I follow both David Gibson, a reporter for Religion News Service, and Mollie Hemingway, a writer for the Federalist, on Twitter. Like many of those who do, I have noticed a pattern in which Hemingway sends out a tweet that is not addressed to Gibson to which he nonetheless replies—not to offer further information, a query, or a correction (which would be unremarkable enough) but instead with a statement of dismissal.
Hemingway is an opinionated writer, one with whom I don’t always agree but from whom I always have something to learn. Gibson’s sustained twitter campaign seems to reflect a belief that there is something especially deserving of scrutiny, and perhaps of contempt, in Hemingway’s tweets. I think that there instead may be something deserving of scrutiny in Gibson’s replies. He seems to think it somehow telling to single out her tweets. I’m happy to do the same for his. As ever, let the reader decide.
Matthew Schmitz is deputy editor of First Things.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
The Church in the Age of Therapy
In 1966, Philip Rieff wrote in The Triumph of the Therapeutic that “Religious man was born to…
Canada’s Deadliest Blind Spot
On September 20, the Daily Mail ran a story with the provocative headline, “Our 83-year-old Christian grandmother…
The Faithful Joy of Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen
Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen seem to have had little in common. She favored rhinestones; he wore…
