1) The public wants certainty; leaders rarely deliver it.

Crises create an intense demand for clarity and confidence, even when the underlying situation is uncertain.

Spin supplies illusions as the end product.

Result: Leaders are tempted to oversimplify, overpromise, underdeliver, obfuscate, project control, and consolidate power while spinning.

2) Fear and urgency lower skepticism because people are both frightened and insecure.

In emergencies, people rely on heuristics: who sounds credible, who seems in charge, and what feels safe.  Narrative can outrun data.

Result: Framing becomes policy—because the frame determines what people will tolerate.

3) High stakes + limited time compress standard safeguards

Standard policy guardrails (debate, hearings, public comment, rigorous modeling) are truncated (cut out).

Result: Messaging is a substitute for scrutiny.

4) Reputational risk becomes existential.  In simple terms, existentialism concerns the fundamental questions of human existence, such as “Why are we here?” and “How did we get here?”

If the response looks “out of control,” political and institutional legitimacy suffers.

Spin becomes a deflective shield- with an abundance of superficial promises and misstatements.

Result: The incentive shifts from “solve the problem” to “manage the optics of the problem.”

The 4 Places Spin Enters the Crisis Policy Pipeline

A) Problem framing (What is happening?)

Spin influences whether the crisis is framed as:

• A temporary shock vs. a systemic failure
• External forces vs. internal negligence
• Public health/safety matter vs. an economic matter vs. a national security matter

Why it matters: The frame determines which tools look “reasonable”:

• Emergency powers, mandates, and enforcement
• Stimulus, bailouts, and liquidity facilities
• Evacuations, rationing, and triage protocols

Key idea: In crisis policy, the first victory is naming the crisis.  Does the COVID-19 pandemic sound familiar?  Does the Climate Crisis sound familiar?

B) Constraint management (What are they, the government institutions, willing to admit?)

Crises expose shortages and trade-offs across beds, crews, transformers, cash, water, fuel, and supply chains.

Spin attempts to avoid publicly acknowledging constraints:

• Trigger panic buying or runs
• Invite blame
• Reduce compliance (“If they’re not prepared, why should I cooperate?”)

Common spin patterns

• “We have everything we need” (until the shortage is undeniable)
• “There is no risk to the public” (while internal memos say otherwise)
• “This is isolated” (to prevent cascading fear, which is totally obfuscation)

Risk: When reality contradicts the message, trust collapses fast—and compliance goes with it.

C) Policy justification (Why are we doing this?)

Emergency policy often requires extraordinary measures: restrictions, reallocation, rapid spending, surveillance, and enforcement.

Spin helps sell it by:

• Moral framing: “If you oppose it, you don’t care about lives.”
• War framing: “We must unite; dissent helps the enemy.”
• Simplified causality: “This one measure will fix it.” (B.S., like Trust the Science)

What gets lost: Honest trade-offs:

• Short-run harm vs. long-run benefit
• False positives vs. false negatives
• Equity vs. speed
• Liberty vs. control
• Precision vs. coverage

D) Outcome management (Did it work?)

After the acute phase, institutions protect reputations by controlling the definition of “success.”

Spin tactics in evaluation

• Moving goalposts: “Success means ‘not as bad as it could have been.’”
• Cherry-picking metrics: “Cases down” without noting test changes; “jobs added” without participation rate context.
• Counterfactual claims: “Our policy prevented catastrophe” with no transparent model or assumptions.

Result: Instead of learning, institutions brand the response.

The “Good” Version vs. the “Bad” Version of Spin

Legitimate crisis communication (defensible)

Sometimes leaders must message in a stabilizing way:

• Preventing panic during evacuations or bank liquidity events
• Encouraging compliance with safety measures
• Keeping communication simple so it’s remembered under stress

Hallmarks of responsible messaging

• Acknowledges uncertainty: “Based on what we know today…”
• Publishes decision criteria: “If X happens, we will do Y.”
• Separates facts from guidance: “Here is what is known vs. recommended.”
• Updates transparently when wrong

Harmful spin (dangerous)

Spin becomes destructive when it:

• Denies constraints
• Overpromises outcomes
• Demonizes questions
• Suppresses or attacks data sources
• Treats narrative as more important than accuracy

Hallmarks of harmful spin

• Absolute certainty (“zero risk,” “fully contained,” “nothing to see here”)
• Blame deflection baked into initial messaging
• “One weird trick” solutions
• Resistance to publishing assumptions or raw data

Rule of thumb: Crisis messaging should reduce panic without reducing reality.

Bottom Line

The spin-in-crisis policy is powerful because it can create order when people feel chaos.  But when spin replaces transparency, it produces fragile policy: high compliance early, low trust later, and poor learning afterward.

“In a crisis, narrative can buy time—but only reality buys outcomes.”