Editorial 4.5, June/July 2002, by Deirdre Helfferich and John D. Lyle An Exchange of Letters: About That Editorial 24 May 2002 Regarding the editorial in the last issue [Volume 4, number 3]--which was highly critical of an unnamed individual--I wanted to say a few words. You are so right: that in writing, speaking, teaching, or communicating any message in any manner, HOW the message is delivered is often as important as the message itself. Marshall McCluan said, "the medium is the message," and he was right. You wrote that this person's questions were pokes in your personal and professional pride, and I wondered why they were such painful pokes. I can relate to this, as I often take things personally myself. But are pokes in our personal and professional sides necessarily always bad things? We are lucky to be as free as we are to debate, criticize, challenge, debate and question, but hopefully to do so in a sensitive manner. Given that these these prods were painful, I wondered why you didn't speak up for yourself right then and there? Why not a call, e-mail or face-to-face to clear the air? Myself, I'm not an expert on environmental science either, but like you, I care deeply about this precious and fragile place in which we live. I'm also not up on flouride and other water toxins, but if I had my druthers, I wouldn't want it in my drinking water simply because the government tells me it's "safe" or will "help my teeth." I do know that many nations in Europe and elsewhere strictly prohibit flouride, based on years of their own studies. Citizens of those countries can buy flouride toothpaste if they think they need it. But, as you said in your editorial, flouride wasn't really the main issue. Though you didn't name this person, you didn't need to, given your vivid description. It seemed to me you lashed back at this person in a public forum and, if it were I you were writing about, I would be feeling mighty bad. Is that what you wanted? Your last sentence was especially poignant; that people standing together in mud shouldn't throw it at each other. Isn't that what you did in your editorial? Eleanor Roosevelt said many neat things, but one I particularly remember is, "Nobody can make you feel inferior without your consent." I try to remind myself of that as I deal with these issues myself. We're all trying to figure it out. Sincerely, John Lyle To: John D. Lyle Thanks for your letter, John. Nicely written. It arrived the same day the paper came out, so I can't publish it until the next issue, no. 5. Good points. I thought that many of the points you raise were the ones I was making--obviously the editorial wasn't clear enough. I do take issue with your statement that the article was highly critical of an unnamed individual--that individual WAS named, and that person is myself. I used myself as an example of someone flying into a snit over next to nothing, for reasons that had little to do with the actual person I was speaking with. I'll provide a fuller response in the next issue. Sincerely, To: Deirdre Helfferich Hi Deirdre, thanks for your comeback, and for clarification of your piece. I must not have read the editorial carefully enough because I completely missed the point you just clarified below. Thanks for explaining it to me. Thanks also for a really good little newspaper! John The Fuller Response: Satire is sometimes difficult to convey in writing, as one doesn’t have the facial expressions and tone of voice to make clear one’s intent, and the above confusion was a classic example. I’ll address John’s points a little more explicitly below. Frothing internally at the mouth as I was on the day that I described in my editorial, I deemed it the better part of valor not to bring up the subject of polite behavior with my neighbor right then, as I could tell that I perhaps wasn’t the best judge of what that was. Later on it seemed not to be neccessary, as I’d already discussed my emotional state in public, and his conduct hardly seemed worth mentioning. John’s reference to Marshall McCluan’s quote is a particularly interesting one, because McCluan’s books were very influential for me. In this case, the medium was one person speaking to another--and all the attendant aspects of that: tone of voice, facial expression, word choice, and the interpretation of this by the hearer, and later, the reader of the description. Nonverbal communication, I understand, comprises about 80% of the meaning of a verbal exchange. When all that is cut out by putting it into print, it gets very difficult to tell what’s going on. I still am interested in getting an article on persistent organic pollutants (POPs) in our environment or on flouridation, but I’m not a reporter, and simply don’t have the time. Still, I think it’s an important subject, so it bugged me that I couldn’t write something up. If anyone out there is interested in this subject, please submit an article. I referred to People With A Cause in my editorial, and I view my neighbor as one such person, dedicated to the cause of a safe, clean environment, among other things. I respect him for this, and I share his views on many subjects. I don’t always care for his style or methods, as I’m sure he doesn’t always care for mine, but that’s our prerogative. I have my own causes, and it’s important to remember that how I convey them, how I communicate and interpret what other people do or say, can mean the difference between sabotaging the very goals I work for or advancing them. It’s easy to be blindsided by unexpected hooroar if one doesn’t maintain one’s perspective. —the Editor | ||
 | | |
