Written by JennyNorthStar

Saturday, 15 September 2018

ONLY IN AMERICA - Last Wednesday I submitted an article "I Am Anonymous" to The Spoof. My source, of course, Anonymous. In Anonymous' own words it was described how Anonymous is the most influential person on the planet! In the article, Anonymous also confirmed Anonymous wrote the now infamous New York Times Op-ed article published the previous week - claiming officials in the Trump administration were working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.

After submitting the article, I was informed by a member of the The Spoof editorial staff that it contained "No News" and would be removed from "News Headlines" and relegated to the "Magazine" section. No News? Ha. Ha. Ha. Anonymous has been the source of news and the premier topic of conversation for months. You can't pick up a paper, watch a news program, or visit a social media site where Anonymous isn't being quoted or discussed. There isn't an informed person on the planet who doesn't want to know more about Anonymous.

As you can imagine, I was distraught over Anonymous being treated unfairly by The Spoof. In fact, the editor who informed me of the decision, Monkey Woods, who many of you may know from his prolific The Spoof writings (over 3 thousand to date), was cordial, yet firm. Not necessarily conspiratorial in nature, I did ponder whether my previous article, penned only a few days earlier, "No More Monkeying Around", influenced Mr. Monkey's decision.

After further introspection and reflection on the classification of "I Am Anonymous" by The Spoof, I now feel honored and privileged just being part of this site. I am celebrating their decision! Many critical of the unsubstantiated, unverified, anonymous New York Times Op-ed say the piece is a breach of journalism ethics. DePauw University professor and media analyst Jeffrey McCall said: "it’s extremely unusual for any newspaper to let an anonymous source post an op-ed or even letter to the editor."

In other words, The Spoof, by not allowing an article written by Anonymous to appear it its "News" section,The Spoof's standards, ethics, and journalism integrity are far superior to the New York Times! I'm sure many of you knew that already. I hope you will join me is saying: "Bravo Spoof!" Pulitzer prizes next....

Just when the New York Times anonymous op-ed hullabaloo and media circus was beginning to wane, guess who is back for the weekend and probably the weeks to come? You got it: Anonymous! The target this time, not Donald Trump or anyone in his administration, but his Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh who was on his way to confirmation.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., on Thursday insinuated that the Supreme Court nominee could be guilty of a crime. Her statement: “I have received information from an individual concerning the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court,” Feinstein said in her surprise statement. “That individual strongly requested confidentiality, declined to come forward or press the matter further, and I have honored that decision." To clarify her statement: It's Anonymous.

The complaint supposedly came in a letter from a woman who accused Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct when they were both in high school, more than thirty years ago. Unable to derail Brett Kavanaugh's Supreme Court confirmation after many hours of meetings and contentious hearings, using Anonymous and sex sounds like the perfect stop gap measure. Just the innuendo of sexual misconduct by a man is enough to convict him in the #MeToo times we are living in.

Don't be surprised when Anonymous runs on the Democratic presidential ticket in 2020.

The story above is a satire or parody. It is entirely fictitious.

Do you dream of being a comedy news writer? Click here to be a writer!





Mailing List

Get Spoof News in your email inbox!

Go to top
45 readers are online right now!
Globey, The Spoof's mascot

We use cookies to give you the best experience, this includes cookies from third party websites and advertisers.

Continue ? Find out more