False News, Absurd Reality Present Challenges For Satirists (apnews.com)

Between reality and the bubble of fantasy news stories, these are tough times for satirists. From a report on AP, submitted by several readers: The New Yorker magazine recently took steps to distinguish Andy Borowitz's humor columns from politically motivated false stories circulating online. His editor said the New Yorker was getting email asking if there was a difference between the two. So they changed the tagline for "The Borowitz Report" from "the news, reshuffled" to "not the news" on the magazine's website. When the stories are shared online, they are more clearly identified as satire, said Nicholas Thompson, editor of NewYorker.com. Borowitz's columns take the form of news stories, like one headlined this week, "Trump fires attorney general after copy of Constitution is found on her computer." One story last week: "Trump enraged as Mexican president meets with Meryl Streep instead." Thompson admits: "It's a weird problem to have."

Comments

Indeed!

[nospam007]

Real news lately look like a version of The Onion.

As a German satirist recently remarked, the US should look to Germany, they already did all of it.

They voted for a Chancellor that promised better infrastructure and he actually built many Autobahns and military airports. He made Germany great again, even bigger than their previous borders, at least for a couple of years. He had yuuuuuge approval numbers (on pain of death) and everybody liked him, if they were asked.
They also tried religious discrimination like nobody else, ever.

They also have done the Wall-building thingie a bit later, throughout the whole country and they even got the Russians to pay for it. (If you're lucky, you can even bid for a piece of that wall on eBay.)

Re: Indeed!

[hackwrench]

Hitler breathed air. You breathe air. Therefore you are literally Hitler. None of the things you explicitly mentioned that Hitler did are the thigs Hitler did with certainty wrong. You hint at things he did wrong, but killing millions of people who are of a certain religious pursuasion, is nothing substantiality like prioritizing one religion over another. You may have a valid criticism about the religious prioritizing, but trying to say it is of the same issue as what Hitler did is nonsense.

Re: Indeed!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hitler didn't start day 1 exterminating the Jews, Homosexuals, and Gypsies. That's the sort of things you build up to with steps like touting one religion over another, otherising a group(s) who "don't hold our values," that are taking our jobs, that are human filth, that must be tracked, that are subhuman, that must be removed so we can be great again.

Re:Indeed!

[Tablizer]

Real news lately look like a version of The Onion.

Trump actually prayed for better ratings for a show his trust owns at a national prayer breakfast. He out-Onioned the Onion.

Re: Indeed!

[Nidi62]

Hitler breathed air. You breathe air. Therefore you are literally Hitler. None of the things you explicitly mentioned that Hitler did are the thigs Hitler did with certainty wrong. You hint at things he did wrong, but killing millions of people who are of a certain religious pursuasion, is nothing substantiality like prioritizing one religion over another. You may have a valid criticism about the religious prioritizing, but trying to say it is of the same issue as what Hitler did is nonsense.

The argument is more that the themes Hitler played on to get to power are the exact same themes Trump has used. Vilification of "the other" (Jews vs Latinos/Muslims) as undermining the values and success of the country, proclaiming a desire to return the country to an idealized "golden age" (Third Reich vs Make America Great Again), vowing to end treaties that have damaged the ability for the country to go and prevent the creation of jobs (Versailles vs.....NAFTA/free trade I guess?-Trump has really played up the negative effects these treaties have had on his power base), building up the "exceptionalism" of the majority of the powerbase and thereby heaping suspicion and scorn on "outsiders" (immigrants or those perceived to not be part of the superior members of the powerbase), and finally decrediting and sowing distrust toward the establishment and those deemed to be working with/acting as agents of the establishment ("Drain the swamp", MSM, "alternative facts).

Fascist, and authoritarian in general, leaders (assuming they haven't come into power through violent means such as revolution or coup) gain power through building up their powerbase, telling them that they are special, superior, and the backbone of the country while pointing towards a chosen enemy(sometimes internal, sometimes foreign) and using that enemy as the scapegoat for why the powerbase has been held down or otherwise been unable to achieve or capitalize off their innate superiority. Once that enemy is identified and targeted, the leader tries to identify himself as one of the people, part of the powerbase, then proclaims that he alone has the capability of removing the roadblocks and obstacles of the enemy and allowing the powerbase to finally achieve their heretofore unattainable (or lost) superiority. This is often accompanied by creating a cult of personality around the leader along with an inner circle whose job is to provide en echo chamber for the leader as well as make sure the information released to the public maintains the cult of personality and stays on message.

Re: Indeed!

[myowntrueself]

Hitler didn't start day 1 exterminating the Jews, Homosexuals, and Gypsies. That's the sort of things you build up to with steps like touting one religion over another, otherising a group(s) who "don't hold our values," that are taking our jobs, that are human filth, that must be tracked, that are subhuman, that must be removed so we can be great again.

In fact in 1933 Nazi Germany started sponsoring Jews to emigrate to Palestine. This went on until 1939 when the war made it logistically impossible. It was called 'The Transfer Program' and made the formation of the modern state of Israel possible.

So no, he didn't start exterminating Jews from day 1.

Re: Indeed!

[Nidi62]

But, in this case, the US voted against the candidate with a track record of warmongering and authoritarianism (three strikes ring a bell?). The comparisons would be more apt if we didn't choose Trump over an even MORE authoritarian candidate. How does that fit into the Hitler narrative?

Your post reminds me I forgot something else in my post, thanks. All criticism of the leader must immediately be deflected. It's really more of a subset of vilification of the other and part of discrediting the enemy. If you disagree with or criticize the leader then you must automatically be against him and therefore with the enemy. It doesn't help matters that in our current situation the leader is notoriously thin-skinned when it comes to criticism.

While you are trying to push a dichotomy that "the other person is bad, therefore we must be good", the reality was much closer to "one person is bad, the other is slightly less bad". Even if you align with the "slightly less bad" you have still chosen bad.

Re: Indeed!

[firewrought]

Funny enough, he was actually executing many of his supporters. The SA's/brownshirts helped Hitler rise to power; they were the Nazi party's own paramilitary wing.

However, they were also a political liability. As mostly working-class people (often left jobless in the lurch of the Great Depression), they wanted Hitler to follow thru on his promises of redistributing wealth. This brought them into the conflict with middle/upper classes and the army (which had deep root in the Prussian aristocracy). Taking out key SA leaders gained him massive approval from the army (which, as chancellor, he had not previously been able to control). Shortly after, he justified his action against "treasonous ringleaders" and passed retroactive legislation authorizing the killings.

History lesson

[PopeRatzo]

On April 28, 1945, the Italian people killed their fascist leader and then desecrated his corpse in a public square.

Re:History lesson

[bobbied]

Assisted by a foreign led invasion force. That guy wasn't going willingly and if you read history, fell into the wrong hands though a series of fortunate happenstances. Had he been a little bit more lucky, he would have escaped into exile with his family.

Not to mention... Shame what happened to his family.. Now that was totally uncalled for.

So, am I reading this right? You are advocating for similar activity today? If so, you are an idiot.. Death and destruction follow such activity just as sure as night follows dusk. It is the poor and innocent that pay the most.

Re:History lesson

[squiggleslash]

I didn't read a threat, just a warning to fascists that history hasn't shown positive outcomes for two of the three European examples. The other one, FWIW, killed himself in a bunker just after telling his underlings to destroy his country. Fascism takes a certain course, always towards destruction.

I'm not sure why it should be necessary to post this on Slashdot, or warn people in general. I think, really, a sizable number of Trump supporters are in denial about what he represents. Many - from experience - don't even follow the news, and had little idea of what he was before they voted for him, just looking at him as "Not Clinton."

Those in denial won't recognize the warning, because they don't want to believe that it applies. From their point of view, Trump is just another President. They've never heard of Bannon. On the odd occasion they've heard something worrying about Trump, it's been "balanced" by an exaggeration of something done by "the other side".

Will Trump end up hung on meathooks by an angry mob? I hope it won't go that far. I hope Congress will impeach him long before he can set up a Reichstag event that'll make him impossible to remove.

Re:History lesson

[bobbied]

Now that's just sad. Comparing Trump to Hitler? Seriously?

He may not be the model of decorum in his personal behavior and may have a brash personality that rubs folks who oppose him the wrong way, but that doesn't mean his policies are anywhere close to Hitler's or that the country is now in danger of falling into anything that resembles pre-WWII Germany. To even say such garbage cheapens history. This is like comparing the concentration camps where millions of Jews died to a summer camp for kids. It's offensive and shows both a lack of understand of history and current events and betrays the partisanship that drives all this pointless rhetoric used to divide the right from the left in this country.

The real problem though, is the truth is hard to hide and is becoming apparent. Trump nominates an "originalist" to the Supreme court, a guy who says that he must interpret the laws as they where INTENDED by the original authors and decide the issues based on that, not his personal feelings. Had Trump wanted to take over, he would need a judge who was free to decide cases based on political positions, not the law, because the law in this country pretty much precludes dictators from taking power.

Then there is the Executive Order issue.... Name ONE of Trump's orders that has attempted to expand the power of the presidency or make a new law? (Hint: there isn't one as of this writing). You won't find one. I encourage you to go read these orders and quote them here to prove me wrong. You can find them all on the White House's web site if you cannot find them elsewhere... (You won't find them on any news site I've found, including CNN, FOX or MSNBC, but you will find a LOT of commentary about them..) I think you will be surprised to learn that a lot of stuff you THINK is there, isn't. Go find the Muslim ban, I dare you to try because I know you will fail.

So, you have a choice... Back up your claims here with some kind of actual evidence from original sources, or take your partisanship and ugly talk and go away. Trump isn't "like" Hitler and claiming so makes it obvious you don't know history nor current events well enough to be listened too. Stop falling for all this garbage you are hearing, go to the original sources and think critically. Remember the press doesn't tell you things that don't generate advertising dollars, so the mundane and uninteresting stuff doesn't get air time, but violent protests and hyperbolae sure will. You got to dig a bit for the truth, but it's out there.

Re:History lesson

[dwillden]

Trump is just another President, Bannon is irrelevant.

Unlike Hitler and Mussolini Trump faces an insurmountable obstacle to becoming a true tyrant and dictator. The Constitution and the designed in Checks and Balances. Hitler was able to achieve his position of power due to great flaws in the design of the government of the Weimar republic. There was nothing to stop him when as Chancellor the President died and he just took over the office. Further He came into office with his own private military/police force that engaged in the more dubious acts of his government.

There is no means for Trump to seize more power in our government. And he does not have a private military/police force to enforce his will. Additionally Trump is not beloved of the GOP establishment. That means neither side of the aisle in the legislative branch really trusts him. So far he is just fulfilling campaign promises so he mostly has their support. But should he start straying he will lose that support in a hurry. Neither party trusts him. (That's actually good, it means he will have to negotiate to get the stuff he's promising that require laws to be passed.) Neither party will stand for it if he were to try to exceed his constitutional authorities and limits.

Trump is not Hitler. He can't be. Hitler couldn't have been Hitler under our form of government. At most he could have been FDR and Interned citizens (but not exterminated them).

Re:History lesson

[davidwr]

If you are advocating assassination, this is wrong in so many ways.

This man is our duly elected President.

We have a functioning court system which has already put some of his possibly-illegal orders on hold pending legal review.

We have a duly-elected, functioning Congress with the power to impeach him for "high crimes and misdemeanors."

We will have elections in two years which can elect a new House of Representatives and replace 1/3 of the Senate. This new Congress will have the power to impeach him for any impeachable offense he has made since taking office.

In short, unless or until the soapbox, the ballot box, and the jury box (impeachment process) are all impossible (e.g. a President prevents elections or effectively suspends free speech/press/assembly/etc. - neither of which I see happening in the lifetime of anyone alive today unless an armed insurrection or state-government-led secession effort happens first) we should all avoid the ammo box and stay withing the bounds of legal methods to protest government decisions that we do not like.

A reminder to anyone who contemplates violating the law in the name of civil disobedience - whether it is something "minor" like blocking a street or something major like high treason/assassination: Civil disobedience may be morally justified in certain circumstances only to the extent that 1) it is a last resort (use the other 3 boxes first - the "soapbox" is not a license to block traffic) and 2) you are willing to accept the legal consequences of your actions, specifically, being arrested, going to trial, and, if convicted, accepting the final (after appeals are exhausted) sentence handed down by a properly-functioning court system.

A far better way to handle things is
* write your lawmakers and encourage others to do the same,
* publish well-written, convincing arguments that speak against Trump's proposals and encourage others to do the same,
* peaceably assemble and peaceably protest, and encourage others to do the same,
* find and recruit good, solid candidates to run for local, state, and national office, and
* do the other things that have been a hallmark of the American Experiment for well over two centuries.

Re:History lesson

[iceaxe]

Now that's just sad. Comparing Trump to Hitler? Seriously?

Unfortunately, for many people this seems entirely appropriate, especially those who fall into one of the many groups of people who feel threatened by Trump and his power base. And yes, I mean threatened like concentration camps and gas chambers. The first has happened in the USA before, and the jubilant hatred coming from many Trump supporters renders the second sadly believable.

He may not be the model of decorum in his personal behavior and may have a brash personality that rubs folks who oppose him the wrong way, but that doesn't mean his policies are anywhere close to Hitler's or that the country is now in danger of falling into anything that resembles pre-WWII Germany. To even say such garbage cheapens history.

History is the measuring stick, and while Trump doesn't yet measure up (down?) to Hitler, and hopefully never will, it is entirely appropriate to do the measuring and then speak and act to prevent bad things if possible.

This is like comparing the concentration camps where millions of Jews died to a summer camp for kids.

No, it's like comparing the vile spew of Nazis to the vile spew of Trump and the even viler spew of many of his supporters, and finding them disturbingly similar, even though I agree the actions are orders of magnitude different so far.

It's offensive and shows both a lack of understand of history and current events and betrays the partisanship that drives all this pointless rhetoric used to divide the right from the left in this country.

The "right" has been dividing itself from the "left" and vice versa in the USA since long before the current political parties existed. Indeed, the political parties themselves have swapped sides, no doubt seeking greener pastures in their quest for power independent of any so-called values. I abhor such oversimplified labels as right and left, but those are your terms. Both major parties are coalitions of wildly disparate interest groups, banding together in the hope of gaining enough power to force their narrow goals on everyone, and if they have to go along with the [insert orthogonal interest] wackos, so be it.

The real problem though, is the truth is hard to hide and is becoming apparent. Trump nominates an "originalist" to the Supreme court, a guy who says that he must interpret the laws as they where INTENDED by the original authors and decide the issues based on that, not his personal feelings. Had Trump wanted to take over, he would need a judge who was free to decide cases based on political positions, not the law, because the law in this country pretty much precludes dictators from taking power.

Remind me who gets to decide what the original authors intended, without injecting any personal perspective.

Then explain to me why the original authors included an amendment process if they never intended anything to change and adapt with the times.

I am right royally sick of the idea that the US Constitution is scripture handed down verbatim by the almighty, never to be questioned or altered, especially by someone who has a different opinion. It is and was a compromise, a word apparently out of favor in these times.

For that matter, I am right royally sick of a Supreme Court that is utterly and absolutely partisan, such that the opinions of most justices can often be predicted before the cases are presented based entirely on the political positions of the presidents that appointed them. I don't trust any of them.

Then there is the Executive Order issue.... Name ONE of Trump's orders that has attempted to expand the power of the presidency or make a new law? (Hint: there isn't one as of this writing). You won't find one. I encourage you to go read these orders and quote them here to prove me wrong. You can find them all on the White House's we

Absurd reality

[burtosis]

I believe the term is now "alternative fact therapist", not satirist.

Not a problem for satirists

[The-Ixian]

This is not a problem for satirists. I would say that this is a golden age for satirists.

This is a problem for news outlets that also have a satire column.

Re:Not a problem for satirists

[Spazmania]

As the satirist who runs whitehouse.net, I disagree. Satire has to be something that seems in character with what's happening but definitely wouldn't actually happen. If it's not in character, it's not funny. If there's a realistic chance it could happen, it's scary not funny.

Trump makes it really hard to find that sweet spot where it's something amusing you could actually see Trump doing yet definitely not something Trump will end up doing next week.

Re:Today satire requires Marxism

[Layzej]

The best satire today is simply to publish official communications verbatim. Some good examples are:

McSweeneys "My very good black history month tribute to some of the most tremendous black people"

or Tina Fey as Sarah Palin

The politicians are writing the material. The satirists just need to point out how rediculous it is by republishing it.

Distasteful

[Oswald McWeany]

It's distasteful that so many people are bashing Trump and talking about Fake News at a time when events like the Bowling Green Massacre take place every day.

Can we all come together please, forget our partisanship and different religions, and agree to offer a prayer to all those that died in Bowling Green like good Baptists. May they rest in peace and go to Baptist heaven.

/r/nottheonion

[brewthatistrue]

Looking at some headlines from https://www.reddit.com/r/notth...
we find

"Stop making memes of our dead gorilla, Cincinnati Zoo pleads"

"Spotify offers Barack Obama a job as 'President of Playlists'"

"People have paid a company more than $80,000 to dig a hole for absolutely no reason"

"Venezuela's currency value depends largely on one guy at an Alabama Home Depot"

"Anti-Defamation League Declares Pepe the Frog a Hate Symbol"

"Pilot 'congratulates' passengers for drinking all alcohol on plane"

"Nebraska flag flew upside down at Capitol for 10 days and 'nobody noticed,' says senator who wants design change"

etc.

Re:Some of the best satire

[RobotRunAmok]

When I heard, at first cursorily, about the Berkeley riots *against* free speech, I was certain someone was describing a new South Park plot or Onion jibe. Imagine my surprise...

Re:Some of the best satire

[spire3661]

Im sorry, i thought this was a nation of laws. What happened to 'I may hate what you say, but i will defend to the DEATH your right to say it'. The consequences you mention are supposed to be CIVILIZED REACTIONS, not barbarism and lawlessness. If you throw a fist at me, I might toss hot lead back at you. Maybe we should just be civilized and agree to disagree instead of someone getting hurt.

Re:Some of the best satire

[liquid_schwartz]

You don't get to be free from the consequences of your speech. Free Speech only means the government can't (or legally shouldn't) censor you. It does not mean that if you speak Nazi-like remarks that you won't get a fist thrown at you.

Because if free speech means, to your example, getting beaten by a mob then it isn't very free. Redefining free speech to fit your mob justice mentality is just an example of a lack of critical thinking. If speaking your mind means you get fired, beaten, black listed, or other serious consequences then speech isn't very free now is it? There was a time when the prevailing logic was everyone is entitled to their own opinion. You didn't have to agree with other's opinions but it was their choice and it was considered rude to insist others think exactly like you. Now we live in times of fear, when any stray comment may get you into trouble. This will only go on so long before it boils over.

Why is this so hard for conservatives and Trump voters to understand?

I guess I could ask why following the law and keeping your hands to yourself is so hard for liberals to understand. Or why a competing view is so threatening that you must attack it with violence. My observation is that violence is the first resort of the ignorant. Your observation is that it is a fitting form of enforcing your group think. Is that really who you are and what you want to be known for xevioso?

Re:Some of the best satire

[MightyMartian]

Precisely. If everyone had just stayed away, then Milo would have largely ended up talking to himself.

Unless, of course, the protesters' real fear is that the house would have been packed, and the violence wasn't as much about preventing Milo from speaking as it was to prevent anyone who wanted to listen from hearing (maybe even some of them). I find the latter in some ways far more disturbing than the former.

As for myself, I'm secure enough in my own views that I can go to right-wing online forums and read the posts, though I don't really often contribute. As much as I find many of the ideas expressed range from the naive and absurd to the outright vile and bigoted, I think it's still important that I not be utterly ignorant of what other people believe. And it does happen that you will find someone who is intelligent on these forums and he'll present an actual challenge to my preconceptions, that forces me to re-evaluate my own views. The fact is that no ideology has an absolute lock on the Truth.

Re:Some of the best satire

[liquid_schwartz]

You mean like this article: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/a... Yet if I turn the tables and ask for a free space from black people then I'm a horrible racist. Another example is my Google search turned up a slew of "Dear White People" style articles. There's even a movie. These types of things are only directed at white people in general as all other people are protected classes. I wonder what would happen if there was an article like "Dear Black People, stop murdering at 7x the rate of everyone else" (fact if you're curious) or "Dear Gay people, stop adding ever more letters after your special interest groups". Hmm, probably would get called every bad name in the PC playbook. I'm a fairly simple person, one set of rules that everyone uses sounds pretty reasonable. If saying a given thing about one group would be racist then saying it about another should be held to that same standard.