Instead of simply offering supporting facts or arguments, political actors attempt to define the debate itself to emphasize a particular set of attitudes. For example, in the debate over campaign finance reform, one side frames the issue as corruption versus reform, and the other as free speech versus restrictions on speech. In their most twisted form, these arguments become sub-rational and seek to directly appeal to irrational or unconscious perceptions and attitudes. Using carefully crafted language, political actors are able to present their irrational claims as if they are actually rational. This rhetoric is now used widely in politics.
Politicians use it, of course, as well as political organizations like parties and interest groups.
But perhaps the most pervasive use comes from pundits and talk radio hosts, who employ these tactics on a regular basis. Examples can be found on both ends of the political spectrum. However, we believe American political discourse is currently being very seriously distorted in a more pernicious way. People express frustration with spin frequently, but because of the complexity of the rhetorical tactics, the specifics of how spin works are left unconsidered. As a result, the impact on the discourse is poorly understood.