Monday, November 7, 2011

ABC News had a new article under the headline:  For Campaign 2012, Anger May Be the New Hope.  What has gotten into people these days that everyone wants to see or hear other people's emotional responses while hiding their own?   We have created 'experts' at reading emotion in courts, reading the jurors and the accused on trial.  So often, it seems that the media has decided and reported on camera whether they believe a person is guilty on the basis of the lack of showing remorse.

Mikes and cameras are shoved in the face of people at the scene of an accident or tragic death  The reporters seem to feel successful if they can ask enough questions to have the one being interviewed become tearful.

Violently sobbing, unable to talk, is like scoring a home run for the interviewer.  One can only assume that these reporters are so desperate to fill space while lacking skills or personal creativity, and with little capacity to speak if the script is not there for them to read,

On the other hand, we often criticize people who emote as trying to manipulate.  It is a typical double bind.  If you don't emote, you  are heartless, unrepentant and therefore guilty (even though you may be innocent); if you do share your feelings publicly, you are being manipulative and trying to sway people your way by using tears or deep sadness..

One of the biggest problems we face in our society and in our politics is:  'You are damned if you do and damned if you don't'. For many, it can never be enough or right .  To be empathic and objective, at the same time, seems to be an extinct concept.  Anger and fear seem to be the two emotions best understood in our lives today.  We heard that, to run for Pre4sident, you have to have 'fire in the belly', unfortunately interpreted by too many is that you have to be angry and demonstrate it clearly that you are.

No comments: