>I think it's worth exploring Carrol's contention that this 'anger' is
>manufactured. For performers on radio and TV it's clearly a dramatic device, the
>question is whether it reflects something true among the public or whether it is
>trying to generate something that needs a lot of encouragement and possibly
>would not exist without it. The fact that the airwaves have been dominated by
>angry shock jocks might mean that anger is difficult to rouse and needs
>constant incitement, at least against fake enemies.
>
I think the main point of the shock jocks is to redirect anger toward
the victims....the scapegoats, if you will.
> I think fear is a different
>matter.
>
Yes and no. Emotions are complex things. Very, very often one emotion is
more "respectable" than another and it will be created to mask the less
respectable emotion.
Think about anger as a mask for fear and think about all the men you have known and how much more comfortable with they are with anger than with fear. This about all the women you know and how much easier it is for them to be afraid/anxious rather than angry.
That's all I'm trying to get at here.
Joanna