Has PR and spin undermined trust in politics? NO!

Yesterday we looked at the arguments for why PR and spin should take the blame for the lack of trust in politics, today we'll here some opposing views. Francis Ingham and Lance Price were on the panel athe the Westminster University deabte speaking in defence of PR, and here is what they had to say:

Francis Ingham agreed that spin has played a part in the loss of trust in politics, and then especially the excessive control practised by Alastair Campbell. He also agreed the PR gimmicks and obvious lies make politicians less trustworthy, as the public sees right through it.

He however refused to accept that PR was the singular or even main culprit, and pointed to the politicians themselves and the media as other possible offenders.

He pointed to the expense scandal, tory MPs preaching about family values only to be exposed as cheaters, and the hiring of Russian beauties (who turn out to be spies) as examples of how MP behaviour undermines trust, entirely without the help of spin doctors.

The media crisis

An increasingly sensationalist media also has to take part of the blame, he said. Political journalists have gone from reporting without question what politicians say, to now assume that everything that comes out of their mouths is a lie.

24-hour news and the incessant need for new angles and stories coupled with vicious cuts in news teams, demands sensational and dramatic stories.

A politician having a re-think about a decision becomes “an embarrassing U-turn”, and not only in the tabloids. Ingham concluded that while PR does play a part, it is a junior part compared to the other two culprits.

Spin is nothing new

Lance Price then claimed that professional political communication is actually good for politics, and indeed increases democracy. He pointed out that 20-30 years ago only the Tory party were using all the classical spinning techniques, and that Thatcher managed to convince voters that there was no real alternative to a Tory government. He felt that since only one side used spin, democracy suffered.

His other argument was that spin doctors are only as good as the politicians they work for. The only reason they could help get Blair into power was that he was already popular, and no amount of spin seemed to be able to save Gordon Brown.

He was also of the opinion that the politicians did a fine job of eroding trust themselves, with the help of a witch-hunting media. He said: “trust in politics is lost when politicians say one thing and do the oposit” and mentioned examples like the changing stances on tuition fees, forests and the importance of libraries.

Tomorrow I will look at both sides and analyse what we can learn from this debate.

Is political spin really such a new invention?

If you listen to the arguments against political spin, you’re almost left with the impression that the concept was singlehandedly invented by Alastair Campbell in the mid-90s.

Even though you might already suspect that this is an exaggerated claim, you might be surprised how long politicians have been spinning the truth, wanting to look good themselves.

We can find a lot evidence of public relations techniques in ancient times such as Roman emperors’ usage of bread and circus. Making sure the people was fed and entertained is an effective way to lead attention away from poor policy making.

Pope Urban II also employed many “modern” PR techniques in rallying up support for the first crusade, including a catchy slogan (“God wills it!”), “press conferences” (the Council of Clermont), appropriate advocates (Peter the Hermit) and a good old fashioned slander campaign of the enemy consisting of both true and totally made up atrocities committed by the Muslims. 

So how about spin? Are the origins of spin just as old? You bet!

As with all incidents set so far back in time it is hard to know with certainty exactly what happened. History is often written by winners, and is in itself a good example of how the victorious side can put a positive spin on appalling events making themselves look good for future generations. What we do in life may echo in eternity, but with a good spin doctor (historian) it can echo so much nicer, valiant and heroic.

Still I find the theories of Italian historian Cettina Vozi both interesting and plausible. Her specialty is Greek scientist and inventor Archimedes, and in her article “The death of Archimedes: A reassessment” she explores possible alternatives to the popular account of his untimely death.



Archimedes Thoughtful by Domenico-Fetti 1620



Archimedes lived in the city of Syracuse, on Sicily, and died there during the Second Punic War in 212 BC. After a two year roman siege, the city was captured by the forces of General Marcus Claudius Marcellus.  

According to the story, Marcellus was a great admirer of Archimedes work, and had ordered that he should not be harmed as he saw him as a valuable scientific asset. But as his city was falling down around him, the great scientist was apparently so engrossed in his mathematical studies, that when a roman soldier ordered him to get up, he refused, wanting to work on his studies instead.  Enraged, the soldier killed him not knowing who he was.

According to the greek-roman historian who wrote down the account (over a hundred years after it happened) Marcellus “was said to have wept” as he heard the news and subsequently arranged for a grand funeral.

Vozi however, is not buying the “death by misunderstanding”-theory, and claims it was most likely an excellently executed early example of political spin by the romans. Archimedes didn’t just dally in finding formulas of volume and other math theories, you see. He was also an inventor of war machines, like catapults and an alleged mirror-device that could make ships catch fire, inventions that made Syracusans a feared enemy.

Such a man would probably not sit in his room oblivious to the destruction around him, and more importantly, due to his involvement in the siege, Voza argues that Archimedes would have been Roman target number one.

Archimedes' solar powered "death-ray"

She believes Archimedes death was nothing more than a “state-sponsored assassination”, conveniently spun to blame the killing of one of ancient world’s greatest scientist on a case of mistaken identity, and throwing in a portrayal of Marcellus as a honourable and cultured man for good measure.

The theory is hard to prove without a time machine, but I find is as plausible as the popular account written down by roman-friendly historians with no primary sources.

Spin was not invented by Alastair Campbell and his minions, nor will it be possible to get rid of it completely. But with a functioning press, and a general public able of critical analysis, I am confident democracy is safe for a while yet.




Archimedes too engrossed in his work: Truth or clever spin?

 

By the way, if more examples of ancient PR is of interest, I'd like to recommend Tom Watson's article in Public Relations Review (vol 34 (2008) 19–24): Creating the cult of a saint: Communications strategies in 10th century England. It's really interesting to realize how sophisticated the PR machinery was even more than a thousand years ago.