This opinion piece was written in response to “A reader calls us out and we consider his point,” in the Bulletin’s May 2 edition.
Instead of strong, nuanced opinions about issues – when we make derogatory statements about people in a situation, we’re making it exactly not about dialogue but about shutting off others’ voices as completely as a frozen outdoor faucet during a bomb cyclone.
Connection being an invaluable, powerful, precious function of community/neighborhood journalism in myriads of ways, a flexible yet defined focus on solutions would greatly raise the level of discourse.
An opinion writer doesn’t have to have a concrete, implementable solution in mind – I think we need to discover those together. But being “solution-focused” differently trains our brains. It can temper anger (and even hatred) into something usable when it comes to re-knitting together our communities.
A more tempered way of expressing ourselves isn’t a matter of palatability, it’s a matter of humanity.
I felt turned off by the columns you mention. [Both expressed strong disapproval of President Donald Trump and used emotional language, and one contained ad hominem attacks – ed]. I felt disappointed and discouraged by them, not only existentially. Also, because I’ve been very hopeful and encouraged by the Bulletin’s overall direction, journalism and desire for integrity. After reading those columns, a bit unconsciously, I began to pull away from reading more of the Bulletin. I’m grateful to the reader who engaged and questioned in a meaningful and measured way. I’m grateful to the friend and colleague who sent your editorial response letter my way.
Yet, I’m still so tired of harsh, empty criticism being confused with insightful reporting or thinking.
Unfair, dehumanizing, outright attacks are falsely defined as reasonable, and subsequently, communication channels between people are sealed shut like the watertight hatch of a submarine. Smiles might remain on faces, yet hearts close.
We’ve defined this shutdown of communication and loss of relationship as “winning.” If you’ve silenced your so-called opponents, then you’ve won in the parlance of hate bait and trolling.
Growth stagnates. Isolation rages. Sadness spreads.
We’ve also confused “getting my emotions out on paper or on social media” with “stating my opinions.” All feelings are in fact valid for us humans and need to be literally, often physically, expressed – this is a psychological truth. But venting or letting off steam is for other venues – the counseling room, a journal, talking it out with friends, doing that inner healing work.
There are options for opinion writing that are constructive while still being incisive.
As people, we’re often so ready to judge – tense and poised like at the scratch line of a sprint race, waiting for the starter pistol to go off. This judging is not discernment but condemnation – in an all-encompassing and unbalanced way, right down to someone’s toenails.
Mary McGrory, a Washington political columnist for five decades who earned a Pulitzer for her coverage of Watergate, was a brilliant wordsmith and keen observationalist. Some of her observations while highly biting were at the same time vigorously revealing because they were based in truth not insult. They revealed insights about a person, situation, or issue at hand. They were informative versus empty, accusatory attacks, leaving no room for forward momentum.
A flexible yet defined focus on solutions would greatly raise the level of discourse.
Thank you, Ms. Ershadi, for your honest questioning and examination of your approach to the Bulletin’s opinion section. It’s this precise kind of genuine, courageous self-questioning plus openness to change, plus desire for repair and edification of our communities that is the much-needed remedy to those same communities’ fragmentation.
People can be and are manipulative, not necessarily from an intentional or conscious desire to be so, but when we fear disagreement. When we want to shut it all the way down before it happens. When we want to shut down and shut off the voices of those whom we see as our opponents. Whom we see as a threat. A fear-based reaction, versus a considered action.
It’s a thoroughly understandable, protective way of relating to unsafe environments and relationships. All of us do this at times but it’s still dysfunctional.
We neighbors want to be able to safely walk along the paths of life together. Together, we want to build community instead of destroying it. We want to function. To do all this and to understand one another, we must do our own internal examinations for experiences and disappointments regarding trust and how we’ve been hurt, and then go forward with more equanimity and healing.
We can then create literal, safe, emotional and relational spaces (not just labeling them as such) where we can all be heard and hear one another without disguised coercion and soul-killing judgment.
Your efforts to further define your approach with input are exactly in that direction and are much appreciated.
Here’s to more honest discourse and real listening.
[There are not a lot of Heilas out there and I love that my name-twin responded to my op-ed with her own. -ed]
