> These people use the classic tactic of saying something insanely outlandish, and when they are called out on it, they just use the "I was obviously sarcastic" card.

So, like, the 'Saturday Night Live Card'?

Do you not find a difference between a show that bills itself as comedy and satire and a site that bills itself as news and info?

The former can be just as disingenuous as the latter. Jon Stewart wielded immense political influence amongst the under-30 crowd, but whenever seriously challenged, hid behind the defense of comedy.

Yiannopoulos consistently billed himself as a provocateur, little different from a Coulter or Maher.

People have been blending news, entertainment, and polemic together for centuries and it's not going to stop because some people want to codify rules of Serious Journalism and impose them universally across the Internet.

Sure, but net effect is the same - saying something hugely biased and hiding behind a screen of humor (legitimate or not) to allow it to be said.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Story_within_a_story

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weekend_Update

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jester

SNL is a comedy sketch. You go in with the expectation of satire and sarcasm. Milo and InfoWars most definitely don't act like they are joking, they purposefully tread the line, and use the "joke" excuse for when they happen to cross it.