More Hoax Site Web Pollution

Not funny, jerks.

Not funny, jerks.

Conservative sites are mocking the New York Times for linking to a hoax site story about California instituting a ban on the future sale and ownership of all .45 ACP ammo. The link was included in an editorial calling for states to be more aggressive in banning types of weapons, magazines  and ammunition. “Ammunition” linked to the fake story on a site called “The National Report.” That particular story is neither particularly satiric, not is it funny; it’s just a lie. But I’m sure the staff is really proud of themselves, fooling the Times (though as Glenn Reynolds pointed out on Instapundit, the Times itself is looking more and more like a hoax  itself).

Admittedly, having never used The National Report before, whoever found the link should have vetted it. If they just scrolled down a bit from the story the Times used, they would have seen such obvious fake headlines as “Good Cop Will Speak Up Once He’s Witnessed His 15th Unlawful Killing,” “Koko the Gorilla Just Endorsed Donald Trump for President,” and “Starbucks Reveals Plans To Open New Chain Of Gun-friendly Cafés.” Or maybe they believed those too.

I’m not going to mock the Times: these hoax sites are all unethical unless they make their satirical status clear to all readers, on the home page, up front, unmistakably. The ethical objective is humor; the objective of fooling readers and hopefully legitimate news sources is neither funny, nor ethical.

Conservative sites that cheer such deceptions because they have ill will toward the liberal media victims are simply encouraging and enabling the unethical conduct.

17 thoughts on “More Hoax Site Web Pollution

  1. “…the Times itself is looking more and more like a hoax itself.”

    I’m reminded of when a Salon parody account on Twitter got temporarily shut down after actual Salon raised a stink because the parody headlines composed of completely ridiculous nonsense was indiscernible from the actual headlines published by Salon.

  2. Yes, the pro-citizen empowerment lox should be content that their arguments on their own are sound, logical and show the anti-gun nutters to be about as wrong as a football bat with no need to laugh them to scorn when they have the wool pulled over their eyes.

    • It should have been obvious for over twenty years to anyone who can leave fog on a mirror. Remember the now-expired Federal Assault Weapons Ban that went into effect in September 1994? A few days later the Washington Post published an editorial that candidly stated, in part, ” [N]o one should have any illusions about what was accomplished [by the ban]. Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control.”

    • It’s been obvious that a high percentage of progressives have wanted a complete ban on guns for a while. (I especially liked a back and forth between myself and Charles, recently. Me: Have you ever met a form of gun control you didn’t like? Charles: Yes! There was this time restrictions leaked over to something that isn’t actually a gun. Paraphrased, of course.)

      But I’m not sure this is encouraging… It means that they think they have enough support that they can come out of the shadows, having slowly poisoned the pool of individual liberty to the point where the new generations of adults don’t really know what the word means.

      I wondered recently, in a perhaps typically angry manner, what the hell was wrong with these people. I asked Charles directly, and he never got back to me, despite saying he would. Again. But I wonder if the reason they have so little respect for the rights and freedoms enshrined in the constitution is because they have a cognitive dissonance based on the second amendment. The pesky constitution is what made it so hard to ban guns, so the rest of that rag is bad too, and all those other liberties are just collateral damage in the jihad against guns.

      • You are giving the Left way more credit than it is due. They don’t like liberty because liberty means not doing every last little thing that central intelligentsia planners command the masses to do.

        • Never attribute to malice what could be attributed to stupidity. I don’t think progressives in general are that smart. I think they’re crippled by bias and dissonanceand unfettered by an ability to think critically, to the point where they just try to bulldoze whatever is in their way, consequences be damned.

          Am I a racist yet?

          • I agree with your analysis, I think the vast majority of progressives are Useful Idiots with good intentions. But that doesn’t alleviate them of responsibility of the effects of their policies.

  3. It is becoming increasing hard to write political satire and/or parody these days, because the reality has become so ludicrous. Best example–apparently many Republicans want to have another over-rated narcissistic egotist follow the current incumbent one.

  4. You’re right, of course, the hoax site is maintained by unethical asses. But. Does anyone else remember a time when something like this wouldn’t have caught the Times? You know… When they followed ethical guidelines in journalism, and had standards, or…. y’know…. cared? I’m not convinced that the Times doesn’t deserve derision here. Yeah… OK…. If the same conservative sites that are mocking the Times now ever fall for something similar, boy will they have pie on their faces… But that doesn’t change the fact that the Times failed utterly to do their due diligence.

Leave a Reply to stvplln Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.