Esquire removes Jeff Jarvis satire after legal threat


#1

[Read the post]


#2

I need an attorney.

No, you need to chill out.


#3

I thought the piece was quite good, actually. But some people do get a bit upset when they realise they can’t tell satire from the stuff they actually write.


#4

The cruz of the matter, right here.


#5

Did someone say “moon lawyer”?


#6

And not a corner kasich either. Reality often trumps satire.


#7

CoughBoingBoingStoreAdCopyCough


#8

I think the article was hillaryous, but some people can’t take a good natured bern


#9

A smoldering 1980s Ornella Muti can be my Moon Lawyer any day…


#10

Don’t worry, we will dispatch War Rocket Ajax to bring back your body.


#11

This guy has been harassing Jeff Jarvis for four years. Furthermore Esquire buried the satire tag way at the bottom, they made no attempt to make this appear as satire or in any way make it clear that Jeff Jarvis wasn’t responsible for this. They failed to do anything to alert the reader that Jeff Jarvis didn’t write this. Furthermore Jeff did not pursue any actual legal action.

Esquire failed at journalism. Attack the appropriate people for this, not the victim.


#12

Are you satirizing or using your BB post to parody Jeff Jarvis right now?

The by-line = BY @PROFJEFFJARVIS, A WELL-KNOWN SATIRIST

Before you reached the text of the satire = Editor’s note: What follows is a piece of satire written in the voice of a satirical character.

Then there’s the actual body of work, which is clearly, clearly satire. Presuming the absence of pure idiocy wielded by the reader.

"The Innovation Party will…communicate only via push notifications to smartphones."
stands out particularly well, but it’s rich in examples of ludicrous beyond what could be expected from the drab subject chosen.

I mean really bro. I prefer to think that you are the satirist, succeeding at channeling the purported “victim” very, very well :smile:


#13

Once it was edited it mentioned it was satire at the top, but that was not until Jeff Jarvis contacted them about this as they were passing it off as his work.


#14

But again, as per the article, there is no legal requirement it be marked as satire AT ALL. As for moral requirements, you have to be an out-and-out moron to fail to pick up the beat. By this standard Colbert can be sued by Trump for interviewing a cartoon version of Trump because the cartoon wasn’t clearly labeled as a satire.


#15

Careful, now, you sound disappointed. You can get put on a list for that.


#16

According to Popehat’s article, those changes were made after the fact; they weren’t in the version that Jeff Jarvis originally complained about.

I’m not saying that Jarvis is either legally or morally in the right here, but publishing an article under a fake byline is kinda douchey, even if it is satire. Sometimes there are no good guys.

Little bit of a tangent here, I think you’re giving smart people too much credit. Many, many smart people skim-read articles, especially here on the internet where we’re all suffering information overload. This article has entire paragraphs that could be taken completely seriously, out of context. Again, I’m not defending Jarvis, I’m just saying that if you think only room-temperature IQs can be mislead by skim-reading, you’re in for some disappointment.


#17

Woah there. Don’t be projecting. :neutral_face:

:slight_smile:


#18

in some big courtroom
"Your opening statement please."
“Professor Jeff Jarvis? More like Professor Dildo!”
"Case dismissed!“
court goes wild
"OOOOOHHH!!!”


#19

I can’t tell if our world is becoming progressively more ridiculous, or if satire is getting lazy.

Perhaps we are entering an age of self-ridicule, and can only be ruled by comically corrupt and dishonest hucksters…


#20

No, they weren’t passing it off thus, it was satire before having it plastered all over. Now, if they got you, if you read it and thought OMG Jeff WTF, I can understand. Everyone has felt bad for the large number of people who out themselves as not paying attention (or worse) on FB, tripping over onion articles. But beyond that, f’em.

Yah, but what occurs before it being taken down due to legal threats by someone who ought know better, after having the specific complaint responded to so well, is not the meat of it. That they took it down, that the threat was made, that’s the meat.

Now, both parties are assholes in their way, I agree. The edit should have been more than enough, even asking that, meh, there’s no crime and not too much harm in being thin-skinned and whiny.

The taking down was assholes of both parties pointing at each other. One shouldn’t have asked, at least not with threats, and the other shouldn’t have complied, either because of threat or just because they should wear it once posted if they know it’s satire.

I love being surprised thus, it’s hilarious. And what if they are? No party is responsible for this outcome but the reader, and Jarvis is harmed by satire read as serious not at all. They were reading esquire, if they take their cues there Jarvis is practically protected to an extent if they walk away feeling less like doing business with him for that article.