"X-posted" is short form for "cross-posted".  In other words, I was distracted for a bit after reading Acadia's post -- to which I was responding.  By the time that I had posted my own response, you'd already posted -- and you'd touched on some of the same themes that I did.

I haven't seen Wag the Dog, although I know the plot of the movie.

The problem that I have with the term "spin" is that it's way overused these days.  In essence, the term "spin" implies that there is no definable right side and wrong side to a debate......both sides are merely "spinning" a given issue for their own hidden ulterior purposes.  These purposes would include motivations like using a "spin" on an argument in order to obtain political power, or to gain financial benefits, or for votes.  In other words: at base, the "spinner" doesn't really believe their own words -- they're just trying to use clever semantics in an attempt to convince people to give them something.

The flaw in that line of thinking is that it's a sophistic escape-hatch used to dodge the possibility that one side in a given debate is right.......and that the other side is wrong.  To say that "everybody spins" is to ignore the off chance that a given party to an argument is actually telling the unvarnished truth.  And that their opponents are either sincerely mistaken in their beliefs -- or else lying.  And if they are lying: then the opponent's take on a given issue can be properly classified as being "spin".......dishonest spin used in an attempt to obtain something from people.

One example of such spin would be the publication of books / news articles / photographs which are factually untrue in order to persuade people to believe in a particular world view.

The overuse of the term "spin" is a cop-out.  It's a way to avoid acknowledging the idea that there's a right and a wrong.  The truth isn't defined by, nor is the truth restricted by the word "spin".

The storybook characters in Wag the Dog lied, and they hatched a deliberate deception in order to hide something else from public view.  But Wag the Dog is fiction.........just like certain recent autobiographies........and while it's true that fiction can be used as a tool to point out generic philosophies and general ideas: it's also good to keep in mind the fact that fiction is fictional.  A writer of fiction can make the story do whatever they want for it to do, and the writer can make the story end however they want for it to end.  In other words: fiction can be used to "prove" anything.  Which is handy, if your arguments can't be backed up by any other means -- so you are reduced to lying in order to prove the veracity of your "underlying reality".

No one that I know about ever actually did the things which were portrayed in Wag the Dog.  So.......that means that it's just a story.  If the point of the movie was to present us with the general thought that corrupt politicians lie about things -- shrug -- then who can argue with that?  Point taken......as if we needed for such an idea to be carefully & elaborately explained to us.  But if the movie was meant to tell us that the first gulf war was nothing but a distraction designed to keep us from learning about other nefarious hidden agendas and purposes -- then the movie was nothing but spin -- and totally fictional spin at that.

And that's my spin on spin.

Something To Do At 3:00AM