I had immersed myself in the world of house-training my new puppy, Daisy, but nothing seemed to work. She was anxious and uneasy, and after weeks of using the bathtub as her toilet (which was both smart and considerate), I felt a wave of relief when she finally led me to one of those tree pits that line the streets of NYC for a proper bathroom break. Little did I know, dog urine is harmful to soil and can kill plants, and not everyone is thrilled about owners and dogs trampling their greenery. I learned this the hard way when a man approached his brownstone and launched into a tirade.
“Are you kidding me? Get the hell out of there! You know you can’t be in there. Get your dog out of that tree pit, you jerk!” (It was also the moment I discovered that those areas are called “tree pits.”)
This kind of interaction happens often: instead of conveying a message, people leap straight to punishment without teaching a lesson. Judging by his words, this man assumed I already knew about the dangers of dog urine and the tree pits, believing I was intentionally ignoring the rules like a rebellious teen. In reality, his aggressive tone only incited my defiance. Instead of feeling remorseful, I fantasized about leaving a bag of flaming dog poop on his doorstep.
This is a common pattern. People often express their frustration without teaching, yelling instead of informing. They count their past grievances and project their anger onto the next person, as if every newcomer is a repeat offender. Yet, the lesson is never taught. The only takeaway is the anger itself. The person being yelled at might understand they’ve made a mistake but lacks insight into how or why, and they’re bullied for their ignorance.
After a few minutes of his yelling, I regained my composure and said, “Oh, you’re one of those people.”
“What do you mean, ‘those people?’” he shot back, advancing toward me, furious.
“The ones who shrink the world with their rage rather than expand it through conversation.”
“Shut the fuck up.”
“Exactly,” I replied, walking away, proud but shaken from the encounter.
This unprocessed rage is everywhere. While it often appears in comment sections online, I’m starting to notice it more in journalism itself. Perhaps it’s always been there; I’m just now recognizing it. Many writers yell at their readers, patronizing them as if they should already possess the knowledge they seek. The moralizing tone is becoming harder to overlook.
I understand the frustration: in 2014, we are still advocating for rights that should be inherently ours. Daily, people face oppression for simply being who they are—non-white or non-male. The horrific realities of violence stemming from fear and ignorance are palpable. Some know a better way because they’ve been taught; it’s on those individuals to enlighten others, regardless of how offensive it may seem that not everyone shares a common understanding of what’s right.
Sanctimonious attitudes don’t inspire change; they foster animosity. Chastising readers and filling articles with accusatory language is ineffective and, dare I say, simplistic. It highlights the writer’s inability to connect genuinely with others. Hostility breeds distance, and when journalists prioritize tone over substance, readers are left uncomfortable, associating the writer and their publication negatively. Journalists have squandered chances to drive change by choosing to rant instead of educate.
Anger is a passive, non-action that can be destructive. It’s deceptive because it feels like energy and action, yet it often merely deflects responsibility. Articles laden with combative language transfer problems onto others rather than offering solutions. When writers vent their frustrations, they inadvertently contribute to the very issues they’re railing against. This type of journalism sets a poor example, reinforcing the idea that conversations about difficult topics are off-limits while shaming readers for not already knowing what the journalist knows.
This issue can be likened to trolling—when writers, frustrated and looking for a fight, use unchecked invective rather than thoughtful discourse. A growing number of online journalists resort to this approach as a way to express their emotions, but anger can be isolating. Who wants to collaborate with someone perpetually in fight mode? The more we inform others, the less alone we feel. One person protesting alone may seem crazy; a crowd of protesters, however, becomes a movement.
For more insights on home insemination, check out this resource on at-home insemination kits and the authoritative Cryobaby kit to help understand your options. Also, if you’re looking for more information on pregnancy and insemination, Healthline provides excellent resources.
In summary, effective communication is key to fostering understanding and change. Journalists should aim to educate rather than alienate their audience, recognizing that true engagement requires dialogue, not diatribe.
Keyphrase: Journalists and Communication
Tags: [“home insemination kit”, “home insemination syringe”, “self insemination”]