There were no words added by ET which might have elucidated what she was meaning when she tweeted this picture. All interpretation that has been made of the picture then has been projected upon it from within the mindsets of the media commentator(s) upon it, no matter whom these commentator(s) might have been.
This is a necessary conclusion arrived at by the application of deductive logic, and so it is one that is hard to deny. The old adage applies here: ‘beauty is in the eye of the beholder’ and also ‘to the pure all things are pure.’
Consider in the first place that an authoritative interpretation of the picture has been made by some persons other than ET; and that ET, on the basis of this authoritative interpretation, has been deemed the guilty party.
We can assume a consensus of some sort concerning this authoritative interpretation, since it has managed to derive enough support from persons in the right places to enable the resignation from government of ET.
Firstly, what is the basis of this authority which has established the leading interpretations of the photo; and who are the consensus which has arisen and has applied strong media pressure on ET? Now remember that the same persons, those who subscribed to and in effect created these authoritative interpretations, are also those same persons who are the component individuals who form the consensus of authority which objected to the picture. The same persons created the authoritative interpretations who also formed the consensus which judged that the same interpretations were unacceptable. They were also the same persons who were instrumental in raising the consequent media storm which engulfed ET.
Do these persons then accept the propositions that:
- They claim authoritatively to be reading accurately ET’s intentions in her Tweeting the photo
- They understand the nature and ramifications of the critique of social attitudes which they are claiming to be appalled at seeing in ET’s Tweet.
- They have formed a judgement on ET based on their acceptance of the truth value of these two propositions above
This critique of social attitudes appears to converge on the significance of a White Van; and of a public display of a St George’s flag from a modest terraced house; all as in the picture Tweeted.
One of the charges levelled by media at ET for her having Tweeted the picture has been that she was showing that she is ‘out of touch’ with the ‘values of common people’ in the UK.
How well does this widespread media accusation match the facts?
ET, to have been able to have intended by her Tweeting the picture, to show that she was stating by doing so a critique of social attitudes; and for her to have intended to have stated such a critique upon which the authoritative consensus has condemned her; these assumed abilities of ET’s, taken together, necessarily demonstrate that ET indeed was ‘in touch’ with the ‘values of the common people’, but maybe – maybe – unsympathetic to them?
I suggest here that the accusation of the media in its avid storm, that ET was out of touch, is as cryptic and as oblique a statement, as is any purported message that the same media has interpreted to have been conveyed in ET’s tweeted photo.
If this authoritative consensus of media interpretation is accurate in its understanding of the significance of ET’s tweeted picture, then the consensus’s claim that ET is ‘out of touch’ is not valid, so long as the interpretation of the consensus remains valid. To say otherwise is a contradiction.
On a basis of the authoritative media consensus’s interpretation, if it is valid, ET might be charged with showing a lack of sympathy in that critique of social values which her Tweeted picture was intended to say.
But there is no good reason for concluding that ET did intend what the authoritative media consensus of interpretation claimed she intended, nor even for claiming that any part of what this consensus has surmised about her Tweeted photo are in fact are her actual views.
There is evidence to the contrary. Had ET foreseen the upshot of her having Tweeted her picture; and had she imagined the full gamut of argument and comment that has been concocted by media out of her having tweeted it; and then had she envisaged her career destroyed and her post resigned; then she probably would not have Tweeted the picture.
This line of argument implies that at the very least ET did not examine or become conscious of the full meanings of her intentions in Tweeting the picture; and that the baroque elaborations created around the picture subsequently by the authoritative consensus of the media – means that at least some of these media elaborations – were wholly the inventions of media persons’ avid imaginations.
One might go further and say honestly that it is a (remote) possibility that none the materials that the authoritative consensus of media has drawn out of the picture and written down as accusations may be attributable to the actual intentions of ET.
One can go further still and say that the intentions of ET might have been misinterpreted greatly in the flush and flurry of lurid comments made by the authoritative consensus of the media.
But let us say that ET was truly taken aback by the revelations in the media of the fuller meanings of her actual intentions; them having been revealed to her by subsequent commentary from this authoritative consensus concerning her Tweet.
So we have a situation in which an authoritative consensus on the face of has seemed to be able to see further into ET’s intentions than she herself had been able to. Now for this authoritative consensus to have recognised more profoundly than the actual author of the Tweet, what the Tweet and the author meant when it was tweeted; this situation perhaps signifies several things:
- That ET, by comparison to the authoritative consensus is less gifted with self-insight
- That the authoritative consensus, because it has shown deeper insight, has been able to do so because its resources to descry and describe the critique of social attitudes are more developed.
- And that these greater resources exist for that consensus because the same critiques of the same social attitudes resonate more deeply within its members minds than they do in ET’s mind.
- That ET consciously at least was intending a less profound or harmful critique of social attitudes that she was claimed to be commenting on
- That in effect the authoritative consensus has been ‘putting words into ET’s mouth’ – since remember – no words from ET accompanied the picture when she Tweeted it
- That the authoritative consensus has profounder insight because – remember -‘beauty is in the eye of the beholder’ – and ‘to the pure all things are pure’.
For a person psychologically to have resources for profound insight into situations demands of necessity a concomitant degree of experience and feeling and understanding in that person, concerning the issues surrounding their insights; so that profundity can be reached out for and retrieved from such resources inside a person.
Personally speaking, there appears to me to have been a lot of presumption from the authoritative consensus of media about ET’s intentions and her views; and about what motivated her to Tweet her picture.
She has been accused, tried, convicted, and punished by media. A lynching
This authoritative consensus, whose members claim authoritatively to have known ET’s inner intentions, might look to themselves; and so examine and acknowledge their own intentions, in their combining together in a media hunt and chase to disgrace and defame ET.
‘Let him among you who is without sin cast the first stone at her’.