Intentions over words

Today’s media landscape is as interesting as sad. What clicks and sells is rarely what’s valuable and constructive. But what clicks and sells often turns into a mainstream opinion. It does.

In the Netherlands we have Johan Derksen, a 71yr old soccer media prominent. He says whatever suits him best in media and on national TV.

People like and appreciate that often, but sometimes the world falls over him. Just as now: when he clearly made a wrong remark about the current black lives matter movement in his TV program last week. They’ve lost all their sponsors. Moreover he lost all the interviews with his media brand for the national soccer team, and the team advised the Dutch to boycott the TV program.

Johan could’ve expressed himself better. I fully agree. But what he said, did he really mean to offend people in a racist manner? I doubt so. Of course if he did he deserves to pay the price. But if he didn’t, why does the public insist on staying angry and boycotting? Pulling things out of context for personal gain – in a very sensitive debate – is just as sad.

When should someone stop saying what he or she thinks? And why? And why do people insist on being offended by someone else, when there’s no intention to offend? Last year it was transgender toilets, today is black lives matter, what will click and sell tomorrow?

I keep wondering why we keep insisting to so strongly focus on words, when what we could actually do is focus on intentions. Stop polarizing and diverging.

There’s this giganteous opportunity for us all: to judge others on intentions over words.

Geef een antwoord

Het e-mailadres wordt niet gepubliceerd.