Ira Basen, a producer with the CBC and a friend of mine from Carleton University days, is writing a book on media spin, a term often used interchangeably with bias. But Ira says spin is actually subtler and more insidious. It is the shading of meaning or interpretation of events in favour of a particular point of view, and it is sometimes inadvertent or even unconscious. There are several ways spin will creep into a story, including:
There are other ‘spin’ techniques, of course, such as Failure to present opposing interpretations of the facts, Giving credibility to unidentified and unsubstantiated sources (“One senior former official said”, “Saddam was believed to have…”) and Assuming facts without evidence (e.g. most of what we read about WMD), but I think these are the most common and most insidious. Let’s take a look at a case study. Before you read the following article, please note — this is important — It is slamming the media’s spin in handling the Clinton Administration for its bombing of Sudan, before 9/11 and before the recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Now, please read this article. It’s long, and a bit strident, but worth the read. Finished? Did you shudder a bit when you read, in an article written about Clinton in 1998, “Is bin Laden’s new assignment perhaps to be a bogey-man of convenience whom the U.S. government can link to any government it wishes to bomb?” With the benefit of hindsight (and the opposing political party in power) it’s easy to see the incredible spin in the venerable Times’ reporting in 1998, and to see that to some extent this ubiquitous media spin contributed to the overwhelming bipartisan approval for the US to launch a war against Afghanistan, against precisely the people we had supported and financed earlier in their war against the USSR, the enemy of that earlier day. I confess that I had few misgivings about war with the Taliban, despite the fact that I am a life-long pacifist. Why? Because nowhere (except the discredited extreme conspiracy-theorist papers) were we presented with spin-free reporting (or opposite-spin reporting, if you think spin-free reporting is an oxymoron) on what exactly was, and had been, going on in Afghanistan, and why things were the way they were. There is almost always a rational explanation for things that appear absurd or unreasonable in the absence of the facts. We are just now beginning to realize the degree to which our money and support made the Taliban both popular and tyrannical in Afghanistan. And still we are missing most of the facts about that country, and about Iraq. The facts, alas, are not the same as the news. The media’s job is to report the news, not to dig up the facts. Investigative journalism is what we desperately need, but there is no money in that, surprisingly little demand for it, and precious few willing to take the enormous risks to pursue that thankless career. It’s easy to take sides, especially when the current US administration is so unapologetically propagandizing (i.e. deliberately and systematically spinning) every issue it deals with, to a degree not seen since the Vietnam War. But the reality is that the media, taken as a whole, are neither liberal nor conservative. The political position of each media outlet on any given issue is somewhere in the middle of (a) the position of its editorial board, (b) its perception of the position of the ‘average’ reader/viewer, (c) the position of the reporters covering the story, and (d) the position of the people presenting the story (usually the administration of the day). That means that to right-wingnuts like this guy, the media will always appear liberal, and to unabashed left-wingers like me, the media will always appear conservative. But the truth is, at least in their story reporting (editorials and schlock talk radio aside), there is no vast media ‘conspiracy’ at either end of the political spectrum. Most people in the media are doing their best to do their jobs in a way that balances the views of the above four ‘interest groups’. They are vulnerable to the spin techniques listed above — if you’ve ever interviewed someone, you’ll appreciate that unless you’re really treated abusively there’s an earnest desire to represent what they had to say clearly, favourably, but above all objectively. To the extent they get it right, they deserve a lot of credit — it’s a difficult, thankless, often dangerous and tedious job. To the extent they, and their editors, let spin creep into their stories, we have a duty as readers and viewers and citizens to recognize it, and discount it accordingly. The fact that so many of us are using the Internet to learn more, to check out other interpretations of events, and to get behind the stories so we can understand and talk about the issues facing our world more knowledgeably, we are contributing to the democratic process, and helping to reduce spin. At the same time, there is a tendency in the blogosphere to frequent sites authored and populated by like minds, and some of the hysterics of extremists of every stripe are quite frightening. My blog wears its left-spinning, overtly editorial stripes quite proudly and unapologetically, but I make a point of reading a few of the more moderate conservative blogs on each new issue, and occasionally some of the bizarre extreme leftist blogs — because the danger of exposing yourself to a lot of spin is that, if you’re not careful, you can find yourself permanently off-balance. And as we all know, “fair and balanced” is another term that’s subject to a lot of spin. George O. must be ‘spinning’ in his grave. |
Navigation
Collapsniks
Albert Bates (US)
Andrew Nikiforuk (CA)
Brutus (US)
Carolyn Baker (US)*
Catherine Ingram (US)
Chris Hedges (US)
Dahr Jamail (US)
Dean Spillane-Walker (US)*
Derrick Jensen (US)
Dougald & Paul (IE/SE)*
Erik Michaels (US)
Gail Tverberg (US)
Guy McPherson (US)
Honest Sorcerer
Janaia & Robin (US)*
Jem Bendell (UK)
Mari Werner
Michael Dowd (US)*
Nate Hagens (US)
Paul Heft (US)*
Post Carbon Inst. (US)
Resilience (US)
Richard Heinberg (US)
Robert Jensen (US)
Roy Scranton (US)
Sam Mitchell (US)
Tim Morgan (UK)
Tim Watkins (UK)
Umair Haque (UK)
William Rees (CA)
XrayMike (AU)
Radical Non-Duality
Tony Parsons
Jim Newman
Tim Cliss
Andreas Müller
Kenneth Madden
Emerson Lim
Nancy Neithercut
Rosemarijn Roes
Frank McCaughey
Clare Cherikoff
Ere Parek, Izzy Cloke, Zabi AmaniEssential Reading
Archive by Category
My Bio, Contact Info, Signature Posts
About the Author (2023)
My Circles
E-mail me
--- My Best 200 Posts, 2003-22 by category, from newest to oldest ---
Collapse Watch:
Hope — On the Balance of Probabilities
The Caste War for the Dregs
Recuperation, Accommodation, Resilience
How Do We Teach the Critical Skills
Collapse Not Apocalypse
Effective Activism
'Making Sense of the World' Reading List
Notes From the Rising Dark
What is Exponential Decay
Collapse: Slowly Then Suddenly
Slouching Towards Bethlehem
Making Sense of Who We Are
What Would Net-Zero Emissions Look Like?
Post Collapse with Michael Dowd (video)
Why Economic Collapse Will Precede Climate Collapse
Being Adaptable: A Reminder List
A Culture of Fear
What Will It Take?
A Future Without Us
Dean Walker Interview (video)
The Mushroom at the End of the World
What Would It Take To Live Sustainably?
The New Political Map (Poster)
Beyond Belief
Complexity and Collapse
Requiem for a Species
Civilization Disease
What a Desolated Earth Looks Like
If We Had a Better Story...
Giving Up on Environmentalism
The Hard Part is Finding People Who Care
Going Vegan
The Dark & Gathering Sameness of the World
The End of Philosophy
A Short History of Progress
The Boiling Frog
Our Culture / Ourselves:
A CoVid-19 Recap
What It Means to be Human
A Culture Built on Wrong Models
Understanding Conservatives
Our Unique Capacity for Hatred
Not Meant to Govern Each Other
The Humanist Trap
Credulous
Amazing What People Get Used To
My Reluctant Misanthropy
The Dawn of Everything
Species Shame
Why Misinformation Doesn't Work
The Lab-Leak Hypothesis
The Right to Die
CoVid-19: Go for Zero
Pollard's Laws
On Caste
The Process of Self-Organization
The Tragic Spread of Misinformation
A Better Way to Work
The Needs of the Moment
Ask Yourself This
What to Believe Now?
Rogue Primate
Conversation & Silence
The Language of Our Eyes
True Story
May I Ask a Question?
Cultural Acedia: When We Can No Longer Care
Useless Advice
Several Short Sentences About Learning
Why I Don't Want to Hear Your Story
A Harvest of Myths
The Qualities of a Great Story
The Trouble With Stories
A Model of Identity & Community
Not Ready to Do What's Needed
A Culture of Dependence
So What's Next
Ten Things to Do When You're Feeling Hopeless
No Use to the World Broken
Living in Another World
Does Language Restrict What We Can Think?
The Value of Conversation Manifesto Nobody Knows Anything
If I Only Had 37 Days
The Only Life We Know
A Long Way Down
No Noble Savages
Figments of Reality
Too Far Ahead
Learning From Nature
The Rogue Animal
How the World Really Works:
Making Sense of Scents
An Age of Wonder
The Truth About Ukraine
Navigating Complexity
The Supply Chain Problem
The Promise of Dialogue
Too Dumb to Take Care of Ourselves
Extinction Capitalism
Homeless
Republicans Slide Into Fascism
All the Things I Was Wrong About
Several Short Sentences About Sharks
How Change Happens
What's the Best Possible Outcome?
The Perpetual Growth Machine
We Make Zero
How Long We've Been Around (graphic)
If You Wanted to Sabotage the Elections
Collective Intelligence & Complexity
Ten Things I Wish I'd Learned Earlier
The Problem With Systems
Against Hope (Video)
The Admission of Necessary Ignorance
Several Short Sentences About Jellyfish
Loren Eiseley, in Verse
A Synopsis of 'Finding the Sweet Spot'
Learning from Indigenous Cultures
The Gift Economy
The Job of the Media
The Wal-Mart Dilemma
The Illusion of the Separate Self, and Free Will:
No Free Will, No Freedom
The Other Side of 'No Me'
This Body Takes Me For a Walk
The Only One Who Really Knew Me
No Free Will — Fightin' Words
The Paradox of the Self
A Radical Non-Duality FAQ
What We Think We Know
Bark Bark Bark Bark Bark Bark Bark
Healing From Ourselves
The Entanglement Hypothesis
Nothing Needs to Happen
Nothing to Say About This
What I Wanted to Believe
A Continuous Reassemblage of Meaning
No Choice But to Misbehave
What's Apparently Happening
A Different Kind of Animal
Happy Now?
This Creature
Did Early Humans Have Selves?
Nothing On Offer Here
Even Simpler and More Hopeless Than That
Glimpses
How Our Bodies Sense the World
Fragments
What Happens in Vagus
We Have No Choice
Never Comfortable in the Skin of Self
Letting Go of the Story of Me
All There Is, Is This
A Theory of No Mind
Creative Works:
Mindful Wanderings (Reflections) (Archive)
A Prayer to No One
Frogs' Hollow (Short Story)
We Do What We Do (Poem)
Negative Assertions (Poem)
Reminder (Short Story)
A Canadian Sorry (Satire)
Under No Illusions (Short Story)
The Ever-Stranger (Poem)
The Fortune Teller (Short Story)
Non-Duality Dude (Play)
Your Self: An Owner's Manual (Satire)
All the Things I Thought I Knew (Short Story)
On the Shoulders of Giants (Short Story)
Improv (Poem)
Calling the Cage Freedom (Short Story)
Rune (Poem)
Only This (Poem)
The Other Extinction (Short Story)
Invisible (Poem)
Disruption (Short Story)
A Thought-Less Experiment (Poem)
Speaking Grosbeak (Short Story)
The Only Way There (Short Story)
The Wild Man (Short Story)
Flywheel (Short Story)
The Opposite of Presence (Satire)
How to Make Love Last (Poem)
The Horses' Bodies (Poem)
Enough (Lament)
Distracted (Short Story)
Worse, Still (Poem)
Conjurer (Satire)
A Conversation (Short Story)
Farewell to Albion (Poem)
My Other Sites
Just randomly meandering through your post, I came across this bit: “…the media have a natural propensity to not report stories that they believe are complex (e.g. the violations of the Geneva Conventions by the US Government), long-term (e.g. environmental deterioration and biodegradation), distant (e.g. Third World genocides and wars unless US troops are involved) or intractable (e.g. famine in East Africa and North Korea), because they are hard, expensive stories to do well, and hence do not offer the ROI of, say, a celebrity scandal or shaggy dog story.”This alleged revelation doesn’t exactly punch me in the gut, for the simple reason that the media DID INDEED report on ALL of the issues you cited, and have in fact been doing so for as long as I’ve been reading newspapers. But of course, since you alleged that the media merely “have a natural propensity” not to report such events, and not that they actually “did not” report them, your statement remains unprovable, and un-disprovable – because, in fact, it really didn’t say anything at all.Is that “spin,” “obfuscation,” or “obscurantism?”
Makes my head spin.
IF RB wants another examination of spin, obfuscation or obscurantism, here’s a well-thought out critique of how the media opertaes in our society – from the blog Orcinushttp://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2004_05_02_dneiwert_archive.html#108390182327224560
Yet another blogger too hooked on superficial media nonsense (strictly for research purposes, of course) to catch the more meaningful news he considers nonexistent. Here’s a hint, guys: the channel-selector doesn’t work automatically; you have to reach for it!There’s plenty of real news available, you just have to go out of your way to get it. Look for “BBC America” at the very least, or, better yet, read the “Economist.” Quit staring at half-naked babes on “Fear Factor” and demanding that it morph into intelligence reports from Afghanistan.Speaking of “daily howlers,” check this out: “In the process, we keep the public (a large portion of it willingly) in the dark about the very real politics and policies that directly affect their security and well-being, both here and now and for the long haul.”Not only is the author accusing an unspecified “we” of a heinous act of censorship (you talking to ME, pal?), but the accusation is just plain false. Would the author care to specify, at the very least, WHICH big stories are being sat on? And what superior source gave the author the “real” truth?”…we find ourselves constantly arguing about the ‘morality’ or ‘character’ of politicians, an issue that is by nature a product of spin and propagandizing.”So our concerns about Bush’s competence, intelligence, mental engagement, honesty, soberiety, and seeming lack of anything resembling curiosity – in short, his “character” and “morality” – are nothing more than “a product of spin and propagandizing?”And finally, I noticed this blast from the day before “The Day After:” “…Osama’s men will come with a bomb…and they’ll destroy an American city. American society will end on that day.”Of course: we’re all such stupid animals that one bomb will destroy the thin veneer of civilization as we know it, and we’ll all fall into chaos and barbarism and start eating our kids. Will someone please update this guy’s hysteria?
Jon: I notice that my company’s nanny-ware blocks access to your Web site. What’s up – porn, hate, gambling, or instant-messaging? Enquiring minds want to know… :-)
RB, if you’re referring to my old blogging site, it is now kaput. I’m starting over.I have much to argue with (or offer alternative points of view) in your above comments, but I don’t want to get into any arguments at the moment. Suffice it to say that I have a sense that we wouldn’t be able to have much of a dialogue. I am clearly anti-American and anti-conservative when it comes to the principles and policies under which corporations, corporate media, and the current American administration. Re: my stance – there’s too much evidence of malfeasance to ignore, and there’s been so much shouting and twisting of meanings back and forth that I cannot but believe that the “we” we have become is generally – and I mean generally – controlled for us by the system that has been built around us. If one wants to be better informed than the average Jane or Joe, it takes time, research, doubt, courage, willingness to listen … even then, the big conflictual issues of the day (Iraq, government secrecy, corporate fraud) are framed in a widely-shared belief and control system that demands “being with the program”. So being against what is happening is by definition marginal – dissent is minimized, ridiculed and marginalized.With us or agin’ us has been successfully installed, and so it’s all over but for the shouting. The main forms of media do have a lot to answer for, imo.
heheHere’s a documentary movie shot in 2003 that has made it to several film festivals, and has been relatively widely reviewedhttp://www.orwellrollsinhisgrave.com/index.html
“Suffice it to say that I have a sense that we wouldn’t be able to have much of a dialogue.”Gosh, whose fault is that? If you give up trying to convince others, then don’t blame us if we’re not convinced.”…there’s too much evidence of malfeasance to ignore…”But you haven’t provided such evidence, or even offered any specific allegations; thus, you’re not really saying much of anything. I agree there’s plenty of examples of unsatisfactory performance by journalists, but that’s a far cry from “malfeasance.””…and there’s been so much shouting and twisting of meanings back and forth…”You’re absolutely right, and the left are at least as guilty of this as the right. At least the right can make their twisting sound credible, while the left just scream and sloganeer and twist their way into total, paranoid, pretzel-like irrelevance.”…the ‘we’ we have become is generally – and I mean generally – controlled for us by the system that has been built around us.”And you DO mean “generally” – as in lacking any specific examples of who is “controlling” what, or what/who/where this “System” is that you lefties have been prattling about since the ’60s.This sounds to me like classic paranoia and paralysis: the enemies are everywhere (another “axis of evil?), they’re controlling our thoughts and perceptions, they’ve got everyone duped, we can’t pin them down or do anything else, and if you don’t see things my way, it’s because you’ve been duped too, and there’s no point in trying to convince you, you’ll never understand anyway…As long as you’re so intent on bringing the name of George Orwell into this, let me remind you of one of his most useful bits of advice: if you think in abstractions (i.e., “corporations,” “a widely-shared belief and control system that demands ‘being with the program'”), then your words will rush into the vacuum and do all of your thinking for you.
RB – have you ever travelled much outside of North America ? And if so, has it been for work or as a vacationer/short-hop tourist, or on a longer-term basis where you might have been able to develop some insights into, or relationships with other people, in that foreign place/culture ?
Are you trying to change the subject, or are you implying that I haven’t travelled enough to know what I’m talking about? If something I said makes you question my intelligence, perhaps you should tell us what it is, instead of demanding qualifications which you have not provided for yourself.