Something to talk about....

-Gossip has 2 sides.

-Gossip can make people feel superior to others.

-Gossip can help us gather information we need to know.

-If you stay within limits, gossip is an ethical activity.

-Gossip is given a bad name by people who take it too far.


The article "Gossip, when it's not too nasty, it has it's good side," by Douglas Todd, examines the two very different sides of gossip, and how it can be an ethical activity, though it is given a bad name.



The argument by Douglas Todd that gossip can at times be an ethical activity is unfounded and repetitive. Todd opens with an introduction, and then proceeds to spend a third of his article citing the more usual argument concerning the negative implications of gossip. He states that journalists can "revel too much in negative, unsubstantiated tales about others," and that "malicious gossip...led to the untimely deaths of both Jesus and Socrates." Todd then states that "If you define gossip as spreading derogatory, unconfirmed information about someone, clearly that is unfair and dangerous." Unfortunately, he fails to state how he would define gossip more positively.
The correct definition of gossip, according to dictionary.com, is "idle talk or rumor, especially about the personal or private affairs of others." Todd confuses meaningful communication about factual information, personal or otherwise, with the term "gossip," which, by dictionary definition is an incorrect use of the word.
Some of his examples, such as the "initially murky tip," regarding Gordon Campbell's drunk-driving arrest, perhaps should not have been published, as they were merely "malicious gossip," until later confirmed by independent sources. However, Todd's argument is that unconfirmed reports, such as this one, can, in effect, act as advertising for further substantiated information.
Hypocritical Todd would have us believe that by "publicizing revelations" about J. Edgar Hoover, we would prevent Hoover from "publicizing revelations" about other Americans. What this example illustrates, more than anything, is the morality of the press at the time, and their unwillingness to attack powerful governmental figures.
I would also make the point that while Todd thinks that truth is a justification of vicious gossip, some truthful gossip can be used as a weapon, just as much as untruthful gossip.
The remainder of Todd's argument comes down to the fact that gossip can be good if good people do it with discretion, and don't make it the center of their lives. Unfortunately, if you asked most people, they would probably consider themselves good.


Response to Sam's blog post:
I agree with Sam, unfortunately, the statistics in Todd's article suggest that gossip is not going to go away. Simply disagreeing with gossip does not change the amount of gossip that is spread. It also does not provide a moral framework with which to judge gossip upon. While Sam makes good points about the confusing feelings gossip can cause, she does not back up her argument, or provide a solution for the problems gossip poses.