Last week our social media drew some incendiary comments related to a guest editorial – so much so that I had to ban a person for inflammatory remarks and threats, delete material that would have gotten us flagged by the social media provider, and then shut down comments.
Most folks focused on the intro, which while it definitely showed the bias of the author towards the President, was functionally a literary device to refocus attention on the actions taking place in the capital annex room in Frankfort.
Was it an effective lede? It depends. It definitely got some attention; including mine, which is why I chose to reprint it in our publication.
But I will admit that I was naïve in my hope that folks would look past that introduction – and whatever emotions it triggered in them because it dared criticize the President – and to the meat of the article.
I didn’t agree with another major premise of the article, that people aged 18 to 20 can’t be responsible enough to qualify for a concealed carry permit. I have known plenty of folks under the age of 20 who have been well-trained, and who I would trust to carry a gun, either openly or concealed. By the same token, I can think of plenty of men in their 50s and older who I wouldn’t trust to handle a weapon in the same deer woods with me, and that doesn’t require any of the extra steps and verification that a concealed carry permit requires.
But, again, that wasn’t the point of the article that captured my attention. That wasn’t what I found important. It was, like the lede, a way for the author to advance the narrative towards the real issue – the fast-tracking of bills with no time for those voting to even read and digest them, much less discuss and debate.
Because here’s the thing, even if you support your party and whatever they want to do, and you implicitly trust your elected representatives to always do what’s in your best interests, there will come a time when your party is not in power. Election cycles are like pendulums; they inevitably swing back in the opposite direction. And the precedents set when one party is power can absolutely be wielded in the same way when the opposition is back in control of the legislature. Especially if they also control the executive.
And, sometimes, you might not agree with what your party is advocating. I know, it sounds crazy to some folks in this polarized, all-or-nothing, my-party-right-or-wrong environment we find ourselves in these days, at least until we step away from social media and actually talk in person. But sometimes it’s true. People are more complicated than party platforms.
Speaking of social media, the recent feedback also points out a couple of other issues inherent in the platform that I’ve written about before; people reading no further than a headline before making up their mind and commenting, and folks taking attempting to shift attention and increase division rather than allowing discussion on the topic at hand.
In this instance, I think there are valid arguments that could be made in favor of sometimes fast-tracking bills, and in generally allowing more time for consideration and debate – arguments that could and should resonate with reasonable people no matter which direction they lean politically.
In the best case scenario we could have a polite conversation about the types of emergencies that would validate fast-tracking a bill, and when it’s better to take our time to consider and debate a bill before putting it forward for passage – which I think most of us would agree is most instances. (Unless we just want to be contrary, or have an ulterior motive for wanting to push a piece of legislation through.)
If this had been my piece – and maybe I should have written my own piece based on this editorial instead of running it as a guest piece – I wouldn’t have introduced it the way the author did. I wouldn’t have started with a criticism of global policy that derailed the discussion before it could even get started. I probably would have started with something like the point she reached about halfway through the story, “In the committee meeting, it took 10 minutes for HB 312 to be presented, discussed, voted on, and passed. No citizens spoke against HB 312. How could they? Even those of us who know enough to get alerts … do not have enough time to read a bill, prepare a statement, get off work, and drive to Frankfort before it is too late. This is the very definition of fast-tracking. And it is undemocratic.”
I wish the author hadn’t “buried the lede” this way. And I have to take responsibility for running it without at least prefacing it with an editor’s note – something that, given the limited content that posts to social media with a share, could have avoided some of the knee-jerk reactions from folks who didn’t bother to read the full article. Or those who, like the author, couldn’t set their biases aside long enough to make a point that wouldn’t immediately alienate folks who might otherwise agree with what’s a really simple premise – that we shouldn’t pass a law before we’ve taken the time to understand it.
And that’s something that, despite all the controversy and headache, I still believe.
Contact the writer at editor@cartercountytimes.com
