Cracker: That's Not My Name
151 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 Newer→ Last
-
Yeah, wonder if anyone would be seeing the meta-satirical performative humour if Williams really was some right-wing loon pretending to be gay, or a feminist or a greenie.
False comparison alert: Williams is a comedian, not a political activist, and the butt of the joke was clearly Breakfast's laxity in letting "Jay Pryor" get on the air at all, rather than libertarianism or the political right in general.
I doubt a political activist of any persuasion trying to mock the other side would have made such a successful job of something like this - usually it's pretty obvious when comedy is just a vehicle for political point-scoring of this kind, and a committed left/rightwing loon would probably have thrown subtlety clean out the studio window as soon as they sensed Henry had taken the bait.
I'm sure some people will get an additional kick from seeing fun poked at libertarianism, but if you've seen previous Jono Shows I think you'll realise this wasn't the point of the exercise. For all I know, Williams might have done just as good a job with a covering ruse drawn from the other end of the political spectrum - and honestly, I wouldn't begrudge you chuckling a little bit harder than me had he done so.
-
if Williams really was some right-wing loon pretending to be gay, or a feminist or a greenie
Now there's one I doubt they'd pull off - though with a spectacular up-sucking fool like Henry, who knows.
A shame also that Williams clearly didn't throw in any foibles of personal appearance to bring out Henry's barely concealed inner 13-year-old.
Didn't our host throw in a crack about "fat chicks" just before the segment? Great to see that all the effort people put into complaining through official channels has paid off.
-
Libertarianism is really inspired cover for any silly argument, though - great choice.
-
For all I know, Williams might have done just as good a job with a ruse drawn from the other end of the political spectrum, and I wouldn't begrudge you chuckling a little more than me had he done so.
Oh, I know I'm going to sound like a pompous dick for saying this but I'd be pissed at myself if I did. In the end, I've long said Breakfast isn't a news and current affairs show, but as long as it's being presented as such by TVNZ I'm going to hold it to basic journalistic standards. Epic fucking fail.
False comparison alert: Williams is a comedian, not a political activist
In context, that's waaay to close to the pro forma excuse TVNZ trots out every damn time Paul Henry is a noxious cock-monkey. Hey, you can't hold him to journalistic standards because he's not really one, and Breakfast is really light entertainment. Well, until you look at their own website... Straight from the Michael Moore/Ann Coulter playbook where you try to have two cakes and eat them both at the same time...
-
False comparison alert: Williams is a comedian, not a political activist
In context, that's waaay to close to the pro forma excuse TVNZ trots out every damn time Paul Henry is a noxious cock-monkey. Hey, you can't hold him to journalistic standards because he's not really one, and Breakfast is really light entertainment.
Erm. Surely if TVNZ fudges Henry's behaviour by saying he's an entertainer, not a journalist, then that's one thing - but Guy Williams actually is an entertainer by trade, and to my knowledge there are no professional expectations of him being anything else, as opposed to the somewhat reasonable (albeit forlorn) expectactions of Henry having some journalistic standards. So again, how does the comparison work?
Getting mightily confused here.
-
Libertarianism is really inspired cover for any silly argument, though - great choice.
I've heard he was pretty much quoting Rick Giles.
No, really.
-
Getting mightily confused here.
Which union are they in?
-
he was pretty much quoting Rick Giles
That's what I thought - surely someone twigged but it didn't seem to be Henry
-
where you try to have two cakes and eat them both at the same time
like
-
Straight from the Michael Moore/Ann Coulter playbook where you try to have two cakes and eat them both at the same time...
I presume SKY will be offering this one on pay-per-view?
-
It just gets better - Jono's previous 8 yolk fake news story with grubby Mr Henry and his producers punked again. No wonder they're embarrassed.
-
I presume SKY will be offering this one
pay per chew
-
Erm. Surely if TVNZ fudges Henry's behaviour by saying he's an entertainer, not a journalist, then that's one thing - but Guy Williams actually is an entertainer by trade, and to my knowledge there are no professional expectations of him being anything else,
My expectation is that there's a separation between news and performance art. Then again, I'm the kind of po faced wanker who finds Sacha Baron-Cohn as amusing as being forced to watch Two and a Half Men, Clockwork Orange-style.
-
I think the model for this is more The Yes Men than Borat.
-
Craig, what do you make of The Chaser? Room for satire?
Oh, and what Philip said.
-
My expectation is that there's a separation between news and performance art.
I agree that I would not like my news crossing over into performance art.
The other way around? Well, I think that performance art can be a very effective way of influencing debate or eliciting comment. I found some of Ali G's "interviews" very interesting in that it brought out comments from the "victims" that a straight up interview wouldn't have.
-
Yeah, wonder if anyone would be seeing the meta-satirical performative humour if Williams really was some right-wing loon pretending to be gay, or a feminist or a greenie.
I think the fundamental difference is more between lampooning the 'strong', and lampooning the 'weak'. In this world, Paul Henry counts as 'very strong'.
-
I think the fundamental difference is more between lampooning the 'strong', and lampooning the 'weak'. In this world, Paul Henry counts as 'very strong'.
Oh, I had to spend half an hour doing calming deep breathing after reading that. I suspect the fundamental difference is much closer to "who gives a fuck about people and institutions I don't much like". I'm just insufficiently po-mo to put being lied to -- or seeing anyone treated like a used twat-rag -- in it's proper meta-ironic frame.
And while we're on the subject on 'framing' this as an issue of power, you could argue that Stephanie Mills (a prominent spokeswoman for one of New Zealand's highest profile environmental groups) and Susan Boyle (who, at the time was the biggest selling recording artist on both sides of the Atlantic) were much more powerful than the buffoonish host of a low-rating breakfast television show at the arsehole of the world. Paul Henry is still a pus-dripping prick, because demeaning and degrading women -- ANY woman -- isn't cool in my book. Sorry for being tiresomely absolutist there, but that's how I roll.
-
Craig, you really don't see any difference in having a go at people who are contextually situated as weak or as strong? You seem to have a strong sense of fairness. I'm curious what it means to you when you hear people say things like "speaking truth to power"?
I am not disagreeing with your assessment of Mr Henry's character. In the context of television gatekeeping as opposed to other spheres, the producers and their bosses have the ultimate power (including keeping presenters on the leash).
Yes, sometimes they are out-powered by an influential interviewee - notably those with real-world connectedness like politicians or the wealthy. However, I don't believe that applies to either Boyle or Stephanie Mills, though either of them has more power and mana elsewhere in ways that count.
-
My expectation is that there's a separation between news and performance art.
Wait, Henry presents 'news'? Has anyone told him?
-
FWIW my impression is it was more a matter of larrikinism. Any satire being incidental.
I think it's worth asking exactly what we would be satirising in the whales case. There are a couple of angles, but I notice them frame on the eggs story was 'let's try and get in the media!'
Though it did work as a soft news satire by the time it got to Breakfast.
-
Yeah, wonder if anyone would be seeing the meta-satirical performative humour if Williams really was some right-wing loon pretending to be gay, or a feminist or a greenie.
Stephanie Mills wasn't pretending yet Paul gave more vast more respect to a suited serious young man with a crank economic theory than an actual active, well established institution that has been dealing with social injustices for decades.
-
Any satire being incidental.
Like the Ramones.
As far as I understand he's a new face in comedy so let's check him out before you judge his artistic iq, but what it does show is that these guys are ripe for lampooning , we have our local o'reillys, hannities and Becks. It was funny to me, i've always thought these fuckers were tragically hilarious.
-
Sorry, didn't realise this thread was going on here on the whale topic. Out of town, blog written on a plane, limited internet etc... I'll leave it up to you peeps which one continues.
-
Craig, you really don't see any difference in having a go at people who are contextually situated as weak or as strong? You seem to have a strong sense of fairness.
I'd like to think I do too -- and even if I don't like someone, or disagree with their views, I don't get much insight or amusement out watching people being set up to be humiliated in public. Perhaps I'm just turning into a soft cock in my dotage...
And, sorry for being all po-faced again, this kind of stunt really scares the shit out of me in a week when the US Television Critics Association nominated The Daily Show for "Outstanding achievement in news & information". For the fifth time in six years. That's way too meta- for me...
Post your response…
This topic is closed.