Writers write to inform, not to attack.

In this current era of media, millennial writers and journalists, such as this one, tread a fine line between conversational pieces and controversial rhetoric. We also live in a time where social media has completely redesigned the boundaries between what is informative and what instigating. Social media has allowed an age-old philosophy to finally reach its full potential; everything is argument.

When it comes to argument, the difference between conversation and controversy is never finite. Every argument has holes and those holes become more and more infinite with every exchange of information.

This recent political election season is no exception. Truly the epitome of testing the limits between informative content and encumbered rhetoric, the two candidates, whether it be Donald Trump or Hilary Clinton, each have a team of extended supporters that have took on the persona of a writer, both correctly and incorrectly, to endorse them, defend them, or criticize them.

Writers and journalists alike have an obligation to objectively inform their readers. However, unlike the content creating software we deposit their ideas in, they are not exempt from emotional knee-jerk impromptu debates which has taken over every social media site from Twitter to Tumblr.

Within this regard, it is important to unpack the heated buzz this election season has brought on. By far the first election season in our nation’s history where every majority and minority group, from women to immigrants, each have something to gain and something to lose.

As stated in the aforementioned paragraphs, writers are not exempt from emotionally charged rebuttals consciously or unconsciously inserted into their content. In this regard, every writer’s voice is undeniably influenced by said-writer’s race, class, gender, and orientation. While it is desirable to appear completely objective when interpreting data and reporting on the findings, our human programming falls short of the computer programming our content thrives in.

In 2016, we live in a cultural arena with boundaries defined by social media. As a result, we inadvertently become journalists when we take to Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Tumblr, and even Snapchat. We inadvertently play into the idea that everything is argument. As bystanders at rallies, debates, even the daily interactions with co-workers and colleagues, our rebuttals and theirs are reported the moment our fingers hit the keyboard.

Writers do not apologize for their content. Readers do not apologize for their reception of their content. However, because of the blurred lines between conversation and controversy, this election season has become the battleground for those rebuttals. Due to the fact that no identity is off limits, the lines become more and more blurred.

As a writer, the obligation to inform and not antagonize is easier said than done. It sometimes takes a conscious effort to acknowledge the human flaws every writer has to even begin to unpack the content at hand. Only until we adopt that idea into our culture will we be able to have some sort of normalcy in our daily interactions, both on and off the page.