We are not spin doctors

What government communicators actually do — and why cutting that capacity during tough times is exactly the wrong call.

An elected official recently referred to government communicators as “spin doctors.” I died a little.

I have been in this field for more than two decades — working in communities that lean right and communities that lean left, through resource booms and budget contractions, wildfires and water main breaks, election cycles and everything in between. And I can tell you with complete confidence: spinning is not the job. It is actually the opposite of the job.

Here is what communications staff actually do. They translate. They take the complex language of engineering, finance, legal, and policy and turn it into something a resident can understand without a decoder ring. They make subject matter experts accessible. They document decisions. They answer the phone at 10 p.m. when something goes sideways. They brief leadership before a difficult council meeting. They write the news release, post the update, respond to the comment thread, and prep the mayor for a media scrum — sometimes all at once, on a deadline, with incomplete information.

They also do something that is less visible but equally important: they protect the organization from itself. They are the ones who tap someone on the shoulder and say, quietly, “I am not sure we want to say it that way.” They think about the headline before the headline is written. They map the public reaction before the decision goes out the door. That is not spin. That is risk management, and there is a meaningful difference.

Spin is making something look better than it is. Good communications is making something complicated easier to understand — accurately, clearly, and in a way that builds trust rather than erodes it. If your communicators are spinning, that is a leadership problem, not a communications one.

I have worked on resource projects with right-leaning councils and environmental initiatives with progressive ones. The approach does not change. The commitment to clear, honest, plain-language information does not change. Communications is not about defending a party or promoting an ideology. It is about making sure people have accurate information about decisions that affect them. What they do with that information is up to them. In a functioning democracy, disagreement is not just allowed — it is expected. What is not okay is disagreement built on misinformation, rumour, or confusion. That is what happens when communications breaks down.

During periods of fiscal restraint, communications teams are often first on the chopping block. The logic seems to be that if times are tight, maybe you do not need someone managing the messaging. That logic is exactly backwards. When budgets are hard, services are changing, and residents are anxious, the need for clear, consistent, trusted communication goes up — not down.

Cutting your communications capacity during a crisis is the organizational equivalent of cancelling your insurance because you have not had a claim lately. It feels like a saving right up until it is not.

That said, communications capacity does not have to mean a large in-house team. A good consultant can fill important gaps without adding a permanent salary to the budget. They can develop the communications strategy and crisis plan so your in-house staff can focus on day-to-day delivery rather than spending months on documents that are not their primary job. They can provide training — for staff, for elected officials, for anyone who speaks on behalf of the organization. And they can offer something an internal team sometimes cannot: an outside perspective. When you are too close to a decision or too deep in the weeds of organizational culture, a fresh set of eyes on your messaging can catch things that would otherwise slip through. That is not a criticism of in-house teams. It is just the reality that objectivity is easier from the outside.

So no. Not spin doctors. People who believe — and I mean genuinely believe — that clear, honest, consistent communication is one of the most important things a public institution can do. Especially when it is hard. Especially when the news is not good. Especially then.

I stand by that. Every single time.

Six things you can do right now

1. If your communications manager is not in the room when major decisions are being made, change that. They do not need to make the decision — they need to help you think through how it lands before it does.
2. The next time someone in your organization describes communications as “just marketing,” ask them what happened the last time a decision went public without communications input. Then let them answer.
3. Measure communications by outcomes, not outputs. Fewer misinformation calls. Faster public understanding of a complex issue. Smoother implementation of a change. Those are the metrics that matter — not how many posts went out this week. Sometimes NOT making the news is the goal.
4. If you are considering cutting communications staff, calculate the full cost first. Include onboarding time for consultants, knowledge gaps, higher hourly rates, and the staff time spent managing external contractors. The savings are rarely what they appear on paper.
5. Ask your communications team what they need to do their jobs well. Not what they can cut. What they need. The answer will probably surprise you — and it will almost certainly cost less than a misinformation crisis.
6. Consider where a consultant could help your in-house team — not replace them. Developing a communications strategy, building or updating a crisis plan, or providing targeted training are areas where outside expertise adds real value without adding a permanent headcount.