Why are most people so opposed to shooting the messenger?

Not shooting the messenger is NOT about tolerating gossips or hurtful people. It is a matter of not blaming someone tasked with bringing bad news.

Do you blame the lab technician that tells you your cholesterol is too high? Do you blame the mechanic that tells you your transmission is shot?

People who behave as you describe, though, are not to be tolerated. As is said in the recovery movement, “you are only as sick as your secrets”.

Before making a promise to keep secrets, let people know that some secrets can not be kept. You know the person will tell you anyway!

The bearer of bad news should expect a certain amount of flak, even it’s “second hand” bother.
Comes with the territory, not aimed at them directly, but some shrapnel inevitably gets through.

I agree with @zenvelo. I think you have misunderstood the idiom.

I know the origin and the traditional use of the idiom.

I also know that rulers no longer exchange information by messenger. That in the modern age someone who says, “Hey, don’t shoot the messenger – I’m just telling you what I heard” is trying to deny any culpability.

said to ​warn someone not to be ​angry with the ​person who ​tells them something ​bad – Cambridge Dictionary online.

Shooting the messenger serves no purpose, thus changes nothing.

@ibstubro But you’re introducing a dynamic that doesn’t exist in the idiom – that the person telling you unpleasant news is doing so inappropriately, and of their own agency. The person is not a “messenger” in the same sense at all. If you want to ask a question about why people gossip or what their responsibility is in telling someone something they don’t want to know, please go ahead. But that has nothing to do with the idiom in your question, so I predict this question is going off the rails and staying there.

What rails? @dappled_leaves

@zenvelo both defended the idiom and answered the question.

I understand “shooting the messenger” to mean killing the person who told the truth because you don’t want to hear it. My example would be a runner from village to village warning of an imminent danger. In which case killing the messenger may endanger people who weren’t warned. Tsunami-type messages. @ibstubro Your example is conveying a message which they know will hurt the person badly. No excuse for people to do that unless it is critical they know it.
(surely not a friend)

@ibstubro Thanks for linking the question. I might have got completely lost otherwise.

I think I understand where @ibstubro is coming from – correct me if I’m wrong, Stu.

Presume there’s Gossip Most Foul afoot within the family, but it’s hush-hush, and you – the victim – are not supposed to be let in on it.

Well, Cousin Joe breaks Gossip Circle confidence, and tells you that Aunt Ida has been spreading rumours about your bedwetting habit.

Now, is Cousin Joe supposed to be off the hook, even though he (presumably) has known about this Gossip Most Foul since it started, and has never made an effort to put a stop to it?

When you confront Aunt Ida and family, should you avoid mentioning how you heard about the gossip?

Are you supposed to claim (to continue the idiomatic references) that a little bird told you, and never mention that little bird’s name is Joe, just because Aunt Ida might be mad at Joe?

Why are most people so opposed to shooting the messenger?
– I don’t know that most people are, and certainly don’t know why they all are, if they are.

If fact, when someone tells you gossip that upsets or hurts you to no good end, isn’t shooting the messenger actually the most productive course?
– No. I don’t have enough ammo for that, and if I miss, or their friends find out, it could lead to costly action sequences, the police may get involved, and the whole thing could get out of hand. The most productive course for me, is to notice that I am upset, and figure out what that upset is about, and process that.

If someone has to swear you to absolute secrecy before telling you something upsetting that involves you or a close friend/family member, where is the positive?
– That is a good warning sign, to consider and lay out boundaries, to avoid problems. I think it’s a problem to agree to unconditional secrecy when you don’t know the content. It potentially sets up the confidant for problems. However to answer your question, while it depends on the situation, there could be positives. It is often very valuable to have confidential listening, especially from trained listeners, though it is often best/easiest/cleanest if they are not your close friends. (Hence, the profession of counselor/therapist, or the practice of peer counseling.) For close friends and family though, it is often better to talk about important things than to avoid, hide, or lie, as that can lead to worse problems, especially if there is an ongoing problem. Sometimes the core problem is actually that there is an ongoing major problem that is not being talked about, that can’t be stopped and/or healed until enough people do know about it. But if a secret is shared on condition of silence, that can cause problems. But sometimes that’s a first and necessary step. If someone makes that condition and then drops a bomb, then further discussion may be needed about what to do about it and who else to tell, etc. Or even possibly, violating the privacy agreement. If someone says, “Promise not to tell? Ok, Bob is molesting Babs.” then the privacy agreement probably needs to be overpowered by Babs’ need to not get molested any more. Bob’s original and continued violations need to be taken care of, even if that means the family is going to have a lot to deal with, and Bob may go to jail etc.

So now you know something that, in all good conscious, you should take steps to verify and correct. Yet your hands were tied, leaving the choice of either scoundrel [no action] or liar [break your promise of silence].
– So that’s why it’s important not to just make completely unconditional oaths to keep silent no matter what, when you don’t even know what’s about to be said. There should be a Latin term for that type of blackmail, but I don’t know what it is. A responsible way to deal with it is to not agree to such oaths, and/or to make clear that there are limits to what you can stay quiet about.

Why not just shoot the messenger so you don’t face this again in the future?
– Depends. Maybe you or someone else actually likes the messenger for other reasons? Lack of ammo? In general, instead of shooting them, just correct the awful contract they are trying to set you up with, and don’t agree to it.

A page comes rushing in, out of breath, hands the King of England a missive from the King of France that says, “We can haz all your cheeseburgers,” and BAM! the King of England shoots the messenger right between the eyes. So, what did that accomplish?