Not long ago, a young woman who happened to be a friend of a few people I know lost her life. By all accounts, it was a tragic death and they say she was a very giving person and that she will be missed.
As I sought information about her out of my own curiosity, I stumbled into a column that appeared in a local newspaper about her nearly a year ago. As I read it, I felt it gave interesting insight into the woman’s life and her art. The art was clearly the focus of the article, as the column was pegged on a display of several photographs she had taken.
I felt I definitely knew her more after reading that story than I did after just learning of her death.
But the column’s author also did something that all reporters try to do: he did not sugarcoat his article. He was not writing a P.R. piece for this woman, nor was he writing an obituary at the time. He was letting readers know about the woman behind the photographs.
In the column, the author quotes the young artist as a human being and she admits that “I have no idea” whether she should be considered an artist or not.
Fast forward to about one week ago. This young woman dies and someone saying he was the woman’s former co-worker also reads this same piece. But he viewed it as an attack job. Among his complaints was that bringing up a divorce was inappropriate. He said the author was the equivalent of a TMZ reporter.
But what the commenter seemed to miss was that, because this reporter wrote about this young woman, he had an account, a memory, of his friend to permanently supplement his personal memories. Instead of focusing on how he perceived – and I stress it’s a perception – the writer got it wrong and made it “personal,” he should have focused on the good.
With society where it is right now, it is fairly easy to find the bad in a situation and dwell on it. Much more difficult is finding the good. Most who know me understand that I am not afraid to be positive. Some people have even said it annoys them. I am OK with that.