Book Review: Outraged - Why Everyone is Shouting and No One is Talking by Ashley "Dotty" Charles

 

Outraged: Why Everyone is Shouting and No One is Talking

by Ashley “Dotty” Charles

A few years ago, Charles began looking at how outraged people were becoming over relatively minor problems then becoming too worn out to effect deep, systemic change, while the bigger issues raged on. She wrote an article in the British newspaper, The Guardian, titled, “Currency of Outrage,” which was published on January 25^th of 2018 and it grew into this book.

“Outrage used to require more than a caption under a reposted picture. It required action and intent. It was the train that aimed to move protest towards progress.”

She calls this book, “an outrage intervention for anyone who has gotten high on indignation.”

As I’ve worked on building my author platform on Facebook and Twitter, this is an issue I’ve become more and more aware of. Recently, I saw people expressing outrage in a variety of ways about Melania Trump’s renovation of the White House Rose Garden. The crab apple trees and most of the rose bushes were removed. I wondered, how long do crab apple trees last? My research suggested 40 years seemed to be the average but these were planted nearly 80 years before. What about roses? Some older varieties might live indefinitely, but many rose bushes decline after 40 years. Furthermore the crab apple trees were said to be transplanted somewhere else on the grounds and not all the roses were removed. So, inept? Perhaps. Maybe just different. Criminal and worth our energy? I don’t think so. Not when there are true threats to our environment that need to be combated.

Charles says, “If outrage is currency then think of your expression of outrage as an investment…. It goes beyond simply ‘taking offence’. You are outraged because you seek growth, change, evolution; a return on your investment.”

She provides ample cases with a higher than reasonable response by the public. Was it a slow news time and they need something to put out? Are they really so desperate for ratings that media is amping up the hype surrounding stories? Are they just getting better at creating “clickbait” headlines? Is it the social media “influencers” looking for something to latch on to get their likes and shares up?

Charles delves into the Rachel Dolezal case, a white woman who claimed to be black and how people, rather than being perplexed or mildly annoyed by the situation, jumped to outrage. She doesn’t let herself off the hook either. She admits that she added to the noise surrounding it as a radio personality. “I had deliberately contributed to the noise by reveling in her vilification. The whole thing was beginning to feel regrettable.”

Charles can be a bit acidic, but she has a wonderful sense of self-deprecating humor. “I scrolled past the video because online algorithms aren’t the boss of me, then scrolled back up to it and pressed play, because who am I kidding?”

 “Our digital fits of rage aren’t necessarily coming from a place of genuine concern; they might just be manifestations of our own vanity, a prop to boost our performance on the world’s biggest stage. Of course! Why intervene during a racial attack on a flight when you can quietly record the footage from three rows away and broadcast your outrage to the whole matrix?”

People on both sides of the aisle need us to feed their ratings, so they feed our outrage.

Charles takes on the talking heads of media and how they sell outrage. She points out that we seem to think that we are morally obligated to engage and refute the outrageous statements that some of them make. But, we’re doing what they want, we’re feeding their ratings. It’s like engaging with trolls online, that’s exactly what they want. If ignored, they eventually go away.

However, I have to say, that while I appreciate her points, I’m not completely convinced. People who offer dehumanizing statements about immigrants or make other suggest statements to poke the public and get them to engage or click, are always going to have their audience who believes what they do and are just confirming their own beliefs. But what about our friends and family who are being swayed by twisting of facts because they are listening to less than scrupulous sources? Do we have an obligation to engage in order to help them see the truth? And when and where do we engage?

Charles discusses Twitter boycotts or hashtag activism to show support but questions how much they really change things? She suggests that most people do not follow through to see that the politicians follow through on their promises to “investigate” much less actually make a change. She believes that if we don’t show up in person, we’re never going to effect real change. She may be right. Has activisim been appropriated into cheap sound bites?

She does allow that “Viral activism can have its uses by mobilizing outrage and making resistance both visible and accessible for a number of worthwhile causes.”

As a librarian, I am a strong advocate for fact checking. Charles maintains that by and large, “…we are habitual conformists, willing to follow the crowd off a cliff. We don’t fact-check or question. We repost and agree.”

In the final chapter, Charles talks about ways she has reduced her social media presence and footprint on the Internet. She has “retired from posting hot takes.” I think that’s a wise policy for all. We need to be more careful and deliberate in our research and responses to issues, decide where to expend our time and energy.

There are so many issues out there that truly need our time, care, and attention. Do some research, pick one, or two. Then, Charles says, “…by all means get angry. Get as angry as you possibly can. But do it with an ambition that extends beyond social media kudos.”

I think this book presents some truly fantastic advice in a very readable, and compact, selection. It probably ought to be required reading in a host of college classes. Hmm, how many college professors do I know?