A good day to bury bad news: spin doctors say

The term spin doctor, surprisingly, doesn't come from sport. Instead, it comes from the idea of spinning yarn, or tales as we understand the phrase to mean. Within the UK political landscape, this term has gained widespread usage. Popularised during Alastair Campbell's role as Director of Communication for Tony Blair, in one fell swoop it changed the perception of UK politics and politicians forever. It maligned the role of PR within politics to the extent that today anyone who dares to take on the role must wrestle with the alias of "spin doctoring" as Andrew Leighton notes in the Journal of Public Affairs. He says that by the end of New Labour's term, the role of spin, the role of spin doctors, and media interest in these two were firmly established in UK. 


However, there are some important issues we must address before we rush to wag a finger at these so-called "spin doctors". 


Cutlip suggests that 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. 


If we were to apply this corollary to real life, we would find ourselves in exactly the same process that Campbell established as Communications Director of Blair. He established a media monitoring room, was quick to the draw when it came to responding to media critique of the PM's policies/ideas, and more importantly, was willing to go on the record through his lobby meetings. So instead of saying that a senior official close to the PM, there's a real name. The fact that journalists can hide behind the clause of "protecting the identity of their sources" should be considered minutely for the kind of lies/misappropriations they get away with. 




During class, we watched News from Number 10 which offers an insight into the machinery at Number 10 during the Blair Years. Of course, some important questions emerged:

• who controls news agenda? 
• does media spin, or is it the communicator who's spinning? 

Campbell vehemently maintains that it's the newspapers/journalists who spin news. And to some extent, I'm tempted to agree. Here's why: what makes news? Something that's controversial, or needs explanation (this might seem like a generalisation, but do think about it. The 5 questions of a writing a news report emerge from then need to inform people about "an event"). We all know that journalists to hold their opinion, and views of the world very dearly, and are paid to present their perspective. So isn't it likely that a journalist can read too much between the lines, when there's little to read? After all, if one can hide behind unnamed sources, one can then theorise and speculate till the earth stopped rotating!   

Since the history of campaigning and politics, it's obvious that politicians have chosen two ways of winning over an electorate: by highlighting their own virtues and policies, or denigrating the opposing party. 

If presenting your best foot is spin, then how do you win over an electorate?

If you want to remain in power, and in favour of the electorate, is it then wrong to "present information in a positive light"? The role of public relations within a democracy then comes into question: do we only continue (by Cutlip's definition) maintain responsive relationships, or do we frame the flaws of our leaders (and perhaps employers) for the world to judge? With the case of spin, it was an import from America, where leaders are a product of marketing and polished images—and everyone knows that. However, the UK is a different story. 

Blair, being a product of such marketing and polish, was the ideal candidate to usher new ideas of engagement with constituencies using media, as the documentary shows. But, this folly of assuming that "tell it all, tell it fast, and tell it first" would endear them to the British publics was flawed. Campbell did want to be on top of "24/7 media environment", but it backfired on more than one ocassion. It gave rise to scandals such as the dodgy dossier, a good day to bury bad news and the infamous fax that Campbell dashed off to BBC, among others. But, it also gave Blair 8 years in power. The era of Campbell-Blair led to the Phillis report—proof that things were so wrong that someone needed to clear through the rubble and melee of mixed messages. Public trust, as the report says, was low: not just in the government but also in the media. 

It makes for an interesting read because in large parts it agrees with Campbell's approach of making the PM more accessible and doing away with the "culture of secrecy" (why this bias is something that we need to look at). But then it also makes some valid points about the failure of that model to inform different stakeholders to allow a health public consultation on important issues. Although Blair's politics was much criticised for the lack of clear information (and sometimes saying so many things that they themselves were confused), it did have its own merits. Of the many recommendations the report offers, this one stands out for me: 

As a whole, the government has not grasped the potential of modern communications as a service provided for citizens.This starts with identifying who needs to know what and how best to get that message or information to them, and then measures the resultant attitudes and views to feed back into the processes of policy development and service delivery. It involves listening as much as talking. Its focus is on the public, not the Minister or the party or the media.

Such a rationale, and clear approach can help rebuild the trust that people used to have in politics, politicians and their promises. But, it can't be instituted until these elected members then do what they say.