Overestimating our own importance

By Daniel Thwaites

I happen to love newspapers, particularly those notices telling the world that some gentleman will no longer pay the bills for a former sweetheart, or vice versa. I'm told that my grandmother suffered through an unhappy marriage for decades until my stupid grandfather cemented the semi-annual break-up by posting a newspaper notice. Immediately she'd finally had enough!

So the newspaper contains a multitude, not just the straightforward reporting of newsworthy events. There are the notices, advertisements, social pages, gossip, advice columns, and my work as well as the topic of my concern today, the opinion pages.

Opinion columnists, including me, have a professional hazard of self-importance, induced by thinking we can solve the world's problems by throwing words at them. We're not just spectators like every other citizen; we're spectators with megaphones! Isn't it odd that radio and newspaper commentators have the answers to all of the country's problems? Apparently, all difficulties would be solved if we could just transfer many commentators into Government.

Mind you, 'columnising' is a noble enough pastime and diversion. But it's certainly not of the status of, say, teaching or nursing.

Mini-politicians

Consider this. Has a newspaper columnist ever convinced you of anything important? I bet not. More likely is that your opinions on public matters great and small are formed out of your close associations. You will place far more importance in your mother's passing comments than in the elegant arguments of any columnist. A fragmented discussion with friends at the neighbourhood drinking hole will orient you to national events far more than any rigorous logic-chopping in the newspapers.

These are incontrovertible facts of social psychology, studied by hand-wringing political scientists and marketers for decades. Why 'hand-wringing'? Because everybody wants to convince you of something, and in that respect you're constantly surrounded by mini-politicians competing for your attention, your dollar, your approval, your vote.

Another thing: the likelihood of you being influenced by the musings of any one writer or talker is constrained by the diversity of your exposure to others. Nowadays, there's no shortage of newspaper leaves, radio bandwidth, cable channels, and contacts with alternative opinions. Additionally, with social media, very many netizens have a loudspeaker to Facebook, and tweet and blog their thoughts worldwide.

So if 'opinionators' actually stand little chance of convincing you, why do we bother? And why do we discuss each other so avidly? These are difficult questions. I think it's a mixture of self-righteousness, self-entertainment, self-gratification, and the occasional pat on the back from a friend. And hey! Let's not forget that there is something flattering about being told you can pick up a cheque for writing your opinion and emailing it to the editor.

But there's evidence that the self-regard is getting out of hand. Hence my reminder that changing the world just isn't the real function of 'columnising'. If you want to change the world, start a political movement or change an existing one. Or start a business or a worthy non-profit.

Earning your keep

The columnist's purpose is far more humble. We entertain a little, maybe 'buss a joke', and provide a little context for some of the great issues of the day. To my mind, if a reader laughs, angrily tosses away the newspaper, or thinks you've nicely articulated an idea she already had, you've earned your keep. If the reader does all three from the same few hundred words, then you're 'lickin' sixes'.

Personally, I'm amused by columnists who are able to quote themselves. My columnist-hero John Maxwell did it often. In a way, I admire it because it betokens a level of planning and organisation I don't associate with this business of offering some topical remarks. So that's not for me. Even if I wanted to self-refer, I wouldn't know where to find last week's column, much less remember what I wrote about.

Then there's the matter of expressing political preferences. Easiest of all is to say, in effect, "I dislike them all". Some genuinely do. Many others have what might be termed 'soft' preferences. Others have definite political views. Of these last, some more or less successfully try to tuck them away when expressing themselves in the opinion pages. In general, they do a horrible job at it, and the ruse is easily and immediately detected by readers. But so what? Let a hundred flowers bloom.

To me, concealing one's politics is to write what you think people think they want to read. And if you followed that last sentence, I want you to be my reader.

Daniel Thwaites is a partner of Thwaites, Lundgren & D'Arcy in New York, and currently qualifying for the Jamaican Bar. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.