I guess I don't have this sabbatical thing quite down, do I? But I wanted to point out something I found amusing. Salon is running an article today offering its humorous predictions for the Web in 2005. Among the chestnuts: Google is junking its virtual library project in favor of a virtual term-paper library due to demand from college students; a series of Enron-like scandals will plague the role-playing game world (not the companies that make the games, the companies inside the game); and that Dick Cheney, moved by that "Sorry Everybody" site, posts his own apology to the world for voting for himself. It was a great humorous read.
One item concerned a blog purportedly written by Ohio congressman-cum-erstwhile-presidential-candidate-cum-lawn-gnome Dennis Kucinich, which the article predicts will sweep Kucinich to political stardom. It's a funny idea, and the site itself is a pretty nifty and well-done spoof. Here's where it gets interesting, though... a number of readers apparently thought that it really was Kucinich's blog, and were leaving comments encouraging Dennis to keep up the good work.
Admittedly, it's an impressive parody. But one might think that a discerning reader might have been able to spot the fact that it was a phony. Such as the fact that a fifty-something public official is using phrases like, "Hola, compatriots! It's DeeJAYKay! My first post, just testin' the tires on this thing, will rap wit ya lates!" Or the fact that "Dennis" claims to have no children when the real Kucinich has a daughter. Or the fact that he's posting on Blogspot instead of, say, his own Web site. Or the fact that it's planted in the middle of a bunch of other obviously fake items. Nonetheless, a number of real people (I presume they haven't been going to the length of faking comments too) have presumed that Dennis Kucinich is really sharing his thoughts on this site. Some people even took the trouble of e-mailing Kucinich to check.
Now, the readership of Salon is, I'd wager, more educated and politically aware than the public at large. You'd figure that they would get the joke. Instead, we prove once again that unless humorous pieces have the words "THIS IS A JOKE" stamped across the top of them, there are people who will take them as real. Even smart people.
This could spell trouble for me, since I like to joke a lot. I'd always assumed that everyone was getting my jokes, but perhaps I'm wrong. Maybe I need to run a disclaimer. Something to think about.
After the sabbatical, though. Now I'm really going. Really. Seriously.
Posted by Fred at January 3, 2005 09:36 PMFred: Thank you -- so much -- for posting that.
Posted by: farhad manjoo at January 3, 2005 10:27 PMHi Farhad,
Thanks for writing in! I thought it was worth mentioning because of my growing concern about the future of satire. I think satire may be dying, not because no one can master the art or because people think it's too mean-spirited, but because too many people fail to recognize it as humor.
I never cease to be amazed by this. Remember that "unauthorized autobiography" Chuck Barris wrote a while back in which he claimed he led a double life as a CIA agent? People are still debating whether he really is. Nothing surprises me any more. Well, almost nothing.
Posted by: Mediocre Fred at January 3, 2005 10:53 PMI can tell you from personally dealing with three teenagers that sarcasm is far from dead. As for satire - what about "The Onion," "The Daily Show," "Mad TV" and "SNL?"
Posted by: Tripp at January 6, 2005 02:35 PM