Posted by Rick Denney on September 26, 2001 at 16:38:50:
In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New York Phil on PBS posted by Andy Smith on September 24, 2001 at 17:03:31:
Andy, there are a couple of issues here. The first has nothing to do with the truth of the rumor, and that's the issue of privacy. We do not have a right to know everything that can be discovered, true or not, but we do have a right to privacy protected by law and by old-fashioned morals. There is no "public's right to know" that we hear so often from the media in defense of their violation of privacy.
The second issue is that of how truth can and should be determined. A rumor is a statement put in circulation without the authority of truth. So, it isn't whether it's true or not that matters, but whether the person making the statement has the authority to establish its truth. Get the difference? Without that authority, the truth of the matter isn't available.
From a practical standpoint (and morals are practical), the rumor establishes what some will take as fact, and what others will reject as falsehood. Because we don't know the truth, and because nobody in authority has elected to reveal the truth to us, both of these positions are potentially wrong. Therefore, presenting the rumor provides no enlightenment.
An even more practical standpoint includes the effect it might have on the subject of the rumor. Rumors contain information that is juicy, otherwise it would not be mentioned or repeated. The juiciness of it means that it matters, and if it matters, then it has the potential to do injury. If it was totally harmless, then it wouldn't make a rumor worth the telling. Does that make sense?
Finally, a rumor gains credibilitiy when it is not authoritatively disputed, even though it was not authoritatively presented. Thus, the subject of the rumor is faced with proving a negative, which is nearly impossible. No matter what he says, if the subject is absent from any given concert in the future, someone who heard this rumor will wonder if it was because of what was presented in the rumor.
Just because the rumor is well-intentioned does not negate these effects. And making statements about the effects of the rumor gives it credibility it doesn't deserve, because it assumes that it is true. That's one of the problems with the rumor in the first place.
I'm not attacking you as a person, because I think you were well-intentioned. But if those who innocently contributed to this rumor will take what we are saying to heart, then I think they will remove a large potential source of trouble from their future. I have been both a perpetrator and a victim of damaging rumors, and have learned these lessons the hard way, believe me.
Morals are there because God (if you believe that way) or enlightened self-interest (if that's the way you go) understands that they help us live life with the least injury to ourselves and others. We often lose sight of that connection, and in rejecting tradition open ourselves to costly mistakes for which we will have to be responsible, well-intentioned or no.
Rick "not anonymous" Denney