I was well-versed in the ins and outs of house-training, but nothing seemed to stick. My pup, Bella, was anxious and uneasy, and after weeks of using the bathtub as her makeshift toilet (resourceful and clever!), I felt a wave of relief when she finally led me to a tree pit along the bustling streets of NYC to relieve herself outside. What I didn’t realize was that dog urine can be harmful to soil, damaging plants and flowers. People generally don’t appreciate it when dogs, along with their owners, trample over their greenery to pollute the earth. I learned this lesson the hard way when a man exiting his brownstone stopped on his stoop and unleashed a tirade against me.
“Are you kidding me? Get out of there! You know you can’t be in there. Get your dog out of that tree pit, you jerk.” (This was also my introduction to the term “tree pit.”)
This kind of reaction happens all too frequently: instead of conveying a message, people leap straight to punishment, bypassing the opportunity to teach. The man’s choice of words suggested he assumed I was aware of the rules regarding tree pits and was deliberately disregarding them, akin to a rebellious teenager. He was mistaken. His aggressive tone only fueled my indignation—I felt like leaving a bag of flaming dog poop on his doorstep.
People often respond this way. They skip the lesson and head straight to anger, counting the number of times they’ve confronted others before, as if every new encounter is with someone who refuses to learn. But the important lesson is overshadowed by rage. The person being yelled at might understand they are in the wrong but is left confused about how or why. This creates a cycle of hostility without enlightenment.
After several minutes of berating, the shock wore off, and I finally grasped that we were indeed not allowed in the tree pit. I looked at him and said, “Oh, you’re one of those people.”
“Excuse me? Who are those people?” he replied, advancing toward me, clearly irate.
“The ones who shrink the world with their anger instead of expanding it through conversation.”
“Shut up.”
“Exactly,” I shot back, walking away, proud yet shaken from the encounter.
This unprocessed rage seems to be everywhere, especially online, where it often manifests in comment sections. Lately, I’ve observed it creeping into articles themselves. Maybe it’s always been there, and I’m just now recognizing it. Instead of enlightening readers, some writers scold and condescend, assuming their audience already knows the information they are seeking (which is precisely why they’re reading). The moralizing has grown louder and harder to ignore.
I understand the frustration. In 2014, it’s disheartening to still be fighting for rights that should be inherent. People face oppression daily for simply being non-white or non-male. The violent realities of our world often stem from fear and ignorance. Some individuals know better because they have been educated. It’s up to those who understand to teach those who don’t, even if we find it appalling that not everyone shares the same values. At one point, we were all unaware, and while we may not have acted violently in our ignorance, it’s essential to recognize that someone had to guide us toward understanding right from wrong.
Sanctimonious attitudes do not foster change or empowerment. They breed hostility. Scolding readers and filling your writing with accusatory rhetoric won’t create progress; it merely highlights the writer’s inability to connect genuinely with others. Hostility breeds distance. When a journalist’s focus shifts from topic to tone, readers are left cringing at the writer’s self-righteousness, leading to negative associations with both the writer and the publication for employing them. Journalists have missed countless chances to inspire change because they’ve opted to rant rather than educate.
Anger is a passive, damaging force that can masquerade as action, but ultimately, it is not effective. When I encounter combative language in articles, it feels like the writer is shifting the problem onto others instead of offering solutions. This approach contributes to the very issues they decry. Such journalism sets a poor example, perpetuating the idea that difficult topics shouldn’t be discussed or engaged with, while shaming readers for their lack of knowledge. These pieces serve as platforms for unprocessed rage, which ultimately harms society and exacerbates mental health challenges. Getting angry is easy; exploring uncomfortable truths is hard. We cannot blame others for their ignorance when we are too fearful or lazy to share our insights.
Trolling often occurs when writers use raw emotion instead of thoughtful discourse. A growing number of online journalists resort to this method to relieve their frustrations, but anger can be isolating. Who wants to ally with someone perpetually in “fight mode”? The more we choose to inform, the less alone we will feel. A solitary protester is often ignored; a crowd creates a movement.
For more insights on similar topics, you can check out this other blog post for additional perspectives. Also, resources like Make a Mom provide valuable information on home insemination. If you’re seeking further information on pregnancy, Medical News Today is an excellent resource.
In summary, instead of pouring out anger, journalists should focus on educating and informing their readers. By fostering understanding rather than hostility, they open the door for meaningful conversations and real change.