Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

Public relations professionals have been called all kinds of names—sandbaggers, flacks, propaganda machines, spin doctors. Unfortunately, these labels connote a P. T. Barnum/Jerry McGuire approach to public relations management. Further, these negative names imply that the industry engages in promoting hype, puffery, and communication manipulation. These terms also suggest that press relations is the primary function for which public relations practitioners are responsible. And even more disturbing is the point that spin doctor has become a mainstream term used by the media to associate smoke-and-glass strategies with public relations professionals.

The reasons this black cloud of spin looms over the industry are as varied as the definitions used to describe public relations itself. Whereas some view public relations as a management function that promotes mutually beneficial relationships and encourages positive behavioral change, others advocate that their primary responsibility is to engage in image and reputation management. Still others believe that the public relations function is concerned mainly with media relations and publicity.

Why does this negative perception linger? An attempt to provide an exhaustive list of “how comes” would be an unproductive effort. The purpose of this entry is to provide an in-depth discussion that offers information from various viewpoints, enabling practitioners to make more clearly defined and educated decisions about how—and why—they plan to practice public relations.

Original Spin Model Introduced

Today, when the term spin doctor is used in the same sentence with public relations, many professionals get chills up the spine. But the chills are immediately followed by feelings of frustration. Many questions regarding the spin doctor paradigm are still left unanswered: (a) From where does this negative stereotype stem? (b) What has caused this misperception to continue? (c) What can the public relations profession do to diminish such inaccuracies? (d) Is this model really becoming acceptable as a mainstream way of doing business among public relations practitioners?

Sumpter and Tankard originally identified the spin model as an alternative approach to other models being practiced in the public relations industry. After providing a thorough overview of what this model entails, they concluded

The field of public relations needs to come to terms with the spin doctor phenomenon. A cursory review of some public textbooks suggests little discussion of the role, and, indeed, some rather drastic differences between spin doctoring and standard public relations activities. Do public relations practitioners want to distance themselves from the spin doctor phenomenon, as Bernays appears to be recommending? Do they want to claim the spin doctors as part of their field? Or do they want to select what is effective from the spin doctor repertoire and incorporate it into the traditional public relations model, while ignoring the rest? The spin doctor conception of truth, and ethics of spin doctors, would also seem to be topics of further discussion. (1994, p. 26)

Something of an ominous, conspiracy-like theory, the public relations spin model still prevails today—10 years after Sumpter and Tankard initially suggested that it existed. But now this model seems to be even more predominant than it did when the authors introduced it. Evidence lies not only in the profession but also in the plethora of literature written about spin.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading