Roger Ebert, the esteemed movie critic for the Chicago Sun-Times, has as rational a mind as anyone you might meet in the journalism game - and his recent convalescence from emergency surgery, which has left him unable to speak, has somehow sharpened his writing and his impish wit.

So when he posted a Q&A on Sunday, headlined "Creationism: Your questions answered," I immediately recognized it as a sly satire - and recognized that Ebert was following one of the first rules of satire: You play it 99 percent straight.

In the article, Ebert answered the basic questions of creationism - the alternative "theory" to evolution for how we all got here on this planet - using the arguments, as best he understands them, used by those who espouse creationism.

Apparently, though, not everyone got the joke. In a Tuesday post on his blog, Ebert laments how some in the blogosphere have opined that Ebert is a supporter of creationism, or that he's gone 'round the bend, or that Ebert's web site was hacked. None of the above, Ebert reports, as he explains why he needed to explain his creationism article:

"The purpose of this blog entry is not to discuss politics (a subject banned from the blog). Nor is it to discuss Creationism versus the theory of evolution (that way lurks an endless loop). It is to discuss the gradual decay of our sense of irony and instinct for satire, and our growing credulity."

In other words: Yes, it was a joke, but we're living in an age where jokes must be underlined in neon for everyone to understand it's a joke. We are too ready to believe what we are told - a condition, Ebert suggests, which has led to some jaw-dropping bits of political umbrage:

"These days, there is no room for ambiguity, and few rewards for critical thinking. Now every word of a politician is pumped dry by his opponent, looking for sinister meanings. Many political ads are an insult to the intelligence. Here I am not discussing politics. I am discussing credulity. If you were to see a TV ad charging that a politician supported "comprehensive sex education" for kindergarten children, would you (1) believe it, or (2) very much doubt it? The authors of the ad spent big money in a bet on the credulity and unquestioning thinking of the viewership. Ask yourself what such an ad believes about us. No politics, please."

Kudos to Roger for cutting through so many levels of nonsense with one well-sharpened knife.

Labels: journalism, Roger Ebert