Gossip

I saw a newspaper article recently in which two writers accused an educator of psychological and physical abuse. The evidence presented suggests that the accusations were true,ⁱ but that's not the point. Clearly the article was exciting. It was an exposé that, by its front page placement, was sure to attract readers. The content can only be described as lashon hara (gossip – literally “evil speech” in Hebrew) and the accuracy of the information doesn't change that.ⁱⁱ

Whether true or not, the article must have been harmful to the individual accused – even if he was prepared to shake it off. And it certainly raised questions for me about the writers. According to the Talmud,ⁱⁱⁱ the spreading of lashon hara “kills”^iv three – the accused of course, but also the speaker and the one listening. The letters in response to the article make it clear that there were many who were damaged by “listening” – not a big surprise when dealing with a front-page exposé. Some supported the accusations, and some were hurt by them. In fact, one of the letters contained accusations against another party – one not mentioned in the original article – against whom similar accusations were made.

There are authorities who deal with abuse, even in the country – not ours – where the alleged actions were said to have occurred,^v but there was no evidence that the article's authors had contacted them.^vi More likely they probably believed that their article would provide the information needed by those who were able to correct the situation and the publicity would force them to do so. And the authors would probably argue that those capable of correcting the problem were aware of it and didn't act, so that the publicity was warranted and no purpose would have been served by their going to those authorities. Moreover they claim the abuse is widespread, and that it is largely accepted and ignored by all parties.

Perhaps that is the case. But while the spreading of such information (read “gossip”) is occasionally permitted – for example when someone is entering into a relationship that he would avoid if he knew all the facts – the limitations are severe. In this particular article, the authors wrote, “it’s long been an open secret that …,” so it's hard to argue that this article would provide information unavailable elsewhere. Ideally, however, for such an act to be justifiable, there should be no better way to deal with the bad situation than the spreading of that “information.” And, according to Jewish law, the witnesses to an anticipated specific criminal act should have first warned the party that the act was prohibited, and they should have indicated the penalty for it. Perhaps the authors consider their article to be such a warning, although neither a particular anticipated offense is named nor is its penalty specified. Rather, this is the kind of article in which the accused is guilty. There is no presumption of innocence.^vii Unfortunately, that's the way it is with gossip. There's no balance. It's all accusation.

We're all guilty every time we start talking about someone else. Whatever our goals, whether to hurt someone else or to build ourselves up – or even to help someone else – it would be better if we found another way. In the particular case described, the authors might have spoken with the accused, letting him know the charges that had been given them, and allowed him to respond to them.^viii That would certainly contribute to fairness and fact-checking.  And they might have presented the charges to the appropriate authorities and let them know that if the charges were true, and fitting penalties were not applied, this would be revealed to the reading public. There would be no need to name the accused in such a story. The responsibility would belong to those in charge. After all, societies are formed because we are willing to give up some “rights” in order to gain protection from those who would harm us. And that harm is not only physical, but may be psychological or social.

Admittedly, that approach does not sell newspapers any more than not spreading gossip builds up the image of the silent one. All it leaves is the opportunity for someone else to be the bearer of ill tidings.^ix Threatening to expose those in power who are charged with protecting us but do not do so, however, may be a lot more productive in the long run. And speaking to someone of perceived offenses – “chastising the sinner” – may similarly have a greater effect than spreading rumors. It may not work, but it's worth a try.

Next episode: “One Mind With But A Single Thought” – To each his (or her) own.

i     Or at least used to be true.

ii    According to the Chofetz Chayim, the most important authority on the subject, lashon hara can best be described as any speaking about individuals, whether the comments are favorable or not. Favorable statements may evoke negative responses and comments by the listener.

iii    Arachin, 15b.

iv     “is harmful to” probably conveys the meaning better.

v     Although it is claimed that the kind of abuse about which the article is concerned is a general phenomenon, happening in many institutions.

vi    Nor could I find any indication that the matter had been discussed by them with the accused. The article was long and I might have missed it, but I don't think so. 

vii    Even if that should be the case, the retraction will not be as prominent as the accusation and it certainly won't have the same impact.

viii   Perhaps they did, but it's not at all clear from the article.

ix     In the case of a newspaper story, that means that someone else might print first. Journalistic ethical standards probably exist justifying the decision to print first and ask questions afterward – at least that's the impression I get from the media – but to the non-journalist it has the appearance of trying to cash in on gossip.