AnotherVoice

Waxahachie, Texas, March 29, 2005 -- Believing what I was raised to hold sacred, that every voice counts, I've bombarded my local paper for years with letters and op-eds (and been active in politics). Yet here in the heart of everyone's favorite "red state," where it's especially important that another voice be heard, no one seemed to be listening. This is my megaphone.

Wednesday, April 11, 2007

Whence our incivility?

From “out there” in our society, angry declamations — from criticism through mild hostility to seething fury — travel through the ether, over the air waves and onto the pages of our newspapers and seem finally to have reached the shock level.

I speak of some undisclosed, subsurface anger; anger without external provocation, anger that lies beneath the surface fabric woven of our everyday human interactions. This latent fury erupts like a mound of fire ants, unpredictable as to time and place; we can usually deal with it, but as often as not it will pop up again nearby.

It has been manifest for years in the popularity of people like Imus and Limbaugh, in the coarsening of our political commentary, and of course most devastatingly in incidents of random violence, from "road rage" to the "Unabomber," from the D. C. snipers to schoolyard shooters.

I have no credentials as a psychologist or sociologist, so cannot examine the American psyche with any expertise. But it doesn’t take any kind of specialist to recognize hate when it hits you in the solar plexus.

This past weekend brought considerable discussion about threats to female bloggers made by anonymous (always!) posters. From deep in my memory bank I drew a recollection from a dozen years ago: I was watching a discussion on C-Span between a very mild mannered anchor and his guests, two equally pleasant and well-mannered journalists with differing political leanings; they were discussing the convention they were covering and responding to telephoned questions and comments from viewers.

It isn’t unusual for a caller to promote one point of view or attack another, nor is excoriation of public figures unheard of. But it suddenly became personal, when a caller who began by angrily denouncing what he perceived to be the wrong political opinions of one of the guests, a woman, concluded with a suggestion that involved Jack Kevorkian. I saw her blanch slightly even as I felt a thump of fear within me: it was scary.

What is going on in America? Sure, there are bugs and glitches in the way things work, certainly there are frustrations related to any aspect of our society — there always have been and always will be, because it is a dynamic organism. But this is not France in 1789, when conditions of the ordinary citizen were so miserable as to foment revolution. These angry voices attack, but don’t lament; they are furious about something, but it’s not the condition of themselves or their brethren.

The anger is not a new phenomenon, but over the last dozen years it seems to be growing exponentially. Perhaps it has always been there, obscured by a socially acceptable outlet in gearing up for, fighting, and then coming down from all the wars and almost-wars. With no mutually agreed enemy to despise, have we simply turned it inward?

Or can it be simply that because the opportunities for venting without fear of reprisal have expanded with technology, it is only an illusion that there is more anger now?

One thing is certain: From the perversion of CB radio to the ascendancy of call-in shows, to hate groups and terrorist wannabes exchanging venom on the Internet, to the ubiquitous anonymous poster of today, the Unknown Angry American is no longer limited to a hand gesture on the highway.

Labels: , , , ,

Thursday, March 22, 2007

UPDATED: At last, have we no decency?

I'm a sometime blogger and pretty much constant reader of others' blogs, many of which are very classy and informative. Too many to name here, but that's not the point anyway. And I welcome an opportunity to offer comments and ideas or feedback.

But the ease with which comments can be made combined with anonymity is poisonous. I have no idea how many of what my favorite author calls "netwits" are really out there -- two or three really prolific nasties could be writing under hundreds of aliases, for all I know.

Some of the grown-up blogs have moderation rules, and/or encourage reports of abuse, but I have to say that in my most recent encounter with comments on Politico's coverage of John and Elizabeth Edwards' decision to keep the campaign going strong it became clear that there doesn't seem to be much hope other than simply not allowing comments at all.

If the goal of sites like Politico is truly to encourage dialogue, then I suggest that reader comments be subject to the same rules as letters to the editor, with real names used and confirmation available via email address.

Let the conversation be productive.

UPDATE: And now someone is actually trying to do something about it:
Now, a few high-profile figures in high-tech are proposing a blogger code of conduct to clean up the quality of online discourse. Link

Labels: ,

Hit Counter
Web Counters