In all of these mediated experiences, certain images emerge that resonate deeply and emotionally and come to symbolize what we think we know about the events. In China, there was Tank Man, in Berlin there were people dancing on top of the wall, and this weekend in Tehran we have a dying young woman whose supposed name, Neda, is claimed to translate as “voice,” an irony so perfect as to seem almost improbable.

The problem is that these realities-turned-symbols tell us nothing about the larger stories. They are emotional touchstones that we latch on to because the complexities of the events underway are beyond comprehension. It can’t be denied that much of history turns on human emotion, but democracy in its modern form is a product of the Age of Enlightenment and is predicated on the concept that an enfranchised populace will set aside its emotions and vote for what it has rationally determined to be in its best interest.

Media can feed that process, but it takes work to do it. It’s far easier to use media to appeal to emotion, and in an age of self-publishing emotion can become a feedback loop of tweets, retweets, and the resulting white noise caused by endlessly looped echoes.

I’m not discounting emotion. It’s real, and it can express truths about humanity that deeper than those expressed by logic. But it can lead to false conclusions and imprudent actions. As media professionals we need to understand that the power of mediated symbols can be, and often is, used to support all sorts of points of view.

As I write this, I’m seeing lots of calls for the U.S. to become involved. This has enormous emotional appeal, and each image of Tehran’s youth challenging the entrenched power pulls at my heart strings. But what do I really know about the struggle in Iran? It’s between two factions of the establishment that has been in power since 1979. It’s being labeled “revolution” but that word carries connotations of sweeping change far greater than what the opposition seems to be advocating. It’s an internal struggle, and letting our mediated experience of it lead us into thinking more active engagement by the U.S. would be welcome, or helpful in any way, is most likely a mistake.

I will continue to watch and be moved. I will continue to hope for one outcome over another. But I won’t fool myself into thinking that the very limited glimpses into the situation that I am getting from any media source are telling me anything substantive or actionable.

Maybe you should discover why you are waste time rationalizing lunacy, before you become intellectually bankrupt aka batshit crazy too.

Tick tock…