Timidity:
For those of you unfamiliar with it, the sin of detraction is defined by the CCC as disclosing another’s faults and failings (without objectively valid reason) to persons who did not know them.
Isn’t this almost all the news does? Aside from the odd natural disaster or war happening, isn’t it the press’s job to “disclose another’s faults and failings to persons who did not know them”? Is there an “objectively valid reason” for announcing to the world that John Doe was arrested for car-jacking?
I agree. There is no particular reason for most of it, although sometimes it may be useful in helping solve crimes, identify problem areas, put people on alert, etc.
When in the car, I listen to the radio and I just love it when they have a “news break” at the beginning of the hour, and they tell us that there was a house fire in South Wichita, and there is not information yet on the damage or injuries. This isn’t exactly your point, but I think it has to do with pride in that media compete to be the “first” to report any given thing. Of course, any horrible thing HAS to be reported, lest another station reports it and then claims they were first to the scoop. You wouldn’t want YOUR radio station bringing you this totally irrelevant and useless news second, would you?
Likewise with political discussion. Is “it provides evidence of the character of a would-be political leader” an objectively valid reason to discuss the sexual habits of a Sentator or a Supreme Court Justice nominee?
I think it very well could be a good reason, but I hesitate to say “objectively” so. Since politics (at least here in US) has strayed so far from the constitution and gotten into Culture Crafting, then it is highly interesting and maybe useful to know what hypocrites these people are, if for no other reason than to know to ignore them. Problem is, people don’t seem to know how to filter information except on whether it’s “their guy” or “the other guy” talking, so I’m kind of mixed on it.
And what about “celebrity gossip”? Is this “objectively valid” or is it almost always detraction and calumny?
Using the example of actors, I’ve always wondered why people are so fascinated to know which actor is in bed with whom off stage. Presumably their skill is as an actor. Maybe they fancy themselves somehow part of the “scene” by keeping up on it. I don’t know. My wife reads the “people in the news” section in the paper, and I confess I sometimes read it too.
Maybe it’s because we don’t have a life anymore. We are supposed to do what we’re told, tell an authority if another person does something wrong, and become united with mass media for opinions, which we should not discuss with coworkers because we get all emotional about stuff that matters not.
I don’t feel too sorry for celebrities (except those who became celebrities by accident or tragedy or something) who complain about having no private life. My piano teacher is well known in Wichita, and she told me how annoying it can be to have strangers approaching her in the store asking, “are you Julianne McLean?” so she usually wears sunglasses anyway.
I figure if some multi-multi-millionaire actor really doesn’t want publicity, they have the resources to go live in some quiet place where there is enough security.
IOW, I find it unnecessary and troubling that we give these people’s personal lives so much attention, but in the case of people who put themselves into the limelight I don’t think we’re particularly sinning against them either, since they literally set themselves up for it. If we are sinning against anything, it is against ourselves.
Just curious how others feel about this. I’m truly not sure what constitutes an “objectively valid reason”.
Me neither.
Objectivity is too subjective for this sort of thing.
If you go strictly based on “need to know” then the world would be pretty boring. We’d all keep our blinders on and push our plow and miss the beauty that exists.
Alan
