The Happiness paradox and the refuge of scoundrels

Gallup Inc.  last year. asked about 1,000 people in each of 148 countries if they were well-rested, had been treated with respect, smiled or laughed a lot, learned or did something interesting and felt feelings of enjoyment the previous day.

In Panama and Paraguay, 85 percent of those polled said yes to all five, putting those countries at the top of the list. They were followed closely by El Salvador, Venezuela, Trinidad and Tobago, Thailand, Guatemala, the Philippines, Ecuador and Costa Rica.

The people least likely to report positive emotions lived in Singapore, the wealthy and orderly city-state that ranks among the most developed in the world. Other wealthy countries also sat surprisingly low on the list. Germany and France tied with the poor African state of Somaliland for 47th place.
Prosperous nations can be deeply unhappy ones. And poverty-stricken ones are often awash in positivity, or at least a close approximation of it.
It's a paradox with serious implications.
Meanwhile Newsroom has its own happiness paradox reflected in reader comments that follow stories we publish. Many people are very unhappy when we carry reports that are unfavorable to the current government, Others accuse us of pandering to the government when we publish positive news. That’s OK. I have been a journalist long enough to recognize changing readership thought patterns and following any politician’s progress, or lack of it can be a tortuous path in any country.
In the days before on line comments the only route for most readers to express their own views was via “Letters to the Editor.”  Those wanting to vice their ire, support or disagreement had  to put pen or typewriter to paper, put their contribution into an envelope, buy a stamp and post it. They then had to buy one or more editions  to  see if their opinions has been published. Their efforts, , because of space restrictions , were subject to a form of censorship, with the page editor making the choice of which subjects made the page. In most newspapers, writers had to identify themselves by name, and include an address. There was little hiding behind or beneath pseudonyms.
In some newspapers the letters produced stimulating discussions and genuine contributions to the political or moral debates of the day. The Times of London carried this to a genuinely beneficial conclusion by occasionally reprinting the letters on selected subjects in booklet form.
Sadly, many comments that appear on this and other sites would not qualify as contributions to intelligent debate. Using vulgarities or vulgar allusions to the targets of their bile, whether it be a person in office, or another commentator does not come under the heading “intelligent debate”. When we occasionally remove extreme examples, after the system has automatically posted them, there are screams of protest from the offending reader.
Some even try to spread their bile by sending slanderous or libelous comments under an alias, with a false email address. One such masked individual who glibly prophesized that his comment would be deleted (it wasn’t) suggested that Newsroom's editor (that’s me) was “on the lam” from some unnamed Central American Country.
Throwing mud and hoping it will stick was one of the refuges of scoundrels that Dr Johnson didn’t mention.
For the mud-slingers benefit, although I have lived and worked full time in nine different countries, and part time in over a score more, I have never lived in, or visited a Central American country other than Panama(but plans are afoot to rectify that omission). My clean bill of health from all the countries I had lived in before moving to Canada was replicated by the RCMP when I moved to Panama 10 years ago.
Which brings me back to my original aim in writing today’s column: reader comments.

This year editorial control (call it censorship if you wish) will be imposed on items that use vulgarities, launch personal attacks on other contributors, or individuals.

If you wish rail away in your local bar or over your sundowner on the patio  about the object of your discontent, but keep your welcomed contributions to Newsroom within the guidelines and, who knows, one day we might one day follow The Times and publish thoughtful debates however strongly put issues of the day. But who will step up to the plate using their own names and genuine email address?

In the meantime, articles expressing their views on any subject from the environment and crime to politics and economics will  be welcomed. they should carry your name and  possibly a photograph. Length not exceeding 600 words.
Happy New Year to all our readers on whatever side of the current fence you may be sitting.