https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
Whataboutism is a propaganda technique formerly used by the Soviet Union in its dealings with the Western world, and subsequently used as a form of propaganda in post-Soviet Russia.[1][2][3] When criticisms were leveled at the Soviet Union, the Soviet response would be "What about..." followed by an event in the Western world.[4][5][6] It is a case of tu quoque (appeal to hypocrisy), a logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument.[7][8][9]
During the Cold War, Western officials dubbed the Soviet propaganda strategy "whataboutism".[4][10][11] The tactic saw a resurgence in post-Soviet Russia, relating to human rights violations committed by, and criticisms of, the Russian government.[4][12][13] The technique received new attention during Russia's 2014 annexation of Crimea and military intervention in Ukraine.[14][15] Usage of the tactic extended to Russian President Vladimir Putin and his spokesman, Dmitry Peskov.[16][17][18] National Public Radio, USA Today, and Foreign Policy have noted similarities between the tactic's usage by the Soviet Union and Donald Trump.[1][19][20]
The Guardian deemed whataboutism, as used in Russia, "practically a national ideology".[21] Journalist Julia Ioffe wrote that "Anyone who has ever studied the Soviet Union" was aware of the technique, citing the Soviet rejoinder to criticism, And you are lynching Negroes, as a "classic" example of the tactic.[22] Writing for Bloomberg News, Leonid Bershidsky called whataboutism a "Russian tradition",[23] while The New Yorker described the technique as "a strategy of false moral equivalences".[24] Jill Dougherty called whataboutism a "sacred Russian tactic",[25][26] and compared it to The pot calling the kettle black.[11]
Methods
When criticisms were leveled at the Soviet Union during the Cold War, the response would be "What about..." followed by the naming of an event in the West.[4][5][6] It represents a case of tu quoque — an appeal to hypocrisy.[7][8][9] The tactic is a type of logical fallacy that attempts to discredit the opponent's position by accusing hypocrisy.[27][28][29] It functions as a diversionary tactic to distract the opponent from their original criticism.[30][31][32] Thus, the technique is used to avoid directly refuting or disproving the opponent's initial argument.[33][34][35] The tactic is an attempt at moral relativism,[2][36][6] and a form of false moral equivalence.[24][37][38]
The Economist recommended two methods of properly countering whataboutism: to "use points made by Russian leaders themselves" so that they cannot be applied to the West, and for Western nations to engage in more self-criticism of their own media and government.[4] Euromaidan Press discussed the strategy in a feature on whataboutism, the second in a three-part educational series on Russian propaganda.[39][40] The series described whataboutism as an intentional distraction away from serious criticism of Russia.[39][40] The piece advised subjects of whataboutism to resist emotional manipulation and the temptation to respond.[39][40]
During the Cold War, Western officials responding to Soviet propaganda's usage of the tactic referred to it as "whataboutism."[4][10][11] Due to its frequent use by Soviet officials, the term emerged during the Soviet era.[41][42][43] The technique became increasingly prevalent in Soviet public relations, until it became a habitual practice by the government.[44][45] Soviet media employing whataboutism, hoping to tarnish the reputation of the U.S., did so at the expense of journalistic neutrality.[46] Soviet officials made increased use of the tactic during the latter portion of the 1940s, aiming to distract attention from criticism of the Soviet Union.[47]
One of the earliest uses of the technique was in 1947, after William Averell Harriman criticized "Soviet imperialism" in a speech.[48] Ilya Ehrenburg's response in Pravda criticized the United States' laws and policies on race and minorities, writing that the Soviet Union deemed them "insulting to human dignity" but did not use them as a pretext for war.[48] Whataboutism saw greater usage in Soviet public relations during the Cold War.[49][50][51]
Throughout the Cold War, the tactic was primarily utilized by media figures speaking on behalf of the Soviet Union.[52][53][54] By accusing critics of hypocrisy, the Soviet Union hoped to deflect attention away from the original criticism itself.[55] The term whataboutism was known locally the Soviet Union as a way to draw attention from criticism of Moscow.[56] As the tactic became ubiquitous in the Soviet Union, whataboutism became known as a Soviet cliché.[57] At the end of the Cold War, alongside U.S. civil rights reforms, the tactic began dying out.[58]
Resurgence in post-Soviet Russia
The tactic saw a resurgence in post-Soviet Russia in relation to human rights violations committed by, and other criticisms of, the Russian government.[4][12][13] Whataboutism became a favorite tactic of the Kremlin.[59][60] Russian public relations strategies combined whataboutism with other Soviet tactics, including disinformation and active measures.[61][62][63] Whataboutism is used as Russian propaganda with the goal of obfuscating criticism of the Russian state,[64] and to degrade the level of discourse from rational criticism of Russia to petty bickering.[65] Russian leaders adopted the Soviet-era practice of whataboutism, choosing to avoid internal reflection of external criticism in favor of emphasizing other states' wrongdoings.[66] In addition to whataboutism, Russian leaders asserted that their actions had been the result of Western provocation, and attempted to distort the veracity of media coverage.[67]
Although the use of whataboutism was not restricted to any particular race or belief system, according to The Economist, Russians often overused the tactic.[4] The Russian government's use of whataboutism grew under the leadership of Vladimir Putin,[68][69] who, according to Jake Sullivan of Foreign Policy, "is an especially skillful practitioner" of the technique.[20] Business Insider echoed this assessment, writing that "Putin's near-default response to criticism of how he runs Russia is whataboutism".[70] Edward Lucas of The Economist observed the tactic in modern Russian politics, and cited it as evidence of the Russian leadership's return to a Soviet-era mentality.[4]
In July 2012, RIA Novosti columnist Konstantin von Eggert wrote an article about the use of whataboutism in relation to Russian and American support for different states in the Middle East.[71] Writer Miriam Elder commented in The Guardian that Putin's spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, used the tactic; she added that most criticisms of human rights violations had gone unanswered. Peskov responded to Elder's article on the difficulty of dry-cleaning in Moscow by mentioning Russians' difficulty obtaining a visa to the United Kingdom.[16] Peskov used the whataboutism tactic the same year in a letter written to the Financial Times.[17]
Increased use after Russian annexation of Crimea
The tactic received new attention during Russia's 2014 annexation of Crimea and military intervention in Ukraine.[14][15][40] Neil Buckley wrote for the Financial Times, "As several former Soviet republics drift back towards authoritarian ways, whataboutism is making a comeback."[17] Jill Dougherty noted in 2014 that the tactic is a "a time-worn propaganda technique used by the Soviet government" which sees further use in Russian propaganda, including Russia Today.[72][73] The assessment that Russia Today engages in whataboutism was echoed by the Financial Times and Bloomberg News.[74] The tactic was also employed by Azerbaijan, which responded to criticism of its human rights record by holding parliamentary hearings on issues in the United States.[75] Simultaneously, pro-Azerbaijan Internet trolls used whataboutism to draw attention away from criticism of the country.[76] Similarly, Turkey engaged in whataboutism by publishing an official document listing criticisms of other governments that had criticized Turkey.[77] The Washington Post observed in 2016 that media outlets of Russia had become "famous" for their use of whataboutism.[78] Use of the technique had a negative impact on Russia–United States relations during the U.S. President Barack Obama's second term.[79] The Wall Street Journal noted that Putin himself used the tactic in a 2017 interview with NBC News journalist Megyn Kelly.[18]
U.S. President Donald Trump has been accused of employing whataboutism in response to criticism leveled at him, his policies, or his support of controversial world leaders.[80][81][82] During the 2016 presidential election, Trump was accused of using the technique to defend his support of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who has been accused of human rights violations. When The New York Times asked about Erdoğan's treatment of journalists, teachers, and dissidents, Trump replied, "When the world looks at how bad the United States is, and then we go and talk about civil liberties, I don't think we're a very good messenger."[83]
When criticized or asked to defend his behavior, Trump has frequently changed the subject by criticizing Hillary Clinton, the Obama Administration,[81] and the Affordable Care Act.[1] When asked about Russian human rights violations, Trump has shifted focus to the U.S. itself,[80][20] employing whataboutism tactics similar to those used by Russian President Vladimir Putin.[19][82]
After Fox News host Bill O'Reilly and MSNBC host Joe Scarborough called Putin a killer, Trump responded by saying that the U.S. government was also guilty of killing people.[20][84][85] U.S. Senator Marco Rubio also criticized Trump for his use of the technique.[86] Gary Kasparov commented to Columbia Journalism Review on Trump's use of whataboutism: "Moral relativism, 'whataboutism,' has always been a favorite weapon of illiberal regimes. For a US president to employ it against his own country is tragic. Trump repeating Putin’s words—and nearly Stalin’s—by calling the press the enemy of the people, has repercussions around the world."[36] In addition to Trump, other Republicans, including Dana Rohrabacher, have utilized whataboutism in response to criticism of Russia.[87]
Whataboutism is a propaganda technique formerly used by the Soviet Union in its dealings with the Western world, and subsequently used as a form of propaganda in post-Soviet Russia.[1][2][3] When criticisms were leveled at the Soviet Union, the Soviet response would be "What about..." followed by an event in the Western world.[4][5][6] It is a case of tu quoque (appeal to hypocrisy), a logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument.[7][8][9]
During the Cold War, Western officials dubbed the Soviet propaganda strategy "whataboutism".[4][10][11] The tactic saw a resurgence in post-Soviet Russia, relating to human rights violations committed by, and criticisms of, the Russian government.[4][12][13] The technique received new attention during Russia's 2014 annexation of Crimea and military intervention in Ukraine.[14][15] Usage of the tactic extended to Russian President Vladimir Putin and his spokesman, Dmitry Peskov.[16][17][18] National Public Radio, USA Today, and Foreign Policy have noted similarities between the tactic's usage by the Soviet Union and Donald Trump.[1][19][20]
The Guardian deemed whataboutism, as used in Russia, "practically a national ideology".[21] Journalist Julia Ioffe wrote that "Anyone who has ever studied the Soviet Union" was aware of the technique, citing the Soviet rejoinder to criticism, And you are lynching Negroes, as a "classic" example of the tactic.[22] Writing for Bloomberg News, Leonid Bershidsky called whataboutism a "Russian tradition",[23] while The New Yorker described the technique as "a strategy of false moral equivalences".[24] Jill Dougherty called whataboutism a "sacred Russian tactic",[25][26] and compared it to The pot calling the kettle black.[11]
Methods
When criticisms were leveled at the Soviet Union during the Cold War, the response would be "What about..." followed by the naming of an event in the West.[4][5][6] It represents a case of tu quoque — an appeal to hypocrisy.[7][8][9] The tactic is a type of logical fallacy that attempts to discredit the opponent's position by accusing hypocrisy.[27][28][29] It functions as a diversionary tactic to distract the opponent from their original criticism.[30][31][32] Thus, the technique is used to avoid directly refuting or disproving the opponent's initial argument.[33][34][35] The tactic is an attempt at moral relativism,[2][36][6] and a form of false moral equivalence.[24][37][38]
The Economist recommended two methods of properly countering whataboutism: to "use points made by Russian leaders themselves" so that they cannot be applied to the West, and for Western nations to engage in more self-criticism of their own media and government.[4] Euromaidan Press discussed the strategy in a feature on whataboutism, the second in a three-part educational series on Russian propaganda.[39][40] The series described whataboutism as an intentional distraction away from serious criticism of Russia.[39][40] The piece advised subjects of whataboutism to resist emotional manipulation and the temptation to respond.[39][40]
During the Cold War, Western officials responding to Soviet propaganda's usage of the tactic referred to it as "whataboutism."[4][10][11] Due to its frequent use by Soviet officials, the term emerged during the Soviet era.[41][42][43] The technique became increasingly prevalent in Soviet public relations, until it became a habitual practice by the government.[44][45] Soviet media employing whataboutism, hoping to tarnish the reputation of the U.S., did so at the expense of journalistic neutrality.[46] Soviet officials made increased use of the tactic during the latter portion of the 1940s, aiming to distract attention from criticism of the Soviet Union.[47]
One of the earliest uses of the technique was in 1947, after William Averell Harriman criticized "Soviet imperialism" in a speech.[48] Ilya Ehrenburg's response in Pravda criticized the United States' laws and policies on race and minorities, writing that the Soviet Union deemed them "insulting to human dignity" but did not use them as a pretext for war.[48] Whataboutism saw greater usage in Soviet public relations during the Cold War.[49][50][51]
Throughout the Cold War, the tactic was primarily utilized by media figures speaking on behalf of the Soviet Union.[52][53][54] By accusing critics of hypocrisy, the Soviet Union hoped to deflect attention away from the original criticism itself.[55] The term whataboutism was known locally the Soviet Union as a way to draw attention from criticism of Moscow.[56] As the tactic became ubiquitous in the Soviet Union, whataboutism became known as a Soviet cliché.[57] At the end of the Cold War, alongside U.S. civil rights reforms, the tactic began dying out.[58]
Resurgence in post-Soviet Russia
The tactic saw a resurgence in post-Soviet Russia in relation to human rights violations committed by, and other criticisms of, the Russian government.[4][12][13] Whataboutism became a favorite tactic of the Kremlin.[59][60] Russian public relations strategies combined whataboutism with other Soviet tactics, including disinformation and active measures.[61][62][63] Whataboutism is used as Russian propaganda with the goal of obfuscating criticism of the Russian state,[64] and to degrade the level of discourse from rational criticism of Russia to petty bickering.[65] Russian leaders adopted the Soviet-era practice of whataboutism, choosing to avoid internal reflection of external criticism in favor of emphasizing other states' wrongdoings.[66] In addition to whataboutism, Russian leaders asserted that their actions had been the result of Western provocation, and attempted to distort the veracity of media coverage.[67]
Although the use of whataboutism was not restricted to any particular race or belief system, according to The Economist, Russians often overused the tactic.[4] The Russian government's use of whataboutism grew under the leadership of Vladimir Putin,[68][69] who, according to Jake Sullivan of Foreign Policy, "is an especially skillful practitioner" of the technique.[20] Business Insider echoed this assessment, writing that "Putin's near-default response to criticism of how he runs Russia is whataboutism".[70] Edward Lucas of The Economist observed the tactic in modern Russian politics, and cited it as evidence of the Russian leadership's return to a Soviet-era mentality.[4]
In July 2012, RIA Novosti columnist Konstantin von Eggert wrote an article about the use of whataboutism in relation to Russian and American support for different states in the Middle East.[71] Writer Miriam Elder commented in The Guardian that Putin's spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, used the tactic; she added that most criticisms of human rights violations had gone unanswered. Peskov responded to Elder's article on the difficulty of dry-cleaning in Moscow by mentioning Russians' difficulty obtaining a visa to the United Kingdom.[16] Peskov used the whataboutism tactic the same year in a letter written to the Financial Times.[17]
Increased use after Russian annexation of Crimea
The tactic received new attention during Russia's 2014 annexation of Crimea and military intervention in Ukraine.[14][15][40] Neil Buckley wrote for the Financial Times, "As several former Soviet republics drift back towards authoritarian ways, whataboutism is making a comeback."[17] Jill Dougherty noted in 2014 that the tactic is a "a time-worn propaganda technique used by the Soviet government" which sees further use in Russian propaganda, including Russia Today.[72][73] The assessment that Russia Today engages in whataboutism was echoed by the Financial Times and Bloomberg News.[74] The tactic was also employed by Azerbaijan, which responded to criticism of its human rights record by holding parliamentary hearings on issues in the United States.[75] Simultaneously, pro-Azerbaijan Internet trolls used whataboutism to draw attention away from criticism of the country.[76] Similarly, Turkey engaged in whataboutism by publishing an official document listing criticisms of other governments that had criticized Turkey.[77] The Washington Post observed in 2016 that media outlets of Russia had become "famous" for their use of whataboutism.[78] Use of the technique had a negative impact on Russia–United States relations during the U.S. President Barack Obama's second term.[79] The Wall Street Journal noted that Putin himself used the tactic in a 2017 interview with NBC News journalist Megyn Kelly.[18]
U.S. President Donald Trump has been accused of employing whataboutism in response to criticism leveled at him, his policies, or his support of controversial world leaders.[80][81][82] During the 2016 presidential election, Trump was accused of using the technique to defend his support of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who has been accused of human rights violations. When The New York Times asked about Erdoğan's treatment of journalists, teachers, and dissidents, Trump replied, "When the world looks at how bad the United States is, and then we go and talk about civil liberties, I don't think we're a very good messenger."[83]
When criticized or asked to defend his behavior, Trump has frequently changed the subject by criticizing Hillary Clinton, the Obama Administration,[81] and the Affordable Care Act.[1] When asked about Russian human rights violations, Trump has shifted focus to the U.S. itself,[80][20] employing whataboutism tactics similar to those used by Russian President Vladimir Putin.[19][82]
After Fox News host Bill O'Reilly and MSNBC host Joe Scarborough called Putin a killer, Trump responded by saying that the U.S. government was also guilty of killing people.[20][84][85] U.S. Senator Marco Rubio also criticized Trump for his use of the technique.[86] Gary Kasparov commented to Columbia Journalism Review on Trump's use of whataboutism: "Moral relativism, 'whataboutism,' has always been a favorite weapon of illiberal regimes. For a US president to employ it against his own country is tragic. Trump repeating Putin’s words—and nearly Stalin’s—by calling the press the enemy of the people, has repercussions around the world."[36] In addition to Trump, other Republicans, including Dana Rohrabacher, have utilized whataboutism in response to criticism of Russia.[87]
