In recent days there has been a lot of rabble-rousing from certain biased sections of the media, from The ABC to those famously untrustworthy reporters at the New York Times, claiming that we at the Chaser were in some way in denial that tigers eating your face is a problem. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Yes, we may have consistently run headlines across all our media channels calling people who advocate against being eaten by tigers “crazy anti-face eating loonies” and called the people trying to stop tigers eating our faces hysteric, and yes we may have run various front page covers attacking a young girl who doesn’t want to have her face eaten, and yes we’ll admit that we may even have run a front page hit job on a Liberal minister after he spoke out and said that tigers eating our faces is a problem, but you see all of that was what we in the journalism business call balance.
You see, when two people present us with conflicting points of view, it is our job to present both sides, without researching the validity of their arguments, no matter how flimsy and transparent one side’s arguments may be. That’s called journalism. Take for example, tigers eating your face. Yes, on one side pretty much every expert in the field may advocate against being eaten by tigers, but then what about the tiger lobby? They’ve informed us that in fact, it is quite safe to put your face into a tiger’s mouth, and shouldn’t those views be heard too? What’s more, shouldn’t those views be given a prominent front page platform, and those that speak against it be vilified and made fun of? We certainly think so. How else would people know what the truth is, if we didn’t constantly provide them with the counter arguments cooked up by a bunch of uninformed crackpots?
So you see, clearly we’ve never once denied tigers eating your face was bad, and in fact now that a tiger is eating our face we’re willing to concede that the experts on the matter were right. But how were we to know? For all we know those figures about all the people dying after their faces were eaten could have been missing crucial data from before 1901.
Also, let us be clear, if we did deny the tiger-face-eating “science” (which by the way, more people die from arson than tiger-face-eating so maybe we should be focusing on that) it was only in the opinion section, and occasionally on our front page, and sometimes as a headline in our regular news section, and also sometimes as an editorial, or 120 times in a prominent blog by one of our star writers. How in the world you people can’t separate these opinion, front page, blog, and regular journalism pieces from our other regular journalism is beyond us.
In any case, for the love of god, stop unsubscribing. We never once denied that tigers eating your face was bad, no matter what our website’s easily accessible search function might say.
Also on a completely unrelated note, cancel your news corp subscription.