Spin doctors, the people who try to manage the image of the companies, organisations, politicians or parties, know that their job is to reinforce the image or personality that supporters prefer without completely alienating those who are largely indifferent to either side. Good political spin doctors are not terribly interested in the voters who hate their politician — there is little hope of changing their minds. What they must do is prevent the haters from changing other people’s minds. It’s not an easy job. Clever spin doctors understand that it makes sense to allow a politician to be as true to him or herself as possible and manage the perception of that. For starters, fewer mistakes are likely to happen that way.

Spin, in and of itself, is not necessarily a bad thing — and given the distance most people are from their leaders these days, it is inevitable. Indeed, a version of spin is used in therapy. There it is called positive re-framing, and is used to turn negative thoughts into positive ones. In essence, everything has both a positive and a negative load. “Tony Abbott is a strong, masculine leader who gets things done and is not afraid to make hard decisions” is the Prime Minister’s positive load. “Tony Abbott is a misogynistic bully who rides roughshod over the vulnerable” is his negative load.

That’s why the budget is not necessarily a disaster for Abbott — but I would argue that his winking while on radio is. The budget can be spun as a tough but necessary budget from a brave and decisive leader. Such a positive take on it might not have been successful yet — and it might never be — but it is an arguable and defensible narrative. Presented in this way, it adds to the positive perception of Abbott’s image. It plays to his supporters. No doubt that’s why they took the risk.

The wink, on the other hand, adds only to negative perceptions about Abbott. It plays to his enemies. Worse, it mirrors the anxieties many ordinary voters have about our new PM, which is why it has resonated so powerfully. Abbott is talking to a grandmother on benefits with health issues (the vulnerable — tick). She mentions she supplements her income as a phone sex line worker (misogyny and a stereotypical view of women and sex — tick). Unseen by the caller, obviously, but in full view of a camera, Abbott appears via his wink and other facial expressions to be colluding with the other man in the room to silently belittle and dismiss her criticisms and concerns (riding roughshod — tick). I don’t care if he winked because (as one cartoonist hilariously suggested) a speck of dust flew into his eye, or if in his deepest self he felt nothing but compassion for the woman on the phone. All that matters in today’s political environment — or in any mass media messaging — is does the incident confirm the negative things people already believe about the person, political party, philosophy or brand? And if it does (and this does) it’s a problem.

Worse, Abbott has made gaffes like this about women and their role before, and a mistake like this one allows them all to be dusted off and trotted out once more. In this way it reinforces the negative beliefs we already have about him. Hockey’s cigar works the same way. It confirms voter prejudices about the Liberals being a party of silvertails and privileged fat cats whose real agenda is to serve the big end of town. You could argue that in the context of a tough budget, Hockey’s gaffe is more damaging than Abbott’s.

Some 80% of communication is not what you say, with the words and content of a message comprising only 20% of what is received. The rest is about context, tone, delivery and congruity. We say we don’t “trust” politicians when we feel that what they say and how they say it are at odds. Spin tries to manage that. Just at the moment, Abbott and Hockey’s spin doctors have their work cut out for them.