IF you can't say anything nice don't say anything at all.
I've never completely agreed with the sentiment. Not every exchange between humans is nice or nasty; most fit in the middle, a simple passing on of or request for information. Some people would do well to remember that. Two incidents in one week left me lost for words.
I contacted the organiser of a 10-mile race with a request for an entry form. I applied for a place last year but later cancelled. It's not a crime to change your mind. Or so I thought.
The response to my request began: "I hope you aren't going to muck me around like you did last year." Perhaps he was having a bad day. Maybe my cancelling last year ruined the entire event. Can I send an apology to all the runners who felt short changed by my no-show? Did they fail to get a PB because I wasn't there to maintain the equilibrium? If that is the case I admonish you for your rudeness, Mr Organiser. If not, can I recommend you order the guidebook on human kindness? It's available from the Library of Good Manners.
Later that same week, I was due to meet a contact for coffee. However in Brigitte Jones "Wake up Britain' style I diaried it for the wrong day. I apologised and offered to meet at her convenience, confident she would accept the flaws of my human condition. But the apology was not sufficient and she blogged about her "experience with a reporter". Suffice to say her diatribe will not win me any prizes for professionalism. Now will it do much to enhance the public's perception of the press.
I've never been the victim of Twitter trolls, but can now empathise with their plight. Perhaps it's a long-overdue payback from the public, angered by our ability to columnise about whatever we see fit in print. Anyone can now Tweet or blog or Facebook unkindly as much as they like. My day was blighted by that experience but I'm growing a thicker skin, a necessary adaptation for the 21st century.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article