A few years ago, the cuteness of a sunny Saturday afternoon was cut off by a phone call from one of my editors. “I just wanted to check in to you,” she said, her voice is ominous, low, and terribly serious. “Are you ok?”
I was panicked. I had to think for a moment to make sure that no one near me was hit by a great tragedy. It was a concern for her voice. Did you accidentally hurt someone? It turns out that I wrote a column — about the lasting charm that older men have for women who are decades old — and it clearly has some men and raw nerves on the internet. hit. The section below was flooded with comments, but few were willing to dislike me.
I had to laugh. Not because it was what was happening, but because my editor was under the assumption that this kind of thing would upset me. “Baves,” I told her, “This doesn’t touch the side.” I haven’t read what is commonly referred to as the lower half of the internet — good or bad. I didn’t think much about my “online self”, so if someone randomly comes to me on social media or in the comments section, they remind them that they don’t know my true true self. increase. They may be screaming at the car or the clouds.
I remembered that moment last weekend as well. It was another Sunday, spent celebrating the return of my niece from Australia with other family members. Life was good. I felt it on the grid. I received a notification on Twitter. It was a stranger who responded to a recent column on this page. I’d like to bling a little more at the wedding. In other words, the tweet is written as follows: Go home, wax her upper lip, have sex with her husband, who knows, you may like it. “
Journalists often say that this kind of “communication” is just a professional danger. There are tranches of online people who can’t clearly protect that others have a platform for broadcasting their thoughts and opinions (worse, they are even worse, against it. A woman who gets paid). For these people, journalists are the ones who get the attention, want to be self-attached and pseudo-intellectual. If you’re writing about buying 20 euro wedding sandals, that’s all you need.
Dealing with this feedback is probably territorial related and the general advice is to ignore it. Do not feed the trolls. Deny oxygen of attention to them. Do not negotiate with terrorists etc. And most of the time I don’t care. But if someone tells me that on the street, I don’t just walk, I put it in one of the things I have to endure just because I’m there. No, I call them on. And, contrary to all the wisdom I received, I did.
At the same time, I was surprised. It was a sunny afternoon in Ireland. Why would someone contact random people with such strange comments? In a slightly more colorful language, I asked him. “Well, you took the bait,” he replied. Then came the amazing feat of gas lamps. Thereby, my new companion tells me that he has misidentified me, and that I am offended for no reason, and that I am trying to continue my day without offending. I let you know. At this point, I was most entertained. In the end, the block button played that role, the conversation (if you could call it) was closed, and everyone went on. It’s really weird to be doing it on a nice weekend afternoon.
There are many things to unpack here. First of all, when it comes to offending me, internet commentators usually bark the wrong tree. Probably frustrating. But it never offends. How can you get angry with someone who doesn’t know you? Is there anyone calling for your look for the photo of the byline?
Also, such things are in the place of Happeny compared to what others in this business have experienced. I’m familiar with my privileges (at least I’ll never see them otherwise), as I get off relatively lightly when it comes to negative commentary. A colleague recently taught me how to receive literally hundreds of nasty messages and intimidations from an individual. I can’t even imagine how it was for her.
I all agree with lively and rigorous discussions. After all, journalists often write to initiate or promote conversations in the public interest. If, as an internet commentator, you want to see yourself as a long-awaited counterweight to opinions and news items that you think are inaccurate or heading in the wrong direction, that’s fine. But it’s also worth pointing out that engaging in it is not part of the journalist’s job specifications.
Also, “going home and wielding my husband” is not a gold-plated contribution to the debate, in case you need to elaborate on it. What is the only sane reaction to that? Thanks for reading, I guess.
