Sarah strikes again.........

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by whell

It says a lot about the folks who really, really want to believe that such an article could be factual.

Like people who still listen to everything Alex Jones tells them?

[BlueStreak]

And, yep. Even though in this case I failed to check my source, it does sound plausible given her comments of the past. Doesn't it?

[whell]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

At least the Currant SAYS they are 'The Global Satirical Newspaper of Record.'

Fox claims they tell the truth, and then gets RW folk all excited about 'Obama putting the Marines in Girly Hats.' So you can't say it's just liberals folks who buy into false stories that stroke their preconceptions.

Hey, someone has to balance the gibberish the spews forth from MSNBC.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by whell

Hey, someone has to balance the gibberish the spews forth from MSNBC.

I am against lying propaganda altogether. I am not for a 'balancing' of it.

[BlueStreak]

You mean the gibberish that's a constant source of embarrassment for the Republican Party?

Personally, I prefer Stewart and Colbert. It's satire as well. Biting satire, that is. Because it's usually true.

[Charles]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

And, yep. Even though in this case I failed to check my source, it does sound plausible given her comments of the past. Doesn't it?

Fake but accurate?

Chas

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by Charles

Fake but accurate?

Chas

Kurt Vonnegut said that he preferred fiction to journalism, because he felt that he could present more truth about the human race in fiction than in commentary.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Charles]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Kurt Vonnegut said that he preferred fiction to journalism, because he felt that he could present more truth about the human race in fiction than in commentary.

Regards,

D-Ray

I can appreciate that, but it's a long way from attributing false statements to someone. Satire aside, that's simply being dishonest.

Hardly cricket, would you not agree?

Chas

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by Charles

I can appreciate that, but it's a long way from attributing false statements to someone. Satire aside, that's simply being dishonest.

Hardly cricket, would you not agree?

Chas

It's not cricket if BlueStreak knew the sayings were fictional satire, but deliberately presented them as true nonetheless. Is that what you mean to suggest?

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by Charles

I can appreciate that, but it's a long way from attributing false statements to someone. Satire aside, that's simply being dishonest.

Hardly cricket, would you not agree?

Chas

I think if satire is identified as satire, it is certainly cricket. When comics on Saturday Night Live act in the role of the President or Sarah Palin, I'm sure the audience realizes that the dialogue is not the actual words of the person who is the object of the satire. The satirical publications do the same thing that the script writers do. They create something that is close enough to something that the satirized person would say to connect the humor to reality.

Regards,

D-Ray