Constructive Criticism - An Editorial

I've made some comments on Twitter/Facebook (hey, check my personalized Facebook url out: http://facebook.com/scott.esterly) about how abhorrent reader comments are after news articles about the murders of controversial figures, state-sponsored executions, and suicides. 

A bridge in Akron, Ohio, is being brought up to modern standards by having a fence put on it (it's getting funded through federal stimulus monies) - which will act as a suicide deterrent. Just within the past week a man leapt off the bridge to kill himself, and an impromptu debate over the merits of erecting the fence sparked in the user-comments section. Here's a gem posting: instead of a fence, they should put up diving boards. every spring all the white folks line up to toss themselves off this bridge, a fine tradition dating back to it's very first year.

On June 3rd, Ohio executed Daniel Wilson - a man who savagely killed a woman in 1991. A couple comments: Burn in Hell forever Danny! and another one bites the dust. 

In my mind, both the use of stimulus funds to modernize the bridge in Akron and the use of the death penalty are ripe for high-minded discussion. I have no illusions that "high-minded discussions" are prevalent in society, interesting to the average person, or even necessarily more beneficial than upholding the status quo. 

A little high-minded debate should take place. As an employee of a legislative body, I can assure you that there is some intellectual debate, but many pieces of legislation are reactionary to local concerns, reactionary to current events, guttural, and simply political-jockeying. 

I also recognize that reader comments left on news websites are in no way reflective of the prevailing trends in public opinion. They do reflect, to a certain extent, levels of civility, understanding, and attitudinal fluctuations in society. 

Should "JWWright" of Cleveland be able to make his perhaps-in-poor-taste comments on a website? Of course. I have no desire to censor or reel his thoughts in. It'd be nice if rational, reasoned comments were also left to rebut him, but I can't force people to do such a thing, and they shouldn't be (we tend to issue long-form comments in the blogosphere with silly-titled websites like "Up Late with Scott"...). 

I've harped on about this for years: I don't believe in censorship, but I'm an ardent supporter of self-censorship. I very much try to remain respectful in my rants ("The Tellyvision Man" may not be viewed as all that respectful to John Kasich...). More can be accomplished if we all adapt an agreeable, civil demeanor. 

This is a fantastical notion, of course. Civility isn't possible at times, perhaps even inappropriate. I've never dealt with oppression, but I don't imagine I'd take too kindly to it. I may very well abandon civility were I oppressed. 

But being agreeable may be key. Budget deliberations in Ohio right now have absolutely no appearance "agreeable." The Governor and Ohio House of Representatives are Democratically controlled, and the Ohio Senate is Republican controlled. There's a budgetary shortfall basically any way you cut it apparently, and both chambers of the legislature passed their ideal versions of the legislation without considering how the hell to mend the two. 

Ohio is not alone in this problem, and it's not relegated to politics and legislation. This happens in the workplace, in the family, in friendships, in relationships. 

Take a two-sided debate. Someone is pro-something, the other is con-that same thing. Personally, I like that there are disagreements. Pro/con is good. What I take issue with are fringe-dwellers on both sides that lob indefensible comments spewing hatred to the masses. Now imagine a legit news article posted on the website with reader comments at the end. 

In Twitterland, @Dmcnul91 summed it up as follows: human+internet+anonymity=wretched hive of scum and villainy. 

Now, to the point. Do we try and change this? No. The fringe-dwellers deserve their freedom to make these comments, but we need to recognize the effect of these "reader comment" forums. Newspapers are dying, and the Internet is where we turn for news. Even TV news shows feature emails and reader comments on their programs. 

I also can't force more constructive debate, I can only hope to influence it in my own way. The way that I'd like to do that is to encourage leaving comments on these sites. A quick word or two. Express pleasure or displeasure with the situation. Write a coherent, understanding passage about how you disagree or why you agree. Or set up a blog. Create an outlet for your thoughts. 

Like it not, Facebook and Twitter will assist you in this process. There have been many, many occasions that there have been 10 or 12 comments left on a status update of mine debating things ranging all the way from nuclear proliferation to what your favorite film noir classic is. I hope to continue this trend and get even more thoughts posted.  

You can start by commenting on this post, if you like. 

No pressure, though. It's all in your hands. 

Scott.