They seem to be churning these things out by the gross these days.  Nice work if you can get it:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/04/arts/04fake.php

Un-be-lieveable.  Or rather: it is all totally believable to the NY Times and to other major publishers.

(((Let's see.......how to start my query letter to the publisher........."I was raised in Hell's Kitchen by a gang of drug-addicted wolverines.........")))

Hehe.  I'd say they were extremely gullible, except you're not allowed to use that word any more.

heard this on the radio this morning.

I think she should be forced to return the money she made. By the sound of the article the only reason the book was published was because the publisher thought her story was compelling and wanted to support and help her get her story out so that others who were going through what she apparently went through could see that they weren't alone.

Not only were the publishers duped, but so were the people who bought the book thinking that it was her true life story. 

Now to find out that she lied from the get go ... shameful.

I applaud her sister for outting the liar!

It's people like her that make it difficult for honest people to get ahead in this world!

 Dumb question, but doesn't that  run parallel to the repeated claims here that somebody created a  character in Face Shop, z brush, etal that looks like or other people claim looks like Alan Alda, then immediately says other wise?

PS Gordon could have a field day with this topic for his toons I bet.

No doubt the author will make numerous TV appearances and eventually get a new book deal.  Her next book will be something along the lines of "How I Scammed the Publishers" or "I Only Did It For the Children" or "My Private Hell: The Devil Made Me Do It But Now I've Found Jesus".

Whatever it is, she's on the gravy train for life.

Cynical?  Who, me?

Paul, the sad thing is that you are probably right!

Maybe I'm wrong,but I'd say that the book should still be sold as a 'highly compelling' noval.  As for returniong the money, why?  They paid their money to be entertained by an interesting story, and I assume that they were entertained -therefore they got their money's worth.
DPH

She mislead the publisher by promoting her book as her completely true autobiography. That's fraud!  The publisher accepted the book based on the fact it was a true to life autobiography, not a work of complete fiction.

The Publisher has every right to take legal action against her to recover the money they gave her for the book. And IMHO so does everyone who bought the book.

So she streatched the truth a bit, -Big Deal!  Comapred to suicide bombers, Kassam rockets landing on apartment buildings and schools, and airline jets being driven into tall buildings, -I'd say that that is a reletively minor issue.  She told a story, albeit with a bit of embellishment, and entertained.  I'd say that that would put her on a par with another consummate showmen: P. T. Barnum.
DPH

I am amazed that repeatedly authors are getting away writing fiction as fact.  It does concern me because we look to books for a bit of truth.  People use books for research and guidance.  There is still an air that reading is better then watching TV.

I cannot accept the publisher's claim that she thought it was all true.  Something is a bit fishy about that.

Still, th book should have been published as fiction.  If the author wanted so badly to make a difference with her writing, then she should have not lied.  Her tale sounds like a modern day "Outsiders", a work of fiction that has had a profound effect on many.

In the end, though, it sounds to me like a lot of people are angry because they feel duped.  I have to lean towards agreeing with dp on this. 

Now that they have been caught, they should just change the cover to say fiction and keep it on the shelves.  Heck, it might be a socially important book, despite its shady origins.

I believe that the underlying story here is the NYT's over-eagerness to buy into the woman's tale -- hook, line, and sinker.  The story fit their template for PC-ness, and for presenting America in a way that says "Just look at this awful country of ours, where people live this way!"

Leaving aside the fact that people live a lot worse elsewhere -- I haven't personally known anyone who has come from such a life as this woman portrays in her "autobiography".  And I've lived and worked all over the United States -- big cities, small towns, and rural areas.  The type of lifestyle which is portrayed in this woman's tome is 'enjoyed' by a very small minority of people in this country.  It certainly doesn't represent the norm.......although the NYT's would have us to believe that it does.

I recall walking through Boston's Combat Zone back in the early 90's -- or traveling through the South Bronx at around the same period.  I've been through LA, too.  And in the roughest parts of downtown Seattle.  I was approached by a teenage girl in Boston, begging me for money.  She looked like a fresh-faced, red-headed kid who belonged in middle school.  I was also approached by others in these cities -- some offering, some begging, some demanding.

The astonishing thing to me was over "Why do these people want to live this way?"  Even if you were born there -- in this country: there's no law which says that you have to stay there.  But yet it remains: a place of despair and hopelessness.  And it hasn't been cured at all by 50 years of government hand-out type solutions.  If anything, those 'solutions' have made the situation worse.  Old men used to be able to play checkers on the street in the poorer parts of downtown Philadelphia.  They can't do that these days.

BTW - life on the street among the Crips and the Bloods version of their society & mores is absolute hell on women.  This (lying) woman's perspective was a bit......of the rose-colored-glasses-wearing variety.  Those men are truly evil -- they aren't nice guys with hidden hearts of gold.  It's my understanding that her place in such a world would have been far more abased than the things that she claimed in that book.

Gangsta rap stems from a reality, contained in a certain cultural context.  Nobody in their right mind would want to live in such a context -- especially not if they happen to be female.

But this fine lady, the writer of record here -- if nothing else, she's added an additional weight of evidence to one truth: the NYT's will readily buy into and publish anything that furthers their agenda.  And without bothering to go to the trouble of getting their facts straight first.

That was one of the best books I ever read. Every page was like totally authentic.

Not really, I'm telling a fib. :)

It doesn't really bother me that much. Even the the published Diary of Anne Frank,  was not a "diary", but consists of a substantially revised compilation of her earlier writings. Not a hoax, but not really a "dairy" either. But who cares?  I think  we're to pedantic about "reality". My idea of what's real (fact) may not be the same as your's, but we can still live quite happily together.

Edit - The WMD in Iraq were once a "fact", we saw the diagrams and aerial photos of them, after the invasion they then became "fiction". We basically believe what we want to and that's just human nature.

Quote- "I think  we're to pedantic about "reality". My idea of what's real (fact) may not be the same as your's, but we can still live quite happily together."

I'd say that depends on what your version of reality is. In reality you might not be happy with the conditions. Even for somebody who never gets overly concerned. Some people put more value on truth than others. Suppose the book had been written about the Jewish holocaust?

Perhaps I should have said "usually" when I said ".... live happily together".
I work every day with people who view the world differently than I, everybody does. In fact it's very hard to get even two people to completely agree on anything, but life goes on.

With respect to the Holocaust, I was taught at school that the Germans made soap from dead Jews, to me this was a fact.
In April 1990, professor Yehuda Bauer of Israel's Hebrew University, regarded as a leading Holocaust historian, as well as Shmuel Krakowski, archives director of Israel's Yad Vashem Holocaust center, confirmed that the human soap story is not true.
Fact, once more becomes fiction.
But it doesn't matter, the Holocaust is still a tragic reality, even if some reported events are not.

I'm fine with fiction -- so long as no one tries to sell it to me by advertising it as being a fact.  And the idea that a purely fictional tale "represents a fact" is mere sophistry in support of ideological propaganda.  Or perhaps more appropriately: a lie wrapped within a lie: and designed to sell books.

Nazi propaganda "represented a reality", in the world view of some.  The facts didn't matter -- the......cough cough........"underlying truth" did.  The reality of the facts doesn't matter so much as the "underlying reality" that the propagandist wishes to disperse to the masses.  And that's how political propaganda works.  The NYT's is a past master at the art of political propaganda.

I won't get into the specifics of the Iraq situation -- because if I did, then we'd end up arguing about hot-button contemporary politics.

I don't understand the problem at all.
My country is governed with fiction sold as facts.
Since the Romans left 438 a.d.

I agree XENOPHONZ that the truth does matter, and matters a lot.
The propaganda you refer to is still alive and well.
The "truth" that the basis for the invasion of Iraq (WMD) was false, gets all swallowed up in the rhetoric of "war against terrorism", (underlying truth) even though there is no connection between the two.
So many long-held liberties have been swept away by this "underlying truth", and I guess there's more to come.

Arcebus said 'Idon't understand the problem at all.
My country is governed with fiction sold as facts.
Since the Romans left 438 a.d."

So is ours- we just did not have any Romans, though, unless you count "The Godfather".

Drifterlee, "The Godfather" doesn't count, that's a different story..... ;-}}

Truth, accountability and consequences  for your, our, my actions left the building a long time ago. Getting them back is going to be a lot harder then reworking the interface, implementing GI or adding the long requested and sought after feature of make realistic art button in Poser I am sorry to say.

*"I'm fine with fiction -- so long as no one tries to sell it to me by advertising it as being a fact."

BS

*Santa Clause
The Story of the Mayflower
The Bible
The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire

All sold as fact at one time or another.
We all have our own mythologies. What your saying is you only want "facts" that support your own narrow world view!
Hobby horses and soap box's are a dime a dozen. I should know, lol.

But don't think this posting by xeno is about anything BUT a preemptive hit against The New York Times.
Rabid Bushies are "poisoning the well". A well knowen debateing  techinque!

Trust me -- I have decidedly mixed feelings when it comes to GWB.  But once again: I won't get directly into the current politics of the situation here.  But at the same time I won't hesitate to discuss and to point out the underlying philosophies which drive certain observable factual phenomenon -- like how it was possible for a woman with a totally fabricated story to get the NYT's to buy into her story for three solid years:  running up to the publication of a book -- and apparently without the slightest hint of a thought that something was fishy.  The reason stemmed from the fact that the good folks at the NYT's wanted to believe her story.......because it fell in line with their own accepted template.

There are other aspects to this situation as well -- that the woman is an attention-hungry fraud, etc., etc..  But that's nowhere near as interesting as the reasons behind the total failure of a major news organization to make any any efforts at all to verify a 'dramatic' story.  A story made from pure vapor.  And this isn't the first time that they've done something like this -- it's just the latest example.

BTW - who is Santa Clause?  A sanctified lawyer?  Or maybe it's just the title of a fairly recent seasonal movie?  I don't seem to recall that the movie studio made any claims in regards to the story being an actual fact.  But then again -- perhaps the NYT's would believe that the movie's tale was a fact, were it to be presented to them in the correct manner.  Perhaps it would help if the movie mentioned oppressed, drug-addicted elves.

There are some BIG money-making opportunities here, for anyone with a good imagination -- and the correct take on matters (of course).

I get the feeling that everything that happens now is Bush's fault.

Bush made her lie huh?
Bush made them print it huh?
Bush!
Bush!
Bush!

Your never going to get anywhere comparing yourselves to him or using him for a scape goat.
I'm moving on. Later,

Quote - Arcebus said 'Idon't understand the problem at all.
My country is governed with fiction sold as facts.
Since the Romans left 438 a.d."

So is ours- we just did not have any Romans, though, unless you count "The Godfather".

LOL we elected them so I guess we got what we paid for.

:laugh: Oh snap!  Outted by her own sister!  That's gotta hurt.  I wonder what the family reunions will be like from now on?

Santa Claus is St. Nicholas, of course. The actual 'deification' of Santa Claus started in the mid-19th century, by a political cartoonist named Thomas Nast (from whom we get the word 'nasty').  He was an extremely opinionated guy, hated boss Tweed, loved Grant, etc.

Yup...here's an odd thought...if you bought the book while it was considered 'non-fiction', it might be worth more, if it's labelled that way, since it's now a limited print run...;)

Attached Link: Misha at Slate.com

LOL- ask any 3 year old if santa is real.

Quote - Yup...here's an odd thought...if you bought the book while it was considered 'non-fiction', it might be worth more, if it's labelled that way, since it's now a limited print run...;)

It would be highly collectable for anyone that collects "misprints", but, the publisher will have to re-release the book as fiction first.  As it is now, it will be sought after as a "novelty" item and there are some that will pay semi-big bucks for it (keeping the new article with it to show provenance of the book as a hoax), but, for the book to become a possibly expensive truely collectable item the publisher will have to go back to the presses and reprint as a fiction book.  IF they do this, it will be years from now.  They will want as much time and separation from this current event to pass and hopefully be forgotten about by as many people as possible.

Speaking as a collector...to anyone that does have the book, even if they don't reprint as fiction, keep you little fingers on it and if possible get an original news release about the book being a hoax and you might have a very nice auction piece one day in the future.

Quote - :laugh: Oh snap!  Outted by her own sister!  That's gotta hurt.  I wonder what the family reunions will be like from now on?

Someone pointed out that the unabomber's brother had to think it over for awhile before he contacted the authorities regarding his suspicions about his sibling's crimes.  By contrast, the impression that we're left with here is that Margaret Seltzer's sister literally ran to the phone to call the publisher as soon as she spotted her sister's photograph in the newspaper.  So I get the impression that the two sisters weren't exactly best buds in the first place.  The news reports that I've seen so far don't go into a lot of detail about the internecine aspect of the situation, but it's a point that I'm curious to know more about.

The NYT's would have done themselves a huge favor by seeking out and talking to their their would-be storyteller's relatives several years ago.  If they had, then they might have saved themselves a considerable amount of professional embarrassment now.  This situation has made has made them look like fools.......once again.

Heh -- just after I typed that last post, I found an article which reports that the publisher has released a statement which claims that Seltzer introduced several people to her literary agent -- people who lied about being her foster siblings.

http://www.usatoday.com/life/books/news/2008-03-04-memoir-hoax_N.htm

She went well beyond just telling a few 'little white lies' in the altruistic interest of "giving a voice to the voiceless".  And she sure managed to put one over on the NYT's in the process.

So.....the next time that the NYT's tells you all about what the terrorists or a given politician are or aren't doing -- keep this one in mind.

This kind of thing happens alot. During the first Gulf War, I don't know how many guys were running around pretending to be soldiers home on leave. Knew a person one time that told everyone he was a Vietnam Vet for so long(years) that most people he knew thought that he was really when in fact had been locked in a mental institution during the whole period of time. Even told stories of experiences he had during the war which he had heard from the real deals. This person is quite possibly mentally ill in the same way. Passes off as normal to those that don't really know them, but to those that do(like the sister) doesn't. The sister may think she is just a chronic liar not realizing her sister is mentally ill. To meet one of these people you would never guess they are mentally ill as they behave normal and tell their stories as if they were really there adding even small details and personal touches like veteran clothing and everything. They pretend or play the part of people they think will get special respect. Like in this case. I'm no doctor. That's just my take on it for what it's worth.

In a way, her behavior might be similar to people who compulsively confess to having committed every crime that's in the news, or to people who have Munchausen's Syndrome -- but I'd say that this woman's actions went well beyond the norm for either of those.  Or at least I'd say that she was far more successful than most in practicing the art of sympathetic attention-getting.  But to me: the things that she did smack of a long-term, well-thought-out, and systematic plan: more like the deliberate dealings of a con artist than like the spur-of-the-moment fantasies of a mentally ill person.  Especially since other people conspired in helping her to tell the lie.

But even if it turns out that she is mentally ill, the central problem here has to do with the fact that the NYT's fell so hard for her story -- and that they went as far as they did with it.

I knew the fake war vet and worked around this person on and off for about five years. Most people that lie and convince you/others parade it later like a trophy. You know ha ha I sure had you fooled. These people don't. They slide into their new identity as if it is them for real. This person was the nicest and one of the most well liked people I knew. Customers loved this person and often collected the most tips around holidays. Had them and us all fooled and maybe even his own wife.
Now you could say it was all planned, but I don't know. You could say it was convenient to be crazy during the draft I would tend to agree, but then afterwards why make up another fake past identity and literally live it(not part of the time mind you, in front of literally everyone). Never laughing at the people who are fooled by it or treating them like jerks. Crazy or not, even I will never know for sure. All I know is I found out the truth later and was personally shocked! True life story.

absolutely despicable.
people like this and James Frey should be publicly ridiculed and shunned in the writing community, but the sad truth is that if anything this added publicity will just boost her career. 

Like I said -- the only caveat that I'd add in the case of this writer is that it appears that she obtained help from other people in fabricating her story.  She wasn't the only one who lied about it.  Now if your (non)Vietnam-vet buddy had brought in 6 other people who had all gone along with his tall tale and said "Sure!  We all served together with him in 'Nam!" -- and then it turned out later that their story in confirmation of his story was a lie in itself: then I'd call their involvement in his lie an evidence of deliberate planning rather than evidence of a derived fantasy.  Because he would have needed to somehow talk those people into backing him up in a falsehood.

The publisher claims that she had several people back up her story -- including people who falsely identified themselves as her foster siblings.  So either she paid her 'witnesses' to lie for her, or else those 'witnesses' went along for other reasons.  But I doubt that any of it was done without all of them first talking the deception over among themselves in order to get their story straight.

As I mentioned earlier -- it's possible that she has mental / emotional issues of some kind which inspired her to do what she did -- but she also had outside help in doing it.  It wasn't just her alone.

And once again: the greater focus needs to be not on the woman who told a gigantic lie: the greater focus needs to be on a major news organization who swallowed her lie: hook, line, and sinker.  The woman's motivations for doing what she did -- mental illness / con game / obsessive need for attention / radical social liberal agenda / whatever -- her personal motivations are of passing interest.  The #1 primary interest in this entire story has to do with the motivations / actions of the New York Times.  The woman's personal motives are purely ancillary to that analysis.  The New York Times organization is far more culpable in this situation than is a faker with a tall tale to tell.  I know that the publishers will attempt to portray themselves as put-upon victims in this -- but they ain't victims.  Other than perhaps willing......no -- eager --  victims of their own biases.

Quote - absolutely despicable.
people like this and James Frey should be publicly ridiculed and shunned in the writing community, but the sad truth is that if anything this added publicity will just boost her career. 

Yep -- she can go on to become a very successful fantasy writer. 

The difference between this woman and James Frey is that James Frey got his hands on the big-time money before his lie became public knowledge.  This woman's lie was revealed too early in the game for her to make a full financial killing directly off of it.

But like you and others have indicated -- she might go on to achieve shameless fame.  Or alternately: perhaps they might need to keep a suicide watch on her for awhile.  And that would all depend upon what's inside of her.

Now she's gotten more attention than she could have dreamed of -- even if her story had been 100% authentic.  If gaining attention was her underlying goal -- then she's accomplished it.

And if destroying their credibility was their goal -- then the NYT's has accomplished it.  :biggrin:

You just said it "appears" they conspired with her. Unless you suspect that somebody is lying, you don't give then the third degree. There are two sides to every story. Right now she already looks like a liar. The NYT looks like a victim of her lies. Who may not have run a background check.

If somebody had been telling you that they were adopted and later you saw them with some people that fit the earlier description given you then you might assume that these were the people she had been talking about.  For sure if you asked later and she herself said yes it was.

You claim the NYT was bias blinded. If true, she didn't have to show them much and if they wanted to believe her story then everything around her became more convincing that it was real. All she had to do was play along and answer the questions the way they needed to hear it. All they had to do was keep believing. As far as outside conspirators are concerned they may never have actually knowingly been part of her alleged plot. Remember that you are still reading another story tellers version in the news and not court testimony. We'll see. Keep us updated. :)

Oh, if the publisher's press release can be believed -- and you have to be careful to put words like "if" and "appears" into pretty much any statement which cites information provided as factual by this particular publisher -- then there most definitely were active conspirators who were going along with the writer's falsified story.  If certain individuals actually did misrepresent themselves to her literary agent as being the writer's foster siblings -- and they fell in line with a story which has since been determined to be a total fabrication -- then those persons were active participants in the lie.

Quote - You claim the NYT was bias blinded. If true, she didn't have to show them much

That's true.  She didn't have to show them much.  So they must have had a reason for believing her. 

If it's this easy to fool the NYT's -- and apparently it is -- then I have a nice bridge, conveniently located in their own home city, which I'd like to sell to them. :biggrin:

DID they make her pay her money back she got for the book?

I don't know.  The reports that I've seen so far haven't said anything about that.  In fact, I'm not even sure if she's been paid yet -- or if so, how much.

Quote - The difference between this woman and James Frey is that James Frey got his hands on the big-time money before his lie became public knowledge.  This woman's lie was revealed too early in the game for her to make a full financial killing directly off of it.

The other difference is that at least his story was partially true. He did embellish parts to make it more compelling, but the story essentially was his life. However, this woman fabricated the entire thing and even hired people to act the part of characters in her story in order to pass a complete fictionalized story off as a true fact of her life.

According to that last article linked to, 19,000 copies of the book that were being shipped to stores have been recalled.

I wonder if the publisher is going to sue her in order to recover the money they advanced her.  They are entirely within their right to do so giving the fact that she lied and defrauded them.

This woman reminds me of the many people you see on tv these days.... a wannabe nobody. Everybody wants to be a celebrity & they feed us all full of $h!t & make what they can out of us.
I wouldn't feel too angry about her because she just had the balls to do it & it nearly paid off. She wasn't really harming anyone.
There are so many fraud people around us from people we know to those in power. Hell, I don't know what to believe anymore.
What I will say is that it's took me until I was in my early thirties to realise that being decent & honest doesn't always get you very far. I've known some real ar$eh0les in my time & boy do they have it good.
If only I believed in Karma.

Quote - I don't know.  The reports that I've seen so far haven't said anything about that.  In fact, I'm not even sure if she's been paid yet -- or if so, how much.

I saw one article. It said it was less than $100,000 thus far. I believe that was the intial advance payment for the book with more to follow.

Quote-"I wouldn't feel too angry about her because she just had the balls to do it & it nearly paid off. She wasn't really harming anyone."

I'm not mad either, but I can imagine how the publisher feels. :)

Let's face it, we survive having suspicious minds. Everything is a gimic these days from false pictures on the covers of magazines to advertisements selling youth in a bottle. What she did in reality is no worse than a lot of the other scams that everybody knows is a scam, but have learned to live with. I say fifty lashes with a wet noodle and sell the books as Mili Vanilli keep sakes slash collectors prints(the author that duped the NYT with a bogus pile of half truths) and let the woman go make a family. Hopefully teaching her kids not to tell lies like she did. Maybe.

Quote - I saw one article. It said it was less than $100,000 thus far. I believe that was the intial advance payment for the book with more to follow.

Yes, I've seen the $100,000 +/- figure bandied about.  But the references that I saw were vague, and lacked any details.

How much did James Frey get?  $1,000,000?  So he's out driving his Porsche -- and he might be able to continue publishing under a pseudonym.  Maybe even write another autobiography, with different "embellishments" used to spice up the story the second time around.

In recent years, we've seen several of these types of books published -- "non-fiction" books that later turn out to be pure fiction.  We've also seen photoshopped-up images presented as the real thing in the news media;  clearly forged documents put out as "proof" of a story; and other fictionalized news accounts presented to us as being real news.  And to some people, this type of thing is perfectly OK -- because it supports an "underlying reality" that they'd like to see supported.

It's a good idea to exercise a large measure of discretion in picking & choosing what you (the generic, 2nd-person "you") are going to decide to believe.  Chances are that you didn't see the events of the story happen yourself -- so you are getting the information about the story through someone else's filter.  Always a good thing to keep in mind.

In spite of many journalist's loud & indignant claims to the contrary: there is no such thing as a purely objective human being.

X-posted with dogor.

Quote-"We've also seen photoshopped-up images presented as the real thing in the news media;  clearly forged documents put out as "proof" of a story; and other fictionalized news accounts presented to us as being real news.  And to some people, this type of thing is perfectly OK -- because it supports an "underlying reality" that they'd like to see supported."

Quote-"X-posted with dogor"
What does that mean?

Anyways, I watched "Wag The Dog" doesn't everything get a spin these days no matter where it comes from?

"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.