Does it seem to you like many people (maybe you’re one of them) accept the musings of an opinions columnist uncritically? It seems to me that what we do in general is form an opinion, and then look for anything we can find in print to support it. Some no doubt let the opinion pages themselves conceptualize and/or reinforce their thinking. This is the opposite of intentionally reading material divergent from our own beliefs and carefully considering our position, as well as that of writers we find offensive.
For a few of us, the opinion pages carry with them all the authority of holy writ. We quote these “satanic verses” as if they are God breathed. Many of us (present company included) forget that the Op-Ed pages of a newspaper are often nothing more than bastions of propaganda. If that is true, then why read them? Indeed, why read this? To find the answer, consider the following.
Op-Ed pages should present a challenge that readers are willing to accept. They should compel you to go to the source; to take the writer to task; to do your homework. Never accept uncritically anything you read in the Op-Ed section of any newspaper.
By and large, the opinions page is basically a sounding board for people who are often uninformed, and whose data is rarely accurate. This is precisely why you, dear reader, should be testing the writer’s hypothesis. Opinions pages are not news. That is why we call them Op-Ed, an abbreviation for Opinion-Editorial. They may contain news, but often they reflect the bias of the writer who sometimes recasts the news to fit his nepotism. His view may be correct. It may also be false, but that is a determination for you to make.
I spend a lot of time scanning the Op-Ed sections of newspapers both in our region and nationally. So I’ve become quite a connoisseur of opinion writing. Sometimes I can even tell where the forum writers’ information originated. Much of it is simply lapped up and regurgitated from one forum to the next. This kind of propaganda is viral in nature, with a tenacity rivaling bird flu and mad cow disease.
In that sense, forums can sometimes be like the game of telephone, except that the true forum junkies know the story so well they act as monitors—always waiting for someone to screw the story up. When some poor lout finally does the deed, they jump on ‘em like a pack of hungry dogs. It doesn’t matter if the offender has done his homework or not. He “tainted” the official story, and he will pay for it. Like Bedouins on steroids the guardians of the keep will mop up the remains of the offender with what’s left of his turban.
Often people will assume that because a columnist has a good command of the English language and can write well he is trustworthy. Alas, this is another fable of the opinion pages—the urban legends of our time. In essence, opinions columnists are paid to be creative, to spin a yarn, to tell a tale. In a sense, they are entertainers, and in many ways what they give us is vaudeville in print. This is exactly why columnists can write the most outlandish things and never have to answer for it. You see folks, it’s all a matter of taste. Anybody can write an opinion column. I should know. I’ve been getting paid to write them for a while now and I’m not even a man of “letters,” although I’ve written a few of those as well. But it is vitally important that we understand the genre of “literature” we see on the opinions page.
Allow me to demonstrate my opinion writing acumen.
There once was a river who turned left until it eventually went right. It did so at the expense of its turn, but didn’t seem to mind in the end, because there wasn’t one. And finally, so on and so forth, etc, etc. a wild beet root fell in the pica dillies. They did this from sun down to sun up but always like the armadillo were my socks altogether. Then came the lint, but as I said (which I really didn’t) oh well that ends well. Besides, I never did like mayonnaise, but rivers who lose their turns are apt to lose their minds as well…
Like I said, if it’s in print, it must be trustworthy.
It is also important that we encourage “safe” readers to spend time with a text they are vehemently opposed to. But I think we are so afraid of half-baked columns and inflammatory rhetoric, we would rather lay on a bed of nails than risk an assault on our sensibilities. We are afraid of those who write them and afraid people will believe in the modern folklore conjured by these literary necromancers.
What’s worse than that is being so incensed by the rhetoric that we simply disengage. We retreat to a secure haven. We go to the familiar—with what is “safe.” We find sanctuary in our alliances. We’d rather read a column we agree with, so we don’t have to be challenged. We don’t have to reconsider the evidence or hone our thinking. We risk nothing, but in the bargain lose everything.
When I worked as a newspaper editor I was sometimes criticized by those in my own camp for printing a column they found offensive. “How could you publish such a thing?” I was asked. My answer took the form of a question: "Why not be thankful?" I would reply. Be thankful when your moral outrage jettisons you from your refuge of familiarity. Be thankful when your inflamed sensibilities compel you to swing into action and engage the debate. It’s a sign that your heart is still beating.
