On passion and television representation

I am fascinated by the continued media “spin” on Howard Dean’s comments to his supporters Monday night. Many other people have chipped in their 2 cents worth on this issue, so I’ll mainly just point off to them. David Weinberger, for instance, notes how happy the media has been to “run” with an image of Dean as the “angry guy” rather than recognize the passion and commitment in his efforts. Joe Trippi (Dean’s campaign manager) points out the differences between speaking to a huge hall of supporters live, and speaking to cameras.

I’m not sure I want to recall this memory, but the current media spin reminds me an awful lot of the way in which the national media “spun” the remarks of one of the speakers at the Wellstone memorial, just days before the last senate election here in Minnesota. In that case there were passionate supporters of progressive political change openly sharing their honest and authentic emotions over the death of someone we loved and deeply respected. Outsiders commenting on that sharing saw something very different — and used it to support a Republican take-over of Congress.

If the “anger” that the media are so upset about is unjustified or misdirected, or if the emotions are feeding mass hysteria, or pogroms, or other evil processes, there would be reason for concern. But the passion being shared is of a massive grassroots effort to reform some of the very dangerous turns this country has taken lately — and the process being used is democracy. It’s an electoral effort!

It seems to me that there are at least two issues we could be exploring/critiquing right now. One has to do with reminding each other that being at an event in person contextualizes the emotions expressed there. Cameras inevitably “frame” what is recorded, and media personalities further interpret it. Is it in the best interests of huge media companies for a broad, grassroots movement that has its own network (via blogs, the web, etc.) to spring up in this country?

The second thing I’ve been thinking a lot about lately is kind of ironic. I am remembering how powerful were the Black women I knew at Yale who were involved in women’s center activities, and how often they were belittled or trivialized as being “too angry.” Labelling them as “too angry” made it possible for White women to ignore their very trenchant critiques of our racism. It’s ironic that a White male, Protestant man of considerable power should find himself being tarred as “too angry” for raising legitimate issues that go to the heart of who we are as a country. As Michael Moore points out, it was Dean’s legitimate passion that has reenergized our primary season, and Dean’s legitimate passion that has brought crucial issues to the center of the campaign. I hope people out there engaging only mass mediated news can begin to see the ways in which “spin” is being “spun” and consider the consequences.

Those of us who have access to alternative networks of information sharing need to work all the harder to use them. Again, regardless of who you support in this primary season, I hope you’ll critique the news coverage, and refuse the simplistic equations you’re being offered by the mass media.