Meaningful and civil discourse with a Fox News watcher
My column in this month's Running Times has already provoked a number of angry emails. I wrote about how I didn't condone, but understood, the temptation of General Petraeus (falling for a running partner). I also made a snarky comment about being attracted to a man until--say, he confessed to watching Fox News. Apparently, a number of our subscribers are Fox News watchers. I'm pasting a letter and my response here because I had so much fun writing it. And then his response to my response actually made me cry.
Dear [editor]:
I have written to you in the past with high praise of columns by Rachel Toor, but her latest effort, "Petraeus Syndrome", was disappointing. Her interjection of personal politics into the article, by suggesting that she might think a male runner hot until he "confesses to watching Fox News" really has no place in a serious running magazine. And I would be writing to make this same complaint if Ms. Toor had written that men who watch Fox News are totally hot. I'd like to leave my personal politics out of this complaint as it has no place here either.
Ms. Toor has plenty enough writing talent to be able to cover running topics of her choosing without interjecting her own politics. I would hope in the future that Running Times editors will look carefully at all articles in RT to assure they are politics-free zones. I have cancelled subscriptions to other sports-related publications that just couldn't resist regularly interjecting politics into articles over and over again. I don't wish to cancel my RT subscription at this time, I love RT. It's just that this is the first time in my many years as a subscriber that I can recall seeing a political comment in an article in RT. I am very hopeful it will be the last - I'd rather RT didn't lose me as a reader because we both would lose.
Lastly, it is highly unlikely I was the only person bothered by this, so I'm also writing to you because of my selfish preference that RT not lose many subscribers in the future over inappropriate political comments - that way, RT can stay viable as a publication and I can stay subscribed and keep reading it. These days, any political comment turns off approximately half of the population. Why do that????
Respectfully,
[ ]
My response:
Dear [ ],
I’m guessing this means you’re not going to be asking me for dinner and a movie any time soon. Nonetheless, thank you for your response to my recent RT column.
I wish I were the kind of girl who could be attracted to a man who is unable to write a coherent sentence, who poses in front of heavy machinery, has unfortunate facial hair, says his favorite author is Ayn Rand, is short, fat, bald, hairy, a smoker, a drinker, a bigoted homophobe. And I wish that I lived in a world where all of the men I’m attracted to are drawn to short, too-skinny, bow-legged, frizzy-haired, aging women who dote on their dog, refuse to learn how to cook, and can’t abide it when students put commas and periods outside of quotation marks. If this were the case, I suspect my social life would be a lot more active.
Some of my best friends are Fox News watchers. I know, from experience, that unless values are aligned, having different politics is hard on a relationship, James Carville and Mary Matalan notwithstanding.
I wish I lived in a country where there was such a thing as “politics-free zones,” where as a Jew I am not wished a Merry Christmas, where kids from other countries are not asked to pledge allegiance to our flag, where the color of your skin is insufficient reason to be stopped by the police while driving.
But I do not wish to live in a country where columnists, hired precisely because they have opinions (some of which may not be popular) are censored by editors who do not share their politics, or who worry more about the bottom line than they do about putting out a publication that sometimes asks people to think—even when the ostensible subject is something as seemingly anodyne as running. I think many people only see “politics” when they clash with what they believe. Politics, my friend, are everywhere.
What I love most about America, and I do love America and the values on which it was founded, is that censorship has no place here and that in most places a diversity of voices, even if it becomes a meaningless cacophony, is part of who we are and how we live.
We could scream at each other, or we could walk away from meaningful discourse, or you could cancel your subscription to Running Times. I love that we have the luxury of options and would fight or die to preserve those freedoms. I probably won’t be dating any more Fox News watchers and you can stay away from feminist Commie-rat chicks who own too many pairs of black shoes. But I do appreciate your taking the time to write.
Sincerely,
Rachel Toor
To his credit, the guy wrote perhaps an even better response to my response:
Thank you for taking the time to respond to me. Your response below shows you to be every bit the feisty and independent woman that shines through in your writing. So dinner and a movie would be great..... if I were still single. However, as things stand, my wife would likely be a tad miffed if I were to ask you to dinner and a movie, so in deference to her preference, as well as my own desire to continue in wedded bliss, I must, unfortunately, pass.
Seriously, though, you may not believe this, but I absolutely love your articles. One in particular, "Personal Record: Shirtless Days" was quite possibly the most moving and best running-related article I have ever read in my life. You nailed it. I finished it with tears welling in my eyes and that rarely happens to me. It was that good. To be able to write like that is a gift....
.... and your written response to me below was a gift of a different sort. A very well-written and thought-provoking gift. I consider censorship to be ugly, and I didn't think of my email as espousing censorship, but upon re-reading it, I have to agree with you that it looks like a censorship request. Believe me when I tell you that my goal in writing was more like expressing my strong desire that RT stay on-topic. But I thought about it some more. If the topic is Rachel, or anyone else writing about themselves, even in a running publication, then I'm simply asking too much. Why should you omit pertinent information, political or not, about yourself because you might offend someone? That would not be you and that is not honest good writing. I don't want you writing about a fake you or a partial you. Your articles are great because you lay it all out there. You are who you are and you should be free to write about you and reveal, or not reveal, whatever you wish. No problem.
I have come to the conclusion that my email to [the editor] was misguided and wrong. I would like to retract my complaint email to [the editor] (I have copied him on this email). It strikes me now as a censorship request as well, and when I think of it that way, I don't like what I wrote at all and it is a bit embarrassing to have to admit that.
So if I may be permitted one more request, I would ask that we just forget the whole thing. I was wrong. Keep writing whatever you want, Ms. Toor (as if you need my permission to do that !). I'll keep reading because you're just too good to pass up. Please accept my sincere apologies for running down the wrong trail.
Dear [editor]:
I have written to you in the past with high praise of columns by Rachel Toor, but her latest effort, "Petraeus Syndrome", was disappointing. Her interjection of personal politics into the article, by suggesting that she might think a male runner hot until he "confesses to watching Fox News" really has no place in a serious running magazine. And I would be writing to make this same complaint if Ms. Toor had written that men who watch Fox News are totally hot. I'd like to leave my personal politics out of this complaint as it has no place here either.
Ms. Toor has plenty enough writing talent to be able to cover running topics of her choosing without interjecting her own politics. I would hope in the future that Running Times editors will look carefully at all articles in RT to assure they are politics-free zones. I have cancelled subscriptions to other sports-related publications that just couldn't resist regularly interjecting politics into articles over and over again. I don't wish to cancel my RT subscription at this time, I love RT. It's just that this is the first time in my many years as a subscriber that I can recall seeing a political comment in an article in RT. I am very hopeful it will be the last - I'd rather RT didn't lose me as a reader because we both would lose.
Lastly, it is highly unlikely I was the only person bothered by this, so I'm also writing to you because of my selfish preference that RT not lose many subscribers in the future over inappropriate political comments - that way, RT can stay viable as a publication and I can stay subscribed and keep reading it. These days, any political comment turns off approximately half of the population. Why do that????
Respectfully,
[ ]
My response:
Dear [ ],
I’m guessing this means you’re not going to be asking me for dinner and a movie any time soon. Nonetheless, thank you for your response to my recent RT column.
I wish I were the kind of girl who could be attracted to a man who is unable to write a coherent sentence, who poses in front of heavy machinery, has unfortunate facial hair, says his favorite author is Ayn Rand, is short, fat, bald, hairy, a smoker, a drinker, a bigoted homophobe. And I wish that I lived in a world where all of the men I’m attracted to are drawn to short, too-skinny, bow-legged, frizzy-haired, aging women who dote on their dog, refuse to learn how to cook, and can’t abide it when students put commas and periods outside of quotation marks. If this were the case, I suspect my social life would be a lot more active.
Some of my best friends are Fox News watchers. I know, from experience, that unless values are aligned, having different politics is hard on a relationship, James Carville and Mary Matalan notwithstanding.
I wish I lived in a country where there was such a thing as “politics-free zones,” where as a Jew I am not wished a Merry Christmas, where kids from other countries are not asked to pledge allegiance to our flag, where the color of your skin is insufficient reason to be stopped by the police while driving.
But I do not wish to live in a country where columnists, hired precisely because they have opinions (some of which may not be popular) are censored by editors who do not share their politics, or who worry more about the bottom line than they do about putting out a publication that sometimes asks people to think—even when the ostensible subject is something as seemingly anodyne as running. I think many people only see “politics” when they clash with what they believe. Politics, my friend, are everywhere.
What I love most about America, and I do love America and the values on which it was founded, is that censorship has no place here and that in most places a diversity of voices, even if it becomes a meaningless cacophony, is part of who we are and how we live.
We could scream at each other, or we could walk away from meaningful discourse, or you could cancel your subscription to Running Times. I love that we have the luxury of options and would fight or die to preserve those freedoms. I probably won’t be dating any more Fox News watchers and you can stay away from feminist Commie-rat chicks who own too many pairs of black shoes. But I do appreciate your taking the time to write.
Sincerely,
Rachel Toor
To his credit, the guy wrote perhaps an even better response to my response:
Thank you for taking the time to respond to me. Your response below shows you to be every bit the feisty and independent woman that shines through in your writing. So dinner and a movie would be great..... if I were still single. However, as things stand, my wife would likely be a tad miffed if I were to ask you to dinner and a movie, so in deference to her preference, as well as my own desire to continue in wedded bliss, I must, unfortunately, pass.
Seriously, though, you may not believe this, but I absolutely love your articles. One in particular, "Personal Record: Shirtless Days" was quite possibly the most moving and best running-related article I have ever read in my life. You nailed it. I finished it with tears welling in my eyes and that rarely happens to me. It was that good. To be able to write like that is a gift....
.... and your written response to me below was a gift of a different sort. A very well-written and thought-provoking gift. I consider censorship to be ugly, and I didn't think of my email as espousing censorship, but upon re-reading it, I have to agree with you that it looks like a censorship request. Believe me when I tell you that my goal in writing was more like expressing my strong desire that RT stay on-topic. But I thought about it some more. If the topic is Rachel, or anyone else writing about themselves, even in a running publication, then I'm simply asking too much. Why should you omit pertinent information, political or not, about yourself because you might offend someone? That would not be you and that is not honest good writing. I don't want you writing about a fake you or a partial you. Your articles are great because you lay it all out there. You are who you are and you should be free to write about you and reveal, or not reveal, whatever you wish. No problem.
I have come to the conclusion that my email to [the editor] was misguided and wrong. I would like to retract my complaint email to [the editor] (I have copied him on this email). It strikes me now as a censorship request as well, and when I think of it that way, I don't like what I wrote at all and it is a bit embarrassing to have to admit that.
So if I may be permitted one more request, I would ask that we just forget the whole thing. I was wrong. Keep writing whatever you want, Ms. Toor (as if you need my permission to do that !). I'll keep reading because you're just too good to pass up. Please accept my sincere apologies for running down the wrong trail.
No comments have been added yet.
