MSM outrage-shaming: What’s it all about?

By Alison Parkes

May 8, 2013

This piece is written in response to these three articles which have appeared within the past couple of weeks

1)  Hooked on outrage in the Twitter wars  by Jacqueline Maley, 20 April Fairfax

2)  The left takes a turn for the ugly as power slips through Labor’s grasp by Chris Johnson, 28 April Fairfax

3)  Feminist backs Abbott on ‘calibre’ comment  by  Heath Aston and Jonathan Swan, 7 May Fairfax

What these three articles share in common is a criticism of how people, particularly those on the Left, use Twitter to express outrage at comments made by Tony Abbott, Alan Jones, and the politician Dennis Jensen. These three articles use outrage-shaming to mock the reaction of the Left to insensitive and offensive comments from the Right.

Outrage-shaming occurs when people in mainstream media (MSM) use it as a pulpit to shame people on Twitter over their outrage or reactions to a event. Recent articles based on outrage-shaming have targeted the Left, women and the working class, groups that have traditionally been shamed into silence for breaching the polite rules of society.

Too loud, too much, too emotional, too public.

If you don’t like something Tony Abbott said, and take to Twitter to express your opinion, people who disagree with you will dismiss this as inappropriate outrage. This can be also called faux-outrage or confected-outrage by those who think the reaction has gone too far.

Say too much and MSM journalists will write a newspaper column about you. Keep your emotions under control, don’t react, stay quiet, don’t get angry, say nothing – most importantly, do not get outraged. The MSM will decide the narrative and context and the circumstances in which you will be outraged.

This outrage as a means of control is not new. For centuries moral panics have come from the elites – the wealthy, the law, the churches, the men – from the top down, and have covered everything from witches who could wither crops with just a glance and Muslim terrorists to satanic heavy metal or the evils of jazz or rap music, unemployed single mothers on welfare to people in boats. Moral panics have been used to control behaviour, kids and their music, widowed women who owned property, people who prayed to a different God or had no God. Groups are held up as an example of how not to live, to shame those who have transgressed the boundaries, into repenting. Shaming also serves as a warning of what might happen if you, too, think about breaking the rules. The latest moral panic in MSM is ‘The Left are using Twitter to express outrage.

Feminist Eva Cox described the Twitter reaction to Tony Abbott’s “women of calibre” comment, from ordinary users as well as Penny Wong and Tanya Plibersek, as “an overreaction“. Sorry Twitter, you may react, just don’t over-react.

Of course you are entitled to free speech, be careful how you use it.

As Maley wrote in  Hooked on outrage in the Twitter wars:

Freedom of speech is one thing, but at a certain point in political debate you have to turn down the volume of the extreme voices at the edge of the debate, so you can have a reasoned one in the middle. You have to filter out the outrage and, even harder, not allow yourself to get outraged by the outrageous. -

So what if people take to their own Twitter accounts to express outrage?

People don’t always tweet expecting their conversations will be evaluated by mainstream journalists for levels of appropriate outrage.

And tweets that on the surface may appear to be an over-reaction aren’t always actually about outrage. Tweets can be used for humour, venting, sharing personal and painful experience and connecting with others. How different is this from the salons and cafes where people meet and talk, the turn of the century French Bohemian cafes or Dorothy Parker of the Algonquin Round Table and her acid-tongue put downs repeated to this day. Or the Pubs, the clubs and backyard barbecues and Sydney University Liberal Club president’s dinners.

Of course you are entitled to free speech, just not so outrageously public.

Tweeps aren’t like the street-corner preachers shouting their opinions of the world at anyone who passes by. Tweeps are having a conversation with their community. To outsiders these conversations may seem extreme. To insiders they are just chatting with friends and family. Twitter is an exchange of ideas – if you don’t like it, don’t read it.

Phrases such as “destroy the joint” (Alan Jones) or “women of calibre” (Tony Abbott) can hurt. They are judgement statements that value a person based on their gender or class or income. Sometimes the only way people have to deflect that hurt is to turn it around and share with others who may feel hurt by these statements.

Not everyone has a national newspaper column in which to share their feelings or clever, witty comments; for many people Twitter is their community and logging in feels like coming home.

Quite often the outrage is not confected, it comes from the hurt caused by insensitive or offensive comments. And what many critics miss in their outrage at the outrage is that much of it is humour.

Laughing at Tony Abbott takes away his power to hurt. Laughing at one of Tony Abbott’s insensitive comments is one way to take the sting out the hurt those comments may cause. The way many people express this hurt if they don’t have a national newspaper column is that they share with their friends and community. Should it matter if those friends are in person or online? When MSM journalists like Maley or feminists like Eva Cox or Mia Freedman (who runs a blog worth millions of dollars) try and explain the context or the narrative or defend these comments, they are minimising this hurt and the injustice by focusing on the reaction rather than the comments that caused it. This compounds the hurt and further feeds the outrage.

“Outrage” also depends on your political views. When reading Twitter though a filter of your own political views you are more likely to see any reaction you don’t agree with as criticism. If you feel picked on by the Left (Maley: “Twitter trolls – who in my experience, tend to be nasty left-wingers more than conservatives”), perhaps that is because you are viewing Twitter from the Right.

If your starting position is sympathy for Tony Abbott, you will likely see people using Twitter to mock Abbott and his comments as too much outrage, and unlikely to understand the people who Abbott is passing judgement over.

Who decides how much is too much, or how much is just enough? Who does? Twitter users, that’s who. Much in the way ‘The Simpsons’ newsreader Kent Brockman watches the Duff blimp go down in flames and mutters “Oh, the humanity… anyway”, the users and consumers will decide for themselves. People vent, people will rage, then they move on to the next thing they enjoy getting outraged about. If something is no longer interesting, people will find something else to tweet about. That is the nature of social media.

As Bob Dylan said The times they are a-Changin’.

Mainstream media is a one way conversation. You see what they print, you see what they broadcast, you don’t get to talk back. Twitter, however, is a two-way conversation, and you choose information you want by choosing who to follow. It is an exchange – you get to talk back, publicly.

Malcolm Turnbull in a speech to parliament succinctly described what this new way of consuming online news and media is having on major media organisation:

Established players are under great threat. Rupert Murdoch… has said that the internet will destroy more profitable businesses than it will create, and certainly a lot of Rupert Murdoch’s businesses are very much under challenge.

Media giants need to rise to the challenge that is social media, not just sit on the sidelines and take cheap shots at the players. The journalists too, and not only those who work for Murdoch’s New Limited, are not enjoying the transition to social media or an old media/social media hybrid.

With social media, the readers talk back. The power structure has changed – it is no longer top-down. News, opinion and entertainment have become more democratic, peer-to-peer, and the old players have to evolve or get off the playing field.

Perhaps it’s time the Old Media (MSM) stopped telling us what the context should be and let us decide for ourselves. It’s time old media stop telling us we are are over-reacting, or expressing too much outrage (or too little) to comments which they would all but ignore if not for the outrage coming from Twitter.

If the most important wrap-up at the end of the day is how people reacted on Twitter, instead of an examination of the policies and promises coming from politicians, then our media have long since ceased to be relevant in most peoples lives.

Instead of telling us what to feel, how about we have a conversation of why “women of calibre” offended people, or why “destroy the joint” started a movement, or why “died of shame” shocked the nation. Rather than criticising Twitter users for reacting, let’s look at why they are reacting.

How about we look at Shock Jocks and newspaper columnists who are informing the nation with their opinions. It’s certainly time we took a longer look at Tony Abbott, the man who so often makes these comments which cause an uproar amongst Twitter Left. Let us look at the man who would be Prime Minster and his policies and attitudes towards women. Instead of concentrating on how people are reacting to what he is saying, let us take some column-inches to reflect on why Tony Abbott is saying these things, or spend a few less airtime minutes on the latest handbag purchase of an athletes wife and look at why Tony Abbott’s comments hurt people.

Let us look at the message, rather than attack the messenger.

There is an old saying, on Television legal shows:

1. If the facts are against you, argue the law.
2. If the law is against you, argue the facts.
3. If the facts and the law are against you, thump the table.

This MSM outrage at the Twitter outrage (outrage-shaming) is thumping the table. It does not examine why people are outraged, or why people are turning away from Mainstream Media and are exchanging ideas on Twitter, Old media is thumping the table.

Comments


  1. Thank you for that. A great read. Totally spot on too.
    I am a highly educated woman, yet I too was ‘outraged’ by the highly patronising nature of that comment. And I’m interested to know why others felt hurt by it as well.
    By-the-way, am not personally shamed by the MSM outrage-shaming. Bring it on I say. More power to the people (and yes, I gave up reading newspapers long ago).

  2. Saaq Madiq says:

    Who gives a rat’s arse what the old media think? The Old Media are lower then the shit on your shoe and should be treated accordingly. The biased propaganda the Old Media have served up to us in recent years deserves getting well and truly trashed by the New Media. The Old Media are really just flat track bullies who can’t handle the truth. They are going the way of the dinosaurs, that is extinction. All power to the New Media. As the late, great John Lennon once said, ” power to the people, power to the people right now”.


  3. Hits the nail on the head: my general outrage generally comes from the failure to focus of the cause, but the sideshow effect. And because they deliberately focus on the sideshow effects, they seem oblivious to the ‘real-life’ effects. But I guess they’ll learn if the r-w brigade manages to gain office. THEN their outrage will be as real as Twitter’s I suspect.


  4. I’m a nobody. I joined twitter 2 months ago. I compiled a list of gaffes made by Abbott since 2010 which thanks to twitter has been read by at least 15,000 people (direct at http://www.scribd.com/doc/133134121/Tony-Abbott-Gaffes and via other sites that have published it).

    My hope is that people who dismiss Abbottisms such as ‘women of calibre’ as minor or inconsequential will realise that his poor choice of words and tendency to be offensive and insensitive, is Abbott; not an aberration on a bad day. They point to his poor judgement as well as his character and beliefs.

    I also hope that my list is a useful reference for anyone wanting to explain to friends, rellies and colleagues why Abbott as PM is not a good idea.

    A journalist referenced my list yesterday in a Drum article http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4677366.html and the read count is going up as I write this.

    Thanks twitter


    • Choosing, well done! Great resource, especially as you have provided links. The sort of thing the MSM would have done once. Wish they’d use the hard work of people like you to inform their stories. Would you like to write a piece for me on how and why you came to twitter and did this work?

      Regards,

      Margo


    • You’re not a nobody, choosing. You’re doing the work the msm should be doing and they know it. Their biased cheerleading is increasingly irrelevant and they’re mad as hell, but impotent to stop 5th estaters assuming their role.


  5. An excellent article. I’m fairly new to Twitter and have tried to engage with some of the people making these sweeping statements containing no facts or reason for their comments. I have even sent them links to articles written by experts in their field to no avail. So my answer is to just block the people who are being rude or abusive as I want to be able to express my opinion about daily activities without abuse. If the journos in the MSM don’t agree with things we say they have the same option.
    Last week I watched Insiders with J Marley and some of the things she had to say about the PM/Labor Party were without facts to back them up. She would be most upset if she was told she had no right to say them so what gives her the right to criticise Tweeters? Just another form of media!
    If the MSM is not going to do their job of reporting and only ever give us opinion or continue to censor the news and current affairs then we have a responsibility as citizens of a democracy to make sure we fill in the blanks. People cannot make informed choice without all sides being represented. If Twitter is the only way an alternate view can be aired then more power to Twitter.

  6. VoterBentleigh says:

    If the MSM want to reduce the extreme voices, they should start with their own headlines and then move on to an analysis of the Opposition’s messages and finally the supporters and loyal voters of the. Extremist analysis, exaggerated language and outrage have been the hallmark of the commercial media for years. Suddenly, as if via a vision on the road to the election, they now council everyone else to be moderate.

    Nasty, bullying, exaggerated, extremism has been the air the Opposition has breathed ever since Tony Abbott took over the leadership. Let’s begin with some examples from the Opposition Leader and the Coalition:

    Referred to a tax as “toxic”
    Suggested Whyalla would be wiped off the map
    Claimed Gladstone would be closed down by the mining and carbon tax
    Sophie Mirabella, Bronwyn Bishop and Tony Abbott stood in front of signs saying “witch”and “bitch” about the Prime Minister of the Australia, but apparently suffer from such poor eyesight that they did not see them
    Claimed after this “what did we see today? Today we saw precious Julia, very precious Julia indeed, campaigning and complaining about a few nasty placards
    Claimed: “Why shouldn’t the Australian people be angry with this Prime Minister who won office based on a lie?”
    Asked in Parliament: “Why doesn’t she have the guts to face the people?”
    Called the P M “delusional”
    Claimed the PM had committed a crime.
    Said “..we’ve seen fake Julia, we’ve seen wooden Julia, we’ve seen teary Julia..”
    “Said the PM would not lie down and die.
    Deliberately said that the Government should “die of shame” after Alan Jones had claimed the PM’s father had died of shame of her.
    Called the PM a “piece of work” in Parliament
    Called Peter Slipper a “creature” of the ALP.
    Said a dying man was “not necessarily pure of heart”.
    After the uprisings in the Middle East, called for a people’s “revolt” here.
    Implied asylum seekers were like vomit by using the words “ disgorging illegals”
    Described people seeking asylum as “illegal” thereby suggesting criminality
    Described the Government as “debauched”.
    Described the mining tax as a great big cudgel that would blow the brains out of the economy of WA.
    Claimed that the only families who could afford to have more children were families on welfare.
    Abetz claimed that local health authorities and the police should be advised if your neighbour cannot speak English properly
    Claimed that people who disrupted the Parliament in 2011 were there at “her behest” (that is, the Prime Minister’s order)
    Abetz claimed that he would not put asylum seekers and paedophiles in the same category, “necessarily”
    Suggested the law should be applied differently to asylum seekers than to other groups of people in Australia.
    Suggested the Government was stealing people’s money.

    As Eric Abetz said, in justifying and excusing the outrage of Alan Jones, given the circumstances, perhaps we should not condemn people who say things in the heat of the moment which they might regret.

  7. VoterBentleigh says:

    Correction of my errors. Read : “loyal voters of the Right” and “counsel others” (not “council”)

  8. anne louise says:

    They can shame me all they like. I will never know cos I don’t read, watch or listen to their drivel any longer.

  9. Ian Milliss says:

    I always tweet comments to MSM articles rather than comment directly simply because comments pointing out the poor quality of journalism used to always get moderated out. Not so much now I notice but its too late now, the MSM is over, a dead old man walking.

  10. sulphurcrested says:

    So, have I got this right? Basically they not only want to f*** us over, they insist we lay back with our legs spread and say nothing at all about it. In twitter or anywhere.
    I’ve got news for them.


  11. Reblogged this on iheariseeilearn.


  12. Every time I see one of those articles, I think it’s proof that despite all their criticism of Twitter and Social Media they do think it’s significant and influential. The derogatory phrase ‘confected outrage’ annoys me but it shows it matters enough for them to want to put it down.


    • Agree Ja. The recent Myer, and earlier Alan Jones boycott’s prove that Twitter & other social media does have power and the MSM really has no answers to it.


  13. l must say it is interesting that the BUSINESS OF JOURNALISM hobby of printing on dead trees has ADOPTED PROFESSIONAL PRACTICES resorted to copying citizen bloggers again.
    http://theantibogan.wordpress.com/2012/10/11/how-facebook-hurts-women/


  14. Great article. I couldn’t agree more.

    If the msm is serious about “confected outrage” a good place to start is that haunter of public conveniences Jones and the pack of vermin who parrot his lying rants.it would be handy to have the money to sue them every time they lied without shame.

    The msm has abdicated its role as objective informers, providing unbiased truthful, fact based reporting, instead of acting as another propaganda arm of the LNP.

    If they want anyone to take them seriously, they’d better give Rupert the finger and start telling the truth.

  15. Marian Rumens says:

    Funnily enough, I just don’t care if MSM thinks my tweets outrageous. Actually, don’t think too many tweeps would care. By all means publicly censure them if that’s your bent (Jacqueline Maley and Chris Johnson). You’ve got to have something to write about since analyzing policy seems to be off the table.

Have your say