Feel Your Populist Anger: How Outraged Are You?

As fans of the classic Sidney Lumet film “Network” know, emotion is a viral thing. The gold standard of apocryphal tales laying out the dramatic arc of outrage—that most fickle commodity—”Network” became synonymous with television-turned YouTube populism because of hallmark clips like this one:

[kaltura-widget wid="82f7fuwmxs" width="410" height="364" addpermission="0" editpermission="0" /]

Well, of late, we’ve seen our fair share of “Mad as Hell” moments. In fact, it seems that everyone from the president on down is “getting mad,” especially at AIG. Iowa Senator Charles Grassley, for example, is so incensed at the fact that AIG awarded bonuses to its employees while in the midst receiving all those billions from US taxpayers, that he has called for company executives to follow the Japanese model: either resign, or commit suicide.

Andrew Ross Sorkin, writing in The New York Times today, has quite a different take, however. He says we should just get over the bonuses, lest we forever devalue the standing of contracts in our business world. Yesterday, I enjoyed reading Matt Taibbi and Rick Unger’s back and forth on the question, and the discussion that followed my Jon Stewart vs. Jim Cramer story also hinted at the role that outrage plays in framing our perceptions of these complex issues.

Clearly, there are times when outrage serves as a useful instrument in achieving change. While the protest movement did not single-handedly put an end to the Viet Nam war, it sure helped. But when populism gets whipped up to the degree that establishment politicians, their constituents, media commentators, and even executives themselves are continually venting, the impact of outrage as a weapon to overturn the status quo is lessened. Take it away, Howard Beale:

[kaltura-widget wid="32cpriubsg" width="410" height="364" addpermission="0" editpermission="0" /]