Yesterday morning, 1.2 million people in 6 major US cities read a morning edition of the New York Times that was a little…different. The Times was dated July 4, 2009, and announced that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had ended; global warming was fixed; and the economy was on the upswing. Good news! Or was it news?

Of course, this wasn't actually the staid NYT. Instead, a collective of activists had created the spoof, with the intent of encouraging President-Elect Obama to keep his election promises.

Gawker has a good story on some of the incredible logistics behind-the-scenes, and the technical work that was done to pull off the creation and delivery of the papers.

In recent months, it seems like political pranks have been on the rise. Some have been aided and abetted by high technology, like the extensive website of Martin Eisenstadt - a political expert according to the mainstream media, who was, in fact, a hoax.

Several major networks fell for the fake pundit. The pretend political expert was actually the creation of two filmmakers who wanted to draw attention to lack of fact-checking by the media during the election. "Martin" had an official looking blog and a series of professional YouTube videos. He was just a little lacking in actual credentials.

Then there's the tried and true, low-technology weapon of choice: the phone. Take, for example, a prank call made to Sarah Palin by a Montreal radio DJ posing as French president Nicolas Sarkozy. A highlight of the conversation built on Sarah's memorable earlier remark that she had insight into foreign policy because she could ‘actually see Russia from here in Alaska.' The fake Sarkozy remarked that he had this in common with her - except that from his house he could see Belgium.

Pranks in the name of politics, or in the name of any social cause, can be an effective way to get some attention. In doing so, you put yourself on the subjective knife-edge of good taste and poor judgment. As our technology gets better, it gets easier to pass off a hoax for the real thing. But I think that it's the intent, not just the execution, that matters. What impresses me most about the NY Times  hoax is its optimism and compassion: maybe it will create a better future tomorrow, by pretending that it's truth today.