From the Desk Editor: My position on the Humor section Editor’s Note
Editor’s Note: This article is purely satirical and fictitious. All attributions in this article are not genuine, and this story should be read in the context of pure entertainment only.
Nah, just kidding. This article is actually NOT satirical, NOR is it fictitious. In fact, everything I am about to say is to be taken as completely seriously, straight-faced critique and, at times, verges on being too true. Scout’s honor.
As the current Desk Editor for the Humor section (only christened as such for our propensity for cracking knock-knock jokes while conducting hard-hitting investigative journalism), my goal is to debunk the italicized fraud that distorts my serious work here at the Daily. Those thirty words that begin each and every piece we publish in the Humor Section comprise a cowardly, artless scourge that plagues the very virtues of verity, righteousness and the American way.
First of all, I am not quite sure why it reads “Editor’s Note”. I am the sole humor section editor (whose opinion matters, at least), but I was never consulted before my name was plastered on this garbage. It should read something like “Some Schmuck’s Note” or “Balderdash/Codswallop/Poppycock/Hogwash/Flapdoodle Incoming.” Pick your archaic British noun of choice.
At the very least, if we are to proceed with this epistemological swindle on our precious readers, I should be the recipient of an apology on behalf of all Editors In Chief who have served during my last four years here on campus, and/or thanked for my work as an editor. (I don’t even get paid hourly!)
Anyway, the point is that I can instantly, and with little effort, debunk this question of attribution. Watch me: Brandon Rupp wrote a piece entitled “From the Desk Editor: My Position on the Humor Section Editor’s Note,” which you are currently reading. The piece begins with the sentence, “Nah, just kidding.”
See what I did there? This metatextual reference creates an unresolvable paradox if the editor’s note were, in fact, true. ALL attributions are not genuine? Even the self-contained one which references words that are in front of the reader’s very eyes and firmly in their memory? If so, what is the reader left to do but question the very phenomenological basis of which reality as they know it consists?
While the errors in this shameful inscription are too plentiful to delineate without writing a tree-killing treatise, I must wrap this up. I want to conclude by getting it on the record that I am a little offended by the implication — nay, DECLARATION — that our pieces should only be read in the context of pure entertainment. I urge readers to ignore this, dare I say, ANTI-INTELLECTUAL insult to their judgment and instead consider pieces for what they are: didactic explanations of carefully outlined political, moral and philosophical positions.
I hope that this piece has made it clear why this sordid waste of syllables has no place in the Daily Humor Section. While writers have tried to approach me with complaints that the preface betrays the point of satire, neuters their pieces of any potential comedic effect, lowers their search engine optimization, and does nothing beyond restating the obvious. I think my point about truth and stuff is much more correct-er.
Furthermore, while it briefly crossed my mind that removing this disclaimer might actually increase readership through subversive, rage-induced link sharing among our most un-reading readers, I quickly came to my senses and realized that it is not our goal to make money or have people read our pieces. It is our goal to tell the truth (or at least, an approximation of it). If that means we have to dumb ourselves down to the lowest common denominator, then so be it. As the Desk Editor for the Daily’s Humor Section, I hope to meet that standard each and every day.
The post From the Desk Editor: My position on the Humor section Editor’s Note appeared first on The Stanford Daily.