Response more important than being liked
Published 1:08 am Thursday, June 11, 2009
By Staff
In the past two weeks I wrote one column heavily criticizing President Barack Obama and one that said unfavorable things about the Pixar movie "Up."
Despite the president's high approval ratings and the public's genuine affection for the man, going after Obama generated significantly less feedback than taking on one lousy, but apparently beloved, film.
The entire experience made me realize that newspapers have become so bland that people have forgotten the purpose of opinion pieces and criticism.
This phenomenon extends to talk radio and pundit television, where ideologues such as Rush Limbaugh and Keith Olbermann preach mostly to the converted.
New ideas are not welcome and challenging anyone's beliefs marks you as a target for ridicule.
As a newspaper columnist, I don't particularly want most of you to like me and I most certainly don't write just to have people agree with me.
It's nice when someone changes his or her mind because of something I say and even nicer when my words express something a reader felt, but could not express.
My job, however, is to make you read my column and thereby the paper or Web site in which it appears.
The best columnists, critics, radio hosts and TV pundits should challenge you, make you angry sometimes and happy at others. We should provoke a reaction, even if that reaction is, "Boy, he's a jerk."
Newspapers no longer matter because they no longer make anyone care.
Open up the op-ed page of any major paper and you find few, if any, columnists that engage your attention.
Sure, the folks published there write about weighty issues and offer well-informed opinions, but they don't draw you in or make you mad.
Any response my dull colleagues engender comes from their basic political philosophy, not provocative writing or a willingness to be unabashedly entertaining.
Compared to the erudite folks being syndicated around the country by the major syndicates, my writing is slight.
They offer missives on the Middle East or economic policy and I'm as likely to write about a movie, my son's willingness to put absolutely anything in his mouth or something equally trivial.
When I do write about big issues, I take clear, bold stands, daring readers to disagree with me instead of making careful, measured arguments on narrow aspects of issues.
My type of writing exposes me to anger and the many, many hate-filled e-mails I got for having an opinion on a movie that differed from a lot of readers.
People seemed to enjoy throwing statistics at me about that film, such as how positive a rating it got on RottenTomatoes.com, a Web site that measures audience reaction.
Of course, it's great that you disagree with me and I create an angry reaction in you.
What other part of the newspaper still does that and who else in your world provokes passion, anger or any other emotion?
Newspapers need more columnists and critics willing to dislike something that everyone else will likely enjoy.
"Up" may have entertained millions, but that doesn't make it good. Fast food chains are popular, as are Crocs, Hannah Montana, "Two and a Half Men," Gwen Stefani and tattoos, but popularity does not make any of those things good.
As a columnist, I strive to have clear, honest opinions that reflect what I actually think instead of saying what you want to hear.
It makes for a lonely career, because even fans of my most of my opinions eventually become angered, but it's a lot more satisfying than being just another guy playing to a base or trying to make everyone happy.
Daniel B. Kline's work appears in over 100 papers weekly. He can be reached at dan@notastep.com.