If the people engaged in the discussion aren’t interested in the same thing, why try to qualify any of the participants as a troll? It’s the discussion itself which should be spotted as problematic since it is open to become meaningless for everyone.
Granted, the discussion might still be fruitful. But that’s because us humans are good to mend communications. In fact, isn’t it one of the main reason why even when the context is bad we still expect good things from the participants?
On a personal level, I require myself to do so as much as possible but now I think I will also allow myself to not be able to do it all the time, anytime. I have just realized there probably is a limit to what I can understand through people telling me things. And in addition, yes, because of trolls, I also take into account how each participant is behaving.
But I ask what I feel to be a more practical and more to the point question, even if you would ask it to the potential troll. It’s:
How are the costs distributed and who is paying?
I’m not sure it’s a decisive trait to identify a troll nor if it encompasses the many kinds of trolls that exist. But it sure has something to it that I feel frame well my mind to evaluate the situation more objectively.
It always boils down to check if the person bears some costs or is willing to. And it is important as you will find out the ones paying the least are the ones enjoying the mess the most and were the ones who created it in the first place. To then nurtured it through others and that’s to say: paying the least by letting others pay.
I came to that question about costs after reading some reactions about on-line women harassment. The initial posts always voiced a clear distress. Harassed women are psychologically hurt and that affects their everyday life, like everything that shroud the mind in an oppressive manner.
Some of the reactions were all dismissive of that aspect in that they tried to analyze the situation without these… subjective biases? Well. Why not? But again: costs. And these reactions are always caught red-handed here. They say, even if indirectly so, that the harassed women should do blablabla and they should consider blablabla and they blablabla and they and they and they.
This is “letting others pay” all over again. And in practice when someone has proven to be able to pay, the whole trolling dynamic makes them pay some more. It has defined them as payers.
Here’s the interesting bit I believe.
I don’t think the majority of the trolling reactions were intended to be so. I think they were well-intended because most of their authors seem like new comers to the discussion. And what is more natural for them than to expect already present participants to mend the discussion? And who will naturally be targeted then but the defined payers since they have payed from the start?
So, in the end, what is why I’m asking this question of costs. I will be a new comer to a variety of subjects in a variety of contexts and it’s a good approximation to believe I will always expect the already present participants to be able to mend the discussion. And that I will feel it to be wrong if they do not do so.
Now, since I have realized that trolls make that request and that consequent expectation of mine to be so unfair to the trolled ones, I will always try to assess the situation to be sure I’m asking too much out-of-the-box.
So: Krishnan Guru-Murthy, as a Channel 4 News journalist, troll or not?
That’s an easy one: troll of course. And also: I wish I was not in his situation but if I would be, I would try to change my questions or my bosses’ behavior or quit if all of it proves to be impossible.
Because for that precise position, I would be sent to interview actors and directors on their own ground for what, 15 minutes? If I and the TV channel I work for are not interested to do interviews for advertising, why accept it in the first place? And not proposing to pay to prepare an interview on my own ground?
Why let the interviewee pay and hope I can fish something in a minimal amount of time? Sure, the notion of an exchange is a good one: actors and directors need to reach a wide audience and something like Channel 4 News can provide that. Journalists need powerful statements. From the content itself of the statement and from the aura of the person who says it.
But in what way is it smart and respectful to think getting a powerful statement in a 15 minutes interview absolutely geared toward something else from the ground-up and fully paid by the other participant, what’s more a powerful statement on a practically unrelated topic? The questions of Mr Guru-Murthy are abashing in how little they connect to the subject at hand, even regardless of the purpose of advertising.
In fact, the interview of Richard Ayoade is just perfect in all regards. Because on that one, the interview is on Channel 4 News’ ground. They have paid for it. And Richard Ayoade voices clearly interviews are not super lovable but that it is part of his job. He compares that to commuting, a fair connection in that commuting is about reaching either your workplace or your home and such an interview is about reaching either your audience or the meat of your product.
So is Richard Ayoade a troll?
Well, look at the costs all the way through. He is not and Mr Guru-Murthy yet again is. Sure, Channel 4 News has paid. For a 5 minute interview. Again, in what way is it smart and respectful to think getting a powerful statement in such a short amount of time?
What’s more troubling however is that, regardless of the indisputable wit of Mr Ayoade, Mr Guru-Murthy is “short of cash” in that 5 minute interview. Several times and it takes only a second or two to Mr Ayoade to bankrupt his interviewer.
I said “regardless of the indisputable wit of Mr Ayoade” because Mr Ayoade did not even once ask for anything pricey. He voices clearly the problem: “where should I go?” And there you see it all. Mr Guru-Murthy asks, even if indirectly so, Mr Ayoade to go somewhere. Then his interviewee asks where to or where he, Mr Guru-Murthy, already is. But the journalist cannot answer, he mumbles and he loses a control that he never had.
Anyway, I knew the interview was pretty much done as soon as Mr Guru-Murthy pleaded Mr Ayoade to “give him something”. It happened quickly, all too quickly in an interview that was sized way too short. And Mr Ayoade did not let that one slipped and voiced a remark about how badly phrased that demand was.
But you know what? I have just watched the video again, just to be sure I got things right. And the first question floored me. Mr Guru-Murthy asked “what would you ask yourself?”.
Ultimate… letting… others… pay: do my job.
(Also I didn’t get things right. I thought Mr Ayoade said he dislikes interviews when in fact it is subtler. I wished I could be as smart as him in such a situation.)