Whataboutism #3

It's really a sneaky way to tell someone to 'ignore related recent history'.

It's entered our political lexicon, and you and I are talking about it, so I think it's gained word-status. It's a brand new concept which describes a real problem, but it has already been rhetorically abused beyond belief (much like the concept of "fake news," which instantly became right-wing shorthand for describing legitimate news outlets). That is what this set of memes is about.

The basic formula is this: "Let's debate X." "Well, what about Y..." It's a way of changing the subject rather than answering, and it sets up false equivalencies.

The classic example is Putin being asked about Russian human rights abuses, and responding with, "Well, what about the United States, they did XYZ..."

SOMETIMES, HOWEVER -- the whataboutism is warranted. Like when someone tells me I am being disrespectful for mocking Trump's hair, and I respond with, "Well what about Trump himself, he routinely denigrates the disabled/Mexicans/liberals/veterans/political opponents/what-have-you."

If the topic you are redirecting the focus toward is really more serious and noteworthy, then it's a legitimate rhetorical move. imgflip.com/i/3idgag But, if you're going from a serious topic to a frivolous one, then it's a whataboutism.

'Whataboutism' is slang -- and the main utility/purpose in its creation, has been to shut-down a conversation or a debate, and give 'justification' for the user of the word to be apathetic and ignore the specific content of what's being said -- relegating it to 'whataboutsim'.
And btw, 'fake news' is absolutely a real thing, although it used to be called propaganda or yellow journalism. 'Fake news' is not just totally or partly erroneous news; there are specific purposes to the distortions. It HAS an intentional goal. The perpetrators of it are experts, having practiced and perfecting it for decades, and they are able to snag some otherwise intelligent persons. It's a slick song and dance show. Some of your statements above show that it's a real thing, and that you unfortunately fell victim to its clever twisting. Someday, you may see it (as well as see the grave danger in the intentions of leftist political entities).

Virtually all successful media outlets -- not just the liberal ones, by any means -- have perfected the art of capturing attention and preying on our emotions. It's a problem. No news source is perfect. But some are a whole lot better and reliable than others. This is an important topic, since the facts we are fed literally inform our worldview.

I don't get my news primarily from television. I read The Economist, the New York Times, and the Atlantic (all of which I subscribe to), as well as various other online sources on an as-needed basis when I Google.

I would submit that mine is a healthier, more balanced, and more reality-based media diet than the people who sit in front of Fox News television all day.

I don't know where you get most of your news from -- if it's Breitbart, conservative talk radio, Fox News, the Gateway Pundit, or what -- but all of those sources have their own problems.

By definition, you cannot get current events from a relatively neutral unbiased source like an encyclopedia or history book. Those take time to research and publish. But it's important to stay abrest of current events too. You just have to be a conscientious media consumer.

It is correct that ALL of the TV news outlets have these slick graphics, production techniques, and basically have 'actors' or performers presenting the 'news'... And that they are presenting exactly what the upper management or owners want them to present (and, importantly, ignoring items or topics that do not serve the interests/desires of the owners/management)... For instance, I think almost all of them (Fox, MSNBCNN) have the deceptive 'breaking news' banner, even when it's something that's not breaking at all... They ARE businesses trying to make money, but instead of trying to draw all audiences, they've morphed into catering to certain audiences (who they're able to get to be obsessive viewers it seems). For example, the whole phony 'Russian collusion' fiasco was used by them as a continuous audience draw... Moreover most of the news is actually opinion, disguised as news.

Also, I think the targeting of specific audiences, is to help divide the Public. IF all people were to realize that there clearly seem to be subversive forces WANTING division, it would be helpful.