A Problem of the Blogosphere: Gossip
April 8, 2009
One of the things I’ve noticed through the years I’ve been reading blogs is that people love to report stories from unnamed sources about unnamed people and speculate as to who those sources and people are. And they use such unfounded guesses as a means to besmear the reputation of someone they don’t like. Unless you have credible evidence for your speculation, it is best to avoid writing up such blog posts.
Just remember it was this kind of gossip which Jesus’ critics used to condemn him. And he was an innocent man.
Advertisement
11 Comments
Comments are closed.
This is wise counsel.
BA
It is. Sometimes I can see things which remind me why this is the case.
And before anyone says anything, I’m not saying I’m perfect here. Often when I write a post like this, it is also to remind myself as it is anyone else.
I heard from someone you wrote this to compensate for some deficiency. ;-)
Also extremely problematic is the broad characterization, done in many cyber-places, of those who hold views contrary to the Church on issues such as homosexuality, civil marriage, and contraception as “anti-Catholic bigots”.
Also extremely problematic is the broad characterization, done in many cyber-places, of those who hold views contrary to the Church on issues such as homosexuality, civil marriage, and contraception as “anti-Catholic bigots”.
Hey, I just saw this kind of characterization this morning. I wonder if we read the same blogs. I also wonder why we read those blogs!
See Mark and Michael, I would consider what you’re doing to be widespread and problematic. Were people really considering someone to be an anti-Catholic bigot because he disagreed with the Church or was it because of the dishonest, vile, and hateful comments that came from his mouth?
Here’s an example to draw upon. If I said that I disagree with the Prop 8 proponents because I believe that marriage can only and should only be between a man and a woman, and that it makes for a more just and moral society, I am merely disagreeing, right? You might not agree with that, but we’re just disagreeing. If I say that the Prop 8 proponents, while being really good at interior decorating, are really just a bunch of evil jack-booted brown-shirts trying to shove their [use your imagination] in our face, you would rightly call that a bigoted statement.
Try giving those you disagree with a tad bit of credit, not everyone outside your ideology is a mindless dolt or rotten to the core.
If I say that the Prop 8 proponents, while being really good at interior decorating, are really just a bunch of evil jack-booted brown-shirts trying to shove their [use your imagination] in our face, you would rightly call that a bigoted statement.
I wouldn’t call it bigoted, and in fact I’d have to say “Right On!” — except for the part about being good at interior decorating, which is a characteristic of the Proposition 8 opponents.
But seriously, I am not sure that with really hot-button issues, there is any “merely disagreeing.” Unless people are willing to entertain the possibility that they may possibly be wrong even on fundamental principles, certain disagreements are going to be offensive.
I think the distinction here is between, “I think the Church is deeply wrong on the issue of gay marriage,” versus, “We need to reach over the pope and help ordinary Catholics in the pews escape the mind control of old men in the Vatican.”
The former type of statement expresses disagreement on fundamental issues, the latter is bigoted and rude.
It’s true that people often get bigoted and rude over major disagreements of principle, but that doesn’t mean that such topics must necessarily do so. It does, however, require a level of conversational discipline most people don’t choose to use most of the time.
Doh! Opponents.
David, I didn’t intend for the word merely to minimize the gravity or depth of an argument, but to distinguish between honorable disagreement and vituperative language. We’re all likely to say some nasty or ill-advised things from time to time, but when they’re pretty caustic and built on lies or negative stereotypes it’s pretty easy to divine some bigotry there.
“I think the Church is deeply wrong on the issue of gay marriage,” versus, “We need to reach over the pope and help ordinary Catholics in the pews escape the mind control of old men in the Vatican.”
Yes, but I think even there the later might be better described as an ‘inappropriate anti-clericalism’.
There is a sad history in this country of discrimination against Catholics in employment, housing, etc. (I am reminded of such as to get to work each day, I walk by a private club that was the last in the city to admit Catholics, Jews and Blacks). I would reserve ‘anti-Catholic’ for this type of discrimination, as I think most people, at least those my age or older, understand it.
Set up a straw man. Knock him down. What transparently dishonest fun.
As for Jesus, those who heard Him at Capernum, repeated the John VI discourse: it was true that He said that and it was blasphemy to most.