Online bullying is an issue that
millions of people deal with on a regular basis. I have personally seen people
fall to pieces over a careless or even deliberate comment on the internet; I’ve
also been on the receiving end of a few hurtful remarks myself. Bill Keller’s New York Times article “The Bully Pulpit”
gives the impression that it talks about the huge problem that internet
bullying has become, and in a way, it does. Unfortunately, Keller spends little
time focusing on his thesis, instead using the space to complain about his own
misfortunes in dealing with online bullies. In his piece, he talks about the
liberal side of Twitter and nytimes.com and the negative comments he got from those
sources on another column, as well as listing the reasons why he finds the
internet can be a “hospitable place for malice.” His thoughts seem to move
quicker than he can get them down on paper, and he fails to offer clarification
when it’s needed. I find that Keller is also quick to judge, insulting the more
left leaning readers and commenters on the two social media sites. Due to this
aggression towards some of his audience and his habit of leaving other readers
in the dark, I do not feel that the author’s argument is valid.
It is clear from the beginning that
Keller is not connecting with his audience. He spends most of the first
paragraph explaining why he is writing about the topic in the first place,
bringing up a panel that he’s going to be a part of that’s discussing how
technology is changing the way children grow up. He pokes fun at himself,
saying his job must be to make the other panel members “look brilliant by
comparison.” While his ability to laugh at himself if commendable and personable,
it makes believing in his claim a little difficult. After all, he did just
admit that he doesn’t know very much about the subject. He also merely infers
that internet bullying will come up during the panel, based on the fact that
one of the speakers has recently released a book on the subject. He never names
the book, leaving some readers, myself included, in the dark. This need for the
audience to already be in the know to understand a reference takes away from
his credibility and lessons his character. His lack of prior knowledge before
approaching the subject does this as well, leading to a huge flaw in his
article. Strike one.
Moving into a new topic, one that
scarcely relates to the first, Keller brings up on article he wrote in a
previous week, which had been about President Obama, the sequester, and his opinion
on the whole thing. It’s at this point that the author finally properly
approaches online bullies, but it’s also where I feel he starts to cross a
line. He mentions reading the comments on nytimes.com, and the feedback he received
on Twitter, and then blatantly attacks those reviewers. While he says that some
of the responses were thought-provoking and intelligent, most were harsh and
insulting. He vaguely validates it, saying that The Times tends to attract a lot of liberal readers, and his column
was conservative in comparison. While most might understand or even see reason
in the negative reactions, Keller, it would seem, does not. The author is
stacking the deck, playing the innocent victim. He offered nothing that would
suggest he saw their side of the argument. Instead, he labels the group “liberals”
using the blanket, political term like slang, as though he considers them to be
lesser people because of the comments they made. The nytimes.com comments are
then pinned against the responses he received on the popular social media
website, Twitter. While the opinions from the two sources were relatively
similar, the Twitter responses were meaner and shallower. “It was like the
difference between a relatively civil council meeting and open mic night at a
really bad comedy club.” The teasing, sarcastic comment borders on rude, and
can even be seen as Keller being a bully. The arrogance is weakening his ethos,
and the entire situation is strike two.
Using extravagant wording, the
author compiles a bullet point list of the reasons he finds the internet to be
such a threatening place. One claim in particular that stuck out to me was “social
media rewards partisanship.” Now, I have to admit, I had to look up the
definition of partisanship. Roughly translated into simpler terms, Keller is
saying that social media encourages single-mindedness. The author, who
previously addressed the commenters as “liberals”, is now moving them down
another rank, to mindless followers. The over dramatics of the list, this point
specifically, seem more like half-hearted entertainment than intelligent information,
though I’m sure that wasn’t Keller’s intention. The cherry on top is when
Keller contradicts the entire list, saying “I believe the blessings of the
internet outnumber the dangers.” Taking back a claim he just made throws me, as
a reader, for a loop. I find myself questioning all the other points he made,
wondering if he really stands behind them. That, mixed with the exaggerations
of the list, equals strike three.
Finally, in the very last line of
the column, Keller states his main thesis. “Twitter doesn’t make you mean; but
social media can bring out the bully in all of us.” I think that this thesis
had a lot of potential for a good piece of writing that could really make an
impact on people, but the author’s thoughts and claims and minor points jump
all over the place, missing his main point several times. Keller is quick to
judge, he’s oversensitive to outside opinions while getting paid to give his
own, and his attempts to make his audience laugh feels more like he’s
struggling to fill an awkward plot hole. He fills the shoes of the perfect
internet bully; he plays the part of the innocent victim while he dishes out
attacks on others. It happens all the time, and this author isn’t the first
person or the last to get away with it. The trend is on the rise, if the article
doesn’t make that clear enough. It’s time for people to step back and realize
how much damage they are doing, before its pushed too far.
