The Column Proved the Column

A few weeks ago, I wrote a column about perception. The basic point was simple: two people can read the exact same thing, witness the exact same event, or hear the exact same statement and walk away with completely different opinions about what they just experienced.

It wasn't a complicated concept. In fact, it's something we see every day.

Ironically, after posting that column online for The Manchester Enterprise, the reaction to it became a perfect example of the very point I was trying to make.

Some readers interpreted the column as support for an individual accused of sexually assaulting a child. Let me be crystal clear: nothing could be further from the truth. I have never supported child abuse, sexual abuse, or anyone accused of harming a child. I never will.

The column wasn't about that particular case. It wasn't about any case at all. It was a broader discussion about perception and how people often view the same information through completely different lenses.

Yet some readers connected the two and reached a conclusion that was never intended.

One of those readers happened to be a family member of the alleged victim. After seeing the reaction, I reached out directly to her. We exchanged several messages and talked through what I had written and what I had meant. By the end of the conversation, she understood that she had misinterpreted the column. To her credit, she publicly acknowledged that misunderstanding and made a post explaining herself.

That deserves recognition.

In today's world, admitting a mistake is rare. Social media has become a place where people often double down rather than step back. Many would rather continue arguing than admit they may have misunderstood something. It takes humility and character to say, "I may have read that wrong."

I genuinely respect her for doing that.

Unfortunately, even after that clarification, others continued trying to push the narrative that the column was somehow defending the accused or dismissing the seriousness of the allegations.

That reaction only strengthened the point I was making in the first place.

People didn't just interpret the column differently. Some continued believing their interpretation even after additional context was provided. They saw what they expected to see rather than what was actually written.

That's the power of perception.

We all do it at times. We bring our own experiences, emotions, biases, and assumptions into every conversation. Sometimes those things help us understand a situation. Other times they can cause us to see something that isn't really there.

As a newspaper publisher, I understand that not everyone will agree with what I write. That's part of the job. Healthy disagreement is good. Different opinions are good. But before we react, before we share a post, before we accuse someone of something they never said, maybe we should all take a moment to ask a simple question:

"Is that really what was written, or is that what I assumed was written?"

The truth is that the reaction to my perception column ended up being the greatest evidence that the column was right all along.

Sometimes the best proof doesn't come from an argument.

Sometimes it comes from watching the argument happen in real time.