Satire for the masses

[Matthew P. Wiener]

In article <12...@mtx5a.UUCP> m...@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) writes:
>> A lot of people seem to be having trouble recognizing satire. . . .
>
>Sorry, weemba, the problem is not with good satire.

Agreed.

> This
>is bad, because it means that our bad satire is taken as non-satire. And THIS
>is very bad. Very, very bad because it can cause some awful hurt feelings.
>Did you see the ``We're out to get you, Cheryl'' article? Satire MUST be read
>as satire, even if it is not written as satire. Hence the need for the smiley.

Hence my article! People will continue to write bad satire and leave off :-)s.
I was asking people to listen to that little warning bell --GONG-- in the back
of their heads, in order to save themselves confusion and hurt. Not only did
I see the article mentioned, I remember the followup stated that as there were
no :-)s involved, it obviously wasn't satire, hence the flame. (I should point
satire isn't always humorous.)

ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720

[Jeff Winslow]

In article <12...@mtx5a.UUCP> m...@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) writes:

>Sorry, weemba, the problem is not with good satire. Art Buchwald and
>Andy Rooney write good satire and humor. They don't need to use smiley
>faces. Their articles smile for them.

It's not just that. When you read a column by Buchwald, you expect satire.
When you read any random article on the net, you may be expecting any
number of things, but satire probably isn't one of them. (Although
there are exceptions with certain contributors.)

Jeff Winslow