The outrage machine

Our News Wire newsletter is your weekly dose of local news, arts, and culture every Thursday.

Send me local news!

Follow today’s media, and you will encounter pieces functioning as “outrage porn,” whipping an easily manipulated and excitable readership into agitated indignation. All it takes is a sympathetic “victim,” add a few heartwarming details or pictures to further humanize them, throw in a villain, and then just omit any information which might “confuse” the chosen narrative. A recent story in USA Today and the comments on it, regarding an incident at a Maryland Cracker Barrel restaurant, furnish an excellent example.

To summarize, a school for kids with autism and significant cognitive disabilities planned a meal outing of 11 students and seven staff to a restaurant to help train them to “perform practical skills and socialize with the public.” Calling Cracker Barrel to make a reservation, they were told that none was necessary, as Cracker Barrel generally doesn’t accept reservations. When they arrived, they found that the restaurant was short-staffed that day, causing the extra dining room usually used for larger groups to be unavailable. They unsuccessfully sought to sit in the general dining room with other diners. Ultimately, after waiting about one hour for take-out meals, they ate back at school.

The teachers reported that the students had trained for and anticipated this outing, sat quietly, and that the restaurant staff treated them rudely, failing to even offer them drinks while they waited. The teachers took their complaints public, offered training in serving special needs kids, and then staged a protest at the restaurant.

Finding themselves the target of the outrage machine, corporate Cracker Barrel publicly apologized and fired the manager and two of the employees. No statements by the manager or employees were provided.

As intended, readers went apeshit, enraged that special needs kids were denied their chance to eat out. The image of the disappointed kids having to accept take-out instead of eating in the dining room outraged many. Some commenters, likely without any restaurant experience, instructed Cracker Barrel on how they should have handled it. Many commenters called for boycotts and legal actions for “discrimination.” Racism even managed to raise its ugly head, with some commenters noting the irony of the “cracker” barrel name, even though the races involved were unknown.

My perspective is a little different. Obviously, anyone who would deliberately abuse a bunch of special needs kids is contemptible, but is that what actually occurred? Unlike the loudest critics, whose restaurant experience is probably limited to just paying people to bring them food and drink, I have actually worked in restaurants.

The work is stressful and strenuous. It gets worse when crowded, and it can be tough to adequately serve customers. Large groups are especially difficult to serve. Add the fact that these are special needs kids who are being trained in ordering and eating their meals and you can understand the amount of extra time and attention that would be required. It is obvious that this group would have been a challenge under ideal circumstances, much less while shorthanded.

Is it fair to force the other diners to share in this training? Kids are generally loud, and a large group of special needs kids is bound to be disruptive. Many Cracker Barrel customers have modest incomes, and their meal may be a special occasion that they had to budget for. It is easy for a wealthy person, who thinks that a meal at Cracker Barrel is no big deal, to suggest that they be good sports about having their experience ruined.

I wonder whether the teachers who complained had a realistic understanding of what they were asking of Cracker Barrel and the other diners? My impression is that they are dedicated people doing the admirable work of caring for kids with heartbreaking disabilities, who got “tunnel vision” and were unable to see beyond their mission. Anything that makes their kids unhappy offends them.

While it is always satisfying to focus your anger on faceless corporations, it was the fired restaurant staff who bore the brunt of the outrage. Nobody works in a budget restaurant like Cracker Barrel for riches or the fun of it, and most are just trying to make a living and get by. At the worst, the staff member acted carelessly in telling the school that no reservations were needed without asking about the size and needs of the group. No one acted maliciously. Not every story has a villain deserving punishment.

My point? I am not shilling for Cracker Barrel, having only eaten there once while stuck in Kingman, Arizona, getting my truck repaired during a heat wave. It was the high point of my stay. I am just suggesting that you show some empathy toward other perspectives the next time that you are treated to “outrage porn” pushing a victimization narrative and are tempted to grab a rope and form a mob.

There is probably a lot more to any such story than the exploitive publication is willing to reveal. Don’t be played. Δ

John Donegan is a retired attorney in Pismo Beach who liked the meatloaf and was grateful that he didn’t have to bus the tables. Send a response for publication to letters@newtimesslo.com.

This article appears in Mar 13-23, 2025.