I classify spin into four categories: Accidental, Regurgitave, Assumptive, and Intentional.
Accidental spin is a fact that is mistakenly twisted into spin. An example of this would be saying 20 billion instead of 20 million. It sounds close enough to the truth. Accidental spin often morphs into a more dangerous form of spin that I call Regurgitave.
Regurgitave spin are facts that are recited because you “heard it” and liked the way it sounded. It’s a representation of laziness and can result in some interesting news clips (i.e. lesbianism is so rampant is schools, that teachers only allow one student to go to the bathroom at one time).
Assumptive spin is taking a fact and assuming what it means. It is an extension of the Regurgitave, but is based more in truth then Regurgitave, using a true fact but unintentially out of context. Jefferson’s statement “I am a Christian” is often bandied about by the religious right, and while technically true, its meaning is often different then what people assume the statement to mean.
Intentional spin is the worst spin of all. It is taking a fact and purposefully manipulating it to suit the needs of the spinner. Intential spin is often seen in marketing messages (“4 out of 5 doctors recommend”, when the study had twelve doctors in it), whose intent is to sell something. Intentional spin manipulates the people, preying on their ignorance of the facts and their emotions to create a deciding factor. It has always been around, but the ability to quickly check (the Internet) and refute (the Blogosphere) the spun facts has only recently become available.
So how can we identify spin and hold the spinner accountable? The Internet is perhaps the greatest tool invented, giving information and the ability to comminicate to the “common man”. As more and more information is digitalized, it allows for nearly instant fact checking. Imagine a debate that is time-shifted 15 minutes, with a non-partisan group using a “pop-up-video” type of technology to display the facts over the politicians spin? John Kerry would say “George Bush owns a logging company”; the ovservers would quickly do a fact check and display a yes or no, maybe giving the percetage owned; later when George Bush says “That’s news to me”, the observers could pop up a box saying “guess it is news to him. He owns part of Timberline Logging Company”. By identifying in realtime the facts, three things would happen. First, the parties would need to get their facts straight. Second, the emotional appeal the canidates were trying for would be lessened, allowing the people to think rationally. Third, the candidates would have to know the facts about what they are arguing with. By forcing our politicals to the truth, we can keep them in check.
So why the rant? I was reading an article by Bill O’Reily, of the “No Spin Zone” and I noticed his critque of secularism in Canada and how it has “corresponded to a change in public policy”. He used the fact that the age of consent in Canada is 14, as if the two were somehow tied together. A quick check of the Internet shows that the age of consent is 14, but that it was established as such in 1870, well before the “social reform”. While the fact is “true”, it’s use as an illustrative vehicle is incorrect. It’s spin like this, used to illustrative a point, that needs to be caught and corrected before it becomes a Regurgitave spin and ultimatly “common knowledge”, un-true and un-questioned.