Shawn Johnson, The Onion, and the Edge of Good Taste and PR
Humor is many times a “cure all” when it leads us to laugh at adversity. However, a recent “attempt” at humor by the infamous Onion news source pushes past funny and into morbid and morose – even sick. US Gymnast Shawn Johnson (frankly, one of the most accomplished and superb ever) broke her knee while training the other day. While this is obviously a life changing and traumatic experience, particularly for a world class athlete, where sympathy and comfort would appear to be the decent response, the publishers at the Onion obviously think otherwise.
Update In the paragraph above the phrasing makes it appear that Shawn actually broke her knee. She actually did not, but the initial stories tended to make me think she had. So, please allow me to assure the reader, The Onion, their video, and subsequent news articles led to this confusion. At the end of the article, I made the connection, but failed to edit this aspect in the introduction, my apologies for any confusion.
The Onion, know for its satirical treatment of the news, created a fictitious news report, via video, in which Johnson supposedly breaks here knee and wherein her parents appear on the “news” to explain their decision to “put her down”. In a parody on the horse racing venue, the Onion obviously decided that “sick” for the sake of viral exposure, was a good trade off. What is perhaps more surprising to me, is that these people actually won a Peabody Award last month for its satire. All this writer can say is; “Somewhere, somehow, our definition of excellence got skewed”.
Screen shot of the tasteless Shawn Johnson video.
Miss Johnson returned from the 2008 Summer Olympics victorious, winning a gold medal in the balance beam, and a silver in the overall women’s gymnastics competition. By all accounts a superb person, and extraordinary athlete, perhaps the best way to encapsulate what she represents lies in one of her accolades from the AAU. The James E. Sullivan Award, which Johnson received in April, is awarded to the athlete who exhibits finest “qualities of leadership, character, sportsmanship, and the ideals of amateurism.
If the Onion (or anyone) had played this prank on any child of a parent, it would still be sick in my view. Given the nature of Miss Johnson’s talent and potential, this “bad form” production is all the more gutteral in its implications and essence. Perhaps creativity these days is so limited that comic relief and satire have run out of gas? Regardless of other implications, or disdain on our part, it goes without saying that the Onion wins this month’s PR Goofy Award, and we will consider these cretans for our upcoming “Sheepy” video show awards.
Below, the video via another website. Please take note, there is no link to the Onion in this post, nor will there ever be.
Gymnast Shawn Johnson Put to Sleep at 17 – Watch more Funny Videos
Note – Soon, Pamil Visions will feature our mascot “Sheepy” handing out some advice, and providing some “good” laughs for our readers. Please stay tuned on this. We know you will never find animation,video, or even text in these segments as tasteless and inhumane as the one mentioned from the Onion. There are ways to be funny without going over the edge.
About the Author
Phil Butler is editor-in-chief of Everything PR and senior partner at Pamil Visions PR. He’s a widely cited authority on beta startups, search engines and public relations issues, and he has covered tech news since 2004. Phil wrote in the past for ReadWriteWeb, Mashable, Profy, SitePoint, Search Engine Journal, AltSearchEngines. Follow Phil on Twitter or send him an email at phil [at] pamil-visions [dot] com.
Debbie, if you do not know why he should retire, I am the least of persons to tell you. While ...
Really? Tiger should retire? That's the dumbest thing I've read by far. What does his personal life have to do ...
Hey Phil,
Its been a while.
Just wanted to know what Veer has achieved so far.
Box office India is saying its below ...
I read this article and i must say you ____. 
I agree wholeheartedly - but what can we do? I only wrote the story to announce the puzzling news - ...
Thanks for helping spread the word about HAPPO Kristen! As you point out "The Internet has made it even easier ...
Comment by Inez on 18 June 2009:
You should know that she really didn’t ‘break her knee’ so it’s not as if they are making fun of some traumatic event. She’s fine. She’s not training gymnastics at all these days – she’s riding the ‘celebrity wagon’ until she gets kicked off, and she thinks the video was funny.
Between you and Sarah Palin, people just have no sense of humor anymore.
Comment by Phil Butler on 18 June 2009:
Yes Inez, I actually noticed I had mis-stated this in the intro, but changed it at the end already. Thanks for your help and I changed it via an update. Sheesh! I hate doing stuff like that. As for what you judge humor, I can only smile and longingly look forward to some nebulous event that strikes you as improper or at best, unscrupulously horrid. I cannot at this moment imagine what that might be. Thanks for the helping hand on the update, and I am sorry your heroes are not on the celebrity band wagon.
Always,
Phil
Comment by Mihaela Lica on 18 June 2009:
Just in case someone comes here to say that the people in the video are her parents, like I saw on other sites relating this, here is a picture with the real parents:
Comment by funny on 18 June 2009:
funny video. good comedy.
Comment by Katie on 18 June 2009:
Inez, the video is not funny at all and Shawn Johnson actually has started getting back into training while attending all those celebrity events… that video is in bad taste!
Comment by dan on 18 June 2009:
she didn’t break her knee and reportedly found the video quite humourous..
this video was far too daft to be taken seriously, and even then, the comedic idea was hardly ‘over the edge’ at all.
i think you simply need to learn the facts before you post an article about something, you’re clearly one of the people who don’t understand the humour that allowed them to win a peabody award
Comment by Phil Butler on 18 June 2009:
Dan, I am clearly one of the ones, I even said so in the post. Furthermore, if I am lucky enough to be in the dark when it comes to low class, bar room floor, back alley humor, then I am truly blessed. Don’t want to inflame your not so tender sensibilities, but wherever you get your news from, it is not in sync with actuality. Shawn’s friends are up in arms about it, and her family has quietly refused to even comment. I am wondering, did I am personally do something to you, other than upset your moral apple cart?
You know, this is a corporate site, but the thing is, we are involved in “the discussion” all the time. So, I do not really feel intimidated telling anyone what I think, or how our company operates. I am fairly amazed at the type of people who think this sort of thing is funny. So there you have it, a polar opposite situation. As for knowing my facts, I admitted and apologized for the confusion.
Always,
Phil Butler
Comment by Phil Butler on 18 June 2009:
Thanks Katie, for your input. Not just because we agree either. Do you ever notice that the people who want to act badly, are the ones who come and make personal affronts. Seldom does a person who just have a different opinion come by and throw daggers. Food for thought I guess.
Always,
Phil
Comment by Sunny Jain on 18 June 2009:
Making fun of injury or hurt to people is never correct behavior. This family probably got 500 telephone calls about this. Do any of you who thought it was funny ever think beyond your noses? Imagine a situation where the Mom or Dad has heard nothing of this….in the car….hurrying to get home… Maybe your intillect can extrapolate a worst case scenario here. Headline “Shawn Johnson Dead
Comment by Nick Conrad on 18 June 2009:
I get what they were going for, and I’m all for free expression, but declaring someone dead could be misinterpreted by even the hardened cynics on the internet…line crossed.
Comment by Brendan on 18 June 2009:
I understand where they are coming from. They were trying to make a point that these kids are trained to perform from a very young age. However, I think they crossed the line here.
Comment by Jason on 19 June 2009:
Crossed the line? What line? Seems to me the line they crossed was the one with the checkered flag that indicates “Winner”. 500,000 views on YouTube in 24 hours. Most Googled video of the day. Thank God for freedom of speech and protections for parody that are well established in the USA. People who can’t appreciate the poignant, creative genius that The Onion routinely displays actually make the humor that much more intense. Bravo Onion! Keep crossing those lines!!
Comment by Phil Butler on 19 June 2009:
Brendan, you are spot on. The premise the Onion was trying illustrate was pretty valid. They could have made any number of hilarious skits to illustrate this, and as Jason so warmly denoted, get the checkered flag at YouTube (and Digg BTW). Now, coming up with something else that 15 to 20 somethings would laugh their ass off at and call their bubba down the street? Well, that would be a little harder. As we know, HARD and work are not terms associated with the Web or anywhere these days, let’s go for easy creativity. The video was as improper as yelling FIRE in a crowded auditorium, which is BTW illegal, but Americans are free to do it….go ahead.
Always,
Phil
Comment by Phil Butler on 19 June 2009:
Jason, I understand your point of view. When I was young, about 50 million years ago, many of my friends had similar views. Freedom was even then, loosely defined as “whatever”. Yes, the 70’s. They were wrong, and now every-single-solitary one of them knows it. Don’t take it from me, just wait and see. #
Always,
Phil
Comment by Jason on 19 June 2009:
Phil, I am so glad we don’t live in your world. You are obviously having a difficult time living in ours, and I sympathize. A little. But the antidote to your dyspepsia is simple: Take off the Morality Cop badge and put away the water pistol. It will amaze you how much time you have for everything truly important in your life once you stop trying to impress everyone else how much more valid your limited world view is than theirs. That said, satire and parody don’t work without getting somebody’s knickers in a twist. And this time, clearly, yours are knotted up pretty tightly, so you provided a necessary function. Still, it must be hard to walk around like that all day, isn’t it?
And it’s not about “youth”, Phil. It’s about a sense of humor and proportion. Even old coots like you can enjoy those things. But based on your own writings, it’s most likely you never had more than a smidgen of either, even way back when. Pity.
The 70’s featured mostly bad music, as far as I can tell. Freedom meant “whatever”?!? Being drafted into a war less popular than Iraq? Watergate? Nixon enemies? Rockefeller drug laws? How long a list do we have to draw up about the 70’s to adequately illustrate for you that our freedoms were as severely tested then as they’ve been anytime since? You can have your 70’s, Phil. No thanks.
Comment by Jason on 19 June 2009:
Oh, and Phil: You might want to read what Shawn Johnson has to say about the Onion video:
“OH & LOOK Im still racin around the world even after they tried 2 put me down haha & my leg has healed quite nicely 2! Gotta luv the ONION!”
How does it feel to more offended than the only people who have a right to be offended?
Comment by Phil Butler on 19 June 2009:
Jason,
Unlike most bloggers or journalists, I am not of the belief that any comment is beneath a reply, so here I am again. I think maybe I struck a nerve, or either The Onion is on your list as battlefield casualties to be defended with one’s dying breath, I am not sure. As for living in the same world, we are all here together, millions like you, and a similar number like me. First off, I am not personally offended by the video, but more sad for people subjected to such “tricks”. Secondly, personal attacks against me, and my “situation” are mirrors of the mentality you are so vehemently defending. Just so you know, I am in all likelihood the happiest man on Earth with regard to me personal life. I do not care to argue that point, just wanted you to know so that your next attack might be able to carry more volatile, or at least viable weapons.
As for youth, certainly wisdom or even point of view are not inextricably bound to time and experience. However, I was not really referring to your youth, just recounting how some of my contemporaries thought and felt a long time ago. In my world, as you put it, there are none of such cavalier or jaded preferences for comedy. No need to pity me sir, I am quite confident and comfortable in my understanding and belief in these things. While you may hate me, and anything that stands for civility and kindness, I surely do not hate you. Rather, I sit here taking my time (which gauged from the perspective that it is worth more since there is potentially less of it left) to have a discussion about this topic. You have presented no evidence that you want to do more than hate someone or their opinion.
With regard to the last contention up there, and your additional comment, the excerpt you pasted is not from a respected or verified evidenciary source. I saw that via Google News myself. If you look at the spelling and wording, it does not appear to be something the real Shawn might have typed, that is if she is as scholarly as depicted elsewhere. At least you admit the right of Miss Johnson and her family to be offended. With that, according to everything I have learned from philosophy and jurisprudence, I rest my case. Thanks for helping me prove that, at least philosophically or in principle, that The Onion was out of line.
Always,
Phil Butler
Comment by Kristen Nicole on 19 June 2009:
Definitely a touchy subject and the Internet has allowed for a lot of people to promote their own take on comedic media. But extreme doesn’t always make something more funny. You have folks like Dave Chappelle who realize later on that their comedy isn’t always socially responsible. Regretful indeed.
Comment by Phil Butler on 19 June 2009:
Thanks Kristen. I am not that big a “stick in the mud”. It is just fairly obvious and logical, that there is a line for everything. Not one thing we do or ever did, is immune to this principle. It is like physics if you want to get all clinical about it. Anyone who says comedy, or anything has no limitations, is quite frankly delusional. I hope everyone can see this. Freedoms are a mirage most of the time any way. Are we free, really? What are the responsibilities and limits of freedom.
On an additional note, it does appear that Shawn Johnson posted a message on Twitter to the effect Jason up there suggested. It is a little out of context, but apparently she has not suffered any real trauma. This is not the point, as you well know. Approppriate action is not always dictated by what “did not happen”, it is mostly a type of dogma or law which has a historical, cultural, or sometimes even philosophical basis. I guess the question arises; “What are your intentions?”
Always,
Phil
Comment by Jason on 19 June 2009:
Thanks for your time, limited as it may be, as you put it, to honor my thoughts with a response. Or at least you said you were responding to my thoughts. Turns out you didn’t much address anything I said, just opined that I was attacking you personally (which is unquestionably untrue) and proclaimed that you are the happiest man alive, which could be true, but sounds a lot like protesting too much. I won’t go there. Whether you’re happy or not is truly irrelevant. To me, at least.
Your attempt to establish that it is “obvious and logical that there is a line for everything” is wholly without merit and your inability to understand that is the crux of your difficulties with the satirical video by The Onion. Is there a line for happiness? Sorrow? Kindness? Cruelty? No, of course not. What you call “a line for everything” is some concocted imaginary boundary for what YOU think is “civil and kind” behavior, and that’s the sum of it.
You have some curious notions about me, too, which in context with the way you so prematurely jump to validate or invalidate facts wrt the “injury” of Shawn Johnson, then the tweet attributed to her, strike me as par for your course. You apparently want me to hate you, which clearly I don’t. You want me to be a product of a younger generation, giving you comfort that I’m just not mature enough to see the world through the prism of your wiser, more sage lens. I doubt I’m younger than you at all, and we are most certainly of the same generation.
And if Shawn Johnson and her family not being offended is not the point, then what IS the point, Phil? Certainly they have the only claim to potential “injury” from the video. And since they don’t claim to have been, what gives you or anyone else the right to be injured by proxy?
But even if they claimed great injury, they have very limited means to recourse. Shawn is a public figure, totally fair game for satire, as you should know. The Onion is clearly labeled as what it is, and well known by its target audience. The reaction from some, like yourself, about this video is totally expected. And that, as I’ve said before, is what makes satire satire. If everyone found it toothless it would merely be the Bob Hope show.
Thanks again for your contribution to keeping satire alive and viable!
Comment by paul on 20 June 2009:
“If you look at the spelling and wording, it does not appear to be something the real Shawn might have typed, that is if she is as scholarly as depicted elsewhere.”
…it does indeed appear that the “scholarly” Shawn Johnson has a twitter account as verified by her official website…furthermore, the twitter entry about the Onion is in keeping with her vernacular – see some of the posts on her official website.
I’ve been watching the Onion videos since last year, and they have been consistently funny. Sure, at times they push the boundaries of good-taste, like alot of comedy, but more often than not the humour displayed on the Onion is intelligent satire.
Phil, have you tried watching some of their other videos?
Comment by Rob on 20 June 2009:
Come on Phil, really? You strike me as intelligent, and I have no axe to grind against your point of view. I just think that anyone who’s not brain-dead should be able to tell that this is SATIRE..
And it’s the onion. If anyone was offended by this, I suggest they avoid SNL, late-night monologues, and stand up comics.
Caveot Emptor: Don’t go to the onion.
Is the video really that outrageous, or are some people so stupid they thought it was real news? Half of the whole joke is how ridiculous it is and that it’s not even remotely feasible.
Rob
Comment by Rob on 20 June 2009:
I also have to say that Jason is spot on with his last post and long live satire.
Comment by Phil Butler on 20 June 2009:
Jason,
To be honest, I was possibly mistaken in answering your first comment. I could not know for a certainty your age, sex, national origin, hair color, dress size, or whether or not you eat chili cheese fries with your 5 checker cheeseburgers. I am so sorry if I miss categorized you, or categorized you at all. You see, after writing something like 10,000 of these, and looking at comments like your first one, the what you might call “the hateful little digg piss ant” demon actually rises from the comments text. It is not your fault that this onerous demon exists, as other, more insidious and woefully distasteful creatures brought life to the little sucker. Let me break your first comment down into elemental parts. Maybe together, we can ascertain how you and I arrived at this stalemate with regard to leaving these pages to go on to other, more interesting and positive endeavors.
Okay, the first 5 words essentially tell anyone that the author does not agree with their precept. They also indicate, in their brief finality, that whoever wrote them does not, cannot, or never will begin to see the remote possibility that a moral or legal line exists with regard to the argument. Next, and probably more importantly, the author of the comment goes on to both quantify and qualify what he/she thinks is value, the value or quality aspect as it were. This second sentence brands the author as someone who considers the Onion’s success (measured in traffic or notoriety), regardless of the methods used or the negative impact, as the concrete reason and justification for the “act”. Now, I do not know how you look at this situation, or if you can grasp how another person might “read” your comment as, let’s say “caustic” and immature, but never the less, this is how I read it. I have seen these many many times. I do not like them.
Now, perhaps we can look at the next part of your first comment. It is interesting in several ways, but mostly juvenile (if not a little obsessive) in its tone and degree.
I am not sure how to analyze this, but I will give it a shot from my honest point of view. We have not brought God into the argument (one he would probably not care to waste the time on honestly). Somehow this writer wonders where exactly in this article he suggested The Congress mandate that the Onion be outlawed or censored. This sort of commentary, in my experience, comes out of two particular mindsets. The first is an ultra liberal sort of California “dope smoker” one, where people fight tooth and nail to make sure their idiosyncrasies, far out religious beliefs or even perversions go completely unmolested – more power to them. The second type, and this is not mutually exclusive of the first, are people who, out of some strange inner fear or juvenile psychosis, need to add weight to any argument on the Internet by calling down Jefferson, Washington and Lincoln to defend even the most minuscule suggestion that they cannot have everything they want – right here in Internet City. Finally, the author goes on to sing the praises of the Onion, add more and more weight to the quasi-political subject, and finally, to cheer and jeer at the relative discomfort this “art” might have caused anyone. In this case, and perhaps only this one, I misjudged you Jason. I initially left you relatively alone becuase I thought you an “unarmed adversary”, I was wrong, as you proved later on to be well healed with vocabulary and a sort of grammatical intelligence. For that I am sorry, for more reasons than one.
Finally, another bad ending for what might have been a flawless soap box speech on liberty, justice and the American way (or in Swift’s version the Lilliputian Way).
So there is a line, or even if there is not one you want more of the same? Are you disagreeing with yourself? You really do love the Onion, don’t you? Do you work for the Onion?
Let’s get something clear, though Sean Mills’ publication is a form of art in the genre satirical, we are not talking about Aristophanes here. Though I have spent little time watching these, I do know this one had elements which, taken apart from one another, might surely have been good satire, funny, and perhaps even brilliant parody. I never attacked any other production of the Onion, never suggested they be censored, never really condemned anything about the genre, art form, or comedy itself. I condemned this particular instance because, in my view, it crossed a line, which you say does not even exist. This is your belief, the converse is mine – so what’s your problem?
You came here to, ostensibly, argue for an art form, freedom, and a philosophy. Your methods, from the onset, were aggressive and to be honest, given I have a temperament too, unrefined and rude. I have danced around with you here, to be perfectly transparent, in an effort to talk about these things – but also because I am divergently opposed to what you suggest. Using your philosophy or dogma, you are condemning me more harshly than I have even chastised the Onion, or the literary genre under the guise of which they operate. You said it yourself, they are in it for the visitors. Human beings are not capable, as a whole, of governing themselves. We are not even capable, collectively, of appointing people to govern us. This is abundantly clear. You suggest that satire, and this form of debauchery, be allowed no limit. No limit? Now that they have stepped this far, successfully – as you point out – what will be their next trick? It is not the “action” that is at question here, but the extended ramifications.
In this case, Johnson and her family were not physically harmed. Only some of our tender sensibilities were assailed. Boo Hoo. The next time, with the extended, and likely inaccurate successive reporting of their “art”, perhaps real harm might come someone’s way. On the “puffy” side of this, I don’t have to like what they did, I can write my opinion of it till hell freezes over, and there is nothing you can do about it. You see, I never go so far as to announce the death of people, announce tragic injury, and then spread what amounts to a epic lie about a generally unsuspecting world. The Onion, well, they will have their throngs of fans in need of cheering always, that is until “going to far” harms someone. The sad part is, it would be so difficult to prove they were at any fault, there is artistic license after all, not to mention half a world of people like yourself, in need of some satirical company.
I surrender the point to you Jason. My only intent was to say this parody and satire went to far in my view. I am supported by many millions, just as you are. I expect no one needs to “win” in such cases, perhaps talking about it makes us a little better in the end, at least I hope so. The next time you come to comment, if ever, please refrain from attacking me, anyone else, and try to be kind. I leave you with something from a great artist of another genre:
Perhaps this is where you and I went wrong, we allowed a little anger to enter the discussion.
Always,
Phil
Comment by Phil Butler on 20 June 2009:
Hey Paul, Thanks for stopping by. I actually have seen some over the last while, but usually when someone sends them to me. Never really knew the “who or what” of the site actually. I had no contention with the publication other than reading the news to find this. I found it to be distasteful, and I am not a prude. Making people who like satire or the Onion, see what exactly In was talking about, has been, well – difficult. Actually, I did not set out to “change” the views of the many. Commentary is sometimes meant to point out problematic things. I think this kind of comedic treatment of people, is without taste, and detrimental. That is all. As for satire and parody, I like Monte Python as well as you probably.
Always,
Phil
Comment by Phil Butler on 20 June 2009:
Hi Rob,
Thanks for stopping by and giving your opinion. As for my intelligence, though conventional testing at some points along the way tend to verify this, I sometimes doubt myself. Axes, on the other hand, tend to be rather apparent weapons no matter how concealed. As for apparent satire, this depends on where one picks up the shreds, or tail end, of a story. I for one, did not find this video at the Onion, but rather via some news bits which led me to watch it. I may however, be showing the first signs of being brain dead, for I could certainly have written 5 more posts, gained another 1,000 in our Alexa score, and maybe even done some work for a client, rather than banter here about a subject no Saturday Night Live fan would ever see my side of.
I will take your advice, as many millions of others already do, and forgo what many of my Onion loving friend assure me is, the exquisite delight of that site. As for stupid people, there are degrees of everything. Looking at it from the standpoint of people who frequent the Onion, I suppose they all have a sort of “dark ambition” to view everyone and everything as far less than sacred. However, imagining many thousands of people actually seeing news that suggests “parts” of this were true, if you can envision this a little, take the game to a different level. It is not about stupidity, but rather about the physics of gossip or better yet diluted communication. Some people (me included) were led to this via supposed viable coverage, which suggested Shawn was either dead, of at best that she actually had a broken knee. I hope that made some sense, for this is one of the problems.
The other end of it is, levity about some things is always going to galvanize people. Those that think anything goes, are not exactly the pillars of society and civilization. By the same token, and in their defense, the other end of the spectrum is as bad or worse. I just wanted to clarify my position, and without weilding any axes other than my honest opinion. I agree on the long live satire comment as well. I just would rather leave off with the suggestion that in this day of world wide interaction, and its inherent possibilities, that nothing in heaven or on Earth is sacred at all. It is not my belief, but I know we all tend to draw lines in the sand which may be slightly off the mark compared to where they should be.
Always,
Phil
Pingback by Standup Comedy - Is It Twitter's Salvation? on 20 June 2009:
[...] = 'http://www.pamil-visions.net/twitter-standup-comedy/22306/'; Fresh from my engagement discussing whether or not “anything goes” as far as satire is concerned, the news today reflects [...]
Comment by Tom on 20 June 2009:
To Rob and Jason: you should look up the word “satire” in a dictionary. FYI, this means “A literary technique of writing or art which principally ridicules its subject often as an intended means of provoking or preventing change. Humor is often used to aid this.”
I personally think that the video in cause has nothing to do with satire. It’s just bad taste, pushed to extreme. You people say that no one should believe the Onion and I agree. But the Onion propagated a rumor that was taken out of a context and many people believed that the girl was really injured (and some believed that she was really dead). You also suggest that the idea was to provoke change concerning “animal” rights. If this was the intent, the video lamentably fails. The subject of the video appears to be Shawn Johnson.
Comment by www.alaminfotech.com on 20 June 2009:
What I notice here, outside the appropriateness of this video hoax, is the tone that people use. They claim to be for free speech and freedom, and suggest they are good guys, when it is easy to see there is nothing good in their intent. The author was attempting to point out a higher standard for such things, and people come to ridicule his intelligence, life, morals, and just about everything else. In support of? In support of the “right” to do whatever one wants under the protection of artistic and democratic freedoms? Come on people. From a moral standpoint, you are walking on quicksand. Just my humble opinion.
Comment by Jason on 20 June 2009:
Phil,
I sincerely regret sending you off on this spiraling polemic, not just because of the waste of your time and mine. But mostly because you continue to expose yourself as someone far more judgmental and with way more time on their hands than a professional in your field should. I’m not a fan of witnessing such self immolation.
It is also unfortunate that you have apparently learned nothing from the experience. Succinctly put, the lessons that should dawn on you are a.) Get your facts straight before going on the internet condemning, insulting, bemoaning, judging and name calling someone or something, and b.) Before you go on the internet condemning, insulting, bemoaning, judging and name calling, think through your argument. As the record here so clearly indicates, you failed on both counts.
That said, I do accept your apologies, although they are considerably mitigated by your continued insistence that you speak from a higher moral, ethical, and (most troubling) sensible ground than me or, in fact, anyone else. Apologies offered with those contingent assertions are less satisfying, but I’ll take what I can get.
It’s a shame you couldn’t follow up with a more robust defense of your opening salvo (“viscious” [sic], “sick”, “morbid”, “morose”, etc.) since it seemed you must have had more powder in your gun when you made those attacks than turned out to be the case. It would have been more interesting if you had. Turns out it was all foam.
Is that what your clients want from you? I know if I were a client, reading your diatribes here would be thoroughly off-putting, to say the least. Not because they don’t reflect my beliefs, but because the beliefs expressed are so all over the map, and so poorly supported. Unhinged is the sense I get.
Perhaps you should rethink what the purpose of blogging is to you. Or maybe you’re here to ward off business. I guess all things are possible.
Sincerely,
Jason
Comment by Phil Butler on 20 June 2009:
Well, we are obviously walking down two roads which are so far removed from one another as to make it impossible to come to any understanding. As for moral high ground, I only know this. If a guy is standing on a street corner saying his piece, and someone else walks up and slaps the hell out of him, rather than simply waiting turn and saying his or her opposing view, that person would be construed to be wrong in most societies. You obviously have a good deal of hatred, anger and God knows what else inside. Mistakes are one thing, coming to repeatedly ridicule, inflame, and otherwise impose one’s view (any view) like this, is down right weird.
I will not make comment on the other issues, the constant tone of vile in your comments pretty much says it all. I might add, it does not say a lot for people in love with the Onion either. This is, of course, only my view. I wish you the best any way, and sincerely hope your days are better rather than worse. As you might expect, you did not make mine any better.
Always,
Phil
PS Any further derogatory comments about this author or other commenter will be summarily deleted.
Comment by B. Joe on 20 June 2009:
Jason, dude, what are you smokin’ man, and why? Because it is a free country? I think you’d advocate dope to children because you think dope does no harm! You want to be right by all means, man! Is the Onion yours that you defend it so avidly? Get a life, dude, and stop trolling!
Comment by Reasonable Robinson on 20 June 2009:
Three really interesting strands of conversation here. All seem to be concerned with the way in which social ‘norms’ and acceptability are defined and who decides. I believe this is a highly relevent discussion because of the remote nature of computer mediated commuication, and the fact that because we aren’t communicating face to face we might ’say’ things we wouldn’t say if that were the case.
As I read it the first concerns whether it is socially appropriate to make fun of someone elses misfortune (schadenfreude). I agree with Phil in this regard, that ‘if’ the misfortune is real and people are suffering real consequences then its a rather cold and callous to gloat over the victim. Justifying ‘having a laugh’ as satire is stretching what satire is all about. Would making a humorous video about the recent child abuse allegations in Plymouth be a suitable subject for the Onion? If the answer is ‘No’ then we are arguing about who decides where the line is drawn.
The second concerns ‘inventing’ stories where someone’s misfortune is the subject of the ‘joke’ I this case I tend to go along with the view that if the ‘knowing public’ know that the Onion is mischevious then they should expect this sort of thing and not be offended. Whether this type of ‘high school’ humour counts as satire to the standard of William Hogarth is of course arguable. I wouldn’t class the subject of this discussion as act of inspired creative genious.
The third concerns Jason’s striving to prove how smart he is by lapsing into some post modernist drivel about relative standards. Just because you can doesn’t mean you should. It seems he has fallen for the intellectual ‘goof trap’ of all relatvists which is that anything goes and all points of view on the matter are equal, …except mine which is more superior to yours!!
Now wouldn’t that be cool an Onion spoof of Jason the Part Time Philosopher. It wouldn’t be rude or cruel, it would just ‘be’ and so that would be OK, wouldn’t it?
Comment by Mihaela Lica on 20 June 2009:
This is the last comment on this post, because… if The Onion can do whatever in the name of whatever, considering that this is a publication I own I reserve the right to close comments.
I think that Jason is no other than Jason Torchinsky who is affiliated with the Onion. He is clearly a person with higher education – possibly a lawyer or a very skilled journalist, a teacher or a writer. Couldn’t find any Jason Torchinsky jurnalist, but one lawyer at HolzzamnVogel (with offices in Washington) and one artist: “Jason is a tinkerer and artist, co-founder of Avacast (avacast.com), a webcasting company, and a member of the Van Gogh-Goghs comedy collective (vgg.com).” This last person could be the Jason “trolling” (as B. Joe observed). The man is a stand-up comedian – http://www.vgg.com/jason/jasonstandup.html
Judging by the language here http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/electronic-publications/stay-free/archives/17/jason_brand.html and here http://www.vgg.com/jason/jdt/wordy.html the comedian and the author of the comments above, are one and the same person.
I could dig more, but at this point this would be a pointless attempt. Jason is obviously the type of person who considers that no one is entitled to have an opinion, unless it coincides with his own.
To Jason: it is obvious that you have a vested interest in The Onion. Whether you are one of the two persons mentioned above is irrelevant. At this point I am closing comments for this post because your actions make me believe that you are a refined troll and trolls are not welcome here, in any form.