There’s a lens in every piece of writing and an agenda in most. In George Veletsianos’ Networked Scholars course this week, we are asked to engage with Zeynep Tufekci‘s blog post, which is a piece of emotive writing about another piece of emotive writing in the Grauniad by Emma Keller, about another piece of emotive writing by Lisa Adams, who is blogging about grief and her own battle with cancer.
Each piece takes a stance. Lisa’s stance is perhaps the most authentic as the writing is her own about her own experience. I’m not sure the blog she writes is one I would subscribe to but I understand why she does it: in the same situation, I am likely to be just as loud about it, for at least as long as it is helpful. There must come a time when writing her blog will cease to be relevant to her.
I didn’t find Emma’s article offensive or even critical: I thought she merely asked a question and certainly wasn’t what Zeynep calls “cancer-shaming”. Nor did Emma misrepresent what was happening to Lisa. If there’s fake politically-correct hysteria anywhere here, it’s in Zeynep’s squealing about Emma’s methods. The obtuseness of Zeynep’s complaints is irresponsible for whipping up emotion: for example, her response to Bill Keller’s piece on Lisa – itself tactful, insightful and personal, in my opinion – is disingenuous at best. At worst, it falsifies the content and meaning of what Bill Keller wrote in order to be further outraged.
What is evident in reading these pieces is that social media and blogs are powerful channels through which opinion may be manipulated. Rigour is not required to achieve this as readers, like the baying pitchfork-carrying mobs in a Hammer Horror, respond with such Twitter outrage that the offending item is removed, as in the case of Emma Keller’s article. The Kellers wrote in even tones using moderated language about a woman coping through writing publicly. What Zeynep Tufekci did was to twist that into something very nasty.