My understanding of the whipsaw term is that can, according to Wiktionary, be used rhetorically as in these examples:
verb (transitive) To defeat someone in two different ways at once.
2014 November 1, Peter Baker & Michael D. Shear, “Braced for a shift in Congress, Obama is setting a new agenda [print version: Obama plots a route for compromise after election, International New York Times, 3 November 2014, p. 1]”, in The New York Times1:
Whipsawed by events and facing another midterm electoral defeat, President Obama has directed his team to forge a policy agenda to regain momentum for his final two years in office even as some advisers urge that he rethink the way he governs.
Is this correct understanding?
As events can cause whipsaw action might not rhetoric similarly cause a whipsaw as defined above?
(None of the linked articles is exactly on-point, those are just along the lines of the unusual usage.)
Here's an explicit usage of the term "whipsaw" in the media:
When MSNBC host Chris Hayes asked Mr Fauci if he understood why people "might feel a little whipsawed",
"Sure, yeah, it’s thoroughly understandable," he replied. "But there really is a pretty clear explanation of it."
which would generally be where it's most employed.