3 ms·

The Onion doesn't try to be perceived as real: it's satire. He wanted you to believe his story was true. One is a joke, the other is fraud.

Clubber 10y ago
Did you really believe there was a warehouse full of Clinton ballots? Do you think everyone knows the Onion is satire?
- sbuttgereit 10y ago
  Those questions are irrelevant to your first question. You asked what is the difference between the guy in the story and the Onion. That answer doesn't depend on people being cautious or rational about what they chose to believe. It only depends on the intent of the writers. In one case, you have the intent of humor, not at all immoral by itself, though perhaps tasteless from time to time. The other case you have the intent to deceive, to fake reality with the goal of changing people actions: deeply immoral. And for the record: I never heard the Clinton story before this... I find most the news is written for emotional engagement and actually doesn't help to inform me in any important way, so why stress myself out with it? I read very little news... haven't watched a local news broadcast in decades. The recent election was the perfect display of this deficiency. For the Onion, there are documented instances of people taking it seriously... but what can I say? There are documented instances of people doing and believing just about everything. I don't bother with them anymore than I do with "the news".
  - Clubber 10y ago
    >The other case you have the intent to deceive, to fake reality with the goal of changing people actions: deeply immoral. Here's a blurb. Real news, tabloid, Onion, or fake news? >Roger Stone — the D.C. insider who's exposed some of Washington's deepest secrets — was targeted for assassination! That's the shocking claim by the popular author and consultant to Donald Trump, who says that even the Center for Disease Control determined that he was poisoned! He's now gone public with his story of feeling stricken with a “routine stomach virus” in Dec. 2016 — before suddenly becoming exceedingly ill.” I guess the point I'm trying to make is this fake news phenomenon is nothing new. The only difference is one guy was able to make such a large splash.
- raisedbyninjas 10y ago
  Since the purpose of satire is to criticize or ridicule ideas. When people don't recognize satire, the writers have failed in their job. The only people I see labeling this site as satire are backsplaining after it was exposed. According to the article, even the creator doesn't claim that. I think satire falls into that group of endeavors where when you fail so thoroughly, you're automatically out of the group. An executioner who only non-fatally botches executions is another example.

Clubber 10y ago

Did you really believe there was a warehouse full of Clinton ballots? Do you think everyone knows the Onion is satire?

sbuttgereit 10y ago
Those questions are irrelevant to your first question. You asked what is the difference between the guy in the story and the Onion. That answer doesn't depend on people being cautious or rational about what they chose to believe. It only depends on the intent of the writers. In one case, you have the intent of humor, not at all immoral by itself, though perhaps tasteless from time to time. The other case you have the intent to deceive, to fake reality with the goal of changing people actions: deeply immoral. And for the record: I never heard the Clinton story before this... I find most the news is written for emotional engagement and actually doesn't help to inform me in any important way, so why stress myself out with it? I read very little news... haven't watched a local news broadcast in decades. The recent election was the perfect display of this deficiency. For the Onion, there are documented instances of people taking it seriously... but what can I say? There are documented instances of people doing and believing just about everything. I don't bother with them anymore than I do with "the news".
- Clubber 10y ago
  >The other case you have the intent to deceive, to fake reality with the goal of changing people actions: deeply immoral. Here's a blurb. Real news, tabloid, Onion, or fake news? >Roger Stone — the D.C. insider who's exposed some of Washington's deepest secrets — was targeted for assassination! That's the shocking claim by the popular author and consultant to Donald Trump, who says that even the Center for Disease Control determined that he was poisoned! He's now gone public with his story of feeling stricken with a “routine stomach virus” in Dec. 2016 — before suddenly becoming exceedingly ill.” I guess the point I'm trying to make is this fake news phenomenon is nothing new. The only difference is one guy was able to make such a large splash.
raisedbyninjas 10y ago
Since the purpose of satire is to criticize or ridicule ideas. When people don't recognize satire, the writers have failed in their job. The only people I see labeling this site as satire are backsplaining after it was exposed. According to the article, even the creator doesn't claim that. I think satire falls into that group of endeavors where when you fail so thoroughly, you're automatically out of the group. An executioner who only non-fatally botches executions is another example.