A lesson in complaining

Wildcat File Photo Arizona Daily Wildcat Scott Andrew Shulz

McCarty claimed that columnists have used the Perspectives pages in the Wildcat to "glorify themselves in ink at the expense of the readers."

In fact, I will at long last be glorifying the reasoning behind my writing throughout the next few paragraphs, but in this case, it will actually be for the sake of the readers, and in defense of constructive journalism.

It seems obvious that McCarty's knowledge of the Perspectives page is not what she might wish it to be. For, if McCarty had read issue after issue, she would be quite familiar with the fact that I have not once referred to myself in first person, minus a typo a couple of weeks ago, and this testament, so thus, could have never "glorified" myself or, for that matter, provided a "public diary."

I know quite well that my life is anything but newsworthy. Heck, living it each day is bad enough. Why would I torment my audience to the same degree?

My writing has, more often than not, been constructed around the lives of you, the readers, and has mirrored that which you have perceived as worthy of print.

I may not be a journalism major, as McCarty purports to be, but one of the first lessons to learn is that overgeneralizing neglects a good portion of your audience and that can only lead to a composition of ignorance.

While I could go on and tear McCarty's egotistical and misinformed letter apart sentence by sentence, that would accomplish little more than personal satisfaction. Her letter might appear to be of meager value, but it does bring up an interesting point.

What constitutes a good column? What is the purpose of me sitting down each weekend to stare at a blinding computer screen?

Your first guess might have something to do with the incredible amount of money involved. Yes, you are correct. I have, from the beginning, been focused on the fame and fortune that is sure to come from the publishing of these articles each week.

Not only that, but the university has put me on a full scholarship and I get free Nike apparel along with a lifetime supply of Pepsi.

Stop kidding yourself.

My reasoning behind Millstone is, and has always been, to challenge you to think critically. We live in a world and culture that guides our objectives and teaches us to think as it desires. The media present our community as they see fit and tell us what is and is not news. They determine how important certain events are and convey what they perceive as a fixed reality.

Instead of questioning the events of our lives and possibly changing them, we become children of the media, and simply accept the existence of these events with open arms. While our world deteriorates, the majority of us flip on the evening news and sit back to be amused by commentary and pictures that mean nothing more than a few minutes of relaxation.

Likewise, while our university changes its policies and covers its mistakes with a simple "I'm sorry," many of us accept that as all right and go on about our daily lives, not realizing that our lives are certain to be individually and collectively affected by such action.

I am not here to "entertain" as Miss McCarty might hope, but to provoke thought by turning your focus out to the environment in which you live and inward to the mind that has the potential to make that environment better for all.

I have finished a good cry on my pillow as McCarty so childishly recommended and am again ready to pick up my pen and search for a universal truth by challenging the notions of right and wrong.

Scott Andrew Schulz is a communication junior and can be reached via e-mail at Scott.Andrew.Schulz@wildcat.arizona.edu. His column, Millstone, appears every Wednesday.