Stuck in the Spin Cycle

Categories:

Rhetorical spinning used to be good sport. Think back on the scenes following Presidential debates, when high-powered advocates for each candidate pounced on reporters to spin every syllable so it seemed to favor their team’s point of view. It was unabashedly biased, and usually entertaining.

Cartoon by Daryl Cagle - msnbc.com (click to purchase)
Cartoon by Daryl Cagle – msnbc.com (click to purchase)

Nowadays, though, we’re stuck in a constant spin cycle, and it’s enough to make most of us dizzy.

The Internet, cable-TV, talk radio, all provide forums for differing voices to publish and be heard. In theory, this broadened exposure to wide ranging perspectives makes us better informed and more receptive to opposing points of view. Yet, just the opposite is happening. In many respects, what’s referred to as the digital information explosion has proved to be a time bomb.

Say you favor lower taxes for people driving red convertibles. Then you undoubtedly bookmark the Lower Taxes for People Driving Red Convertibles blog. There, every news report, every quote, every snippet of polling data is spun to reinforce your views. Those with opposing beliefs, folks who happen to support higher taxes for people driving red convertibles, are demonized and mocked. Of course, they’re too busy to notice, since the spin is quite different on their favorite site: Higher Taxes for People Driving Red Convertibles.

During the hostile health care debate, if you watched Fox News Channel and MSNBC side by side, you’d have thought they were covering entirely different stories. One camp calls the other “socialists”; the other refers to its philosophical opponents as “wackos.” Token appearances by weak-kneed guests, who dare spin in the opposite direction, rarely put dents in the dialogue.

It’s even worse on radio. Advo-casters, some of whom host both radio and TV shows, tend to spin more recklessly when it’s audio only. Radio rants are frequently more outrageous and blatantly biased, yet, despite vast audiences, go largely unheard by those with opposing views.

Rather than stretching our minds with new media, we spend an inordinate amount of time these days doing what is indelicately referred to as drinking our own bath water.

Occasionally the process is thrown a curve – a pitch that is hard to hit precisely because of its spin. Such was the case when the Obama Administration announced a revamped policy to allow some exploration for offshore oil. Anti-Obama spinmeisters, who tend to favor offshore drilling, deemed it too little too late, and probably some sort of socialist ploy. Pro-Obama spinsters proclaimed the move shrewd politics aimed at winning conservative support for more important environmental issues.

The most popular guy on cable-TV, Fox’s Bill O’Reilly, decided early on to spin the entire spin situation to his advantage by labeling his show a “No Spin Zone.” That’s quite clever because it acknowledges the spin problem without actually doing anything about it – much as Fox proclaims itself “Fair and Balanced,” while striving for little of either.

When you freeze the frames on our media and our politics, it’s difficult to tell which is currently exerting the greatest spin on the other. Media have become more fractionalized and focused on singular points of view. Politicians and their supporters have grown intolerant and less inclined to compromise.

Conventional media whose goals, at least in theory, are to provide generally spin-free perspectives, are suffering. The evening newscasts on ABC, CBS and NBC; the entire CNN cable network; magazines such as Time and Newsweek, and most general-interest newspapers, are losing out to competitors who specialize in spin.

Today, the hottest blogs, radio shows, and cable-TV channels are those for which fact is merely a starting point.

It’s worth noting that mainstream news distribution remains huge in the U.S., with as many as 25 million viewers for the three network newscasts; over 40 million newspapers printed each day. And opinion pages, like this one, continue to provide a healthy range of views.

But the nation’s spin cycle is gaining speed.

Spinning too fast makes you dizzy, and being dizzy causes you to lose your balance.

—–

Peter Funt may be reached at www.candidcamera.com.

©2010 Peter Funt. This column is distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons, Inc. newspaper syndicate. For info call Cari Dawson Bartley at 800 696 7561 or e-mail [email protected].

Peter Funt is a writer and public speaker. He’s also the long-time host of “Candid Camera.” A collection of his DVDs is available at www.candidcamera.com.


Comments

38 responses to “Stuck in the Spin Cycle”

  1. Cal Avatar
    Cal

    Rob. I’ve heard of “Dancing With the Stars” but I’d never watched it before. Thanks! The singer had a bit of a Willie Nelson twang mixed in with the Australian accent. I think I’ll send that to our science teaches to use as a possible supplement for an intro to astronomy!

    I didn’t know where Funt fell out politically before. I watch CNN as well as Fox and if you take out Beck and Hannity who are not news types, I don’t see much difference. I watch O’Reilly most nights and find myself getting frustrated with him as often as I agree. He supports President Obama as often as he opposes him and I’m often surprised to hear his take on issues. I’d say he’s more conservative than liberal but he’s no where near being far right. He also has liberals on several times a week. Alan Colmes, Dr. Lamont R. Hill, a liberal woman who has a talk show whose name escapes me (Nancy Snyder?), and others to provide yes, _balance_ and perspective. I don’t watch Hannity at all any more and can only take so much of Beck. But all in all, I do find a very balanced approach on Fox in general and on Special Report with Brett Baer in particular as they always have one or two of their three-person panel represent Democrats. I don’t see as much of that on CNN. I haven’t watched MSNBC in a very long time as they seem to be totally, 100% in the tank for the Left. If they had on as many conservatives as Fox does liberals, I’d be more inclined to watch. But that would actually BE fair and balanced and the Left will have none of that.

  2. Rob Avatar
    Rob

    Hello Cal, thank you very much for letting me know that you enjoyed the above posted link, very kind of you. I thought the opening line in the song was somewhat appropriate for this forum:

    "When people are stupid, obnoxious or daft and you feel you've had quite enough . . . "

    Good to keep thier "insignificance" in perspective.

    Bye the way, your subsequent comments after my last post in "Obama off the deep end", was VERY much appreciated.

    Keep up the good fight for what's Right!

  3. Cal Avatar
    Cal

    Rob. Alui altum amicarum. (I probably have the case wrong, but it’s the meaning that counts!) Support your friends.

  4. Buck Farack Avatar
    Buck Farack

    Barry, in one of his numerous telepromptered speeches today, insisted on more "transparency" on Wall Street!!! POTASS calling the kettle black????? Like the thousand-page bills voted in Congress, there is absolutely no way this jackass has time to read the multitude of canned speeches and edit the BS written for him.. Who in the hell is actually developing Obumble's policies? He appears to be just an empty suit front man reading his puppeteer's comments off a teleprompter. It's a very sad time in America……………………

  5. Joey Bidumb Avatar
    Joey Bidumb

    The sad fact: For many years we sat, accepted, and believed the BS Wally Cronkite spewed forth. "That's the way it is" from his liberal perch at CBS…. We were as naive and unequipped as failed leader, Barry Hussein Obumblefumble, is today..Thanks to AlGorithm and his invention of the internet, we now have more sources to search for elusive truth….

  6. Escritor de Tejas Avatar
    Escritor de Tejas

    Cal…Non Anus Rodentum…yeah, it's the meaning that counts.

  7. Mike Todd Avatar

    Reminds me of the coverage of the Watergate break-in by the henchmen for former President, Richard Nixon. US News and World Report vs Newsweek. US News omitted many of the damning pieces of information such as Rosemary Wood’s complicated explanation of the ’18 minute gap’ among many other details unfavorable to Mr. Nixon. Newsweek was only to glad to fill in the holes while pointing fingers much more directly at the President.

    Don’t think human nature has changed all that much. Not new behavior that is going on. Rather, it is only amplified by the new technologies available today. For some comparison read some of the available transcripts of the “Great Epic of Gilgamesh” (_The Buried Book_ David Damrosch). Thought I was reading yesterday’s news…only it was written in 1200 BCE).

  8. Amy Miller Avatar
    Amy Miller

    The truth is out there, but we\'ll probably never find it under all the other junk. I\'m a liberal on most issues. You can have my gun when you pry it, empty, out of my cold dead hand and then fry for murder, but that\'s the only places where I\'ll go with the conservatives. I honestly feel rather sorry for Obama, I thought the description I got of health care reform had potential, I think that Congress ruined parts of it, and I\'m waiting to see how it really works out.

  9. Glen Avatar
    Glen

    Peter Funt has come up with a modern restatement of 'Gresham's Law' (debased coinage drives out good coinage) as it seems to apply nicely to political discourse nowadays. The latest cutie mudpie was Senator Boehner's (boner?) who stated that we should let the banks alone and just let them fail…a few days after being fed his lines by Wall Street. If he should become pregnant, undoubtedly it will be a derivative.

  10. ellis Avatar
    ellis

    i like to read what cal has to say because he tries so hard to convince everyone that he is rational and 'balanced', it just does not work out that way. he has his stance and is never going to change it.

    we all have our viewpoints. some people rant and rave and show they should not ever have been let out of the rubber room. others at least try for rationality, though slanted right or left depending on our stance.

    the truth is that we will never convince the guy on the other side of the table. all we can hope for is that the real idiots winging out there never get into a position where they can do harm. that has sometimes been a failed hope, witness the killing and violence of our few home-grown terrorists. maybe cal should watch the madow show this coming monday where the crimes of mcveigh are told by him in all their glory. my feeling is that he should never have been executed, but condemned to an asylum forever, for he clearly was insane.

    right now we are going back into the realm of the crazies on the right, i.e. all those militia nuts, but we had many years of the crazies on the left doing things just as nutty and violent, killing people. i think it wa john l. lewis who , in another context, said ' a plague on both their houses'.

  11. BlackTantalus Avatar
    BlackTantalus

    Tea baggers are hysterically deaf to the voice of the majority of Americans who elected Barack Obama President of the United States.

    So I will repeat for the Klansmen, John Birchers, trailer parkers and alien abductees: Just because Obama only beat John "The Manchurian Candidate" McCain doesn't mean the election didn't count.

    More people voted for Obama. Get over it; or go to a country that already has the type of ungovernment you want for America — Somalia comes to mind.

  12. geoff Avatar

    Joey Bidumb: you're forgetting that Kronkite was a journalist. Most of the talking heads on TV these days are models or failed actors. They can read a teleprompter and that's about it. And as Fox has argued in court: they're not making any claims about actually presenting "news."

  13. Carl JD Avatar
    Carl JD

    Geoff:

    Interesting summary of the qualities of our current TV news anchors. It sounds a lot like Obama.

  14. geoff Avatar

    Carl JD: "It sounds a lot like Obama." How so? He studied constitutional law and wrote books (or did he get a ghost for those?). Whereas Bush was the first with an MBA but a failed businessman before that (and basically got all his jobs through his dad's network of cronies). To get real, long-term politicians you practically have to go back to Nixon. Reagan had a checkered reputation as governor, and a less than stellar career as an actor. Bush senior had been in the backrooms, but never real leadership type stuff (an empty gray suit, basically).

    Interesting how he's perceived as being "pragmatic" by some, but not "bipartisan" by others.

  15. Tayledras Avatar
    Tayledras

    Actually, the cartoon sounds a LOT like Sarah Palin, except for the fact that she isn't a newscaster.

  16. geoff Avatar
    geoff

    Tayledras: true; think she tried to be a sportscaster for a while. Check YouTube.

  17. Carl JD Avatar
    Carl JD

    Geoff:

    I studied Con law as well. It doesn't make you smarter, it just shows the pattern about how the USSC arrives at decisions. Barry O wrote books about himself. I will grant you that he was never a failed actor. However, I don't really think that makes him more qualified to be president. Basically, his resume is: he went to law school, wrote books about himself, and can read a teleprompter. I have the same qualifications: I went to law school, I keep a journal, and I can read from a teleprompter. My point is that Barry O is a stuffed suit who brings very little to the table in the way of strong leadership or good decision-making skills.

    Your fixation on Bush is a little annoying. How is Bush relevant to the discussion of Barry O's qualifications? Maybe next time, ask yourself, "Is Bush relevant to this discussion?" In this case, it isn't and you should have simply left him out. I can see why you brought up Reagan, but other than that, you're just talking.

  18. BlackTantalus Avatar
    BlackTantalus

    When one's concept of good government is government that is just like Somalia's, only run by white guys, it is approprite to comment on recent and future party and/or movement leaders.

    The function of self-annointed conservatives today is to replace democracy with totalitarian minority rule. They were wildly successful in this during the Bush-Cheney regime, but now that Americans who believe in the Bill of Rights without addition or subtraction are having small successes restoring democracy, the crazies are parading about with illiterate signs, waving their guns, and threatening violence to overthrow popularly elected government.

  19. geoff Avatar

    Carl JD: I think he was also a State Senator or something, wasn't he? But basically it all boils down to: what qualifications are necessary to be President? It's not as though there's any obvious position where you could say: this is preparation for President; do well, and we'll promote you. Mostly it's theatre: look good on TV, have a smiling wife & kids, make people feel good when you visit them overseas. "Change we can believe in" brings a whole lot more to the table than McCain/Palin were offering (more of the same old, same old). Choosing Palin as a running mate was just a bad decision and a sign of desperation, not "strong leadership."

    And in this sense I do think Bush & every preceding President provide relevant precedents (don't you lawyers like precedents?). How else can you decide what is or isn't relevant without considering historical context?

    Bush was a fratboy who never had to learn from his mistakes because his daddy's cronies were always there to catch him. He had no leadership skills whatsoever, acting like a spoiled brat ("you're either with us or against us") who started sulking whenever anyone told him something like maybe the intel didn't support his claims for invading Iraq. Maybe the US has to stop "leading" if "leadership" means trying to tell everyone else in the world what to do. Maybe "leadership" should be a little more conciliatory, building alliances instead of making enemies of even the countries that would otherwise be willing to help you.

    Overall, watching the health-care debate and a few other things last year, I've been impressed. He ain't stupid: he beat Hillary, for example. He got a form of health insurance reform passed; he stimulated the economy. Not as successful as many would have liked (the rest of the world would have been happier if the stimulus had been a little less "too little, too late"), but I haven't seen him make any decisions as bone-headedly wrong as invading Iraq (just as an example).

  20. Phil Avatar
    Phil

    geoff: "who started sulking whenever anyone told him something like maybe the intel didn’t support his claims for invading Iraq. "

    Geoff, read the below for your knowledge.
    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN24277030

    An ass and a idiot as usual, your knowledge base is nothing but based only on wikipedia where anybody (yes you do not need to even register yourself on wikipedia) can manipulate information.

    You are an idiot and every time you repeat yourself, you prove that you are stupid.

  21. Phil Avatar
    Phil

    Here is some more info for your empty skull.

    http://johnbrownks.blogspot.com/2008/01/saddam-li

  22. geoff Avatar

    Phil: what does that have to do with anything? Saddam was a poker player: he was bluffing. We all know that.

    If you want to follow some complex thought, consider the role Wolfowitz played in getting the Soviets out of Afghanistan and whether he might have done a rerun with Iraq. Hint: following the money. After he pulled out of Kuwait, he went into building palaces, big-time. You can't finance big weapons development programs when your country is sealed off and you're building palaces.

    And no, my knowledge base is not just Wikipedia. If you want me to direct you to some decent academic texts, I would be glad to oblige. So far, no one seems to have taken up the offer. But otherwise, it's a little difficult discussing the finer points of, say, the way science works (as in the "debates" over evolution and/or global warming), using examples like Newton and Galileo as interpreted by people like Thomas Kuhn or Paul Feyerabend when you still get bozos claiming that volcanoes produce more CO2 than humans. I personally find a little Derrida really liven things up, but… opinions differ.

  23. geoff Avatar

    Phil: that's ancient history, dude.

    "Bush and those who supported the invasion of Iraq screwed up just as badly. They fell for the line directed toward the Iranians instead of the one sent to Washington.

    "It seems almost unimaginable to me that the generally brilliant people in our intelligence community and the higher echelons of the executive branch were unable to discern which messages were posturing on the part of Hussein to stave off regional problems and which were not."

    One of the reasons was because the intel folk weren't deceived: they were told to "sex up" the intel. Ever heard of the "Downing Street Memoes"? Tony Blair got the Brits to do the same thing because Bush needed an excuse to invade, and Tony the Poodle wanted to be right there with him.

  24. Phil Avatar
    Phil

    Geoff, are you changing the topic of discussion?

    What does global warming have anything to do with this topic?

  25. geoff Avatar

    Phil: I was making an analogy. Since you are obviously incapable of complex thought, I thought I would make things easy for you, and use a clear example to explain something you might otherwise be incapable of comprehending. Since you are apprarently also incapable of understanding analogy, let's try this another way. First: I could refer you to something more reputable than Wikipedia, but it doesn't seem that some of you are even able to use even that properly, to find out a few basic facts things before you jump head-first into the deep end. So if you can't even be bothered checking Wikipedia, why should I go out of my way preparing annotated reading lists for you? I'm not here to teach you. If you want to be lazy, go ask someone else.

    Even on analogies, I could refer you to discussions by Vico, de Saussure, even a cool little paper by Stephen Jay Gould regarding the metaphor he rode during a trip to Greece.

    Why don't you do us all a favour, and go back in your hole until you actually have something to say.

  26. Phil Avatar
    Phil

    geoff,

    The problem is not analogy, the problem is geoff analogy.

    Once you tread on geoff analogy, the discussion starts taking ugly turns.

    You start discussions on 1 topic and geoff analogies dont even end the discussions on the 15th topic.

    No topic reaches its conclusion, just takes you on the merry-go-round of stupid and idiotic discussions which are only generated to prove geoff to be the know it all.

    I know your tricks geoff.

    Its better you play straight or shut up.

    Oh and stop this stupid rhetoric about me being lazy. We know where you stand.

    I have been observing your patterns for over a year and a half now.

    I know which way you lead the discussions.

    So shut up and stick to the topic. Dont try to be over smart.

  27. geoff Avatar

    Phil: am I mistaken, or am I your only topic?

    You know you could save yourself a lot of typing if you didn't type "stupid and idiotic" and/or any number of variants so often.

    And yes: I always lead discussions somewhere. A little thing I learned from another teacher (guy named Socrates: you might have heard of him). Maybe I should try to speak in parables? Or do you want everything predigested into nice, neat little soundbites, suitable for instant conversion into inane slogans?

    Are you actually trying to say something or just trying to insult me?

  28. Phil Avatar
    Phil

    oooooooo nice cute little sound bite.

    Now stop diverting the topic to personal exchanges and get back to the links I posted above.

    I repeat, stop being over smart.

    You are an idiot and your efforts to divert the topic prove your stupidity.

  29. geoff Avatar

    Phil: I responded already.

    Scroll up:

    "Comment from geoff

    "Time April 18, 2010 at 8:57 pm

    "Phil: that’s ancient history, dude."

    "Stop diverting the topic to personal exchanges." Well, it does seem a legitimate question to ask whether you ever post anything much more than attempts to insult me?

  30. Phil Avatar
    Phil

    🙂 Shows your lack of detailed reading.

    Read the below and find out above where it was posted.

    As for insult 🙂 You are mistaken. You need to have respect first to be insulted.

    You long ago trounced on the respect I had for you.

    So there is no insult for you because I do not respect you at all.

    Now it is purely what I perceive of you. And it is very simple. You are an idiot and a stupid, who massively over rates himself and his knowledge.

    Comment from Phil

    Time April 18, 2010 at 9:13 pm

    fyi geoff.

    http://old.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins2005

  31. geoff Avatar

    Yawn. Phil: more ancient history. That was 2005: spin by some ultra-conservative rag. You haven't been following that story since then? Try buying a newspaper sometime. And maybe read it.

    You at least know about the recent ruling by the Dutch parliament?
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8453305.stm

  32. Phil Avatar
    Phil

    Ok the netherlands says the war was illegal so why do you think should I get worried?

    Who cares what some filing secretary in the uk or some congress of netherlands thinks?

    Tell me something that really proves 100% that the intelligence was flawed.

    And now that you brought it up. "Yawn. Phil: more ancient history. That was 2005:"

    If that is what you believe geoff, then stop citing the crusades and other ancient bullshit when you write comments.

    If you cannot then it shows what a hypocrite you are to cite history when it suits you and deride it when it does not.

    But that is a topic of discussion for some other time.

    Coming back to the current topic. "spin by some ultra-conservative rag."

    Why is it that something that does not confirm to your beliefs becomes "spin by an ultra conservative rag" and everything else even though proven wrong and made up becomes facts for you?

  33. geoff Avatar

    Phil: "Why is it that something that does not confirm to your beliefs becomes 'spin by an ultra conservative rag'"?

    Because it says so. The National Review describes itself as "America's most widely read and influential magazine and web site for conservative news, commentary, and opinion." Is that simple enough? Should we define some terms? Or is the word "conservative" in there not clear enough for you? Or maybe the name William F Buckley should mean something?

    "Who cares what some filing secretary in the uk or some congress of netherlands thinks?" Well, if nothing else, the next time an American president tries to get some kind of help in some kind of "Coalition of the Willing," then all the would-be allies will be somewhat reluctant to join. There is such a thing as international law: the UN and all that. You can't claim to invade Iraq or some other country on the pretence of upholding internatioanl law while breaking it. If this does turn out to have been an illegal act of war, then that means people like Tony Blair could conceivably be arrested (background to the Robert Harris novel "The Ghost" [film by Roman Polanski]) and tried. Ever wonder why Henry Kissinger can't travel anywhere any more? He's afraid to be arrested. A whole lot of people would love to put George W and Cheney on trial (and they are already very selective over which countries they visit these days). So you should care. Or do you really want the world to go back to perceiving the US as a "rogue nation" and the main threat to peace?

    So far the Netherlands is the only country that has made a serious inquiry into this whole mess. If the UK were to do so (the Chilcot Inquiry was a bit superficial), some very dirty laundry could be aired in public. So you should care.

    "Tell me something that really proves 100% that the intelligence was flawed." Hans Blix? the BBC report on some a visit to some factory Colin Powell pointed to in satellite photos in his speech to the UN which turned out to be an abandoned factory. The whole Plame affair. Claims by former CIA "whistleblowers."

    You just haven't been paying attention: that's not my fault. Hence the reference to your comment from 2005 being "ancient history": although a lot more evidence has come out since then, a lot of the right-wing continues to repeat the same old slogans over and over again: Saddam had WMD, they hate us for our freedom, etc.

  34. Glen Avatar
    Glen

    It would seem that Phil is the proof of the pudding that Obama truly is unqualified to be President. In both cases, the two men's major claim to academic accomplishment is a law degree. Phil's thought processes and language were not notably improved by his academic experience (fyi, analogy, and so forth). So obviously Obama's credentials are not too impressive. Indeed, our seemingly somewhat dubious Congress has been chock a block with law school graduates from both parties for decades now.

    Perhaps we would be better off by requiring somewhat different qualifications for office? How about setting a minimum score on the SAT's (750 or so) and a certification of good health, mental and physical?

  35. ArtW Avatar
    ArtW

    Geoff: "Carl JD: I think he was also a State Senator or something, wasn’t he?"

    True enough. Off course he got to the State Senate using typical Chicago thuggery . . . he found a way to have all the other candidates thrown off the ballot. LOL. You just can't make this stuff up.

  36. Cal Avatar
    Cal

    Excreter of Emotion from Tejas: Latin isn’t one of my first three languages, but I believe you forgot the word “gratum.” Thank you, though. I’ll take that as high praise coming from you. I do appreciate it.

    And look at dr. ellis throwing stones from his glass house! The man who has been set in his ways longer than I’ve been alive claiming anyone else has “a stance that’s never going to change.” Watch out for the falling glass, Dad. That stuff is sharp.

    Even after providing verifiable examples of Fox actually being “fair and balanced” by bringing liberals on most of their shows, he has the temerity to say “cal’s trying to convince people _he’s_ fair and balanced.” I don’t believe I said a word about lil’ ol’ me, professor ellis. It was about a news organization. You know, the one Obama says isn’t really a news organization? (In sharp contrast with MSNBC which, of course, isn’t an outright cheerleader for the administration. No siree, Bob, that’s one objective “news” outfit there…)

    Rob, it’s a good thing the planet’s warming up. Here’s the forecast for Antarctica. (Isn’t -100 considered “really, really cold?”)

    http://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/findweather/g

    Here's another one on how the "hockey stick" numbers were exaggerated just a teensy little bit:

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/162b0c58-47f5-11df-b998

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *