How Journalists Miss the Mark: A Reflection on Communication

self insemination kit

I had read extensively about training my new puppy, Bella, but nothing seemed effective. Bella was anxious and distressed, and after weeks of using the bathtub as her makeshift toilet (smart little pup!), I was overjoyed when she finally led me to a grassy spot in the park for some relief. What I didn’t realize was that pet urine can harm the soil and damage plants, and that many people dislike seeing their gardens trampled by dogs. I learned this the hard way when a man, clearly frustrated, confronted me as I stood in the park.

“Are you serious? Get your dog out of there! You know you can’t be in this area!” he exclaimed, his tone harsh and accusatory. (This was my first introduction to the term “green space.”)

This kind of interaction is all too common: instead of conveying a message, individuals often leap straight to reprimands. The man assumed I was aware of the harm being done and was deliberately disregarding it, akin to a rebellious child. But he was mistaken. His aggressive tone diminished the impact of his message—rather than feeling remorseful, I found myself wanting to retaliate.

People frequently fall into this trap. They bypass the teaching moment and head straight for the chastisement. They accumulate past grievances and project their frustrations onto new encounters, treating each person as if they were the same obstinate individual from before. However, no real lesson is imparted; instead, the only takeaway is anger. The recipient of the outburst knows they’re at fault but lacks the context to understand why, making them feel bullied for their ignorance.

After enduring several minutes of his tirade, I finally processed the situation and said, “So, you’re one of those people.”

“What do you mean by ‘those people’?” he demanded, approaching me with irritation.

“The ones who make the world smaller with their anger rather than larger through dialogue.”

“Just shut up,” he retorted.

“Exactly,” I replied, walking away, feeling a mix of pride and adrenaline.

This unprocessed anger seems to permeate everything, especially online, where it often emerges in comment sections. Lately, I’ve noticed this aggressive tone creeping into articles themselves. Perhaps it’s always been present, and I’m just now picking up on it. Instead of enlightening readers, some writers resort to scolding them, as though they expect their audience to already have knowledge that they are seeking by reading the article. The moralizing is becoming more pronounced and harder to overlook.

I understand the frustration—it’s maddening that, in 2014, we still battle for rights that should be inherent. Daily, people face oppression for simply existing as non-white or non-male. The tragic reality is that violence and ignorance often stem from fear. Those who understand a better way have typically been taught, and it becomes their responsibility to educate others, even when it feels offensive that not everyone shares the same views.

Sanctimony does not foster change; it breeds hostility. Scolding readers and filling articles with accusatory language won’t solve anything. It’s an easy, unsophisticated method that merely highlights the writer’s inability to engage authentically with their audience. Such hostility creates a chasm, and when a journalist prioritizes tone over content, it leaves readers feeling alienated from both the writer and the publication. Journalists miss countless opportunities to inspire change by opting to vent rather than educate.

Anger is often non-productive; it can seem like action, yet it’s ultimately passive and destructive. When I encounter articles laden with combative rhetoric, I sense that the writer is merely projecting their frustrations onto the world instead of offering solutions. This approach exacerbates the very issues they are angered by, perpetuating a cycle of silence and shame. It discourages meaningful discourse and reinforces the idea that sensitive topics should remain unspoken. Articles steeped in unresolved rage not only harm society but also contribute to mental health challenges.

Trolling often arises when writers deploy raw emotion rather than thoughtful analysis to express their feelings. A growing number of online writers seem to lean on this tactic to alleviate their burdens, but anger can be isolating. Who wants to collaborate with someone perpetually in fight mode? Sharing knowledge fosters connection, while solitary anger breeds loneliness. One individual protesting on the street may be dismissed; a collective movement garners attention.

In a world where communication matters, let’s strive for understanding over condemnation. If you’re curious about topics related to home insemination, check out this excellent resource for insights on pregnancy. For more information on at-home insemination kits, visit Make a Mom. And for those interested in learning more about the process, this blog post offers valuable information.

In summary, the way we communicate can either bridge gaps or widen divides. By choosing to educate rather than scold, we can create a more informed and compassionate society.