Comments on: Those dastardly Clintonites….

By: Greg

Greg — Thu, 28 Oct 2004 15:26:34 +0000

If anyone’s interested, I’ve scanned in the article in question and posted it on my site, just a tiny bit bigger than it was originally published. You’ll get some idea of just how insignificant this article was, tucked away in the middle of the Guide, one tiny bit of the Saturday Guardian, which includes the main paper, the Review section, three separate supplements on sport, travel, and jobs and money, the Weekend magazine, and yes, the Guide.

By: mona

mona — Thu, 28 Oct 2004 08:56:53 +0000

Yeah, satire is supposed to be funny. But not everyone agrees on what’s funny. Not everyone agrees on what’s satire. See the huge complaints about the programme simstin mentioned in the first comment on this thread. This column was actually very restrained by comparison, and rather lazy, nothing particular original about describing Bush as mad or about that last infamous line. But the reactions to it have made the point far better than the column itself. That there’s people who claim it was a genuine call for assassination is something no parody could have achieved. If it had been some conservative wacko saying the same about Kerry, I imagine the reactions would also depend similarly on whether it was meant as obvious joke or earnest opinion, and whether that wacko was a comedian, or a political commentator. Howard Stern, or a major newspaper columnist – I think you’ll agree that changes the context a bit. Likewise, if what Brooker wrote had been written by the Guardian editor in a serious opinion piece. Thickness strikes in bipartisan fashion, so maybe you’d have gotten the very same reactions had this been Stern and Kerry. But unfortunately there seem to be more conservative wackos who say deeply offensive and tasteless stuff in earnest than tasteless comedians who say tasteless things in obvious sarcastic mode, whatever the target. The two things cannot be compared, but the reactions can indeed. Interestingly, the former don’t seem to trouble the delicate tastes of the conservative American public that much.

By: FutureTense

FutureTense — Wed, 27 Oct 2004 22:35:57 +0000

Sorry about the triple post. It timed out the first two times I tried to post, I swear.

By: FutureTense

FutureTense — Wed, 27 Oct 2004 22:32:07 +0000

Mona, I always thought satire had to be funny. But then maybe I’m not clever enough to understand just how risible is an invocation of the three most notorious assassins in American history. Ah, I see it now—whoo-hoo, my sides are splitting! What exactly is Brooker satirizing, anyway? Bush-hating leftists? I await the reaction of everybody in this comments section upon the first similar statement made by a conservative wacko in the event of a Kerry presidency. I hope you all take it with the same large-hearted spirit that you’ve taken Brooker’s “jest.”

By: FutureTense

FutureTense — Wed, 27 Oct 2004 21:46:59 +0000

Mona, I always thought satire had to be funny. But then maybe I’m not clever enough to understand just how risible is an invocation of the three most notorious assassins in American history. What exactly is Brooker satirizing, anyway? Bush-hating leftists? I await the reaction of everybody in this comments section upon the first similar statement made by a conservative wacko in the event of a Kerry presidency. I hope you all take it with the same large-hearted spirit that you’ve taken Brooker’s “jest.”

By: FutureTense

FutureTense — Wed, 27 Oct 2004 21:45:30 +0000

Mona, I always thought satire had to be funny. But then maybe I’m not clever enough to understand just how risible is an invocation of the three most notorious assassins in American history. What exactly is Brooker satirizing, anyway? Bush-hating leftists? I await the reaction of everybody in this comments section upon the first similar statement made by a conservative wacko in the event of a Kerry presidency. I hope you all take it with the same large-hearted spirit that you’ve taken Brooker’s “jest.”

By: mona

mona — Wed, 27 Oct 2004 15:44:25 +0000

No, Sebastian, don’t give up that easily, an easy apology on print is most definitely not enough. Brooker must cross the Atlantic swimming day and night then crawl on his knees all the way to the White House gates where he should hold a hunger strike until he gets an audience with King George, and then, only then, his apology will be genuine. What we all need is inoffensive satire, a bit like compassionate conservatism. Only people who really mean it should be excused for saying and doing offensive stuff.

By: Ginger Yellow

Ginger Yellow — Wed, 27 Oct 2004 13:13:22 +0000

“And hell, I’m not even asking that he be fired. I would love a mere acknowledgement that he crossed the line and that the comment should never have been published in the Guardian. ” Well you’re not going to get it from me. Brooker “crosses the line” every single time he puts pen to paper. That, for the umpteenth time, is the whole point. As I said before, take a look at TVGoHome. Just to take a random sample, the last listing he published has a programme called “It Shouldn’t Happen To A… Blameless Child”. The most commonly featured programme on TVGoHome is called C*nt (which by the way is being made into a real programme with Chris Morris). “If on the same page, in the same font, the message had not been “killing George Bush is kinda funny and a good thing” but something like “God I hate dirty niggers,” then everyone who is DEFENDING the “joke” would be up in arms, and vice-versa. It’s all about whose ox is getting gored.” As dsquared says, Brooker is way ahead of you. I thought, having been through the whole South Park controversy years ago, US readers might be familiar with the concept of offending everyone. Clearly I was wrong.

By: Sebastian Holsclaw

Sebastian Holsclaw — Wed, 27 Oct 2004 06:56:29 +0000

It seems that Brooker has actually apologized. And it seems to be a real apology. So unless he is joking now, that is good enough for me.

By: jet

jet — Wed, 27 Oct 2004 03:19:18 +0000

Yeah, Sebastian. When I grow up, I want to be smart like you. Ann Coulter’s being fired from a job seems like a very major consequence for saying something stupid. But apparently she should have been beaten by her husband, or stoned to death, because getting canned isn’t a big enough “desert” for her. “Pox on all” makes a good point too. You can’t defend one person by claiming another person’s identical dreadful actions went unpunished (and don’t claim satire, cause last I checked blackface was still incredibely offensive). Or did two wrongs start making a right? I always did forget when to find the integral of a right and derivative of a wrong.

By: Heraldlbog

Heraldlbog — Wed, 27 Oct 2004 00:47:30 +0000

Mr. Brooker could set everything right again if he made a joke about assassinating Yassar Arafat. I didn’t think so.

By: james

james — Tue, 26 Oct 2004 21:54:10 +0000

The joke doesn’t play well in the United States. Especially from a foreign source. If it had been an American paper, possibly. Apparently the idea of being sensitive to other cultures does not apply to the United States. At least Charlie Brooker had the good sense to apologize.

By: Matt McGrattan

Matt McGrattan — Tue, 26 Oct 2004 21:45:43 +0000

Personally, there’s no need to defend Brooker by comparing him to anyone (whether or not I approve or disapprove of their personal politics). Brooker’s comment was just a typical comment in the context of his usual confrontational, sarcastic TV review. As I’ve already mentioned, he’s an equal opportunity abuser. It’s totally clear from the context of his writing, and the substance, that he’s not to be taken seriously. It’s a willful misreading of his stuff to take it as anything other than throwaway sarcasm.

By: Sebastian Holsclaw

Sebastian Holsclaw — Tue, 26 Oct 2004 21:18:17 +0000

BTW, isn’t it just a little weird that you try to defend Brooker by comparing him to people that you think should be driven away from having a public voice? I would never try to defend a conservative by saying that he says things that are as crazy as Chomsky.

By: Sebastian Holsclaw

Sebastian Holsclaw — Tue, 26 Oct 2004 21:13:57 +0000

“Well, we know one thing about you, Sebastian. If the trains start rolling, you won’t raise your head, except perhaps to point out some neighbor who has questioned the dominant order.” That isn’t a joke right? I’m not good at recognizing them so I have to ask. I don’t defend Ann Coulter. And as I mentioned, she was fired from the National Review over the comments in question. I don’t see exactly what more you want. Which is especially ‘funny’ because you clearly want more to happen to Coulter, while you want the consequence of Brooker’s alleged ‘joke’ to be precisely zero. And hell, I’m not even asking that he be fired. I would love a mere acknowledgement that he crossed the line and that the comment should never have been published in the Guardian. Instead we have people defending his statement as if it were the most natural thing to say. Which I fully suspect in your circles it would be. Which, I suppose, is good for me to know.