I've seen people of ALL political leanings not recognize satire when they see or hear it.
True. And I have seen that happen across the political spectrum as well.
I'm not embarrassed to admit that I watch The View sometimes, in between listening to a great community radio station.
I heard a snippet of Whoopi Goldberg's rant yesterday, against the man who briefly posted some false stories on the internet for kicks, just to see how gullible people might be.
I heard him speak today at length today, on that radio station I feel fortunate to have access to, and support.
Yeah, but the person and backlash that inspired this post clearly stated on his website that nothing he said was "true".
I love Satire. I hate Fake News.
It is frightening how many people still believe stories from the Onion or the New Yorker.
It IS. I think it's especially disturbing that people want to and often DO believe absurd published content, even on sites that are obviously made up news...like The Onion. I don't think The New Yorker quite fits in that category.
Regarding The New Yorker, I believe she is referring to The Borowitz Report, a regular feature.
Yes, I imagine so. Come to think of it, I believe I HAVE seen a seen a few people on the internet seem to think an Andy Borowitz "Report" was real news.
Do YOU think the young man responsible for the "fake news" story about Whoopi Goldberg crossed a line?
A line? What type of line, specifically?
Your links and the hits I get by searching all leave me without the complete story, without which I will not weigh in on whether this particular incident crosses any line.
I will say that she may well have a libel case against him, despite any disclaimers he may have made. There are gray areas in the defamation laws, particularly where disclaimers are made and where celebrities are concerned, but if the defamation put people in danger, those gray areas tend to become clarified. Ultimately, that is up to a judge and/or jury to decide. If people made threats, those are already criminal offenses covered by statutes.
As far as her desire to have laws passed to make it a crime to satirize someone without their permission...I absolutely disagree with that.
There have always been "fake news" publications and there always will be. They range from the absurd (The Onion) to those that wear the cloak of legitimacy (the MSM, and I include everything from MSNBC and CNN to Fox and WaPo to NPR to the WSJ). With the internet, there is now a plethora of sites offering everything from straight opinion to biased "news" to satire to outright, shit-stirring lies.
It is time for people to take responsibilty for vetting what they read/see/hear.
Darn....I had the actual made up story pulled up yesterday, but apparently failed to post or save it. It seems to have gone missing, now. There wasn't much more to it than what McDaniels said in that link. What he claimed she said wasn't "funny" at all, to me anyway. It could have been SO easily debunked, though, had anyone who chose to believe it made the slightest effort.
I can think of several instances when I thought people crossed that line I'm referring to, between satire and slander or libel. I have mixed feelings about this one, because the guy supposedly clearly states on his website that the content isn't true.
I just found the link to the original 'story':
I couldn't agree more about the passing of laws to make it a crime to satirize someone without their permission, AND your last sentence....
He clearly posted that it was satire. Granted, one had to scroll to the bottom of the page prior to his update, which he posted two days later. But as anyone can start a website and post practically anything, and given the questionable name of his site, people should either vet the material or the site (preferably both) before going off willy-nilly to post such tripe all over the web and send out notifications to everyone in their email contacts.
To give him a smidgeon of credit, even though it was at the bottom, his dislaimer was in large, bold print. I have been on a satiric website that posted the disclaimer in such tiny script that I had to enlarge it just to see it. I did precisely because I knew it was satire and was trying to prove it to someone so they would quit making a fool of themselves and their friends. Why I bothered, I don't know...it was someone on SH that had me blocked and I had to enlist an intermediary to send my warning...which he promptly ignored, as did the intermediary...lol
As regards his legal culpability, or that of anyone reacting to his story, there are already laws on the books.
I think the man is actually trying to draw a line, rather than cross one. He's trying to showcase people's gullibility and shame them into taking responsibility for vetting information for themselves, and to pause to do so before repeating/reposting/emailing anything they happen across online or that others pass along to them.
He may ultimately pay a price for doing so. As far as anyone who saw this and responded with threats or threatening actions...they are responsible for their own words and actions and if they end up paying a price, that's on them. Even had the story been true, threats would have been over the line.
I had not seen the site before I saw Ms Goldberg's angry response to the story, and then heard the the man speak at length the next morning. That is why I used "supposedly", in reference to how clearly stated or bold his disclaimer was before.
I know what you mean about some "satire" sites not having a disclaimer at all clearly visible. When I've felt a red flag** about some shared story with a link, I've sometimes had to go to the home page of the site just be absolutely SURE that it wasn't trying to pass it off as "true". Pointing out that someone hasn't recognized a made up 'story' meant to be humorous, doesn't always go over well.
As far as what the man's motives were, I feel just about positive that you are correct. I do think people who publicly demonize and encourage violence towards certain individuals share SOME responsibility for THEIR words, but ultimately of course, only those who act on their words are to blame.
I think that is another lesson a great many need to learn now that the internet dominates our communications...people need to stop and think before reacting to things. That and the spread of mis/disinformation is precisely the reason I dislike the Twitter platform in particular, though FB is nearly as bad. Of course any social website or website allowing comments can be, and often is used to spread the BS. But the speed with which things travel over Twitter and FB, and the number of people who receive instant updates from those two sites on their cell phones is astounding.
Yep, that's the one! Thank you :)
The New Yorker has a section devoted to satire, but I probably should have made that clearer. My bad.
That's exactly what it is, a sort of confirmation bias, people want confirmation that their wildest assumptions are correct and that really is sad. I've had some startling suspicions, but I can't recall ever wanting them to be true for the sake of being right, quite the opposite!
Now, in the realm of 'fake news,' there are literally massive webs of confirmation bias in the form of online rags. It's shocking really, how many sites there are out there devoted exclusively to confirmation bias. You can just randomly choose a crazy accusation, google it, and the webs become evident immediately. Some even run verbatim regurgitations.
I know it does, and that should have been clear enough to me. :) Although it's been quite awhile since I've bought an actual The New Yorker magazine, I know that they also publish real and 'serious' articles, though.
Yes, and I think we agree about that being the most disturbing part. That, and people being so willing to repeat shit without even TRYING to find out if there's any truth to it.
Speaking of your supposed "bad", I realized after the fact that my former reply to you almost exactly what YOU said....
Exactly, this stuff comes from folks who don't know much about government and don't care to find out.
Just yesterday I was telling a friend about how, in my house, I've made the statement: "Obama gives Iran One Billion Dollars!" (in my best doctor evil voice) a shout-out to fake news in general.
My cousin sent me a link from some site called "Now The End Begins' (don't go there, don't give them the view) and the headline read: "Obama Gives Iran A Billion Dollars." I've harped on about all the various things wrong with that statement for so long that now any time fake news is even loosely mentioned, my son and I will shout through the house: "And Obama gave Iran One Billion Dollars!" Anyone outside of the loop on that one would probably be like wth???
It's the perfect example of how demagoguery takes on a life of its own through webs of fake news. lol
I don't claim to be all that knowledgeable about the workings of government, but I do try to find out what I can.
I had a friend send me a link several years ago, about how Obama was canceling The National Day of Prayer or something, and instead hosting a Muslim prayer day. It had a picture, too! When I replied telling her what she'd sent me was false, with a reputable link, she got a little miffed and said indignantly that she doesn't have time to check the validity of everything she shares.
I do still hear people lamenting about Obama "giving" Iran a billion dollars. :)
But you likely know enough about govt. to know that the president doesn't author legislation or re-appropriate money, much less does he have a blank check-book.
I think a lot of these lies only work on people who really have very little knowledge of govt., like... they don't know what the three branches are or what they do, that little knowledge about govt. I'm not trying to be mean, it's just a common theme I've noticed with people who frequent truly 'fake' news websites. So is that response... that too is a common theme. lol If you have the time to pass it on, you have the time to verify and if you have to choose between the two, verify rather than share. A few people have given me that same excuse.
I remember the National Day of Prayer thing too, doesn't seem like it was that long ago, but it has been several years.
Yes, I know that much. I think many people just don't care to gain knowledge that might interfere with what they WANT to believe.
You may remember the National Prayer Breakfast thing, because it's been circulating around as recently as last year. :)
Howbeit that lies never die, but the truth is stamped out before it makes its way out the front door?
Oh believe me, those are still alive and well in certain circles.
Sometimes "satire" is a word that needs a definition...and stories need a flag for innocents who take everything at face value....
Good satire plays with unspoken truths about its object without being unfair or mean spirited. A good measure is when you're on the other side of it and still find it funny. Steven Colbert is a good example of that, even though I disagree with his political perspective, I find myself laughing out loud in spite of myself.
Some of what I see passing for satire these days comes awfully close to fake news because it crosses the line into being unfair and mean spirited. A good example of that is the latest "alien attack" Trump bit on SNL. I found it completely unfunny, and I can't see how it could be funny to anyone but the most hateful, ignorant anti-Trumpers. It was full of mean spirited untruth from start to finish. Rather than being insightful, it was basically a complete inversion of reality.
Yeah, satire does generally need SOME "truthiness" in order to be really amusing. We agree that many venues that claim what they write or say is "satire" are not amusing at all.
I hadn't seen the SNL skit you referred to, so I went ahead and watched it. I found it kind of funny, so guess I must be one of those "hateful anti-Trumpers". One would have to be very ignorant indeed, though, to think an SNL skit was ANY kind of "news".....
Like I said, it's an inversion of reality.
Skit shows him as racist towards black people and suggests he thinks they're not human, truly odious slander. In reality, he's committed himself to increasing funding for historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs), and has repeatedly stated his desire to improve employment and safety in black communities.
Skit shows him siding with aliens over the US. He is the most staunchly pro-American President in recent history, rejecting globalism in favor of nationalism. A global alien invasion is an almost perfect analogy for globalism, and he's fighting it tooth and nail, whereas his predecessors were complicit with it.
Skit shows him as a coward. He has shown himself to be extremely brave, not only taking on the establishment, but doing things like walking in front of his motorcade despite numerous threats, and inviting members of the audience on stage, against the advice of the Secret Service.
Skit portrays Alex Jones as a insane racist. I've been following Jones' work for about 12 years, and he is extremely knowledgeable, often being the first in the media to break big stories. Infowars, his news outlet, was one of the only news outlets whose reporters were able to circulate in the Fergusson riots without harassment, (with the exception of one masked rioter) because their reputation among the black community is very solid, much more so than the MSM who were basically chased away.
Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts, Maze.
Although...that was funny...instinctively... Ha ha...
You've got to hand it to Turnip...the Fake news thing is apt for him...ha