To say that they approached the topic with skepticism is to imply that they literally considered the possibility that this truly was a time traveler. That itself is a POV. I disagree and say that the reporters and anchors who reported the story were well aware that this was a joke and that debunking it was simply part of the satire. "Debunking" a time traveler is POV. And if it is satire it is clearly intentional unreliability. Reporting what something appears to be is a pseudoscience. Every year many news sources have "Special Issues" on April 1st. There is an understanding that on that date many pranks may be pulled. We laugh and then forget the jokes the next day, in my opinion. Orson Welles' "War of the Worlds" broadcast is notable because (amongst other things) of the widespread panic that it caused by people who literally believed it to be a reliable news item. I don't think that any of these people "went along with the fun, wink wink, nudge nudge, and fled their homes just for the snicker bragging rights". No such notable hysteria came of this story, as I had already shown that since the initial flash in the pan 2 months ago this has been mentioned only once by any news source. Charlie Chaplin's The Circus is not the point, it never has been. The point is seeing how far a joke can be stretched for the snickering fun of it. The Circus, or a few seconds from an extra feature on its DVD over 80 years after it was made, its itself arbitrary to the joke itself. How then does this help the wikipedia article for The Circus? -