The first rule of PWild is that you don’t talk about PWild. The second rule of PWild is that you tell everyone about PWild: Talk about the nudity a lot, talk about all the crazy parties where you chant the names of states and cities and most importantly defend it to the death if anyone dares disgrace the organization.

Tuesday’s “In Focus” article on PWild in this paper caused quite a stir among the organization’s current and former members. Accusations of bias and misrepresentation flooded the story’s online comments section where students camped out (pun intended) to fiercely defend the organization that “changed their lives.” Unfortunately, their impassioned comments have done little to help PWild’s cause. Instead, they’ve drawn more attention to the story’s content, further detracting from the organization’s reputation. Their anger and inclinations to express it online illustrate an unfortunate trend that is all too common with anonymous comments.

I understand that PWild members are upset with the alleged biased or sensational nature of the article. I empathize with them as I have also fiercely criticized this paper’s judgment on several occasions. Many of the comments on the PWild story, most of them from anonymous writers who claim to be PWild counselors or former PWild campers, are personal at best and embarrassing at worst.

When commenting on news stories, it is important to first view them through an objective lens. When emotions come into play, we often misinterpret the content and intent of stories. I saw this effect in the more than 100 comments left on the PWild story. Commentators blasted the article for its bias and said that it did not accurately represent the organization. This may be true, but that seemed to be the article’s intent: to illustrate some of the problems PWild is facing and handling, not to provide a comprehensive picture of an otherwise beneficial organization.

Those who felt rushed to express their displeasure with the article would have been wise to simply comment “I am very upset right now and cannot reasonably discuss this.” I have learned this is the best route when I am incensed. Others would do well to repeat a similar phrase after drinking too much.

This quarter I subjected my opinions and columns to anonymous comments. I anticipated the feedback and criticism, hoping they might resemble the comments found on my favorite quasi-forums, Yahoo News stories and YouTube videos. I have been bitterly disappointed.

It is with no real surprise that my columns did not garner more attention or comments than they did. For the most part, they were fairly straightforward and free of controversy. The worst comment I did receive was an unsubstantiated “This is disgusting.” Other than that, the only other memorable online feedback I read were quips from a friend who thinks she’s real clever. She tries.

With my columns I did not necessarily intend to stir the pot or arouse your deepest emotions. There are, apparently, “In Focus” articles for that. Rather, I set out to take note of the seemingly trivial things that we often overlook, hoping to explore what they might illustrate about the ways we live. This was certainly an ambitious goal, and my efforts, at times, surely fell flat.

I’m both flattered and honored that you’ve read what I’ve written-all three of you. My hope is that when you finished one of my columns you tilted your head up a bit and said, “I never thought of it that way.” More than likely, however, you stopped reading halfway through and set the paper aside with a “Cool story, bro.”

At the very least I hope you found my columns bearable, perhaps at times interesting and maybe even a little bit funny. I try.

Greg Swiatek is a Medill junior. He can be reached at [email protected].