Sorry, Jim, I disagree.
The power of satire is in its ability to string the reader along until the absurdity of the premise is exposed. Good quality satire, such as that written by John Semens, often does just that.
To be effective satire should never be obvious. Labeling it as such caters to the superficial, uninformed reader. We are better than that and should have a higher standard of expectation for our readers.
Thanks for the alternate point of view.
As another poster said up thread, things are so absurd these days it’s almost impossible to read some articles and know if they are satire or not
If this is s serious news site, and I believe it is, I don’t see a problem with labeling satire for what it is.
I’m sure you can still read the article and recognize the absurdity of it, even if you knew up front it was satire.
I know I can.
I agree with you. Several times I have been reading an article and then thinking “....wait a minute....”, then realizing that my chain is being pulled.
Few comics start out with the punch line.....
If there are any indicators, put them at the END of the article.
I know what you are saying and I used to agree with it because I love a good satire that almost fools me until I get into the middle of it. But, I have discovered that there are a lot of people whose brains are just more analytical/logical/left brain…call it what you like... and find it difficult to process absurdity and see the humor at the same time. Instead of laughing at it, it just makes them angry. So… this is not a slam on those people. It is just a way we can celebrate our diversity! (That last sentence was satire.)
I totally disagree. I’m not a fan of satire or any other mode of communication that is not straightforward and possibly misleading.
Yeah, sez you who only lives to kiss Greenfield’s butt.
I appreciate good satire. Thing is, most folks’ attempt at satire simply isn’t very good. In most cases I end up wanting the 30 seconds I wasted reading the article back.
From an analysis of "A Modest Proposal", the author states:
Swift’s decision to put off the actual suggestion of eating babies until several paragraphs into the piece makes his idea all the more arresting when it does come.
By the same token, it should be presented with the understanding that it IS satire. For example, people watch Saturday Night Live or MAD TV for the satire. They watch the nightly news for the lack of it. To slip satire into a format like FRs, where headlines summarize the content in a news format, is a little annoying.
I'm in the habit of looking at the source. If it's an intriguing headline but from Satire News (or whatever that is), WND, etc., I move on where if it had come from a local newspaper or such source, I'd have clicked on it.
I agree with you.
John has gotten me more than once which is what makes him so good.
Besides, I usually pay attention to the name of the author. Don’t we all?