vice-presidential, senatorial

elections, et cetera). Third parties that would not presume to practice these manipulative tactics

have an extraordinarily small chance of gaining votes. Moreover, even if one of the two major

parties wished to cease pitching and spinning directly the public, it would be extraordinarily

difficult. First, it would risk losing a large portion of votes. Since many voters have grown up in

the culture of pitching and spinning, there is a chance that much of the public would perceive a

party‟s failure to pitch or spin as demonstrative of that party‟s inability to lead. Second, the private

persons and companies which fund political parties would not be willing to invest their money in a

major party which refused the tactics of pitching and spinning. As it has been mentioned above,

employing these tactics could easily reduce a party‟s chances of winning a victory. I therefore can

observe through Norton and Goethals‟ studies and the observations which I have made in the some

of the sections above that little chance exists that any political party (including third-parties) will

gain power without employing the tactics of pitching and spinning.

III.4 Defining Spin-Doctoring

Through my inquiries into spin (or spin-doctoring), I have been able to accomplish causes of

spin; and (3) study the impact of spin in its various forms (e.g. when it is coupled with pitch). Using

the information which I have hitherto acquired, I must now attempt to define spin (or spin-

doctoring).

First, I must recognize that spin always concerns an event with political implications. Every

case of spin which I have thus far considered has concerned either a political debate, a political

negotiation, etc. Of course, the political event may be fabricated and of no real importance in itself

(see section I.3, paragraph 4; and section I.4, paragraph 1). All that matters consists in this: the

political event must be sufficiently ambiguous to be interpreted in multiple ways. Thus, a fabricate

event, which would contain less facts than a real event, may even be preferable.

I have also noted that spin doctors can both contemplate spinning before an event occurs and after

an event occurs. An example of the former could consist in the pitch and spin tactics of the 2000

Bush campaign (see section III.1, paragraphs 1-2). An example of the latter can be recognized in

Reagan‟s attempt to spin unsuccessful negotiations with Gorbachev (see section I.2, paragraph 4).

Thus, I see that spin can be both premeditated and spontaneous response. Spin is a special type of

response (premeditated or spontaneous) to an ambiguous political event. The objective of spin is to

manipulate the demos into interpreting an event in the way which the spin doctor desires. Of course,

there are many things which a spin doctor could wish to manipulate the demos into accepting. For

instance, a spin doctor may wish to manipulate the demos in order to divert its intention, to make it

think positively or negatively about an event, or even to make a profit. It is easy to see how a spin

doctor working for Reagan could spin to gain popularity for Reagan and reduce popularity for his

opponents. A spin doctor working for the media, however, may spin a political event because he or

she thinks it will make for a popular story and earn him or her a substantial amount of cash. That

which must be noted here consists in the following: the desire is for a personal gain (or a gain shared

by a group) at the expense of the demos‟ ability to make an unbiased vote. I see now, that spin is

the desire (premeditated or spontaneous) to manipulate a political event for a personal gain at the

expense of the demos. There is, of course, more to spin. As spin is an intentional attempt to corrupt

the demos‟ ability to make an unbiased vote, it is an amoral act; in other words, it is accomplished

without moral considerations for the demos.

The power of spin is greatly augmented by technology, especially with regards to television.

Not only does spin become more effective when images and sounds can replace objective facts, but

also when it can be communicated to the homes of the demos for multiple hours every day of the

week. Technologically advanced communication is not an aspect of spin in-itself. Rather, it reveals

something about spin: spin satisfies the desire of the demos to treat politics as entertainment. No

other reason could explain why political news programs are so popular. For each of the major

political news networks, there is a following of roughly one hundred million persons.79

People are

eager for spin. They care not whether it comes from an „independent‟ news source or directly from

an interested political party. 80

In short, people do not want to dissect debates by themselves as they

once did for the Lincoln-Douglas debates. They want to hear opinions, and they want them to be

entertaining; in other words, they want them filled with images, void difficult content, and presented

to them in such a way that requires little effort on their own part. Spin it therefore not only a desire

to manipulate, but a desire to be manipulated.

The final definition of spin consists in the following: acting to manipulate an ambiguous

political event by proffering a response – premeditated or spontaneous – in order to make a personal

gain (political, financial, or other) by exploiting the demos‟ desire for political information in the

79 Online Internet webpage: Article. Sara Bibel Cable News Ratings for April 30

th 2013. 2013

<http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2013/05/01/cable-news-ratings-for-tuesday-april-30-2013/180596/> Last

consulted 30/04/2013 80 O’Shaughnessy, The Phenomen of Political Marketing, 62

form of passive entertainment. This definition is certainly wider than Hicks‟ definition, which we

have already studied (see I.5, paragraph 1). The first difference between Hicks‟ definition and ours

consists in that Hicks views spin only as a means of responding to negative, ambiguous, political

events. As we have seen however, both positive and negative events can be spun. In the Reagan-

Mondale debate, Mondale was thought to have performed well, yet that did not stop his campaign

staff from taking measures to spin the post-debate scene (see section I.2, paragraph 1). The second

difference between the definitions consists in that Hicks regards the sole end of spin as diverting

attention. To the contrary, our definition accepts a multitude of reasons for spinning.

Of course, the definition which I have proffered is limited in certain respects in a way which

Hicks‟ definition is not. I see that spin applies only in the context of vague political events. It

would not be a case of spin, for example, if a trustee of a large public firm attempted to manipulate

the shareholder‟s into interpreting a financially significant event in a certain way. As well, it must

be recognized that spin must reach a credulous audience (or demos), for spin plays on the desires of

the people.

Conclusion

I began this paper by examining the origins of the terms - spin and spin-doctoring. To

accomplish this, I looked both at the first publications containing the use of these terms in a political

context and the political persons which first presumed to employ the type of politically activity

described as spinning and spin-doctoring. This starting point allowed me to subsequently examine

the work of other researchers studying the phenomena which these terms presume to describe. By

examining their work and the progression of the use of spin and spin-doctoring, I was then able to

plumb the causes of spin and spin-doctoring. By determining these causes, I was then able to further

examine the particular scenarios in which these terms were being properly applied. By further

examination of these scenarios, I developed the definition of spin and spin-doctoring which I

mention above (acting to manipulate an ambiguous political event by proffering a response –

premeditated or spontaneous – in order to make a personal gain (political, financial, or other) by

exploiting the demos‟ desire for political information in the form of passive entertainment).

With this definition, there is the hope that subsequent persons will be able to further study -

spin and spin-doctoring without confusing veritable incidences of spin with false ones. There is an

additional conclusion which can be derived from the results at which I have achieved: spin and spin-

doctoring appears to be the modus operandi of American politics. This modus operandi is supported

not only by the politicians themselves, but a media and demos which thrives on spin and spin-

doctoring. With this reflection, I may note that spin and spin-doctoring is likely here to stay. This

is the same conclusion which Kenneth Hicks reached after examining the nature of U.S. political

system, the „independent‟ media, and the American demos:

Spin is a logical byproduct of the inertia built into the American system of government. If the

arguments in this essay have any validity, then the likelihood of banishing spin from American

political discourse is remote. Indeed, imagining a conversation about politics that did not resort to

some kind of spin-like rhetoric is to imagine a dull conversation, held among people who do not

care sufficiently about politics to have arrived at a coherent set of beliefs, and hence make little

effort to win the argument…81

Hicks concludes by noting that “no one should be surprised to find that what is bought [by spin-

doctoring] is cynicism, apathy, and a jaded and unsatisfactory political discourse.”

81Online Internet webpage: Article. Kenneth Hicks. The Anatomy of Spin: Courses, Consequences, and Cure, <http://www.rsu.edu/faculty/khicks/essays/spin.htm>, Last consulted 17/05/2013

In this paper, the American political system has been exclusively examined. However, it is

not difficult to image spin-doctoring infiltrating another democratic system. In fact, many have

already argued that spin-doctoring can be recognized in the United Kingdom.82

Whether or not the term spin-doctoring will become as popular in non-Anglophonic democracies,

such as France, is difficult to determine. Though the term has appeared in some modern French

works it does not appear that the public is widely familiar with spin-doctoring.83

This is not to

imply that the very same phenomenon of spin-doctoring is not existent elsewhere.

82Lexis Nexis: Online Document Source. Article. Andrews Leighton.Spin: from Tactic to Tabloid,2006.32-33 83Christian Salmon.Storytelling,la machine à fabriquer des histoires et a formater les esprits.Editions La Decouverte, 2007. 131

Bibliography

I Primary Sources

Online-Documents

Article. William Safire. The New York Times: On Language Calling Doctor Spin

<http://www.nytimes.com/1986/08/31/magazine/on-language-calling-dr-spin.html>

Online Interview. NPR : National Public Radio interview between Jack Rosenthal, Linda

Wertheimer, Elisabeth Bumiller, Dayton Duncan, Lyn Nofziger on the history of the term “spin”,

<http://business.highbeam.com/436932/article-1G1-162251351/profile-history-term-spin-politics>

II Secondary Sources

Books

Christian Salmon.Storytelling,la machine à fabriquer des histoires et a formater les esprits.(Editions

La Decouverte, 2007)

Daniel J. Boorstin. The Image. A Division of Random House, Inc., New York, 2012

Judith S Trent. & Robert V. Friendenberg.Political Campaign Communication (Rowman &

Littlefield Publishers, INC.Maryland.2008)

Nicholas O‟Shaughnessy. The Phenomenon on Political Marketing (The Macmillan Press LTD.

Hampshire and London, 1990)

Timothy E. Cook, Governing with the News.The News Media as a Political Institution (The

University of Chicago Press. London. 1998)

Online documents

Biography: Andrew Jackson Biography

<http://www.reformation.org/president-jackson.html>

Danel Boorstin Biography

http://www.answers.com/topic/daniel-j-boorstin>

Dayton Duncan Biography

<http://www.iptv.org/iowajournal/story.cfm/412/feature>

Elisabeth Bumiller Biography

http://www.biography.com/search-results?q=Elisabeth+Bumiller>

Jack Rosenthal Biography

<http://www.nytimes.com/1999/08/10/nyregion/jack-rosenthal-to-follow-gelb-as-head-of-times-

foundation.html>

Lee Atwater Biography

<http://www.in.com/lee-atwater/biography-170577.html>

Lyn Nofziger Biography,

<http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/25/lyn-nofziger-a-reagan-aide-remembered/

William Safire Biography,

<http://www.biography.com/people/william-safire-9469180>

Articles : Lexis Nexis: Online Document Source. Article. Andrews Leighton Spin: from Tactic to Tabloid,

2006

Lexis Nexis: Online Document Source. Article. Michael I. Norton and George R. Goethals, Spin and

Pitch Doctors: Campaign Strategies in Televised Political Debates

Lexis Nexis: Online Document Source. Article. Tom Wicker. The New York Times. In the

Nation ;Meet Dr. Spin. 1986, Late City Final Edition.

Article.Amy Gardner, The Washington Post, Gingrich pledges moon colony during presidency,

<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/post/gingrich-pledges-moon-colony-during-

presidency/2012/01/25/gIQAmQxiRQ_blog.html>.

Article.David Hinkley, The New York Daily Times. Americans spend 34 hours a week watching TV,

according to Nielsen numbers, <http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv-movies/americans-

spend-34-hours-week-watching-tv-nielsen-numbers-article-1.1162285>.

Article. Guy Adams. The Independent: Obama's spin doctor bruises hacks with 'nastygrams'

<http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/obamas-spin-doctor-bruises-hacks-with-

nastygrams-6281230.html>.

Article. Jocelyn Noveck. The Times-Herald, Presidential Debate impressions: Obama, Romney

square off for 3rd time, 2012, <http://www.times-herald.com/Local/Debate-impressions--A-reversal-

in-body-language

Article. Kenneth Hicks. The Anatomy of Spin: Courses, Consequences, and Cure.

<http://www.rsu.edu/faculty/khicks/essays/spin.htm>.

Synopsis of the book The Boogie Man: the Lee Atwater Story. <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/atwater/etc/synopsis.html.

Transcript. (Presidential Debate between Obama and Romney) 2012

<http://www.npr.org/2012/10/22/163436694/transcript-3rd-obama-romney-presidential-debate

Statistics and Ratings:

Statistics on Elections of each State. <270towin.com>

Statistics on Presidential Elections. <http://www.statista.com/statistics/216793/fundraising-and-

spending-in-us-presidential-elections/>

Electoral College:

<http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html>

Ratings: Sara Bibel Cable News Ratings for April 30th 2013. 2013

<http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2013/05/01/cable-news-ratings-for-tuesday-april-30-

2013/180596/

Appendix 1

Source: www.googleimages.fr