"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" has never been more relevant for a Miss Sara Malm. Her opinion piece on the Indy has been ruthlessly torn to shreds by an angry readership, who see her view on teacher strikes as "ignorant", "nasty" and "delusional" among other adjectives.
First of all, a note to some readers. I quoted Voltaire in the intro to this post, because it sums up the hate-storm that Malm has weathered in the past few days. It is fair to disagree with her opinions but plainly insulting her, labelling as a "twit", "idiot" and "imbecile" is stupid. Some argue that Malm needs to understand her history, to understand that workers unions are a product of an effective democracy but guess what else is? Pluralism.
A diversity of views informs debate and strengthens democracy, by saying "this is how I feel, but others disagree and this is why". By all means, it is your right to disagree with Malm. I disagree too, for reasons that will likely be a follow-up to this post in the next few days. But for some readers to ignore the issues in favour of hateful responses, even going so far as to find her blog and trash it, is not how democracy should be. People fought in blood and sweat for the right to strike, to exercise their power to give us a clean, safe environment in which to work. However it was our ancestors who fought for the freedom of speech. It was those people who gave Malm the opportunity to speak, and for the readers to insult the course she studies, as well as the people on that course (which, by the way, would include me).
I will finish this by saying that not all of the commentators on Malm's piece are the subject of this post. Some offered factual, insightful opinion, grounded in logic that act as an effective counter to Malm's views. Some people even agreed with her, commending her opinion and the way in which she articulated it. But their voices have been drowned out by those who rush in to call her "the new Samantha Brick" and then leave again without saying why. Just say why and then we can take it from there.
Why should anyone feel the need to reply with respect to someone who showed little respect for anyone else. Also to someone who has just admitted she is a proffessional troll.
ReplyDelete'......Some offered factual, insightful opinion, grounded in logic...', all the things her article was lacking.
If she is the cream of the students on your course, what the hell are you studying and what the rest of you like?
"Why should anyone feel the need to reply with respect to someone who showed little respect for anyone else"
ReplyDeleteIt may sound cliche, but treating someone with a lack of respect because they did not, merely makes you the same. People's opinions should always be treated respectfully. If you disagree, present your argument. Resorting to personal insults is not what the media should advocate.
"someone who has just admitted she is a proffessional troll"
I read her post on the Medwire and whilst I would not go so far as to call her a troll, because that would discount her opinion completely, I disagree with her ideas. I do not think journalism should "incite spiteful comments"; op-pieces should offer a view that informs debate.
"If she is the cream of the students on your course, what the hell are you studying and what the rest of you like?"
Who said she is the "cream"? To judge the rest of us because of what Sara believes, is wrong. She has an opinion. I have an opinion. We are merely learning the tools in which to articulate this, but whatever definition of journalism is gained from the course comes from personal belief.
'People's opinions should always be treated respectfully'.
ReplyDeleteI presume the day you learnt that on the course was the day Sara missed due to a hangover. Her complete lack of respect for a noble cause, actions that have led to losses of life, has been treated with the respect it deserves. Very little.
If you wish to call yourself a journalist you should be able substantiate your opinion, tell the truth, give facts, be objective and impartial. Not just mouth of with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response. That is the definition of a troll.
Her opinion piece succeeds only as a defemation of the proffession of journalism.
I agree with your definition of journalism. It should be everything you say, and since Sara has posted a defence of her piece in which she says she aimed to create controversy, I find myself unable to defend what I believed at the time to be a genuine opinion.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the lessons of respect should always apply. I do not know if she was present at that time, because I am a first year and she is a third, but even if she treats others with disrespect, resorting to childish insults and referring to her as a slut is not a mature counter-argument. That level of personal insult is what I took issue to. You may not have resorted to that, for which I respect you for, but others have simply because Sara chose to pick up her pen/keyboard and write. For whatever reasons that may be, she should not have to face what she has so far.
"If you wish to call yourself a journalist you should be able substantiate your opinion, tell the truth, give facts, be objective and impartial. " - It was an opinion piece. Opinion pieces are meant to spark debate.
ReplyDeleteAnd it is my genuine opinion Matt, what I am saying in my Medwire piece is that I was aware of the controversy my opinions would cause.
Thanks for defending my right to freedom of speech. And yes, I do think they couldv'e come up with something more intelligent than to comment on two year old blogposts and call me a slut.
I believe if someone has an opinion, they have the right to say it without the wave of abuse you have received. It is hypocritical for people to tell you to read your history when they are not honouring their own.
ReplyDeleteBut a clarification is needed when you say: "of course I included sentences that were calculated to incite trolling, spiteful comments and social media rage." Does this mean you purposefully chose words that would cause spite and trolling, in order to garner a reaction and make a name for yourself, "as an unpaid student journalist with the most commented piece"? Or does it mean you knew your opinion would cause such responses but you still said it anyway?
Aight, I get where you're coming from.
ReplyDeleteSo to explain further - my style of writing has always been the type which ignites both fury and praise, often more of the former. That's what makes it unique and I'm glad I found my style so early.
I knew my choice of words would cause responses but I not in a million years did I think it was going be the tidal wave that it was. And of course I still said it anyway. The fear of anger and hatred should never stop anyone - columnist of other profession - from speaking their mind. I was offered the opportunity to write my opinion on strikers, and did so in my own style, knowing full well what kind of reactions my writing could provoke. But if I changed it, it wouldn't have been me.
I always write in a way which I believe will cause reactions from both sides - it wasn't just this piece in particular. If you read things such as my previous columns in i, my blogs on The Medwire or for that matter either my 4th Alternative column in the last edition of the magazine you will recognise this.
Or just read my Olympics piece in the i today, maybe you'll like that one better.
And also, to respond to yourself and the brave 'Anonymous', Next week will be my seventh column in one of Britains most successful newspapers in less than 6 months. I've already had three job offers months before I have even graduated, two of those at nationals, and one at a national in another country (although I do admit a very small country). I brought The Medwire from a small magazine to where it is today, something I am very proud of. Take into account that this is my second language and that I have been in the country for about 3.5 years. If you beat that in two years then I will humbly tip my hat to 'the cream' of this course.
Congratulations on your job offers, Sara. It looks like the relentless self-promotion and attention-seeking is paying off. I'm happy you're so pleased with yourself. From your convoluted 'defences' of your original article, it's difficult to judge whether you wrote it out of ideological commitment to an extreme right-wing Thatcherite hatred of working people's solidarity, or out of a troll-like desire to push people's buttons and promote your 'brand' (as you so clinically describe it elsewhere). Perhaps it was both. Whatever, both explanations are equally depressing. I hope you, your 'brand' and your no-doubt stellar career at some right-wing rag will all be very happy together.
ReplyDeleteThe real point is: hat kind of journalism do we need? That which is based on a good knowledge and udnerstanding of the subject in question, and its context, and the ability to weigh up different opinions in order to construct an insightful, coherent and informative argument. That is what should be upheld by the best (non-tabloid, I'm afriad) newspapers, of different political persuasion. Sara Malms's writing fails to meet that criteria. That, I think, is why she likes the tabloids; deep down, she knows she could not achieve those higher professional standards. She mistakes style for real substance.
DeleteSara, sorry to be critical but the real question is: what kind of journalism do we really need? Well, that based on real knowledge and understanding of the topic being discussed and the context that gave rise to it, and the ability to weigh up different opinion and construct an insightful and coherent argument. That is what the best (non-tabloid, I'm afraid) journalism should seek to uphold. Your writing doesn't meet that criteria, and that, I think, is why you like the tabloids so much - you know you could not attain those higher standards of professional journalism. You are so worried about 'style' you forget the substance, I'm afraid.
ReplyDeleteHere's a good "why". Can we take it from here?
ReplyDeletehttp://truth-reason-liberty.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/passe-why-sarah-malm-is-idiot.html