There are some of us still around who remember the pre-internet world. There was a time when if you wanted your thoughts to reach an audience you had to find a publisher willing to help you out. That publisher had his own reputation to guard. In addition, he had his own money on the line. This provided a significant hedge against reckless writing. The internet has ground that hedge down to the roots. Now we are all our own publishers, and our financial investment is little more than a monthly internet bill.
In the old days we chose who we’d read in large part on the basis of how trustworthy we found the publisher to be. We knew both William F. Buckley and Jann Wenner were more trustworthy than whomever the imaginative fellow was down at the Weekly World News. The publisher listed his own name and the brick and mortar address of the office. The author listed his name as well. Now we have anonymous “publishers” publishing their anonymous writings, hiding their ip addresses through proxy servers. Now mysterious and arcane mathematical calculations determine what shows up first when we search out information. How now do we know whom to trust?
We trust those who confirm our biases. Credibility is now wrapped up in who hates the people we hate and who loves the people we love. Someone going after our friends online has an attack blog. Someone going after our enemies online has a discernment ministry.
Last week someone read something I wrote that they didn’t agree with. They replied with a link to an article about one of my scandals in my past. “This you?” he asked. “Yes,” I replied, “why do you ask?” On the same day I had another commenter falsely accuse, no, not accuse but convict me based on something he read on an anonymous attack blog. I’d like to think the first person was acting with integrity and wanted to check for himself. I suspect, however, that his true motive was to put me in a glass dog house.
In the first instance I can confess that yes, I was guilty. In the second it’s my word against the word of my anonymous accuser. How much weight should we give to an anonymous, or pseudo-nonymous accusation? None. Less than none. But we do, if they are going after those who already don’t care for. Oh, we might pride ourselves on how judicious we are. How many times have you heard, or worse, said something like this, “Well, if he’s guilty of even ten percent of what is written here, he’s a terrible, awful, good-for-nothing so and so.”? What we should be saying is “Well, if he’s innocent of even ten percent of what is written here, his accuser is a terrible, awful, good-for-nothing so and so.”
My counsel? Why don’t we try to not only stop speaking ill of others, but stop listening to those who speak ill of others? Why don’t we look at gossip, whether spread over the backyard fence of across the world wide web as the Bible does, a destructive, vile sin-
They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless (Romans 1:29-31).
The internet didn’t create this problem. It is born out of our own hearts. Which means there is only one solution- repenting and believing His Word. That is counsel you can trust, because the Author is not just true, but Truth.
That is really well said. I think we are currently drowning in 1,000 voices repeating what 1 person “published”. I am so glad that God is in control of all things at all times.
Oh mercy yes, that is where our comfort is.
Someone wrote something about a group, that painted them in a very bad light. I went to the source (the group they wrote about) to find out if it was true. No, it was not. Always check the source, the facts, and the evidence. And even if you do find it is correct, if it is dirt, why spread it around.