Everyone was talking about this story last week: Pope Benedict XVI is (a) dead, (b) not dead or (c) come on, what’s up with this tired Internet game again?

In that final category, I offer you the following mini-think piece from J.D. Flynn of The Pillar, that must-bookmark source of Catholic news, commentary and Canon law-specifics.

This whole circus was a classic example of people being tempted to report, as semi-news, the fact that online people were TALKING ABOUT something that was being reported with zero creditable attribution. Thus, Flynn starts with this basic equation:

… Pope emeritus Benedict XVI is still not dead. …

Why is that news?

Because last night an Italian schoolteacher named Tommaso De Benedetti created a moral panic online, with a hoax that seems to have been in the works for nearly a year.

“Moral” panic?

That’s an interesting choice of words. The key is that journalists had to stop and ponder whether they had the fortitude to not push the “RETWEET” button on a story that was essentially about Internet chatter.

Let’s keep walking through Flynn’s piece as he works his way through this:

Back in August 2021, the guy created a Twitter account for Bishop Georg Bätzing, who is president of the German bishops’ conference. The account managed to amass thousands of followers. He didn’t use the account, but he built that following by strategically following the right people, and allowing the Twitter algorithms to do the rest.

Then yesterday evening, he tweeted in German, English, and Spanish that Pope emeritus Benedict XVI had died.

The tweets took off like wildfire. Several media outlets picked them up, and a lot of producers and journalists retweeted them. My phone started blowing up — priests, bishops, and other journalists were all asking me if it was true.

What to do?

Basically, Flynn slips into a refreshingly candid mode and talks about one of those moments that all Twitter users have.

You know the one. It’s when you are poised to retweet and the little angel figure on your shoulder is saying, “Are you sure? Do you really trust this in a medium that is split-second shallow but produces content people may quote a decade from now (with your name on it)?

I want you to read this whole piece, so let’s simply look at the next part and then ask you to click on through to Flynn:

… Here’s why I feel a little sheepish: I retweeted the Bätzing tweet, with a couched hedge saying that this was something Bätzing was apparently claiming and we were working to confirm it. 

In my defense it was the end of a long day, but even with the inclusion of a hedge, you know, I try not to act rashly about stuff like that. So I didn’t say it was true, but, still, I’m sorry if I let you guys down or anything like that. We try to make it a point to keep our heads when others are losing theirs. 

Anyway, within about one minute of my hedged retweet, it became clear that the story of Benedict’s death had begun with the tweet from “Bätzing,” and that the account was fake — it had no twitter history at all, and was not followed by any German ecclesiastics or news services. So I deleted my tweet, wrote instead that we were trying to confirm the rumor but I was skeptical. Within a couple of minutes and some phone calls to very sleepy friends in Rome, it became clear the whole thing was a hoax.

Now, raise your hand if you think this kind of digital horseplay (or some other word) is going to get worse in the future? A related question: In a bitterly divided world — politics, religion and the politics of religion — are more partisans (or simply attention seekers) going to attempt this kind of fraud?

Another issue: Does it matter that many/some readers don’t seem to care about the “morals” of traditional reporting and fact-checking until AFTER the flash of social-media lightning has faded and people have started to point finders?

Discuss.