Spin Doctoring as Democratic Betrayal: The Ethical Collapse of Government Public Relations in Hybrid Democracy

Abstract

Government public relations has historically relied on a propaganda model of top-down, asymmetric communication. Digital and social media technology now expose policy failures to public scrutiny before institutions can respond, and government communication strategies have not kept pace with that shift. Research on government public relations has focused mostly on strategies, tactics, and message design, while its ethical dimensions in policy decision-making remain underexplored. We examine the conditions under which GPR practitioners can move from a one-way asymmetric model toward two-way symmetric communication, positioning GPR as a devil’s advocate within the policy process to counter groupthink and prevent decisions that disregard public interest. Drawing on a qualitative case study design that combines framing analysis and document analysis, we identify a pattern we call spin doctoring by default. Institutions fall back on reactive, inconsistent communication when a crisis arises because a devil’s advocate was never involved in high-impact policy processes, as occurred in the case examined here. This pattern betrays the profession's obligation to the public and the democratic accountability that legitimate government communication depends on. We offer a structural account of GPR ethics under hybrid democracy and a model for repositioning GPR from a propaganda-oriented to a two-way symmetric, devil's-advocate function.