I really hate that it's gotten to this point, but sadly, on December 14th of 2016, I feel I must explain the differences between satire and fake news. Sadder yet, renowned satirist Andy Borowitz has now decided to include the words "NOT THE NEWS" front and center on each and every one of his articles, because apparently, we're too stupid to figure that out for ourselves (well, some of us).
I bring up Borowitz because, earlier today, a Facebook friend of mine commented on one of his articles, saying, "Fake news should be outlawed!" This prompted me to explain the differences between the two, in a condensed fashion, saying, "It's satire. If we went down that slippery slope, all comedy would be outlawed. There's a stark difference between 'fake news' with the intent of misinforming mass quantities of people to provide aid for a particular political agenda, and 'fake news' with the intent of stimulating thought and laughter by poking fun of the former and what is often believed by the former."
I later tweeted, "Dear Trumpkins:
The difference between satire & fake news is satire pokes fun at fake news while fake news distorts reality."
Fake news tries showcasing itself as actual news, attempting to trick people into believing their message. Satire tries showcasing itself as fake news, attempting to make people laugh and think about what they just read. A stand-up comedian making up a story to prompt laughter is quite different from a politician feeding on people's fears by lying to them in order to earn their votes come election day.
Let's think about this for a moment. Without satire, we'd be without The Daily Show, The Late Show, The Onion, and Saturday Night Live. Without fake news, however, we'd likely be without President-elect Donald Trump. Whether it be satire or fake news, taking such stories as factually accurate I think says more about the reader than the actual content of the articles. In any case, the two are not the same. It's not even an apples and oranges argument. It's more like an apples and bucket of fried chicken argument, for while satire pokes fun at fake news, fake news distorts reality.
I bring up Borowitz because, earlier today, a Facebook friend of mine commented on one of his articles, saying, "Fake news should be outlawed!" This prompted me to explain the differences between the two, in a condensed fashion, saying, "It's satire. If we went down that slippery slope, all comedy would be outlawed. There's a stark difference between 'fake news' with the intent of misinforming mass quantities of people to provide aid for a particular political agenda, and 'fake news' with the intent of stimulating thought and laughter by poking fun of the former and what is often believed by the former."
I later tweeted, "Dear Trumpkins:
The difference between satire & fake news is satire pokes fun at fake news while fake news distorts reality."
Fake news tries showcasing itself as actual news, attempting to trick people into believing their message. Satire tries showcasing itself as fake news, attempting to make people laugh and think about what they just read. A stand-up comedian making up a story to prompt laughter is quite different from a politician feeding on people's fears by lying to them in order to earn their votes come election day.
Let's think about this for a moment. Without satire, we'd be without The Daily Show, The Late Show, The Onion, and Saturday Night Live. Without fake news, however, we'd likely be without President-elect Donald Trump. Whether it be satire or fake news, taking such stories as factually accurate I think says more about the reader than the actual content of the articles. In any case, the two are not the same. It's not even an apples and oranges argument. It's more like an apples and bucket of fried chicken argument, for while satire pokes fun at fake news, fake news distorts reality.
Comments
Post a Comment