But Why Digress

Originally published December 1993, in Comics Buyer’s Guide 1994 Annual

After three-and-a-half years of writing But I Digress, which is (aside from Don and Maggie’s editorials and Cat Yronwode’s recently discontinued paid ad on page nine) the longest-running uninterrupted opinion column in CBG, it has come to my attention that there are some folks out there (fans and professionals) who don’t have a clue as to what an opinion column is.

But I Digress is forum for my opinions.

Not Marvel’s or DC’s or Image’s or Malibu’s or Dan Quayle’s or Bill Clinton’s. Not Don and Maggie’s or Rush Limbaugh’s or Howard Stern’s.

Just mine.

Now, of course, there’s the old saying that everyone is entitled to an opinion. The implication is that all opinions are of equal weight, that one opinion cannot be more “right” or “better” than another.

This is, of course, nonsense: nonsense on every level, from practical to day-to-day. It is, however, a correct opinion.

Think all opinions are equal? Try this.

In the opinion of mankind from centuries ago—and even a few benighted souls today—the Earth is flat.

This is a wrong opinion. It is a mistaken opinion. It’s not workable. It is not correct. And it is not equal in weight to the opinion of someone who believes that the Earth is, in fact, round (or at least roundish).

How about this:

Hypothetically, my daughter comes to me and tells me that, in her opinion, she should be able to go out on dates and stay out until well past midnight. My opinion is quite the opposite. She is 12 and my child. I am 37 and her parent.

Her opinion is intrinsically not equal to mine, because mine has the force of “law” behind it.

Then, of course, there’s Mike Tyson, whose opinions on proper sexual conduct were so off the mark that he’s currently doing time.

Obviously, what is important is an informed opinion: developing an opinion based on facts that are presented to you, drawing conclusions, and, in my case, putting those conclusions down in a format that I hope will be entertaining to read.

The difference between But I Digress and a news column, however—the difference which appears to mystify some folks out there—is the key phrase “facts that are presented.”

Rarely has BID acted as a genuine news column. The most recent example was the occasion of the man who was dressed as Catwoman being evicted from a convention at the behest of DC Comics. I wasn’t there when it happened, but it seemed something worthy of public interest. Therefore, I called all the people involved and spoke with them at length: “Catwoman,” DC representatives, convention reps, and freelancers who witnessed Catwoman’s abrupt departure.

In the instance, however, by acting as a news writer, I then did not offer any opinions. I didn’t say whether DC acted rightly or wrongly but merely said, in essence, “Here’s what happened.”

Earlier than that, I think, you’d have to go all the way back to my first column on Image, in which I interviewed Dave Olbrich about the deal that the Image guys cut with him. Despite this extra effort on my part, curiously it is the Image folks who most stridently say they feel that I should be beating down people’s doors to get additional information for my column. I don’t know why I should. I did it for them, and they seem to have forgotten about it.

Opinion columns—whether it be the New York Times op-ed page or the last editorial page of CBG (both places where I’ve been published)—are designed to be a barometer for those would shape the opinions of others.

Let’s call the person in the public eye “Jones.” When Jones does certain things, takes certain actions, the onus is upon him to make these acts as bulletproof as possible. As Thomas Jefferson said in 1776 (and, for all I know, in real life), “To put forward the facts of the matter in terms so plain and common sense as to command attention.”

Jones has to consider all the angles carefully—try to think precisely how people will react to what is being said or done and adjust accordingly.

So Jones has spoken.

And now there’s Smith, the columnist. It is not the job, or the place, of Smith to follow up on what Jones has said or done. Because Smith is representing not just his own opinion, but—in addition—those of the everyman. Of the guy who doesn’t have that sort of access to a public forum or a facility with words that would permit such expression. In short, John Q. Public. And John Q., ideally, will read the column, nod his head, and say, “Yes! Yes, that’s exactly what I was thinking. I’m not alone. I’m not the only person who felt that way.”

Now: In Jones’ ideal world, Jones would say something remarkably stupid; the remarkably stupid thing would see print; Smith would then contact Jones and say, “Excuse me, but this was a remarkably stupid thing to say. Before I write a column commenting on how stupid it was, would you care to take another shot at making clear just what it was you, in fact, meant?”

In taking such an action, Smith would be betraying everyone.

He would be undercutting his own function as opinion columnist and, instead, would be acting as Jones’ press agent. It is, after all, the function of Jones’ PR people to make Jones look as good as possible. By taking an action that will serve to enable Jones to make himself look as good as possible, Smith is automatically skewing the column in favor of Jones.

Smith would also be undercutting the interests of John Q. John Q. doesn’t have that ability to contact Jones. He has to depend entirely on what Jones put forward as his public face. Ideally, Smith and John Q. should be on the same playing field, for Smith is the voice of—and a reflection of—the public. By elevating himself above the abilities of John Q., Smith is leaving behind those who are trusting him to be a reflection of their interests.

Lastly, Smith is undercutting the interests of Jones himself. Because Jones is entitled to know just how his words and actions are being perceived by John Q. He can then use this information to shape how he presents himself in the future. It can help make him a better public speaker and more proficient at dealing with the public, John Q. and otherwise.

Unfortunately, the weak link of this troika is, invariably, Jones. Because Smith can be perfectly confident in his ability to build a logical progression of arguments and thoughts. And John Q. can be pleased that Smith is putting forward views or thoughts that match his own (or might not match his own but, in differing from them, can help bring his own into sharper focus).

But, more often than not, Jones is going to squawk. Rather than turn examination inward, Jones will frequently say, “Well, who asked you?!” The answer, of course, is that Smith asked him. The moment one puts forward any sort of public statement, response is sure to come. To act as if anything else is expected is to be disingenuous at best, or self-delusional at worst.

Let’s face it: According to the Bible, God sent down the Ten Commandments on stone tablets. And people have been arguing over interpretations of those commandments for thousands of years. If God’s word, graven in stone, is not exempt from analysis, then where does it say that a press release from a new comic book company should be treated any differently?

Still, the Joneses of this world are doing whatever they can to make themselves immune from, or even above, criticism. Are they working harder to present a better public image? Nah. They’re trying to make the forums easier for themselves.

Certainly the pages of Comics Buyer’s Guide are a cream puff court. If Jones wants to make a public pronouncement in the comics industry, he doesn’t have to deal with a hard-hitting reporter challenging the pronouncements. All he has to do is craft a coherent press release and likely it will see print unchallenged. In fact, some of them even carry bylines, as if they were genuinely unbiased, two-sided news stories. Simple checking reveals that these bylines sometimes belong to people who are in the employ of those about whom they’re writing.

So here’s But I Digress, clearly know to be an opinion column, drawing fire from the Joneses of this world, because it doesn’t pretend to be a news column. On the other hand, Jones thinks nothing of producing one-sided PR pieces which then act as if they are genuine news items. It’s a practice which has come more and more under fire since the debacle of Jim Shooter’s Defiant press release (which was pilloried by half a dozen comics pros who had dealings with Shooter and would have been contacted for quotation, had the press release been, in fact, a genuine news piece).

Nevertheless, it’s a practice which is becoming more and more popular as the collective Jones does whatever he can to control news dissemination. One comics magazine, for example, advertised an upcoming interview with a noted comics pro. Who’s conducting the interview? The pro’s publicist. Bet that’ll be hard-hitting.

And, as always, if a Jones cannot control what a smart-alecky columnist such as myself says, then he will generally either launch ad hominem attacks or else construct loopy sidetracks: anything, in short, to avoid taking responsibility for his own words and actions.

Most recently, one Image creator endeavored to blow off any validity of anything critical I (and other commentators) have ever said about Image by stating that we “should realize that what we did was we went out and formed our own company. If that bothers them that much, then I think what they should do is probably go out and form their own company, take the same risks that we have, and take it on the chin the way we did.”

These two tactics are all too typical of the Joneses of this world; they’re both logical fallacies.

The first is to put forward an argument that Smith never made and attack that argument. In this particular instance, the Image guy states “If [our forming a company] bothers them that much,” thereby taking his own fabricated assertion and treating it as if it’s part of the equation. This is called “begging the question.” When he then endeavors to assail it, it’s further called “creating a straw man,” i.e. coming up with an opinion for your opponent that has no basis in fact and then attacking it.

And second, the equally commonplace complaint is for Jones to say to Smith—as the Image guy does—”You shouldn’t criticize us, if you haven’t done it.”

Taking this argument to its logical conclusion, no reviewer should ever comment on a film, if he hasn’t directed, written, produced or starred in a major motion picture. No fan should ever second-guess a manager in a baseball game, if he hasn’t managed a team. And certainly no editorial writer should ever criticize the President of the United States, if he has not, in fact, been President of the United States.

In other words, we should be a country where no negative opinions are ever stated. Which would suit Jones just fine.

Hey, Jones, before you criticize me, try writing a weekly opinion column sometime. See if you’re brave enough to step behind a typewriter. Take the risks and take it on the chin the way I have.