Respect is Key
It occurred to me today, as I was driving into work, that the main problem in society is respect. I mean, there are alot of “main problems”, granted. But I think a major root to all these problems is respect. Respect for other people, in particular. And specifically, respect for other people when their views are contrary to our own.
This “revelation” came to me as I was listening to a radio personality make a great deal of sense on the issue of a Washington Post article about Maryland Governor Bob Ehrlich firing an advisor over shady attacks made on a rival.
Baltimore Mayor Martin O’Malley yesterday accused agents of Maryland Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr.’s administration of spreading false rumors that he had an extramarital affair, and Ehrlich responded hours later by dismissing a longtime employee.
<snip>
Ehrlich said an apology was premature and denied any involvement in spreading the rumor. He then asked for and received the resignation of Joseph Steffen, a longtime aide working in state government. Steffen confirmed yesterday that he had discussed the rumor on a popular conservative Web site and in private e-mails, which were given to The Washington Post.
This prominent radio personality made excellent points regarding the fact that Ehrlich should apologize for the actions of his staffers even if he had no knowledge of the events as they transpired. To do otherwise would be Nixonian. The problem with Nixon that nearly caused his impeachment, was not the Watergate break-in. It was the cover up. No one really believes Nixon knew about the break in. Likewise, the problem with Clinton wasn’t the sex, it was the lying under oath. That was his reason for impeachment.
The problem with not apologizing, says this host, is that by not confronting the issue head on and dealing with that kind of cancer in his administration, Ehrlich becomes a complicit participant in the reported shady dealings.
But this isn’t my point. My point is that intersparsed throughout this excellent point and the banter that transpired in this block of time were words like “scumbag” and “sleazeball” when referring to Ehrlich’s fired aide.
To me this is inexcusable in the professional realm. Here is an email string I had with this host this morning:
I wrote:
I don’t get to listen to you often because of work but everytime I do listen, I hear something that really bothers me. As valid and right on as your views are, you disqualify them by appending terms like “scumbag” to your points. Why can’t we have dialogue without the excessive baggage?
He wrote:
fair point-however, remember that I’m not a journalist, and Steffen is, well, you give me a synonym…
I wrote:
Thanks for the response. It’s not even about journalism. It’s just about professionalism and debate. For instance, I’m a blogger, not a journalist. But when I write, I am aware of the weight certain words carry and so, though the terminology may suit the feeling, I don’t use them. It’s about your listener and the perception they have of the point you make. Like I said, I agree with you on principle, but I roll my eyes everytime I hear these things tossed around because it’s about efficiency in your stories and it is inefficient to use labels like these, not because they are offensive or other political correctness bull, but because the terminology has unintended consequences to you.
In the world of professionalism, whether it be the corporate world, politics or even dialogue on cable TV news programs or radio talk shows, diplomacy can go a long way. It’s not about playing the political correctness game to make someone happy. It’s about respect for your opponent and even those who happen to be flies on the wall listening in. As good and effective as this hosts argument was, it was immediately invalidated through the use of terms like “scumbag”. The point could easily have been made without such terminology. And by using such words, the audience goes from large to half-large, because people don’t want to hear the excess verbagethat doesn’t really help the point.
Pick up your copy of the WordPress Bible, a wildly popular resource for beginners and experts alike.
Written by Aaron Brazell on February 9, 2005
Popularity: 1% [?]
Aaron Brazell
Steven Fisher
Ray Capece
Carlos Granier-Phelps
Andrew Feinberg
Mike Dougherty
Chris Bachmann
Leslie Poston
Jerald Sheets
Scott Goldblatt
Mykel Nahorniak
Peter Corbett
Jonathan Dingman
Geoff Livingston
Jeremy Toeman
Rachel James
Chris Parandian
Warren Sukernek
Joseph Hauckes
Shana Glickfield
Vinnie Garcia
David Nick
Duncan Riley
Carol Ott
Darren McLaughlin
Mike Oliver
Rico Masterson
Lou P. Nuts
“To do otherwise would be Nixonian. The problem with Nixon that nearly caused his impeachment, was not the Watergate break-in. It was the cover up. No one really believes Nixon knew about the break in.”
It aleways amazes me the number of people who still believe that “The Dick” wasn’t in on Watergate from the first time someone said – Hey Lets break in to DNC Headquarters to the last time he said “I am not a crook”
Sadder still is those who believe that an affair with an intern is as serious as a burlarly – and not just one – lets not forget Daniel Ellsberg’s psyciatrist’s office. Let’s not forget using the FBI to spy on American citizens because Dickey didn’t like their politics
And since I’m on a rant how bout we rattle of a few other Republican goodies like Iran-Contra, and protestors who can only protest away from the cameras (Republicans aren’t dumb they learned the lesson of Chicago 1968), or how bout their role in bringing crack cocaine to our cities (I forget the paper that broke that one but look it up under Pulitzer Prize for Investigative Journalism) and of course there is the latest and greatest Republican lie – what was it – WMD maybe.
So why are we suprise that Ehrlich in an effort to try to win a 2nd term would have his cronies spread lies about an affair – after all Karl Rove proved that if you can convice people that your the moral ones and hey you can elect a mental midget president
“To do otherwise would be Nixonian. The problem with Nixon that nearly caused his impeachment, was not the Watergate break-in. It was the cover up. No one really believes Nixon knew about the break in.”
It aleways amazes me the number of people who still believe that “The Dick” wasn’t in on Watergate from the first time someone said – Hey Lets break in to DNC Headquarters to the last time he said “I am not a crook”
Sadder still is those who believe that an affair with an intern is as serious as a burlarly – and not just one – lets not forget Daniel Ellsberg’s psyciatrist’s office. Let’s not forget using the FBI to spy on American citizens because Dickey didn’t like their politics
And since I’m on a rant how bout we rattle of a few other Republican goodies like Iran-Contra, and protestors who can only protest away from the cameras (Republicans aren’t dumb they learned the lesson of Chicago 1968), or how bout their role in bringing crack cocaine to our cities (I forget the paper that broke that one but look it up under Pulitzer Prize for Investigative Journalism) and of course there is the latest and greatest Republican lie – what was it – WMD maybe.
So why are we suprise that Ehrlich in an effort to try to win a 2nd term would have his cronies spread lies about an affair – after all Karl Rove proved that if you can convice people that your the moral ones and hey you can elect a mental midget president
Rant away, but realize I don’t intend to take the bait. This entry was about respect in dialogue, not about scandals.
Rant away, but realize I don’t intend to take the bait. This entry was about respect in dialogue, not about scandals.
I guess you can call it getting over emotional and fustrated over things & stuff that may sound really petty.
I guess you can call it getting over emotional and fustrated over things & stuff that may sound really petty.
Sometimes petty. Sometimes not. It’s a regular thing no matter what the topic. But in my opinion, it’s better to carry on intelligent dialogue than to call people names. It yields better results.
Sometimes petty. Sometimes not. It’s a regular thing no matter what the topic. But in my opinion, it’s better to carry on intelligent dialogue than to call people names. It yields better results.