Gossip Rev 2010.01.01.rtf 10.01.

01 10:49 AM

A Letter on the Natures of Gossip and the Media:

Benevolent or Malicious?

In 1998 Canadian TV-Journalist Pamela Wallin hosted a discussion on the

nature of gossip. The discussion included the media 'problems' President Bill
Clinton was having because his Lewinsky peccadillo had been disclosed.

I found the nature of the discussion thought provoking, and I arrived at an

interesting conclusion on the nature of the media. That prompted me to write a
letter to Ms. Wallin. I was disappointed that neither she nor her staff responded,
because I think it would have lead to an interesting discussion on the nature of
the media.

Here is that letter, slightly edited post-post.

gad 2010.01.01

September 26, 1998

...

Pamela Wallin
CBC Newsworld

Re.: Having heard some Gossip on Gossip I Wanted to Gossip too ... Sept 25,
98

Dear Ms. Wallin:

I enjoyed the chin wag on gossip! In part because your guests confirmed what I
felt could be "learned" from Clinton's thing, which is that all media is stained off-
white.

Well, with a bit more thought that is a bit an exaggeration.

But the idea that gossip stops being gossip when it is malicious is interesting in
that maliciousness implies an intent to achieve an end, be that end destructive
or benevolent. This suggests that, in line with your discussion, that 'true' gossip
is a kind of social glue and/or sharing of community, that 'true' gossip is
ultimately a sharing and/or display of personal power/knowledge without
ulterior gain. Once the gossiper 'shares' the gossip, whatever point of power it

Page 1 of 2
Gossip Rev 2010.01.01.rtf 10.01.01 10:49 AM

had, even if hurtful to someone, is lost and a monopoly of knowledge has been
reduced or eliminated.

But that leads to another key distinction between 'true' gossip and the malicious
kind, which is that the true gossiper's information/power is freely given away
ultimately, even if not immediately, to the benefit of the community in some way.
Such as the removal of a monopoly of knowledge. On the other hand, the
malicious "gossip" tries to leverage that power to greater power, such as Ken
Starr using Clinton's pecker to perk up his own career. It is bemusing that Starr's
success or impotence in doing this will depend on how the media leverages his
virility in order to complete their agenda fiscal and social!

This then implies a startling assessment of the "good" media: because it

purveys "gossip" with the ulterior motives of earning revenues and/or of setting
socio-political agenda, it is malicious!

Sincerely,
Guy Duperreault.

Page 2 of 2