Jump to content

Talk:Spin (propaganda)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Peregrin Falcon (talk | contribs) at 20:15, 16 December 2013 (→‎etymology). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Some more double redirects to fix:

<KF> 18:59, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

References

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

NPOV?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

etymology

The political-jargon use of this word may originate in the 1980s, but isn't its history much older? To "spin a yarn", meaning tell a story, has been used in the sense of telling lies for centuries, and I'm sure I remember "to put a good spin on things" being used colloquially in the sense of presenting one's case well (with no element of deception) way back in the 60s - though I may be mistaken. But someone ought to check into that. The idea that it all started with the acronym doesn't ring true for me. That sounds like a folk etymology or (if it turns out to be verifiable) at least a post ex facto development. A case for "World Wide Words"? --Doric Loon 12:09, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It was also my understanding that spin was something used in billiards or snooker. To 'put spin on a ball' (aka English) was to strike the ball off center with the tip of the cue causing it to diverge from the path. To 'put English on a ball' or to 'put spin on a ball' was to use this technique.

I would also suggest that this may be derived from "spin bowling", a term from cricket whereby the direction of the ball is changed by the deliberate spin applied to the ball by the bowler, in an attempt to deceive the batsman (although I don't have any direct evidence that this is part of the term's origin). Guinness2702 2005-07-21T1518(BST)

I've got William Safire's "Safire's Political Dictionary". It has the definition of spin as well as an etymology. I'll put it up in a sufficiently unplagarized version. (I do know that CCR may have used the phrase in a song...)User:Orville Eastland

"Sufficiently unplagarized version"? It doesn't matter how you re-write it at all; if you ripped it from Safire you're still plagiarizing.--dlainhart 03:06, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't. Ideas aren't copyrighted; words are.
Besides, if it's not too long, you should copy the text without making any changes to it. Really?? Yep. Then you should write where you got it from. It's called a "quotation", and it's a better solution, because it provides a reference at the same time.  :-) — Omegatron 01:04, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Đʛ[[]]I do not believe in such as it is abhorrent to democracy 212.85.15.84 12:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I have always thought that the word has different origin. My opinion was that they "spin you around" till you lose balance and sense of direction.

Peregrin Falcon (talk) 20:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{{Globalize}} tag

To read this page you'd think either that either Wikipedia editorship or the concept of spin was restricted to the UK. Angr (talk • contribs) 18:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good to add examples of spin in other countries and how they address it. MrMurph101 20:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If anything it's more American-centric now than UK-centric, but it's hard to say it's truly globalized yet. I don't have the time right now, but maybe we can make this thread a collection spot for sources describing spin in other countries. I'll start with a few I have from other English-speaking countries. Please incorporate them into the article or add others below. -Thibbs (talk) 01:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Example?

Would it be appropriate to include as an example some sort of factual or made-up statement, and then include examples of ways it could be spun? RentACop 19:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

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

Is this really spin?

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

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

Merge?

There is a section about spin in the public relations article. Is it necessary for spin to have its own article?

Add fictional spin doctor

Tony from The hollowmen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.152.164.179 (talk) 22:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_relations#Spin Miles Blues (talk) 05:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But the the article there is more of a sidenote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starlightcrystal (talk • contribs) 07:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed these two links from "See-also", as to me they appear to be quite a big step to take from this topic, and could potentially have strong negative connotations and are therefore not NPOV. Some might argue that spin does not involve lying at all, merely manipulating truths. However, feel free to revert this and have a discussion here for concensus, I am slightly torn at the link myself. Taelus (talk) 21:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Globalization

Spin is a term rarely used outside the UK. As such the globalization complaints are probably not valid, and honestly after seven years the individual who originally voiced the concern should have taken the time to do more than drive-by tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.153.253.24 (talk) 00:16, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spin_(propaganda)&oldid=586388283"