There's an expression here that says: today's newspapers are tomorrow fish and chip wrappers. Or something along those lines. But unfortunately stories that are in the paper, are also posted online. And because they're posted online, they subject to ignorant people's scrutiny of something they just don't understand.
Now last week's comment of "i've maxed on being nice..." quite literally now. I work for a national charity in the press department and not that I've ever seen myself as the type to work in the third sector, but that doesn't mean that I don't think I'm a good person and have compassion for people, because I do always feel interested in anyone's story, specifically those who are marginalised. So this campaign we've been working on has now launched, and part of working for a health charity is placing case studies throughout the media to highlight their condition and their experience of living with it. So our case study was placed in the Sun, Daily Mail, Daily Mirror and the Metro. Fine, red tops, great. Story is a bit contentious that's alright. So our case study has gained some weight since her condition because she's on steroids, and she's on oxygen 24/7, and she's in a wheelchair and the only thing she can do for herself is prepare food. Everything else someone needs to help her. She's 50, and speaks frankly about how she is dying from passive smoke. Also, she's the loveliest woman, with nothing but an incredible heart and huge spirit.
So the story appears in the papers, and immediately readers start making comments about 'oh maybe she's dying because she's fat...' and it's appalling. By 12noon, there are around 90 comments, 50% of which are so ignorant, and disgusting, the other 50% are defensive towards her. She called me later that day really upset, and I got all choked up as well speaking with her. I just couldn't imagine making a comment about something I know absolutely nothing about, but jumping to cutting judgments because I can, anonymously.
Within our team, we were discussing the best course of action. I still do believe that calling someone fat, and saying they're in a wheelchair because they're fat is an abilist remark and by the terms and conditions of these papers, such comments should be deleted. But each paper is so reluctant to take down any comments that aren't either racist or homophobic (their policy) because of censorship and the issues surrounding brazen action deleting on the internet. But regardless, it never goes away. Posted online, yesterday's papers aren't fish and chips wrappers, they're a constant reminder, a tick that you keep scratching, an emotional cut on your arm.
That night, Chris dragged me to a gig that I didn't really want to go to in the first place, but it was marred by this. And by inability to protect someone. And I thought that wouldn't happen in the charity sector. But she's in much better spirits now, because she's incredible and can move on. But I'm still sitting here in disbelief and disappointment. Both in myself and in manking (or the small fraction who read the Daily Mail).
4 comments:
If I ever need to wonder if humans are inherently "good" or "bad" I think I only need to look at online comments where people openly attack others that they don't even know
-Leah
I would side with Leah, all the while knowing that I've been guilty of that sort of criticism in my life.
There are always going to be people who think they know what's best for everybody else. If there isn't an outlet for someone to preach their agenda in person, they'll find a way to make a comment behind their ip address. Again, guilty.
But take heart in knowing that you were deeply affected by someone else's ignorance, which in itself is a testament to your character. Someone else who can be a slimeball and then go to bed feeling like they did the world a service has a certain degree of what's-coming-to-them sooner or later.
Shows just how spineless some people are. They could never expose their bigotry in the real world for fear of being condemned (which they should be), so they cowardly spew their vitriol under the covers where they can feel free from public judgment.
I would side with Leah, all the while knowing that I've been guilty of that sort of criticism in my life. There are always going to be people who think they know what's best for everybody else. If there isn't an outlet for someone to preach their agenda in person, they'll find a way to make a comment behind their ip address. Again, guilty. But take heart in knowing that you were deeply affected by someone else's ignorance, which in itself is a testament to your character. Someone else who can be a slimeball and then go to bed feeling like they did the world a service has a certain degree of what's-coming-to-them sooner or later.
Post a Comment