Standing in judgment from behind your keyboard

This is not a case of that over-used phrase “only in Malta”.

Like the whole spectrum of human emotions and behaviour, the love of gossip and shock horror speculation whenever tragedies occur can be found everywhere. Just look at all the conspiracy theories from all over the world about the disappearance of the Malaysian plane as people furiously type out their opinion about what they think happened.  

Meanwhile, on the local front, we have had the recent horrific tragedy of teenager Lisa Maria Zahra who fell to her death from Dingli Cliffs, while the young man who was with her, Erin Tanti [aka Erin Stuart Palmier], is still recovering from his serious injuries. The extent and spiteful nature of the commentary generated is reminiscent of the Sliema double murder tragedy, with too many assuming they know exactly what led to the fatal incidents despite the fact that they were not there.  

It sometimes seems that our sensitivity to the feelings of others has been bludgeoned. As the news stories clock up an increasing number of hits and comments, it is as if we are getting a vicarious thrill out of all the drama, treating real-life tragedies as if they were merely another episode of Criminal Minds. Everyone becomes an amateur sleuth, trying to figure out who did it before the police do.  

I often wonder why people feel this unstoppable urge to publicly vent their opinions and theories on such stories without the slightest thought about the pain and suffering being caused to the relatives who are at the receiving end of what amounts to a double whammy: first they are stunned by news of the actual tragedy and then they have to bear the brunt of the additional humiliation of being the focus of unwanted media attention and the subject of careless talk.

Being gossiped about under such circumstances is a cruel situation to be in. It is difficult to imagine what that feels like until one has been the victim of sharp, ruthless, wagging tongues which is so perfectly summed up in that colloquial expression “meta taqa' f'ilsien in-nies”.

The people behind those thoughtless fingers busy tapping out the first thing which pops into their head feel they have the right to discuss the very personal details of others on public fora because, they argue, the story is in the public domain. This gossip mongering, uncalled for as it may be, has always taken place, of course; we have simply changed the way we do it. When our news only came from radio, TV and newspapers, we would discuss murders and deaths with friends and acquaintances either face-to-face or over the telephone, speculating, making assumptions and conjecturing to our heart’s content.

What has happened now is that we have traded the chatter which used to take place at the local grocery shop, the village clubs and our workplace for the more sprawling forum of the Internet. There is the rub though: what we write is there forever, and what we write can be seen not just by our immediate circle but by anyone and everyone, including the families of the very people about whom we are gossiping. That in itself has changed the nature of the beast.  

We would all be embarrassed to be caught talking about someone behind their back if they had to unexpectedly step into the room, having heard everything.   Yet, it does not seem to occur to many people that an online comment is equivalent to being overheard on a much, wider scale. And no matter how we try to justify it, there is something particularly unpleasant and malicious when you read things in print because the loaded power of the written word cannot be overlooked or dismissed.

The relative ‘safety’ of hiding behind a keyboard has given people a false sense of security; a shield of armour which makes them feel they can write things with impunity which they would probably never dare say in real life. They feel they can cheerfully sit in judgment of others, a step removed from any consequences, because it doesn’t seem as ‘real’ somehow.

They can spin tales of what they think really happened in a tragedy; they can hysterically demand for a very disturbed man who was nailing dead cats to a cross to be meted the same treatment, and they can turn savagely against anyone who does not share their love for animals (without realizing the irony).  It is the high-tech version of mob rule, where people are swept away by emotions, group think and a complete lack of empathy, never stopping to consider that perhaps one day, the vicious keyboard mob could turn on them next.

Josanne Cassar blogs at www.josannecassar.com