Abstract
Imagine opening the daily paper and finding yourself featured in a syndicated gossip column. Suppose that, while passing through the checkout counter at a local drugstore, you see your photo plastered across the cover of a popular tabloid. What can you do about it?
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Oliver Pilat, Drew Pearson: An Unauthorized Biography (New York: Harper’s, 1973), 21.
Ibid.
Ibid., 23.
Robert Lindsey, “Carol Burnett and Enquirer Clash in Court,” New York Times (March 18, 1981): 4.
Albin Krebs and Robert Thomas, Jr., “$10 Million Libel Suit against Enquirer Nears Trial,” New York Times (March 9, 1981): 2.
“Trial Opens in Carol Burnett’s Libel Suit,” New York Times (March 12, 1981): 2.
“Jury Gives Award of $1.6 Million to Carol Burnett,” Wall Street Journal (March 27, 1981): 31.
“On the Right,” National Review (May 1, 1983): 509.
“Enquirer Belted,” Time (April 6, 1981): 77.
Robert Lindsey, “Carol Burnett Given $1.6 Million in Suit against National Enquirer,” New York Times (March 27, 1981): A1.
“Carol Burnett’s Libel Award Cut in Half to $800,000,” New York Times (May 13, 1981): 3; “Enquirer Belted,” Time (April 6, 1981): 77.
Ibid., 3.
“Enquirer Belted,” Time (April 6, 1981): 77.
Rodney A. Smolla, Suing the Press (New York: Oxford University Press).
Ibid., 6.
Ibid.
“A Five Year Legal Toothache,” Time (March 25, 1981): 9.
“Currents,” U.S. News and World Report (April 6, 1981).
Smolla, 121.
“The Bishop Speaks Out to Silence the Rumors,” Providence Journal-Bulletin (April 5, 1986): 1.
Fredrick Koenig, Rumor in the Marketplace: The Social Psychology of Commercial Hearsay (Dover, MA: Auburn House, 1985).
We have examined cases of well-known individuals and groups that have been targets of gossip. Given their resources and power, these victims have attempted to combat gossip by going directly to the public in every way possible, including the use of television and the press. Obviously, ordinary people who are victimized by gossip cannot employ these resources, but they might learn something from those who can. Certain gossip-fighting techniques are available to ordinary people. Suppose a prying neighbor decides to spoil an individual’s reputation by passing malicious lies about his sex life. He is totally innocent, but who’s going to believe it? What can he do? First of all, he can take a tip from Bishop Gelineau and Entenmann’s Bakery and speak out on his own behalf: silence implies guilt. On the other hand, if he runs from friend to friend with an unproven denial, he risks spreading the lies even further. Instead, he might employ the services of a local version of Walter Cronkite—a credible “public relations person” who is well respected by mutual acquaintances and is willing to approach them with the truth about the victim of gossip. In this way, anyone who continues to spread the nasty version of the tale risks offending the victim’s ally, too. There are, of course, certain situations in which nasty gossip is accurate. When such truthful gossip concerns a violation of a major norm, the responses available to a target are available but are not easy to pursue. Unlike celebrities, who may not be able to hide from mass media exposure, an ordinary person can change jobs, move from a neighborhood or town, or make new friends. As we have seen, much of everyday gossip is trivial. When truthful gossip concerns a minor blunder or transgression, the victim’s reputation may not be harmed at all and may even be strengthened. Celebrity gossip certainly has this characteristic: a little “dirt” in the life story of a Hollywood star only makes the reader more sympathetic. Similarly, gossip about a mistake or transgression on the part of an ordinary individual can even make his or her friends like him or her more. They may see this person as just a little more human and therefore as more worthy of compassion and understanding. Perhaps the most important lesson to be learned from examining the way that celebrities respond to gossip comes from noting the active role that they play in its transmission. Many Hollywood stars plant their own stories. Ordinary people can also plant their own gossip. Say that an individual knows someone is about to reveal damaging information about her life. She could sit back and let gossip ruin her reputation, or she could beat them to the punch by circulating her side of the story first. For example, a woman who is going through a nasty divorce might take the initiative away from her estranged husband by quickly planting her side of the story around the neighborhood. She can’t stop people from talking, but she can at least exercise some control over what others will say behind her back. Employers are quick to “leak” gossip that might otherwise hurt them. Before layoffs are announced, the boss has already planted the story on the office grapevine. In no time, the unhappy news has circulated so that every employee knows. The boss has let gossip do the dirty work for him or her!
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1987 Jack Levin and Arnold Arluke
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Levin, J., Arluke, A. (1987). Fighting Back. In: Gossip. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-6112-9_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-6112-9_5
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-0-306-42533-2
Online ISBN: 978-1-4899-6112-9
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive