Sioux City Journal devotes entire front page to bullying editorial

The pro-bullying crowd that actually reads newspapers.

 

It has been touched on a bit, but TheSportsPredictor, any thought that bullying is limited to gay kids is simply wrong.

I was bullied badly in junior high, and I'll give you that the fact my parents made me play the violin in school gave that guy/those guys their opening for that kind of assumption.

My son was bullied for about four months in middle school -- so badly he had a string where he literally claimed he was sick daily for a couple of weeks in a row -- and he was a great baseball player and popular kid who played no "gay" musical instruments that would have served as a red flag to idiots. He was in the wrong place at the wrong time involving teacher-student discipline, and he literally feared for his life (the bully wound up in jail).

I'm sure, now that he's 6-2 and about 200, he wishes he could find that guy again.

Bullying CAN involve anti-gay/homophobic thinking, but it's hardly limited to it.

 

How about the crowd that sees bullying and does nothing?

 

They'll continue. I'm not sure an editorial could be written convincingly enough to change that attitude, but this one wasn't.

 

One person's gimmick is another's call to action, I suppose.

Yeah, it's not a written masterpiece. I'll grant you that. Does it have to be? Too many subjects around here - and I'm guilty as anyone -- turn on whether something was beautifully written, regardless of its purpose or use, and if that's the prime criteria by which anything is measured, local journalism is eternally screwed. <i>Take no chances unless you're lucky enough to have 23-year-old rising star on your staff who follows the right people on Twitter and quotes old novelists!</i>. If your argument against the ed boils down to, <i>well, it's just not good enough</i> than your argument is, well, just not good enough. The great writers can't be there to save every story.

 

My argument is that it's thin and a gimmick. Part of that argument is that they didn't state the point well. That's not a matter of beautiful words strung together as much as forceful and authoritative editorial writing. The thin premise of the column and the lack of real opposition make it very difficult to write a forceful and authoritative editorial on this subject, which is why it isn't worth a 1A poster treatment.

 

How do you know they'll continue? I'm also unconvinced that because something persists, we should never try to fix or address it, which seems to be the reasoning here.

Not entirely sure you've yet identified a 'straw man' in their argument, either.

It's possible to make an argument that this editorial belongs on the front page without regard to whether the editorial itself succeeds or fails as written. Would it be better piece of writing if it had been written by Gail Collins?

Sure. But Gail Collins doesn't work for the Sioux City Journal.

 

I ask this not in a overtly condescending tone: Did you read it? It was two-dimensional. The headline sentence, "We must stop bullying," was pretty much as deep as the story went. And everyone agrees that kids committing suicide with direct correlation to bullying is an issue. When your readers all agree, you're burning down a straw man.

If the Journal were to provide thoughtful, considered solutions, I would not have had a problem with it. It railed to rail. That's why I think it was unproductive and a waste of 1A. That's also why I don't think it will convince anyone to change behaviors, though I'm sure the Bully movie will prove a better conduit of change.

That's not to say this wouldn't have been a fine editorial on the editorial page. But it doesn't deliver what a 1A editorial should: real basis for change.

 

Of course I read the piece. And I agree that it's unlikely to win a Pulitzer.

What's wrong with telling readers that the first step to addressing the problem is having the courage to acknowledge the problem?

 

I'm all for doing something well. I often critique very good writers on here, so, again, I'm guilty as anyone.

But the argument is, basically, "it's not good enough to justify the big spread. To which I just, I dunno, can't relate on this one.

 

Because some people are never wrong. I see your point.

 

If, as you claim, the country is "going" into the shitter, then what was it when blacks couldn't be served at hotels and restaurants and gays were taboo in TV and movies.

Do you really think the country is "going" in a worse direction than from which it came?

Perspective, please.