Different rules

When people write on the internet, I sometimes doubt that they realise the power of their words. Cardiff councillor John Dixon was recently pulled up for posting a tweet on his Twitter page: “I didn’t know the Scientologists had a church on Tottenham Court Road. Just hurried past in case the stupid rubs off.”

Personally, I think that’s hilarious, but that’s because I agree with it. Scientologists did not and made a complaint, ensuring Mr Dixon was referred to an ethics committee. I started to wonder whether people in the public eye are aware of how much they reveal online (I’m not talking dodgy photos, I’m afraid) and, more importantly, what is considered appropriate for them. Should there be different rules for them and for us?

Writing online as a nobody has its benefits but, as someone who writes on a blog, it is difficult to know how much of yourself to give away. Once you get your words down, they are out there, available for judgement and comment. This can be a scary prospect, especially as a commenter’s anonymity makes for good protection. Message boards are an excellent indicator of how feedback can get out of hand. I was tempted, recently, to sign up to a teachers’ discussion forum until I noticed threads where grown adults (teachers, I should remind you, as well) were hurling insults at each other for petty grievances, ganging up against others and shouting down anything they didn’t agree with. Did I mention they were teachers? Actually, now I think about it, that might explain a lot.

However, writing a blog can be a useful process. It can act a means of practising and honing your skills as well as providing a way to express ideas. It can also become a source of income or a rallying point for important issues.

For others, it is the only way to cope with a situation. An amazing case in point is http://tarquinchronicles.wordpress.com/. If you haven’t already heard about Justine Barrett, I suggest you look her up. Her blog is about Tarquin, a tumour doctors recently discovered in her brain and how she is dealing with the diagnosis and forthcoming operations. If you take the time to read it, her writing is full of honesty, small tragedies and dark humour. A great example of the latter is Justine having to explain to a nurse that the nurse’s gesticulations towards an eye chart will not help her locate it, as she is now blind in her right eye.

Reading blogs like this make me realise how lucky we are to have such a tool in order to cope with the various shit life throws at us instead of simply keeping it all inside and “getting on with it”, a process few find productive in the end. Justine Barrett’s blog has provided her with many positive reactions and support; it provides the reader with a bit of inspiration in maintaining resolve and humour in the face of horrendous situations.

Nevertheless, I cannot help but think that there are different rules for those that already exist in the public eye. Today, for example, was one of those days when I had to ask, “What were you thinking?” Andrew Cohen, who appears as a contributing essayist on CBS News, wrote a column, published online last week, in which he thanks and extols the virtues of the love of his life, who was sadly getting married that day to someone else. In it, he praises how she put up with him and made him a better person. It can be found here: http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/07/24/on-her-wedding-day-saying-the-things-left-unsaid/. Now, on paper, that sounds like a sweet thing, but this was dedicated to her. On her wedding day. It has to be questioned just how appropriate this is, especially if it is presented as a gift. As Cohen said: “The present I humbly send her today is this column; this public note, this irrevocable display of affection and support and gratitude; this worldly absolution from any guilt or sadness she felt between the time she said no to me and the time she said yes to him.”

Another contributor took umbrage with this and Lizzie Skurnick posted a reply to his column: http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/07/26/how-not-to-congratulate-your-ex-on-her-wedding-day/. In it, she points out that only congratulating your ex on how she did things that made you better as opposed to, say, mentioning some details about her, gave the impression that Cohen’s open letter was somewhat self-serving. She mentioned many other problems with his column, but I shall let you read that for yourself.

It poses a tricky question – how personal should you get? If people write blogs or columns to get things off their chests, this is a healthy thing to do. It can be entertaining and helpful, as well as perhaps reaching out and touching the lives of readers. The Chronicles of Tarquin is obviously a great example of this.

Andrew Cohen’s column is the perfect example of what should not be done. For one, it’s a column, not a blog post. This usually means national or even mild awareness of who you are, so you threaten exposing yourself, removing even more of what little privacy you still have. In this day and age of media intrusion, it seems odd for a public figure to willingly hand another piece of himself to the world. However, expressing thoughts and feelings is not a taboo. Columnists rail against their hates and proclaim their passions, daily, online and in print. That’s their job.

Unfortunately, I take the view that a person with a very public profile spilling out feelings of unrequited love is stepping a little over the line, especially when it’s essentially the online equivalent of running into a church and saying, “I object!” That is too much information to come from a public figure, even when he may have meant well. “Meaning well” is not protection from the power of your words. I’m sure Kanye meant well when he stuck up for Beyonce, but I bet he did not envisage having to grovel for forgiveness on the Jay Leno show whilst Leno asked Kanye what his late mother would think of such behaviour.

I also wonder how the love of his life would feel reading it. Would she take comfort in Cohen listing how she improved his life, or would she take offence that he was a) congratulating her on being a woman who does not focus on her career and b) granting her permission to be happy?

We can gain so much from being ourselves online. In it, we can find a freedom that can spill over into our real lives. We can discuss problems and find solace; we can share and communicate faster and better than ever before.

However, I’m still not certain if people in the public eye can afford to take such a risk when it comes to what they can divulge. If a celebrity is battling with a problem or trying to raise awareness, his or her revealing their true feelings on a blog or column can be a very positive thing. Those in the public eye have many things to consider, however. Though I agree with Mr Dixon’s sentiments about Scientology, what if he had been talking about Christianity, Judaism or Islam? It would have been a matter of resignation. It seems naïve of Mr Dixon to forget that, as a public figure, people are waiting for you to slip up and make a scandal out of it.

Most importantly, however, if a public figure is online to tell an old love and the world that she should feel free to move on with her life and thanks for everything, perhaps a toaster would be a better choice of present than a column on a heavily viewed newspaper site.