Social Media = Gossip

   Unlike back-fence gossip, which relies on breath and human memory, electronic gossip has a life and memory of its own, and grows more rapidly as more computers join the link.
   There was a time when traditional news outlets were filters and fact checkers, winnowing the kernels of truth from the chaff of braggadocio. People relied on journalists for fair and balanced reporting, with hard news on the front page and reports by gossip columnists relegated to the entertainment section.
   There's nothing wrong with that, really, even when there is a fine line between news and gossip. But it's important to know the difference.
   Today, clever entertainers/politicians make it a practice of bypassing the traditional information channels in favor of sending their typographical sound bites directly to the public by posting them on social media.
   That's okay too, since it enables celebrities to speak to their fans directly. But when they spout claims that are clearly untrue and they attack anyone who suggests otherwise, then there is a problem.
   It's one thing for devoted followers to believe anything and everything their hero says. That's gossip.
   But when that same hero posts flagrantly wrong information and defies anyone to speak ill of him by contradicting what he proclaims, then it is the duty of responsible journalists to publish fact even as they fulfill their obligation to report what the hero says.
   To do this, journalists ask for specifics. When a politician claims to know something, it is journalism's duty to pursue that claim.
   Here are some examples:
   "I know things that other people don't know." Such as?
   "I know more about ISIS than the generals." Such as?
   "I know more about hackers than the so-called experts." Such as?
   What do you know? When did you know it? Where is your evidence? Why have you not shared that with the American people you claim to represent?
   And if you don't respond to any of these questions, why should we believe you?