Unfit for satire?
Buried in the often deep, but generally meaningless, late-night conversations which fellow writers have with each other are nugget-like gems of outstandingly mundane common sense. These are not glorious, fiat lux moments, signalling spontaneous mutual realizations of missing elements from golden comedy formulae. They're more likely to be utterances along the lines of "You need a good knob joke there," or "Just escalate it outrageously, so you have Brown, Cameron, and Clegg physically beating their own MPs in public, competing for cheers from a crowd of baying onlookers chanting 'Duck pond!' and 'Porn rentals!'." (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8306058.stm)
The News Quiz returned to Radio 4 last week (http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio4/fricomedy/rss.xml), and HIGNFY returns to BBC1 this Friday (http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/haveigotnewsforyou/). Neither show features pre-recorded sketch inserts, which is a shame. Private Eye magazine, of course, never takes a break (http://www.private-eye.co.uk).
Gillray had it easy, y'know.
_____________________
One of the problems satirists are faced with during an extended pre-election period of political parties doing their damnedest to look very much like each other is also experienced in the wider world, where any commentary is far more easily, and quickly, perceived as 'biased'. Truisms like "Oh, she's always against the Labour government, whatever they're doing", or "He'll keep knocking the Tories regardless, even though they've been out of power for twelve years" become harder to refute. People feel more secure in their opinions when examples of 'consistency' can be pinpointed, and backed-up with specific references which represent distinct patterns.
It becomes tiresome, for instance, to try and reason with any onlookers (or casual readers) who might hold erroneous views about a particular commentator in the blogosphere, even when armed with the cast-iron defence of the blogosphere being young, and the pre-history of that commentator's contrary output being largely unrecorded in an easily accessible format. If the Internet has encouraged laziness, it's understandable that such laziness might become retrospective - extending to an apparent inability or unwillingness to either check facts or seek direct evidence from the horse's mouth.
To bring this entry full circle, and to highlight more specifically one of those areas which it is sadly now almost impossible to satirise, I'll leave you with this link to a story about the Conservative Party's "new" policy on higher education:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8305698.stm
What's especially telling about the "new" policy is that it appears to be Labour's old policy, dusted down and smartened-up with a new coat of economic awareness paint. Whether or not David Willetts appreciates that university degrees aren't necessarily designed to equip students for the modern economy (since they're primarily intended to aid critical thinking about and understanding of specific subjects) is almost a moot point. Neither party has ever seemed keen to challenge or question its own misconceptions on this issue, and I don't believe that personal (politically objective) consistency regarding the need for a viable, practical alternative to HE adds anything particularly valuable.
Or funny, for that matter.
The News Quiz returned to Radio 4 last week (http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio4/fricomedy/rss.xml), and HIGNFY returns to BBC1 this Friday (http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/haveigotnewsforyou/). Neither show features pre-recorded sketch inserts, which is a shame. Private Eye magazine, of course, never takes a break (http://www.private-eye.co.uk).
Gillray had it easy, y'know.
_____________________
One of the problems satirists are faced with during an extended pre-election period of political parties doing their damnedest to look very much like each other is also experienced in the wider world, where any commentary is far more easily, and quickly, perceived as 'biased'. Truisms like "Oh, she's always against the Labour government, whatever they're doing", or "He'll keep knocking the Tories regardless, even though they've been out of power for twelve years" become harder to refute. People feel more secure in their opinions when examples of 'consistency' can be pinpointed, and backed-up with specific references which represent distinct patterns.
It becomes tiresome, for instance, to try and reason with any onlookers (or casual readers) who might hold erroneous views about a particular commentator in the blogosphere, even when armed with the cast-iron defence of the blogosphere being young, and the pre-history of that commentator's contrary output being largely unrecorded in an easily accessible format. If the Internet has encouraged laziness, it's understandable that such laziness might become retrospective - extending to an apparent inability or unwillingness to either check facts or seek direct evidence from the horse's mouth.
To bring this entry full circle, and to highlight more specifically one of those areas which it is sadly now almost impossible to satirise, I'll leave you with this link to a story about the Conservative Party's "new" policy on higher education:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8305698.stm
What's especially telling about the "new" policy is that it appears to be Labour's old policy, dusted down and smartened-up with a new coat of economic awareness paint. Whether or not David Willetts appreciates that university degrees aren't necessarily designed to equip students for the modern economy (since they're primarily intended to aid critical thinking about and understanding of specific subjects) is almost a moot point. Neither party has ever seemed keen to challenge or question its own misconceptions on this issue, and I don't believe that personal (politically objective) consistency regarding the need for a viable, practical alternative to HE adds anything particularly valuable.
Or funny, for that matter.