“You idiotic leftist, liberal, commie, right-wing fascist nanny moron etc etc etc.....”
Are printed newspapers dying? Even the AVA? Let us hope not, and if so inclined even pray not — for many reasons, not the least being that being “online” seems to dumb down the dialogue. Anybody foolish enough to spend much time reading online comments on any remotely controversial article or news story knows that this is one way to despair of modern humanity. But I learned this the hard way.
Some years back, my local paper asked me if I'd like to be one of their “city brights” bloggers, those being supposedly notable experts in a wide range of fields (it was also a way for them to get unpaid online “copy,” but that's another story). Both flattered and foolish, I said sure, I'll try it — even though two famous and very smart friends of mine had already tried it but quit after one too many angry, anonymous, uninformed comments wore out their patience. When I agreed to “blog,” I was kindly told that I did not have to read or respond to the comments. But of course it’s difficult not to at least look at what readers might write. But I should have taken my pals' experiences as a cautionary.
I recently watched Elia Kazan’s legendary 1950s film “A Face in the Crowd” and was astonished at how prescient it was in predicting the rise of “rabid radio” and the conning of the common crowd by phony “populists” — and at Andy Griffith’s (!) portrayal of an opportunistic blowhard named Rhodes. As Wikipeda notes, “There is also thought that the undue sway of the depiction of Rhodes as a deceptively “folksie” broadcaster widely proliferating radical pernicious political influence foreshadowed the unchecked effect of real-life Rush Limbuagh.”
Of course, mindless yelling at one another is certainly not new, nor is anti-intellectualism, but they do seem to be more ubiquitous nowadays. There is an apt formula explaining this in the internet age, which could be called the AAA Factor: Anonymity + Audience = Asshole. A few other things have amplified the rant and snark factor — a documented decline in educational standards, the rise of rabid radio (and TV) — but the internet's anonymous nature has unleashed a tidal wave of angry idiocy. Until only a decade and a half ago, media such as newspapers would not, with few exceptions, publish anything without an author’s name attached, as anonymous words were considered worthless, and it was too easy to slander anybody that way. Now of course fake usernames are a norm online, and even in print, alas — with resultant steep decline in courtesy and quality of expression. The New York Times' Sunday Magazine has even begun printing words from anonymous readers, alas. But as the now-classic early-internet cartoon had it, online, “nobody knows you’re a dog” (and I certainly don’t mean to insult dogs).
I was reminded of this sad dynamic each time I posted something remotely controversial on my new blog. Beyond the minority of thoughtful, even complimentary comments and courteous criticisms, all manner of anonymous cowards slung all sorts of accusations and curses at me. I could ignore that, but the nonsense they added as 'facts” was often galling. It seems that educated experts can’t be trusted, because…well, just because. Layer on the massive amounts of money and time spent by corporations, other “special interests,” and their front groups aimed at undermining science and informed discussion of various issues, and it’s no wonder many are confused. Ironically or otherwise, the decline in scientific literacy among Americans comes at a time when scientific knowledge is exploding. Some people find this threatening, and thus ignorance may not be bliss, but it sure can be loud.
The blog ended, for more than one reason, but at least in part as I was starting to get “fans” who would comment on anything I wrote with such elevated words like “Neener, neener, neener” (seriously). Such people are known as 'trolls.” They are legion. Many might be frustrated teenagers just out for kicks, but many are not, which is depressing. For whatever reasons, smarter and more mature readers tend to refrain from commenting, unless I'd run into them in person, and get a compliment. I sometimes wanted to ask them why they did not type such things online, but refrained, as they tended to be too smart for that — why take the abuse? I gave up, and soon the blog publihser did was well.
All of which is a (wordy) preamble to my new guidelines for dealing with — or not — comments from cyberspace:
1. Anonymous online critiques not worth the, er, paper they are not printed on. They're just graffiti from cowards. Per the AAA Dynamic, anonymity just seems to make even some decent people nasty. So, if I have something critical to say, I won’t be a coward and will put my real name on it — and expect others to do so as well, if they want to be taken seriously.
2. If I am writing something that purports to reflect expertise on an issue, I will state my credentials — education, experience, etc. Otherwise, If I am compelled to write on something I am not so smart about, I will begin with the new multipurpose disclaimer IKNTNATBHWITIK — “I Know Next To Nothing About This But Here’s What I Think I Know” — which is kinda silly and shameful, but at least honest.
3. If I use terms or slogans or perspectives from a radio or television talk show host or “news” person of any stripe, I will provide that source. It’s only honest, and gives credit (or blame) where it’s due — and smart people will know anyway.
4. If I feel I must use terms like “liberal” or “leftist” or “nanny” or “right wing” or “left wing” or fascist or socialist or….etc, I will recognize in advance that that I am thus “outing” myself as a non-thinking, non-original commenter who just likes to call people names. Like a kid on a playground.
5. If I want to know more about a topic before opining foolishly, I will spend time researching it. Unbiased scientific, historical, and economic information is easily accessed online now — I’ll use it.
6. If I am not so sure about what I am saying, but feel the need to say it anyway, I will use another new multipurpose slogan, coined by a loose-lipped and busted politician — NITBAFS — “Not Intended to Be A Factual Statement.”
Now, I can understand somebody saying, If you can’t take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. But I could take it, even though it could get depressing. It’s just that I hated to see so many (perhaps) otherwise good people making jerks of themselves, just because they could. Such is the glory of the computer age.
Be First to Comment