There’s a classic parable (sourced from here) told about a man in a small village was a terrible gossip, always telling stories about his neighbors, even if he didn't know them.
Wanting to change, he visited the Rabbi for advice.
The Rabbi instructed him to buy a fresh chicken at the local market and bring it back to him (the Rabbi) as quickly as possible, plucking off every single feather as he ran. Not one feather was to remain.
The man did as he was told, plucking as he ran and throwing the feathers every which way until not a feather remained.
He handed the bare chicken over to the Rabbi, who then asked the man to go back and gather together all the feathers he had plucked and bring them back.
The man protested that this was impossible as the wind must have carried those feathers in every direction and he could never find them all. The Rabbi said, "That's true. And that's how it is with gossip. One rumor can fly to many corners, and how could you retrieve it? Better not to speak gossip in the first place!"
And the Rabbi sent the man home to apologize to his neighbors, and to repent.
I thought about this story today as I reviewing Twitter and saw a Tweet from one of my friends (for whom I have a great deal of respect), Brent Leary, suggesting that Israel had (somehow) censored Twitter during the naval incident near Gaza.
Naturally, I thought this was preposterous and tweeted back
Brent then updated saying “it looks like it was a glitch", not censorship.
The conversation then went on one more round as I asked him “well, how can one ‘take it back?"’ and, basically, Brent said that it’s just near impossible to do today.
Brent is a smart guy and I would like to think that the reason he tweeted this was because he lives in the world of social media and, admittedly, it’s a sensational headline that grabs your attention. It’s possible that it reinforces a worldview of Brent’s that the “Jews/Israel control the media,” but knowing him as I do, I highly doubt that.
I can’t say the same for the Guardian, however.
Now, at least they did update the article afterwards to say that it was a glitch, but the original sub-title:
Users of the microblogging service complain at apparent censorship as discussion grows around deaths on convoy - but it isn't justified (updated)
is what gets me.
Why is the default reaction “apparent censorship?” Well, I know why, of course. It’s part of the ongoing attempt to delegitimize Israel. But, it’s almost “headline baiting” so that people without an agenda (Brent) will be more likely to amplify the message of those with an agenda (The Guardian.)
I’m not going to decry the advent of technology and wish that newspapers could be saved (see a great piece by Jeff Jarvis on this topic and why the FTC is harming us, not helping us).
Still, it’s a big challenge of today.
Subscribe to RSS Feed
