Is it truth or is it Polito-speak?

I'm begininng to reach election fatigue -- probably not unlike many Americans about now.  Trying to truly understand the results of the Pennsylvania primary win for Hillary Clinton and whether it is meaningful at all or creates doubts about Barack Obama's ability to win in the general election, as today's WSJ piece seems to suggest, is quite tough to figure out.  I listen to news reports.  I read blogs.  I chat with people.  Talk about missed messages. I have to do constant filtering, as many of the spokespeople on broadcast programs or in the print media are partisan for one of the candidates.  And the blogs definitely have their biases.  Some are more open about these than others.

So this morning on the way in to work, I tuned into the POTUS channel on XM radio, which is doing round-the-clock coverage of the race for the "President of the United States" and heard a commentator from Politifact.com, a site that has a truth meter for candidate attacks, statement and even videos.  It is worth checking out and has won some awards.  Of course the skeptic in me will be watching to see if the site seems to be leaning one way or the other in terms of biases.  But I must admit the "pants on fire" symbol next to some statement made by candidates or their supporters (there is one next to Bill Clinton right now) is pretty funny.

It got me thinking about political communicators and how often they are described as "spin-doctors."  The concept of "spin" is attached to the PR profession, unfortunately, and it makes it seem like our reason for being is to color the facts, tell half-truths and hide the faults of our clients and their products or services.  In actuality, what good PR does, especially in more of a business to business space, is to help companies tell the truth clearly and concisely so people quickly can grasp what they do and why it should matter.  We also work to make their truth interesting so people will pay attention.  A recent video interview with one of our clients demonstrated that the client could do a decent job of conveying facts, but wasn't making those facts as relevant or interesting as they could have been. In this age of entertainment-oriented news (remember folks, Rupert Murdoch now owns the Wall Street Journal), not being interesting is the cardinal sin in any interview, podcast or video.  It takes extra prep, with your PR pros, to make sure you're going to keep the audience interested.  But it pays off because you will be asked again and again to do interviews.   

But back to politics.  I really don't think of political campaigns as using PR the way I believe it should be done.  They are more about obfuscation than clear, honest communication.  At least that's my humble opinion.  What's yours?