Planned opinions need support

John Behling -- Staff Essay

Okay, everyone knows the whole train wreck debate started by Chronicle guest columnist Sandra Johnson with her column "Police have a right to protection." There are four letters printed on the next page taking issue with the column, as well as many others which cannot be printed due to space, but the three represented are a good taste, at least in my opinion.

The column is very problematic, however, I won't take up space here defending or condemning Miss Johnson's stance on the subject. I do, however, find the structure of her debate disturbing, and at the same time, representative of how arguments tend to be formed today.

Let's break down the argument. Johnson's point is that an outcry against the police for "almost" shooting the 18-year-old mentally handicapped boy is unwarranted because the officer has a right to defend himself and the boy was placing the officer in significant physical harm.

Good point. But let's take a look a the statement that no doubt sticks farther out from the page than anything else.

"Let's be frank here, kids. Mentally ill people are basically defective human beings. They cannot function in normal society."

And it goes down hill from there.

What I assume is that Johnson doesn't intend this to be the main point of her article, however, this pointed, derogatory remark shifts the focus away from an important issue (police use of force) and onto a less defensible one.

If this is the point that Johnson wanted to make - that the mentally disabled don't belong in our society - I would seriously urge her to reconsider her opinion. But I don't think she's alone in making this kind of statement.

Let's face it, balanced, well-documented, logically-argued opinions are not commonly presented to the public through the mass media.

Instead we have the inflammatory, fist-pounding, fire-breathing discourse of the likes of Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and Michael Moore. These pundits take a WWE approach to political issues swinging forearm blasts and piledriving blows to the calculated oohs and awwws from spectators on CNN or FOX news.

A statement as blunt as Johnson's can easily find parallels in the books of Coulter and Moore or on the television shows "The O'Reilly Factor" or "Hardball." This kind of blatant name- calling and bashing is condoned and accepted.

And it's easy. It's the equivalent of of the high school "comeback" or the "burn." It's vulgar spot-humor, vocal guerrilla warfare that anyone can wage. And the result is that we don't see the issues.

Who is responding to Johnson's claim about use of force? Why should they have to? She's given them a much easier target with her general opinion of the disabled. It has pushed the important topic of discussion out of the frame.

To make letters of opinion have the desired effect - that they bring an important issue to light and suggest change - they must do so in an accurate, clear, unemotional way.

But perhaps this takes away from the "fun" of writing an opinion column. I should add that I'm no stranger to flinging venom. But what I would contend is that the points I make (in my film reviews) are well thought-through and defensible. Or perhaps, no one cares to write in and challenge me.

In any case, what should be commended are the letters that are not afraid to address important issues, but are also not afraid to do so in a calm matter. Paul Shamla's letter "Regarding Bias in the Lewis Story," printed Nov. 17, is a good example.

I think Sandra Johnson's column had a lot of potential. She saw something that she felt strongly about and she spoke her mind on it.

Her case should be considered a lesson and a warning on the recklessness the first amendment allows us.

Email Story to a Friend        Printer Friendly Version