Question about "Gossip"

[_Alter Idem]

Rather than derail Mr. Scratch's thread on DCP and gossip, I'm starting a new topic.

I'd like to ask you all a serious question-- Just what is the definition of gossip these days? In his thread, Mr. S is saying that DCP tells a story about a neighbor and that is gossip. We discuss DCP and others on this board...is this gossip?

I was accused of gossiping when I started a thread mentioning Marie Osmond's divorce (at MADB), yet many posters at MADB tell stories about their friends, relatives, neighbors and ward members' divorces, family problems etc. but they are not accused of gossiping. Threads are started to discuss posters on other boards (like RFM) and yet, they are discussed and no accusations of gossip made.

These days, when I watch news programs or listen to talk radio it seems they discuss people and their problems all the time(the Anna Nicole coverage is a good example)..which seems to be what we do on these boards sometimes, as well...Are they gossiping also?

I'm seriously questioning what is and is not gossip because it seems to me that most of what passes for news these days, might just be gossip as well.

And I'm also wondering if, in the days of Television(we get a steady diet of this kind of information) and Internet communications(we don't have to sit and chat over a back fence as in the olden days), are we all too good at seeing the "mote" of gossip in our neighbor's eyes, yet, unaware of the "beam" in our own eye? When I say "we", I mean those of us here at MD as well as those at MADB.

Any thoughts?

[_skippy the dead]

First, I believe that the majority of the coverage of Anna Nicole Smith is, indeed, gossip. It's the kind of thing that used to be relegated to the aptly named "gossip columns" before the advent of the 24 hour news cycle. And yup, plenty of "news" is really gossip (do we really care about Paris and Britney that much?).

I think this definition is applicable:

gossip: idle talk or rumor, esp. about the personal or private affairs of others

I would also classify Peterson's discussion of his neighbor as gossip, since he's relating personal information about his neighbor. The fact that he is presumably doing it without her knowledge or consent makes it somewhat more distasteful to me. I suppose that he was trying to make a point in support of his quote from G. K. Chesterton (therefore possibly removing it from the realm of "idle talk or rumor"), but did he need to describe her divorce? By doing so, I think he strayed from example to gossip. Plus his characterization of her various new beliefs further detracts from his use of her as an example, and seems intended more to create a mockery of her. Whichever way you look at it, it would appear that it was not a very polite way to discuss his neighbor.

As for your discussion about Ms. Osmond's divorce - I suppose the context of the discussion would determine whether it was gossip. Was there a purpose to the discussion (I missed your post on MAD)? If so, it could be something more than "idle talk", and maybe not gossip.

Now don't get me wrong - I don't usually get all bent out of shape about gossip. The only time it becomes an "issue" for me is when those who profess to find it objectionable engage in it themselves, then complain about others doing it (or denying that they, themselves, are doing it).

[_Alter Idem]

Skippy wrote: "First, I believe that the majority of the coverage of Anna Nicole Smith is, indeed, gossip. It's the kind of thing that used to be relegated to the aptly named "gossip columns" before the advent of the 24 hour news cycle. And yup, plenty of "news" is really gossip (do we really care about Paris and Britney that much?). "


Alter idem: Last night as I was typing I had the "Nancy Grace" show on and they were discussing Anna Nicole, then I turned the channel and found a program on "101 Celebrity Hookups"..then there are all the reality relationship programs which are so popular. I started to see that much of our entertainment involves analyzing and discussing other peoples' lives and much of it revolves around their personal affairs--usually scandal. I think this has possibly desensitized our society to "gossip".


Skippy; "I think this definition is applicable:
gossip: idle talk or rumor, esp. about the personal or private affairs of others"


Alter: Thanks for the definition, I was going to look the word up, but now I don't have to.


Skippy; "I would also classify Peterson's discussion of his neighbor as gossip, since he's relating personal information about his neighbor. The fact that he is presumably doing it without her knowledge or consent makes it somewhat more distasteful to me. I suppose that he was trying to make a point in support of his quote from G. K. Chesterton (therefore possibly removing it from the realm of "idle talk or rumor"), but did he need to describe her divorce? By doing so, I think he strayed from example to gossip. Plus his characterization of her various new beliefs further detracts from his use of her as an example, and seems intended more to create a mockery of her. Whichever way you look at it, it would appear that it was not a very polite way to discuss his neighbor."


Alter; I can see your point and it is a very good one, thanks. I know that I have been guilty of the same thing. While I may wish to cite another person in an example, it's probably wise to watch how much content one gives, or even if an actual person must be cited in order to make the same point.


SKippy; "As for your discussion about Ms. Osmond's divorce - I suppose the context of the discussion would determine whether it was gossip. Was there a purpose to the discussion (I missed your post on MAD)? If so, it could be something more than "idle talk", and maybe not gossip."


Alter; At the time I posted, I did not believe it was gossip. I posted the information, that she had announced she was divorcing her second husband and I provided a link to a Deseret News Column. My feeling was that because it was announced in the paper and she had made the statement herself, it was not gossip. I guess what others took issue with was; "what were we going to discuss?" I think the general feeling from those who complained about my post was the fear that my post was only there so we could "trash" Marie. My assumption was that if anyone posted, it would be words of sympathy, with tangents into her Doll business on QVC or maybe a few remarks about seeing her perform. This is usually how threads go. Now I can see that my post certainly opened up the opportunity for others to "gossip" about Marie, if they chose to. At the time, I had not thought about this and I did not think I was violating any rules as it was from a news outlet and it was about a prominent LDS person. Someone else opened a post about Elder Oaks' Divorce talk and so the discussion of LDS and divorce took place there.


Skippy; "Now don't get me wrong - I don't usually get all bent out of shape about gossip. The only time it becomes an "issue" for me is when those who profess to find it objectionable engage in it themselves, then complain about others doing it (or denying that they, themselves, are doing it)."


Alter; Yea, I think that is what has really bugged me about this. I see so much that fits the definition of "gossip" that is given a pass...mostly it depends on "who's" doing it. I think I was smarting because I got "called" on it. And when I say "who" I don't mean DCP--the times he's done it, I think are rare and he's certainly "called" on it by those at this board. I think he even apologized (the Michael Quinn case?). As I see it, it's really a more common problem among rank and file members there.

Anyway, thanks for your insights, Skippy. Your comments have helped me as I do a little bit of introspection.

[_moksha]

I think the critical item about Dr. Peterson's mentioning of his neighbor, it that we didn't know her from Eve.

[_Mister Scratch]

I think the critical item about Dr. Peterson's mentioning of his neighbor, it that we didn't know her from Eve.

A good point. It seemed that he was using him/her as a kind of "battering ram" to continue pounding away at RfM, and people who leave the Church.

Also, A.I., some great questions, all of which I have had to field in the past, from folks such as Plutarch and Ray A, who are upset that I would dare to point out problems with their precious Prof. P.

W/r/t your questions, yes, I would say that talk about Anna Nicole is "gossipy" in nature. However, a key difference, as Moksha points out, is that Anna Nicole is a well-known celebrity, whereas DCP's neighbor is someone that most of us do not know. Another question arises about intent. The celeb newsmagazine shows on TV are obviously discussing Anna Nicole out of curiosity. She is famous, and famous people are interesting.

On that note, DCP, within the circle of online LDS apologetics and discussion, is probably more famous than anybody. Thus, it makes sense that we would take an interest in what he has to say. So are we guilty of "gossip" when we discuss him here? Sort of, but it cannot be said to be as bad as the stuff he is doing.

Going back to the issue of his neighbor, it seems quite clear to me that he was using her/him for rather dubious purposes. His mention of her on the fittingly named MADboard was rather cruel and unethical, in my opinion. I can imagine him digging in his sophist's heels and explaining that he is "merely curious" about the phenomenon of ex-Mormonism, but I don't buy it, and neither would anyone who is aware of his history. (Or anyone who read his recent, mocking, "Apologetics by the Numbers").

Finally, DCP's status as an LDS apologist means that he *must* be held to a higher standard than the rest of us. He has said, in effect, that he sees himself as a "warrior" for the One True Church of Jesus Christ. He holds an absolutist stance, meaning that he deserves to be subjected to absolutist critique. Further, gossip is condemned by the Church, and last time I checked, it was part of the worthiness interview.... Does this really seem like behavior that a tenured BYU professor and high-ranking LDS apologist should be engaging in? You make the call!

[_beastie]

The kind of gossip that bothers me is the kind that is generally devoid of factual information, but heavy in innuendo. "Oh, if you only knew what I know". "I can't tell you what I've heard, but if you knew it, you would view this person differently". I find that in very poor taste because the person, even if they were around, can't possibly defend him or herself against this type of contentless innuendo. In addition, what the gossiper "knows" may be fairly harmless in the eyes of the "listener", but the listener imagines something truly horrible. You can't defend yourself against innuendo, nor can others defend you in your absence.

The fact that DCP is uses his real name made his gossip about this neighbor more potentially harmful, since people could reasonably figure out who it is. If someone posted this anonymously, there would be no way to link it with an actual individual.

[_Bond...James Bond]

The kind of gossip that bothers me is the kind that is generally devoid of factual information, but heavy in innuendo.

This is what I hate the most. In most cases the possibilities we dream up (I know something about Scratch....) is much worse than the actual thing (....he doesn't rewind videos before returning them *shock and awe. Rioting in the streets*)

Obviously people's imaginations will run wild to the worse possible conclusion (I know something about Scratch....he sacrifices virgins?....he pulls the switch at executions?....he's a Yankees fan?) than the actual thing. So why not just give up the juicy tidbit and let people thing about it rather than the 7th grade crap (I know something you don't know about.....)?

[_Jersey Girl]

The kind of gossip that bothers me is the kind that is generally devoid of factual information, but heavy in innuendo.

This is what I hate the most. In most cases the possibilities we dream up (I know something about Scratch....) is much worse than the actual thing (....he doesn't rewind videos before returning them *shock and awe. Rioting in the streets*)

Obviously people's imaginations will run wild to the worse possible conclusion (I know something about Scratch....he sacrifices virgins?....he pulls the switch at executions?....he's a Yankees fan?) than the actual thing. So why not just give up the juicy tidbit and let people thing about it rather than the 7th grade crap (I know something you don't know about.....)?

Because 7th grade crap (innuendo) is the only tool some people have to work with.

Jersey Girl

[_Gazelam]

Hey jersey,

I love all of the sock puppets you make (gossip, gossip, gossip.....)

: )

gaz

[_Jersey Girl]

Hey jersey,

I love all of the sock puppets you make (gossip, gossip, gossip.....)

: )

gaz

What makes you think I'm from Jersey?

;-)