Civility War - My Response in the next posting
Hey Folks -
Maxine, the crusty old cartoon lady with the rapier insights, once said:
"Did you ever notice that the folks who tell you to settle down are the ones who get you stirred up in the first place?"
Well, it happens regularly that rich, powerful, and influential folks are moved to demand "civility" from folks they have been exploiting. Of course, they are oblivious to their own responsibility in the matter.
They suffer from an updated "Social Darwinism" following from which they believe - since they are rich, powerful, and influential - that they are benignly doing God's work (or the Market's) and are illegitimate targets for the people they step upon.
Circumstances have anointed them as dominant, and the least the dominated can do is be civil about it.
I wrote the author of the piece below a letter explaining this in more detail. The letter will be my next posting.
- Uke Man
The Inside Story
Too often, e-mail boils with hatred
Sunday, April 27, 2008
By Benjamin J. Marrison
The e-mails come from around the country. They are faceless, usually nameless and typically without a modicum of civility.
"No wonder your industry is going belly-up," a man wrote recently after finding one of my columns on the Internet. "You are a class of people who have completely lost any sense of duty, morality or decency toward your fellow citizens. Have fun managing that McDonald's, buddy.
You'll at least be working around a better class of people."
I did some research and learned that the e-mail came from a vice president of an association based in Arlington, Va.
I don't know him, and he doesn't know me. Yet he was completely willing to impugn my integrity and hurl insults (I haven't included the most offensive of his comments).
It makes you wonder what kind of e-mail the Rev. Jesse Jackson receives, or what might have gone to Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, John F. Kennedy or Ronald Reagan.
"They would be tarred," said Prabu David, associate professor of communication at Ohio State University, who has studied Internet communication.
The increasing level of hostility and incivility in our discourse is disturbing and, I would argue, counterproductive. Just as few will listen to someone shouting at them, few will reply to people who use venom and vitriol as a substitute for thoughtful, fact-based debate.
If the e-mails and letters we receive are any indication, electronic correspondence is far more vicious than that written by hand and sent through snail mail. While I'm cautious about blaming the Internet, there is danger in the lightning speed of the technology. It seems we all need a "pause-and-reflect" button that holds an e-mail long enough for us to reconsider it. If we had one, it's a good bet that many e-mails would be erased rather than sent.
Letters mailed by readers usually are far more thoughtful and civil. People who take the time to dig out a sheet of paper and an envelope, and pay 41 cents to speak their mind, appear to be more inclined to put some thought into it. Perhaps they have more time to think about their comments. Or maybe some of them, after venting privately on paper and pausing to reflect, consider the harm their words might do.
"The thing about the Internet," David said, "is that there are no checks and balances. It's a free-for-all, and people take advantage of it. It's anonymous. They figure, 'I don't know them and they don't know me, so I can say anything I want.' It's given voice to the people on the fringe and, at the same time, it's led to more vitriol."
Without question, people have many reasons to be angry.
When it comes to the newspaper, they may disagree with our news judgment, the views of our columnists or the opinions expressed on our editorial page.
It's apparent that some of those who write are just angry in general. They are frustrated with government and the economy, with the rising costs of gasoline, bread and a college education for their children. They are worried about their future and their children's future. They can't control most things in life.
We who work in newsrooms share some of those frustrations.
But because of what we do for a living, we expect that any e-mail we send could be made public. We try to anticipate how e-mails might be read in the court of public opinion, and we try to use the same care and discretion in those words as in those we print in The Dispatch.
If everyone believed his e-mails would be read by his parents or employers, or published in the paper -- with names attached -- the discourse might be more thoughtful, civil and beneficial to all.
Benjamin J. Marrison is editor of The Dispatch. You can read his blog at dispatch.com/blogs.
bmarrison@dispatch.com
Maxine, the crusty old cartoon lady with the rapier insights, once said:
"Did you ever notice that the folks who tell you to settle down are the ones who get you stirred up in the first place?"
Well, it happens regularly that rich, powerful, and influential folks are moved to demand "civility" from folks they have been exploiting. Of course, they are oblivious to their own responsibility in the matter.
They suffer from an updated "Social Darwinism" following from which they believe - since they are rich, powerful, and influential - that they are benignly doing God's work (or the Market's) and are illegitimate targets for the people they step upon.
Circumstances have anointed them as dominant, and the least the dominated can do is be civil about it.
I wrote the author of the piece below a letter explaining this in more detail. The letter will be my next posting.
- Uke Man
The Inside Story
Too often, e-mail boils with hatred
Sunday, April 27, 2008
By Benjamin J. Marrison
The e-mails come from around the country. They are faceless, usually nameless and typically without a modicum of civility.
"No wonder your industry is going belly-up," a man wrote recently after finding one of my columns on the Internet. "You are a class of people who have completely lost any sense of duty, morality or decency toward your fellow citizens. Have fun managing that McDonald's, buddy.
You'll at least be working around a better class of people."
I did some research and learned that the e-mail came from a vice president of an association based in Arlington, Va.
I don't know him, and he doesn't know me. Yet he was completely willing to impugn my integrity and hurl insults (I haven't included the most offensive of his comments).
It makes you wonder what kind of e-mail the Rev. Jesse Jackson receives, or what might have gone to Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, John F. Kennedy or Ronald Reagan.
"They would be tarred," said Prabu David, associate professor of communication at Ohio State University, who has studied Internet communication.
The increasing level of hostility and incivility in our discourse is disturbing and, I would argue, counterproductive. Just as few will listen to someone shouting at them, few will reply to people who use venom and vitriol as a substitute for thoughtful, fact-based debate.
If the e-mails and letters we receive are any indication, electronic correspondence is far more vicious than that written by hand and sent through snail mail. While I'm cautious about blaming the Internet, there is danger in the lightning speed of the technology. It seems we all need a "pause-and-reflect" button that holds an e-mail long enough for us to reconsider it. If we had one, it's a good bet that many e-mails would be erased rather than sent.
Letters mailed by readers usually are far more thoughtful and civil. People who take the time to dig out a sheet of paper and an envelope, and pay 41 cents to speak their mind, appear to be more inclined to put some thought into it. Perhaps they have more time to think about their comments. Or maybe some of them, after venting privately on paper and pausing to reflect, consider the harm their words might do.
"The thing about the Internet," David said, "is that there are no checks and balances. It's a free-for-all, and people take advantage of it. It's anonymous. They figure, 'I don't know them and they don't know me, so I can say anything I want.' It's given voice to the people on the fringe and, at the same time, it's led to more vitriol."
Without question, people have many reasons to be angry.
When it comes to the newspaper, they may disagree with our news judgment, the views of our columnists or the opinions expressed on our editorial page.
It's apparent that some of those who write are just angry in general. They are frustrated with government and the economy, with the rising costs of gasoline, bread and a college education for their children. They are worried about their future and their children's future. They can't control most things in life.
We who work in newsrooms share some of those frustrations.
But because of what we do for a living, we expect that any e-mail we send could be made public. We try to anticipate how e-mails might be read in the court of public opinion, and we try to use the same care and discretion in those words as in those we print in The Dispatch.
If everyone believed his e-mails would be read by his parents or employers, or published in the paper -- with names attached -- the discourse might be more thoughtful, civil and beneficial to all.
Benjamin J. Marrison is editor of The Dispatch. You can read his blog at dispatch.com/blogs.
bmarrison@dispatch.com
posted by Ukulele Man at 10:39 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home