It becomes spin on the part of the side that is defending action when the focus shifts away from the facts at hand as a result of that action, in favor of some alternate reality that may or may not have occurred. Spin, in effect is a rationalization process....and is needed when the "obvious" facts create a doubt or a negative light on any particular idea or action.
Spin as is practiced by the supporters of a policy, is an attempt to tell people how things should be seen, rather than what is "obvious."
"As so often, you have misread something whose plain meaning should be obvious:"
Oh, so you if I understand you correctly, you are never in a position of having communicated something wrong, or misleading, or confusing, or so plain that the meaning should be "obvious."
Perhaps it should have been "obvious" but wasn't.
This is such a typical response of narcissistic journalism, where the writer always makes the assumption that they are always right and clear, and have written their ideas in such a manner that is above reproach.
Step back for a second Jack. Not everyone has your reality. The key to successful journalism is in the ability to communicate to people who don't assume your particular bias, and to communicate in a manner which is plain and forthright.
I did not misread what you said. You are simply attacking me with your "as so often, you have misread something" comments because you don't agree with my position or the points I brought up. This subtle attack is often missed by many, but is an attempt to place the writer in a superior position, a de facto expert position, by an attempt to diminish the reading or understanding skills of an opponent.
This tactic is consistent with your constant ad hominem attacks, and attempting to weaken the position of those who don't agree with you.
It is a common practice, and it is a practice of little men and small thinkers.
Every stop to think that maybe your writing skills are not as great as you believe they are?
A normal response would have been:
"Perhaps I did not make myself clear. Let me explain my position more fully or in a different way."
You always take the position that you are right and others have misunderstood your position.
Intellectual vanity.
"Unfortunately, it's often hard for people to agree on what actually has happened, much less on what might have happened."
If we stayed within the realm of facts it is not too difficult for people to agree. You seem to want to gloss over the facts, in favor of "well we don't know what would have happened if we didn't act" policy.
