Software Spots Spin In Political Speeches

T.S. Ackerman writes "According to an article in NewScientist Tech, there is now software that can identify the amount of spin in a politician or candidate's speech. From the article, 'Blink and you would have missed it. The expression of disgust on former US president Bill Clinton's face during his speech to the Democratic National Convention as he says "Obama" lasts for just a fraction of a second. But to Paul Ekman it was glaringly obvious. "Given that he probably feels jilted that his wife Hillary didn't get the nomination, I would have to say that the entire speech was actually given very gracefully," says Ekman, who has studied people's facial expressions and how they relate to what they are thinking for over 40 years.' The article goes on to analyze the amount of spin in each of the candidates running for president, and the results are that Obama spins the most."

Comments

Subject

[Legion303]

Perhaps I missed it, so could someone kindly point out where the New "Scientist" article quantified "spin"? Thanks in advance.

Re:Subject

[rtb61]

The catch with the analysis of spin is of course, cultural differences, in language usage and expressions. In addition a good speech writer and of course speech presenter are required to alter their language and presentation to suit different audiences. Language and expressions and well as the content of the message needs to be different for, blue collars workers than to a group of students and educators or a broad community group, whilst the intent might be be same, the content will vary for each group and the focus of the presentation will shift to those areas each group has greater interest in.

Now as to the interpretation of the level of spin, the baseline will be shifted to align with the professor cultural baseline, his choice of language and expressions as well as his political alignment, not necessarily consciously but it is inevitable that it will occur subconsciously.

The is only one way to detect and clear away spin, record the speech and fact check it for lies and when lies / spin is discovered publish it all over the internet. Attempting it any other way just doesn't make any real sense, especially without knowing any of the speech writers and their cultural biases.

Re:Subject

[letxa2000]

It's defined in the customary way -- As anything which runs contrary to the listener's political views, or is said by someone whom they personally dislike.

That's possible. And if we're cynical, we might even say it's probable.

But it's entirely possible that a very objective criteria was used based on known psychological information. Psychologists and others are very good at learning quite a few things about people by things that most of us don't know--at least not consciously... body language, speech inflections, eye contact, handwriting, etc.

I'm not at all an expert in this field but unless you have evidence that the algorithm was truly biased and based on the way McCain talks, I think it would behoove you to consider the possibility that just maybe the algorithm picked up on something about Obama that you hadn't picked up on yourself. At least consider the possibility before smearing the article/algorithm/etc.

Surely

[Anonymous Coward]

there are more important things to talk about in this race - economy, Iraq, education, health, science policy, Saturday Night Live.

Why focus on this pseudoscience?

That's Easy--They're ALWAYS Spinning

[curmudgeon99]

I could write the logic myself

if( politician.isAlive() && mouth.isOpen() )
{
isSpinning = true;
return isSpinning;
}

Spin = Good Rhetorical Argument

[ShadowRangerRIT]

From reading the article, it appears that by spin, they mean "adhering to the rules your old English teacher laid down for rhetorical arguments." For example, don't qualify statements, since it waters down your argument needlessly. Don't use "I"; it makes it sound like you're the only one who holds your opinion, so use "we" when needed to help draw others in.

What this doesn't seem to do is provide any insight into how much the person in question shades the truth. Telling a bald-faced lie plainly won't set it off; wrapping up the truth in an eloquent package will.

Re:Spin = Good Rhetorical Argument

[b96miata]

because the "movement" won't be in office. The politician will.

"Yes we can" is a crap soundbite that sways people who listen to crap soundbites, and it also has the advantage of allowing every (potential) voter to fill in their own definition of what "we" can do, while sticking the polit. with zero accountability.

"I won't raise your taxes", or "I won't attempt to further restrict the right to bear arms" would be widely regarded as a campaign promise, and would be damaging if broken.

If you say nothing of substance, it's harder to be accused of lying.

This doesn't necessarily mean any use of "we" is bad, but your chosen examples are vastly different statements.

Obama spinning?

[tjstork]

Even though I'm a Republican, I have to concede that Obama is one of the most gifted speakers to come along for quite some time. He's an absolutely magnetic speaker and a great advocate for that which he believes, and when I watch him, I almost have to smack myself to snap out of it. I can't stand the guy's politics, but I am proud that he's an American.

Re:Obama spinning?

[JesseMcDonald]

It is the purpose of the Federal government to "promote the general welfare."

Yes, in specific ways, all of which are enumerated in the Constitution. Many of the items on the GGP's list are not Constitutional.

The following are internal government affairs or enumerated powers, and perfectly Constitutional:

• not firing linguists
• ending an immoral war
• reforming the tax code

The following are not within the purview of the federal government:

• healthcare
• investing in science and research
• funding for charter schools
• affirmative action
• education (including sex education)

The last point, "reducing the incidence and unfairness of the death penalty," is too broadly worded to properly categorize. For the most part specific criminal penalties, including the death penalty, fall under state jurisdiction.

It is our duty as citizens to protect each other from outside threats, and our duty as humans not to let the poor among us die in the streets.

I have no problem with that, but what does it have to do with the federal government? It seems to me that, rather than defining and carrying out your own duty, you only wish to coerce others into performing what you unilaterally declare to be their duty toward you, or in support of your goals. Government is not a legitimate tool with which to enforce your personal views onto others--no matter how popular those views might be.

There's only one man in the Bible to complain about the expectation that he was his brother's keeper.

Yes, but Cain's sins were jealousy and murder, not indifference. There is nothing to suggest that Cain was ever expected to act as his brother's keeper; his non sequitur response was merely a futile attempt to avoid the question.

Please Sheeple

[LS]

Does anyone actually believe this to be anything other than poor science or even worse election year propaganda masking as science?

There may be some objective simple definition of "spin" that you could use to create a automated measuring system, but is this really spin?

Human language is virtually infinitely complex, and there are layers of meaning both conscious and unconscious expressed by body language, tone, cadence, content, etc. Then there's the intention of the speaker, and the context of the speech. But no, we get a elementary school level simple bar chart that clearly shows that obama is a complete spinster, and McCain is a "straight talker". Excuse me, but what a load of horse shit! Disclaimer: I'm not voting for Obama or McCain.

LS

Badarticle

[pcgabe]

I initially thought that the Obama-smear was just a poorly written summary (and was going to tag "badsummary") but the actual article itself is slanted. I propose we start tagging these kinds of things "badarticle", since they seem to be cropping up more and more on Slashdot.

Anyway.

There are so many things that bug me about this "article", let's just go through it together.

The expression of disgust on former US president Bill Clinton's face during his speech to the Democratic National Convention as he says "Obama" lasts for just a fraction of a second.

First off, associating disgust with Obama. Paul Ekman says he saw it on Clinton's face. Did any of the other millions of people watching see it?

So how are we to know when they are lying?

Got it, spin = lying. OK. That's the definition we'll be using as we read.

Software programs that analyse a person's speech, voice or facial expressions are building upon the work of researchers like Ekman to help us discover when the truth is being stretched, and even by how much.

Again, spin = lying. I'm with you so far.

The algorithm counts usage of first person nouns - "I" tends to indicate less spin than "we", for example. It also searches out phrases that offer qualifications or clarifications of more general statements, since speeches that contain few such amendments tend to be high on spin. Finally, increased rates of action verbs such as "go" and "going", and negatively charged words, such as "hate" and "enemy", also indicate greater levels of spin.

I... what? "I" vs "we"? What does that have to do with lying? I thought spin = lying, since that's stated twice at the beginning of the article. Suddenly spin = rhetoric.

In general though, Obama's speeches contain considerably higher spin than either McCain or Clinton.

First, spin = lying, and then spin = rhetoric, but we don't call it that, and then Obama's speeches have the most spin. Which by the new definition means that he is the most effective speaker, but by the original definition means that he is the biggest liar.

McCain is the purported to have the least spin, implying that he is the most truthful (except by their definition of spin, it really means he is the least effective speaker). Hands up, who thinks McCain is the most truthful candidate?

And hey, let's talk about Jeremiah Wright some more, because it's not like that story is history or anything. But hey, any chance there is to remind people that he's associated with Obama...

"When you see these crises come along, the spin goes up," Skillicorn says. "Obama is very good at using stirring rhetoric to deal with the issues."

Ah! Now they even call it rhetoric! Perhaps hoping that the intended audience doesn't know the meaning of the word? (Many people mistakenly think the word rhetoric has negative connotations.)

Indeed, Bill Clinton's fleeting facial slip was the only clear example that Ekman could recount of a politician saying something that they did not mean during both the Republican and Democratic national conventions.

Seriously, did anyone else besides Ekman see it? Did this facial slip actually exist? Where's the screencap?

This entire article is ridiculous. Decrying "spin", they use it themselves as an anti-Obama device. Absurd.