PR and spin have undermined trust in politics.. or not?

               'Lies and deception in politics are not synonymous with spin.' 

Recently, I attended the debate ‘PR and spin have undermined trust in politics’ which was organised by my university (University of Westminster). The panel was made up of Kevin Maguire, associate and political editor of the Daily Mirror and Sheila Gunn, political consultant, formerly political journalist and John Major’s spokesperson speaking for the motion and Lance Prince, former Labour ‘spin doctor’, now author and commentator and Francis Ingham, Chief Executive of the PRCA speaking against the motion. Overall I thought that the debate was very interesting and that all of the speakers had strong arguments. So what was the outcome of the debate? Have public relations and spin, undermined trust in politics, or not?

Well, you might think that the answer to that question is pretty obvious, but sometimes what is very clear at first, might turn out to be different if we look at it a bit more sceptical. Up until the debate, I used to believe that pubic relations and the work of spin doctors had definitely played a role in undermining trust in politics (in Britain). However, I had never attempted to challenge that and to consider any other factors there might be to blame and this debate was definitely an eye-opener.

It was suggested that although public relations and spin do play a role in undermining trust in politics, the real problem is rooted in the behaviour of MPs themselves and the media. Mr Price and Mr Ingham, suggested that first of all MPs have lost the public’s trust because of their improper behaviour. They are mischievous (sex scandals) and dishonest and also give the public false hope and make promises that at the end they do not keep. (Recent example: Bob Blackman, Conservative Party MP pledged to vote against any rise in tuition fees during his election campaign and then broke that promise by voting in favour of the rise). The media was another driver of mistrust is politics. This is because they are always looking for ‘hot’ stories to expose MPs. So the way journalists report on politicians reinforces the MPs’ bad image. One might say that they are just doing their job but perhaps if they didn’t report so extensively about every politician’s personal life, the public would have a better perception about them.

Kevin Maguire on the other hand who was blaming public relations for undermining trust in politics, called public relations practitioners ‘herbivores’, ‘horns’ and ‘devils’ among other. Well that was harsh! So what were the opposing views? Mr Price argued that ‘spin doctors’ should not be blamed because their job is to merely translate what politicians want to say to the public. So spin is only as vicious and bad as those who employ it. He also noted that there had not been a politician in history (Britain) who did not have a ‘spin doctor’ next to him. ‘Politicians are hooked on ‘spin’ and media management’ (Lance Prince). The conclusion was that good communicators cannot turn a bad politician into a nice one and that bad communicators cannot turn a good politician into a bad one. The outcome of the debate, which I firmly support, was that PR and ‘spin’ have not undermined trust in politics.

Does spin damage the democratic health of a nation?

Public Relations is often referred to as a ‘spin industry’ in which campaigns involve a partisan or distorted presentation of news/information. Tactics of ‘spin’ are often used by corporations, hospitals, even NGO’s and other organisations who want to control the news agenda to suit their needs, but the term ‘spin’ is usually associated with politics and political communication. The media is another institution that uses ‘spin’ and while they criticise public relations and the government for ‘spin’, they fail to recognise that they (media) also ‘spin’ stories when they select news content and provide their own interpretation of facts.

The widespread use of spin has negative consequences for democracy. Cutlip et al. suggest that effective democracy requires effective communication between citizens and the government: ‘In a very real sense, the purpose of democracy itself closely matches the purpose of public relations. Successful democratic government maintains responsive relationships with constituents, based on mutual understanding and two-way communication.’ (Cutlip et al. 2000: 448).  

Sadly it is often the case that information provided by the government to the public is misleading or inaccurate and fails to present the true picture. Tench, R. and Yeomans, L. state that ‘while democracy may depend on effective communication, not all communication is in the interests of the government’ (2006: 92). Democracy is based on the fundamental value of serving the wider public interest but there are always conflicts of interest involved in news management; there are various stakeholders to consider and not everybody can be satisfied. As a result, governments ‘spin’ the news to accommodate their own agenda. This is what was done by Alastair Campbell, a famous ‘spin doctor’ who was working for the British Government during the Iraq war. The "September Dossier" in September 2002 and the "Iraq Dossier" in February 2003 both contained fabricated information whose purpose was to justify the invasion of Iraq and to encourage public support.  

So it is clear that ‘spin’ not only damages the reputation of the PR industry but also the democratic health of a nation. Spin lowers public trust and also harms democratic processes. Unfortunately ‘spin’ is part of our culture and as Tench, R. and Yeomans, L. suggest, ‘a pervasive culture of secrecy that should be replaced by a culture of openness’ (2006: 91). There is a need for clear, two way communication between organisations and the public where news dissemination is truthful and impartial.

References:

Cutlip, S. et al. (2000) Effective Public Relations, 8th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall

Tench, R. & Yeomans, L.(2006) Exploring Public Relations. Essex: Pearson Education Limited

A modern example of War Spin

Last Wednesday, on our first class in Contemporary Theory and Issues in Public Relations, we watched a documentary by BBC called ‘War Spin’. If you haven’t heard of it before, ‘War Spin’, a BBC Correspondent documentary, is about how the US and British governments and military forces mislead and misinformed the public during the 2003 Iraq war. I have to say that I’ve never had an eye for politics, but anybody who watches this video can clearly see how propaganda and ‘spin’ are used in modern time public communication. 

According to Garth S. Jowett and Victoria O'Donnell (2006), spin or news management, (which implies propaganda) refers to “a coordinated strategy to minimise negative information and present in favourable light a story that could be damaging to self- interests” (p.3). Shawn J. Parry- Giles (2002) defined propaganda as “conceived of as strategically devised messages that are disseminated to masses of people by an institution for the purpose of generating action benefiting its source” (cited in Jowett and O’Donnell, 2006, p.5). This, as you will come to realise by reading the following story, is exactly the communication strategy the allies used during the Iraq war.
 
As the public’s opposition to the war grew stronger, something had to be done in order to regain their trust and support. So, the US Government, decided to appeal to people’s emotions by staging the rescue of a young Private, named, Jessica Lynch. The only true fact about this story was that Private Lynch had been taken to a hospital after being captured by Iraqis. What followed thereafter, was a ‘Hollywood film production’ by the US government that was broadcasted by every major news channel in the US, Britain and Australia. 

Although the Pentagon was fully aware that the hospital, where Private Lynch was being kept, had been cleared from the Iraqi troops the previous day, US Army Rangers and Navy Seals forced their way in there to ‘rescue’ her, by breaking doors and restraining doctors and other patients. Later, the Pentagon ordered a press conference to present a five-minute video of the rescue. I note here that the certain video was the only source of information regarding the incident. 

At the press meetings, the US Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defence would not offer any clear answers for the questions posed by journalists or give out any specific information about the incident. Conveniently enough, Private Lynch had suffered amnesia so she could not make any statements. 

Every bit of information was ‘spun’ in order to be presented in a way that would favour the party; from lying about Lynch’s stab and shot wounds (which were non-existent), claiming that she had gone down fighting (she later stated that her gun got stuck), the (mis)treatment she had received at the hospital (she received the best treatment available).
 
This event coincided with a lot of spinning that was taking place at that time of the war. For instance, the US government had embedded with the military 600 journalists who were being fed only with information which the government wished to release. In the process, they lied about war progress; they broadcasted videos of friendly football matches between local children and soldiers and of Iraqis surrendering, to show that enemy troops were leaning. As if that wasn’t enough, when the US military fired missiles in a residential area which killed civilians, they blamed the Iraqi military. 

The fact that reality can be so distorted and that people can be so ignorant about it amazes me. Unfortunately, at that point, their tactics were successful and they managed to lure the public on their side.


This is a part from the BBC Correspondent documentary which shed light on the true story:
 

 >

References: Jowett, G. and O'Donnell, V., (2006). Propaganda and Persuasion. 4th ed. Sage Publications Inc.

To read the whole story behind  Private Lynch's rescue visit:  http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/may2003/jess-m23.shtml