Originally Published April 17, 2013

Last October, social media was swooning over a YouTube video showing La Crosse, Wisconsin, news anchor Jennifer Livingston responding to a private letter she had received from a viewer. The letter reprimanded Livingston for her weight and urged her, as a public figure, to address it in order “to promote a healthy lifestyle.” The full text of the private letter read:

Hi Jennifer,

It’s unusual that I see your morning show, but I did so for a very short time today. I was surprised indeed to witness that your physical condition hasn’t improved for many years. Surely you don’t consider yourself a suitable example for this community’s young people, girls in particular. Obesity is one of the worst choices a person can make and one of the most dangerous habits to maintain. I leave you this note hoping that you’ll reconsider your responsibility as a local public personality to present and promote a healthy lifestyle.”

After reading the private letter on air, Livingston proceeded to use her own bully pulpit to first publicly shame the letter’s author and then went on to deliver a sermon about the social ills of bullying.

If this is bullying to Ms. Livingston, then I envy her. The bullying that I remember was stubborn and incessant, cruel and uncaring. Bereft of cause and ignorant to reason, it was solely intended to break someone down at every level – to shutter any sense of personal self-worth – to debase those things that make someone different and special. You did well on that test? Then you suck at sports and have no friends. You’ve got acne? You’re ugly. You like theatre? You’re a faggot.

In this light, by simply labeling her critic as a “bully,” Livingston stretched reason and willfully over-simplified the situation. Since when do bullies put their attacks in the context of community improvement or urge someone to be a better role model? The bullies I knew were, more often than not, mirror images of the hurtful labels they attempted to append to others. They cared less about addressing a serious societal problem; instead, they perpetuated one.

Could the letter writer’s tone have been softer and his words more thoughtful? Absolutely. But was he a true bully? No. Merely pointing out an objective truth – that each of us have habits that are deleterious to ourselves and to others and that the world would be a better place if we addressed them – is not bullying.

In the weeks following her on-air editorial, Ms. Livingston parlayed her public reproach into numerous national television appearances, including stops by The Today Show and The Ellen DeGeneres Show. Meanwhile, after his name was publicly revealed on Facebook by Ms. Livingston’s husband, the author of the private letter was submitted to the type of truly malicious bullying that Livingston had sermonized against. It seems severely misguided that Ms. Livingston and her husband attempted to stop “bullying” by abetting it.

Ultimately, however, the problem with Ms. Livingston’s response wasn’t that it tacitly, if unintentionally, devalued and then facilitated true bullying, it’s that it reinforced a precedent that has disturbingly manifested itself in American culture –a precedent whereby the perpetuators of a inconvenient problem attempt to deflect the blame for it by attacking those who point out its existence.

It’s the same thing that happened when our society began to tackle another significant public health problem: smoking. Now, however, our culture’s relationship to smoking has dramatically changed. For instance, it’s not too hard to imagine that if Ms. Livingston regularly smoked on air there would have long ago been uproar over how she was promoting an unhealthy habit that has killed hundreds of thousands of people and sapped the quality of life of countless more. Sound familiar?

Ms. Livingston had an opportunity to address a troublesome, but not insurmountable issue – obesity – which she admitted has doggedly plagued her for her entire life. Instead, she deflected the problem by choosing to conflate a concerned citizen’s critique with bullying.

Just imagine how inspirational her editorial would have been if she had also pledged to tackle her obesity for her own good, the good of her family, and the good of her community – and then allowed the public to slowly see her measured improvements as she gradually and steadfastly progressed toward a healthier lifestyle.

Instead, when Livingston was sent a private letter, she responded with a public shaming that was wildly disproportionate to the criticism she received and ignored the issue of her own obesity – an issue which she acknowledged is incredibly important.

The public’s rush to “defend” Livingston likewise seemed to be more about ignoring our own insecurities than about protecting her sense of self-worth. By defending Livingston, we subconsciously suppose that we, too, can erect a wall around our own anxieties and thus continue to deflect a pair of inconvenient truths: Not only is America fat and getting fatter, but we’re also ignorant of that fact. And, what’s worse, this ignorance isn’t unintentional; rather, it’s wanton and deliberate: We know we’re fat, but many of us are too fearful to face it or too uneager to do anything about it. We can pull the rug over our eyes for a time – but pretty soon, it seems, that rug’s simply not going to be big enough.

© 2013 P.D. Nym