Face reading

This morning, the Today Show did a segment about Kate McCann, the mother of Madeline McCann who disappeared about six months ago. Mrs. McCann made the news because in an interview, she broke down, showing emotion for the first time. One of the criticisms of Mrs. McCann was that she had shown no emotion about her missing daughter, causing some laypeople to suspect that she must be involved with her daughter's disappearance.

That bothers me. So, if Kate McCann had appeared on camera bawling her eyes out, like say, Susan Smith, who ultimately admitted to murdering her two boys, McCann would appear less suspicious? Or, as was the case with Susan Smith, would there have been questions about sincerity of her tears? How much is enough emoting, and when does one cross the line? When should one appear stoic? Or is stoicism never appropriate in these situations? That's the problem with trying to read the faces or interpret the conduct of people one doesn't know.

Darlie Routier was convicted of killing her kids. One of the images that appeared repeatedly was Routier playing with silly string at the grave of her sons to commemorate what would have been one of their birthdays. The incident occurred shortly after the boys' deaths, so the implication was that she wasn't grieving enough. I can't imagine ever disturbing the peace of a cemetary with silly string, but I've attended enough wakes where there was plenty of laughter and celebration as the friends and loved ones of the deceased remembered that person fondly. A snapshot or videoclip of that laughter might suggest that we weren't grieving enough.

So maybe, the networks and the newspapers ought to focus on reporting real news as opposed to giving us updates and feeding the speculation on whether one is displaying the right kind and amount of emotion.