Maya Angelou On What People Remember

“I’ve learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel.”

— Marketing saw, quoted by Maya Angelou

My Comment:

This quote led me to think of the way in which political debates these days have become entirely devoid of emotional intelligence. I’m convinced that the way we debate things is at least as important as what we debate. Maybe even more important.

There’s something fundamentally wrong with the media when it humiliates public figures, either directly and anonymously on the internet, or indirectly though misrepresentation and innuendo in print. There’s nothing funny, liberated, or “free speech” about any of it. It’s an abuse of speech… a form of violence.

Now if you cuss out someone who’s provoking and attacking you directly, that’s one thing. Turn about is fair play.

But using sexual humiliation as a tool to demonize political candidates (Sarah Palin) or feeding public voyeurism about prominent figures with no political relevance (David Letterman, John Edwards, Tiger Woods) is morally wrong and socially dangerous. It feeds a constant cycle of partisan retaliation that drives everyone but the most insanely ambitious out of politics.

Then, of course, the media turns around and complains without irony about how insanely ambitious politicians are.

Reporters are professionals. They have standards to adhere to. It’s not their job to simply supply a demand. It’s one thing to follow stories that interest people (within certain boundaries of what’s relevant to public discourse). That’s fair enough. But reporters can’t just cave in to whatever it is they think people want to talk about.

You could, after all, argue that people like watching snuff movies. Does that mean the media feeds that appetite too?

Demand doesn’t just come into being. It’s created. And that’s not a one-way thing. There’s a feedback loop. Demand feeds supply, which feeds demand. There’s an addictive element to the whole thing.

That means writers can’t just give up their own moral freedom to feed a demand for immoral things. They have to make a conscious choice to go against what’s in their (or their publisher’s) economic interest and do what’s right.

Admittedly, it’s hard.

As for the so-called hypocrisy of politicians, politicians (and entertainers) aren’t meant to be moral exemplars, so the question really shouldn’t arise at all.

Since the public expects a certain image, politicians have to conform if they want to get elected. Wanting that image to reflect reality strikes me as an example of the foolishness of the public, not of the hypocrisy of politicians.

Public figures are more and more simply the victims of mob mentality. From that perspective, John Edwards did quite right to deny the scandal until the end. It’s no business of the mob’s to know everything about a politician’s marriage and demand a standard from him that the vast majority of people don’t hold to.

Now, Edward’s team members are a different issue. They sacrificed money and time and they might naturally feel betrayed. That’s a different matter. Perhaps they should have researched him a bit more before latching onto him. That they didn’t suggests they have a problem too – mindless hero worship.

People can have extraordinary talents but it doesn’t follow they’re perfect human beings, and there’s something deeply troubling about the urge to demand perfection from mere human beings…. and then attack them when they can’t supply it.

If I were Edwards, I would have banged the door on reporters who hounded me, a long time back. I would have turned the tables and started asking them a few questions about their private lives.

I suppose that’s why I have a degree of sympathy for people who’ve played the game back at reporters, like CEO Mark Cuban..and lately, Patrick Byrne.

Cuban has used Web 2.0 to his advantage against regulators as well.

A New York Times article in 2007 described how John Mack Mackey of Whole Foods and even disgraced and convicted financier Conrad Black of Hollinger International posted anonymously on message boards to counter negative posts about their companies. [The articles noted that they ran the risk of violating securities laws, especially if they disclosed company business in their posts].

Perhaps that’s where the problem lies. We have laws to stop CEO’s of companies defending themselves against attacks, but none for the people who do the attacking, even if they have a financial motive for it and even if their attacks are founded on semi-truths and lies indistinguishable by casual readers.

Mack Mackey used the handle rahodeb, an acronym of Deborah, his wife’s name, and he even commented on how cute he looked with a new hair-cut.  Byrne, on the other hand, has used a pseudonym Hannibal (the ruler of Carthage, not the star of “Silence of the Lambs”), but always signs his name underneath. Both took up the pen to counter attacks on their companies by anonymous internet posters.

It seems to have become a real problem.

In 2008 Apple CEO  Steve Jobs finally had enough of the rumor-mongering about his health and called Joe Nocera of the New York Times a juicy epithet I will chastely refrain from repeating.

[Since I’ve begun contributing to Deep Capture and enjoy a degree of bloggeraderie with them, I’m refraining from commenting directly on Byrne’s running battle with the media, about which I’ve written before. I will just admit to being on their side versus Goldman and the short-raiders. I think they tell it like it is. But any obscene rants at reporters’ expense don’t earn brownie points with me. And I maintain a neutral rating on Overstock, since I just don’t know enough about that end of things].

Either journalists act like a responsible press, or they are paparazzi, in which case they should expect to be hounded and harassed in turn. If reporters want access to the highest levels of business and government, if they want to report on subjects that are socially and politically important, then they should show some respect for their jobs, qualify themselves, adhere to professional standards of behavior, and avoid tormenting other human beings just to make their names.

Remember these are the same reporters who failed to report accurately or in time on one of the biggest stories in a hundred years. And why was that? Because (with honorable exceptions) they were either too comfortable with Wall Street, too lazy to do the research, too ignorant to know where to look, too provincial to read the people who could tell them, and too venal to go against their interests…. or all of the above..

This kind of public exposure we subject people to is not a one-time business. There is a record of the Edwards saga for ever on the net, visible to the whole globe….every little painful detail. What kind of sensitivity to a sick woman does that show, just to take one angle.

Or consider their children..

Isn’t it a kind of torture?
And doesn’t it make us, as it makes any kind of torturer, bestial?
Meanwhile, the victims never forget…..

10 thoughts on “Maya Angelou On What People Remember

  1. Edwards was running for public office and deceiving his supporters by denying his now admitted behavior. Letterman became a victim of his behavior as well. He was exposed as a hypocrite and a liar (and possibly for sexual harassment of employees) albeit via a blackmail situation. Both began as innuendo and were denied by those involved.
    I find the greater problem in the appetite the public has for such information. It is a result of the American star-f*cker mentality that idolizes individuals for fame, power, and wealth regardless of any actual subtantive human characteristics. Just take a look at who sleeps in The White House for the ultimate manifestation of that national neurosis. One could argue that like a drug dealer, the tabloids, media, and information industry are just feeding a market. Without consumption of the product they would disappear.
    Edwards was running for public office when engaging in the activity in question. Letterman spent quite a bit of time making himself the hypocrite he was exposed to be by participating in the orgy with what could be borderline humor.
    Should individuals such as Edwards be humiliated in public for transgressions such as his? Perhaps they should. In a way we have become far to accepting of disgraceful behavior whether it be public or private. We have become so numb to the occurrence of human depravity we now expect it rather than be shocked or suprised. That cannot be all that good.
    I agree that untrue allegations, innuendo, and the like are a long way from a “free speech” excuse. The “media” in some way just mirrors society. They supply morally challenged consumers with morally challenged product. And those who are too gutless to stand behind their words are just a reflection of a public that is just, well gutless in general.
    As for Angelou’s thought, people usually only remember if you made them feel bad. That said they then go one to keep hold of all those things you did and said to MAKE them feel bad. As if one person has that ability over another. Only if one allows it. But then I don’t much like Maya Angelou.

    Keith Snyder
    NYC

  2. I’m not a fan of Maya Anagelou either, but I liked this one quote.

    It strikes me as very true.
    There is a complete absence of emotional intelligence in the way journalists operate.

  3. In general, I agree with what you have written. Do we have the right to “really” know someone? In my book, perhaps only sometimes. I read somewhere (don’t remember where) that the novelist Raymond Carver, when he traveled across the US, always ate at a well known chain restaurant and always left without paying. I don’t think I need to know that but I admit it has changed my opinion about him. But, then again, do I need to have a personal opinion about him?

    But what about someone like Alfred Kinsey? His personal life certainly had a lot to do with his “science.” It seems to me that the worst are the public figures that try to change society. So often their public policy endeavors have a lot to do with their personal lives and we can’t fully understand what is happening to us unless we know something about that too.

    Gene

  4. You are so right. I don’t agree with Keith, for sexual issues really should be private. I recall in France in Mitterands funeral both his wife and mistress were present and not a stir about it. I suppose the french are a tad more realistic about human nature–and they are well governed relative to the U.S. Recent scandals in Ireland not withstanding, the continentals have a far less puritanical attitude. Rather than worrying who a politician is sleeping with they shoudl worry more about what lobbies they are dining with and being influenced by. The media has increased its reach with new technology and 24/7 cycles and has had to become ever coarser to get ratings and tapping into the lurid puritanical meind setof the anglosphere is a sure fire ratings booster. Very sad. It is torture and harkens back to putting people in stoks or wearing a dunce hat, tarring and feathering anybody……It begs teh question of who will be attracted to public life–the rigid, conforming, unimaginative, image conscious, safe, automaton……Frankly, a few artists, former pron stars, recovering addicts in the congress would probably be no worse in any way than the current bunch…..

  5. I neglected to mention….I find it striking that the first commentor considers Edwards behavior a form of depravity! You would think he had a basement full of severed heads. Yeesh, he had an affair and had a child out of wedlock. Pretty darn ordinary stuff actually. He is a lawyer of the tort variety and a senator. To paraphrase Chris Rock he was Senator Edwards not the Reverend Edwards.

  6. Hi Robert –

    I guess I am with you on this…
    Except I don’t think it’s puritanism that is the cause…I think it’s titillation, envy, pure pack behavior…

    Gene – respectfully, I have to disagree with you.

    Kinsey is different. Kinsey was performing experiments on children without their or their guardians’ consent (if I have it right).

    It was abusive and in that context, considering how influential his ideas were on sexual mores, it would be right to ask if his interest was solely disinterested or driven by his own sexual proclivities.

    But you know, even there, where does that line of questioning get you? Does it make it better if a guy tortures his grandmother, for example, with clinical dispassion or if he does it because he gets a kick out of it? Some would say the former is worse..some the latter..

    And either way, does that motivation explain or qualify his results..Not sure.

    As for Edwards, what did we learn about him this way that we couldn’t have found out if we’d just observed his public behavior and pronouncements carefully?

    Now we know he cheated. But to understand why or how culpably, we would have to know a lot more than just some incidents, right? So at what point do we stop and say enough is enough? I don’t need to understand Edwards or accuse him or judge him..to be able to make a political judgment about him. And if I can’t make a political judgment without delving into his private life maybe that’s my incompetence and maybe I should be getting an education that would help me do it, rather than turning to tabloid journalism.

    And the same goes for writers, unless they invite us into their private lives, I’m not for tell-all biographies and the rest, beyond the kinds of things that inevitably become public – accidents, divorces, jobs, education.

    Sex lives, medical histories, religious practices, all these things should be off the table…at least in their life time. After death, after a generation or two, it’s a different thing. Although then, a different question arises, how can we figure out what really did happen.

    Personally, I think mistresses are just fine, as long as they are treated well. I think they are infinitely to be preferred to hellish marriages or abandoned spouses..

    In this case, however, Ms Hunter strikes me only as a gold digger…and my sympathies are with the married couple.

    On the other hand, in the Sanford saga, I liked the mistress and though I felt sorry for Sanford, I thought his public display was unmanly. He should have done a Spitzer…if he felt he had to.
    Quick, terse, and then move on.

    Mrs Sanford sounded calculating and more concerned about a business investment than a mate, while Ms Chapur came off as dignified and honorable (yea, an honorable adulteress can exist..)

    Hope she has better luck next time round.

  7. Keith –
    We shouldn’t accept disgraceful behavior..but that’s not behavior that really affects us and we don’t know how disgraceful it was right?

    How many men with wives with breast cancer, might not be able to cope with it and look elsewhere, not because they don’t about their wives, but because they have sexual or emotional needs she can no longer fulfill and because maybe it actually helps the marriage, even if the wife isn’t aware of it?

    How do we know how a sick person treats their husband or wife? Always a saint? An unbearable saint? Abusively?

    Do we really know if his behavior was all that disgraceful?
    Do we know his campaign workers are all great guys who aren’t exaggerating or making a buck with their stories?

    I’m not an Edwards supporter by the way and I said the same about Palin and about Clinton and about everyone else..

    Are all these citizens gloating about this all that better? Open the newspapers and see the number of sexual ads and what they are asking for..

    So it’s the same self righteous citizenry that’s sitting in judgment that’s that’s also running these ads and answering them..

    Letterman is a late night comedian..if he was having multiple affairs, even orgies, with consenting employees – that is a matter for his organization to look into. It doesn’t rise to national importance nor is it a moral issue.
    Late night comedians are obliged to make fun of anything and everything. Hypocrisy isn’t an issue at all..

  8. R pretty much re-made my main point. No one in France cared about the Mitterands. No market, no product. That said the “continental” tabloids make American rags look like Newsweek. Euros still share the celebrity obsession with us.
    As for depravity: morally corrupt, a corrupt act or practice. Maybe I was not clear. Edwards has an affair and a child. Frankly, I do not care. Edwards tries to get someone else to take the blame, denies the affair, etc, etc. THAT is the depravity. Like Lila’s comment said, do a Spitzer. Be a man about it and take responsibility. Same for Letterman although he did actually take a swing at it.
    Dropping the M word (morality) always get people twitchy. Everything moral is puritanical as if everyone’s values are to be defined by the writing of a British King from a few centuries ago (New Testament). I simply suggested that our collective ambivalence toward such behavior might not be all that good for society as a whole. We excuse most anything or strain to to explain any and all bad behavior out of fear that we might be judged ourselves. Gutless. Upon finding the “severed heads” in the Senator’s basement, someone, somewhere will produce an excuse, a reason, and then start the rehabilitation of his public image. Call me silly but I expect more from people whether the person be a Senator, a Reverend, or even just my neighbor. Should I really bend my mind to give the benefit of the doubt to a former neighbor that walked out on his wife and two teenage kids? Sorry, there are responsibilities that don’t allow for “not being able to cope with it”.
    “Sex lives, medical histories, religious practices, all these things should be off the table…at least in their life time” I agree. But I think it would be easier to make butter with a toothpick.

  9. Hi Keith –

    Sure, I can make a judgment about a guy who walks out on his wife and two kids, but unless I know him very well, and have actually seen what was going on, I would probably be mistaken.

    Television gives an immediacy to people and cons us into thinking we know them in any real way. It’s like chatting on the net…it’s misleading.

    If a candidate really has something bad in his past,he should be screened out…so the fault lies with the vetting process, or lack thereof.

    It’s not something we can blame on candidates. Obviously if they fooled their party, they’re going to think they can fool the country.

    My problem is why it needed to have become a problem. Plenty of decent men have had mistresses and their wives lived with it…and plenty have had second families they supported.

    Society chooses to go into hysterics about it…
    And the talk about how it affects the children is bogus. If we cared two hoots about the kids we wouldn’t be exposing this stuff on the front pages.

    How about a discreet paragraph.
    How about publishers and respectable newspapers disdain publishing a private phone call,
    How about some contempt for the Andrew Youngs of the world..

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *