The 13 June 2007 update of
VersagiVoice carried an editorial snippet praising readers who can
engage in vigorous conversation with people with whom they disagree.
That update also contained the conversation with Diane Hoover, wife of
City Manager Tom Hoover, and part of the focus was on how the spouse of
a public figure handles criticism of her spouse.
The combination of the two items, plus
concern that CITCOM deliberations seem to be more personalized in a year
with upcoming local elections, generated requests for another look at
the emotional tones in criticism that were displayed in my "Dear Sir, You Cur" note and
in a rather vulgar anonymous letter which I had published, then removed
from the website. Together, the pieces demonstrate how criticism ranges
from polite through rude to, rarely, malicious.
After this page was created and before it
was published, a couple of VersagiVoice readers called my attention to some lively
postings re the use and abuse of anonymity at
www.royaloaksoundoff.com. See
the "Royal Oak Mirror" thread.
Dale
Carnegie sandwich --
Dear Sir, you cur .
. .
Many of those who choose to disagree in writing to something I've written use
what I call a Dale Carnegie sandwich. The response begins with a
bit of praise, offers a not always polite criticism or objection or
counterargument, and ends with a courteous "thank you for listening" comment. Thus, most of
those who respond to VersagiVoice begin by lauding my "reasonable approach"
to things, point out where I'm wrong, and end with a gentle remark.
In my days as an industry
journalist, when I reached about 90,000 readers worldwide each week, the letters
were longer and more pointed than today's emails but had the same "Dear
Sir, you cur . . . " flavor. Then, as now, 95% of the missives were signed.
Unsigned correspondence was/is almost always more emotional than rational. Anonymous
comments to VersagiVoice display a subtler range of tone, probably
because most of the writers have met me somewhere, and most of them address issues,
not personality. One unidentified reply to my suggestions about resolving Royal
Oak's budget problems, for example, states simply, "Your plan for Royal Oak
is not defensible."
Personal criticism need not
descend to personal abuse. It would be unreasonable of me, for example, to take offense
when someone characterizes me as opinionated or assertive. I am both. Similarly
it is not abuse when I chide this or that city commissioner
about his or her debating style.
Neither public officials nor publishers of
vanity websites can function well if they have a thin skin. And it goes without saying that
everyone should be free to disagree about issues, about the judgments and
opinions of colleagues, citizens, fellow club members, elected officials, city
employees.
|
Then there's this
approach
 |
Neither public officials nor publishers of
vanity websites can function well if they have a thin skin.
That excerpt from the piece above
establishes the framework in which public figures of all sorts
must operate, as they receive praise or criticism, or even
ill-disposed comment like the piece at left.
Is the piece offensive? Well, it's
coarse and vulgar but since it's unsigned and the firm name is
fake, Muriel's and my reaction was mostly to chuckle.
Uncharitably, I feel a bit of
condescension toward a person who takes the time and
effort to create this kind of message but is unwilling to attach a name to it.
There's not much of this extreme
reaction and as Diane Hoover said
during her chat with VersagiVoice, "it goes with the territory."
|
|
