Civility-Snarkility

WSJ writer David Ulin wrote today about “Snark: It's Mean, It's Personal, and It's Ruining Our Conversation” by David Denby. Ulin quotes Denby, “I think it's reasonable to ask: What are we doing to ourselves? What kind of journalistic culture do we want? . . . What kind of national conversation?" And then Ulin goes on to say, “what we need is a revolution in sensibility, a return to civil discourse, a way of opening, rather than closing down, debate."

Civility is a choice. Snarkility is a choice. The snarkist’s shtick is, “we give you pukes out there just what you deserve.” The civilist’s shtick is, “we tell you what you need to know with respect."

I’m not really bothered by either attitude. I remember them from jr. high. In both camps, if you’re in, you’re cool. If not, you’re worse than excrement. The one says it overtly; the other obliquely. It’s a convenient way to ascertain the world.

“In the context of no context,” author George W. S. Trow warned us this was coming. He wrote of the changes in how we do “History” and of the decline of adulthood:
HISTORY
History had been the record of growth, conflict, and destruction.

THE NEW HISTORY
The New History was the record of the expression of demographically significant preferences: the lunge of demography here as opposed to there. . . In the New History, the ideal became agreement rather than well-judged action, so men learned to be competent only in those modes which embraced the possibility of agreement. The world of power changed. What was powerful grew more powerful in ways that could be easily measured, grew less powerful in every way that could not be measured.

What is now counted as powerful in modern discourse is how many “views” can you “document,” not how compelling or convincing is your argument. What may be off-putting about the snarkists is they are offensive. They are, however, in the parlance of the new history, aligned with the current demographic lunge; thence, successful. Civilists are out. Dead meat.

If one is being ingenuous when engaging in discourse, one wants the other party to at least comprehend one’s point. One hopes to, if not convince outright, at least move the other person one's way. Civility for its own sake won’t accomplish that, but it may potentiate that. Snarkility doesn’t give a flying ____ whether it’s comprehended; it just wants to be seen to look good.

What kind of journalistic culture do we want? One that tells us things we would not otherwise know. Whether the tone of the telling is civil or snarky, let stories be told, let facts come out, let pictures be painted, let revealing words flow, let things that could not be measured be told anyway. Let more than what is cool to say be said. Let the free press discover its voice and let that voice yawp out something worth its hearing.