I am with Rose on this one. The article made me think about how rididculous it is that we as a society constantly need newer, better, and bigger things (except cellphones, which are smalller). The article moved quickly enough that the jokes never got old, and the way it was written had enough facts to back it to make it seem relevant and cutting.

SUV

I felt that the article we received on SUVs was an excellent example of satirical comedy. The writer exaggerated the issue to the point that it sounded ridiculous, while staying close enough to the truth that the reader feels compelled to actually think about the points being made. The part about how cell phones are getting smaller and cars are getting bigger was particularly funny when written satirically, but it also led the reader to think about how unnecessary the increasing size of cars is. Overall I found the article amusing as well as interesting.

SUVs

I think that the article was very true, I agree with the Dave Barry's point of view on SUVs. I like the sarcastic way its written

A blurry banner reading “McGruffin’s Untrue News” pops up on your browser and you will undoubtedly spend the next five minutes caught between confusion, boredom and mild offense. The words at the bottom of the banner are relatively unreadable; it however states in bold letters “We don’t answer our mail.” 
The articles below this banner offer equally spoofed material. Headlines include Republicans Scolded for “Failure to Ridicule” and MUMBAI WANTS TO BE BOMBAY AGAIN. This website is democratic in nature, notable in its abuse of the republican party. This is made evident when in Republicans Scolded for “Failure to Ridicule” chairman says “Thank you. I haven't heard cheering like that since Texas found out Sirhan Sirhan shot Bobby Kennedy.” The point is further highlighted when sticking your thumb on your nose, waggling your fingers and saying “nyah nyah.
Overall I felt this sample of exaggeration satire lost validity through discrediting the Republican Party to the extent that it did. From its tacky banner to its bad jokes it left the reader not laughing, but thinking “Huh?” While its content could be read as offensive it was so incredibly overstated that it just came across as childish. The reader is then left bored, confused and staring at a disastrous banner.

answers to all of life's questions

1. clearly a spoof -- "untrue news" gives it away. still uses credible language, though, so it is even more mocking.
2. republicans scolded for "failure to ridicule", mumbai wants to be bombay again
3. democratic bias -- first article mocks republicans, as does the article called "chaney once told truth"
4. i can't remember what this is called, but the kind where news sources use credible language and pretend to be from one side while making that side sound ridiculous
5. mombai wants to be bombay again
a. not really.
c. not really -- it is halfheartedly trying to expose mombai as a drug city, but it falls flat on its face because no one really cares about the city name.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anKL-v3fU2E

1 its clearly a spoof

2 aliens abducting all the world’s smart people and ozzfest

3 no

4 I don't know

5 ozzfest

a yes

b because the characters are funny

c yes, it is unaffected by the abduction of all the worlds smart people

Questions:

1.    Describe your satirical news source’s Web site. Does the source use convincing language to convey journalistic credibility, or is it clearly a “spoof”?

2.   What are the “top stories” or “headlines”? 


3.   Does this source convey political or partisan (Democratic or Republican) bias? If so, what are two examples?

4.   What brand or type of satire does this source seem to use the most?

5.    Choose a story or article from your source and evaluate it for its satirical effectiveness.

a.   Is it funny?

b.   Why or why not?

c.    Does it “ridicule, expose, or discredit” its target? If so, how? If not, how does it fail in its efforts?