The column began: "If you indulge me for a moment, I'd like to tell you about someone very close to my heart." It was by a former student of mine, a self-admitted "hopeless romantic."

It ended 750 words later with this: "Whitney Bragg, will you marry me?"

It drew national attention to the small South Carolina daily. Bragg said "yes." But it's what some others had to say that brings me to rise in defense of the proposal.

The note back from the columnist, Nick McCormac, to my congratulatory message said it could have been a better day. Some responses apparently were pretty mean, and some comments on stories done about the column carried the same tone.

From the comments on Poynter: "An abuse of privilege and an affront to hard-working journalists" and "gag me."

From a TV station's site: "Don't care, not news." "I just threw up in my mouth." 

I got "can you believe this" emails from some journalists, and on another forum one of McCormac's colleagues professed a hard time even reading the column.

There were more "congratulations" messages and others saying lighten up. But the harshness from some current and former journalists shows we still need to lessen the preaching and think more about how to have fun and connect with readers.

One commenter, whose resume lists writing for two major metros and PR for a major university, bemoaned defiling "once sacred space." The column should at least have been wrapped in a "greater theme or parable," he wrote.

No. Sometimes it's OK to just have fun.

What item was most talked about around town that day? The meeting story? The arrest? The school story?

The three others are important; the fourth got people talking. To remain relevant, news sites and publications must have a mix of both in this age when digital and social media have changed the landscape, like it or not.

Too much is still delivered from the newsroom pulpit as news has become a conversation. And even conversations become boring if there isn't any fun.

Two years ago, I wrote how newspapers had become far less engaging by laying off illustrators and editorial cartoonists. It's often gotten worse with the sacking of columnists and veteran writers.

The strategy seems to be to wring out whatever fun and get-people-talking items we have in favor of more formulaic writing and commodity news. Even most "feature" stories rarely rise to being fun.

Take a signal from your readers. Visitors to the typical newspaper website spend less than 10 minutes a month, while the time for social media sites is measured in hours. Print circulation is shrinking.

You're not just about "the news" anymore, but about community, and if you look around your community, you'll find plenty of things to have fun about. One online site had an expert on local architecture take close-up photos of features around town and every week asked people to ID one. The result was a game with a purpose – people learned about historic treasures in their town.

Bring back photo pages (and cross-promote with online galleries) – they are not a waste of time and space but an investment in attracting readers. Have people write their own captions to some wacky or provocative photo, then feature the best and invite comments.

Use alternative story forms and news games.

For news game ideas, check out J-lab online. Games like design your own budget can be engaging, but I rarely see serious promotion and use across media. I haven't seen them all, but I've never seen the most interesting proposal from such an online game featured on the editorial page with comments invited.

And, of course, ask your staff and readers for ideas all the time.

There are many "sacred grounds" in the world, and too many are in rubble and covered in trees and vines. If we don't want to be among them, we'll be smart and understand we can be fun but not sell our journalistic souls.

Language Line

More news stories seem to be dropping "to" from "declined to comment." But "declined comment" is sort of like declining another piece of pie – thanks, but I'm full. And while we sometimes drop the preposition in elliptic writing ("he helped [to] raise the barn"), many dictionaries and usage experts still favor "declined to" when refusing to do something.

But why are you writing that overly officious phrase anyhow? Let's skip the false politeness. If you don't use "decline" in conversation, why not just write "would not comment" – simpler and friendlier on the ear and more authentic to your readers.

Doug Fisher, a former AP news editor, teaches journalism at the University of South Carolina and can be reached at dfisher@sc.edu or 803-777-3315.