> 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 fear is a different
> matter.
In thinking about this I do try to keep separate any kind of Newsweeky "common wisdom" -- road rage comes to mind -- where they have a cover story entitled "Angry America: The New Black?" This angle comes up talking with unAmericans about puritanism in relation to the Clinton/Lewinski brewhaha -- it was very much the obsession of the fourth estate and maybe 35% of the population, the latter largely out of proportion with the usual intensity of their reactions to adultery.
The rest of the population just wanted it to go away.
Whether shock jocks enable anger or vice versa kind of sounds vs. nurture in that you're going to have something going both ways. But I think there is room for a market argument here -- nobody would choose to listen to all the hectoring unless it tapped into something that was already there.
-- Andy