While I was out of the office Friday, Ken Knutson, our associate editor, took a call we don't typically get. The man wanted to know if we had looked into the background of someone who had written a letter to the editor published the day before.
"Uh, no," Ken responded.
Ken told me he went on to explain to the caller what we do look into - that the letter writer is a real person who actually wrote the letter, that it is 250 words or shorter and that anything stated as fact is accurate.
I imagine the caller disagreed with the opinion expressed in the letter and decided instead to question the integrity of its writer.
That seems to be a common move these days. Someone expresses an opinion and those who do not agree move straight to character attacks. The individual who expressed the unpopular opinion is evil, unstable, can't be trusted.
Have you seen the comments from far-right Republicans calling Bishop Mariann Edgar Budde disgraceful and a heretic because they didn't like the message she delivered during the inaugural prayer service? They also labeled her a radical leftist, a witch, a fake bishop, a tin-pot politician and Satan. I imagine they would respond similarly if Jesus had spoken at the prayer service, since he, too, believes in seeking mercy for those on the margins of society.
But I digress.
I continue to worry that we soon will lose our ability to disagree about anything. Instead of actually thinking through opposing positions and creating counter-arguments, we'll say the other guy is an idiot or the devil, reverting back to those name-calling skills we honed on the playground.
It's a lot easier to silence someone than it is to convince them of a different viewpoint.
Social media has contributed to this phenomena. In the past, if a reader disagreed with what had been written in a letter to the editor, he or she would write a rebuttal letter. And that would appear in the paper, too. Of course that letter would have to be signed, 250 words or fewer and not contain any inaccuracies. Nor would we allow the second writer to call the first writer names.
Now people can make anonymous post after anonymous post saying absolutely whatever they want. There's no fact checking. There's no accountability. It's a virtual lynching.
I applaud the two individuals who chose to submit letters to the editor for this week's paper instead of making anonymous posts on Facebook. I admire their willingness to be accountable for their opinions.
We all know there are critical problems to solve at the national level. We have important issues at the local level, too. Those elected to serve on one of Hinsdale's two school boards and the village board will make many decisions over the next four years, some of which will have greater impact on Hinsdaleans than those made in Washington.
We will begin our election coverage for contested races on the village and school boards in next week's issue. We'll try to provide as much information as we can about the candidates, their backgrounds and their viewpoints. And we encourage readers to submit letters sharing their opinions about the best choice or choices for a particular board. We hope letter-writers will stay focused on the issues and not their personal dislike of candidates seeking office.
Robust discussion and debate leads to better solutions. Character assassinations do not.
- Pamela Lannom is editor of The Hinsdalean. Readers can email her at [email protected].
