Hello and welcome to George and PR Trends. This blog aims to higlight my thoughts and issues on various contemporary issues of the PR Industry. As a former Masters Degree in Public Relations student at the University of Westminster, the topics mainly emanated from issues discussed in class. The views expressed on this site are my own and do not represent those of the University. Please feel free to follow, leave a comment, share, tweet and contribute in any way you can. Thank you.

Friday 25 February 2011

Spin doctoring and its potential to choke democracy

For a start, we should remind ourselves that Public Relations is the discipline which looks after reputation, with the aim of earning understanding and support and influencing opinion and behaviour. It is the planned and sustained effort to establish and maintain goodwill and mutual understanding between an organisation and its publics.

By merely defining this term, critics can already start to shake their head and argue that the profession cannot claim to manage reputation as it has its own reputation to work on.


Today, the abbreviation ‘PR’ has entered everyday language, as has some of its jargon (campaign, press release, image, spin doctor, soundbite, on message, off message, rapid rebuttal, minder, positioning, relaunch) – but rarely with positive connotations. As Moloney (2006) argued, the jibe ‘It’s a PR job’ describes words or actions about which there is a perceived or actual gap between presentation and reality, a gap that is either actively disguised or not owned up to. That is the gap connoted by other commonplace phrases such as ‘It’s a PR disaster’ or ‘It’s just spin’. The term ‘PR’ generally carries a negative charge.

Perhaps it is the term spin that is spoiling the PR party as it is directly related to PR practitioners and their activities.

For clarity’s sake, we should loosely define spin as a form of propaganda, achieved through providing an interpretation of an event or campaign to persuade public opinion in favor or against a certain organization or public figure. Spin often, though not always, implies disingenuous, deceptive and/or highly manipulative tactics.
Politically speaking the activity happens in a democratic state; where the activity can be identified as information manipulation; where the information is more accurate than inaccurate; and where the purpose of the spin is known, i.e. to enhance the standing of the government or opposition party. But spinning is, above all, associated with the persuasive management of journalists to secure favourable media coverage.

Some techniques of spin include: selectively presenting facts and quotes that support one's position; non-denial or denial; phrasing in a way that assumes unproven truths; burying bad news: announcing one popular thing at the same time as several unpopular things, hoping that the media will focus on the popular one, or delaying in the release of bad news so it can be hidden in the "shadow" of more important or favorable news or events. So it is true that securing favourable media coverage is the ultimate goal.

PR puts itself in the quay before public opinion when it favours powerful, sectional causes and vested interests at the expense of broader public ones. The public now rejects PR not because it is weak propaganda but rather the complaint of the public is that the powerful use PR propaganda against the public interest. Eventually, this negatively has effects on democracy. These effects include: the PR ‘voices’ of dominant groups in society are heard more than those of less dominant groups; PR gives advantages to special interests at costs to the public  interest; and this asymmetry of communication expresses and reinforces unequal power relationships (Moloney 2006).

Now when some people start to shout louder than others, the media (journalists) ought to come in and level the playing field. Unfortunately, they oftentimes also seem to have their agenda to pursue. Ownership and control of the media is always at work and eventually, the “fourth estate” have their hands tied as well. Ultimately, the already-choked channels of communications are cluttered with the debris of pseudo events and phony phrases that confuse rather than clarify’ our channels of communication are decayed with credibility gaps.

If not taken care of, the above situation leads to information subsidy, a technique which suits business interests as spin doctors prepare briefs for journalists- one frequently used method for heavily influencing, if not controlling, media scrutiny and comment about capitalism.

Moloney (1996) identified commercial lobbying – the hiring of lobbyists – as another PR technique expressive of dominant influence. This is what brings us to Alastair Campbell, arguably the most influential public relations person in British history.  The then chief press spokesperson for the government was responsible for the presentation of government policy, which would soon become propaganda and there was a place for that. Allegations that words and evidence about policy were ‘sexed up’ (exaggerated) in order to maximise political support were levelled against Campbell.

In a video News from No. 10 we watched last week in class, it would be clearly seen that even the question who sets the agenda (the media of PR practitioners?) is not easy to answer, not to talk of the blame-game of who is the real spin doctor, the Campbells or the media? As for Campbell, the manipulating and inflating of issues put him in trouble in his dealings with intelligence experts over the 2002 September dossier justifying the decision to invade Iraq in 2003.

In spite of all this, we should always remember that every organisation that interacts with other agencies may be said to engage in public relations. It is inevitable.

Maybe a good conclusion would be words from Edward Bernays, the Father of Spin himself who said: The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate the unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power. We are governed, our minds moulded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. In almost every act of our lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires that control the public mind."


In this video, Campbell answers questions about backroom media deals and New Labour spin

Additional reading:
Moloney K (2006), Rethinking Public Relations, Routledge Taylor & Francis Group: London and New York







No comments:

Post a Comment