 |
| Sphinx of Taharqo, The British Museum |
Letters to the editor. That was typically the first section
of Newsweek that I read for the nearly three decades the national publication landed
in my mailbox.
Most of the published letters expressed gratitude: thanks
for addressing a difficult subject; it was refreshing to see an honest look at
both sides; what a great story. Another type was the one that added a new view to
a story. The responses providing an insider’ s account were fascinating. My favorite
letters were those that disagreed with a point made in a piece. The letter
writers respectfully stated why they did not concur and offered supporting
evidence to back their differing views.
I didn’t realize how fortunate I was that the letters that
made it into print had been filtered and presumably verified by an editorial
staff. In retrospect, I recognize that editorial process (and those of other
print publications) significantly contributed to my naïve view that the world
of information was one where a reasoned response to an idea was ordinary. As the
Internet became more prevalent, my serene, editorially-sheltered perception
crumbled. My blood pressure increased. My semi-rosy worldview waivered. In the
Newsweek letters, an alternative opinion was not expressed as if it was a
verbal stage of an extreme sport competition. There were no caustic rebuttals
to mundane notions shot from behind snarky pseudonyms.
The racist, misogynistic, and other hateful twistings in
Internet “letters to the editor” aren’t as much of a surprise as is the volume
of them. I’ve participated in life; I know those opinions are out there. I have
been more taken aback at how quickly a minor point in a story is used to launch
paragraphs of venom-filled spew, sometimes in all capital letters.
And then there’s the confirmation of the adage about
opinions and a body part: everyone has one. (I am unaware of any simple adage
conveying the notion that people are more willing to expose their opinions than
their anal sphincters.) I suspect people are far more willing to share both on
the Internet than in real life. Some of the replies I’ve seen posted to articles are so full
of un-researched, thoughtless, outright incorrect garbage that they may have
actually been abstract images, with syllabary as the medium, of an
orifice constriction. I’m curious to know if editors received fewer poorly
contemplated letters in the days before digital communication.
Not all of what I’ve gleaned from comments in this electronic
sphere without a filtering editorial staff is negative. They have also opened
my brain to a more nuanced understanding that communication is an exceptionally
difficult process.
For example, my trade’s publications (and experiences) made
me aware that sarcasm, puns, and other verbal play will escape and likely annoy
some. By reading the replies posted to articles, I have a better comprehension
of just how broad that pool of “some” really is. There are far more people who comprehend
what they read in a very literal manner than I imagined. Observing the frequency
with which a well-composed sarcastic statement is attacked, because it was
misconstrued by those who support the concept it was attempting to convey, is
educational.
I have also honed skills. Reading comments that reveal the
failure of well-written, simple prose to impart a basic idea or instruction is helpful.
I write some things differently now. It is encouraging and humbling to see the
questions people are willing to publicly ask when they don’t understand
something. It is also frustrating and scary to realize just how difficult it is
for so many to understand what they read.
As much as I enjoyed that naïve world I created as the
result of reading edited opinion pages, I also recognize how deceptive it was. There
are ways of thinking that never crossed my mind. Knowing this is good for my
brain, even it is counterproductive for my blood pressure.
No comments:
Post a Comment