Caracaturizing

In more biased news articles, I notice the authors often make the people of whom they are speaking against seem cartoonish, and generally characterized in completely over-the-top, unnecessary, and simplistic ways. Is this a type of fallacy or would you just call it sarcasm?

As far as this is related to fallacies, it could often be a form of poisoning the well<>.

If it is indeed an out of context characterization it could fall under "strawman fallacy. If this misrepresentation is of their positions. And if it's their character that is being misrepresented it could fall under one of the "poisoning the well" ad hominem fallacy. Since they are presenting someone in a very negative light as they describe that person's policy or positions.

From Dr. Bo's Menu above:

Ad Hominem (Guilt by Association)
argumentum ad hominem

(also known as: association fallacy, bad company fallacy, company that you keep fallacy, they’re not like us fallacy, transfer fallacy)

Description: When the source is viewed negatively because of its association with another person or group who is already viewed negatively.

Logical Form:

Person 1 states that Y is true.

Person 2 also states that Y is true, and person 2 is a moron.

Therefore, person 1 must be a moron too.

Example #1:

Delores is a big supporter for equal pay for equal work. This is the same policy that all those extreme feminist groups support. Extremists like Delores should not be taken seriously -- at least politically.

Explanation: Making the assumption that Delores is an extreme feminist simply because she supports a policy that virtually every man and woman also support, is fallacious.

Example #2:

Pol Pot, the Cambodian Maoist revolutionary, was against religion, and he was a very bad man. Frankie is against religion; therefore, Frankie also must be a very bad man.

Explanation: The fact that Pol Pot and Frankie share one particular view does not mean they are identical in other ways unrelated, specifically, being a very bad man. Pol Pot was not a bad man because he was against religion, he was a bad man for his genocidal actions.

Exception: If one can demonstrate that the connection between the two characteristics that were inherited by association is causally linked, or the probability of taking on a characteristic would be high, then it would be valid.

Pol Pot, the Cambodian Maoist revolutionary, was genocidal; therefore, he was a very bad man. Frankie is genocidal; therefore, Frankie must also be a very bad man.

References:

Walton, D. (1998). Ad hominem arguments. University of Alabama Press.