UnNews talk:Poll: Most Tea-Partiers distrust government

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

edit One-sided

I enjoyed the irony in this story (Tea Party members obviously don't have weapons), but overall, I found it too similar to the ridicule that columnists offer in total seriousness. To me, the funniest thing about the Tea Party is its proud refusal to be organized--a recent AP wire on the movement and its unwillingness to share mailing lists (when it hasn't lost them by putting them on a single laptop) was the funniest thing recently.

Policymakers focusing on the Tea Party are at least as ridiculous as the Tea Party itself. Likewise, in your earlier piece, Obama playing golf while Poland mourned is at least as ridiculous as Sean Hannity criticizing Obama for it (but also, Hannity's bit about Obama "not creating jobs" goes against Hannity's usual arguments that the stimulus didn't create jobs and that the government can't create jobs).

When I want to write a screed (such as UnNews:Bill Clinton now says "words matter"), I take care to poke at both sides--in that case, digressing to ridicule Sarah Palin's appearance in Boston.

Merely copying talking points from the Daily Kos isn't UnNews, even if the points are clever. Instead, prove to us that everyone debating the issue is an idiot--and convince us that we're reading humor and not just a witty opinion piece. Spıke Ѧ 10:48 23-Apr-10

I didn't take any talking points from anywhere. That was all out of my brain.Sean Cashen 18:10, April 23, 2010 (UTC)
So, how do I add a way to make fun of liberals to it? Sean Cashen 18:17, April 23, 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you regarding it as being too much of an opinion peice rather than parody news, but I disagree with you that it shouldn't be too "one-sided". Satire doesn't need Fairness Doctrine standards. -- Kip > Talk Works Puzzle Potato Dry Brush CUN Icons-flag-us 17:50, Apr. 23, 2010

Sorry, Sean! my last paragraph was meant as an example but does read like an accusation.

Kip, no one needs the Fairness Doctrine, neutrality via a Communications Commission. But I try for a little of it in my pieces. Mark Steyn, subbing for Limbaugh today, is plenty funny, but it's humor as a delivery vehicle for an ideological message, and I'd like my humor to be received even by readers who don't want my ideology. There are enough Clinton-bashers (in other forums, I am one) that a paragraph on Palin lightens it up to try to put even Clinton supporters in the mood to laugh.

As for how you'd adapt an UnNews on the Tea Party to poke fun at the other side, my only suggestion is at the start of paragraph 2 above: interview some policymakers who are preoccupied with the Tea Party as opposed to...policy! Spıke Ѧ 18:58 23-Apr-10

edit Two-sided

Is this better? Sean Cashen 19:47, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

(I've reordered your remarks for easier start-to-end reading.) You did me one better; a failsafe way to ridicule the left in an article that ridicules the right is to poke fun at media bias. The result addresses my concern, though the sudden right turn is abrupt. Readers like Kip who don't mind imbalance might find the result less coherent. There is no single right answer. Spıke Ѧ 00:44 25-Apr-10
Personal tools