Trapped in the Echo Chamber of Outrage

In today’s digital age, managing emotional outbursts—especially in the wake of tragedy—has become increasingly difficult and unpredictable. It is a gush in sympathy that immediately turns into a whirlpool of abuse and insult when someone says something that contradicts the prevailing emotion or narrative.

This pattern where people are first put on a pedestal then brought down is something unfortunate. Tragedies always elicit a response — grief, anger, fear. But in the modern day, they do not remain intimate or contained. They exploded on social networking sites, on each post, shares and comments. People feel compelled to react immediately, often in the absence of correct or complete information.

The threat is that sympathy so easily becomes criticism, and a bereaved individual is open to attack for holding a perspective that is contrary to the prevailing emotional tide. The recent tragic death of Lieutenant Vinay Narwal, who was killed in the Pahalgam terror attack, thrust his wife, Himanshi Narwal, into the public eye. Initially, the nation responded with overwhelming sympathy, mourning with her and acknowledging her unimaginable loss. However, when Himanshi appealed to the public not to target Muslims or Kashmiris in the emotionally charged aftermath of the attack, she became the target of intense online hate. Her call for peace, rooted in humanity, was misinterpreted by many, and she was swiftly vilified.

In most cases, the media serves as a strong amplifier of those emotional waves. Rather than soothing the waters, quite a lot of the media only seek to add fuel to the fire with sensational headlines, polarizing views, and clickbait controversies. Subtlety and nuance become casualties of sensationalism. Consequently, the public mind becomes less capable of seeing things on a balanced, empathetic plane.

This form of media activity helps to foster a culture of division. It legitimizes knee-jerk reactions and facilitates binary thinking—us and them, patriotic and unpatriotic, right and wrong—without room for nuance, compassion, or context. Those who push back against it, however gently or genuinely, risk being swept aside by it.

Social networking sites where information precedes evidence has become a rich soil for emotional outpourings. Conformity, lack of responsibility, and identification with the view of the majority make it easy to disseminate hatred easily. People gang up against anyone they do not see eye to eye with and make them into a label or story and not a human being with a rich reality.

Perhaps one of the saddest repercussions of that culture is that individuals no longer feel safe speaking their truth. They stay quiet—though not because they do not care—since they do not wish to be judged, misrepresented, or physically attacked for their opinions. It is a common impression that unless one shares an opinion that is favorably expressed by the loudest voices on the internet, it is wiser to be subtle.

It is a problematic trend for a democratic society because it stifles other opinions. Healthy public debate is based on diversity of opinion and the freedom to put up differing views without fear of consequences. When people are either intimidated or pressured to follow along with the consensus, then the essence of free speech and autonomous mind is compromised.

This is a matter that needs introspection at an individual and systemic scale. We must be citizens who are able to control our emotions rather than respond impulsively to each breaking news headline or tweet. We need emotional intelligence, particularly on the internet, for that purpose. It helps us take a pause, analyse, double check, and respond with our brains and not emotions.

Media have to become more responsible with tone and for consequences of reporting. We shouldn’t be inciting hysteria but instead encouraging balance, context, and compassion. Social networking sites have to impose a greater disincentive on intolerance and abuse and foster civil discourse. Outrage shouldn’t be what gets favoured with algorithms but rather understanding.

Are we building a society where people feel safe to speak the truth, or are we creating a place where fear and the need to follow the crowd silence honest voices? If we keep on our current trajectory of action, not only are individuals suffering unjustly, but as a society, we lose our potential for honest, rich, and empathetic conversation. We need to reclaim that space.

Carmel Maria Jose is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication and Media Studies at Marian College Kuttikkanam (Autonomous), Kerala. With a strong academic background in journalism and media studies, she holds an MPhil in Media Studies and has previously taught at institutions in Bangalore and Kerala.