Talk:Spin (propaganda)/Archives/2012

References

There seems to be some problem with the references, as they lead to one and the same topic instead of the real ones. Anyways, I can't fix it now... Could anyone? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.175.112.35 (talk) 13:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

NPOV?

Since stating that someone is a "master of spin" really has a negative connotation, isn't it unfair to single out particular politicians as this article has done? Or shouldn't there at least be a balance to this? --RNJBOND 20:19, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Yeh, I thought that too. --Doric Loon 12:09, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In the UK, Prime Minister Tony Blair is a past master at the deceptive techniques which are an inherent part of spin.

Isn't this still POV? Aagin, one man is being singled out here with no balance. Also, the sentence in itself seems quite opinionated. Suggestions for change?

I think this is an example of the Euphemism Treadmill. If the label is accurate, a POV may not be implied, and in any case logical extension of this concept would eliminate human examples from all articles about negative topics.

I took out the paragraphs about George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Tony Blair. We may want to keep examples of "spin" in a more historic context; that way they won't come off as character attacks. Adam Faanes 2 July 2005 19:34 (UTC)

Wow, someone deleted my addition (which I blogged about here http://www.imaginaryplanet.net/weblogs/idiotprogrammer/?p=83399154 ). Bill Oreilly is a partisan talk show host famous for his political slant in USA. To mention him in the context of an article about spin is ludicrous, because it would imply he is serving as some kind of media critic, which he is certainly not. (For evidence of this, see a partisan media watchdog site http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/people/billoreilly ). I actually would favor deletion of any mention of Bill Oreilly in this context because 1)he is known mainly to Americans and 2)claiming to be "non-spin" would imply that he is trying to have a neutral point of view, which Oreilly's show certainly does not do; however, keeping the mention in would at least need to acknowledge the paradoxical nature of his use of such a phrase for his show. Simply pointing out the paradoxical nature of his "co-option" of the phrase is not sufficient evidence for dismissing my edit. In fact, it might be instructive for the article to mention that people who claim to be "no-spin" may in fact be engaging in such activity. It is interesting that one of the external links (mentioned on the bottom of this article) that reports on media spin should in fact have a separate page devoted to the "controversies" of the Bill Oreilly show http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bill_O%27Reilly

I took out the edit. The article is not a place for commentary. There is actually an entire article devoted to O'Reilly's contorversies if you want to look there. There may in fact many people who claim they are "no spin" but O'Reilly devotes his whole schtick to that phrase. Some agree with it and some don't, people can decide for themselves. As for your two points of favoring deletion, the first is irrelevant since we're here to provide a "world wide view." The article is disputed in that notion due to the article originally only using British examples and some new ones have been added since with O'Reilly being an American example. I do not see why excluding the O'Reilly reference because he's mainly known to Americans has any merit. On the second point, the blurb mentions his "disdain" of the phenomenon and calls his show a "No Spin Zone." I do not see anywhere whether stated or implied that he, himself is "no spin." Again, readers can decide for themselves, wikipedia is not a place to prove a point. MrMurph101 21:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Spin as a national buzzword, started with Bush41 in '88

...I believe in '88, though I'd want to confirm I'm not mixing memories of '92 in with it. I remember the term as it surfaced, and I'm fairly sure it made it's way thence to Britain, I think in time for the rise of New Labour, maybe a bit before. If so, the article should reflect this. If it came from the UK, which the article all but suggests for the examples it selects, it should explain this more clearly.

-SM 15:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Is this really spin?

This article seems to suggest that any dubious PR trick constitutes spin, but it was always my impression that spin is when you attempt to frame something in a particular way. For example taxing the rich to provide for the poor might be spun by one side as social justice but spun by the other side as "the politics of envy." The role of spin doctors being to have the media accept their spin on particular events.

Does anybody else think the definition of spin in this article is too broad?Misodoctakleidist (talk) 17:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)