Earlier this month the Iowa State Daily infringed the copyright on material from The Northern Iowan about interracial marriage, omitted the preface that appeared in the original — “Columnist Trevor Boeckmann uses old arguments against interracial marriage to question current arguments against homosexual marriage” — and then added this alarmist headline: “White male, white female: Keep it the way God intended.”

The Daily is an independent student newspaper, among the best such publications in the nation, as its many awards attest.

One of the reasons it has such esteem concerns its willingness to admit errors and clear the record. Its editors have been trying to do that for several days now, in various printed, online and interpersonal apologies.Finally, those editors asked me to write this op-ed as an ethicist who has published chapters about what satire is and what it isn’t, and Boeckmann’s column — for all its good intent, showing how antiquated arguments have arisen again on gay marriage — is not satire, although that’s what The Northern Iowan has been calling it. So we have been calling it satire too. Material for Boeckmann’s column, “adopted from talking points by Let Us Vote Iowa,” is an important contribution to the debate about gay marriage.

However, an informed op-ed would have been more powerful than an attempt at satire, the wrong vehicle for such a topic in an Internet age known for alarmist messages on virtually any subject.

In other words, it is easy to confuse the audience by shock arguments about interracial marriage — particularly if the newspaper drops a preface that puts the piece into context.

Satire has these essential components:

   1. The 1 percent of truth that everyone acknowledges but dare not express.

   2. An untrustworthy title or headline that grates against the content.

   3. An unreliable voice so that readers “get” the truth, and the truth gets out.

   4. An argument that does not make its points at the expense of innocent others.

Apply those rules to the work that inspired them, “A Modest Proposal,” composed in 1729 by Irish-born writer Jonathan Swift.

His title is a dead giveaway; his “proposal” — to end Irish famine and over-population by devouring babies — was anything but modest. Moreover, he used the unreliable voice of a “proper” English lord: “I grant this food will be somewhat dear, and therefore very proper for landlords, who, as they have already devoured most of the parents, seem to have the best title to the children.”At the time, the English ruling class was doing little to end Irish famine and hardship.

The attack was not humorous, but true, exposing the 1 percent that British monarchs refused to admit about their treatment of the Irish. The double message also is obvious; otherwise the idea of cannibalizing children would be vulgar.

Today, The Daily Show is popular because it exposes that same 1 percent of truth.

The next time you watch a segment, apply those Swiftian rules to see why Jon Stewart is so effective. A few years ago, I interviewed Tony Fox, executive vice president of Comedy Central.

He told me, “Virtually everything that Jon Stewart discusses is the truth. His report is real, and he’s not making stuff up. Jon Stewart and his writers are just shining a light on things that the mainstream media aren’t covering.” The mainstream student media, our Iowa State Daily, made more than an error in judgment, it took without asking (also an Internet habit), removed a vital preface, and it caused people pain and anguish.

That said, I want to acknowledge that most student journalists — including ones at the Univeristy of Northern Iowa and Iowa State — are conscientious and dedicated. This op-ed is merely a “teaching moment.”

As such, I recommend that both newspapers do a proactive series on interracial and gay relationships and marriage to illustrate a universal rather than satiric truth: Love prevails, at times, even over law.

Michael Bugeja is the director of the Greenlee School of Journalism and Mass Communication.