I have never written a column about a previous column. A column stands on its own and should not necessitate an explanation.
But to my great surprise, my last column, a parody of President Jimmy Carter's views, elicited so much response, so much of which was confused about what I had written, that I feel I owe it to my readers to analyze what happened.
I made up an interview with former President Jimmy Carter in which he sharply criticized the "Lord of the Rings" films for celebrating the military, war and violence.
As I began the piece with the byline "Prager News Service," I was quite certain that affixing my own name to a news service made it clear at the outset that what was to follow was a spoof. I was also confident that the statements attributed to President Carter seemed sufficiently absurd (such as his attack on "Lord of the Rings" for depicting trees going to war) to further reinforce the satirical nature of the column. And for those who missed those two clues, I wrote at the end: "This story is fictional, but not false."
I was deluged with mail that fell into four categories.
First were those who told me they laughed themselves silly.
Second were admirers of President Carter who were furious with me for attributing to him statements that he never made.
Third were those who took the column literally and thanked me for bringing to light President Carter's attack on "Lord of the Rings."
Fourth were those who didn't understand my last line. "What do you mean it is fiction but not false?" was a typical question. As was "What part of your column was fiction?"
I thank those in the first category and will respond to each of the other three.
To those who accused me of journalistic irresponsibility for making up quotations, I have three responses:
First, what I wrote was a parody and I declared it as such. A reader can accuse me of making up statements that have no relation to President Carter's actual views, in which case my piece failed as satire. But that would constitute incompetence, not irresponsibility.
Second, I have long admired Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times columnist William Safire, who has on a number of occasions written what I consider to be brilliant columns describing what major world figures are thinking. Is that irresponsible? Of course not. Every reader understands that Safire is offering his take on what these people are thinking, not reporting their actual thoughts.
Jon Stewart Attempts to "Slay" Food Stamp Fraud Allegations; Misses Real Point | Christine Rousselle
Rand Paul on NSA: “I Believe What You Do on Your Cell Phone is None of Their Damn Business” | Daniel Doherty