In the most shocking news report yet this year, the Journal Star has revealed that people can actually say very cruel things about other people.
Of course I’m being facetious. But what the Journal Star actually reported is almost as ridiculous: that civil discourse has only recently been degraded by the invention of the Internet:
It was yet another example of how the Internet – and the anonymity it affords – has given a public stage to people’s basest thoughts, ones that in earlier eras likely never would have traveled past the watercooler, the kitchen table or the next bar stool…. [I]s a decline in civil discourse simply the price that we pay for the advance of technology?
Which “earlier era” would that be? Before the printing press? Because, as I recall, there were some pretty nasty — and anonymous, I might add — pamphlets published early in our nation’s history, over a century before the wily Internet was invented. (I’m certainly not anywhere near the first person to make such an observation. This article from USA Today is but one example.)
Let’s consider just a couple of examples. Clement Moore (of “A Visit from St. Nicholas” fame) wrote an incendiary pamphlet calling Thomas Jefferson a racist in 1804. (Journal Star columnists would never accuse someone of racism, right?) And Jefferson received further abuse from the Federalist press:
[Jefferson’s] warm appreciation of fellow deist and reputed heavy drinker Thomas Paine presented an easy target for the Federalist press. One newspaper suggested that Jefferson’s interest in agriculture must have been the reason for his willingness to be associated with such “‘manure'” (p. 77). Another publication depicted Paine as wanting Jefferson to loan him his slave Sally Hemings because he had no female companion.
Ah, the halcyon days of high civil discourse . . . the vaunted heritage of newspaper reporting. Of course, no newspapers are like that today, fortunately. Injurious stories are nowadays the exclusive domain of the blogosphere and “message boards,” or so the Journal Star would have you believe:
News organizations, struggling to find ways to keep their readers involved in an increasingly digital and interactive world, are trying to strike the right balance.
Yes, news organizations are very thoughtful and will strike the right balance. They would never fabricate stories or report a false story that could be injurious to someone’s reputation. Just ask Jayson Blair or Dan Rather.
What’s my point? I’m certainly not defending incivility. My only point is that incivility can and does happen in any medium — radio, TV (ever heard of Jerry Springer?), newspapers, and yes, even the Internet. That the Journal Star wants to single out the Internet as somehow novel or worse than any other medium in lowering civil discourse is patently baseless. Putting this “news” on the front-page and above the fold makes the Journal Star look outdated and foolish.
Tomorrow’s Journal Star investigative report: Telephones have increased rudeness!
CJ, you don’t understand, when the establishment press – Dan Rather or the PJS – attacks someone, it’s because the miscreant deserves it. When some internet peon attacks a muckety-muck, they are being uncivil and offensive. Probably even engaging in hate speech. Said peon needs to be taught a lesson so he/she will stay in thier place (ie. be a good sheep and follow the establishment press’s party line).
(I think the AP reported that story, not the PJS)
“That the Journal Star wants to single out the Internet as somehow novel or worse than any other medium in lowering civil discourse is patently baseless.”
The shrinky types say it actually IS worse in certain ways — the anonymity and speed of the internet makes it easy for people to respond in the heat of anger and without fear of reprisal. The infinite replicability makes it easy to bombard someone with nastiness. “Cyberbullying” in particular is coming in for a lot of attention. Adolescents can now comprehensively ruin one another’s lives in a matter of hours and have that nastiness on the internet for the rest of eternity.
I’ve only seen a little of it first hand among Jr. High students, but WOW is it at a different level of nasty than when I was that age.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A8020-2003Sep26¬Found=true
That said, I don’t know that that counts as “lowering the level of civil discourse.” People being nasty on the internet aren’t exactly pretending to civil discourse; I think the bloviated-head pundits shrieking invective at one another and PRETENDING they’re engaging in civil discourse are a lot more damaging.
Those who constantly implore upon others to be more ‘civil’, often do so to silence the would be critics and not to actually promote civility. In political discourse I think we have too much ‘civility’. Being ‘nice’ is just code for diminishing a position on an issue. Sometimes raging anger is the appropriate response.
I second Eyebrow’s comment: This is an Associated Press column, and doesn’t necessarily reflect the opinion of the PJS. Newspapers are supposed to present a wide spectrum of opinion. As to the main point of your post: Yes it is silly and ignorant for a modern day journalist to claim that the Internet practically invented rudeness in the media.
It’s partially an Associated Press article. Journal Star content has been added. Have you read the whole article? At the end it says, “Journal Star reporter Amber Krosel contributed to this story.” The Journal Star is not mentioned in the original article. So, I would contend that it does, in fact, reflect the opinion of the PJS. Otherwise, why personalize it in a sympathetic way and run it on the front page?