There are various definitions of The Streisand Effect - you can google it. Basically, the idea is that by trying to stop some little-known problem from getting attention, the offended person instead inadvertently gives publicity to something better left alone, and thereby achieves the opposite of their goal. The name comes from Barbra Streisand's attempts to stop an obscure California state coastal study database from posting pictures of her home online. Her lawsuit brought international interest to a matter previously unknown to the media or public - the exact opposite of the result she sought.
Now enter Tom Abinanti.
Who knew that Abinanti has an instagram account? That's impressively youthful for the seventy-five year old politician (did you know that only 2.1% of IG users are 65yo+?).
Abinanti posted on his IG account on May 4th to mark "Assembly Disabilities Awareness Day."
On June 15 at 2pm (possibly 2:01pm), a comment from "Liv_Hagen" appeared on Abinanit's IG page responding to Abinanti's May 4th post.
At 2:47pm that day, Harry Brussel posted on his personal Facebook page a screenshot of Abinanti's May 4th IG post with the Liv Hagen comment:
This screen shot was appended to Brussel's thoughts: "This is abominable. Suriviors are consistently gaslit and condescended to by elected officials. Tom Abinanti’s conduct is inexcusable. It makes me sick to my stomach reading this comment on his post. If you live in the 92nd Assembly District, please do not vote for him - anyone exhibiting this kind of behavior has no place in public office. Edit: as per the request of an individual named for context in the original post, I have redacted their name."
That afternoon (6/15), Harry Brussel shared his Facebook post with his own comment and the screenshot on Westchester County District Leaders Facebook (4:34pm) and the Rivertowns Vote Facebook (5:39pm).
On June 16th, a more complete version, of the "Liv Hagen" IG comment appeared on Medium under the name Liz Bespolka (Liv_Hagen was an IG alias).
Brussel has stated that he is a friend of Bespolka. He is a college student, is very involved in Democratic Party politics, and has volunteered for campaigns, including volunteering for Mary Jane Shimsky in her current campaign against Abinanti. Brussel denies that his posting Bespolka's IG comment on Facebook was in anyway coordinated with the Shimsky campaign.
To state that Bespolka's comment on FB and Medium has garnered wide attention would be a gross exaggeration.
As of Saturday night (6/18), Bespolka's Mediium letter had drawn 8 "claps." I cannot identify these clappers. Also as of Saturday night, Brussel's initial post on his personal FB page and the three page shares I can identify (including two by Brussel) have drawn, cumulatively:
1. "Reactions" (you know, the FB emojis) from 17 individuals
2. Comments from 16 individuals, among whom 6 are pro-Abinanti (including Abinanti) and 10 who are anti-Abinanti (it's not explicitly clear who among them is "pro-Shimsky"), including Brussel explaining himself against insinuations that he was posting Bespolka's statements on Facebook in coordination with Shimsky's campaign.
Most of the 33 people engaged with Brussel's post on Facebook are well-known as local Democratic Party activists and/or insiders.
For context, let's remember that there are 46,974 registered Democrats in the 92nd Assembly District. Probably more than 10,000 will actually vote in this primary in 10 days. Let's be blunt: as of Saturday afternoon, attention to Bespolka's IG comment and Medium letter had not expanded beyond the insular, hot-house, high-strung world of Mount Pleasant and Greenburgh Democratic Party political obsessives.
I was not planning to write about Bespolka's accusations because, while I may be sympathetic to what they have endured, the claim is unverified by others and had not left the walls of the party insiders' bubble. No one in the local media was touching this matter.
But then Tom Abinanti gave us his most stirring Barbra Streisand imitation.
Incredibly, Abinanti decided to make this obscure matter as public as possible. Late Saturday morning, Abinanti released a one minute fifteen second video asserting that Bespolka had made a "false allegation" against him. Ok, fine Tom, defend your reputation, and call Bespolka a liar too. But instead of stopping there and claiming mission accomplished, Abinanti went far beyond reputation restoration to then insinuate that Shimsky's supporters (and implicitly Shimsky herself) had exploited Bespolka's statements "as political fodder in an underhanded sneaky last minute viral campaign" against him.
By accusing Shimsky of dirty tricks and claiming the mantle of victimhood for himself, Abinanti explicitly and dramatically politicized Bespolka's statements, He has almost certainly compelled Shimsky's team - and perhaps Bespolka too - to defend themselves and, thereby, bring yet more attention to... Bespolka's claims.
This video has been disseminated by Abinanti and his team - far beyond the 33 previously engaged individuals- via mass emails, and then via several Facebook posts. And Abinanti's messengers have taken his accusations further, making explicit what Abinanti left implicit, by calling out individual Shimsky supporters and deriding the entire episode as a political dirty trick.
And herein readers lies the Streisandian paradox: Abinanti and his loyalists on social media allege that not only did Bespolka make false accusations against Abinanti, but that Shimsky is the offensive party for cynically amplifying Bespolka's statements for selfish political gain. Yet, by making this argument, repeatedly and loudly, Abinanti and his team are far more effectively amplifying the accusations against Abinanti than anything Shimsky’s team purportedly has done.
No comments:
Post a Comment