Back in 1985 or so, DC Comics decided to reboot their entire universe. It ended up being covered in some mainstream media because that meant that Superman was changing. Superman, before the reboot, had become really, really, powerful, to the point that nothing was a threat to him anymore. This limited the stories that DC wanted to tell using the character. So one of the things that they decided to do was to rein in Superman's powers. For example, he could no longer move planets, or hold his breath indefinitely, or absorb unlimited amounts of damage.

Some big publication (Time, maybe?) interviewed John Byrne, the man who was going to be the first to write the new Superman, and who was a significant contributor to the changes that were made. He told the journalist interviewing him, amongst other things, that Superman would no longer be able to survive anything that could possibly happen to him. However, what he said was that Superman was going to be "more vulnerable".

Of course, the journalist took this to mean that Superman was going to be more open with his emotions, and wear his heart on his sleeve. Byrne, of course, meant absolutely nothing of the sort, and that definition didn't even occur to him. However, it was picked up everywhere that there was going to be a new touchy-feely Superman.

Now, it's understandable the leap that the journalist made. It wasn't really a leap for him. And it's understandable that Byrne didn't consider that he could be misinterpreted. However, despite the understandability of those mistakes, that doesn't make them not mistakes, and it doesn't mean that someone who has less armor is more emotional, any more than it means that someone who is depressed is cyanotic, or a computer system that's easy to use has its source code available.