Beyond Statistics

One of the many faults, I should say, of writing a column is the temptation for the columnist to try to give too much information to the readers without even analyzing the problem presented. The business of the columnist, so to speak, is simply to lay all the cards and let the readers decide what action they would take. The writer, as some of our editors point out, should be talented enough to flesh out all the details so the viewing public can have a fairly good view of what is going on. And thereby hangs the argument.

While it is true that readers play a critical role in the development of an issue, and that the writer’s presence serves as a medium of that all-important topic, it is equally true that the burden lies in the presentation of data and the elucidation of those data by the writer himself to form, at least, a connection between those cold, hard facts and the reaction of those who wanted to make a difference.

Citing statistical figures in a column is one of the essential ingredients of a credible, self-assured opinionated article. It strengthens the idea that the author is arguing not from a safe distance, but from a convincing proof that such a fact existed, and that those who try to disagree is at the mercy of its source, which has undergone a lot of testing before it became a fact.

Inserting factual data also brings a sense of erudition to the author. Although this may sound so superficial to learned readers and self-conscious editors, the act of simply merging the writer’s opinion with proven facts brings a tone of justice to the readers, since it creates some sort of wholeness and exactness in their mentality while reading the piece.

Be that as it may, the gap between a static fact and the subjective condition of the columnist will ultimately dictate how an issue influences the sanity and sentiment of the readers. The catch is: if the columnist tuck in so much data in his article, his piece will suffer a strain since numbers easily distract the eye, however, if he shoves so much opinion in his column without paying tribute to those surveys, his composition would be too aloof to even find a common ground.

I often find it quite distracting to merge these elements every time I write. The thing is, the temptation for any columnist to flood a column with so much data will only lead readers smirking since much of these facts are already available anyway practically in our midst, most especially in the internet. However, there are still readers who are still unaware of this recent onslaught of information online that the need to reiterate them in paper has now become a yoke and a burden to some of our writers.

Confronted at times with personal biases, I am, however, guilty of writing a self-absorbing piece that doesn’t represent the general sentiment of the many. That in order to reach out to the suffering and the oppressed, I need to go back to the basics of realigning what matters most in the conception of a column, especially in a community paper, that is, by giving representation to human dignity and lives through the stroke of a pen.

It is one such responsibility that even a regular employee of a government office that issues a load of figures to the reporters cannot easily empathize with. Some of them might even be wondering how these correspondents can be so brutal about this game of numbers that has now penetrated all the way through the confines of column writing.

And so after receiving a gamely comment on this matter, when I was told that when your writing is simply pursuing all those facts without a “thought” of them, it is arguing solely from a safe distance, a criticism that has no bearing at all to the intricacies of column writing.

But I appreciate this abovementioned criticism for what it is, although it is not something that can stifle the creativity of someone who knows his craft. It somehow posses a challenge, however, to all nascent writers, myself included, that some readers are curious enough to know your gut-wrenching opinion of a topic, and not just saturate them with all those facts and leave the comment to the readers.

I really can’t speak for those who are into the writing craft or for anybody in that field as far as feedback is concerned, but that comment is as timely as it gets, maybe because we can’t bear the thought of having that passive outlook for so long a time while practically around us there are those who are selling it out literally to the devil. It is important to be objective at times, as evidence of the citing of facts in our columns, but when the going gets tough, as exemplified by these unceasing injustices in our community, some, if not most of our readers, are expecting a whipping from us for them to follow it through.

But, of course, all of this is still subject to editing, as all editors would put it. Our community would be in danger of disintegrating itself if readers put so much leverage to a columnist, much more in an adversarial one, if such practices find an approval in them.

The inclusion of facts in an article may make one a convincing reporter, and basking so much opinion in a piece of composition may make one an affective columnist, but the thought of combining both is a task only seasoned writers can tackle.

It all boils down to the question of style, the attitude of the one writing the piece. The saturation of facts may be a redundancy, but then again its presence sure heightens the argument of the columnist to validate certain impositions in the article. Arguing beyond statistics, on the other hand, is exorcising wholly the spirit of experience, of human dignity in conflict with itself, the gist in which the nuisance of everyday living can be fully exposed to the many.

It is a struggle though, but I’d like to be a part of that.