Al Franken and Civility: A Primer [Jack M.]

I see that a great many of you doubt the power of civility. Indeed, many of you have left comments exhibiting, shall we say, a healthy skepticism about the practical applications of the practice.

So, I would like to provide you with an article in which the author, in discussing Al Franken's potential run for a U.S. Senate seat representing Minnesota, comes close to embracing the new attitude I have been advocating for well nigh unto 24 entire hours. As you can see. the employment of civility as a tool makes this a compelling piece for readers of all attitudes.

Sadly, the article also reveals how hard it is to completely rid yourself of the intoxicating nectar of snark. Often, the author chooses to denigrate Mr. Franken and his radio network, Air America. Still, as this article contains both lessons in the artful application of civility and a reminder of what should be avoided, it serves a useful purpose.

Meet Future Senator Al Franken from the North Star State

Think of it as a teachable moment. And know full well that I will be disappointed in you if you take any pleasure whatsoever in the vicious smears and innuendos cast upon Mr. Franken in this article. Now is not the time to revel in such vulgar pursuits. Now is the time to appeal to the higher angels in our character.

Some highlighted examples of civility in practice, as well as examples of opportunities for civility that were missed, are highlighted after the jump.

Civility in practice:

Example #1:

Oh boy, it appears that the great comedic genius of our times, the Saturday Night Live veteran, the sophomoric muse of the left, Al Franken, the guiding power behind the faltering Air America, is testing the waters for a run for the US Senate after moving his unique radio show to Minneapolis from the Big Apple, where wags said, his unique brand of humor was losing some steam with the loss of WLIB-AM, the erstwhile flagship station.

This paragraph practically oozes civility out of it's every word! Rather than succumb to the temptation to lable Al Franken "a failed comedian who took 20 years to be promoted from writer to occasional bit player on Saturday Night Live", the author instead recognizes that being on Saturday Night Live at all is itself a great achievement for any comic. Hence, he chooses to call Mr. Franken "the great comedic genius of our times" and a "Saturday Night Live veteran".

This is exceedingly civil. I approve.

Further, rather than say that assert that "Mr. Franken generates fewer laughs than a Mel Gibson lecture on middle-east politics at a bar mitzvah" the author instead describes Mr. Franken's comedic stylings as "unique" which suggests that only those of a certain disposition, and might I suggest inelligence, will find his remarks amusing.

Again. Exceedingly civil. And by this point the reader is drawn into the narrative, no one having been needlessly alienated.

My one critique of the opening paragraph? His description of Air America as "faltering". Again, this is needlessly negative. It would have been much more civil to have described it as "a fledgling radio network that, even after 2 years of much hyped operations, continues to successfully execute it's strategy of growth through downsizing."

See. Civil.

Incivility rears it's ugly head:

Example #2

But will the folks in the North Star State buy into the off color one liners, the outright fiction, obscene jokes, threats to kill the President, that Donald Rumsfeld "ought to be tortured," and that Rush Limbaugh has been accused of "being a Nazi," which Air America and Mr. Franken's hand picked crew of disc jockeys, like the irrepressible Randi Rhodes and Rachel Maddow, have pumped into a reluctant troposphere, groaning under the weight of their worthless truck?

"Off color one liners"? It was much more civil to describe these as facets of Mr. Franken's "unique" comedic stylings. See the first paragraph.

"Outright fiction"? Oh my. One might almost think that Mr. Franken was being called a liar! How disappointingly uncivil. Better to say "creative applications of speaking turthiness to power", I think.

"Obscene jokes"? Hmmm...obscenity is in the eye of the beholder, after all. Perhaps substituting the phrase "outrageously bold humor which many think pushes the envelope of Mr. Franken's already well established genius".

"Threats to kill the President"? Why...now we are talking about criminal activity! One should not levy charges of criminality against others so lightly. Best to say "unafraid to show how much he loves his country by exercising his 1st Amendment right to convey his disappointment at the outcome of the 2000 and 2004 Presidential election while brainstorming over options to rectify the situation."

Don Rumsfeld "ought to be tortured"? Surely, the author of this story must have misheard this. Everyone knows that patriotic Americans ranging the political spectrum from Mr. Franken to Andrew Sullivan to Sen. McCain are opposed to torture in all it's emotionally and physically demeaning forms. The civil thing to do would have been to left this particular assertion unsaid, lest one think you are questioning Mr. Franken's patiotism.

Rush Limbaugh? Accused of being a Nazi? Please. We all know that these two are competitors in the ultra-competitive radio industry. Their lives and wealth are often precipitously balanced on a slim magin of Arbitron ratings points. In the course of filling so much air-time every week, it's possible that Mr. Franken was simply calling upon his great knowledge of history to compare his ratings position, to say France, and Mr. Limbaugh's position to say, Germany, shortly after the blitzkreig. This point should be acknowledged.

"Pumped into a reluctant troposphere, groaning under the weight of their worthless truck"? Again, this is an incredibly uncivil thing to say, as it suggests that no one listens to Mr. Franken and his network, that no one cares what he has to say on any subject, and that, quite frankly, Mr. Franken isn't good enough, isn't smart enough, and gosh darn it, people don't like him. That is rather indecorous. I think that, in the name of genuine discourse, it would be much more appropriate to rephrase this passage. Something like "provided in abundance to an audience not yet prepared to accept the heavy doses of truthiness provided by each contributors unique perspective."

I'm sure that you will note other passages in the article that offer such gems of civil vs uncivil comments. If you would like to take the opportunity to hone your own "civility skills" in the comments please feel free to offer your own take.

After all, my mission continues. One commenter at a time.

posted by Ace at 12:32 PM

| Access Comments