I wonder if they're practicing modern journalism strategies that are worried about libel suits? Or it's so obviously satire to them that they don't need to clar

I wonder if they're practicing modern journalism strategies that are worried about libel suits? Or it's so obviously satire to them that they don't need to clarify? When they write: > However, the investigation discovered that despite his experience, he had never practised stall recovery on the Cessna 185. The pilot had no knowledge of the aircraft’s stall behaviour at all. His opinion was that the Cessna 185 simply didn’t stall. In writing targeted at lay readers, I would expect this to be followed with something like "This opinion, of course, is complete lunacy. All aircraft can stall. Practicing stall recovery should be a normal part of pilot training."