A while back, on Nigel Hollis's blog, Robert Heath quoted the following from Damasio:
“The pervasiveness of emotion in our development… connects virtually every object or situation in our experience. Whether we like it or not that is the natural human condition. But when consciousness is available, feelings have their maximum impact, and individuals are also able to reflect and to plan. They have a means of to control the pervasive tyranny of emotion: it is called reason. Ironically, of course, the engines of reason still require emotion, which means the controlling power of reason is often modest” (Damasio 1999: 58).

His interpretation of this quote was:
"So what Damasio is saying is that it is only when we are fully conscious that we can counter-argue the effects of emotion. In other circumstances – for example, when low levels of consciousness are present, as in most TV viewing – emotional influence runs riot."

I find this a fabulous example of how Heath is blind to anything that does not fit with his theory.
He focuses wholly on the part that says "when consciousness is available...individuals are able to reflect and plan," and completely ignores the part of that sentence that says "when consciousness is available, feelings have their maximum impact."