The Content Wrangler
Your View: Was It Good Writing or a Poor Choice of Words?
Maybe your parents taught you to avoid the topics of religion and politics at the dinner table. It’s an especially wise practice at holiday times, when emotions typically run high and heated discussions between relatives about politically-sensitive issues can sometimes quickly degenerate into unholiday-like behavior. Smart parents discourage political and religious conversations at the dinner table (and stop them in their tracks when they overhear them) in an attempt to help ensure holiday dinners are remembered for their fabulous foods, not their food fights.
That said, life is not one big family gathering. Religion and politics—and other topics that might be taboo at the dinner table—are certainly appropriate fodder to weave into many other conversations. But, is it appropriate for a writer sharing his opinions on The Content Wrangler website to use politically-charged language to illustrate a point, lead the reader down a specific thought path, or tempt them into clicking on a hypertext link? When does a writer go too far in attracting attention?
Take for example Zev Winicur’s recent article, Beyond The Issues: Understanding US Presidential Candidates By Viewing Their Campaign Websites. Zev’s article was one of the most popular on our site during January 2008 and remains so today, likely because of the interest generated by the U.S. political process, as well as general interest from those who are involved in the discipline of web content design and marketing. It was also the top article in our monthly newsletter, attracting nearly several thousand more readers than any other article in the issue. As the editor, I didn’t find it particularly insulting about the article, but not all of our readers shared my views.
Leah Shalek from Karmiel, Israel wrote a scathing email calling me out for including this brief description of Zev’s article in our February email newsletter. What words did Leah object to:
“How do we tell who has the most believable, understandable, motivating, and succinct message? How do we judge relative charisma and leadership appeal? How do we find the candidate least likely to start a war in the Middle East based on trumped up intelligence and incompetent staffers? Do we rely on television pundits? Newspaper columnists? Bloggers? Oprah? The answer, believe it or not, is the candidates’ own campaign websites.”
Leah admitted to not reading the article because she was “in too much shock” after our email newsletter landed in her email inbox, so she has no idea what the article was about. But that didn’t stop her from lambasting me for my hidden political views (that somehow, Leah is able to see with her super-psychic detection capabilities). Leah wrote:
“What the hell are political opinions doing in this newsletter? Where the hell do you get off? I happen to LIVE in the Middle East, and things aren’t as “trumped up” as you would foolishly believe and spout to unsuspecting idiots. You want to write something about the websites of candidates? That’s fine. But to try to INDOCTRINATE people and pass on your own ignorant left-wing ideas is too much!”… I will telling everyone in the industry what our REAL intentions are.”
Leah also threatened to contact all of our sponsors (“Maybe they’d be interested in what you’re doing and how your going to chase THEIR clients away with your politically-biased intrusions.”) and she ended her letter “SHAME ON YOU!”
I don’t normally receive such heated emails, so I replied to Leah. Here’s a snippet:
“I’m sorry you feel offense after reading our recent newsletter. I’m not sure what you’re objecting to, however. The author of the article (it wasn’t me, but thanks for the nice insults you aimed my way), didn’t make any negative statements … nor did he say he felt any certain way. Instead, he asked a few hypothetical questions of the reader, who, admittedly, he thinks is likely to be interested in US presidential politics, much of which is centered on what is thought to be an ill-conceived plan of attack (with respect to the Iraq war). This is certainly a good example of how a message intended to mean one thing, is interpreted in a totally different way, based on the experience, viewpoint, and reading ability of the reader, in this case, you. I encourage you to leave your comments at the end of his article. This is the common method for authors to discuss their views with folks who read their columns. And, it encourages folks from different countries and cultures to exchange ideas and thoughts on the subject without stooping to throwing insults and threats at one another.
As for me, my REAL intentions are to produce and acquire content that challenges my readers to learn more about content and content technologies. Content is everywhere. It’s in education, religion, science, business, and in politics. It’s a part of history, math, manufacturing, sex, entertainment, healthcare, criminal justice and defense. No matter what topic you’re talking about, there’s a content issue related to it worthy of sharing with others. Along the way writers might offend folks—intentionally or unintentionally—in their quest to share their view of a content challenge. For me, this is an opportunity to learn, to differ, to discuss, and to grow.”
Of course, Leah didn’t like my response. She was far too pissed off to participate in a dignified discussion. She replied to my letter with an angry, rambling email riddled with CAPITALIZATION MISUSE issues, that can be distilled into one big gripe— “I am insulted simply because there IS an expressed [political] sentiment [in the words Zev wrote].” At the very least Leah expected “a sincere apology” for the words included in our monthly newsletter. At the most, she expected I would have “promised to prevent such things in the future.” I did neither. I simply told her I was moving this discussion to The Content Wrangler where the author could discuss the issue amongst our readers.
Leah wasn’t the only one to send in a comment about the article via email. Jim Howe also found Zev’s words to be worthy of a response. His email to me read:
“How do professionals find useful information about content development and presentation strategies offered by writers who develop their own content without resorting to intellectually lazy political commentary? Clearly it’s not through the Content Wrangler Newsletter.”
As you can see, political statements in articles or newsletters, can have all types of impact. They can make an article one of the most popular and most read. They can also irritate and upset readers—even those who don’t bother to read the entire article.
So, I ask, “Is it appropriate for a writer sharing his opinions on The Content Wrangler website to use politically-charged language to illustrate a point, lead the reader down a specific thought path, or tempt them into clicking on a hypertext link? When does a writer go too far in attracting attention? And, did Zev (and by extension, TheContentWrangler.com) go too far and why (or why not)? What do you think? Was it good writing or a poor choice of words?”
Fascinating.
I didn’t read the article as a political piece at all. I read it as an analysis on web design, using a current topical subject that most readers would be familiar with.
As a piece on web design I thought it worked well.
I think Leah has a good point, even if she was too mad to express it well.
Politically charged content was in the *newsletter* and that’s what Leah appears to be objecting to, not the article. I know if I suddenly received something that I thought was biased, from a source I previously trusted, I wouldn’t bother to go on. Personally, I don’t care what an individual writes in his or her own article, but I DO care what a publisher passes on, and in this case, Scott Abel published a newsletter with biased, political content.
If Scott Abel wants to turn his newsletter into the Huffington Post, that’s his business. But he shouldn’t deny that he’s pushing political views when people call him on it.
If the intent was not to express an anti-Bush point of view, then why wasn’t the example struck from the lead-in? Or, why wasn’t the example, “How do we find the candidate least likely, in a drunken stupor, to crash their car, abandon it, and leave a young woman to die?” Or maybe, “How do we find the candidate least likely to be a womanizer, who’ll cheat on his wife, use the Oval Office as his own personal brothel, and then lie about it to the entire country when caught?”
If the intent was really to be fair, then why weren’t TWO examples, one of each?
It’s rare to read an article that is both enlightening professionally and entertaining politically. Perhaps it is simply because I agreed with the writer’s ideological position. Either way, You Go Content Wrangler!
You know, I notice that Leah is from Israel. Maybe she’s a little bit touchy about comments related to the Middle East. I would think that someone, like Scott Abel, a professional, publishing a newsletter to an international audience, would have learned a thing or two about dealing with international audiences.
Wasn’t there a suicide bombing in Israel last week? That might explain Leah’s anger. It’s my guess that a person actually living in the Middle East would know more about the situation there than someone just looking to smear Bush.
What’s really interesting to see is that while Leah only threatened to write to the sponsors (who knows if she did it or not) Scott decided to take full on revenge, smearing her name and personal information all over the Web. The only things missing are her phone and social security numbers.
I’ll be careful not to send Scott and email disagreeing with something he wrote/published; he doesn’t seem to know there’s a high road. Either that or he just thinks two wrongs make a right.
The challenges of writing to an international audience are really quite similar to writing for a local audience, despite the obvious differences between individual audience members in a global audience. For instance, readers of the Broad Ripple Village Gazette may share a common interest in news about their neighborhood, but they may not agree with the opinions of the columnists who write in their neighborhood newspaper. They may be neighbors, but they are not a homogeneous group. A quick look at the letters to the editor page in any local publication illustrates this point.
Whether writing about the new zoning law and its impact on pedestrian traffic in a local paper, or using personal opinion in a internet technology column, readers who disagree with authors usually have a method of providing feedback and sharing their differing views with other readers of the publication. Sometimes these “letters to the editor” (or comments, in the blogosphere) are nothing but gripe-fests for attention-seekers. They are often based on strong feelings (not facts) and add little to the issue being discussed. They fail to convince others to think they way they do because their points get lost in a muck of shouting, name-calling, endless thought loops, and threats. Other times, the comments shared by readers are thoughtful and informative. They convince us to ponder thoughts we may never have considered. They may take an academic bent, making the case using convincing language and reasoned logic (backed up with references and links to other sources). Still others, are just well-written, differences of opinion. These latter types help to illuminate the many sides of any issue and contribute positively to any discussion.
In the case of our recent article on US presidential candidates and their websites, we asked:
“Is it appropriate for a writer sharing his opinions on The Content Wrangler website to use politically-charged language to illustrate a point, lead the reader down a specific thought path, or tempt them into clicking on a hypertext link? When does a writer go too far in attracting attention? And, did Zev (and by extension, TheContentWrangler.com) go too far and why (or why not)? What do you think? Was it good writing or a poor choice of words?”
So far, no one has really answered these questions.
Communication professionals understand the importance of intent. When we publish a newsletter, it’s our intent to get as many subscribers as possible interested in reading the individual items in each issue. This month, Zev Winicur’s article has demonstrated the power of a well-written summary. While some of the words may have angered a few readers, the same words may also be responsible for the article being the most popular content on the site. It’s outperformed every other article. And, it continues to generate traffic.
On the web, most folks scan text, they don’t read. And, to make matters worse, they scan quickly. Research shows us that we have less than one second to capture the reader’s attention. If we can’t get them engaged in the first two or three sentences, we’ve lost them. Zev’s article overcame this formidable obstacle. His words were interesting enough to cause his article to outperform all other articles in the same issue.
So, was it good writing or a poor choice of words that led to Zev’s success? Does good writing have to be careful not to anger anyone on the planet who may share a different view? Or, is good writing sometimes provocative, perhaps just enough to anger some readers and intrigue the rest?
Tom:
I notified Leah in advance that I was going to publish her response to me on this site. She gave me her written permission.
Thanks for sharing your opinions.
Scott Abel
The Content Wrangler
“Is it appropriate for a writer sharing his opinions on The Content Wrangler website to use politically-charged language to illustrate a point…?”
“Charged” is kind of overstating it, I think. Maybe “flavored?” Everyone has an opinion or feeling about this or that political or sporting or weather-related event, and expressions of those opinions are perfectly legitimate parts of conversation in a business or professional environment. Meanwhile, there will always be someone ready to hit the caps lock key and overreact. If you try to publish only material that no one could possibly take the wrong way, you will end up publishing material that interests no one. Lots of stuff on your site—the parts I agree with and the parts I disagree with—deliver enormous value week after week. Can we get back to that now?
I suppose as the original author of the article, I ought to weigh in at this point. I never realized that when Scott offered to reprint an article from my sleepy little blog on life in the Midwest(http://wolfsongenterprises.blogspot.com), it would instigate so much controversy and discussion. I guess there’s no such thing as bad publicity…
I will not apologize for my flavored language and not-so-subtle digs at our current administration. The comments are what they are, and their primary goal was to colorfully set up the subject at hand. In the Democratic primary (the setting for the “content” being managed), such political positions are status quo. I could have placed a nondisclaimer in the text (“WARNING: The administration does not endorse the political positions insinuated by the following text. They are only meant to outline the political environment of the content being discussed.”) But that certainly would have made the article much, much less interesting. In their original setting (my blog), my comments would not have bared the scrutiny they are getting now. And besides, that’s not the point of this discussion.
The real question is whether Scott, as a publisher of a well-recognized content management industry blog was right or wrong in publishing an article that contained opinions outside the original thesis of the article or, in fact, outside the original scope of the blog. Furthermore, should Scott have asked me to remove any political commentary from my original article before allowing it to be published on his site?
Naturally, I’m biased in this discussion. I’m grateful to Scott for publishing my article, and I defend my content and it’s vitriolic politically-biased language (or whatever). Frankly, I think that compared to most of the opinions flying through the blogosphere, my comments were pretty benign. Furthermore, I think that removing all content unrelated to “content management” converts the blog into a reference manual rather than a tool for interactive discussion. Should we be upset that Scott published an article titled, “Christmas Wish List 2008—What Technology Improvements Do You Want Santa To Bring You This Year”? The article is a obvious endorsement of Christianity. Right? Should all references to religion as well as politics be banned?
I think the greater controversy was not my article (which had the “politically offensive” language hidden somewhere in the middle) but rather the blurb in the Content Wrangler newsletter than teased and enticed readers to the full article. Scott could have compiled a much less interesting blurb about my discussion of Web usability in the political arena that avoided any controversial language…and I doubt it would have attracted any readers at all. As it is, he used some of the more interesting text from the article to make sure the blurb attracted notice. And it worked. Boy did it work.
I do admit that any discussion of the current U.S. president’s policies, ideologies, or faculties should probably be avoided when discussing the use of content management in computer system validation or pharmaceutical drug lists. However, in the context of the political arena, political content DOES have its place.
The article itself was not political in any way. It could have easily been analyzing the websites of auto-manufacturers, or sports teams, or competing universities.
I think that the content that Leah would have objected to is actually included in the newsletter, not the article.
This: “How do we find the candidate least likely to start a war in the Middle East based on trumped up intelligence and incompetent staffers?” is a politically charged statement. I would feel funny getting this from a technical writing website (from a newspaper, or a tv station, no biggie, cause I listen to them for their opinion on this stuff).
Do I find the article offensive? Not in the least.
Did the content wrangler step out of line in any way? Yeah. Probably. That line about the war doesn’t belong anywhere in this article, and has nothing to do with the article text. It’s not really offensive, but it’s definitely out of line with what I would consider appropriate communication from a site of this nature.
That said, it doesn’t bother me in the least.
I don’t subscribe to the newsletter.
There is nothing wrong with the article. The real issue here is that people need to learn to respect the political opinion of other people. I am a democrat and an Obama supporter. One of the technical blogs that I read is written by a brilliant IBM engineer who is pro-Bush and recently had an entry in his blog about how proud he his to be a Bush supporter. I respect his opinion even though I fundamentally disagree with his view on the Bush administration. I continue to read his blog for the great technical insight that it contains.
Jack
Actually, the *real* issue here, the one Leah protested to—with her specific words—and the one you all seem to be ignoring (and maybe Scott is deliberately trying to push aside) is the NEWSLETTER.
People subscribe to newsletters and allow them to enter their inboxes according to their content. If they don’t want specific content to enter their inbox they either don’t subscribe, unsubscribe, or mark it SPAM.
People *choose* to access articles at their own risk. Newsletters that are supposed to be about a specific topic, which we subscribed to because they *were* about a specific topic, and that enter our inboxes automatically, are another matter.
For my self, I did not ask for, solicit, or have any reason to expect political indoctrination of any kind, against any political party, from Scott Abel. That is not what I signed up for when I signed up for his newsletter. I had no choice in the receipt of this information. Just like people being spammed have no choice.
And Scott, if you’re really looking to *grab* people’s attention, and the attention grabbing is all that matters, so that you don’t have to consider anyone’s feelings or sensitivities, then why don’t you just use lines like, “Baby mangled by tiger on top of Empire State building.” I mean, what does it matter if it’s untrue, biased, or just plain unkind?
Zev, you are free to write whatever you want in your articles or on your blog. No one’s protesting that. Even Leah did not protest that according to the text Scott posted. Leah protested what *Scott* did (as do I), and it seems to me that Scott wants everyone to forget that.
Ted, after reading what Tom wrote (and checking the news stories of last week) I’m glad to see you’re so understanding. Let’s just hope if a terrorist blows up people in YOUR neighborhood, you won’t *overreact* too much.
Interesting that the original article generated NO comments.
Lakey, of course I won’t dignify that “argument” with a response. Let’s just let it stand as an example of how quickly a comments section can turn from a useful forum into a screaming match.
I think it’s OK to express an opinion (political or otherwise) but you have to ask yourself if it’s worth losing a large part of your readership in the process. If you really want the focus to be on web design, keep it there.
I welcome opinion and actually expect it in both online and print media. My favorite blog posts are mini-essays, like op-ed pieces from people with interesting takes on issues. In fact, in a recent survey about my blog, most readers wanted me to bring in more personal stories and experiences.
Given that, I’m surprised at the heated reactions some readers have taken on this article and Scott’s response to it. Personally, I probably would have ignored Leah’s comments, but I also think that posting them raised new issues to explore and discuss. It certainly makes you read the original article with a new perspective.
One question I have is why we are assuming that the article expresses a biased political opinion, whereas other articles are objective? Everything is an expression of the writer’s opinion, from content management systems to single sourcing to politics. Opinion is inescapable, even in history books.