Spinning Cultural Hegemony?

This has just occurred to me, hence this post is more thinking aloud...but in typing.

But could spin be a form of cultural hegemony?

I'm rusty on my cultural hegemony theory. But for a short re-cap, Antonio Gramsci came up with the theory of 'cultural hegemony' in which (if I remember correctly) he asserted that the masses are dominated by the ruling classes through the use of 'common sense'. The masses focus on the details of their daily lives, the economic, social problems ignoring the larger political and economic issues/problems that surround and effect them. Focused on the problems of their daily lives, the masses are kept distracted from their own oppression by the ruling classes.

Ok. So. I obviously still need to work on how this relates to spin. But what I am thinking is that spin, as a form of political communication keeps the 'truth', in the form of accurate information on policy, mandates, political issues etc from the masses or the electorate hence denying them of the information they need (and have a right to)to make educated, informed political decisions and instigate change through their vote.

Wow, long sentence. But anyways these are a few of my preliminary thoughts. Will work out this idea more in coming posts.

This cartoon underscores the questions I asked in my previous blog - has spin become so powerful in modern democracy and how negative are its effects on the democratic system?

Barrack Obama's Win; All a Result of Spin?

Barrack Obama's win was the result of his campaign successfully branding John McCain has a negative campaigner and highlighting the race issue over that of gender discrimination according to Nicole Wallace, a McCain senior campaign strategist.

"The truth is they play dirty politics, and maybe we haven't been quick enough. Maybe we don't have enough friends to in the media to carry the message. We certainly lost the spin war about his fighting a negative campaign. The truth is that Barack Obama has spent has spent more money on negative ads against John McCain than any politician, Democrat or Republican, in history" said Wallace according to Politico.com.

Wallace also blamed the media and Obama's campaign prioritizing the issue of race over than of gender.

"There is an acceptance of gender bashing that went on with Sarah Palin. The truth is that we've had a lot of thoughtful discussions about race in this campaign, and that is entirely appropriate. We should continue to do so. We have spent far less time talking about gender about the gender bashing that happens, not only out of the Obama campaign, but on the far left" Wallace added.

Sour grapes? I think so.

While the Obama campaign definitely captalized on the McCain's use of negative campaign tactics, such as using 'robo-calling', Obama's historic win can't entirely be said to be the result of effective 'spin'.

However what is striking is the importance given to spin within electoral politics.

Wallace can claim that a presidential campaign can be won or lost due to the effective use of spin or news/information managment and the use of messaging.

In a democratic system where the truthful communication of candidates' political beliefs and policy proposals is essential to voters being able to decide which candidate will best represent them and their wishes, how has spin become so important that it is believed to decide the fate of presidential campaigns?

How has the communication of tailored messages, branding, positive images of candidates, information management etc - or spin taken the place of the dissemination of truthful information with the intention of strengthening deomocracy?

It may be a difficult question to address, let alone answer but one that should be asked.

For more on the Wallace interview visit this link:
http://www.mlive.com/us-politics/index.ssf/2008/10/mccain_camp_we_lost_the_spin_w.html