Despite my thorough research on house-training, nothing seemed effective for my new puppy, Busy. She was anxious and uncomfortable, opting to use the bathtub as her makeshift toilet—an ingenious choice, but ultimately unsustainable. After several weeks, I was relieved when she finally led me to a tree pit along the streets of New York City, seeking relief outdoors. Unbeknownst to me, however, was the fact that dog urine can harm soil and destroy plants, leading to discontent among residents when they witness dogs trampling their greenery. My realization of this came abruptly when a man, entering his brownstone, began to scold me vehemently.
“Are you serious? Get out of there! You know better than to let your dog in that tree pit!” he shouted. At that moment, I learned that these tree wells were indeed called “tree pits.”
This type of reaction is all too common: rather than conveying a constructive message, individuals often leap straight to punishment. The man assumed I was fully aware of the rules regarding tree pits and was willfully ignoring them, likening me to a defiant child or rebellious teenager. His aggression, however, only alienated me further; instead of feeling remorse, I was tempted to retaliate in kind.
People often fail in this way. Instead of imparting knowledge, they forgo the lesson in favor of reprimand, driven by past grievances and a misplaced sense of indignation. This approach leaves the recipient confused and bullied, knowing they’ve erred but lacking clarity on how or why.
After enduring his tirade for a few moments, I finally responded, “Oh, you’re one of those people.”
“What do you mean, ‘those people’?” he shot back, moving closer in fury.
“The ones who shrink the world with anger instead of expanding it through conversation.”
“Shut up,” he retorted.
“Precisely,” I replied, walking away, feeling a mix of pride and shock.
This raw, unprocessed rage can be found everywhere, and while it often bubbles up in online comment sections, I’ve begun to see it infiltrating articles themselves. Perhaps it has always existed, and I’m just now recognizing it. Instead of enlightening readers, some journalists resort to yelling and condescension, assuming their audience should already possess knowledge that they are seeking—hence their reason for reading the article in the first place. The moralizing tone is escalating, making it increasingly difficult to ignore.
I understand the frustration: in 2014, we still grapple with fundamental rights that should be inherently ours. Daily, individuals face oppression for simply existing outside of normative identities. The violence and ignorance that pervades society are often rooted in fear. Those who are enlightened have typically been educated, and it’s crucial for them to share their insights with those who remain uninformed, regardless of how uncomfortable it may be to acknowledge that not everyone shares our beliefs.
Sanctimony doesn’t inspire meaningful change; it merely breeds hostility. Condemning readers and infusing journalism with accusatory language does not foster understanding. Instead, it highlights the author’s struggle to connect meaningfully with their audience. Such hostility creates distance, and when a journalist’s tone overshadows the topic, readers are left feeling uneasy about the writer and the publication that employs them. Journalists frequently miss opportunities to drive change by choosing to express anger rather than educate.
Anger, while seemingly active, is ultimately a passive force that can inflict harm. When I encounter articles laden with confrontational language, it feels as though the writer is displacing the problem rather than offering solutions. This kind of journalism perpetuates the notion that difficult subjects should be avoided rather than explored, shaming readers for their ignorance while withholding the knowledge that could enlighten them. Articles filled with undigested rage contribute to societal issues and mental health struggles. Anger may be easy, but engaging with challenging truths is where the real work lies.
Writers who resort to unprocessed rage often isolate themselves, creating barriers to collaboration and understanding. Those seeking to inform others will find that they have a broader support network. One person protesting may be dismissed as a lone voice, but a collective can spark a movement.
This article first appeared on November 25, 2014.
In conclusion, journalists must strive to educate rather than berate, fostering dialogue and understanding over hostility. By doing so, they can create a more informed and engaged readership.