The DU Lounge
Related: Culture Forums, Support ForumsAbout gossip. Gossip is always referred to as a very bad thing, yet all of us do it.
And I don't think it's always a bad thing. How will you ever know anything if you don't gossip?
For instance you won't know that the new man/woman in town that you're strongly attracted to is...a playa from the get-go, has a history of stalking old girl/boyfriends, is on parole for dealing drugs, etc. If you're not in the loop you may not know these things...until you get burned.
Swede
(33,257 posts)Whether it's good or bad?
Tobin S.
(10,418 posts)In the old days, attaining the right information sometimes meant the difference between life and death.
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)freely repeated to the face. I try to make sure I don't say anything about a person that they haven't heard me say directly to them first. That way when someone else says, "did you know **** thinks ____________ about your ________ ?", I know the answer will be "yes,..."
Gidney N Cloyd
(19,841 posts)UTUSN
(70,711 posts)like from Cindy ADAMS or Page Six, or when I lauded Kitty KELLEY's books. I was told that gossip was "beneath" us, was cheap and most of all that things in that genre were "only gossip" with the implication being that it was not TRUE.
The dictionary definitions have NO reference to "truth" in gossip. The topics/targets of gossip are things that are mostly very private or embarrassing, but to repeat what I've posted endlessly, "gossip" does not equate with "UNtruth."
In fact, the etymology says something about "godson" in it.
All valid points in the posts above, that it is part of human nature. And as for somebody referring to the work situation, getting inside clues to what's going on, clues outside of the official/public information, is a vital part of strategizing.
Page Six and Cindy ADAMS have gone downhill, and a year or two ago I found Gawker, but in the past few months Gawker has undergone a personnel revamping of editors and contributors and, for me, has lost a little edge.
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)She has two sources for everything in her books. She is lawsuit proof as truth is an absolute defense to slander.
And the standard is lower if the person is a public figure. The plaintiff would have to prove actual malice on the part of the writer. Pretty difficult to do.
Same thing with Michael Moore. He tells the truth and every word and every line in his movies and books is gone over by the best libel lawyers that work for The New Yorker, he says. He is lawsuit proof and they hate him too.
UTUSN
(70,711 posts)is true - not her name, not her date of birth, not her father's name, nothing. (Total paraphrase)
I forget which book, maybe the one about the BUSHes, Today had a two days' interview with her, and LAUER absolutely lambasted her on the first day. Not that my little voice is totally responsible, but I went through all kinds of phone dialing to find a number for Today and to get through to a live person, a producer, and I blasted them for the hit job, and the second day they were much nicer to her.
That said, I was a bit let down by the B.F.E.E. book. She seemed to be pulling her punches. It says something that after her withstanding the likes of SINATRA and the Brit parasite/royals and all the rest, that it would be the B.F.E.E. that made her stand down a bit?
Anyway, will never stop repeating, there is nothing in the dictionary definition of "gossip" that equates with UNtruth. History is gossip.
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)She threw his questions back in his face and smiled the whole time.
Obviously she had PR lessons from a trainer. Smart people smile when they are being attacked on tv. Kitty Kelley, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Franken. Smile because most people will want to look at a pleasant person, not a frowning angry person.....unless they are Republican'ts.
dimbear
(6,271 posts)I think that was Groucho Marx. Have to look it up.
Rhiannon12866
(205,508 posts)She must have been a fascinating character.
pipi_k
(21,020 posts)(attributed to Oscar Wilde)
Callalily
(14,890 posts)Modus operandi at my work place.
Never have I worked in such a place where gossips runs rampant.
siligut
(12,272 posts)Gossip and asides are often used to manipulate. Not always of course, as people have said, personal conversations may be how news is shared.
But due to the secretive nature of some gossip, it can also be used to manipulate and control. If the gossip seems to be important or the sharer seems to have a vested interest, it is always good to verify the information from another source.
pipi_k
(21,020 posts)gossip about famous people, but I do love to hear gossip about people I know.
OK so that often makes me feel terrible.
Sometimes when my daughter and I are talking on the phone (gossip being part of it) her husband can be heard in the background putting us down for it. He has a very dim view of gossip....BUT...
he is also one of the most self-centered people I've ever met.
So, I figure that anyone not interested in the goings on in someone else's life really has to be all about ME ME ME.