Thesis_Spin Doctoring

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. 7
In
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>,

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

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

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
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,

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).
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
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

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

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
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

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

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
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

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>

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
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
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
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
Campaign Strategies in Televised Political Debates, 2004, 227-230

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

Thesis_Spin Doctoring

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Thesis_Spin Doctoring

Similar to Thesis_Spin Doctoring (18)

Thesis_Spin Doctoring