-
Her whole raison d'être is to get people talking about what she's said. If people ignore her, she's failed.
Correct. These people are employed by 'newspapers' (not actual newspapers) to get a rise out of people. That sort of controversy sells copies (or generates clicks) and puts the paper's name centre stage.
What she's said is utterly despicable, but it's not the first time she's outraged and probably not the last and she delights in the attention. Removing the oxygen of publicity is a viable option.
I agree, but of course what these people trade on is people's good will to engage in a 'debate', no matter how wrong-headed it is, e.g. how unacceptably far it pulls a certain topic in a certain direction before the 'debate' has even started. It's a debating trick--be emotional, or emotionally provocative, about something and relatively few people will set the record straight by referring to the less problematic standpoint available quite a long way away on the spectrum of opinion. Most people will engage directly with what the 'emotional', or calculating, person is saying, e.g. to 'prove' him or her wrong, and thereby be imperceptibly pulled towards them.
If someone's employed by a national media organisation, you can't ignore them, unfortunately. What you need to do is shift the debate away from their chosen ground by reference to higher standards, not meet the challenge directly, which can be difficult to do. Another one just like them will be along shortly, anyway, rinse, repeat.
You are reading a single comment by @Oliver Schick and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
Oliver Schick
Her whole raison d'être is to get people talking about what she's said. If people ignore her, she's failed.
What she's said is utterly despicable, but it's not the first time she's outraged and probably not the last and she delights in the attention. Removing the oxygen of publicity is a viable option.