Lies, Damned Lies and Internet Satire

Much has been made lately of the fact that a group of film makers were able to persuade several British tabloids to publish a number of fake stories about celebrities. Over a two week period The Mirror, The Sun, The Daily Star and Daily Express had all run completely fabricated stories about the likes of Avril Lavigne, Russell Brand and Amy Winehouse, pitched to them by the makers of the film Starsuckers, posing as members of the public. Some of the stories were subsequently picked up by other media outlets and reproduced, as fact, around the world. For those of us who have spent the last few years writing satire on the web, the only reaction to the news that much of the world's media is happy to print patently fake news stories without ever checking their origin, ran along the lines of 'No shit, Sherlock'. There's hardly a satire website out there that hasn't had at least one of its stories picked up by a 'legitimate' news source and reported as if it were factual. Speaking personally, I've had numerous TV researchers contact me trying to arrange interviews with various fictional characters from stories I've run in The Sleaze. I've twice been invited onto TV discussion programmes, once with stalker-to-the-stars Cynthia Flitter from Diary of a Stalker, and once with Maurice Gink, the purveyor of home-made sex machines from Suburban Sex Machines. Lest anyone think that such requests only come from low-rent independent production companies turning out low-budget tabloid-type 'documentaries' for cable and satellite channels, I was also invited onto a BBC local radio station to discuss the 'Canonisation for Cash' scandal related in Saints Alive.

But should we be pleased that we've succeeded in taking in the supposed professionals? Whilst I should probably feel flattered that my writing skills are apparently such that they can convince apparently intelligent media industry insiders that even the most ludicrous stories are true, I don't. Indeed, all of those invitations onto TV and radio shows simply make me feel depressed. Have journalistic standards really fallen so far that simply carrying out a Google search for a couple of key words vaguely related to the subject matter of the story you are working on, is what now passes for research? Are the critical faculties of researchers and journalists so poor that the fact that a story appears on a website entitled The Sleaze doesn't start alarm bells ringing? In truth, is our 'success' actually down to laziness and incompetence on the part of journalists, rather than our skills as writers? I suppose that one's reaction to this issue is dictated, in large part, by how you perceive the role of satire. If you believe that part of our mission as satirists is to expose the shortcomings and stupidity of mainstream news media, (which is a perfectly legitimate stance to take), then fooling them into regurgitating our lies as fact can be seen as a victory. My problem with this is that most of the time these recycled untruths remain unchallenged. The outlets which carry them rarely acknowledge their inaccuracy and leave them to be accepted as fact by their readers - and this is where the real problem lies. One thing that writing satire on the web has taught me is that a frighteningly large number of readers accept what they read at face value, just so long as it appears in a vaguely professional looking format. They rely upon those presenting it to them - journalists, researchers and editors - to ensure its veracity before publication. Sadly, it seems that these supposed guardians of truth are themselves, just as credulous as their readerships. So, you'll excuse me if I don't celebrate if I see one of my stories carried by a newspaper - it will simply be more proof that we are living in a world where the 'facts' and 'truth' are no longer synonymous.