George W. Bush is not a liar. I believe we've established that. He doesn't go on TV and make things up.

Does that mean that Bush is trustworthy? Yes, it does - in a bipolar world, where the alternatives present themselves to us like presidential candidates in a two-party system. Either Bush lies about his policies, or he speaks the truth to the best of his ability. It's one or the other. Make your choice, and say hello to your new team mates.

But what if Bush is a different kind of liar? What if he deceives with half-truths instead of untruths, and implies things that would be lies if stated openly? That is the conclusion Ben Fritz, Bryan Keefer and Brendan Nyhan arrive at in All The President's Spin, a book anyone who cares about political honesty should pay attention to.

Fritz, Keefer and Nyhan do a thorough job of documenting spin and deception from the Bush administration over the last four years, on issues from tax cuts to the war in Iraq. Other administrations have been dishonest in the past. But:

George W. Bush's dishonesty is different. Rather than simply lying, he has subtly and systematically attempted to deceive the nation about most of his major policy proposals. .. Remarkably, he has done so while generally avoiding obviously false statements. Instead, Bush consistently uses well-designed phrases and strategically crafted arguments to distract, deceive and mislead. The result is that all but the most careful listeners end up believing something completely untrue, while proving the President has lied is usually impossible.

Unlike famous White House dissemblers of the past, Bush almost never explicitly claims that black is white or day is night. .. Rather than saying day is night, George W. Bush will focus on an instance of a solar eclipse or remind Americans that people who work graveyard shifts are asleep.

George W. Bush, they claim, is the first president to apply principles from public relations to the White House on this scale. It's not just about having good hair and a warm smile any more.

PR strategies for manipulating perceptions are designed to make and break mental associations, often at a nonrational level. In the most benign cases, public relations experts use positive images or testimonials to portray an organization or producer in a flattering light. On a more insidious level, they frequently employ tactics designed to simulate rational argument, developing a strategic message and manufacturing a set of "facts" to support it, even though they may be misleading or logically unrelated to the message.

Examples of such deception abound. To justify his tax cut proposals, Bush claimed that the cuts would primarily benefit middle- and low-income families. But he left out vital information, presented untypical examples as typical, and relied on deceptive statistics to make that claim. And, as Fritz, Keefer and Nyhan point out, it stands to reason that most tax cuts favor the rich. The rich pay more in taxes than other people do, in relative and absolute terms. So nearly all major tax cuts will initially favor the rich. This should be obvious. Whether tax cuts favor society as a whole in the long term is an ideological question that's irrelevant here. The point is that Bush went far beyond ideology to convince the public, he deliberately used deception to make his policies appear more acceptable to the public.

And deception is wrong, regardless of whether it is right to cut taxes. Democracy depends on open debate. Deception is democratic sabotage.

Fritz, Keefer and Nyhan document a similar amount of deceptive rhetoric on Iraq and the war on terror. The Bush administration stretched the truth whenever possible: by overstating the evidence for a nuclear programme in Iraq, by implying a connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11, and by pretending not to have made claims that have later been proven wrong, carefully adjusting their rhetoric along the way ("nuclear weapons" to "nuclear weapons programme" to "weapons of mass destruction related program activities"). Again, the open debate democracy depends on was attempted sabotaged.

None of this means that it was wrong to invade Iraq, or that Bush has handled the war on terror badly. Maybe he has, maybe not. Again, that is irrelevant. All that is relevant here is that deception on this scale is wrong, counterproductive, and benefits noone but the careers of individual politicians. Agree with their policies or not, but this is not how politicians are meant to behave.

All the President's Spin is focused on George W. Bush, and goes into considerable detail about his deceptions, but this is not a partisan pamphlet. Fritz, Keefer and Nyhan see the same pattern of dishonesty in previous administrations and in John Kerry's election campaign.

And yet Bush is not just playing the same game as the other side - he's better and more deliberate at it than any previous president. He's a skilled, full-time manipulator. And the media lets get him away with it.

Wait a minute. That can't be true. The American media is left-of-center, it's biased against conservatives, not for them. Right? Well, yes. This can be discussed, but I largely agree that it is. From what I can see from across the Atlantic, there is a consistent left-of-center bias in the American media.

But bias is not a deliberate dedication to portray the other side in a negative light. That is called partisanship. True bias is hidden, it is caused by core assumptions that shine through even thick layers of objectivity. This is most apparent with strongly felt individual issues. A reporter with strong views about where the climate is headed is unlikely to write a neutral article about the subject.

But bias is only part of the problem. Reporters don't only write about subjects they have strong feelings about. They're trained to be objective, and many of them are pretty good at it. Their whole sense of professional integrity is tied to objectivity. The problem is that they're trained in the wrong kind of objectivity, what I call neutrality, and Fritz, Keefer and Nyhan call he said/she said journalism.

The pressure to remain objective frequently reduces reporters to little more than stenographers transcribing the latest spin from politicians. Rather than sort out competing factual claims, they typically give equal play to both sides - even if one is misleading. This "he said/she said" form of journalism allows politicians to enter deceptive statements into the public record and leaves citizens with little or no basis to evaluate the truth of the matter at hand.

Instead of using reason to arrive at a position close to the objective truth, reporters just take the middle position. Bush claims .. but Kerry claims. Who's telling the truth? No attempt is made to find out, even when it would be easy to do so.

Complaints about media bias can actually make this problem worse. Journalists only know about two kinds of reporting, biased reporting or neutral reporting, and when they're criticized for bias they will try to be more neutral. And those who do make an attempt to find the objective truth risk being accused of bias by over-zealous media critics. Why offend all your readers by calling Bush dishonest today, and Kerry dishonest tomorrow, when you can get away with less work, less offense, and a better conscience by staying neutral?

Bias is easily abused by one side, neutrality is easily abused by both sides. That makes it more important, in my view, to fight neutrality than to fight bias. Not as fun, but essential if the media is to be more than a timid stenographer kept in check by partisan bullies. My solution is that we make subjective attempts at reaching the objective truth our new ideal. This is a philosophy many bloggers will recognize. It's really nothing more than applying the scientific method to politics. Let everyone search for the objective truth to the best of their ability, then pit their version of the truth against its rivals on the battlefield of ideas, and see which one's left standing. This is as far from media neutrality as it is possible to get.

Fritz, Keefer and Nyhan are bloggers themselves, and mention blogs as part of the solution to spin-friendly neutrality. Interestingly, they also speak warmly of infotainment, TV shows that span the border between entertainment and politics.

Comedy Central's The Daily Show is the leading example of this type of show. It is one of the few programs on television that regularly skewers the press for its focus on process rather than substance. The Daily Show also frequently highlights deceptive claims from politicians and their adherence to PR-driven talking points .. The entertainment format frees The Daily Show from the "gotcha" questions and overheated rhetoric that mar political talk shows. As a result, host Jon Stewart's interviews awith leading political figures are some of the best on TV. .. Similarly, CBS Late Show host David Letterman's interview with Bush was one of the most challenging and unusual of the 2000 campaign season.

I've watched The Daily Show, and it's pretty good - irreverent punch-in-the-face politics, the kind I associate with blogs. I agree there's something there for the news media to emulate. A couple of Daily Show's on the left and right, and a few less hours of anchors with good hair repeating headlines, and CNN could actually become watchable.

Fritz, Keefer and Nyhan also praise The New Republic, Fox News and The Economist, an interesting set of choices, and not what many would expect from the authors of an anti-Bush book.

But it's not so unusual when you consider that Fritz, Keefer and Nyhan are the bloggers behind Spinsanity. Their reputation for bipartisan fairness is deserved. All books must stand on their own, but you're not going to get very far by questioning the motives of these people, or objecting to their style.

This book is so careful with the facts that it's dull. That's right, it's dull. It's the dullest book about American politics I've ever read. It's not funny, angry, sarcastic, hysterical or outrageous. There are no insults, no jokes, no evil masterminds with German or Russian accents lurking in the shadows. All The President's Spin is not going to sell like Treason or Dude, Where's Your Country.

The readers of this book will be those who care for accuracy and honesty more than scoring rhetorical points. They will not include Bush supporters who have gotten so used to hysterical and ignorant criticism of the president that they've put their critical senses on autopilot. They will not include Bush critics too used to hyperbole to appreciate a book that doesn't entertain, and doesn't tell them Bush is Hitler.

But they should include those of us who over the last three years have publicly defended the actions of George W. Bush, but who still aren't prepared to sell our souls to the Party. You don't have to hate capitalism, justify terror or apologize for dictators. All you need to do is agree that deception is wrong, even from politicians you agree with.

I actually ordered this book in my last slew of Amazon picks. I am planning on reading another first.

Still I want to comment based on what you have said here. First off, it should be noted that it has been MUCH more likely that you will find critical commentary regarding the administration's recasting of policy and decisions from Classical Liberal, and Conservative websites in the States. I say this from experience as Spinsanity is one of my "Hubs" in websurfing, and they link extensively to sights who comment on this (obviously). I'm sure they would back me up on the point.

The reason I'm pointing it out is that this concept of spin... is one that has crept into a number of threads on this blog... and it is a very core issue. It does speak to the very nature of discourse, and I think Bjørn, that your concept of netrality versus faux "objectivity is very poignant. In fact, the disdain for objectivity, or indeed for TRUE partisan opinionship (which is just as useful since it is OPEN!) is an insidious function of the language and cognitive rationalization of relativism. It, along with equivalence is the very core of the collective disdain for substance versus image which quite naturally, enables elitism and intellectual tyranny in a BIG way.

Is it George Bush by his evil nature who has broken all barriers to the idea of projection? No way folks, and I will be very surprised if that is the take on a book by the people who brought us spinsanity. On the contrary, the sources of this meaningful discourse destroying school of thought is very far indeed from George Bush.

But I accept unblinkingly that his administration is very very good at it.

And I submit that I have been saying (along with many MANY "neocons" or whatever they/we are) for over three years, that it has NOT helped them, and has hurt them quite a bit.

At precious moments, and this is particularly true of the war, there were HUGE opportunities for the kind of clarity that could have ripped the bejeezus out of the fluffy and often meaningless rhetoric of those who were opposing them for reasons utterly divorced from the positions themselves... but other than a very few refreshing and oft cited examples... they have invariably failed to do so.

It is a shame especially for this administration, because the essence of what they claim differentiates them, is the centeredness and groundedness of their stands.

I enthusiastically agree with you Bjørn that democracy for example, is only meaningful, when freedom exists... in a way that is real.

Let the spinning be disdained in great measure... for ALL sides. In the name if the great unwashed, let the spinning stop!

Hopefully this is an idea that will catch.

I look forward to reading it.

KM

An interesting bookreview, and a book I'd sure like to get my hands on.

It's a bit funny, though, that your example for "Bush is Hitler"-talk is an article written by yourself... er... your good twinbrother.

Anyway, moveon.org has - as you might now - been running a contest called 'Bush in 30 seconds' where the idea was to create and submit TV ads critical to the Bush administration. Over 1500 ads were submitted. Two of them compared Hitler and Bush. Not a large percent, that is.

Anyway, those two movies were removed from the website. Maybe your good twinbrother would want to take a look at the Memory Hole.

Of course, the North Koreans likens Bush to Hitler, and so does good, old Pravda, and even I - if I was looking - could probably dig up some similarities.

Still, anyone sensible realizes that Bush is not Hitler. Bush is, of course, an alien, hehehe.

Øyvind

Wait, there's an anti-W book out and he's worse than Bubba?

Not bad for a moronic stupid chimp.

Ahh, the lies and the liars who tell them.

As to clarity, well, Kevin, that really's not a good idea. We have to play it this way.

The millenials are getting their politics from The Daily Show - but Stewart spins left.

And as to the tax cuts, well, the middle class held their own after 2000, the rich took a bath.

However, "the rich" are the backbone of this country because they are the small business man and woman.

And then we must discuss rich as salary v. net assets, and the figures keep changing.

You have to realize, folks, making $100K in NYC/SF/Chicago is different than making $100K in Mississippi. Live like a king in MS, barely making ends meet in NYC. But when you have WWII rent control still in place...... Just Norway v. Bulgaria.

smallbusinesses.blogspot.com

Carnival of the Capitalists

Franchising is big business among small businesses in the US according to a study by the International Franchise Association Educational Foundation and PricewaterhouseCoopers. The study reports that franchised businesses account for 9.5% of the US private-sector economy.

It used to be that if you were a small business, you didn't have to worry much about unionization. As a small business, you could count on being under the radar screen of union attention. But now, with so many small businesses existing in the U.S., small business has a big bullseye on its back.

sba.gov

Proprietor's income is on track for 902 BILLION 2Q04.

99 - 678 B
00 - 728
01 - 772
02 - 769
03 - 834

In short, folks, our economy's undergoing a fundamental change.

And while "the rich" got more back, no one ever really talks about the poor and middle class' in-kind bennies.

If Americans ever actually paid attention to those numbers, there'd be a surplus.

--The point is that Bush went far beyond ideology to convince the public, he deliberately used deception to make his policies appear more acceptable to the public.--

I'm also surprised they didn't note the little Oregon experiment, the rich voted for the tax increase, but the poor didn't. Because, you see, the poor hoped to be rich some day.

--And yet Bush is not just playing the same game as the other side - he's better and more deliberate at it than any previous president. He's a skilled, full-time manipulator. And the media lets get him away with it.--

Or they're so incompetent or have such general knowledge about the subject, they don't go into detail or the American public just want the highlights. Look at See-BS. I mean, who really wants to get into macro or micro-economics?

---

He really is good, a good plurality of Americans trust him.

----

Only because they were busted, Oyvind. Then the one which landed in the top 15(?) was buried at the site, but one could find it if one knew where to go, until Drudge busted that.

Some more spin:

NEW YORK (AP) -- At the behest of CBS, an adviser to John Kerry said Monday he talked to a central figure in the controversy over President Bush's National Guard service shortly before disputed documents were released. The White House accused Kerry's campaign of fanning the controversy over Bush's military service.

Joe Lockhart denied any connection between the presidential campaign and the papers. Lockhart, the second Kerry ally to confirm contact with retired Texas National Guard officer Bill Burkett, said he made the call at the suggestion of CBS producer Mary Mapes.

---

For those of you not paying attention, this is big.

In short, the BLOGGERS have drawn a river of MSM blood by refuting the story CBS, one of the big free 3 networks put out about W and his TANG - Texas Air National Guard - service. mfd memos, now ties to Joe Lockhart, former admin in Bubba's admin, IIRC, and now w/the Kerry campaign.

CBS is the home of Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite, once the most trusted man in America delivering the news. The Tiffany Network. Gave us All in the Family, M*A*S*H, Bob Newhart, Carol Burnett and now CSI.

--

Like Jeff Jarvis said, news is a conversation, they're old, the blogosphere is alternative. Do you really realize you are part of the revolution? Drudge did Bubba, the bloggers had Trent Lott removed from his chairmanship, and now they've injured a 75 y.o. American institution.

I explained poorly before that America is a bottom-up society. The great unwashed have the power. It has now been displayed. You will see attempts to curtail Americans' use of the net. TPTB will not allow this to stand. This is an essence -- a basic -- of America. While your MSM might not tell you about it, they are paying attention.

Once again, America is fighting for you, the little guy. The pajamahadeen are taking up the fight.

And some want the UN to control the net. For our own good, of course, because our betters know what's best for us. One day you'll finally understand.

OK, OK, I'll buy the damn book already.

You make a good point about the he said/he said neutrality issue: it's also the reason that many journalists refuse to call people who shoot kids in the back "terrorists". There's a good post on that topic by Nelson Ascher on europundits:
http://www.europundits.blogspot.com
(I have to admit it only really started to bug me when it was my own oxen getting gored. Short sighted and hypocritical, that's me)

Looking forward to reading the book.

Øyvind: It's a bit funny, though, that your example for "Bush is Hitler"-talk is an article written by yourself... er... your good twinbrother.

Well .. that reference wasn't intended as a fair and nuanced assesment of Bush critics, but a deeply unfair kick in the groin of all the world's wackoes and anyone I care to associate with them.

Sandy: If I read you correctly you're saying that the tax cuts were a good idea. But that's irrelevant. Or do you believe that it is ok for a politician to lie if it's for a good purpose?

I’m just wondering why Bush all of a sudden gets all the beating that should have been lavished upon every leader of every democratic country in history. Anyone care to give me the names of those leaders that DIDN‘T lie, deceive, tell half-truths, spin etc.? Jimmy Carter? Olof Palme? Wait, I‘ve got it – Jacques Chirac!

What is this I read BS, SANITY???? In BLOGSPHERE???? I am impressed. And a praiseworthy bookreview to boot. Having not read the book myself all I can gather from the review is that this book should be TOP PRIORITY for any American voter, Republicans in particular. Agreeing with Bush are you BS? Well, fair enough, why? What has he done for you? Made the world safer? there's been no increase of terrorist activity in Norway, unless you include armed robberies, which by certain people's definition is terrorism, viz. people shot in the back. However, there is apt opportunity for DISAGREEING with ol' Bushwacked. Primarily for not signing the Kyoto agreement or not ratifying the war crimes tribunal in the Hague. Preserving Americas interests you say? possibly, but being republican makes you pro-market by default does it not? One of the best outcomes of Kyoto is the introduction of the market for pollution. So I ask, purely from a neutral point of view, did the grandiouse failure to sign the Kyoto treaty serve America, i.e. ordinary citizens, or line the pockets of the top 2% of the income distribution? In fact what we got there of cousre is the classic prisoner's dilemma. Be that as it may, I enjoyed the review but shal refrain from reading the book. I am Norwegian, Bush WILL win in October, if nothing else because Kerry is retarded. So why should I care? I cannot change it, why worry about it? But of course it's good to have friends in unlikely places, and having the man who aspires to know everything on your side, cannot be bad. "Når næden er størst er hjelpen nærmest borte"

Bertil Knudsen: I’m just wondering why Bush all of a sudden gets all the beating that should have been lavished upon every leader of every democratic country in history.

One of the claims that are made in this book is that Bush actually goes much further than previous leaders, at least in the US. He's better at it than his predecessors, and too smart to use obvious falsehoods.

Anyone care to give me the names of those leaders that DIDN‘T lie, deceive, tell half-truths, spin etc.?

Irrelevant. My point is that Bush uses deception, and that deception is wrong. Why does it matter if everyone else does it?

I'm well aware that spin is common in politics, and I'm not accusing Bush of anything I'm not suspecting European leaders of. But I have two reasons for writing about this: 1) Bush's spin is better documented, because America's political culture is ahead of ours. 2) I've often supported Bush's policies, thus implicitly approving of his rhetorics. That gives me a responsibility to state in public that I don't.

One thing I didn't have time to write about in this post, but wanted to, is how we can apply these lessons to Europe. I'm not criticizing Bush to boost my European ego, but because I see what Spinsanity does here as a model for what we should do in Europe to our own leaders and media. We have many of the same problems, and we have less diversity to compensate for them.

Geir: I am Norwegian, Bush WILL win in October, if nothing else because Kerry is retarded. So why should I care? I cannot change it, why worry about it?

Because you can learn from this book how to identify and attempt to solve the same problems in Europe. Bush is just a symptom of a larger corruption. He didn't invent spin, and spin won't end without him. We don't have this level of spin yet in Norway, but we will unless people like you and me do our best to prevent it.

"We don't have this level of spin yet in Norway, but we will unless people like you and me do our best to prevent it."

Whoa there Buakaroo Bjørn!

Come again?

"Spin" is, in the case of the discourse in general here, a non sequitur. Because spin isn't even needed to convey otherwise completely unchallenged positions... because there is no challenge. Indeed, the only place in Western Europe where there has still (barely) enough of a truly contentious discourse to prevent succumbing to projected myopia has been Briton... and there we have the "Spin Machine" kicking up dust in every direction.

"Spin" Bjørn... is an epiphenomenon, and let us not forget it. This is something that has been professionalized in the hallowed halls of Academia and we, are the "herd" (sophisticated and nuanced that we are notwithstanding) it has been imposed upon. The elitist arrogance behind it is not even worth arguing over now, because in any case, it is dominant and it is very, very dangerous to free society (in any meaningful sense)...

...and it is unsustainable

Bjørn, in this way the debate about "spin" could easily become a spin! Shall we take that point and say that this means the discourse here is an honest one. Hello, lets create an environment where those holding the power to project even HAVE a reason to spin before we complain about it. As the poor man listened to the rich man's complaints about the stress of money... "I would love to have such problems."

The real issues are honesty, objectivity and transparency because these are the things that pay respect to the will of the people in a free and democratic society... and because they honor truth.

To recast the core issues of this, if it is the point that this book is making, is a very big homage to spin indeed!

Cheers,

KM

Kevin: I didn't mean to imply that Norway has a better media and political culture than the US. Our media is less diverse, with little real discussion of many important issues. Norwegian media are more biased than American media, and have almost no counterweights in the form of political magazines or pundits.

The point is that we shouldn't hold up the American media as an ideal for Norway to emulate in all detail. We should emulate what they've done right, and improve on what they've done wrong. And part of what they've done wrong is to ignore the power of spin. We're behind them in the area of spin, partly because we're smaller, (less power to corrupt our leaders), and partly because we joined the modern media world later, but I believe we'll catch up. It's important that we're prepared for that.

That's why, for instance, we shouldn't ask for the Norwegian media to drop its bias and become more "objective" (ie. neutral). We should ask it to embrace diversity, disagreement and real objectivity.

Bjørn et al.,

A case in point regarding spin "specifically".

Consider the still unfolding case of "Rathergate" Bjørn. Such an absurdly obvious forgery that it was caught out with in hours of its diplay... and it has taken eleven days even for Rather to get on air and make his: non-admission-of-guilt-it-depends-on-your-point-of-view-fake-but-accurate... "apology".

This is disgusting enough in itself, but consider the following two "Truths" in this story (in my humble opinion) for a perspective on the metaphysics of spin and its place in the big picture.

First, during this last ten days, it has been the case in CBS and across the dominant spectrum of "mainstream" media that beyond any doubt, the documents were forgeries. The 100% match (which is actually discounted bythe MSM because the revelation didn't come from media "in house") of the documents to MS Word established that beyond reasonable argument, and several big name journalists had already hit this out of the park within a day or two.

So what was this period during the last ten days while CBS went from "Absolutely standing behind the story" and the "sources are Unimpeachable"... to "We regret that we were duped"?

Well... it was spin time, and by people who view the Public as simultaneously a herd and worthy of disdain. The entire last ten days were surreal in the level of orchestration, and it included MANY other media outlets as well, working in amazing synchronicity. This is simply because it was synchronized and the nature of many of the memes that were floated was such, because they were arrived at in a conference room rather than any "inquiry", in a strategy discussion by people who make it their mission to elevate image above substance in whatever way is necesaary to serve the interests of the few.... truth be damned.

Lets review: First we had the "Even if Fake, yet Accurate" meme (last Tuesday and Wednesday), then we had the "Right Wing Conspiracy" on Thursday and Friday (mind you, many "mainstream" media sources hit on this one simultaneuosly by an amazing co-incidence) then we had the "Blogs as Propagandists" (a follow up to the previous)... before we came to the "we were duped".

At every point before this final (though hopefully not last) position, it was clearly the hope that the whole thing would either just go away, or become so fogged up with meaningless banter that the "herd" would become confused, and it could be spun against the "Bush" camp.

It was ONLY do to the mass of "alternative" outlets, including weblogs themselves, which prevented that NOT unrealistic (frighteningly) goal from being attained.

Now... odiously... we have Dan Rather giving an interview with the latest spin where he is claiming that it is because of CBS news's "complete transparency" and their "integrity" as "truth-tellers" that this admission has been brought to the public's attention "the instant it became clear that we could not vouch for the documents" (ARGGHHH!!!) and that they have now come out with their withdrawl of the newscast.

I submit to you Bjørn... that this is an old phenomenon (as old as history... its called lying), but in a frighteningly modern... postmodern even... mold. It is sophisticated and nuanced you see... as we should ALL be... if we are to be good citizens.

The second point I want to make on this story is that you are right, this could not have happened here.

Because, if such tainted "evidence" of something was used as though it were unimpeachable... there would have been no outcry "loud enough" to be heard... by the herd.

What was it that happened with Ester Kristoffer again? Remind me.

Its about Truth. And the way to pay homage to it is not to claim you have it, but to humbly serve it. Ironically, by REALLY honoring some of the things that Dan spoke of... transparency, integrity, and truthseeking.

Its just that in his case... those words were spin.

Cheers,

KM

PS
Look at this post:
It's bigger than Dan Rather

http://www.buzzmachine.com/archives/2004_09_20.html#008008

PPS I submit once again... in Public now... the meme... Dan Rosebud. (And yes, I agree that Citizen Kane is too obscure to let this meme catch... I just wanted to post it publicly anyway... spin artist that I am.)

The point of your note and the book appears to be: a) “But what if Bush is a different kind of liar? What if he deceives with half-truths instead of untruths, and implies things that would be lies if stated openly?” and b) “Instead of using reason to arrive at a position close to the objective truth, reporters just take the middle position”

That, in my view, is amazingly condescending to the US political process and largely inaccurate. We have an extremely vibrant and aggressive political process: witness Kerry/Daschle/ vs Bush; the New York Times vs. the Wall Street Journal; CBS vs. Fox; The New York Review of Books vs. The National Review and last, but not least, Michael Moore’s movie vs. the 9/11 Report. I could go on and on. Assertions about domestic policy are subject to continuous debate and analysis and to the point of ad nauseam. Spin on domestic issues is frequently and effectively vetted – by both sides. A reporter’s job is to be neutral; if you wish to express opinion it is done on editorial pages. Indeed one o0f the major criticisms of the media today in the US is just that: opinion and slant has coopted the news pages.

As for foreign policy, it is hard to see how that has been spun by half truths either given the 9/11 Commission report which was a joint effort by the Democrats and the Republicans.

I do not deny spin takes place, and has been done quite effectively by both sides. However it does appear that it is effectively vetted by both sides.

As for the economic and tax issues you raise, it would take a full page to even begin to suggest why the Democratic spin may have even been far worse. As for the foreign policy issues, you raise, there is a big difference between spin and being wrong and that would also take some discussion.

Although I concede that when you basis a public pronouncement on “secret” information spin is a lot easier. Be that as it may, at bottom, spin is simply a way of articulating a policy position in support of proposed action. In that regard it is up to the opposition to point out the errors and/or falsities. As Justice Brandies said a long time ago “sunlight is the best of disinfectants” and that is what a democratic process is all about. Indeed, hat except for Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson Democratic presidents have never gotten a majority vote for president (as distinguished from votes from the Electoral College). From this it is possible to argue that the policy alternatives offered by Republicans are more fundamentally appealing to the US citizenry at large and spin plays little role. As once said “you can fool some of the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time”.

Kevin: When I talk about spin I mean attempts by objects of media attention to influence coverage of themselves in a positive way through deception. This is not the same as being stubborn, dumb or dishonest. Spin is a particular way of being dishonest, by a particular kind of people, mostly politicians, activists and companies.

What Dan Rather did was a lot of things, but it was not "spin". The same with NRK's story on Ester Kristoffer. Dishonest, yes, but not that particular kind of dishonesty.

Herbie: Assertions about domestic policy are subject to continuous debate and analysis and to the point of ad nauseam.

Yes. I did not say that all Americans believe whatever Bush tells them. But political debate in the US falls between two poles: Partisan punditry and neutral reporting. Partisan fighting is better than the unanimity we have in Norway, but it's also very limited as a tool to uncover the truth. If Bush tells a lie today, and Kerry a lie tomorrow, partisans on one side will expose Bush's lie, and partisans on the other side Kerry's - but who will expose and admit both? It creates a warped image of reality, where you either believe that Bush is a liar, or that he's trustworthy. If the truth is a combination of the two, with uncomfortable implications for both parties, it's likely to be ignored by the partisans.

Which leaves us with neutrality, which is easy to exploit. This is pretty well documented in the book. Reporters fail to point out the obvious, and fall back instead on safe neutrality.

A reporter’s job is to be neutral; if you wish to express opinion it is done on editorial pages. Indeed one o0f the major criticisms of the media today in the US is just that: opinion and slant has coopted the news pages.

Yes, and that criticism is misguided. It depends on the myth that you can either have biased reporting or neutral ("objective") reporting. But there's a third way: Subjective attempts at objective reporting. This is not the same as neutral reporting, because you actually make an attempt at digging up the truth. But it's punditry in the news pages either, because you make sure to ground your claims in solid fact. A pundit can claim almost anything - an objective reporter must stick to what he can prove. It's the difference between "I'm with the critics on this one - we can't afford tax cuts now" and "but numbers from the Department of Finance contradict Bush's claim that the tax cuts will benefit middle-income families." The fist is an opinion, the second is an attempt at fact.

I do not deny spin takes place, and has been done quite effectively by both sides. However it does appear that it is effectively vetted by both sides.

But it is done in a way that conceals the truth. Partisan rhetoric is often so hyperbolic and ridiculous that it immunizes many opponents against all criticism from that side of the spectrum. Bloggers like myself have been so focused on the irrational rantings of the wacky left that when saner people have voiced weaker versions of the same claims, we've thought "oh well, they're leftists, what can you expect?" That's a dangerous situation, and a good illustration of why partisanship can't solve this problem. It only solves half the problem - the other side's half. But what about our half?

As for the economic and tax issues you raise, it would take a full page to even begin to suggest why the Democratic spin may have even been far worse.

Irrelevant. Or do you believe that deception becomes right when both sides do it?

As for the foreign policy issues, you raise, there is a big difference between spin and being wrong and that would also take some discussion.

I agree, and this aspect too is pretty well covered in the book. Being wrong is no proof of deception. The authors stick to cases where it was likely the Bush administration knew what it was doing.

Be that as it may, at bottom, spin is simply a way of articulating a policy position in support of proposed action.

No, spin is a way of doing that through deception. Democratic institutions are built to prevent this - but that depends on people like you and me making clear that we don't approve of deception. Ignoring the problem because it somehow solves itself ensures that it won't be solved - it's like a police man ignoring a crime because "the police will take care of that". You are part of the mechanism that keeps democracy from getting corrupted. Don't abandon that responsibility.

From this it is possible to argue that the policy alternatives offered by Republicans are more fundamentally appealing to the US citizenry at large and spin plays little role. As once said “you can fool some of the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time”.

I don't see the relevance of this. You're saying that somehow the Republican worldview is more appealing to Americans than the Democratic worldview - and this is connected to spin and deception how? Is it right or wrong for a politician to deceive the public on everyday policy issues? That's what this is about.

Bjørn,

"That's why, for instance, we shouldn't ask for the Norwegian media to drop its bias and become more "objective" (ie. neutral). We should ask it to embrace diversity, disagreement and real objectivity."

Ok... well I won't argue with that. Nor with the rest of your post. I agree heartily with it all.

However, I am not at all convinced that the way to look at the problems we face in what Richard Weaver presciently referred to as "The Great Stereopticon" (and which I like to refer to as the Image Projectors on the Walls of Platos Cave... something that would have given Socrates the dry heaves) is to think we can earnestly "ask" the "media", in its present state... to embrace things like "diversity". (many scare quotes!)

Because you see... they have a lock on the words like "diversity"... as a word thats been "spun" beyond recognition... and only has value now as an emotive echo of its objective character that the word should have... to convey meaning.

We need to first off, raise the idea that what we call a free and open discourse... should be one... but isn't.

This is not an issue for any specific national venue. It is an issue for all people who value freedom. Any society that is free, in a way that is meaningfully expressed, requires first and foremost, an open venue for the airing of views and the expression of ideas... so that ALL can judge for themselves what is right and good and just.

I believe that the very essence of free society's claim to be the most Good and Just, is based on this contention:

In the bright light of day, the scrutiny of the many will be the most likely to ensure that distortions and corruptions of what truly IS... will be expunged.

The threat to true democracy that is the most insidious, is the lengthening of shadows and the descent of fog that comes from the few projecting over the many... because it is then that the "will of the people" can become little more than a sad joke. It is as true of a democracy as it is in any other organization of sentient human beings, that bad things linger in shadows. Thus for example "democracy"... that is ONLY a legalistic term, rather than being metaphysically and existentially bound to Liberty... is worse than meaningless. It is a corruption that destroys Freedom... which is the only purposeful object of democracy.

We are fighting a battle of meaning here... of WORDS... in a debate framed by subjectivist definitions of words and even events, being the de-facto foundation of any "debate", thus rendering the debate itself meaningless, and declaring victory to masters of image (I have used the term "meaninglessness mongers")even before a discussion begins.

This will not be an easy fight Bjørn. I don't claim to have the answers. Perhaps raising the spectre of what "spin" is... really IS... will open a gate to that level of awareness that must come soon to the discourse. People must THINK about it(as opposed to declaring themselves "freethinkers" and then moving on).

I hope so.

Cheers,

KM

Bjørn,

So much for me not posting anymore today and having a highly productive day... (sigh...),

In any case:
"Kevin: When I talk about spin I mean attempts by objects of media attention to influence coverage of themselves in a positive way through deception."

Ok... then the direction of my objections was mistaken. But not their character. The keyword in your above assessment is "deception"... and that is about much more than just merely saying something like "lying is Bad"... though that is of course a truism. :-)

Its about the grand deception that is perpetrated over us... even though it may be rationalized as being in the name of some greater good, higher truth and so forth... as "some" see it.

Because thats a lie! "Higher truths" et al ... if they are... don't need to lie to be endorsed. That's always been true and always will be. Such rationales are almost invariably the domain of an elite who has daclared itself to have the power to convey what IS... and it is always also an invitation to tyranny. I have no desire to be dramatic here, but the issues loom large. Whether it be "spin" as you define it, or "the recasting of what IS" as I sometimes refer to things that are perhaps a little different in character from the specifics of spin... is not really a major concern to me. What concerns me is that deception... institutionalized, fully rationalized and vertically integrated into the fabric of society.

If the book we are discussing here considers this particular flavor of deception to be the "next level" of deception, or to exist in a vacuum from deceptions elsewhere... I am disappointed. If so, then the authors have found the youngest tree in a blighted forest, and have declared it a lone member of a new species and set their sights against it. Shedding light on that alone... does little.

Shedding light on it as the natural mainfestation of a long chain of events however(as I said, as an epiphenomenon), may shed light on the very real existential crisis in the the discourse today.

Cheers,

KM

PS Because this crisis by the way, is unsustainable. It is the source and enabler of the irrational polarization, balkanization and gross abuse of processes leading to corruption at the very heart of the Western Civilisation's metaphysical foundation. It has been the destroyer of meaning... and even the "idea" of meaning.

Meaninglessness en masse... though I digress here perhaps? ... leads to nihilism.

Its subtle, but deadly.

Bjorn I do not agree with your position. I am not a relativist but political dialogue is based on the articulation of a view that is based on a philosophy or ideology, e.g. high taxes and big government are bad. These are value judgments. You ask “ If Bush tells a lie today, and Kerry a lie tomorrow, partisans on one side will expose Bush's lie, and partisans on the other side Kerry's - but who will expose and admit both? It creates a warped image of reality, where you either believe that Bush is a liar, or that he's trustworthy. If the truth is a combination of the two, with uncomfortable implications for both parties, it's likely to be ignored by the partisans.” You seem to want politics to be spoon fed.

You then say “there's a third way: Subjective attempts at objective reporting. This is not the same as neutral reporting, because you actually make an attempt at digging up the truth. But it's punditry in the news pages either, because you make sure to ground your claims in solid fact.” I find that is what is being done in the US. Moreover the way you seek to define deception is so broad that it becomes, in my view, worthless. It appears to be so broad and amorphous as to defy analysis. Moreover it seeks a level of discourse that has never been pu in practice anywhere so far as I am aware. I would love to remove guile from politics, but that will not happen. In the end you seek a utopian view of discourse. Perhaps we will get there one day. For now I am comfortable with the First Amendment and how it operates here.

I have to admit that your subtelty is confusing me completely. for example:

Kevin: When I talk about spin I mean attempts by objects of media attention to influence coverage of themselves in a positive way through deception. This is not the same as being stubborn, dumb or dishonest. Spin is a particular way of being dishonest, by a particular kind of people, mostly politicians, activists and companies.

What Dan Rather did was a lot of things, but it was not "spin". The same with NRK's story on Ester Kristoffer. Dishonest, yes, but not that particular kind of dishonesty.

******

When I read this I wonder if it were not spin then what is it. It is spin as dishonesty. They are trying to spin the situation to make it seem as if what their position is the truth. That seems to me to be the essense of spin. Spin in reality is the aattempt to make my position the true position. You are really cutting the whole situation too close, almost like Bubba Clinton's saying that "it depends on how you define 'is'."

You are trying to define lies, half-lies, half-truths, partial-truths - I could go on but the essense if that the closer you slice it, the more confused you make it. Lies and the lying liars who tell them. Before long you will have it shaved so close that no one will know how to really tell the truth at all. You will have to define unequivocally every term you use before you can say anything and then you will still have the problem of misunderstandings.

I tend to agree with Kevin Drum, republican (and therefore Bush) positions on many issues are unpopular enough to alienate those crucial swing middle of the road voters, so Bush has no choice but to bait and switch when it comes to policy.

Michael,

I disagree with you on principle AND practical grounds.

If the Bushies see it is necessary that they bait and switch, then they are doing so in deference to the fact that they fear the positions can be "spun" on the other side. Bjørn gives a perfect example in the Tax Cuts, which should have been defended on Hayekian grounds, or Supply Side grounds that made the policy about principle, and the common good. There are plenty of very tasty statistics now, one year on, that show for example that the ratio of income gain was greatest for the lowest 2 tax bracket quintiles of Americans. This is in line with what free market economists were promoting, and it should have been touted as a prediction. The answer to the idea that in ABSOLUTE terms the rich benefit most from an across the board tax cut should have been the rhetorical equivalent of "Well, DUH!! my liberal friend, thanks for pointing out that this is the group that pays the most taxes, and also invests the most capital... we would prefer we leave the maximum amount of American resources with its people, rather than grind it through a bureacracy before it goes back "to the people" in accordance with some ideological vision of social justice!"

Opponents to the plan would then have been forced to answer on those terms rather their own spin where it was a devilish plan to send billions to Haliburton and the "OIL COMPANIES", and Bush's "millionaire cronies". And so they should have been forced... in good faith. Wonderful!

That wouldn't be spin... it would have been clarity. And it lays out the terms of debate where they belong. This has somehow become a "taboo" in all things as though "the herd" consists of idiots and morons, who should be kept minimally disturbed from their solipsistic reverie... lest they awaken. (Am I being overly dramatic?)

This cannot stand, not least of all becuase it seems to be becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.

If the "other side" is doing this objectionable thing, and you do it in order to win... and what you've won is a disourse where the very practice that you objected to is the de facto "standard"... then you have surely "destroyed the village in order to save it."

That would be wrong... wouldn't it?

You are being hoisted on your own petard, it seems. Believe nothing of a political nature, that is said or written in an election year. Nothing.
Are you saying that lying is okay, but spinning the truth to reflect well on your position is evil? Very interesting.

--Sandy: If I read you correctly you're saying that the tax cuts were a good idea. But that's irrelevant. Or do you believe that it is ok for a politician to lie if it's for a good purpose?--

1. All politics is local - late Tip O'Neill.

2. Where's mine? (I'm from Chicago.)

3. Aren't we supposed to be so sophisticated/blase that of course, they lie, it's to be expected?

As an ardent Bush supporter, can I just say that I drink this posting (and book) up with the taste of glorious ambrosia, as it is a rarity as an oasis in the Sahara…. A book that opposes Mr. Bush that starts with the essential premise “he is a crafty and talented politician”.

Up until the aftermath of this election, which Bush will win for the very reasons set out here, Democrats have been getting their posteriors handed to them almost entirely by “misunderestimating” this guy again and again. About December, the glee we Republicans feel over that will have worn thin. It is now tiresome. But watch as try to grab any number of Democrat colleagues by the collar and yell “You wanna beat this guy?!?!?! STOP underestimating him!! Assume, just for a moment, that he is a smart and formidable adversary!! Just…. for 30 seconds or so!”

Nope. They cannot do it. Ever. Ever. As a Christian must accept The Resurrection, a Liberal / Democrat MUST accept that their Satan is also a moron, idiot, twit, whatever. This is not to be argued. Ever. This is not to be discarded. Ever. This is not to be re-thought. Ever.

Ever.

So I fully expect Bush’s party to pick up House and Senate seats in November, just like he did in 2002, completely contrary to the norm of a President losing seats in the off-years. And he will be “a moron, an idiot, a nitwit….” I have given up trying to convince otherwise.

I suppose I can live with it. As a result of it, the Republican party will likely get the magic 60 votes in 2006 that will allow them to pass virtually anything they want with Democrat votes.

All, in large part, because of Democrat rank and file must cling to their religion, based entirely not on a Savior, but only a Demon.

As the great philosopher Jerry Seinfeld said…. “Good luck with all that!”

Thank you Bjorn, for this very good review. I'm going to Amazon to get the thing.

One thing that I think somehow has helped Bush to get hooked on some form of "perception management" has been the stupid and sappy campaign against him, both in the dinosaur press and outside, the so called “Bush bashing”, everybody competing to build a horrendous stereotype... those T-shirts with "Bush is the Anti-Christ"!

If I was to get ten cents for every cartoon in the European press with Bush depicted as a brutish cowboy, I could retire to the Bahamas. Then you have the Michael Moore school. Moore, perhaps the best propaganda movie-maker since Leni Rifensthal’s Hitler Jugend (definitely better than Roman Karmen) has established the logical stereotype for Bush bashing: the man is a stupid daft lazy sob. A synthesis of a cowboy and a failed small town mayor landed in the White House by sheer accident.

I have the feeling that the Bush stereotype created by the anti-Bush has helped him to interpret the dignified version of what the French call “Monsieur Tout-le-monde”, Mr. Everybody, "The regular guy"… and use that persona to deliver very shrewd messages in which perhaps there was an excessive dose of disingenuity… or deception. Maybe I’m tired of explaining to Europeans that no fool becomes the president of a modern country with 250 M people, but the fact is that I think his masters in perception management have been his detractors.

Andrew X and Juan in Paris - your posts were what I was thinking.

What's going on isn't really anything a whole lot different from what goes on in your average, vicious, presidential election. Just as Reagan was the great communicator, I think GWB is going to be known as the great poker player.

I have to disagree here that GWB is a 'different' kind of 'liar'. FDR certainly didn't tell everything he knew about the goings on during WWII, and I wouldn't have expected him to. Clinton took credit for welfare reform, when it was really the Republican Congress that pushed the legislation.

Bill Clinton wasn't called Slick Willy for nothing. And of course there was the creepy Richard Nixon, the disengenuous Carter and so forth.

I think the difference here is the volume of info that is being generated (much of it due to the net) that gives the impression of more spin. I also think that the Dems are running one of the most inept and vicious campaigns that I have ever seen.

The contrast between the quiet "trap door spider", technique of GWB, and the shrieky, dated, openly manipulative technique of the Dems is just providing a starker contrast that what we are used to seeing.

The vitriol coming out of the lib/dem camp is about the worst in my memory. Kerry is probably the worst, most vulnerable candidate the Dems could have come up with. The 60's hippie leftovers have finally moved up the ranks of the DNC, to everyones detriment.

By constantly calling Bush a moron, you end up looking pretty stupid if he outsmarts you, no?

I don't think the Bushies are spinning anymore that anyone else - and no, I don't think that Karl Rove is an evil super genious. Except maybe compared to Terry McAuliff.

People hear what they want to believe. They criticize what they don't like to hear after they are forced to listen to it to their discomfort, or already have an agenda to oppose the source.

I don't look to politicians, their campaigns, or any one in news media to tell me what is truth. I look to which politicians consistently support my beliefs through his or her actions. I am similarly selective in my news sources, as are most people. All news sources are biased because they are constructed by humans with opinions.

I have core beliefs about what is right and wrong. The "spin" on a subject doesn't shake my core belief, but rather helps me understand the nature of the person making the spin. An outside truth (news) reference is needed to decide details on relatively minor topics like tax formulas, etc. But, these cases usually boil down to the method used to obtain the result, rather than the result itself.

In summary, look within yourself first about truth, then question your leader's position on their beliefs. Investigate their track record to prove it. If you rely on current spin events or political rhetoric for guidance, you will be manipulated.

Hmm. I know I need to read this book, but I should tell you I'm a bit skeptical. Partly because of the examples you used.

I have seen Presidents (and wanna-be Presidents) all my life use the "present an example that turns out not to be typical" trick. Every major candidatee I can recall has done this.

And the bit about tax cuts: this seems based on the assumption that voters are just plain rock stupid. "Everybody gets a 5% tax cut." Everyone I know gets this. I don't know anybody, anybody at all, who doesn't realize that this means very wealthy people don't get more back in absolute dollars, and I know only a few angry ideologues who are upset about this fact.

Even the WMD business: we thought they were there. We had good reason to think they were there. Everyone thought they were there. In persuading people that the war was necessary, was it the President's job to list a bunch of vacillating, "Oh I'm not sure, please understand I'm only guessing" rhetoric? If he believed what he was saying, if others in both parties believed it (hell, President Clinton STILL says he believed it and that Bush did the right thing), how do you distort that into a lie? No, Saddam appears not to have had the weapons, but yes he did have banned programs. Okay, it's an embarassment, but an outright deception? Come on, are voters really just sheep?

How much of what these guys are saying rests on the assumption that, at rock bottom, people are stupid? And that what they say are "deceptions" are merely matters of opinion?

Ah, I need to read it, but I'd like to see much more concrete examples than the examples you gave.

Mind you I'm not attacking the SpinSanity guys. They are in fact quite honorable guys, we need more like them on the left. But this seems... unconvincing.

Falstaff,

I'm not sure to whom you refer... I'm actually pretty sure it's not me. But regardless, I want to state for the record:

What is this "petard" you speak of?...I hate this petard thing...it sounds suspiciously French!

Herbie: I am not a relativist but political dialogue is based on the articulation of a view that is based on a philosophy or ideology, e.g. high taxes and big government are bad. These are value judgments.

Absolutely. I'm not talking about the reasons Bush have for wanting a tax cut. Some of those reasons are based on value judgments, some on beliefs that are difficult to prove, and some on hard fact and experience. I don't have a problem with that. What I have a problem with is the way he sold those tax cuts to the public. Claiming that your tax cut does not primarily benefit the rich when it clearly does has nothing to do with value judgments or ideology. It is pure deception, a cynical attempt to fool people into supporting your policies, because you believe your real reasons aren't persuasive enough.

In the end you seek a utopian view of discourse.

Not at all. Utopianism would be to claim that it is possible for one lone journalist to capture the whole and absolute truth in one single article. I don't believe that this is possible, but I believe that when all journalists try their best to capture that truth, we will get much further than if they didn't try at all. And as long as you do it according to commonly agreed upon principles of proof, and not controversial ideological axioms, you avoid the risk of editorializing the news pages. It's not editorializing to say that a general tax cut primarily benefits the rich in the short term, it's a statement of fact that is very easy to prove.

Dick: When I read this I wonder if it were not spin then what is it.

Well, I believe that defining spin that way, as a way for objects of media attention to create favorable coverage through deception, highlights some aspects that separate spin from regular deception. When a politician goes on TV and says he "did not have sex with that woman", he's just lying. This is no different from some random guy saying that the same thing to his wife. It's a basic lie, something everyone can do to anyone, any time. But when the politician goes on TV and presents his new policy in a way that's carefully designed to leave a positive impression, using every method of deception known to him, he's exploiting factors that are unique to modern media politics. He's exploiting news cycles, neutrality, ignorance, respect for authority, partisanship, irrationality, etc. It's a different kind of lying, adapted to the specific circumstances of the media. We need a word for that, and spin is a good word.

The problem with just calling it lying is that a lie is a simple falsehood. Spin consists of truths and half-truths carefully assembled to imply a falsehood. If you call it a lie, the spinner can defend himself by just pointing to the individual truths he spun with. Look how ridiculous the "Bush lied!" meme has become. We need a separate concept and a separate word for this kind of deception, or we'll not be able to have a meaningful debate about it.

Dean: I have seen Presidents (and wanna-be Presidents) all my life use the "present an example that turns out not to be typical" trick. Every major candidatee I can recall has done this.

I can't evaluate the claims this book makes that Bush goes further than previous presidents. I don't know enough American history to do that.

But the book does make a convincing case that Bush uses deception on a regular basis. It's not relevant whether he's worse than anyone else - Bush is responsible for his own actions. Spin and deception is wrong, and should be fought. If the phenomenon is old, it's about time we fight back, and if it is young, there's even more reason to do so, because we know it doesn't have to be that way.

And the bit about tax cuts: this seems based on the assumption that voters are just plain rock stupid.

But who makes the assumption, Bush or the Spinsanity folks? It's pretty well documented that Bush did reject accusations that his tax cuts would primarily benefit the rich. The "top 1%" debate and all that. And the book documents that the media presented this from a neutral point of view, "he says but they say". I don't know if this deception worked, but is that relevant? If Bush used deception on the assumption that voters are stupid, shouldn't this be criticized even when the deception fails?

Even the WMD business: we thought they were there. We had good reason to think they were there.

This is not in dispute. As I said, Bush never went on TV and made stuff up. But where the evidence was inconclusive (Saddam has wmd's), he pretended it was not, and where the evidence was non-existent (Saddam was connected to 9/11), he implied that it might exist. A slight exaggeration one day, a vital piece of information left out the next, or a statement implying more than it says - a deliberate and consistent attempt at deception without lying. There may have been good reason for suspecting that Saddam was building nukes. I believe so. But it was still possible for Bush to present those suspicions in a deceptive way, and this is well documented in the book.

Bjorn:
"Look how ridiculous the "Bush lied!" meme has become"..
Why?
If he is lying then he is lying. Lying is to willfully make someone else believe something that you know to be wrong. I would call that a lie, not a spin. You dont need new words for old actions. Yes, he might have done it on a larger scale, but the truth then is that he is just a bigger liar....
I got this from my dictionary:
Lies:
"A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression. "

BJORN YOU SAY "It's not editorializing to say that a general tax cut primarily benefits the rich in the short term, it's a statement of fact that is very easy to prove." Right. So what? You then have to deal with the counterpoint that the tax cut would hurt or create a bigger burden on the less wealthy or, instead tht it would create more money for investment by a) making an absolute pool of more money available for investment or b) by making a greater profit available on any investment on an after tax basis and so increasing the likelihood of such an investment. If not then you are simply spinning your view and being disengenuous inthe same way that you critisize others. I stand by my previous analysis

Herbie: You then have to deal with the counterpoint that the tax cut would hurt or create a bigger burden on the less wealthy or, instead tht it would create more money for investment

Yes, and you can do that by going into neutral mode. "Some people say that tax cuts are bad, some say they're good". Since there's no easy way to prove either of these claims to everyone's satisfaction, neutrality is fine. The point is that there's absolutely no reason to be neutral about a claim that is easy to check, just for the sake of being neutral. It just muddles the debate, and politicians exploit neutrality deliberately for that purpose. We shouldn't let them.

Keep in mind, too, for those of you who don't know, 50% of Americans are in the stock market, whether directly or via retirement programs. W cut capital gains taxes. Has everyone been paying attention to MSFT, much less the other companies' dividends?

Billions are flooding the market because the firms raised their dividends. I think MSFT alone over the next 3 years is passing out over $50 billion that it's been sitting on in cash. And Gates is donating all his to charity. (Hello, Buffet! Will you die already to pass on your $43 BILLION? Talk about a greedy capitalist.)

---

where the evidence was non-existent (Saddam was connected to 9/11), he implied that it might exist. --

Don't count those chickens yet: Allen's gold standard of truth might be tarnished yet:

UNSCAM UPDATE: Claudi Rosett pulls no punches on Kofi Annan's involvement with the Oil-for-Food scandal.

And Roger Simon says that Annan is engaged in the mother of all stonewalls.

--

Now Kofi said no one is above the law.

We'll have to wait and see. Depends on where this money found its way to.

Don't forget to visit the Friends of Saddam site.

And as an off-topic, was it Oyvind who pointed out this, via Roger Simon:

I suggest taking a look at the Belmont Club who today introduces us to "The Human Security Doctrine for Europe." Do you know what that is? I didn't. But it is certainly worth writing a column (and thinking) about - another example of new media striking out in original directions while old media are sinking in tar.

Some of the posts about this document just highlight the divide.

Bjorn I think you are trying to push water uphill

Bjorn I think you are trying to push water uphill

I am a bit perplexed by your criticisms of Bush, Bjorn -(i.e. "Claiming that your tax cut does not primarily benefit the rich when it clearly does has nothing to do with value judgments or ideology. It is pure deception, a cynical attempt to fool people into supporting your policies, because you believe your real reasons aren't persuasive enough.")

I think one has to realize the position of the President on issues such as this.

1. A hostile media (which means 95% of them) will ignore any truism about the "global" benefits of a tax cut and concentrate on "cuts for the rich". Sound bites are everything. You only have to look at how hard the media tries to get Bush to say something they can report out of context ad nauseum.

2. No president can spend the time to illustrate the economic principles of tax cuts. First off, no media would report it in totality and secondly, most Americans don't understand economics enough to understand what is being said. If we had a truthful and principled media, people would be educated enough to understand how tax cuts work and things could explained "truthfully" (as you claim they should be.) We don't - hence you must KISS - Keep It Simple Stupid.

3. The comments are not deceptive for two reasons

a. The ultimate benefit of tax cuts that return more of the "rich people's income" back to the rich that earned them ignores the fact that rich people employ middle class people, buy products that give employmnent yada yada yada....
b. There are more middle class Americans receiving money than "rich people". "Rich people" are perhaps only 5 - 10% of the total population and the "returned tax cuts" were limited the higher up one is on the tax scale. For example, an average middle class income resulted in about a $300 refund (average media income is about 65,000). For my family we have a much higher combined income and we got back $400.

This book looks to me like a disingenuous way to snark at Bush.

Suzanne: No president can spend the time to illustrate the economic principles of tax cuts. First off, no media would report it in totality and secondly, most Americans don't understand economics enough to understand what is being said.

Ah. The people is stupid, we're smart. We know what's best for them, so let's trick them into accepting our policies. It's not like we need any real debate about those policies. We had that debate among ourselves, and resolved it to our satisfaction. All that remains is selling those policies in terms the masses can understand.

And I thought it were European leftists who were supposed to be elitist.

The ultimate benefit of tax cuts that return more of the "rich people's income" back to the rich that earned them ignores the fact that rich people employ middle class people, buy products that give employmnent yada yada yada....

That's not a fact, that is an ideological belief. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that there's no easy way for you to prove that you're right in a way that most rational people will accept. That's why we have different parties and ideologies, because rational people can't always agree about what's smart or dumb. So this is something that needs to be discussed. A debate about tax cuts should be a debate about those ultimate effects of tax cuts. Bush did his part in sabotaging that debate by denying the obvious short term effects of tax cuts.

Herbie: Bjorn I think you are trying to push water uphill

So when I ask that the media stop deceiving me, that's brave and independent. But when I ask that politicians stop deceiving me, that's pushing water uphill? And what I'm doing with this blog isn't?

Anyway, it's not impossible to sort out the deception of politicians. Spinsanity does that all the time. If they can, so can others. You seem to believe it's not even worth trying. That's a guarantee of failure.

My points have been made in previous posts, but I think you need to tie them together in order to see the entire picture and put this book into perspective.

First, all political arguments are, in some measure, deceptive. This is absolutely true. This is because the political process, despite some European claims to the contrary, is inherently adversarial. You can best understand this by comparing it to the most well known adversarial process, the courts.

In a court proceeding, the two differing sides of an issue make the best argument they can in favor of their position. Their goal is to convince the judge/jury that their position is the correct one and that the other guy's position is wrong. They are under no obligation to advance the other guy's case. That's his job. The 'objective' facts of the case are relevant only insofar as they affect your argument. The end result is that each attorney presents the facts and arguments which support his case and attempts to rebut the facts and arguments which support the opposition. This is what you refer to as spin. Note, however, that any lawyer who actually lies about the facts of the case at any time in the procedure is subject to punishment up to and including disbarment. What we are currently seeing in the CBS/Rather case is the political equivalant of disbarment. The judge/jury evaluates the arguments given and renders its verdict. The political equivalant is an election.

If there is no disagreement between the parties over the facts of a case, there is usually no trial. The two parties will agree to a resolution between them and no third party is needed. The same holds true in politics. If all parties agree to the facts, a course of action is determined and it never becomes an election issue. It is only in the case of disagreement that it becomes an election issue, since a third party (the voters) are needed to resolve the question.

Second, the general public does not understand all of the complex and conflicting details of the issues. This also is absolutely true. That is not to say that they are stupid, uneducated, lazy or incapapable of understanding the issues. They are not. They simply do not have the time or the desire to master all of the arcane facts and arguments of every issue. If, for instance, you have the motivation and desire to know everything about U.S tax policy, that does not mean it is reasonable to expect the majority of people to have your same level of knowledge and interest in the subject. There are people in the world who find it much more important to know how to rebuild the transmission on a '57 Buick. That does not make them stupid or lazy.

But he will be sitting in judgement on your policies come election day, no matter that you may know far more about it than he. He is the jury. And when you argue your case before him, he does not want to read a 100 page hyper-intellectual study, complete with 8 by 10 color glossy photos with pictures and arrows and captions on the back. That's why we have elected representatives and policy wonks. He wants to know: what is the bottom line?

Think of it this way. When a company executive needs to know the impact of a certain new technology and how it impacts his companies business, does he break out the books and try to figure it out himself? No, he has more important things to do. He commissions some trusted specialist in the field to write a 100 page report on the subject and submit it to some management team. Does he then read the report himself and draw conclusions. No, he has more important things to do. The management team draws up an executive summary with conclusions and then submits the whole thing to the executive. The executive reads the summary and, if there are disagreements or questions raised, he then consults the relevant portion of the detailed report.

In our political system, the executive is the voter, the management team are the politicians and the specialists are, of course, the specialists. Election campaigns are essentially dueling executive reports attached to the same detailed analysis. The voter is presented with several courses of action laid out in simple, easily understood language summarizing the findings and recommendations of the candidates/parties. The voter will generally dig into the actual 'facts' only so far as is required to come to a decision. Each party will present their arguments in such a way as to make their recommendations look better than the other's. This is called 'spin'.

Spinning an issue is not the same as a lie. Take the example of tax cuts. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that you have an across-the-board tax of 2%. That is a fact and everyone agrees that it is.

The Republicans, who are in favor of tax cuts for a number of reasons, will say "It will reduce the tax burden on the middle class and working poor".

The Democrats, who are opposed to tax cuts for a number of reasons, will say "The rich will benefit the most".

Is anyone here lying? No, they are both correct. It will both reduce the burden on lower incomes and benefit the rich (who pay more in taxes) the most. Both sides are presenting their arguments in a way most likely to convince the voter. The voter will look at these arguments, perhaps check the underlaying data, perhaps even agree with both sides, and make a decision based upon what he thinks is the right course.

This is how it works and it is not possible to work any other way. The average voter is perfectly capable of agreeing with both arguments and still come down in favor of tax cuts because he believes that they are, on balance, the right thing to do.

In short (and I know this has not been short), the authors are arguing that a) they think Bush is lying because they disagree with him over the interpretation of the underlaying data and b) the sly, devious bastard is constructing his arguments in a simple, convincing form which the voters find persuasive. I am not impressed. They need to stop calling people names and start constructing better arguments.

Bjørn,

"So when I ask that the media stop deceiving me, that's brave and independent. But when I ask that politicians stop deceiving me, that's pushing water uphill?"

I don't think that was Herbie's point Bjørn... and I reluctantly add that it seems a bit disingenuous to recast it that way. I also have a problem with this seemingly deconstructed definition of "spin" that I see forming here as though it exists in a vacuum. I don't argue at all that the Bush administration is, maddeningly "spinnish" and I have railed about it before. In fact it has been, as I think some previous posts way back when on this blog would prove, my biggest complaint on them. This really IS a time when clarity is called for... and it has to be a core value... not just a different "approach" to rhetoric depending on your audience and the day of the week.

But then, WHY is it a time for clarity? Because it has NOT been clear for a long time indeed! The point is what does this mean within the whole dicourse? Is not the "Bush" flavor, for all intents and purposes, merely the latest flavor that is a response to previous flavors... of mass deception? If this specific definition of "spin" is predicated on the idea that Bush spin is a phenomenon that has somehow corrupted the discourse, which one assumes was thus more open and clear before, I am citing the whole premise for suspicion of spinning.

I say that because it tends to frame the "problem" as though the objective ideal, were somehow not simply HONESTY. Merely to be prudent, it needs to be understood that things are truly different now, and that there is a real risk that we are at or near some metaphysical tipping point, where the outcome is unclear... though certainly bad for freedom. It is always temting to just say "Well... politicians always lie you know... and there has always been yellow journalism."... but this is foolishness. The depth and sophistication of coherent recasting and slanting of imagery from the world has become a real time science.

The one sentence definition of "spin" that you provide is inadequate to do anymore than describe a specific tactic in recasting the world on the fly. I think that you yourself implied in a reply post earlier in the thread that this spin in essence, takes advantage of the relativistic, non value-centered nature of media attention, to see that the right words (for their emotive value) and the right structure (to give it PC trappings that the media cannot confront by their own orthodoxy) in order to state things in terms of predictable reaction... even if the final product fails to say much that's "true".

(Could be another Karl Rove result, evil genious that he is.)

Seriously though... is it not abundantly clear that even if "spin" as you and the book have defined it is what you say it is... that is not all there is! Thus discussing it as though it existed in a vacuum, seems to me to create the risk that it will end up being just another spinnable bit of mud to add to the swirling waters.

Yes it is possible to untangle statements that are spun... but what of the rest of it then?

The whole parsed mess from trying to meaningfully excise this definition of "spin" from its furtive and insidious siblings...

... who labor along in the projection of imagery on our collective consciousness...

...is beginning to give me the kind of headache one can expect from "learning" how to deconstruct a political eesay in a literary criticism class to derive its "authentic" "meaning".

What say you?

KM

One more thing, Bjorn. (not to harsh on you are anything) You mention that Norway has far less spin in its politics than most other places. I, personally, would not consider this a good thing. 'Spin' is evidence of a vigorous political debate over important issues that people feel strongly about (at least when it is accompanied by 'counterspin'). It means that the politicians are directly addressing the voters because their opinion matters. When there is no spin it does not necessarily mean that the debate is open or honest. It may just as well be that the contending parties are putting their heads together, coming to a conclusion and presenting that conclusion to the public. Or, to be generous, operating from basic assumptions so similar that they preclude conflicting opinions and evidence.

To return to my earlier analogy, if no executive summary is ever written and presented to the executive for a decision, one eventually suspects that the executive has no function in that organisation. Try to find three people who can come to the same conclusion based on a set of complex and conflicting datum. It's not easy. That three political parties can do so consistently is not at all comforting.

Of course, your mileage may differ.

"Of course, your mileage may differ."

Heh heh heh... thats pretty good.

KM

Michael: That's a very long argument to justify something as simple as deception. That is still what we're talking about here. Not honest disagreement, or simplification, but deliberate misrepresentation to deceive the public.

People can't be expected to study all new proposals in detail. They must, as you say, rely on a summary. But if that summary is to be of any value, it must be as accurate as possible. Imagine if that company executive is presented a summary for a new product that has been researched, and is told that it will be cheap to produce, that it is revolutionary and brilliant, and that all research indicates massive demand for it in the target group, all of which is true. But the summary fails to tell him that the product contains a material that is about to be banned in 19 of the 20 countries the company operates in. This information has been left out by a mid-level manager who has invested a lot of money and prestige into this product, and doesn't want to admit failure.

What will happen to a company where the leaders are regularly deceived to protect the careers of middle managers? The same thing that happens to a country where the public is regularly deceived to protect the careers of politicians.

The Republicans, who are in favor of tax cuts for a number of reasons, will say "It will reduce the tax burden on the middle class and working poor".

But actually they didn't say that. They said "by far the vast majority of my tax cuts go to the bottom end of the spectrum."

How would you parse that sentence to make it true? Impress me.

In short (and I know this has not been short), the authors are arguing that a) they think Bush is lying because they disagree with him over the interpretation of the underlaying data

Have you read the book? You seem to base your dismissal on the assumption that Bush has not deceived about his tax cuts. Which is precisely what the authors are trying to prove that he has, in a level of detail my review does not reflect. This is getting a bit circular. I suggest you give the book a chance. If you're a regular reader of this blog, you know that I would never recommend what I perceive to be an unfair, partisan attack on George W. Bush. I've agreed with many of his most controversial policies. I might even vote for him if I wasn't a Norwegian, though with less enthusiasm that I would have two years ago.

They need to stop calling people names and start constructing better arguments.

Again, have you read the book? Have you even read Spinsanity? Point me to the page of All the President's Spin where the authors call people names, or where they present superficial arguments.

Kevin: If this specific definition of "spin" is predicated on the idea that Bush spin is a phenomenon that has somehow corrupted the discourse, which one assumes was thus more open and clear before, I am citing the whole premise for suspicion of spinning.

I don't remember saying that previous presidents haven't been dishonest, and the book certainly doesn't. It credits Bill Clinton with introducing many of the PR techniques Bush has used more consistently and with more skill. So this is a straw man. Nobody has said that Bush is the devil of spin.

So why hold him accountable, when everybody does it? Because he's the guy currently in charge, and if you have to start somewhere you might as well start at the top. And because he's on "our" side in many issues, and we'll be doing those issues a favour by being honest about them. Dishonesty does not only fool the public and sabotage debate, it corrupts the very ideas you're fighting for.

Michael: You mention that Norway has far less spin in its politics than most other places. I, personally, would not consider this a good thing.

Nor do I. When it comes to political debate, we're worse off than the US is, and our lack of spin is a symptom of that. I wrote more about this above. My point is that the success of spin is not inevitable. It depends on the desire of journalists to be neutral instead of objective. There's a temptation for media critics in Norway to hold up the US as an ideal that we should emulate: Less uniformity and bias, more partisanship and neutrality. And there is much to learn from American media. But neutrality is a non-optimal solution. Our goal should be less bias, more objectivity.

Bjørn,

Fair enough.

I just needed clarity. :-)

K

Bjorn you have twisted my point. Second you say "can't be expected to study all new proposals in detail. They must, as you say, rely on a summary. But if that summary is to be of any value, it must be as accurate as possible." Why? All that is needed is to understand that politics is the articulation of of an argument in favor of a position which may or may not be accurate. You appear to be starting to condescend to the intelligence of the voters. It would be nice if all were accurate. What is critical however, is an active opposition in a society that gives that opposition open access. I do not thnk that more is needed. People don't like being lied to and when that becomes apparrant they react

Herbie: It would be nice if all were accurate.

How about honest? I don't see your point here. What kind of behavior is it really you're defending here? Remember the context: A book that accuses Bush of knowingly using deception while presenting his policies. Not simplification. Not honest mistakes or inaccuracies. Deception. Are you defending that deception, or are you claiming it does not take place? Perhaps we're talking past each other.

People don't like being lied to and when that becomes apparrant they react

Exactly. That's what I'm doing here, and it's what you should do the next time a politician tries to deceive you.

Bjorn Honesty is nice; the ability to critique is more valuable. It is only in the clash of ideas that a "better policy will emerge. As for being deceived: a) vote the bumout of office, and b) continue on this blog. :-)

A Very interesting sidebar to this thread can be found in this article by Andrew McCarthy. It can accurately be said to contain a so called "neo-Conservative" perspective on what we are trying to get at here, and what it means for everything from the formation of honest public policy to the prospects of freedom.

I don't agree with everything in it (which is fair... since it speculates on things) but I agree with the idea that it is anchored in.

For example I disagree that the ACTUAL success of democracy is secondary in the war on terror, since in a wider sense, I think that it is the ONLY way to confront terror at its core.

But in any case, I recommend it as an enhancer and calrifier for this thread.

http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.asp?ref=/mccarthy/mccarthy200409230834.asp

KM

Neither Bush nor Kerry are adressing the problem.
We know that it is the teachers and authority figures within radical Islam who are fueling the terrorism. As long as individual muslims take these violence-mongers seriously, the terrorism will continue. With or without democracy, as long as the authority of these terror-promoters is unchallenged, the murders will continue.
Democracy is not the answer.
Challenging the authority of the promoters of murder is the answer. Taking away their power to generate violence in every new generation, over and over again.
Islam must be reformed, whatever it takes.

Mustafa. I agree. See my posts under the related link “Railway terror alert in Norway” on
2004-09-21 at 19:42 for a couragous article and 2004-09-22 at 15:01

Mustafa,

I agree with your assessment, and its principles, as in:

"Challenging the authority of the promoters of murder is the answer. Taking away their power to generate violence in every new generation, over and over again.
Islam must be reformed, whatever it takes."

But your premise: "Democracy is not the answer." I would respectfully like to qualify.

In any meaningful sense, how does one confront an ideology which depicts itself as Divine will, even as it leverages the resentments and hatreds that always threaten the human spirit both individually and collectively, without an alternative that reaches its hand out to those who are supporting... ususally in ignorance or fear... this enemy. If the agressive stance against radical Islamism is undertaken on the basis of destroying it "merely" because it attacked us... then what is that stance a DEFENSE of, other than merely that which is ours? How is it not the case then, that manipulators cannot continue to claim that the "West" is merely trying to crush out ALL of Islam in the name of nothing other than the imperialist imposition of "their" way... and thus their tactics, no matter how ruthless they may seem... is necessitated by the fact that the infidels have the material power... while they (Islamists) have their faith.

What if anything do we offer that is a universal tenet, and that thus was ACTUALLY attacked on 9-11 and elsewhere.

It MUST be Liberty.

Indeed, we need to relearn this ourselves.

I would agree with you that it may not be necessarily "democracy" per se, that is the answer... but that it is the freedom and self determination of peoples who are presently engulfed in, and relentlessly bombarded by an ideology that is rooted in murderous hatred, which will utterly undermine their power.

Islam will only be reformed, when enough Muslims themselves are FREE to consider it, and speak of it, and ask questions from it, in a way that challenges the ruthlessly enforced "interpretations" of those who use it purely to promote their own absolute power.

Otherwise... what are we fighting for? Merely ourselves? That is surely enough for adherents to so called "realpolitik" among us, whose cynicism regarding humanity extends to all but those who are as elitist as they are, and is thus clothed in sophisticated facades like Multiculturalism (which perpetuates the contrived walls between human beings even as it claims to build bridges)... but it is not enough for the world.

And it is a smaller and smaller world each day.

Cheers,

KM

Kevin, whatever it may take to cause more muslims to laugh at the wild-eyed railings of the mullahs and clerics. I don't think democracy alone will accomplish this. The people must have access to many ideas, and be educated in the world beyond Islam.
Muslim women have the power to bring the muslim world into the modern world, if educated and exposed to the wider world.
Too often in the muslim world and other backward regions, democracy becomes a cloak for corrupt strongman rule. You see this in Cuba and Zimbabwe, Indonesia and Malaysia.

Mustafa,

I think we agree...

KM

In Denmark, a mufti called Shahid Mehdi, one of the leading Muslim leaders in Copenhagen, yesterday caused outrage when he said, on national Danish TV, that "Women do not deserve respect when they are not veiled, and thus have themselves to blame, if they are assaulted. Women themselves are partly to blame for rape, and society is partly to blame. It is society's fault that they dress the way they do."

He also said that he believed rapes would stop if women start wearing the veil. "Otherwise, they look like cheap goods sold in the streets. It is immoral to move around without veil."

????????????????

Hmmm... yes Bjørn... we seem to have digressed here as well.

Sorry about that.

You must be RUTHLESS in maintaining the thread!

KM

Bjorn,

Once again I disagree with your definition of spin. Spin is not keyed on makeing the false to seem true. Spin is trying to turn something to your advantage. It could be false or it could be true.

As an example, Kerry had the Misery Index. He based it on picking and choosing from statistics from the Census Bureau, all true, and it seemed to make his positions the only logical ones. The Bush campaign used the same set of statistics, only they picked and chose just as Kerry did and it seemed to make the Bush positions the only logical ones. Neither one lied but using the same statistics they got different meanings from it. That is what spin is. You take a position and turn it to your advantage. Nothing at all to do with lying.

Bjorn:

You are acting a little elitist yourself here...

"Ah. The people is stupid, we're smart. We know what's best for them, so let's trick them into accepting our policies. It's not like we need any real debate about those policies. We had that debate among ourselves, and resolved it to our satisfaction. All that remains is selling those policies in terms the masses can understand."

You persist in saying that Bush is deliberately deceiving, tricking, etc. Another poster said it well - Americans are NOT stupid but who has more than a basic understanding of economics. We have had 30 years of liberal media saying repeatedly that the rich don't pay their fair share of taxes and never do we hear that the so-called rich (the upper 10%) pay almost 50% of all federal taxes gathered.

There was an informal survey once - asking people how much money was required in the US to be amongst the top 1% of income tax payers (that is ONE PERCENT). No one even came close. Here's what they said: "Probably $1-$2 million." "At a minimum, I would say $800,000." "$100 million, around there." "Let's just give it $25 million." "Somewhere in the neighborhood of $400-500 million a year. What is the correct answer? is $293,415. To be in the top 5% of all income tax payers, one needs to make only $120,846. Americans do not know this. Liberal media does not report this. And why not? Because the media will only report soundbites. Too much detail is not going to sell the news. In this, it is the Media who thinks Americans are stupid because they won't give them information that they need to function in today's society.

Then you say that the ultimate benefit of tax cuts that return more of the "rich people's income" back to the rich that earned them ignores the fact that rich people employ middle class people, buy products that give employmnent yada yada yada....is not a fact but a belief?

Actually, I am a bit dumbfounded by your statement. I don't recall ever being employed by a poor person or a middle class person for that matter.

Perhaps you meant to say instead (as you seem to have tried to do) that this is an issue that should be discussed. I agree. How do you propose to have this discussion? What media will televise it? Maybe Fox or CNN - but 75% of Americans watch the regular networks - not cable news. And that media will NOT televise such a discussion.

Accusations that Bush is deliberately deceiving people are ludicrous.

Spin - Did you, Bjorn, Oyvind, Allan or Anders watch W's acceptance speech?

SOTU - State of the Union laundry list, but the last 15 minutes, talk about "consistently uses well-designed phrases and strategically crafted arguments to distract, deceive and mislead. The result is that all but the most careful listeners end up believing something completely untrue, while proving the President has lied is usually impossible."

Some would call it "inspiring."

The last 15 or so minutes provides the vision, maybe C-Span or W's site has it.

--Accusations that Bush is deliberately deceiving people are ludicrous.--

He did pull a fast one on Teddy (bridge, what bridge?) Kennedy tho.

hehehehehehehehehehe

Let's lush Ted write the education bill and Teddy still gets snookered. Err, snockered.

John Kerry's middle name is "Forgery." I suppose forgery to influence an election is fine?
How you view political tactics seems to depend on what side of the fence you live.

Dick: Neither one lied but using the same statistics they got different meanings from it. That is what spin is. You take a position and turn it to your advantage. Nothing at all to do with lying.

So twisting the numbers to prove your point is not deception, even when the untwisted numbers clearly don't support you? I don't see why you insist on such absolutist definitions. It should be obvious that there are ways to deceive with truths and half-truths. Abuse of statistics is the most common example, and I wonder if you're consistent in your willingness to forgive people for statistical deception, or if you just approve of it when it favors your political camp.

It's fundamentally a question about whether there is such a thing as an objective reality. If there is, then there are ways to describe that reality that are fairly honest or accurate, and others that are dishonest or inaccurate. You do agree with this, right? (No point arguing about spin if the real disagreement is over reality.) And due to the complexity of reality, there are degrees of honesty, and degrees of accuracy. If x = 25, the statement "x is 25" is very accurate, "x is 27" is fairly accurate, and "x is 1408" is completely inaccurate. If I believe that x = 29, then "x is 29" is honest, "x is 33" a small lie, and "x is 431" a big lie. You seem to defing lying as only the most extreme kinds of dishonesty, with the ridiculous consequence that everything else is honest.

What I refer to as spin (and you may call anything you like) is the use of small lies to deceive the public through the media. I believe this is wrong. Do you?

Suzanne Pasadena: You are acting a little elitist yourself here... .. You persist in saying that Bush is deliberately deceiving, tricking, etc.

Why is that elitist? It is a well established fact that the human mind has many irrational aspects. Is it elitism to point out that deception will work some of the time with some people, and that it is more likely to work the less people know about the subject? As you say, few people know much about economics. That makes them easy to deceive.

Really, you're making my point here:

Americans do not know this. Liberal media does not report this. And why not? Because the media will only report soundbites. Too much detail is not going to sell the news.

Absolutely. I don't see a contradiction here. The media misrepresents important issues, with the result that people are uninformed. Politicians misrepresent important issues, with the result that people are uninformed. It's wrong in either case, and should be fought - even when the deception serves the short term purpose of our own ideology.

Perhaps you meant to say instead (as you seem to have tried to do) that this is an issue that should be discussed.

No, I meant that in the scientific sense it's difficult to make provable statements about complex interactions. A scientific theory can be tested repeatedly under controlled conditions. Most theories about global-scale interactions can not. That means they're not science, and unscientific claims always have an element of belief in them. There's a huge area of interesting issues where science is not yet able to go, which we fill instead with various combinations of fact, core beliefs and postulations, also known as ideologies.

These ideologies may be reasonable, but they're not fact. They'll be fact the day they can be tested under controlled conditions in a way that any fair and reasonable observer will accept.

In the mean time, we need, as you say, to discuss them. Just because ideologies can't be proven doesn't mean they're equally rational, or that they don't contain assumptions that can be disproven. But the only scientifically defensible position is skepticism. Anything more should be accompanied by a solid amount of humility. Which is the opposite of what a politician displays when he sabotages that discussion with spin.

Mack: How you view political tactics seems to depend on what side of the fence you live.

It certainly does. People seem willing to believe any mildly negative claim made about a candidate they don't like, and any mildly positive claim about a candidate they like. This thread is a good example - I don't recall many people ever standing up for any of the leftists or anti-war people I've criticized over the last three years, the way they now stand up for Bush. When their side does it, it's "lies", when our side does it, it's just selling your position.

And that's why we need blogs like Spinsanity, which take on both sides with a high degree of fairness.

On the subject of "spin", would anyone like to explain the difference between Islam and "militant Islam" since both are based on the identical texts: Quran, Sunnah and hadith.

I have come to the view that "militant Islam" is a spin and that, in fact, there is no difference between the Islam and "militant Islam" except for putting thought into words. That is one, if not the primary reason, why there is so little internal criticism of "militant Islam". If that is so then the phrase "militant Islam" is a spin that detracts the world from confronting the ture issues at hand.

Two examples of subjects that are always "spun": health-care issues and WMD issues.

Whenever I try to get my colleagues to discuss these issues, they want to cut to the chase and give me their opinion. They never want to discuss the intermediate facts (like "costs" and "Saddam's plans after the sanctions ended").

The spin you are complaining of comes from the need for presentation of complex ideas in simple terms so that the big picture is portrayed. Most people don't have the time,interest, or inclination to study the "facts."

Several posters already expressed the same idea in different words. Spin is not showing contempt--it's dealing with reality. Lying, however, as CBS did, is showing contempt and in fact should be prosecuted as fraud or forgery.

The entire basis of capitalism, as taught in Economics 101, is that money that goes into circulated is recirculated over and over, according to some formula that I forgot. This is the essential difference between a market economy and a socialist economy (which depends on transfer payments).

Most Americans don't understand basic economics, but they do live in vibrant free market economy. They intuitively know that it's better to have smaller taxes and more money to spend.

So twisting the numbers to prove your point is not deception, even when the untwisted numbers clearly don't support you? I don't see why you insist on such absolutist definitions. It should be obvious that there are ways to deceive with truths and half-truths. Abuse of statistics is the most common example, and I wonder if you're consistent in your willingness to forgive people for statistical deception, or if you just approve of it when it favors your political camp.

Bjorn, lad, massaging numbers to fit your view is what all political strategists do. To stand all aghast, and pretend shock, paints you as either naive or disingenuous.

Raw numbers frequently tell you nothing. Numbers have to be massaged generously to speak to the real world, and some methods of massaging unavoidably slant the conclusions. That's why opposing campaigns choose to emphasize different aspects of the same numbers. You can't be as young as you seem.

There is no politics without "spin", likewise there is no effective market economy w/o advertising. What matters is whether the "spin" is based on truth or not.
In fact, I think most citizens are able to distinguish between fact-based spin and lies.At least, I hope so.

Mack: Bjorn, lad, massaging numbers to fit your view is what all political strategists do. To stand all aghast, and pretend shock, paints you as either naive or disingenuous.

Welcome to the real world, eh? I'm not impressed. "Massaging the numbers" is a euphemism. All statistical presentation falls somewhere on the two axises of honesty and accuracy. You're either honestly attempting to describe the issue, or there's a degree of dishonesty. You're either accurate, or there's a degree of inaccuracy.

The claim made in All the President's Spin is that the Bush administration consistently presents its policies with a moderate amount of dishonesty. They stop short of outright lying, but are overall less honest than previous administrations. This is an accurately defined claim, different from "all politicians are dishonest", "Bush simplifies his policies", "I disagree with Bush's policies", and other straw men that's been presented in this thread, including this one from you.

This is not about massaging the numbers, whatever that means. And it's not about shock. So I'll ask you what I asked someone else earlier: Are you saying that this level of deception is acceptable, or that it's not taking place? Because you seem to argue on both levels at once, which is confusing since they're logically separate.

Raw numbers frequently tell you nothing.

A meaningless statement. The question is: Are there ways to present data that are more honest than the others?

You can't be as young as you seem.

Appeals to age are generally made by the elderly. But this, too, is irrelevant.

--They stop short of outright lying, but are overall less honest than previous administrations.

Bubba didn't have sex w/that woman.

OJ didn't kill Nicole.

---

And I believe they both believe that.

So, is that deception?

Via Bros. Judd:

WHO PUMICES THE PUMICER?:
Networks Praise Kerry, Fox News Buries Him (Press Release, September 9, 2004)

The broadcast TV networks and weekly news magazines favor John Kerry over George W. Bush, according to a new study released by the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA). But the study also finds that Fox News Channel was far more negative towards Kerry than Bush.

These results come from the 2004 Election NewsWatch project, conducted by CMPA, an affiliate of George Mason University , and in cooperation with Media Tenor. [...]

Major Findings:

• Evaluations of John Kerry were positive by a two-to-one margin, while evaluations of George W. Bush were over 60 percent negative

• Among non-partisan sources, Kerry's evaluations were almost three-to-one positive; Bush's were over two-to-one negative.

• Among the networks, the gap between the candidates was largest on NBC; the coverage was most balanced on ABC.

• Kerry's proportion of good press declined in August, but he still fared far better than Bush until the GOP convention.

• Bush got better than Kerry only during the GOP convention, which also was the only time he received a majority of positive evaluations.

• Based on CMPA's previous studies of primary and general election coverage, Kerry has gotten the best press on network news of any presidential nominee since we began tracking election news in 1988.

And once one realizes how they "decieve" and how miserably they lead this country one must wonder how is it these two men are the best example presented as American leaders in todays world.

Neither of these idiots could be where they are now on their own credentials or merits. That should for most make an obvious argument that American politics has been bought out and the handlers dare not place any man there worth his salt.

Bjorn,

I make a difference between massaging numbers and outright lying.

As an example, look at the movie Bowling for Columbine. In the movie Michael Moore has a segment of Charlton Heston at the National NRA Conference where he shows Heston holding a gun and telling them that they will have to pry this from his cold dead hand. In fact, that shot is from a totally different event and was with respect to a gift from a group to Heston on his retirement from the NRA Presidency. The National Conference did not even have a public speech because of the events that had taken place at the time. This was patent dishonesty and not spin.

Selecting which facts that are true you will emphasize is not the same thing. Yet if we take your initial definition of spin, they would be the same. That is the whole point. Spin and honesty are not the same things.

Let's say you go for a job interview. You know that you are qualified for the job but you are a little weak in one minor area. You will take care to present the other major points and try to bypass that area. That is your spin.

Let's say again you go for a job interview. You present yourself as having a master's degree when you do not. That is blatant dishonesty, not spin.

That is the difference I am pointing out. You are saying that my presenting the most positive view of the facts is the same as lying about the facts and both are spin. I am sayng that they are not the same; one is lying and the other is spin.

Interesting Headline from AP that seems to epitomize both the "bias" and the "spin" concepts. It also reveals so much about how even "neutrality" or "equivalence" is a farse, and has become little more than a canard wherein the ideological suppositions dominant in the media caste can be served consistently, through the selective application of standards.

To wit:
an AP headline:
Bush Twists Kerry's Words on Iraq

can be found at: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=4&u=/ap/20040925/ap_on_el_pr/bush

Now this "news" flash fascinates me. (even beyond the AMAZING title/headline) Mainly becasue the examples that are cited in the article itself, were to my mind actually examples where Bush's language untwisted a convoluted statement that said things without committing to them. Here we have a spinning spinn being spun!

Case in point from the piece.

"Campaigning by bus through hotly contested Wisconsin on Friday, Bush sought to counter recently sharpened criticism by Kerry about his Iraq policies:

He stated flatly that Kerry had said earlier in the week "he would prefer the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein to the situation in Iraq today." The line drew gasps of surprise from Bush's audience in a Racine, Wis., park. "I just strongly disagree," the president said.

But Kerry never said that. In a speech at New York University on Monday, he called Saddam "a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in hell." He added, "The satisfaction we take in his downfall does not hide this fact: We have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure."

Ok... so we have traded a chaos for a dictator with the understanding that this is a bad thing (otherwise... why would this be a plus for Kerry and a strike on Bush!!!???)... we qualify this with the usual platitudes that Hussien is a bad man, should burn in hell etc...... "BUT"...

Sorry... Bush took him at his word, and AP is offended that a postmodern formulation of nuance was untangled by the moron... and wants the fog rolled back in.

Then they cite this:

"Bush attacked Kerry for calling "our alliance 'the alliance of the coerced and the bribed.'"

....

"Kerry did use the phrase to describe the U.S.-led coalition of nations in Iraq, in a March 2003 speech in California. He was referring to the administration's willingness to offer aid to other nations to gain support for its Iraq policies.

But Bush mischaracterized Kerry's criticism, which has not been aimed at the countries that have contributed a relatively small number of troops and resources, but at the administration for not gaining more participation from other nations."

Me... I beg your pardon? Is THAT what Kerry REALLY meant? The language does NOT support this rather revisionist interpretation.

So in this case (in my opinion) AP, in a "news report" (not an op-ed) is attempting to respin a Keery spin which Bush essentially un-spun, while accusing Bush of spinning!

We have a long way to go...

Kevin: But Kerry did not say that he preferred Saddam to chaos. He did not even imply it. The meaning of his statement seems clear to me: We're glad to be rid of Saddam, but Bush has botched the rebuilding process.

I'm with AP on this one. Bush spun Kerry's statement, AP unspun it. This is exactly what the news media should do more of.

More interesting reading on what Spin or Bias or recasting or whatever the hell it is... does, and how it works.

http://musil.blogspot.com/2004_09_19_musil_archive.html#109605440541709346

This is, all in all, in interesting subject, both liberating and deeply disturbing.

KM

Bjørn,

Hmmm, this is an interesting conundrum. To my mind, when I heard Kerry's talk originally, my thought was actually that it was "clearly" a very artful way to cast aspersion on the invasion itself. I am non-plussed that you do not at least consider that. How in the world is the statement "The satisfaction we take in his downfall does not hide this fact: We have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure.", a direct attack on Bush's invasion. It is artful of course, in that it is hard to pin down. This is Kerry's forte. As in: "No you see by 'chaos' I meant that it wouldn't have been chaotic if it had been ME who had been in charge of the post invasion." Yet he cites Saddam's downfall in the passive as though it were some sort of phenomenon, and we should be leery of just feeling "satisfaction" over it. My ACTUAL thought BEFORE I read this piece (and thats why I cited it) when I heard Kerry's words was that he should be challenged on this position. Particularly since in the same speech he implied the "deceptions" over WMDs and the dishonesty of the Bushies which led to the war.

Also when you say that he did not SAY that Saddam is preferable to chaos, I'll grant it. But when you say that there is not the "implication" that this is so, I am flabbergasted. At most, I would prefer that Bush said something VERY revealing like: "Apparrently my opponent seems to think that it would be better if the dicatatorship of Iraq were in place than the battle we face there now... of course, its hard to say since there's several ways to look at what he said... like most of what he says. Maybe he could clarify?"

Now THAT would have been really cool!

And what about calling Kerry on the coerced and bribed thing. I saw that speech too, via the internet. This isn't really very questionable Bjørn, and AP is essentially doing the kind of damage control that is the domain of lackeys (or perhaps "minions" is more fun!).

I find our disagreement here quite interesting.

It may be hard to find integrity in the whole mess quite frankly, but I'll resist with my last breath, the implication that in FACT, it is the case that AP is attempting to clear it all up for us readers.

It's just not.

Cheers,

KM

IXLNSX . . .

You said: "And once one realizes how they "decieve" and how miserably they lead this country one must wonder how is it these two men are the best example presented as American leaders in todays world."

Just for discussion's sake, I'd like to know which leaders in the world today would be better examples of leaders. Give one or two brief reasons why you think so. This is one discussion I try to have with friends, just to see where they're coming from.

Bjorn, I'd be interested in your brief opinion too.

Bjørn,

For what its worth... I was just perusing some blogs and noticed that I am certainly not the only one that took umbrage about this piece. It was for example, the first post of the day over at lgf under the heading "Mainstream Media Carrying Water for Kerry" (I'm not implying that this should be of great weight one way or the other... just noting it), and now I have googled it and see that the piece is being discussed on several sides of blogdom.

Interesting.

Kevin

Bjørn,

OK not to belabor the point, but I came across this post on the Powerline Blog (not a regular of mine, but I linked to it from Instapundit) that took a perspective similar to the way I stated it. Its worth a gander.

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/007958.php

Cheers,

KM

PS This was my point on the risk of micro-defining "spin" as an isolated phenomenon where it can then considered useful to extricate examples of it from the otherwise colossally skewed dicourse. I just don't know how useful it is. I think I am finally understanding WHAT it is according to the book (and you) but I find myself asking... and so? Its also a bit odd to me how in virtually every case in the posts above where you defended yourself, I have been agreeing with your defenses... but then they were all on the grounds of the idea of Truth and Integrity in the converyence of facts and events. To me though... this flies in the face of what we are dicussing here, because we are once again defining spin in deconstructed terms.

Maybe I'm wrong.

Bjorn,

If Bush says "by far the vast majority of my tax cuts go to the bottom end of the spectrum", might he be talking more broadly than financial benefits?

In the language of academic economists, if the marginal utility of tax cuts is higher for people with lower incomes, might they receive most of the utility resulting from the tax cuts (even in the short term)?

If this were something that Bush sincerely believed, would it be fair to accuse him of deception simply because he doesn't speak like an academic economist or parse his language with a philosopher's fineness?

Did this line of argument get addressed by the Spinsanity folks?

Respectfully,
James

Kevin: I've followed this up with a separate post. After reading the text of the speech, I'm still with AP.

James: It seems to me that it is your version of Bush's statement that uses the language of academic economists. Do you honestly believe that this was the message Bush intended to convey - instead of the literal one (most of the money goes to the bottom half)? Remember that he repeated that phrase throughout his campaign. It was a deliberate choise of words, not an accident.

Yeah, most of those tax cuts got people off the federal role. That's not good.

Bottom 50% only pay 4% of federal taxes.

Thanks for that insightful comment! It makes interesting reading, especially when I need a cash advance.

Trackback URL: /cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/798