A friend who posts fairly deep articles made a point on his last article (Are You Paying Attention Yet?), and I hope not to steal here but to expand by adding my two cents.
His point was how the comments on social media of a positive nature are rife with folks trying to tear them down, trying to take their joy, steal the wind beneath their wings.
Although not entirely within the scope, I have seen this myself in some of the most innocuous posts. Recently a neighbor posted a snapshot of a car sitting outside her home and ask, simply, if anyone recognized the car. A commenter went off asking questions such as (Is it illegal to sit in a car on the side of the road in Hephzibah now?). Why? Why troll and antagonize the OP? When I got involved, I found the car had followed a single woman for quite awhile through town, then eventually sat at the end of her driveway.
While these are different situations, I am sure the responses spring from a similar malady. I have struggled with putting my finger on what that condition is. It seems some have negative comments on anything they read. What I have noticed from my brief time writing for The Augusta Press is different articles elicit a) different types of responses and b) differing volume of comments.
I have asked for the ability to see “Clicks” on my articles to try and gauge activity, but have yet to receive info on how to do so. So, what I am able to notice is the number of comments and, naturally, the content of the comments.
My subjects of articles on this paper have ranged from deep reflection on memories, fond recollections, proclamations of my patriotic stance, to brutal criticism of government and the things they do. Guess which type of article gets the most comments? If you guessed the negative slant or patriotic comments, you win. Maybe people are reading my other stuff, but I have no way to know. So, which way do you go as a writer? You try to move the needle towards the side of readership!
Years ago I heard a saying something like, “Dog bites man isn’t news; Man bites dog sells papers.” Oh, how I envy Scott Hudson’s talent to discover who bit whose dog.
As I mature, I find myself looking more and more for the good in life. The good in people. The positive in actions. The negatives of society are breathlessly read by the “Talking Heads” on the alphabet networks bringing us the dirty laundry of society, and if that is your staple of input…. such will you spew forth. Our intake is the influence for our outlook.
I have long since curtailed my input of news and opinion. I used to sample and digest each side looking for where the truth may lie only to discover each side’s lies are sprinkled with a grain of truth to make them seem believable.
So, if you click on my link at theaugustapress.com expecting some form of outrage, you might get it. Or, you might get a not-so-gripping reflection on the experience of an old guy that you either relate to or stop reading after the first paragraph.
Either way, and I don’t want to say I don’t care but I write what I am inspired to write.
If a dog bites a man, I may write an article on why the dog bit the man, will he bite again, how some dogs can be saved and others be put down, ask how we can control stray animal propagation, etc.
If a man bites me, I may call Scott Hudson, Susan McCord or Greg Rickabaugh to write the breathlessly read article.
And certainly, when a man bites a dog, “Oh, the places I will go.”
I encourage you all to monitor your news intake. First, give it balance. Watch the liberal and the conservative reporting and know each has a slant. Second, evaluate the percentage of time of your day it may consume. A person can overdose on news while missing a whole lot of real life going on around you like kids and grandkids growing up and learning. Use your knowledge to fill these young skulls full of mush with common sense Biblical truth. And thirdly, value the life you are living, make it positive, compliment the good and frown on the evil. But above all, smell the flowers rather than read a description of what the flowers smell like.
As the New York Times slogan says, “All the news that’s fit to print.” I propose a variation, “All the news that’s fit to print isn’t all fit to read.”
