comes to Da Lou. Neil Steinberg seems to pride himself on being pissy to readers. On Poynter, his generic response to angry readers is posted:
Dear Reader:
I received your e-mail message. Sadly, I no longer permit myself the pleasure of personally responding to snide remarks from dissatisfied individuals, as doing so inevitably leads to time-wasting arguments and annoying exchanges of insults. Since such encounters often end with the reader complaining to my boss, it seems that this is what rude writers really want to do all along — to provoke me so they can satisfy some inner schoolyard desire to squeal. You may do so now by e-mailing the editor in chief, Michael Cooke, at mcooke@suntimes.com, though I should point out this is a form letter, so his reaction probably won’t have the sense of fresh outrage you desire.
Otherwise, I would like to point out — since so many fail to grasp this point — that the piece of writing that upset you is a column of opinion, that the opinion being expressed is mine alone, and the fact that you disagree with or were insulted by my opinion really is not important, at least not to me. This is not a dialogue, this is a lecture, and you are supposed to sit in your seat and listen, or leave, not stand up and heckle.
I do not write the column for people who disagree with me, nor am I concerned with trying to convince them of the falsity of their worldview at a one-on-one level. I’ve done that for years, and it’s a waste of time, both mine and theirs, since such readers are not typically open to ideas other than their own, and cannot even entertain the notion that they may be wrong.
Not that I am pleased to have upset you. Believe me, I would have preferred your letter to have been one of praise — most are — but that doesn’t seem to have been the case.
If you have cancelled your subscription, I am sorry for that too, though I am also confident, as you wade through the arid world of the competition and the barren void of television, that you will eventually soften and start reading the Sun-Times again, and would remind you that you can always skip my column; that’s why it always has my name and picture on the top, as a subtle clue.
While I cannot sincerely thank you for writing, I do hope that, as your life progresses, you eventually come to realize just how wrong you were in disagreeing with me in such a rude fashion. If there were a shred of politeness or sense in your e-mail you would not be receiving this letter, but as you are, I would urge you to re-examine your life, and suggest that you reach out to all the people you have no doubt hurt with your brusque and offensive manner and beg their forgiveness. Though utterly indifferent to your taunts, I will myself set a good example by forgiving you now. It can be a terrible world, and I’m sure you have reasons for being the way you are.
Best regards,
Neil Steinberg
Neil Steinberg is no Mike Royko. Don’t get me wrong, Royko took a chunk out of obnoxious letter writers (which is even unclear in Mike’s case since the original isn’t attached). But he did it with humor and not condescension. Conservatives in Central Illinois would all read Royko and the more vocal proudly displayed framed copies of letters sent out by Royko in response to letters calling him a communist, socialist or other cretin as defined by Central Illinois values, like Chicagoan. Royko responded with satire that was bitingly funny. I saw three or four variations, but all were hysterical.
What is bizarre about Steinberg’s letter besides the lack of humor, is how it could easily be used to describe Steinberg. A man who wrote a savagely funny, but harsh column ridiculing the sappy Bob Greene is hardly in a position to discuss how bitter others may be because of their writing or for being impolite. In fact, Steinberg prides himself on being impolite.
Eric Zorn addressed the generic letter last week noting that there isn’t much of a point even reading mail if you don’t care. Then Eric points out a rather offensive bit in Steinberg’s column in the next entry.
The thing about teaching and writing is that one gets points across much better when there is an interaction. Eric Zorn points out that he sees his columns as the start of a conversation. While that isn’t exactly what teaching is because it is certainly directed towards an end, it certainly gets there better if you include those in the process.
It is extremely arrogant of a columnist to think that people come to be lectured. Many readers are quite accomplished and have better things to do than read the petulant rantings of someone wanting to get their goat. They may well be interested in reading and thinking about a well written argument or laughing at an interesting satirical take.
Raising a ruckus isn’t a bad thing, but being shocked at the behavior when your whole point appears to be to raise a ruckus is disengenuous.
What is strange about Steinberg’s reply is that he attacks Mike for working for the RFT. That would be the guy who wrote a pseudonymous column for the Reader for two years. Also troubling, is Steinberg’s attack given he was ghostwriting a column when he started that included passing along plagiarism. Which is a better way to start a career? I’m willing to concede that Steinberg’s start at the Sun-Times was understandable, but it might have taught him a bit of humility.
>>> Mike Seely 2/3/04 3:14:06 PM >>>
plenty, neil, although i don’t feel obligated to send you my resume’ to prove it. get off your high horse. just because you write for the sun-times doesn’t mean you shit sunshine, bro. had you paid attention to my original e-mail, you would have noticed that i allowed that your column could have indeed had a purpose, and allowed you to respond saying as much. drop it.
Mike D. Seely
Staff Writer
Riverfront Times
>>> "Steinberg, Neil" 2/3/04 2:07:41 PM >>>
If I worked at the Riverfront Times I don’t think I’d be so quick to pass
judgment. Who the fuck are you and what have you done? Not much, right?
NS
ArchPundit