Editing Satire (section)

===Typical arguments===
Because it is essentially ironic or sarcastic, satire is often misunderstood. A typical misunderstanding is to confuse the satirist with their [[persona]].<ref name="Test1991p10"/>

====Bad taste====
Common uncomprehending responses to satire include revulsion (accusations of [[Taste (sociology)|poor taste]], or that "it's just not funny" for instance) and the idea that the satirist actually does support the ideas, policies, or people being ridiculed. For instance, at the time of its publication, many people misunderstood Swift's purpose in ''[[A Modest Proposal]]'', assuming it to be a serious recommendation of economically motivated cannibalism.{{Citation needed|date=September 2021}} Much later in history, in the weeks following [[9/11]] the American public at large found works of satire to be in bad taste and not appropriate for the social climate at the time. Some media outlets at the time, like essayist [[Roger Rosenblatt]] in an editorial for ''Time'' magazine's September 24 issue, would go so far as to claim that irony was dead.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Jones|first=William R.|date=2009|title="People Have to Watch What They Say": What Horace, Juvenal, and 9/11 Can Tell Us about Satire and History|url=https://muse.jhu.edu/article/365928|journal=Helios|volume=36|issue=1|pages=27–28|doi=10.1353/hel.0.0017|bibcode=2009Helio..36...27W|s2cid=162089939|issn=1935-0228}}</ref>

====Targeting the victim====
Some critics of [[Mark Twain]] see [[Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (novel)|''Huckleberry Finn'']] as [[racist]] and offensive, missing the point that its author clearly intended it to be satire (racism being in fact only one of a number of Mark Twain's known concerns attacked in ''Huckleberry Finn'').<ref>{{cite book | last1 = Leonard | first1 = James S | first2 = Thomas A | last2 = Tenney | first3 = Thadious M | last3 = Davis | title = Satire or Evasion?: Black Perspectives on Huckleberry Finn | publisher = [[Duke University Press]] |date=December 1992 | page = 224 | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=fdrBtpSSCisC&q=hemingway+%22huckleberry+finn%22+%22green+hills%22&pg=RA1-PA116 | isbn = 978-0-8223-1174-4}}</ref><ref>{{Citation | first = Shelley Fisher | last = Fishin | title = Lighting out for the Territory: Reflections on Mark Twain and American Culture | place = New York | publisher = Oxford University Press | year = 1997}}</ref> This same misconception was suffered by the main character of the 1960s British television comedy satire ''[[Till Death Us Do Part]]''. The character of [[Alf Garnett]] (played by [[Warren Mitchell]]) was created to poke fun at the kind of narrow-minded, racist, [[little Englander]] that Garnett represented. Instead, his character became a sort of [[anti-hero]] to people who actually agreed with his views. (The same situation occurred with [[Archie Bunker]] in American TV show ''[[All in the Family]]'', a character derived directly from Garnett.{{Citation needed|date=November 2021}})

The Australian satirical television comedy show ''[[The Chaser's War on Everything]]'' has suffered repeated attacks based on various perceived interpretations of the "target" of its attacks. The "Make a Realistic Wish Foundation" sketch (June 2009), which attacked in classical satiric fashion the heartlessness of people who are reluctant to donate to [[Charitable organization|charities]], was widely interpreted as an attack on the [[Make a Wish Foundation]], or even the terminally ill children helped by that organisation. [[Prime Minister of Australia|Prime Minister]] of the time [[Kevin Rudd]] stated that The Chaser team "should hang their heads in shame". He went on to say that "I didn't see that but it's been described to me. ...But having a go at kids with a terminal illness is really beyond the pale, absolutely beyond the pale."<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-06-04/hang-your-heads-rudd-tells-chaser-boys/1703862 |title='Hang your heads' Rudd tells Chaser boys | publisher = [[Australian Broadcasting Corporation]] |date=June 4, 2009|access-date=June 5, 2009}}</ref> Television station management suspended the show for two weeks and reduced the third season to eight episodes.

====Romantic prejudice====
The romantic prejudice against satire is the belief spread by the [[Romanticism|romantic movement]] that satire is something unworthy of serious attention; this prejudice has held considerable influence to this day.<ref>{{Citation | last = Sutherland | first = James | author-link = James Runcieman Sutherland | year = 1958 | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=4kc4AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA1 | title = English Satire}}</ref> Such prejudice extends to humour and everything that arouses laughter, which are often underestimated as frivolous and unworthy of serious study.<ref>{{Citation | first = Rod A | last = Martin | year = 2007 | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=ieAcp2Z_zkIC&pg=PA27 | title = The Psychology of Humor: An Integrative Approach | pages = 27–8| publisher = Elsevier | isbn = 9780080465999 }}</ref> For instance, humor is generally neglected as a topic of anthropological research and teaching.<ref>{{Citation | last = Apte | first = Mahadev L | year = 1985 | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=4fuAAAAAMAAJ | title = Humor and laughter: an anthropological approach | chapter = Introduction | page = 23 | publisher = Cornell University Press | quote = The general neglect of humor as a topic of anthropological research is reflected in teaching practice. Most introductory textbooks do not even list humor as a significant characteristic of cultural systems together with kinship, social roles, behavioral patterns, religion, language, economic transactions, political institutions, values, and material culture.| isbn = 9780801493072 }}</ref>