Does Spin Suck?

Does spin suck?

The word “spin” does have a neg­at­ive con­nota­tion. One of my favour­ite PR blog­gers, Gini Dietrich, even named her blog Spin Sucks.

And to be fair, I’m sure I would agree with how Dietrich would define spin. Deliberate dis­tor­tion of facts, manip­u­la­tion, and out­right lying to the pub­lic — yeah, that spin sucks. 

But I see no reas­on to dis­miss a per­fectly usable word. We’re in pub­lic rela­tions; we should know that every story has more than one side.

Here we go:

What is Spin?

According to Wikipedia, here’s how to define spin:

“In pub­lic rela­tions, spin is a form of pro­pa­ganda, achieved through provid­ing a biased inter­pret­a­tion of an event or cam­paign­ing to per­suade pub­lic opin­ion in favor or against some organ­iz­a­tion or pub­lic fig­ure. While tra­di­tion­al pub­lic rela­tions may also rely on cre­at­ive present­a­tion of the facts, “spin” often implies the use of disin­genu­ous, decept­ive, and highly manip­u­lat­ive tac­tics.”
Source: Wikipedia ¹Spin (pro­pa­ganda). (2023, November 19). In Wikipedia. https://​en​.wiki​pe​dia​.org/​w​i​k​i​/​S​p​i​n​_​(​p​r​o​p​a​g​a​nda)

Ouch. That is not a very pos­it­ive description.

According to Merriam-Webster, a spin doc­tor is “[…] a per­son (such as a polit­ic­al aide) whose job involves try­ing to con­trol the way some­thing (such as an import­ant event) is described to the pub­lic to influ­ence what people think about it.”

Well. Merriam-Webster’s descrip­tion doesn’t shout “evil” as much as Wikipedia’s, so that’s something. 

Well, here’s what I think:

We shouldn’t be strangers to reclaim­ing neg­at­ive words to make them pos­it­ive. After all, Edward Bernays, the fath­er of PR, wrote in Propaganda from 1928:

“I am aware that the word pro­pa­ganda car­ries too many minds an unpleas­ant con­nota­tion. Yet wheth­er, in any instance, pro­pa­ganda is good or bad depend upon the mer­it of the cause urged, and the cor­rect­ness of the inform­a­tion pub­lished. In itself, the word pro­pa­ganda has cer­tain tech­nic­al mean­ings which, like most things in this world, are neither good nor bad but cus­tom makes them so.”
Source: Propaganda ²Bernays, E. L. (1928). Propaganda. Horace Liveright.

Still, Bernays didn’t exactly suc­ceed in turn­ing the tables for the word propaganda.

But the major­ity is some­times wrong. I think both “pro­pa­ganda” and “spin” deserve bet­ter PR. 

“We are all cap­tives of the pic­ture in our head — our belief that the world we have exper­i­enced is the world that really exists.”
— Walter Lippmann (1889 – 1974)

A Glass of Many Truths

Spin Academy | Online PR Courses

A Glass of Many Truths

Let’s say that there’s a glass of water stand­ing on a table in front of you — and there’s water in it. The glass holds 100 ml of water but could store 200 ml if filled up.

I could say that the glass is half full. That’s true.

I could also say that the glass is half empty. Still true.

Both state­ments are equally val­id, of course, but the choice of words will influ­ence our ste­reo­typ­ic­al think­ing about the state of the glass and its content. 

The second state­ment emphas­ises empti­ness (the glass needs a refill), and the first state­ment is full­ness (the glass needs no refill).

Now, let’s get even more creative:

The glass is full. True, yes?

Technically, this state­ment is true as well:

50% of the glass con­tains water; the oth­er 50% is split between roughly 78% nitro­gen, 21% oxy­gen, argon, car­bon diox­ide, and small amounts of oth­er gasses. 

How about this:

The glass is not half full, nor is it half empty. Also true.

An equal split between water and gasses implies an exact divi­sion of pro­tons, neut­rons, and elec­trons. But Heisenberg’s uncer­tainty prin­ciple says no.

Such accur­acy might not mat­ter to you or me, but for a phys­i­cist, these pre­cise ver­sions of the truth might make all the difference.

So, what does a glass of water have to do with PR?

• In a demo­cracy, com­pet­ing interests will put for­ward the truths that best serve their pur­poses. If you care about your interests, you should spin for the win, too.

Learn more: Does Spin Suck?

💡 Subscribe and get a free ebook on how to get bet­ter PR ideas.

Everybody Spins

As humans, we spin. We frame our state­ments to make them serve our pur­poses. Fundamentally, it’s our right to make a case that is ours and not someone else’s.

And if someone comes along say­ing that they have the abso­lute author­ity on what ver­sion of the truth you and every­one else must abide by? 

Well, run. And while you’re sprint­ing for safety under pan­ick­ing breaths, you can be assured that those scary author­it­ari­ans had their tyr­an­nic­al ver­sions of the truth ready to go.

Spin for the Win

In a demo­cracy, we’re sup­posed to have our say to influ­ence our world with our words.

If you don’t get to spin your real­ity the way you see it, someone else will surely do it for you — but not neces­sar­ily with your best interest in mind. 

I’m proud to say that I spin my ver­sion of how I see the world — all the time. And I help my cli­ents to spin their ver­sions of the truth, too. I’m a propagandist!

“This is just semantics,” some might argue.
Well, that’s my point exactly, I say.

PR Resource: Fundamental Approaches To PR

Approaches To Public Relations

There are three schol­arly approaches to pub­lic rela­tions (PR):

The Excellence Approach. This pub­lic rela­tions approach focuses on object­ives and cor­por­ate value cre­ation. The under­ly­ing motiv­a­tion behind the the­ory was that pub­lic rela­tions were mainly a vari­ety of tac­tic­al tools that des­per­ately needed a man­age­ment the­ory to work well in a soph­ist­ic­ated organ­isa­tion.

Notable men­tions: James E. Grunig, Larissa A. Grunig

The Rhetorical Approach. This pub­lic rela­tions approach stems from ideas dat­ing back to ancient Greece. It’s a psy­cho­lo­gic­al the­ory of how com­mu­nic­a­tion struc­tures human cul­ture by shap­ing human minds. The rhet­or­ic­al approach is prac­tic­al and lacks mor­al judg­ment.

Notable men­tions: Edward Bernays, The Toronto School of Communication Theory, Robert Heath

The Critical Approach. This pub­lic rela­tions approach is deeply rooted in the­or­ies of soci­et­al power dynam­ics. Power is seen as a means of exert­ing dom­in­ance, manip­u­la­tion, and oppres­sion. The crit­ic­al approach bor­rows many ideas from the rhet­or­ic­al approach by pla­cing them in mor­al frame­works.

Notable men­tions: Walter Lippmann, Noam Chomsky

Read also: 3 PR Approaches: Excellence, Rhetorical, and Critical