TheRealMafoo said:
Sorry, but that’s not correct. An example of Spin, would be to report that unemployment is 9.7%, and then explain why that’s the best thing in the world. I could explain how if it wasn’t for Obama, it would be 40%, and to use the low 9.7% number to mean he is doing a great job. That’s spin. What Michael Moore does, is more like this: At a recent town hall meeting Barney Frank said “Obama is like Hitler”. He should be removed from office for his views on the president.
Now, that’s actually true, on a recent town hall meeting, someone arguing with Mr. Frank compared Obama it Hitler, and Mr. Frank said “Someone who thinks Obama is like Hitler is not someone I want to have a conversation with” Taking “Obama is like Hitler” and distorting it to mean Barney frank thinks Obama is like Hitler, is not spin. It’s no lying either, as he did say it, but it sure is not telling the truth. These are the kinds of tactics Michael Moore uses. Anyone who watches anything he produces, and thinks they are getting any sort of truth, needs there head examined. |
No my definition of spin is absolutely correct. I'm sorry that you THINK otherwise but political science is my field of study and I know what it means. And it means exactly what I said. The curious thing is the examples you gave me follows MY DEFINITION of spin... NOT YOURS. Taking the 9.7% number and simply using that as the only info without mentioning it is one of the higest in a long time or other info is spinning. Actually your Michael Moore example is a classic example of spin. Taking only a piece of the quote and twisting it such that it seems like he is saying something he isn't thus that Moore can say he should be removed from office because of this. Hell it is so classic it has a name in philosophy called the Fallacy of suppressed evidence which states, intentionally failing to use information suspected of being relevant and significant.
And I'm pretty sure when you look at the definition you'll notice it is eerily similar to the definition of spin. It's because it is essentially the fallacy of spin which has a more common name that you hear around the forums called cherry-picking.
Your definition, which is giving an opinion based on reported facts, is an editorial. My definition of taking bits and pieces of information, overanalyzing them or twisting them to something it is or isn't necessarily to something that is preferable to you is spin. There is no second definition there is no other translation. And because I know that you are probably going to be hardheaded or stubborn about this I will even provide you links to the exact definition... the ones I used... just to make sure you understand this:
11. Slang. to cause to have a particular bias; influence in a certain direction: His assignment was to spin the reporters after the president's speech.
Spin - a political agenda, twisting truths or facts into something that "proves" your point of view.
Look guys I'm not here to play around with petty differences in ideological views. It's obvious there are a lot of people that don't like Michael Moore... including me. But that doesn't mean he gets special treatment above the rest in that he is worse. When people blatanly go out to do nothing but spin the facts to their own agendas... that is the worst. Anyone can blatantly lie and it'll be found out. But it's more dangerous when someone can find some backing, spin it some way, and convince the ingnorant and gullible. You can't really do that with full blown lies which is why they DONT do it because they know this is more effective.
People are allowed to have their views and even more they can spin them if they want but it is not something I will ever respect. I bet most, including Mafoo here, feel the same way. I wish for a political world where the facts and opinions there of are discussed but instead we always get people trying at all costs to prove their opinions correct through falsehoods and half-truths. Michael Moore helps to keep that going and I just don't respect it.
