Satire, Sarcasm and Fake News

Believability is the essence of responsible news media.

   Satire is a potent literary weapon, and in skilled hands it can bring about social and political change even as it entertains and educates.
   When well done, satire can translate a complex issue to a level easily understandable by all. But when done by the less skilled and mean-spirited, satire can become merely a vicious attack, with no entertainment or educational value, and only ignites and fans the flames of hatred.
   At the same time, satirists may antagonize their targets without arousing entertainment for a general audience. When this happens, particularly if the target is politically powerful, satirists risk persecution, prosecution and prison even if they have broken no law. In some countries, dictatorial regimes have enacted laws banning any criticism of government, making satire a felony.
   Powerful people can be very thin-skinned and super-sensitive to disagreement, which to them is criticism and a personal attack. This is why the framers of the U.S. Constitution put in writing a guarantee that there be no law restricting freedom of speech or of the press.
   Realistically, however, there are some restrictions that were already in place before the Constitution was written, and remain in place today. A major such restriction is the law of libel, which protects a person from false and malicious attacks that damage a reputation.
   Yet even here there are exceptions. One of these deals with open debate on issues of serious interest to the public. This is why lawyers in open court can say the outrageous things they do in search of truth. A similar standard applies in Congress, and during political campaigns.
   In addition, those who become public figures may also become targets of criticism simply because they are public figures.
  Satire and sarcasm often work together to attract attention and point out flaws in a political process or the actions of a prominent individual. It's called "fair comment."
   In literature, the tactic goes as far back as Geoffrey Chaucer, William Shakespeare and Jonathon Swift.
   Currently, the TV performers on "Saturday Night Live" use satire regularly to comment on political candidates of every persuasion. Some, however, are more sensitive to criticism than others. So biting have the comedians become in some of their skits that some targets of their satire have threatened to sue. They view satire as a personal attack, and want to loosen libel laws so they can win money.
   Realistically, satirical sketches can indeed be viewed as personal attacks. But some people just can't take a joke. And the more they protest, the more they likely they will be targets of additional satire, plus sarcasm from media commentators.
   Mixed in with all this is the increase of fake news, or false information masquerading as legitimate news reports. Those who do it may defend it as satire or sarcasm, but at root the items are no more than deliberate attempts to undermine political opposition by spreading misleading and downright false information.
   Viewed that way, the spread of false reports presented as news, often mimicking legitimate news sources, is a deliberate attempt to sabotage and destroy someone's reputation.
   Hiding behind the First Amendment and thereby claiming immunity from prosecution in the name of promoting vigorous debate, all while remaining anonymous, is tantamount to cowardice.

   There are no controls on electronic social media anymore than there are on back fence gossip.
   It has been said that a lie can fly around the world before truth wakes up in the morning. Currently, liars have access to an interconnected network of computers that does indeed spread fake news around the world, literally in seconds. Truth is thus relegated to a constant game of catch-up.
   Awake and alert news professionals now must beat back the pulp of lies with documented truth. And to the extent that providers of social media say they only build the platforms and are not monitors or editors of the written content, they become part of the problem.
   Technically, they may be correct. They are not editors or censors. But they may have to assume some responsibility for the misinformation spread from their platforms, just as newspaper owners are responsible for what appears in their print pages.
   But until that problem is resolved, Internet subscribers, readers and views of material on social media web sites have a responsibility to judge the reliability of the source, just as they decide on the believability quotient of newspapers, magazines and TV programs.