I have been writing this daily TV blog only since September and already I have been called “stupid,” “silly,” “dumb,” “dick-ish,”
“dismissive,” “uninformed,” “unenlightened,” “a knee-jerk reactionary Fox fan,” and “Mr. Beckman.”
Please allow me to refute at
least one of these: The name is “Buckman,” not “Beckman.”
In comments posted here in reaction to various blog posts, I have been accused of: Hating both President Obama
and President Bush (the younger one), lacking “historical perspective,” and harboring “a grudge” against Neil Patrick Harris.
The truth is, I don’t have
particularly strong feelings either way about presidents Obama and Bush, and I have nothing in particular against Neil Patrick Harris.
advertisement
advertisement
I reread my blog post of Nov. 5 in which I commented
about Harris’ sudden ubiquity online and on TV, and it didn’t read to me as if I had a grudge against him. And yet, one reader felt differently. “This reads as though you have
a grudge against the man,” this reader wrote in a comment posted on the blog. “Are you looking to subtract from his popularity? Are you jealous that he’ll never know your own
personal financial struggles? Maybe you were scorned when he declined an interview or maybe even a date? …”
As for the accusation that I lack “historical perspective,”
that arose in one of the comments -- most of them angry -- that were left on my blog post last week in which I complained about President Obama’s appearance on “The Colbert Report.”
Many commenters took me to task for not mentioning that Richard Nixon appeared on “Rowan & Martin’s Laugh-In” and that John F. Kennedy had appeared on Jack Paar’s
“Tonight Show.”
I was well-aware of these and other famous TV appearances by prominent politicians. The difference to me was that these appearances were not made while Nixon or
Kennedy held the office of president. In hindsight, maybe I should have made that distinction in the blog post.
If I had, I might have been spared the comment about my lack of historical
perspective, and other comments like it. Then again, maybe I wouldn’t have been. No matter what one writes, readers will continually surprise you with reactions or interpretations that you
don’t expect.
In my three-decade career as a journalist on the TV beat, I have long been fascinated by the reactions of readers to what I wrote. I find the subject so fascinating that I
wrote an entire book titled “JERK,” subtitled “How I Wasted My Life Watching Television.” (Self-promotion alert: You can find this book on Amazon.)
The
“JERK” title was inspired by a piece of mail I once received from an irate reader when I was a newspaper columnist. She tore out my column from the paper (a column about Dr. Laura
Schlessinger), circled my photo and wrote the word “Jerk” above it. That’s her handiwork in the image accompanying this blog post.
After a while, you get
used to the name-calling and the complaints. They come with the territory when you put your opinions out there -- on a Web site or in a newspaper. While no one really likes to be called names, one
does become inured to it in this business. Perversely, even the most negative comments indicate that a reader was engaged with your work. Engagement equals readership, and isn’t that the
goal?
On that subject, please allow me to take this opportunity (since I rarely, if ever, post replies to reader comments on the blog) to thank each and every one of you who has taken the time
to leave a comment (sometimes more than one) here on my various blog posts.
Whether you agree or disagree with the opinions and/or attitudes expressed in these posts, I am grateful for your
readership, your input and your advice -- even when you have advised me to: “Go back to watching Fox News,” “lighten up” and quit the business of writing about television
altogether.
“I think we have enough TV critics,” wrote one of you. “Perhaps, you can find something more productive to do with your time.”
Ouch.