Project Censored Blog
About Project Censored
How free is our media? Are there strong stories which cannot get a run? Does this amount to informal censorship? Project Censored looks at why some stories struggle to find a place on the news agenda, and asks: do these stories make the grade or are there other reasons why they're not on the agenda?
At the invitation of the ACIJ, community groups are asked to nominate stories which they believe are effectively censored by the Australian media.
Stories should be of national importance in terms of their direct impact on; or their potential implications for; or the significance of what they reveal about the Australian social, natural or built environment or the international activities of Australians. The stories should have received inadequate coverage in the media.
The ACIJ acknowledges Sonoma State University's own Project Censored, launched in 1976 by Dr. Carl Jensen, professor emeritus of Communications Studies at Sonoma State University. Upon Jensen’s retirement in 1996, leadership of the project was passed to associate professor of sociology and media research specialist, Dr. Peter Phillips.
Posted by ACIJ at 03:15 PM February 23, 2005 | Category: About Project Censored
Judge casts doubt on Catt's guilt
Fifteen years ago, a judge gave a jury a choice: either Roseanne Catt was "evil and manipulative" or the victim of a monstrous conspiracy. Wendy Bacon reports...
The jury decided she was evil and found Catt guilty of possessing a revolver and of assaulting, stabbing, attempting to poison and planning a hit on her husband, Taree motor mechanic Barry Catt.
Now an acting District Court judge, Tom Davidson, has found evidence that she may have been falsely convicted on unreliable evidence of Barry Catt and his mates, including NSW detectives.
In the report of his inquiry into the case, released yesterday, Judge Davidson found that a former NSW detective, Peter Thomas, may have planted the gun. And he found evidence that Barry Catt, retired Taree motor mechanic Adrian Newell, Mr Thomas and Detective Carl Paget may have framed Ms Catt on the charge that she spiked her husband's drinks.
Judge Davidson found that while there was evidence to support six other convictions, it was reasonably possible that the jury's verdict in those cases was substantially influenced by the unreliable evidence of Mr Thomas, Mr Newell and Detective Paget.
Advertisement Advertisement
Catt was given a 12-year jail sentence in 1991 and spent the next 10 years buried in the NSW prison system, always maintaining her innocence.
In 2001, the NSW Attorney General, Bob Debus, received fresh evidence that the gun may have been planted and ordered a new appeal.
Yesterday, the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal received Judge Davidson's fresh findings of fact. It has reserved its decision, but its task now is to decide whether or not Catt is guilty. If it decides to quash one or more of eight convictions, the court will either order a retrial or acquit her.
Yesterday, Crown Prosecutor Wayne Roser argued that the appeal court should reject Judge Davidson's finding.
After the hearing, Catt said: "Judge Davidson's judgement has restored my faith in the judicial system. At last I have had an unbiased hearing. Whatever the heartache, I will never lie down. I believe justice will now be done."
The judge found that Mr Thomas used improper methods of investigation, had a "propensity to use his office to damage Ms Catt ... and demonstrated a lack of objectivity which descended into malice and abuse of power".
He accepted the fresh evidence of Queensland barmaid Gina Hart who gave evidence that, in 1999, Mr Thomas had offered her $10,000 to sign a false statement that her employer had burnt down his pub. He also accepted evidence that in another case in 1991, Mr Thomas had attempted to coerce a woman to give false evidence against her husband afterhe charged them both with a bombing in Byron Bay.
He found that a conversation between Mr Thomas and the woman was "capable of supporting a conclusion adverse to Thomas of complicity in a serious offence" and that a case could be made that Mr Thomas had lied about this conversation during the court case.
He found that Mr Thomas had a "propensity to apply pressure ... in a way calculated to produce false evidence" that raised the possibility that a number of Crown witnesses may have been pressured by Mr Thomas to give false evidence.
Judge Davidson found that as a witness, Barry Catt was "verbose, rambling, and at times irrelevant to the point of incomprehensibility, and that he could not accept his evidence unless supported by other independent and credible witnesses".
The Crown had alleged that as part of her campaign to get rid of her husband, Roseanne Catt had placed large doses of drugs, Lithium and Rivotril, prescribed for Barry Catt's bipolar condition, in the drinks and food in his office.
Judge Davidson found that Mr Newell, who worked closely with Mr Thomas, was so opposed to Roseanne Catt and sympathetic to Barry Catt - who had been charged with sexual abuse - that he may have contaminated the drinks.
Detective Paget gave evidence that he found containers of Lithium and Rivotril in a black handbag in Roseanne Catt's bedroom. Judge Davidson found there was a reasonable possibility that Detective Paget was lying and that he and Mr Thomas concocted this evidence.
It was suspicious that the bag did not appear in police photos of articles seized or in the exhibit book at Taree police station.
Taree resident Graham Fellows gave evidence at the inquiry that while he was working at Barry Catt's business several years ago, Barry Catt had told him he had set Roseanne up for a "big fall" and that they "put some tablets in some milk" and that "what we done it was done so well".
Mr Fellows said he did not like Barry Catt, whom he said was present and gave approval for him to be beaten up in 1999. While finding that his ill-will towards Barry Catt could affect his reliability, Judge Davidson found Mr Fellows's evidence was "sufficiently credible" to be taken into account on whether there has been a miscarriage of justice in the attempted poisoning conviction.
In July this year, Judge Davidson sent evidence of hundreds of phone calls between Mr Thomas, Mr Newell and Barry Catt while they were giving evidence at his inquiry to the Police Commissioner, Ken Moroney, for investigation.
On the day of her arrest in August 1989, police allegedly found a pistol in the ensuite of Roseanne Catt's bedroom. Judge Davidson found Mr Thomas had an opportunity to plant the revolver and that fresh evidence supported that he may have done so.
This fresh evidence came from Peter Caesar, who worked alongside Mr Thomas as a private inquiry agent after Mr Thomas left the police force and moved to Queensland in 1991.
He told the inquiry that Mr Thomas had told him Roseanne Catt was the "lowest form of slut" and he had said on a number of occasions that he had "planted the gun". Mr Thomas's former secretary, Leanne Cheers, gave evidence that after she lodged a claim for sexual harassment against him, Mr Thomas said "he would set me up like he did that bitch".
Judge Davidson found that Barry Catt's previous housekeeper, Marie Whalen, was an unreliable witness and that acceptance of her evidence by the jury "is likely to have had serious adverse repercussions to the case presented on behalf of Ms Catt on all contested issues" at the trial.
After Ms Catt's arrest Ms Whalen told Internal Affairs, a Taree solicitor and two Family and Community Services officers independently that she had been taken to a deserted house by Mr Thomas and Detective Paget. After Detective Paget had pulled out a gun she signed a statement against Roseanne Catt.
Posted by ACIJ at 10:54 AM February 18, 2005 | Category: Rosanne Catt
Phuong Ngo Not Guilty - or haven’t you heard about it?
Few Australians could be unaware that Phuong Ngo was convicted in 2001 of the murder (by ‘joint enterprise’) of John Newman the Cabramatta member of parliament.
On the other hand probably few Australians would be aware that Phoung Ngo was found Not Guilty in 2003 of very serious charges i.e. demanding money with menaces (extortion or stand over, in common parlance) from a Cabramatta “businessman” and wounding him in the same alleged incident. Gill Boehringer reports...
I want to explore some of the issues raised by the different ways the media dealt with these two criminal cases.
First, a brief review of the murder case in the media. The coverage given to the killing of Newman in September 1994 was extensive. It was clearly a stunning and very “newsworthy” event: it came to be known as Australia’s first political assassination. (It has been suggested to me that this appellation was previously bestowed on the killing of the anti-drug gang campaigner Donald Mackay but that is another story)
Cabramatta and its problems, essentially presented as Asian (especially Vietnamese) crime and drugs, had featured prominently in the media for a number of years before Newman’s murder. Thus the Newman story slotted easily into an already established understanding. And gave it a new intensity. The very foundations of a democratic society were threatened. Thus a moral panic was constructed. Who killed Newman was a mystery, but it had to be solved. The suspects were obvious: Asian criminals, and typically, the ambitious Mr. Big of Asian politics-the “overlord” who was linked to the shadowy Mekong Club, Phuong Ngo. He was being constituted as the “folk devil”.
The mystery was not solved quickly, but the media retained its interest and coverage. PhuongNgo featured in the speculation which continued. In 1998 the mystery began to unravel. After a period of three years, involving five widely publicized hearings-a coroner’s inquest, a Magistrate’s committal, and three trials- Phuong was convicted, on 29 June 2001, of the murder. It should be pointed out that although there was a “joint enterprise” in law, only Phuong of all those charged in the trials was convicted. And it was never suggested that Phuong shot Newman-he was the “overlord’, the criminal master mind. The manipulative, ambitious “Other” who would not play the political game as it should be played. Phuong was now consecrated as the “folk devil”. He was Australia’s first political assassin!
When on 15 November 2001 Phuong was sentenced to life in prison, never to be released there was another blaze of publicity. Nor a dissenting voice. as there often is when such sentences are handed down. The system had worked. Our guardians had gotten their man. And he got what he deserved. The “folk devil” was never going to be in a position to bother us. There appeared to be closure.
Almost ignored by the media, on 19 November Phuong and Quang Dao(one of the co-accused in the murder trial, found innocent) appeared at a committal hearing and on the 21st were remanded for trial (the “fourth trial) on the two charges mentioned above(extortion and wounding of Vinh Loc Nguyen aka Mr Dung)
It is the manner in which the media dealt with the subsequent “fourth trial” which I wish to examine. But before doing so it is important to note some events which have occurred subsequent to Phuong’s imprisonment and the involvement of the media therein. For the media were not finished with the “folk devil”. He was going to be a very handy little pet now that he was caged. The media has continued to portray Phuong as a danger to our democratic system, even from inside the walls. I will briefly point to some of these stories.
First, there was the well-publicized story of the Lunar New Year celebrations:” Jailhouse Wok” as it came to be presented by the press. Here Phuong was alleged to have corrupted the penal system and possibly the political system-he hosted “banquets’ for convicts and cronies from outside. Premier Carr-who does not have a good record in dealing with ethnic crime in any case-initially and correctly referred to it as a “media beat-up” trying no doubt to close ranks and to kill the story. However he quickly changed tactics. The “folk devil” could be useful-showing how “on top” of things he and his government were. Especially with the allegations which emerged in the second wave of hysteria: that from prison, Phuong was manipulating his former colleagues on Fairfield Local Council to ensure that decisions favoring his interests went the right way. Of course an inquiry into these allegations found nothing of the sort. Like all such stories it did not get the run in the media as did the wild allegations which prompted the inquiry.
Subsequently in an even more bizarre media exercise, Phuong was portrayed as being in alliance with the white racist gang W2K(Willing to Kill) which he was allegedly arranging to pay to spring him from prison. Once again, the government was able to show a bit of “muscle”-Ngo was removed to the Superman jail at Goober where the state’s “high security risk” prisoners are isolated Again, the government scored points. It was in command.Also,the conviction and jailing of Phuong for life could be seen as eminently sensible.The assassin was more than that:he was a real menace to the society in which we live:peaceful,ordered and governed according to the rule of law.
Recently we have had the spectacle of the Orange Grove re-zoning fiasco( a corruption scandal reaching the top of the political and commercial hierarchy?)So Premier Carr trotted out the ‘folk devil” again!How convenient for Mr Carr that in justifying the refusal to allow the re-zoning at Orange Grove he could smear the person seeking the re-zoning Nabil Gazal, by publicly revealing that Gazal had associations with
Phuong Ngo(“Link to Ngo grounds for zoning ban” SMH 20/7/4). The “folk devil” was indeed a corrupting influence….In fairness, though Carr’s comments were covered, the media made little of the matter. It seems on occasions even they find it difficult to stomach political rubbish.
What I am arguing is that in the 1990s the media was instrumental in creating a “moral panic” about Asian(Vietnamese) crime and drugs and by implication immigration which was becoming a significant political issue; that the killing of John Newman (who had many enemies, had had numerous death threats and at least one bullet fired through his office) and the charging of Phuong Ngo resulted in the easy media personification of a “folk devil” in the politically ambitious Cabramatta “overlord”. It should be noted that in the 2d trial there was a hung jury,and the “hold-out juror” claimed that there was considerable racism amongst the jury and intimidation in the jury room calculated to achieve unanimity.
Further,the “folk devil” remains a useful, though unruly or double-edged ,phenomenon. The media can still get plenty of mileage with its beatups, underlining the threat to decent social institutions and processes which he represents. The government shows its efficacious determination to maintain those foundations of our democratic polity, maintaining law and order and rooting out corruption by keeping the “folk devil” and those of similar ilk or aligned with him, under control and surveillance.
Which brings me to the “fourth trial”, in September 2003.In brief, it was alleged that Phuong and Quang(a reputable community worker in the area including Cabramatta ;he was close to Phuong)were again part of a “joint enterprise”, along with T and N (names suppressed since the murder trial) .This time they were alleged to have demanded a large sum of money ( $300,000) from a Mr Dung, and in the process allegedly stabbed him in the hand as a warning/lesson to do as he was told then and in the future.(There was also evidence that Mr Dung was forced to sign documents indicating another large sum owed to Dung had been re-paid by Phuong).
The incident was alleged to have happened on 3 March 1994 ,some 6 months before Newman’s murder. The alleged victim, Dung did not report the matter to the police. The incident apparently came to the attention of the police through the efforts of the State Crime Commission. Here is where the story gets interesting, to say the least.
T and N were given immunity from prosecution in the Newman case in exchange for testimony against Phuong and Quang. But the police, the Crime Commission and the Prosecution were having difficulty in getting a story together that would secure a conviction in that case. Perhaps their major problem was that T and N were unreliable witnesses. Indeed, they told less than the truth on numerous occasions and sometimes just lied. In August and through October1999, the Crime Commission had “discussions” with T and Nether let it be known that the immunity from prosecution for murder was in jeopardy because the lads had not lived up to their side of the bargain.
Sometime during that period August to October 1999,first one and then the other-it is not clear which or precisely when- began to tell the police, and the Crime Commission, a story about an incident which had occurred back in March 1994.And so the basis was laid for the “fourth” or extortion trial. Having been given to understand that they would receive immunity from prosecution for the extortion matter, on 2 November 1999 statements were signed by T and N incriminating Phuong and Quang.
Subsequently Dung was brought to the Crime Commission on 3 occasions (the first with a lawyer),interviewed for about 5 hours each day. He too signed a statement about the alleged incident on the 2nd of December 1999. It seems that in December T and N were told their original immunity would be continued.
Although Dung, T and N all testified in detail about the incident in which they were involved, the jury found both Phuong and Quang Not Guilty. I should point out that the defense lawyers did very considerable and effective cross-examination, and that the judge was strong and scrupulous about ensuring that Phuong and Quang were given a fair trial, not least in his concern about the effect on the jury of past –and contemporaneous-prejudicial publicity. Reading the transcript of the trial. one can understand how the jury came to their verdict. The prosecution witnesses-Dung ,T and N-did not agree upon significant aspects of the incident, nor were their individual stories convincing. The veracity of T and N was directly challenged on the basis of previous lying at hearings and trials; and of course the rather strange way in which the case had come forward must have raised questions in the minds of the jurors.
The question I want to look at is :why did the media largely ignore this case; and in particular why did the two papers which gave extensive coverage to the
Newman trials, run dead on this trial and, especially, the Not Guilty result? Thus, the Sydney Morning Herald apparently did not cover the trial, and gave only a one inch/60 word “sidebar”(page 6) to the verdict(“ Ngo found not guilty” 16 Sept. 2003)and the Daily Telegraph, which did have 3 short pieces during the 2 week trial(the first two by-lined, the third from the AAP it seems),entirely ignored the finding of Not Guilty.(See Appendix for other coverage).
The following commentary is of some help here:
“The Australian media, after being present for the first two days, listening to the opening address by the Crown Prosecutor and the examination of the evidence in chief by the Crown Witness, did not attend the hearing on subsequent days, in order to make themselves aware of and to report the cross-examination by the defence lawyers. This means that the Australian press was only one-sided in its reporting and only carried accusing evidence brought forward by the prosecution, without reporting on certain absurd points brought forward by the prosecution. These points were analyzed and dissected by the defence lawyers. Furthermore, on the following days, when the defence lawyers brought forward in evidence witnesses to countermand the prosecution, the Australian press was not present to report this. This disadvantaged the defendants in the carriage of both justice and prestige, even if the jury had eventually found the defendants not guilty”
From a series of anonymous articles published (in Vietnamese) in the Saigon Times(Sydney);this extract dated the 18th September 2003 (translation by Frank Trinh).
How do we explain what the Saigon Times writer saw very clearly?
An obvious explanation might be that it was really not very newsworthy and somewhat of an anti-climax. It certainly seems that the possible connections between the two cases were not valued or even understood. Just another crime story and not very sexy so to speak. Perhaps. That in itself would be a comment on the capacity of our journalists, especially those covering the crime beat or perhaps more saliently of their editors. But that is not entirely satisfactory as an explanation. Newsworthiness is not a given. Judgments are made, stories can be made newsworthy Consider the following:
1)the Daily Telegraph had 2 stories of 300 words each (by Nicolle Shepherd) relating the prosecution evidence; and one further story of 101 words indicating Phuong’s denial of the charges which was picked up from the AAP. They then chose not to report the verdict. There seems, at least initially, to have been some idea that there might be a story here.
2)One journalist who did try to publish a balanced account of the Newman trial and Phuong Ngo’s life as seen by his friends and supporters, was given advice by others in journalism not to get mixed up in that matter
3)although a long time friend and supporter of Phuong was able to tape another man confessing to the murder of Newman, the media has shown no real interest in the possibility that he-or others- might have had sufficient motive to do the killing(when of course Della Bosca and “Richo” both testified that the highly publicized political motive for Phuong did not really exist)
4)should we really believe that in the circumstances of crime and corruption in this state in 2003(and continuing)-and in other states-that there is no “newsworthiness” in a crime story which involves witnesses who lie and give false testimony in court, apparently with the blessing of the Crime Commission ,the NSW police and the DPP? In particular where those witnesses continue to have immunity from prosecution for activity in crime(s) which have not been solved? Remember,the killer of John Newman is walking the streets today!
There really are some fascinating stories arising out of the “trials of Phuong” and papers to be sold, MONEY to be made in publishing them. So why are they not being published?
The Wall of Silence
While the police and media were quick to blame the Vietnamese community in Cabramatta for maintaining a wall of silence, perhaps the same can be said with even more conviction of the Australian media, in particular about what happened in the prosecution of Phuong and Quang in the “fourth trial”. A Wall of Silence which we in CEFUP have described in our paper-the 20 questions which the media have not asked.
I would argue that the media ,in general, have an important ideological function and perhaps especially now with the high degree of concentration of ownership, media decision makers have a sense of the importance and strength of their role in carrying out that ideological function. This is not to ignore the specific effects which operate: making profits by selling papers, the crusading editors and journalists etc. But these are sometimes over-ridden and/or submerged by an over-arching need to set and support certain agenda in order to secure and maintain the stability and strength of the political order. It seems to me we might consider here the concept of hegemony, loosely the ideological domination in society by the powerful –economic, political and cultural.
I want to quote here from an outstanding piece of work by the late E P Thompson. It suggests what I have in mind when I think about the operation of our media today and in analyzing the treatment of Phuong Ngo.
“Theoretically I am saying this. The concept of hegemony is immensely valuable, and without it we would be at a loss to understand how … social relations were structured. But while such cultural hegemony may define the limits of what is possible, and inhibit the growth of alternative horizons and expectations, there is nothing determined or automatic about this process. Such hegemony can be sustained by the rulers only by the constant exercise of skill, of theatre and concession…such hegemony ,even when imposed successfully, does not impose an all-embracing view of life; rather, it imposes blinkers, which inhibit vision in certain directions while leaving it clear in others’
(Thompson,1973).
The construction, capture and care of the “folk devil” ,Phuong Ngo as the inscrutable, manipulating Asian Godfather, able and willing to corrupt and destroy our democratic institutions-and people- was essentially an exercise in the theatre of hegemony. That work having been done successfully, there is little likelihood that the media will suddenly start undoing it. Concessions are not easily obtained. Thus the “fourth trial” was seen as something quite unnecessary for the maintenance of hegemony and, in fact, potentially destructive of it.
Who knows where it will all end(as my beloved mother used to say) if “ Australia’s first political assassin” comes to be seen as “Australia’s latest political frame-up”!
Posted by ACIJ at 10:42 AM February 18, 2005 | Category: Phuong No
Out of Control?
Spin doctors, publicists, press officers or communication professionals - whatever you choose to call them, they are a profession loathed by many, yet one which play a substantial role in the lives of journalists. As the interdependence between journalists and public relations professional's grows, Jessika Lofstedt from Reportage looks at how PR tactics are used by journalists when creating the news.
"When I first started working as a journalist all I did was copy, paste and grammatically correct press releases that had been sent in to the editorial room," said Lawrence Conway. He is a 28-year-old journalist currently writing for the Torch , a local newspaper covering the Bankstown-Canterbury area in western Sydney. It has a weekly circulation of 90,000 people and belongs to Fairfax Community Newspapers.
He refers to the press release editing as part of "routine work that simply has to be done" and said many of the articles printed in the Torch are dictated by the press offices they originate from. "I really can't do much more than what the editor tells me to do; if he says edit press releases, I edit press releases."
Conway is far from alone in having to do a journalistic job that may not appear to be 'real' journalist's work. Public relations people are becoming increasingly influential in today's media climate and their No1 tactical tool is the press release. Due to time and practical constraints to newsrooms, it is common to see press releases appearing, as Conway said: "Simply cut and pasted into articles."
Anthony Lowe, a PR consultant with 11 years experience in the field, recalls his first years in PR when he used to find it satisfying to see one of his press releases appearing word by word in a newspaper. "Back then it didn't happen all that often, but today it happens all the time," he said. "It makes me a bit scared to be perfectly honest, where did investigative journalism go?"
Lowe understands how practicalities can limit journalists, but does not think PR practitioners should be faulted, just because they provide journalists with information. "I am always prepared, and I want them to further investigate an issue in relation to any press releases I send," he said. "It's disappointing, but not my problem if journalists choose not to get back and ask me questions."
Conway has risen up the career ladder within the year he has been at the Torch . Today he does more then edit press releases, even though the task still takes up a part of his day. "I'm now doing my own reporting," he said. "I'd say I write about 30-40 stories a week but I still don't have the time to dig as deep as I'd like to. You get your quote from an expert, action group or opposition, then you're forced to write and hand in the story".
Lowe knows some PR tactics mislead journalists. "PR is big business nowadays and a lot of money goes in to corporate and government reputation management," he said. Sponsoring special groups to endorse a corporation is nothing new in the world of PR. It is further not uncommon to see "expertise group set up to bring credibility to an issue in times when no one wants to support it", Lowe said. He adds with sarcasm: "The press can then consult these groups and it works wonders for your credibility."
Lowe thinks this consequently means journalists sometimes have to dig deep in order to get through the first layers of vested interests and semi-truths when pursuing a story. "Let's face it, most journalists just don't have the time to go through it all," he said.
Conway said he knows of the existence of PR tricks, yet he is confident that he can call their bluff. "As a journalist you always have to be objective and question everything. Maybe my employment with the Torch hasn't been thought provoking in that sense, but I still think I have what it takes if I was put up to the task."
Rosa de Carvalho is 25 years old and is currently working on a PhD in corporate reputation management, at the University of Technology, Sydney. "Press releases, backgrounders, gift samples, celebrities spokespeople, experts; they are all tactical tools in the overall strategy to put your client in the press, and sometimes the tactics use are not completely ethical," she said. What Carvalho refers to is common practice in the field of PR, and small gifts are just the top of the iceberg. It is not uncommon that journalists are offered whole holidays and computers when unethical PR people are trying to persuade them to cover something.
She believes that most journalists know exactly what's going on but that they have neither the power nor the will to break the code of conduct. "It is important to understand that no one can force journalists to print anything...journalists always have the freedom to choose what they write and publish," she said. Conway tries to stay realistic about his work and the practical pressures surrounding it. He thinks it would be stupid to look at PR people as the journalist's enemy. "PR people have the potential to make a reporter's life so much easier by providing photos, interviews and background material, so why shouldn't I use them?" he asked. "I'm planning to stay a journalist, and I know press offices and PR consultancies play a huge role in my work. I'm starting to get used to the whole thing, and I guess I have to learn how to play them in the same way as they are trying to play me."
Conway further has no intention to stay long term at the Torch . He sees his employment there as a steppingstone in his career as a journalist. "My predecessor worked here for two years, then she was recruited by the Daily Telegraph," he said. "I hope the experience I have gained here will steer me in the direction of one of the metropolitan newspapers as well."
___________________________
Comments to: acijmanager@uts.edu.au
Posted by ACIJ at 10:21 AM February 18, 2005 | Category: Spin Control
