“We cannot use this tragedy as one more occasion to turn on each other.” President Barack Obama at the January 12 service for the Tucson shooting victims VITRIOLIC, derived from vitriol: bitterly scathing; caustic; virulent; corrosive in tone; blistering; capable of destroying or eating away; destructive; harsh.
Vitriol is the word of the week and it is being bandied about freely by both sides of the debate which has become the aftermath of the tragic shooting of Rep.
Gabrielle Giffords, D-Arizona, and 12 others on January 8.
On one side are the people who say or at least infer that the increasingly vitriolic (yes, I’m going to use that word because I think it applies) language used on news talk shows was a possible or probable factor in inciting the shooter to do what he did. On the other side are the people who deny that the language is inflammatory and say that this was a solitary act of an “unbalanced” man that will probably never be understood or explained.
No matter which side of that debate you are on or which part of the political fence you prefer to perch on, an honest look at the language, attitude and inference that has become acceptable in “the news” must have you at least considering the idea that things have taken a serious turn for the worse in our news media during the past 40 years or so.
When I was a little girl and even a young adult, there were several news networks that all presented pretty much the same stories, the goal being to give an accurate report on what was happening in the world. Recent decades, however, brought us FOX news, CNN, MSNBC and a variety of other versions of “the news” – some so reality show-like and ratings oriented that it’s difficult to get at the facts they claim to report. And, with that has come the drama, the attitude, the strong language and most lately, the vitriol.
You don’t have to have the sound on the TV on to see angry faces, disrespectful demeanors, insulting expressions and condescending body language all over certain segments of the news.
It has become acceptable to be not only impolite, but down right vicious, hate-filled and ugly in the context of discussing the news. Not sure you agree? Look no further than the blogger comments in the on-line version of this newspaper.
People, most of them anonymous, say things like, “You must be a real piece of work. I bet your mother isn’t even proud of you. How many teeth do you have?” and “You are worthless scum. If you are going to spew stupidity from your mouth then shut up.”
There’s a level of bigotry and rage that belies the topic at hand. Does anything going on in the county government, a city council meeting or with the airport authority justify the high-pitched emotion some of the bloggers respond with?
I have to say, “No!” It’s just a meeting; get over it or get involved. But don’t think you’re contributing if all you do is sit at your computer typing what you think is clever, sharp-edged commentary – commentary so sharp-edged and clever you won’t even put your name on it. If that’s all you can muster, then you’re part of the problem, not the solution and that applies no matter what your political or social views are.
Something important was lost when we stopped owning our words by pairing them with our names. Something important was lost when words of hate, sarcasm and anger became acceptable as “news” or response to it. And something important was lost when we, as a society, lost respect for the power of words. When did we forget that what we say (or type or blog) actually gets listened to and generates a response?
You would think in the less is more (at least wordwise) world of texting, Twitter, My Space and Facebook that our understanding of the power of each word would have increased, not diminished. We’re so busy constantly saying things that evaluating the value and impact of our message has been lost.
A lot is said these days about patriotism – who’s patriotic? What does patriotic mean? And, if I decide you’re not patriotic enough (by my standards) name calling and vicious language are completely acceptable – indeed, patriotic on my part.
If there’s a point I’m trying to make, it’s that you can’t get much more patriotic than supporting, indeed fighting for, the very American notion that one of the principles our country was founded on is the importance of open, civil discourse and non-violent debate. You can’t get much more American than agreeing to disagree then move forward, in a peaceful, productive, respectful way.
Obviously there will be readers who don’t agree with me; I respect that. All I ask is that if you choose to respond to this opinion piece, put your name on it. I don’t care if you agree with me or if spewing vitriol is what I’ve incited you to do – just own your words and put your name on them. That’s at least a step in a better direction for us all.
Lorin Sinn-Clark is a reporter for the Barrow Journal. She can be reached at lorin@barrowjournal.com.
I'd like for someone to make a formal link between real names and improved discourse. It isn't self-evident if you don't already believe it's true.
I'm genuinely asking here. I'd like to know.
People will be more likely to want to avoid slandering if they know people will know who is doing it.
Also, you will know you mom, grandmother, and friends will know you for who you really are.
But I'm guessing you and others who hold this view aren't talking about people like me. :)
So sign my real name not on your life... you wanna know who I am ... so up in a public place if you have the fortitude to confront, let's dance , if not ...
Like I tell my children dont put ME in a position of having to shoot somebody, because I will PROTECT my family and stuff!
Charlie
Seems like it is mostly by haters, bigots, etc.
(2) Never has there been proof that a "true" name has any impact on the logic or veracity of a posted comment.
(3) It's patently obvious from the type of many comments that the post-ers are, at best uneducated and, at worst, unbalanced with potential violent predilection. Who wants to give a roadmap to these creatures?
(4) Not me.
Someone got your goat, you are mad...what does knowing their name do for you? What? Are you going to hunt them down and beat them up?
lol...
If you put your name to your words, you own them.
If you put your name on your words, you most probably won't say what you were going to say in the first place or you most probably wouldn't be nearly as mean as you can be when you can hide behind anonymous or some other name.
If you put your name to your words, someone will decide you are definitely not the man or woman you profess to be at work, on the front or back pew of church on Sunday or anywhere else.
If you put your name on your words, you will have to proof read what you wrote or look like an idiot.
As I said in the first comment - if you put your name on your words, you own them.
That's why most people don't put their names on because they feel free to spew venom, hate and a lot of other nasty, nasty stuff and then they look just like who they really are down deep inside. Oh my!
DuWayne