After reading the essay "Consider the Lobster" by the famous writer David Foster Wallace, I realized that Wallace had employed a rather sly technique. If you're interested in answering this question, I suggest you read it (or part of it... it's pretty long). If not...
TLDR: This article was written for a culinary magazine, and it offers a review of the Maine Lobster Festival. Wallace begins by providing a positive description of the event in his typical entertainingly humorous tone. As the essay progresses, however, he describes the anatomy of a lobster and the methods with which it is usually prepared, sustaining his positive spin but sowing a bit of disgust and discomfort in the reader's mind. He then turns on the event as well, decrying its irritating pitfalls and the unsavory crowd that it attracts. He eventually delves into a full-blown philosophical discussion about the ethics of boiling lobsters alive, bringing the reader with him on a moral and scientific tirade that provides a thorough exploration of the issue.
By beginning his article in the way that any typical culinary-magazine-reader would expect, he allows the reader to make an investment of time and emotion in the essay so that when he turns the tables and betrays the reader's expectations, he/she will be more likely to keep reading. In this way, he tricks the reader into "eating his/her philosophical vegetables" by presenting what looks like an easy read but is actually an ethical analysis. This is a very clever technique, but this essay is the first in which I have ever seen it used.
QUESTION: Is this a common technique? Can you provide any other examples of articles/essays/etc. that use it to trick the reader into consuming an uncomfortable message? Is there a name for this technique?