Spin

In the UK we have a profession nicknamed 'The Spin Doctor' which quite simply put is a job within public relations to take any news story or event that happens which may be perceived one way, and spin it in the opposite direction to your advantage.  This can be done with events that reflect negatively on you, which you then spin to a positive, or can be done with events which reflect positively on your opponent and spin it to a negative.  As the saying goes, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" there is perhaps a revision to be made in the text, one to say "the road to hell is paved with intentions" - whether they are good or bad is irrelevant at the end of the day what matters, at least in the public eye, is the way those intentions are perceived.

In the past 6 months of so since the UK voted to leave the EU I have been watching media outlets intently and it is at this time more than any that their efforts to spin news stories have become the most apparent.  The main reason for this is because the majority of neutral events that occur are being spun one way or the other when in reality it has little bearing on either side, yet each side tries to claim each headline as it emerges and spin it into a positive for their side or a negative for the other.  As for events that are unquestionably positive for one side and undeniably negative for the other, here you see desperation at it's most apparent.  Claims with no basis whatsoever are made, sometimes completely dismissing prior precedent which when questioned is usually met with "but this is different" or "that won't happen this time" - but to this that old cliche arises in retort that Einstein [among others] once said "The Definition of Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."

What I have found through this experience however is clarity in seeing which media outlets are actually neutral or indifferent.  One example being Bloomberg, which centres around financial markets and the impact of events.  One thing I like about their coverage through all of this is the fact that they haven't dwelt on what might happen, but rather they have focused on the visible impacts of what has already happened.  Their approach feels a lot more objective because they take an empirical approach to the news they report.  Spend a few minutes watching Bloomberg and you will quickly see chart after chart showing choice variables and data visualisations which help you get a better picture of long term and short term trends.  Rather than focusing on changes that happened in a day which can be up and down from the one before, they look at comparisons to previous performance.

Taking the FTSE as an example [Financial Times Stock Exchange] which is based in London, throughout the coverage of the UK's tumultuous currency movements in the last few months, bar the flash crash and the initial drop on June 24th, media outlets like the BBC have largely ignored financial markets.  A few reports have been made on key events but for the most part what the BBC reports is completely at odds with the analysis you see on Bloomberg.  "Since Brexit" is mentioned frequently on BBC yet rarely have you heard a single reporter acknowledge "we haven't actually left yet" - on the flip-side Bloomberg uses language which is markedly different even if it is subtle "Since the UK voted to leave the EU" - and concurrently reporters frequently state "the UK hasn't left yet."  You might be thinking this is nitpicking but it is important to make this distinction clear.  I wrote a post about the relationship between Y2K and Brexit which stresses the danger of ignorance of what is to come.  The misnomer of "Since Brexit" is a very dangerous precedent to make as it will lull many into a false sense of security thinking "the worst is over" when reality the gun hasn't even been fired yet.

One particular event I found the most interesting in terms of the divergence of reporting from reality was the recent approval of Heathrow Airport Expansion plans.  Throughout the reporting, BBC repeatedly stated the expansion had approved and that the new runway would be built and operational around 2025.  Flip to Bloomberg and the first reaction there was the question "Is this a done deal?" and the answer was categorically "No" and reiteration of the fact this was only government approval essentially outline approval and that local councils still had to approve the plans through their planning process and stressed that local government was opposed to the expansion, moreover it was highlighted that 7 years ago Labour approved expansion of the airport, and here we are 7 years later with another government, Tory led, approving the same plans - the question "Will it happen?" hasn't been answered.  Central government and Local Government in the UK do not always see eye to eye.