The Economist attempts irony
A pity, that the Economist once again (http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=16059928) stoops so low. The irony and sarcasm in this article might do a fourteen-year old credit, or, at least, suggest that she has a grasp of the language. Not, however, an education in taste or ethics.
Consider the following:
> Anyone who doubts his people’s love need only
> note the admirable 95% support for him in a
> presidential poll last November.
Democracies do not require love, they require votes. It doesn't matter if a people love, detest, are sexually infatuated with or secretly look down upon their leader, as long as they vote in regular,free and fair elections.
Ah, but love is important! How can we have a leader in power who is secretly detested by all?
Well, all right then, but can be sure that the leader is indeed hated? We could start by asking everyone on our speed dial list, so that's ten people right there. Anyone else, or is that enough?
What about that bloke who's always at the pub and drinks girlie mixed drinks? He might have an opinion too.
You know what, let's just ask everyone. Let's call this an election.
And after we have a winner and we think that he's murdering people on the sly, then let's not write shabby insinuations in the media, but be straightforward about it - say that there's a rumour, and that that rumour ought to be investigated, bring in the judicial check-and-balance.
Or does journalism have no point, that bit about defending truth and freedom not really to be taken seriously?
> Was not Alfred Nobel an arms maker before
> he became a prize-endower?
That's correct. What of it, though? Is there a point here, or is this an attempt to list examples of superficial irony? Oooh, and Hitler was a vegetarian. Any chance that can be used in this article?
> The World Health Organisation could surely seduce
> Italy’s prime minister into providing some cash for
> a Silvio Berlusconi medal in sex education.
Given that the Italians are well acquainted with the notion of civil law (didn't they have something to do with its early history, back in the day?), one assumes that Mr. Berlusconi will be prosecuted, if guilt is proven. If, however, it is not proven, then surely it might be a good idea to not make slanderous and petty (because not technically actionable) insinuations?
Or shall the only response to this exercise in non-superlative irony be: "The free peoples of this world ought to ask the Econimist for the Good Taste Award". Bah, I can't do it. Long live the irony of the Economist and death to taste and ethics.