Your cart is currently empty!
How Journalists Miss the Mark
I had done my research on house-training, but nothing seemed to stick. My pup, Bella, was anxious and uncomfortable, and after weeks of using the bathtub as her makeshift bathroom (which was clever on her part), I was thrilled when she finally took me to one of those tree pits that dot the streets of NYC for some relief. What I didn’t realize, however, was that dog pee can actually harm soil and kill plants, and that people aren’t too fond of owners letting their furry friends wreak havoc on their greenery. I got a crash course in this when a guy heading into his brownstone stopped and unleashed a verbal tirade on me.
“Are you kidding me? Get the hell out of there! You can’t be in there. Get your dog out of that tree pit, you jerk.” (This was also when I learned that those little areas were called “tree pits.”)
This kind of thing happens all the time: Instead of imparting a lesson, people jump straight to punishment. The man assumed I already knew that dog urine was a no-go for tree pits and that I was purposely ignoring the rule, like a rebellious teenager. But he was mistaken. His aggressive approach completely backfired—rather than feeling guilty, I was tempted to leave a bag of dog poop on his doorstep.
Folks often skip the teaching moment and leap right into reprimanding. They keep track of all the people they’ve yelled at before and project that frustration onto new faces, as if every interaction is with someone who defiantly refuses to learn. But there’s no education happening here. The only thing that gets communicated is anger. The person being yelled at knows they’re in the wrong but lacks the context or understanding of why, feeling bullied for their ignorance.
After the man had been ranting for a few minutes, I finally processed that we weren’t allowed in the tree pit. I looked at him and said, “Oh, you’re one of those people.”
“Excuse me? One of those people? Who are those people?” He advanced toward me, visibly irritated.
“The ones who shrink the world with their rage instead of expanding it through conversation.”
“Shut up,” he snapped.
“Exactly,” I replied, and walked away, a mix of pride and adrenaline coursing through me.
This bubbling rage is everywhere these days, especially online, where you can see it taking over comments sections. Lately, though, I’ve been noticing it even more in articles. Perhaps it’s always been there, and I’m just noticing it now. Rather than educating their readers, some writers seem to yell and condescend, assuming their audience should already know what they don’t, which is precisely why they’re reading in the first place. The moralizing is getting louder and harder to ignore.
I understand the frustration; it’s maddening that in 2014, we still find ourselves fighting for rights that should be ours by default. People face oppression daily just for being non-white or non-male. Young black men are being shot, women are assaulted, and these horrific acts often arise from fear and ignorance. Those who know better likely learned it from someone else. It’s up to those who understand to educate those who don’t, even when it feels offensive to acknowledge that not everyone shares our views on what’s “right.” Once upon a time, we were all in the dark, and while we may not have been violent, someone had to teach us right from wrong.
Self-righteousness doesn’t inspire change or empower others; it just breeds more hostility. Scolding readers and filling your articles with accusatory language won’t bring about change; it’s easy and immature, revealing the author’s struggle to connect authentically with others. Anger creates distance, and when a journalist’s tone overshadows the topic, readers are left feeling uncomfortable and may develop a negative association with both the writer and the publication that employs them. Journalists miss countless opportunities to spark change because they choose to rant instead of educate.
Anger is a passive force. It feels active because it takes energy, but ultimately, it just damages relationships. When I encounter articles filled with confrontational language, it seems like the writer is pushing the problem onto others instead of offering solutions. They’re contributing to the very issue they’re angry about. This type of journalism sets a poor example, perpetuating the idea that discussions should be avoided and shaming readers for their ignorance rather than enlightening them. These combative pieces serve only to fuel undigested rage and can harm society, exacerbating mental health issues. Getting angry is easy; grappling with tough truths is hard, and we shouldn’t lash out at others for being fearful or lazy when we also hesitate to explain our perspectives.
Trolling happens when writers, seeking conflict, utilize unprocessed anger instead of thoughtful discourse. A growing number of online journalists resort to this tactic to alleviate their own burden, but continual anger can be isolating. Who wants to collaborate with someone who’s always in fight mode? The more you educate others, the less isolated you’ll feel. One person protesting alone is often ignored; a crowd, however, can create a significant rallying cry.
For more insights on navigating the challenges of home insemination, check out this excellent resource. And if you’re looking to enhance your fertility, visit Make A Mom for valuable information.