From time to time, odd stories pop into my newsfeed, like a recent op-ed by Laura McGann. McGann references a minor Internet squabble between an sportswriter of sorts, Samer Kalaf, and a NYT columnist of sorts, Bret Stephens.
If one is curious, it is easy enough to find the exchange of emails, but here is a summary. Kalaf zips off a few impolite and mildly profane emails to Stephens. Stephens (mistakenly, in my opinion) responds by asking who Kalaf is. There’s tart response from Kalaf followed by a lengthy, apparently well-intended if mildly patronizing email from Stephens. From this, McGann divines that Stephens has shown why women fail to report sexual harassment/abuse, i.e., “because retaliation.”
Welcome to the world of Internet journalism/clickbaiting where everyone is talking but no one is listening.
If Stephens want to take some of his day to engage with an Internet provoca-troll, OK. But a newspaper writer smart enough to win the Pulitzer should be smart enough to now that the author of an email with the subject line, “You are remarkably dumb” is probably not looking for mentoring or career advice.
No matter how gifted one is as a writer, it’s tough to tell someone 20 or 30 years younger that they are acting like an ass without sounding condescending. And it’s definitely not a good idea to reference their degree or current job... as if they had a more prestigious degree or better job or a Pulitzer Price their opinion would carry more weight.
There are Powerball odds that Stephens will ever read this, but here’s a thought. For men over 40, giving advice is like wearing jeans. Only a small fraction of the men who think they can pull it off really can. And when it doesn’t work, it can be ugly. What is sad about this is not that it’s the one trillionth example of why one should not “feed the trolls.” It’s that the exchange was twisted into a foregone conclusion by McGann.
I am deeply sympathetic to the plight of a persons seemingly trapped in a bad situation. I understand and empathize with people who don’t feel they can complain or stand up for themselves without losing a job, a home, or even children. The point Stephens was making is that acting like a jerk can come back and bite one squarely in the backside. He even made the point (and I take him at his word) is that if he were assigned to judge Kalaf’s work, he would recuse himself.
Stephens is right. Acting badly can have consequences, occasionally surprising and unforeseen. Frankly tthose infrequent moments of karma give me faith in the universe. And they are infrequent. Some absolute jerks seem to make it through life with nary a scratch. But we invoke the utilitarian approach, i.e., the day may come where the person you kicked has a chance to kick you... mostly with kids who haven’t figured out how infrequent karma can be.
Back to McGann, the only way you can get from Stephens to #metoo retaliation is to approach the subject entirely immersed in a perspective. I’m surprised she didn’t find a way to use the recent clickbait video of the large spider dragging a baby opossum into the narrative.
Stephens advice wasn’t the Pentagon Papers of retaliation. It was an observation about natural consequences. The problem of the powerful retaliating against the powerless, and the complex issue of sexual harassment, deserve better thought, and better writing. Great journalism can consider complex issues with objectivity, sensitivity, and nuance. Pulitzer Prize winning or not, we could use more of that.
