Readers' comments make this column a 'hate-free' zone

In the more than 20 years of writing this column, I've received one death threat (from a defender of Richard Nixon, no less), a few anonymous threats of physical violence (mostly from racists and homophobes) and a goodly number of requests that I be fired.

But I've learned that responding politely generally disarms the angry reader. I now e-mail regularly with several readers who have asked (and maybe still hope for it) that I be fired. Even the death-threat guy ended up being a reader who occasionally would phone me with tips for columns.

Last week, in a column headlined "Why are some so mean, unfeeling, angry and judgmental?" I wrote about the mean-spirited, hateful comments that sometimes get posted by readers on our Web site.

"I read your article in the paper this morning and expected there to be dozens of mean comments already posted online," read the posting from John W. of Lake in the Hills. "On most issues, we probably sit on opposite sides of the political spectrum. However, I agree that the content of many online message boards is ridiculous -- I believe most of the vitriol is due to anonymity of the message board."

George P. of Arlington Heights notes that the ability to post comments anonymously gives readers the chance to spew "venom without accountability." But he hits on another reason for the increase in meanness.

"Technology has made the act of being mean too easy," George writes.

"Go back to the days when a letter had to be composed, typed and mailed," George muses. "Cost of a stamp, plus the time, often left on a desk overnight. I recall a few times in the days of yore when I sat down in the evening and wrote a nasty letter, only to reread it the next morning and tear it up.

"Most of the responses you referred to are knee-jerk ones. Reaction with little reflection. Instant messages," George concludes. "So maybe people aren't more mean-spirited than they used to be, and the comments are more of a reflection of the technology than anything else."

In the only negative comment I got for writing about meanness, reader Katie K. argued that I was guilty of being mean by printing John McCain's insistence that "no success has come without a good fight," and then joking about whether he considered his kids a "success," and if so, how that fight went down.

"Your personal snipe at McCain made your otherwise insightful piece 'mean and judgmental,'" Katie argued. "Perhaps media are what is causing our caustic behavior?"

While I don't think I was being mean to McCain, Katie does have a point about the media. I generally don't see meanness in newspaper columns (which are sort of like those letters that take some effort and time to craft), but I see plenty of evidence from the 24/7 TV, talk radio and Internet news outlets that need fury to fill the time. The media make stories (that Obama "terrorist" fist bump, for instance), and then give space to venom from "both" sides, as if that somehow legitimizes the whole thing as "news." The media, especially on the Internet, sometime give more attention to the trivial and the perceived slights and the insults than to the substance of candidates' positions.

Or, as Lisa G. of Wheaton puts it, "half of the battle in our daily lives is staying positive."

"We have a family of five, with three daughters," Lisa writes. "One of our rules of life is, 'If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say it.'"

As a family of five with three sons, my wife I preach the Golden Rule of treating people the way you would like to be treated. It doesn't always work, but we feel better at least making the effort to be positive.

And when it comes to those written responses, Internet posters might do well to follow the advice of legendary columnist and my late friend Jack Mabley. When Jack wrote a column critical of someone, he imagined himself sitting across a table, reading the column to the person. If he couldn't read it to his or her face, he wouldn't write it in the paper.