Apparently Hunter Biden is in the news again. Recall that this is what happened just before the 2020 election:
Hunter Biden allegedly showed up at a computer repair shop with three water-damaged laptop computers. According to John Paul Mac Isaac, the proprietor of that shop, one of the three computers was beyond repair, one simply needed an external keyboard and one required data recovery. Mac Isaac recovered the data, but no one ever came to pick the machine up. Eventually the data from the computer made its way to Rudolph W. Giuliani, Donald Trump’s personal attorney. It was Giuliani that gave it to the Post.
The data incriminated Hunter Biden. The New York Post ran with the story of Hunter Biden’s “corruption”:
To the frustration of many Republicans, the story was so suspicious that reputable news sources shied away from it, particularly after the soul-searching some journalists did after running with the story about the DNC hacked emails in 2016. Reputable media sources didn’t want to get played again by a foreign government trying to influence our elections.
Now right-wing media is again elevating the Hunter Biden story. Adam Davidson, a writer for the New Yorker, explained that he looked closely at the story, concluded there was nothing there, and commented on the fact that more effort is being spent now on the Hunter Biden “scandal” than on the actual work Trump did for an enemy of the US:
We know why though, right? It’s the “but her emails” thing — an attempt to create a false equivalence. It’s pushed by cynics who want to say “everyone cheats so our team’s cheater (Trump) isn’t any worse than your team’s cheater,” and picked up by misguided (or complicit) journalists.
Whataboutism was a Soviet propaganda technique. (I read up on this while researching my upcoming book on disinformation.) When a Western diplomat talked about how Soviet labor camps were an abomination and human rights disaster, Stalin replied, “What about lynchings in the American South?”
An American calls a Soviet radio station and asks, ‘Can an ordinary Soviet citizen afford to buy a car?’ The radio station host says, “What about lynchings in the American South?”
“Whataboutism,” short-circuits a discussion, deflects blame, and throws people off balance.
The thing about propaganda techniques is that they work. It’s super easy to say, “What about Hunter Biden?” It takes a lot of work to refute the point and explain that it’s a false equivalence. When you have to talk that much to explain, you lose the propaganda war.
Analogy: Someone on social media throws out what I call a rage-inducing simplification, which is very easy to do. Showing that it’s a simplification (not really true) is difficult and time-consuming.
Whataboutism has been common in Putin’s Russia. To take one example (of thousands) in 2014, noting that when the Kremlin faced criticisms of its treatment of protesters, Russian government officials responded, “What about the United Kingdom? Breaking the law during public gatherings there could lead to a fine of 5,800 pounds sterling there or even prison.”
I explained the “whataboutism” technique to a friend, and the light bulb came on for her. She told me about a recent company meeting. Someone threw a “whatabout” at her, and she was genuinely flummoxed. It’s very difficult to respond.
It seems to me that the best response is to say, “Are you aware you’re using a well-known propaganda technique that was developed and perfected in the Soviet Union?” Like this:
Person: “But what about Hunter Biden?”
You: “Are you aware you are using a well-known propaganda technique that was developed and perfected in the Soviet Union?”
Now you’ve changed the subject from Hunter Biden to propaganda techniques, which is a much more productive conversation.
* * *
From a follower on Twitter:
