I had read extensively about training my puppy, Charlie, but nothing seemed effective. He was anxious and uneasy, and after weeks of using the bathtub as his restroom (which was both considerate and clever), I breathed a sigh of relief when he led me to one of those tree pits lining the NYC streets, finally finding relief outdoors. Little did I know, however, that dog urine is detrimental to soil health and can harm plants, and that homeowners typically frown upon dogs trampling their greenery. I learned both of these facts in one fell swoop when a man on his way into his brownstone halted on his stoop and began to berate me.
“Are you serious? Get out of there! You can’t be in there! Get your dog out of that tree pit, you idiot.” (This was also the moment I discovered that the checkboxes were called “tree pits.”)
This happens all too often: rather than delivering an informative message, people leap straight to reprimands. The man’s choice of language suggested he assumed I was already aware of the dangers of dog urine and the prohibition of entering tree pits, and that my actions were a deliberate act of defiance, much like a rebellious teenager. But he was mistaken. His aggressive demeanor undermined his point—rather than feeling guilty, I was tempted to leave a bag of flaming dog waste on his doorstep.
This pattern is common. Instead of conveying a lesson, many skip directly to punishment, tallying past grievances as if every new encounter is with the same individual who defiantly refuses to learn. Yet, no real teaching occurs; the only emotion communicated is anger. The person being reprimanded recognizes they’ve made a mistake but lacks understanding of how or why, and they are chastised for their ignorance.
After a few minutes of yelling, I regained my composure and realized we were indeed not allowed in that tree pit. I looked at him and said, “Oh, you’re one of those people.”
“What do you mean by ‘those people’?” he shot back, visibly agitated.
“The ones who shrink the world with their anger instead of expanding it through conversation.”
“Shut up.”
“Exactly,” I replied, walking away, proud yet shaken from the confrontation.
This unprocessed rage permeates many aspects of life, and while it often manifests in online comments, I’ve noticed it increasingly within articles themselves. Maybe it has always been there, and I’m just now recognizing it. Instead of enlightening readers, some writers choose to scold and patronize them, presuming that readers should already possess knowledge they don’t have (hence their reading of the article in the first place). The moralizing is becoming increasingly loud and impossible to overlook.
I understand the frustration—it’s maddening that in 2014 we are still advocating for rights that should be inherently ours. Daily, individuals face oppression simply for not being white or male. Young Black men are slain, women are assaulted, and these abhorrent acts often stem from fear and ignorance. Some people know a different way because they’ve been educated; it’s crucial for those who understand to enlighten those who don’t, regardless of how offensive and disheartening it is that not everyone shares universally accepted views. At one time, we too were uninformed, but fortunately, someone taught us right from wrong.
Sanctimony doesn’t spark change or empower individuals; it breeds more hostility. Scolding readers and filling journalism with accusatory language won’t foster transformation, and it’s—dare I say—an easy and simplistic approach, revealing the author’s inability to engage authentically with others. Hostility breeds distance, and when a journalist’s “beat” becomes their tone rather than their topic, readers are left cringing at the writer’s self-righteousness, ultimately leading to negative associations with both the writer and the publication. Journalists have missed countless opportunities to incite change by opting to rant instead of educate.
Anger is a passive, albeit harmful, non-action. It can be deceptive, as it requires energy and can feel like a proactive stance. When I encounter articles brimming with combative language, I sense the writer is projecting their frustrations onto others rather than offering solutions. They contribute to the very issues they decry. This style of journalism sends a negative message that discussions should be avoided, while shaming readers for their lack of knowledge, leaving those articles as mere platforms for unresolved rage, which can worsen societal issues and mental health challenges. Expressing anger is easy; exploring uncomfortable truths is hard. We cannot be angry with others for their ignorance while we remain too fearful or lazy to explain our perspectives.
Trolling emerges when writers seeking conflict resort to unprocessed anger to express emotions rather than engaging in thoughtful discourse. A small but growing number of online journalists embrace this tactic to alleviate their own burdens, yet anger can be isolating, creating barriers. Who wants to ally with someone perpetually ready for a fight? The more you educate others, the less isolated you’ll feel. One person protesting alone is often dismissed; a crowd can ignite a movement.
For more insights on navigating parenthood, check out this post about home insemination kits. If you’re interested in understanding painful breastfeeding causes and treatments, this resource is a must-read. For comprehensive information on intrauterine insemination, Healthline provides an excellent overview that’s worth exploring.
In summary, the tendency for journalists to resort to anger rather than education undermines effective communication and societal progress. Instead of fostering understanding and dialogue, they often alienate their audience, leaving readers feeling chastised instead of informed.