The Volokh Conspiracy - Humor and Fairness:

When I criticize Slate's Bushism of the Day, for instance on the grounds that it unfairly quotes material out of context, I often get the reaction that it's just a joke, and jokes don't have to be fair, just funny.

Now I had assumed that political jokes — especially, though not only, those that are indeed trying to make a political point (however slight and familiar) — should still conform to some standards of fairness. If, for instance, some journalist wants to make fun of a candidate for the candidate's supposed inarticulateness, dishonesty, pronenss to exaggeration, pomposity, meanness, pride, or what have you, the quotes he provides in the service of this should be accurate and in context. But I realize I might be mistaken, so I thought I'd ask our readers their views.

To channel the discussion, let me suggest the following. Say that a journalist decides to make fun of Hillary Clinton for some trait she supposedly possesses -- say, cold-bloodedness, personal cruelty, or pomposity. (This is purely a hypothetical; I'm not claiming that Senator Clinton possess such traits.) In the course of this, the journalist provides various quotes that are potentially funny, because they illustrate the trait in a humorous way. Which, if any of these, do you think the journalist ought not do? Or should the journalist feel free to do all of these things, on the theory that he's acting as a humorist, not a journalist, and that the sole question in humor is whether the joke is funny, not whether it's fair?

1. Making up a quote that was supposedly said by Hillary Clinton, in a context in which many readers will assume that Hillary Clinton actually said this (i.e., not in the standard "What did Hillary say to Bill?" joke, where it's clear that the statements are made up).

2. Providing a quote that Hillary Clinton actually said, but omitting a fact that the audience likely doesn't know, but that would be relevant for evaluating the actual significance of the quote. (For instance, quoting Senator Clinton saying something mean, but not revealing that she said this to someone who had supposedly romantically mistreated her daughter, or to someone who had been continuously heckling Clinton herself.)

3. Providing a quote that Hillary Clinton actually said, but not quoting the material right before or right after the quote that, if included, might change the way the audience perceives the quote. (For instance, quoting Clinton saying something that seems cruel, but omitting the following line, which reveals that the statement was just a joke.)

Would our response to all of this be, as some commenters in an earlier thread suggested, "'fairness' in [Volokh]'s sense is indeed not something that we generally expect or demand of such jokes," or "[j]okes don't have to meet standards of fairness, if they're funny"? Would we at least balk at the journalist's inventing a quote and passing it off as real, no matter how funny the quote is? If we would, would we think the same about the journalist's omitting important facts, or important context?

	[Eugene Volokh, May 24, 2006 at 2:04pm] Trackbacks Humor and Fairness: When I criticize Slate's Bushism of the Day, for instance on the grounds that it unfairly quotes material out of context, I often get the reaction that it's just a joke, and jokes don't have to be fair, just funny. Now I had assumed that political jokes — especially, though not only, those that are indeed trying to make a political point (however slight and familiar) — should still conform to some standards of fairness. If, for instance, some journalist wants to make fun of a candidate for the candidate's supposed inarticulateness, dishonesty, pronenss to exaggeration, pomposity, meanness, pride, or what have you, the quotes he provides in the service of this should be accurate and in context. But I realize I might be mistaken, so I thought I'd ask our readers their views. To channel the discussion, let me suggest the following. Say that a journalist decides to make fun of Hillary Clinton for some trait she supposedly possesses -- say, cold-bloodedness, personal cruelty, or pomposity. (This is purely a hypothetical; I'm not claiming that Senator Clinton possess such traits.) In the course of this, the journalist provides various quotes that are potentially funny, because they illustrate the trait in a humorous way. Which, if any of these, do you think the journalist ought not do? Or should the journalist feel free to do all of these things, on the theory that he's acting as a humorist, not a journalist, and that the sole question in humor is whether the joke is funny, not whether it's fair? 1. Making up a quote that was supposedly said by Hillary Clinton, in a context in which many readers will assume that Hillary Clinton actually said this (i.e., not in the standard "What did Hillary say to Bill?" joke, where it's clear that the statements are made up). 2. Providing a quote that Hillary Clinton actually said, but omitting a fact that the audience likely doesn't know, but that would be relevant for evaluating the actual significance of the quote. (For instance, quoting Senator Clinton saying something mean, but not revealing that she said this to someone who had supposedly romantically mistreated her daughter, or to someone who had been continuously heckling Clinton herself.) 3. Providing a quote that Hillary Clinton actually said, but not quoting the material right before or right after the quote that, if included, might change the way the audience perceives the quote. (For instance, quoting Clinton saying something that seems cruel, but omitting the following line, which reveals that the statement was just a joke.) Would our response to all of this be, as some commenters in an earlier thread suggested, "'fairness' in [Volokh]'s sense is indeed not something that we generally expect or demand of such jokes," or "[j]okes don't have to meet standards of fairness, if they're funny"? Would we at least balk at the journalist's inventing a quote and passing it off as real, no matter how funny the quote is? If we would, would we think the same about the journalist's omitting important facts, or important context?