A word about posting satire

September 29, 2014 | Jim Robinson

[Jim Robinson]

No, FR is not trying to quash satire. However, it should be clearly labeled as such in the title. Some people seem to think it's great trickling our readers into falling for satire. It's not. A lot of people come to FR and scan the headlines clicking on articles of interest. If they're not familiar with the author or source, they may be misled and may even pass it on to others. No thanks.

If you post satire, please label it as "satire' in the title.

Thanks

[humblegunner]

I’ve never much messed with Semmens.

But by God I’m almost convinced to start.

[workerbee]

Gee, now someone who enjoys Semmens' work is "fawning"?

It's bemusing to see the level of jealousy you obviously harbor toward him - the more indignant and abusive you get, the more obvious it is.

[Finny]

Yep, I agree. I also get annoyed when it's just a video clip or somebody wants a blog hit. But you're right it's amazing how you read the headline and click on the story to discover that the headline is pure bunk compared to the content!

But with satire, as long as it's either in the title or in the source, the way John clearly does it, I have zero problem with it.

[mrsmith]

Yay! Another mention of Iowahawk.
BTW: a recent tweet from him:

“
David Burge @iowahawkblog · Sep 26

Journalism is about covering important stories. With a pillow, until they stop moving.

“

[humblegunner]

You keep on “seeing” things regarding someone I never much noticed before today.

[CWCoop]

Well, then we have to mark everything from the lamestream media as satire? :)

[Col Freeper]

David Burge @iowahawkblog · Sep 26

Journalism is about covering important stories. With a pillow, until they stop moving.

LOL, Damn that Dude is sharp!

Thanks for posting that mrsmith.

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks Finny. It should be noted, I’m not trying to make a statement about any forum participant’s actions. I am simply trying to express my thoughts on the issue in general terms.

John, if it seemed like one of my posts was focused on you, it wasn’t intentional.

I do agree that title or source should take care of it, but I would appreciate it if mention was made in the title, or at the very least in the body of the first post, pre response 1. Even a mention in post one would be okay.

I don’t mind being led astray as long as I have am notified before I respond that the work is non-factual.

[Political Junkie Too]

Sure, like they didn't know where it was going.

It's not really digging, only a few seconds.

The thread was from 2012.

-PJ

[Finny]

Journalism is about covering important stories. With a pillow, until they stop moving. --- David Burge @iowahawkblog · Sep 26

BUMP TO THE TOP.

[KC Burke]

I’ve never much messed with Semmens

Exactly my point. On your heroic campaign against the abusive form of blog-pimps, you have been more that fair with John's articles. I have seen it as it transpired.

How you got to be a focus is beyond me.

I think there are a few that think your vendetta is ill conceived, but I looked up Man-on-a-Mission in the dictionary and there was your picture.

I hope to see a lot of John and also a lot of you for many years to come.

[Revel]

Once Upon a time I could be thrown off real easy with satire. Now it is not often that I don’t figure it out. I guess in that sense I have learned a lot about not being so gullible and really thinking about the feasibility of what is being said. Now I will say “wait a minute” and go check the source.

What confused me about the latest one posted by John was that I knew that he posted as satire and yet part of the story was true because I checked the source a few days ago before I sent the original(real) article to a friend. Reading the comments I was surprise that many people were being taken in by it and others were clearly pointing out that it was satire- Yet no one made mention that part of the story was true. Since I base a lot of my understanding on the intelligent comments of the readers then I was a little confused by what I didn’t see in the comments.

John actually mailed me to let me know that he Bases his stories on real stories, and just attempts to point out what may be the real motives by using satire.

The exercise take me back to my school days and some of the reading comprehension tests from back in the day. I consider these satire articles to be a kind of test and even a learning experience that I am actually better off for by having completed them.

If there were no reasonable way to figure out that I was being fed satire then I would be upset of course. Because then the article would simply be a lie. And lies should not be posted on a reputable site.

[mikrofon]

[skinkinthegrass]

YAY! You! 😆

[steve86]

One time I posted “Mexican Grey Wolves being introduced to Island of Hawaii by Federal Fish and Game” and a lot of people fell for it. A couple got really mad.

[RckyRaCoCo]

"The problem with quotes on the internet is it's difficult to tell whether they're accurate or not." ~ Abraham Lincoln

[berdie]

OMG! I will laugh all night over that and will now sign out. We have hit the high point of the thread.

[nothingnew]

Good move Jim. Don't want no trickling goin' on here.

FMCDH(BITS)

[Responsibility2nd]

I’d rather read John’s writings than some of the tin foil hat sites certain Freepers post.

_______________________________________________________________________________

+1

It takes real talent for Semmens to write his satire. Just how much talent does it take to be a cranky old coot yelling at bloggers?