One of the things not well understood about my job is that of what I believe. There's a reason for that: As far as the Voices page goes, my beliefs don't matter.
I've often said that if I printed only those things that square with my point of view there would be very little on the page. Because this is a letters page, I necessarily must print as wide a variety of opinion available as I can. This means that often there are letters and columns I wholeheartedly disagree with that make it onto the page.
Just because an opinion is offensive to some people (within the bounds of what is appropriate for a family publication) does not mean that that opinion should not be printed. We'd be poor examples of a free press if we printed only those things that back up our beliefs, which in a newsroom are more varied than you might think.
Even so, there are some letters that cross the line because of things such as profanity, incitement to violence and threats. With those, no quarter (or space) will be given. A print publication, especially one read by everyone from children to the very elderly, must exercise caution in what it prints. On the Internet, though, it's the Wild Wild West.
I've spoken before about bullying, and how it applies to the expression of opinion. It's an exceedingly thin line I must trod here, and sometimes people may think I cross the line in allowing any criticism of others' opinions.
Apparently there is none of that in the real world ... wait, but there is ... all the time.
Not printing any of that criticism would defeat the purpose of the page, quite frankly, but what won't be printed are threats and name-calling. And no, name-calling doesn't include saying someone must have been living under a rock, or has drunk the Kool-Aid. If the best someone can do is to use tattered old tropes such as those, let 'em, as it weakens their argument (as does poorly implemented sarcasm--c'mon, have more faith in the intelligence of others).
In reading the comment boards of just about any newspaper, you'll find a lot of that. I tend to skip comments such as that, or that include such gems as "typical (proglib, GOP) response" or "you obviously have no idea what you're talking about," especially in response to posts using actual evidence to back up arguments.
I often find myself wanting to save people from themselves, especially those who are more earnest in their words, as it seems such earnestness is like blood in the water. But when those people defend themselves, especially without insulting their attackers, I have to admit I cheer.
At the risk of repeating myself yet again, attack the argument, not the person, if you really want to win the debate. Even I, who pretty much tanked in debate in high school (I'm not great speaking off the cuff unless I'm acting), have won many arguments simply by relying on the facts. I'd also remind you that August is National Win with Civility Month--though that really should be a year-round goal.
If you still really want to insult people, try reading some Shakespeare. At least he was creative about it. But play nice, people.
Quite often, I find myself giggling when I read, not because of any humor in whatever I'm reading, but because the writer (professional and otherwise) has inadvertently--at least I hope--used the wrong word (often one that sounds similar) or used the right one in the wrong way. Which is one of the reasons we edit--we'd rather everyone else not laugh at those errors.
It happens to all of us at one time or another--it happens to me many more times than I'd like to admit.
Sometimes, it's just a simple slip of the tongue (or fingers). Sometimes, though, it happens because the writer was unsure about how the word is to be used, or because he doesn't believe in evolution (of words). Which brings us to words with multiple meanings, which--let's face it--are probably the majority of words in the English language.
Pity the poor people learning English as a second language--the idioms alone can drive some up the padded wall. Add homonyms, homophones and homographs and ...
Still others cling to a single meaning, discounting all others, no matter that other definitions are equally fitting or maybe even more so, depending on the circumstances.
Take the word "citation," for example. According to the dictionary, it could be an award, a summons to appear in court, a ticket, reference to a legal precedent, a quotation, or an explicit short reference (chapter and verse, book title and page number, etc.) to the source of the quote. Anyone who's done a research paper in high school or college is well aware of that last definition, and has probably had nightmares about footnotes and bibliographies. And it is to that definition that I (and others) refer when I say "cite your sources."
Isn't English fun?
------------v------------
Assistant Editor Brenda Looper is editor of the Voices page. Read her blog at blooper0223.wordpress.com.
Editorial on 08/27/2014