Post a Reply
Back to the Forum
Simple answer, no I don't. I think some people have very strong opinions on certain 'things' and should therefore avoid satirical representations of them.
Posted: 10:16 Mar 24 2002
A time and a place for satire?
Last week the Observer (as the other broadsheets did) included a '6 months on' supplement with the main body of the paper.
Included within the supplement were a collection of pieces of work entitled '9/11: An Absolute Atrocity Special'.
The pieces were written by Armando Ianucci (Friday Night Armistice - BBC2, writer of Alan Partridge) and Chris Morris (Brass Eye - Channel 4).
They can be found at the following urls:
www.observer.co.uk/waronterrorism/story/0,1373,668707,00.html
www.observer.co.uk/waronterrorism/story/0,1373,668677,00.html
[Please be aware, this piece includes several sexual swear words]
www.observer.co.uk/waronterrorism/story/0,1373,668680,00.html
www.observer.co.uk/waronterrorism/story/0,1373,668764,00.html
Alternatively, having gone to one link, the other 3 articles are listed at the bottom of each page under the heading '9/11: An Absolute Atrocity Special'
The point of telling you all this? The articles caused a fair amount of controversy.
Do you think that some subjects are inherently unsuitable for satire?
[The subject of the articles is September 11th 2001 and some people may find them offensive]
Included within the supplement were a collection of pieces of work entitled '9/11: An Absolute Atrocity Special'.
The pieces were written by Armando Ianucci (Friday Night Armistice - BBC2, writer of Alan Partridge) and Chris Morris (Brass Eye - Channel 4).
They can be found at the following urls:
www.observer.co.uk/waronterrorism/story/0,1373,668707,00.html
www.observer.co.uk/waronterrorism/story/0,1373,668677,00.html
[Please be aware, this piece includes several sexual swear words]
www.observer.co.uk/waronterrorism/story/0,1373,668680,00.html
www.observer.co.uk/waronterrorism/story/0,1373,668764,00.html
Alternatively, having gone to one link, the other 3 articles are listed at the bottom of each page under the heading '9/11: An Absolute Atrocity Special'
The point of telling you all this? The articles caused a fair amount of controversy.
Do you think that some subjects are inherently unsuitable for satire?
[The subject of the articles is September 11th 2001 and some people may find them offensive]
36 Replies and 6094 Views in Total. [ 1 2 ]
Posted: 10:16 Mar 24 2002 
I think the only people that will be hurt or upset by this sort of thing are the wives, husbands, children and other friends and relatives of the thousands and thousands of people who died.
But then again Chris Morris is uttery pathetic at anything else and it's been a while since he actually *did* anything, so yay for a major disaster. He has to keep his name in the spotlight somehow.
Yes, some subjects are unsuitable for satire.
But then again Chris Morris is uttery pathetic at anything else and it's been a while since he actually *did* anything, so yay for a major disaster. He has to keep his name in the spotlight somehow.
Yes, some subjects are unsuitable for satire.
Posted: 10:51 Mar 24 2002
Just like to add that, as with the Brass Eye programme about paedophilia, it seems to me that the butts of the various jokes are not the victims of the attacks on September 11th, but the commentators. While the story was hardly a molehill in the first place, the media still managed to create the mother of all mountains out of it. The adage, "It's funny, cos it's true", definitely applies...
Posted: 10:56 Mar 24 2002 Yes because you are not one of the thousands of people who lost a loved one ..... I think you would view it differently if you were, In saying that I too found some of it quiet humourous. But I do agree with Red that certain subjects are totaly unsuitable for satire
by Joe
LOL sorry, but what I've read so far is pretty funny...
Posted: 11:58 Mar 24 2002 
And here's something in a similar kind of vein:
Spanish September 11th Comedy Show
Do i think that some subjects are inherently unsuitable for satire? No. I appreciate that some people will be offended/appalled by stories or shows like this. When i think i might feel that way about an article, if it seems to be attacking something i feel strongly about or hold dear to me, then i generally read it. Often i am amused by it, and if i am not then it's a good chance to try and examine why that is, and look closer at my feelings on the subject.
[attempted editing to express myself more clearly, but failed miserably as usual. Despite sleeping through most of my shift this morning, too fuzzy for a topic like this]
(Edited by Watcher girl 24/03/2002 13:07)
Spanish September 11th Comedy Show
Do i think that some subjects are inherently unsuitable for satire? No. I appreciate that some people will be offended/appalled by stories or shows like this. When i think i might feel that way about an article, if it seems to be attacking something i feel strongly about or hold dear to me, then i generally read it. Often i am amused by it, and if i am not then it's a good chance to try and examine why that is, and look closer at my feelings on the subject.
[attempted editing to express myself more clearly, but failed miserably as usual. Despite sleeping through most of my shift this morning, too fuzzy for a topic like this]
(Edited by Watcher girl 24/03/2002 13:07)
Posted: 13:02 Mar 24 2002 No, because the joke is not on the victims or their families. The latter group may, indeed, be so thoroughly cheesed off with the actions being committed in their names, and the names of their dead and missing loved ones, that they welcome the irreverence being directed at those posters of blubbing birds and militaristic rhetoric (has anyone asked them?).
by Sweet-Sange
(quotes)Yes because you are not one of the thousands of people who lost a loved one .....
"Dad, what's an Arab?"
'Nuff said.
Posted: 14:14 Mar 24 2002
I saw this in the paper last weekend. I didn't quite know what to make of it then and I'm not sure I do now.
On the one hand, I think satire can be a very good thing. I didn't see all of the 'Brass Eye' on paedophilia but I thought that what I did see was very funny and absolutely targeted against the media hype that had led to mobs on the streets and attacks on paediatricians.
However, while the Observer article was amusing, I felt profoundly uneasy reading parts of it. I have laughed at satirical comments about the war and the media reaction before, including Jeremy Hardy on the News Quiz a matter of weeks after September 11th, something which I know provoked a number of complaints. The thing I found disturbing in this article was the suggestion that the collapse of the towers was media hype as well, although I'm not sure why - perhaps because I still wish so much that that could be true
I know that the point of satire is to poke fun at society's sacred cows and that it aims to provoke shock as much as amusement. I think that the war and even the memorial concerts could be fair targets. However, I think Chris Morris has mistaken the continued horror at the attacks of September 11 which has kept them, their victims and their families in the news as their elevation to 'sacred cow status'.I don't think this is the case. I think that the shock and horror are still genuine, and that makes it an inappropriate target for satire.
(Edited by White Hart 24/03/2002 14:23)
On the one hand, I think satire can be a very good thing. I didn't see all of the 'Brass Eye' on paedophilia but I thought that what I did see was very funny and absolutely targeted against the media hype that had led to mobs on the streets and attacks on paediatricians.
However, while the Observer article was amusing, I felt profoundly uneasy reading parts of it. I have laughed at satirical comments about the war and the media reaction before, including Jeremy Hardy on the News Quiz a matter of weeks after September 11th, something which I know provoked a number of complaints. The thing I found disturbing in this article was the suggestion that the collapse of the towers was media hype as well, although I'm not sure why - perhaps because I still wish so much that that could be true
I know that the point of satire is to poke fun at society's sacred cows and that it aims to provoke shock as much as amusement. I think that the war and even the memorial concerts could be fair targets. However, I think Chris Morris has mistaken the continued horror at the attacks of September 11 which has kept them, their victims and their families in the news as their elevation to 'sacred cow status'.I don't think this is the case. I think that the shock and horror are still genuine, and that makes it an inappropriate target for satire.
(Edited by White Hart 24/03/2002 14:23)
Posted: 14:22 Mar 24 2002
I agree with a lot of what both Joe and White Hart have said. I've just read all the articles, quite a lot of it made me laugh, quite a few comments made me think. Which surely is the point of satire. It is not poking fun at tragic events or at innocent people who have suffered, it is offering a challenge to accepted viewpoints.
Like White Hart a couple of parts made me feel a little uncomfortable without quite being sure why. But that is not to say that they shouldn't have been written - who is to say that those parts wouldn't challenge another reader into reexamaning their own views?
Overall I would say that if a subject is fit for discussion then it is fit for satire, satire is just another means of putting a point. And on the subject of September 11th and the aftermath, a lot of things have come from that which I do not believe are good things, they are things that deserve to be challenged and critically examined and if articles like these help people to do this then they will have served a positive purpose.
Like White Hart a couple of parts made me feel a little uncomfortable without quite being sure why. But that is not to say that they shouldn't have been written - who is to say that those parts wouldn't challenge another reader into reexamaning their own views?
Overall I would say that if a subject is fit for discussion then it is fit for satire, satire is just another means of putting a point. And on the subject of September 11th and the aftermath, a lot of things have come from that which I do not believe are good things, they are things that deserve to be challenged and critically examined and if articles like these help people to do this then they will have served a positive purpose.
Posted: 19:23 Mar 24 2002 
Sorry, I have read all the articles and I think that...
1. This isn't really the sort of place that this kind of URL should be posted.
2. If people are so interested in reading these (news)articles then they will find them themselves.
3. I believe that certain things should not be subject to satire. Especially when it is still fresh in the minds of a lot of people and could cause them more pain.
1. This isn't really the sort of place that this kind of URL should be posted.
2. If people are so interested in reading these (news)articles then they will find them themselves.
3. I believe that certain things should not be subject to satire. Especially when it is still fresh in the minds of a lot of people and could cause them more pain.
Posted: 19:37 Mar 24 2002 Why?
by Ethan
1. This isn't really the sort of place that this kind of URL should be posted.
Posted: 20:11 Mar 24 2002 If a URL requires a possible adult content warning I would think it is unsuitable for a family friendly board.
by Incandenza
Why?
What could you have done? Tell people that if they wished to read these articles, you could provide them with the link.
One link, leads to another, leads to another.....
Posted: 20:19 Mar 24 2002
I second that "why?" The opening post on this topic contains more than adequate warnings for anyone who could be in any way offended by the content of the linked articles.
If you don't agree with the validity of what has been written (and though I have defended I can quite appreciate that many people might not) surely it is better to set out the reasons why not, rather than ignore it (if this is what you are suggesting we should do?)
If you don't agree with the validity of what has been written (and though I have defended I can quite appreciate that many people might not) surely it is better to set out the reasons why not, rather than ignore it (if this is what you are suggesting we should do?)
Posted: 20:20 Mar 24 2002
As stated in the Members guide ... People are allowed to post urls that are relavant to the Topic being discussed, On this occasion Inc did include a warning that some of the Urls contained several sexual swear words thus enabling any members who may not wish to see or who have young children etc the choice. We have allowed people to post urls (without getting permission from a member of staff first) on the understanding that they "have" read the Members guide and will take into consideration the content of the Urls when posting them and be able to decide wether what they are posting about is suitable for a "Family Friendly site". If you are in any doubt as to wether an Url you are posting is suitable.Then dont post it and message a member of staff first who will confirm as to wether it is suitable for the site 
now back to the topic ........
now back to the topic ........
Posted: 20:52 Mar 24 2002 I actually thought about this at some length.
by Ethan
If a URL requires a possible adult content warning I would think it is unsuitable for a family friendly board.
The thread is about the appropriateness and relevance of satire when addressing extremely serious (and for many people personally tragic) events. The catalyst for the question was the articles published in a UK Newspaper and available on their 'free to use' and readily available web site.
It was my feeling that there was little or no difference between telling people where the articles were, and posting the URL. Because this site is family friendly, I warned people about the use of swear words and also tried to provide sufficient information so that someone could make an educated decision as to whether the articles were likely to upset them.
Family friendly does not automatically preclude discussion of adult issues, merely the manner in which they are discussed.
And before you know it, you are reading a broadsheet newspaper.
One link, leads to another, leads to another.....
[Sweet Sange posted her reply while I was composing this one so apologies for any repetition]
(Edited by Incandenza 24/03/2002 21:01)
Posted: 20:59 Mar 24 2002 When it's fresh in people's minds is when it's most effective as satire.
by Ethan
3. I believe that certain things should not be subject to satire. Especially when it is still fresh in the minds of a lot of people and could cause them more pain.
Posted: 00:00 Mar 25 2002
So basically, in many people's opinions, anything is open to satire? However upsetting or painful it might be for someone?
Posted: 01:30 Mar 25 2002 Sorry, but I am quite disgusted to hear a remark like that. I'm wth Red, does that give the right to make fun about the most serious of things?
by Demona
When it's fresh in people's minds is when it's most effective as satire.
Posted: 02:16 Mar 25 2002 [ 1 2 ]