https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/12/us/stop-the-steal-protest-washington-dc-trnd/index.html
Four people were stabbed during post-election protests in Washington, D.C. Saturday night. There were 11 simple assaults, 10 assaults on a police officer, one assault with a deadly weapon. Antifa, Proud Boys and Black Lives Matter groups were apparently involved. This is according to some media reports. Protests like this involving violence naturally involve emotions. You can’t have violence without emotions. Emotions often produce actions.
People who protest peacefully have given some thought to being peaceful, knowing that peaceful protests are more productive. But the peacefulness in their behavior may cover over some simmering emotions, possibly ready to erupt, at least in some people. It can take a real effort to be peaceful in the face of simmering emotions. CNN interviews a protester. Why does CNN interview this guy, during the protest, in this way, on the air? It could trigger other people, for or against. His comments are suspicious and emotional, as you would expect. We don’t know if this guy had already been overtly emotional and suspicious in a negative way before this interview, or if he was trying hard to be peaceful in the face of his own simmering emotions. This is not a criticism of his comments. But it would be incumbent upon somebody in the media to realize the possibility that his emotions are contagious and could rub off on others and trigger their emotions also. The media has a responsibility to realize this possibility and should attempt to appraise the person’s state in order to assess if he was already at this point of emotionality before showing him on TV.
News networks know that drama draws viewers but they probably don’t stop and think that this may trigger the public to become emotional. Knowing
that when the public sees a person being angry and suspicious during a protest, that they are likely to have a negative opinion about this, and become
pro-police as a result, they should give the story full perspective from both sides. Or some in the public may become more conspiratorial or more anti-police. Emotions draw quick opinions, not thought out. Emotions are likely to spread in this context.
You can argue that they are getting the news out, and that they are free to do that. That is correct. You can also argue that he has a right to be heard, and to express his opinion. That would be correct also. You can argue that people need to be responsible for their own actions and emotions. That is correct also. But the media has a responsibility. They need to be aware that many of these emotions are contagious, and that contagious emotions are difficult to resist. When people catch these contagious emotions, they don’t think, they usually just act, because the emotions drive them to act, without thinking. And then they spread. His comments are likely to be emotionally contagious, and to spread to others. They are likely to spread either similar suspicious feelings to others, or to produce a counter-contagion of angry emotions toward him from others. Either is likely and neither is constructive. This is because emotions don’t think. Instead you are likely to get violence, which is what was apparent in this protest. This does not imply a direct cause-and-effect between this event and the violence, because this is a multi-levelled situation with many events and causes.
TV does not just provide information on a printed page, which would give us more chance to think and reflect on it all and assess various perspectives. With TV we get live action, full color, and it is so sharp and real that it can feel like you are there. So it can be contagious. Thinking and reflecting is not possible with television when the action is so fast.