Getting your stolen Safran knickers in a twist
|
Shield your eyes, block your ears, make sure the children are safe. John Safran (duhm duhm duhm) is back on television with a show called Race Relations and he is sure to strike fear into the hearts of all good law-abiding ‘Strayians. Nothing like a bit of good old-fashioned media shit storm to whip up some controversy and for weeks before it even screened, media outlets were jumping aboard the potentially scandalous new Safran show. Blackface! A crucifixion! Masturbation! Typical conservative groups wheeled out their classic lines:
Which is probably why the ABC is screening it at 9:30pm with an M rating. Over at the Australian Christian Lobby, managing director Jim Wallace questioned TV regulation, without even seeing the series:
Brisbane Times gave an interesting, in-depth look at Safran’s show, but still ended with the potential “controversy” and the words “You’ve been warned”. The Morning Show had three media analysts discussing the show on the morning of the day it screened, with the tagline across the bottom of the screen asking “Safran’s series sick?”, comparing it to the Chaser “Make a realistic wish” skit and saying “even before we see it, there are calls for the program to be dumped”. Except, even the media analysts failed to be overly offended. Di Butler, from the Courier-Mail, found it hilarious and said “it’s not mindless funny, as if you’re sitting in front of Two and Half Men” (ironic really that Two and a Half Men rated far higher). “You’re playing into his hands by having all this controversy before it even starts. People are going to have a look, some of them, just to be offended,” said guest Susan Hetherington, an associate lecturer of journalism at Queensland University of Technology. Only Richard Clune, from the Tele, said Safran had gone a “bit too far” and “overstepped the mark”. Which is unsurprising, since he’d published a column just days earlier, calling a sketch “distasteful”, quoting the Australian Family Association calling it “filth” and mentioning that the Chaser boys “drew widespread public condemnation, from the Prime Minister down” for their skit. Just further fuel to his created fire. The Punch was, of course, all over it like a rash, following on from its very clever strategy of jumping aboard a media controversy and getting the main characters to write a column (see Joyce post the Trioli crazy fingers, a Hey Hey blackfacer and Vile Sandilands). The ABC’s director of television, Kim Dalton, gave a nice little stirring column before the show aired, continuing the ABC/ Punch love fest.
It was a nice pat on the back for the ABC by Dalton, for being brave enough to air something that (fingers crossed!) would be controversial and water cooler worthy. The Punch decided to live-blog the show in case there was any controversy. Except, there wasn’t. Despite wanking on camera to Obama, stealing dirty undies of Jewesses and Eurasians and trying to create an Israeli-Palestinian child of peace by visiting sperm banks, Safran’s show was not very controversial. Funny. Slightly gross. But nothing that really gets the public whipped up in a frenzy. The ABC only received five complaints … 93% of Punch livebloggers weren’t offended. Is it because he sends himself up rather than children with cancer, black people or concentration camps? The “controversy” was just “a storm in a teacup”, declared Safran. Oh wait. That was Daryl Somers. But the same concept applies. The Oz editorial deemed it a worthy topic today, but contrary to its normal conservative nature, complained that it wasn’t pushing enough boundaries:
So, this week’s coveted Wankley goes to all the knicker-twisting-and-attention-grabbing media hoping to get aboard the next Blackface-gate before the public knew it was happening. A nice piece by the media attempting to find controversy where there was none. At least they’ll admit it:
Not to worry. Hey Hey is back on air next year. Outrage! Controversy! View our complete Wankley winners’ archive |
|
|
|
7 Comments
” Is it really good enough that a medium that is broadcast into nearly every home in Australia”
It’s your choice. You don’t have to have a tv, or for that matter, have it turned on to ABC. So this is more confected outrage from the christian organisations.
Bah humbug Amber.
Safran and the outraged media, wasn’t nearly as shocking (or funny) as the ABC topping up J.Elliot’s hip flask in the green room before Q&A.
Safran is physically brave to have nails actually driven through his hands. But I hope he doesn’t get too many imitators at home. It’s likely that the Filipinos who do this regularly have a technique which minimizes the damage, e.g. perhaps by ensuring that the nails don’t break the delicate bones of the hand, and that amateur imitators are going to do themselves serious damage.
Whether imitators of the sperm bank stunt will risk serious damage is another question altogether.
Not outraged… a little squeamish, perhaps. I agree with the comment re undergraduate humour, although there is a very serious plotline which appears to be overlooked by this reviewer in her haste to get to the fabricated outrage. Maybe the stunts are so memorable and confronting that J’s message has been overwhelmed.
The message I receive and agree with is that much of the pain and damage in this world is caused by tribalism, religiousity and racism. This has been a common thread throughout much of JS’s work, ever since the “Race around the world” series.
If shock and affront help to open the main topic up for analysis, then go right ahead, Mr Saffran and Auntie. More power to you!
MMMM Johny boy, I think you were a little bit excited over snifing those nickers.
Like an excited snow droped who just got home with his stolen booty.
But how ur on TV. you can do any thing you personallyget off on.
And say its for a documentary.
And thats my 2cents worth.
Safran will be lapping up the publicity. It’s always fun to receive a fatwa from Ayatollah Jim Wallace.