Hello there, snow bound denizens of Earth. Today's news is brought to you by the phrases 'Knee-jerk' and 'hypocrisy.'
You know Frankie Boyle, I assume. He's the often bearded Scottish comedian who delights in breaking taboos and crossing social boundaries. You may have seen him on television's Mock the Week, or - more recently - at the top of furious tabloid headlines demanding his sacking.
What's he done now? Well, he's only gone and used some racist swear words, that's what. And on telly too. That's why we've had all the snow, and why everyone is poor, and why you have that occasional ache in your knee. I know - he's a bastard, and he needs to be stopped.
Keen readers may detect a point of sarcasm here, and well done to them - have some more Bailey's. This story should, indeed, make us angry at the stupidity of the things people say. But it sure as hell isn't Boyle we need to point the finger at.
Here's how the Daily Mail describes the story. The article, which you can find
here, is by the well known journalist 'Daily Mail Reporter':
The words 'n****r' and 'p**i' both featured during the programme, in which he has already provoked outrage by insulting cancer victims, Aids sufferers and obese people. Critics said the incident was worse than the Celebrity Big Brother outrage over the 'racist' bullying of Shilpa Shetty and called for media regulator Ofcom to investigate.
Minus points straight away for using the word 'outrage' twice in as many sentences. Seriously, get a Thesaurus. And then minus another million points for not giving us any context whatsoever. The article rants on about racism, and unacceptability, and gives just one sentence, at the end, for a possible explanation:
A spokesman said the intention was to ‘satirise’, not endorse, the words.
What? The intention? Having read the article I had assumed Boyle's intention was to be racist and offensive for the pure, evil joy of it. Are you saying, Daily Mail Reporter, that there was some other reason for the utterance of these words? Sorry? That's the end of the article? Oh. I'd better just carry on in my ill informed and idiotic beliefs.
If only, I thought, there was a way I could find out what Boyle's intention was. Maybe by looking at the actual words he said, in the context he said them. But I suppose if it was possible to do that then the paid journalist writing the article would have already done so, as part of the research for this damning report. I mean, you don't get to influence the opinions under the banner of a NUJ sanctioned newspaper without at least looking into the issues you are presenting as fact. What? You do? No way!
Imagine my surprise when I found that it was really, really easy to find out exactly what Boyle had said, and in what context. To be honest, I don't know how Daily Mail Reporter could possibly have missed them. Perhaps he was too outraged to look. I found them on comedy website
Chortle, but they are easily available in a number of other places.
Anyway, here are the jokes. Look away now if you are easily offended or an idiot.
In his stand-up routine, Boyle discussed how news reports always considered British lives more valued than foreign ones.
He said: ‘What gets me is our callousness as a society when we read out our dead on the news first, because our lives are more important. Other people’s aren’t worth as much.’
He then mimicked a newsreader to add: ‘A bomb went off in Kandahar today, killing two British servicemen, three UN relief workers and a whole bunch of Pakis.’
Later he said: ‘The Ministry of Defence? At least in the old days we were honest, it was The Ministry of War.’ He then adopted the tone of a receptionist to say: ‘Hello Ministry of War, department of nigger-bombing, how can I help?’
Now, to me that changes things quite a bit. Firstly, it is quite obvious that Boyle is not using the words to be racist. Racism is not the simple utterance of words. It is the use of them in a way which either a) deliberately denigrates a particular race or b) ignores the social power they have and their potential to offend. I don't Boyle is doing either of these. The targets of his attack are clearly the mainstream media and the Ministry of Defence, not the 'pakis' and 'niggers' of the story.
And Boyle is clearly not ignorant of the power of the words either. Here are two criticisms levelled at him, also quoted from Chortle:
A spokesman for campaign group Show Racism The Red Card said: ‘Regardless of context and intention, the use of words such as these has the effect of normalising racist language.’
And Mohammed Shafiq, chief executive of the Ramadhan Foundation called it ‘abhorrent,’ adding: ‘ People at home watching that will think that this sort of language terminology is acceptable in the 21st Century.’
I have to wonder, reading these comments, if these guys have any idea of the context either. Or have they just been fed a line by a newpaper? If they have actually seen the show or read the full quotes, I think they are really missing the point. This isn't about normalising racist words, it's about exposing already-normalised racist behaviour.
I think Boyle's words were very carefully chosen to strengthen the point he was making. Which is, let us remind ourselves, that the priorities of the British media are utterly absurd. The broadcasters and papers are quite happy to imbed racism in their news values by sidelining the significance of non-white deaths around the world. But they would
never use the word Paki! Well hurrah for them. And our goverment has been involved in the sustained murder of tens of thousands of innocents who had the misfortune to look like they might be terrorists or live in a country with a funny sounding name, but they can claim the moral high ground because they make sure not to swear.
The use of 'nigger' and 'paki' in this routine is vital. It takes attitudes and behaviours we have come to accept as normal and marries them to language that shocks and horrifies us. It challenges us: if we are going to get offended by the word paki, why the hell aren't we offended by the more subtle racism that informs the very ideology of our cultural lives?
No wonder the Daily Mail hates Boyle's words. This is a newpaper which survives entirely by pandering to the kind of insidious racism that the British really love. Asylum seekers, Muslim extremists and terror suspects merge into one terrifying entity as this paper fosters hate and fear against them. And then they point at scream at the things others do to challenge them like hysterical idiot children.
Of course you don't like Boyle, Mr Daily Mail Reporter - he's not attacking the niggers and pakis, he's attacking you.You racist, ignorant, malicious pricks.
Spot bleedin' on. Merry Christmas that man.
ReplyDelete*applauds*
ReplyDeleteWell said.
ReplyDeleteYes. But...
ReplyDeleteHaving seen Frankie Boyle (in context!) many times before, don't you think there's an equal chance he's deliberately constructing a joke in which he gets a legitimate pretext to use words regarded as the most shocking/offensive in the English language? Ie that his main aim isn't to expose racism or to be racist, but merely to shock, because that's what sustains his reputation and thereby earnings potential?
Secondly, the repeated use of particular words, phrases, or concepts in comedy, does tend to dilute their ability to shock. One recent worrisome trend is just how desensitivised most of us have become to rape jokes, which have become commonplace in comedy shows under the pretext of "being ironic". There isn't a whole lot of evidence one way or the other what effect these have (although certainly they should come with a trigger warning) but it doesn't seem implausible to me that they trivialise rape and thereby contribute to rape denial culture.
In a similar way I can see Show Racism The Red Card's point. In this case there is a clear satirical intent that can be seen from reading the quotes in context. BUT not all cases are clear-cut and I imagine they would not want a situation where comedians can easily justify using these words in their routines on the pretext of "it was ironic", when really their intent was just to shock. The danger is that even when the words are genuinely used in a satirical way, it may normalise their use in comedy (even when the satire isn't as well-judged), which may in turn normalise their use in society.
I'm not arguing for censorship here, only that whenever people talk about these issues openly it's regarded as a valid contribution to understanding and appreciating comedy and not as "political correctness gone mad".
Of course, none of the above should be taken as justifying anything that the filthy rag you mentioned (whose name is offensive to me) published.
Hi Tim. This was flagged as spam, and I only just noticed. Don't know why.
ReplyDeleteGood points, and I do think there is something in Boyle that wants to shock for the sake of it. In this case I believe it is justified by the intent of the material. The stuff about Jordan's son, for example, I have no strong interest in defending.
I think if comedians want to play the context card, then they need to be able to justify it. I'm not sure ironic is the right way to see it here, though. To me, irony is a slippery, intangible thing that does, as you say, allow people to get away with being offensive under the 'I was just kidding' defence.
Is Boyle's use ironic though? TO me, it's making the inherent racism of the news explicit through deliberate use of language. I think the words are sincerely meant to be racist phrases, but put into the mouths of his targets rather than aimed at their 'real' targets. If that makes sense.
I agree with you that this particular joke uses the words in context and that in contrast to the joke about Jordan's son, this joke is aimed at targets up the social hierarchy rather than down it.
ReplyDeleteMy concern (and like I say, this isn't meant to justify censorship) is that even using the words in a "valid" contextual way can make it more acceptable to use them in comedy generally. That leads to comedians using them in a "I was just kidding" way and their acceptability in being used against their "real" targets, as you put it, using the irony defence. It's basically a slippery slope argument. I'm not fond of slippery slope arguments in general but I think it's the point Show Racism The Red Card were trying to make.
Of course the problem (or wonderfully liberating reality, if you consider it as part of the context of the new convenant!) is that there is no rule that can be applied. Every joke has to be considered on its own merits. In this case, the question is - did it have enough satirical merit (and also was it plain funny enough) to justify using the words. Although the joke was technically right-on and makes a welcome change from his material on disability, I'd suggest the road it goes down is so well-rehearsed that it's not really worth it, but of course that's a judgement call. The point that British news organisations cover the deaths of non-white people less seriously than white, and especially white British people, is hardly an original point, even though it is true.
What annoys me is that currently everyone seems to fall in either the "comedians have gone too far and should be banned" camp or the "people should be able to say whatever they want so whatever they say we'll defend them" camp. Ironically(!) both camps use the "political correctness gone mad" maxim to make their cases.
I wish more people understood there is a middle way which accepts censoring comedy is rarely if ever a good idea, but which unloads a torrent of abuse at any comedian who picks targets below them in the social hierarchy rather than above. (I suggest the best abuse is linking them to Jim Davidson and calling them unfunny.)
Sadly neither the Daily Mail nor some of the "champions" of free speech seem to understand that it is possible, and desirable, to call something offensive without calling for it to be banned. Running to Ofcom is not the solution, public shaming of comedians who bully the weak is.