Media Relations: 'Spin' - what does it mean for PR and management? Published January - February 2008 Spin and spin-doctoring are terms that have entered the modern vocabulary. They are used regularly by media when they want to infer that a gloss is being put on something they are being told by a politician or ‘big business’ or, even worse, that someone is deliberately not telling the truth. What is spin and/or spin doctoring and how should organisations regard and deal with it? How is spin defined to the public i.e. looking from the outside? ‘Spin’ is a brilliant four-letter descriptive term that the media has created, which by constant repetition, instantly creates a picture in the public’s mind of a statement, comment or position to be suspicious of. The Collins Oxford dictionary says that ‘to spin a yarn’ is to “tell a tale” which gives a hint that the origins of spin in today’s context  may have been partially British especially as one of the earliest political proponents of ‘spin’ as it became known was Bernard Ingham, long-time chief press secretary to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Australia’s Macquarie dictionary gets closer to the modern use by having an additional description for ‘to spin a yarn’. It says it also means “to tell a false or improbable story or version of an event”. Webster, the American dictionary, says “spin is a distinctive interpretation (especially used by politicians to sway public opinion) eg “the campaign put a favourable spin on the story”. But Wikipedia gets closest to what the media has really conditioned the public to think spin is when it describes ‘spin’ (public relations) as “a heavily biased portrayal of an event or situation”, whereas a ‘spin doctor’ is a person who is a public relations expert or a political or corporate representative, whose job it is to put a 'positive spin' on events or situations. There’s little doubt that through repetition by the media, spin has been inextricably linked in the minds of the public with comments and actions that are dubious at best, and just downright mistruths or barefaced lying at worst. How is spin regarded by PR people and communicators i.e. those on the inside? Over recent years it’s become more important for business and Government to control messages being conveyed to external audiences. The main reason is the proliferation of media and its perceived power to influence public opinion. A secondary reason some would argue is that media has become more intrusive and less accurate and ethical in its reporting.  As a result, significant time, effort and resources are increasingly put into creating, defining and delivering messages that organisations want to be used by media reporting on their activities. A whole sub-industry has grown up to help organisations with their messaging. And huge amounts of time are increasingly spent on media training executives and politicians to better deal with media scrutiny. Most on the ‘inside’ don’t see anything wrong with this emphasis on messaging and media training - it’s merely part of a process of being organised to deal with what is often seen as a hostile and confrontational media. It’s also part of ‘performing’ when doing media engagements.  Having whatever is said portrayed as spin is irritating, but most would argue it is just something that has to be accepted - albeit grudgingly at times. This attitude is perhaps typified by Ian Taylor and George Olds, authors of “Never Say “No Comment” - How Spin Doctors Answer Questions”. They define ‘spin’ as “the strategic choice or words, in an appropriate communications format, based on the right timing, place and messenger or method of delivery”.  They contend that there’s no shame in being portrayed as a spin doctor. And their book gives an insight into how to really block and deflect media scrutiny. How should those in business and serious organisational communication cope with the spin and spin doctor tag? The first principle in any serious communications is that one should never lie or tell a mistruth. Credibility with the media, for company spokespersons or an organisation, depends on telling the truth - always. However, in telling the truth there is often a need to put an emphasis on certain aspects e.g. “yes, there was an accident that we regret and we admit that we did not respond as well as we might have - but that needs to be put in the context of …………” To the organisation, such a statement is truthful and responsible, given its need to consider a variety of stakeholder and vested interests. The media might well however portray it as spin. The fact is that when media meets with business/government, it is essentially an adversarial contest. Media sees its role as being to probe and uncover information. It doesn’t see its job as being to report good news. Business in particular sees media as always looking for the negative and wanting to publish the bad news - so it works hard to ensure that it employs a ‘good news’ angle when it can.  When the two collide, use of the word ‘spin’ by the media is often a sign of the conflict that exists. One of New York’s best known PR practitioners - Howard Rubenstein says that “PR people make flower arrangements of the facts, placing them so that the wilted and less attractive petals are hidden by the sturdy blooms.” James Lukaszewski, an American crisis management expert, says “Truth is 15% facts and 85% perception.” (Source: Jack O’Dywer’s Newsletter). The fact is that media also arrange information. They choose what stories they will and will not run. They choose what ‘angle’ to run with. They choose which quotes will best support the angle they are pursuing, and in some cases they deliberately omit information that doesn’t support the approach they are taking. So what does all this mean for senior management and communications professionals advising them? Accept that there is potential for media to call most things that emanate from an organisation as spin - whether it is or not. It’s just part of the environment, so it’s just another factor that has to be taken into account when external communications are planned.  Don’t take it personally! Given this, its all the more reason for communicators and their management to work harder on messaging - and to ensure that they deliberately seek to avoid communicating in a way that could be construed as spin. Consider in the messaging and media training sessions how the accusation of spin from the media might be handled.  Sometimes it is better to tackle such accusations head on and confront the media i.e. attack is the best means of defence. Build a culture within the organisation that is very definitely ‘anti-spin’.  The fundamental principles of communication must be based on truth, disclosure and transparency. That doesn’t prevent an organisation from having the right to mount its arguments in a way that best supports its case (much as every citizen or company has the right to find legitimate ways to minimise an amount of tax paid).  But material omissions or distortions must not be accepted - that’s crossing the line. Communicators should never infer or say that any communication the organisation may make is spin.  It undermines the communicator’s credibility and has the potential to devalue the whole communications process in the eyes of senior management.  It comes back to having the right attitude of mind. For further reading on messaging from the PR Influences’ archives: Media Training: Messaging a key PR benefit for senior management Communication Planning: The importance of message maps Reputation: Integrating messaging and training for successful media engagement Network PR, the publishers of PR Influences, provide messaging and media training services to help organisations better communicate via the media. Network PR, publisher of PR Influences, specialises in Online PR including both social media and search engine optimisation. To read more about their services click here. To make a no-obligation enquiry click here.

PR Influences: Media Relations: ‘Spin’ - what does it mean for PR and management