And just because it was entirely unclear: I meant there's a limit as in a limit to how much control you have over how people respond to your work once it's in the wild, no matter how much you fret over it beforehand.
I caught up with this Media Take and Brown Eye last night. And discovered White Man Behind a Desk when you tweeted it for the show, so that was a good few days.
Interesting you both ended up mentioning Jeremy Wells. Not that I want to relitigate anything (I was away at the time and tried to avoid Pronouncements), but feel like a clarification: I imagine at least some of the annoyance wasn't so much over the distinction between irony and sincerity as the distinction between making a joke about something and making light of it. You can certainly be flippant without jesting. And while being funny in earest isn't the only way to do satire it certainly is a popular one.
That's something I think fewer people get even in principle and can be really hard to pitch and to read in practice. (And that's why I find it annoying when people claim to be 'joking' as if that means nothing they say matters.)
So if it's eg a white dude mocking another white dude by saying a bunch of racist things I can see where the people he's supposed to be standing up for might - on top of just finding hearing some of that painful - might get annoyed.
And I consider that, in turn, more a matter for artistic judgment than something eg Susan Devoy should stick her oar into.
And when heard that clip from it last night I did laugh out loud.
(Also, like the risk of being misunderstood, this is the kind od thing where worrying too much about it can really screw up your process. Making it work for the audience is the craft but in satire more than anything else there's a limit and I guess you have to accept that.)
Late to the party without a photo, but perhaps a technical observation. I was wandering around the other day having finally found the clip-on sunglass things for my glasses and it seemed to me the polarising really brought out the contrast.
Bearing in mind I do have idiosyncratic eyes - some really minimal red/green issue that only shows up doing colour vision tests or noticing pohutukawa or rata blossoming on a forest hillside. When I look at the blossom I also tend to feel like my eyes are responding to something brighter than I'm actually seeing but that may be normal.
Just to tease out: on the one hand the effectiveness you might want from the media - as an ideal - might be to produce in it's audience an impression of the nature and significance of a situation. I don't think it's ever worked that way - as opposed to just, you know, putting it out there - and to actually succeed you would need focus group polling at least as good as Key's. People do have their own priorities, which may or may not include the issue at hand. Or paying attention. Certainly if mass media start hectoring or lecturing they hear from their audience real quick.
On the other hand the utterances of politicians - perhaps especially their justifications - appear to increasingly be pitched for effect rather than meaning. Reporting on the utterances, no matter how, would be at best facilitating that approach to politics, at worst making yourself the servant of whoever is best at it or whoever you report the most.
I suppose it could be possible to not do that, but I'm not sure you can get there from here. And everyone would have to play.
Or maybe Key is right...
See? Now you're doing it too. :)
Did we see Get Up, Stand Up?
Big pile of talent in political engagement thingy. More www.gusu.co.nz
On my scan of the act the critical word was 'news'. As if, by the time something is a book, it must be olds.
That Times front page:
ALL SCHOOLS MUST TEACH WHAT IT IS TO BE BRITISH [photo of Rik]
This popped up in my Twitter stream - a couple of funny bastards who fire off each other and really know how to work an audience.
(The description says "Rik Mayall and Adrian Edmondson momentarily break character" but it's more than five minutes.)
Actually, what follows is relevent:
And this same progeny of evils comes
From our debate, from our dissension.
We are their parents and original.
Therefore the winds, piping to us in vain,
As in revenge, have sucked up from the sea
Contagious fogs, which falling in the land
Have every pelting river made so proud
That they have overborne their continents.
The ox hath therefore stretched his yoke in vain,
The ploughman lost his sweat, and the green corn
Hath rotted ere his youth attained a beard.
The fold stands empty in the drownèd field,
And crows are fatted with the murrain flock.
The nine-men’s-morris is filled up with mud,
And the quaint mazes in the wanton green
For lack of tread are undistinguishable.
The human mortals want their winter here.
No night is now with hymn or carol blessed.
Therefore the moon, the governess of floods,
Pale in her anger, washes all the air,
That rheumatic diseases do abound.
And thorough this distemperature we see
The seasons alter: hoary-headed frosts
Fall in the fresh lap of the crimson rose,
And on old Hiems' thin and icy crown
An odorous chaplet of sweet summer buds
Is, as in mockery, set. The spring, the summer,
The childing autumn, angry winter change
Their wonted liveries, and the mazèd world,
By their increase, now knows not which is which.
I recall reading the weather was actually like this at the time (A Midsummer Night's Dream, II,i). And Terry Jones talks about coming out of the cold periods in the little ice age - I was left with the impression the climate is never so cruel as when it's changing.