I’ve been away from the store for a few hours, during which time it has been made clear that THIS POST from earlier today — based on THIS PIECE by Roger Simon of Politico — involved what we now learn was an imaginary disgruntlement with Mitt Romney on Paul Ryan’s part.
Simon’s supposed tip-off that his piece was satire was this obscure “author’s note” at the end: “Jonathan Swift did not really want Irish people to sell their children for food in 1791; George Orwell did not really want the clocks to strike thirteen in 1984; Paul Ryan, I am sure, calls Mitt Romney something more dignified than “Stench” and Microsoft did not invent PowerPoint as a means to euthanize cattle. At least I am pretty sure Microsoft didn’t.”
My blog is just one of many — hundreds, in fact — that didn’t read Simon’s column as satire. Indeed, my post linked to (and quoted from) several others that thought Simon was playing it straight. After all, his enviable reputation is based on a long career of solid political reporting — not satire.
It says HERE that “Simon has reportedly apologized abjectly, saying ‘Tommy Christopher is absolutely right, I have no idea what the f–k ‘satire’ means. I should really just STFU right about now.’”
Whether or not Simon has learned from this episode that satire is not his strong suit, I’ve learned that I should never again take him seriously — at least not without triple-checking his every word and even his punctuation.