Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
To be honest, it's the explanation I'd expect. Reading the original article, I didn't think it was meant to portray Herring, Burns and others as racists – it struck me as perhaps a careless piece of writing, rather than an accusatory one.
from a guardian comedy reviewer it's maliciously negligent.
Unless you're saying that Logan was trying to stitch these comedians up. Are you saying that?
but he must have realised what light he was casting burns and herring in to unfamiliar readers. so yes, i would say he was either malicious or incompetant, and in a journalist of his experience it's hard to believe the latter.
i wonder how comfortable comedians will be giving him interviews after this.
I still don't understand what Herring was so mad about. I read the original article and got the author's point completely. Am I the only one?
Without all the discussion, build up and thought that went before it, thereby reducing Herring's act to a bunch of crass one liners that DID come across on the page as racist.
As Collings says in the comments, it reduced a very complex issue to some handy quotable soundbites that'd make sensationalist reading.
if you know the comedians - and most DiSers'll have at least heard about them - then you can put the rest together yourself. If you haven't heard of them - and they're hardly household names - then you'll come away with the impression that these guys are simply using irony as a thin veneer for "arguing" in favour racist views.
as I've seen him loads of times. But if you'd never heard of him, the article just showing chosen lines did make him sound really bad, and not funny.
he just used bad examples. If he had referennced Jimmy Carr then that would have made a stronger arguement.
It is a bit of a poor excuse for an apology though.
I think you just won July 2009.
"i dont think they my article implied they were racist"
um, only, you clearly did, that being why you wrote it and all.
what a tool.
He implied they were being willfully offensive for the sake of comedy without thought to whether this inadvertently supported the racist views others might hold.
then his article is still massively inaccurate. herring's show is neither sensational or wilfully offensive, and only quoting him out of context can make it appear so.
I wouldn't really draw any conclusions from that article except that the show is close to the bone but if it's not then that's wrong.
I don't now Richard Herring much but I was a bit surprised to find him grouped in the subject of 'offensive' comedians.
I do remember David Cross dying spectacularly before Sleater-Kinney at ATP for doing a set that was poking fun at Jewishness and lack of black people there etc. I like the guy but it was the sort of thing I guess Logan's original article was about. I suppose I understood what the article was about and I didn't come away thinking, "Fuck me, these guys are like Bernard Manning and Jim Davidson".
there's a valid point in there, but he's chosen the wrong examples and then appears to have decided that rather than do more work interviewing other comics he can misrepresent come of those that he's already spoken to.
From the original article:
"If you're doing a brilliant piece of irony and someone takes it literally," says Herring, "that's not your fault. It's their fault for not being intelligent enough to get it."
And then from Richard Herring's defence:
One blogger wrote: "Richard Herring is currently putting on a show called Hitler Moustache, where (and I haven't seen the show) he apparently dishes up straight-faced endorsements of racist ideas."
Surely that's the same thing? Isn't he seeing this in a larger scale? He's doing a stand up show called Hitler Moustache so at some point surely it crossed his mind, "There are tonnes of people out there who don't have the first clue about who I am or what I do. I guess they might get the wrong idea but so what?"
And this was an article appearing in the Guardian which one might assume to have a slightly more intelligent readership, eh?
apart from the fact that he was rumoured to have one ball, the funniest thing about hitler is his moustache. that's not nazi propaganda, that's comedy.
rather he says "maybe racists have a point" and then spends a long time actually deconstructing that position. It shows how heavily Herring was misrepresented that those without any knowledge of the show automatically then assume he's using irony to mask "straight-faced endorsements of racist ideas" when he's aiming to show how absurd the position of racism can be.
There's a danger that people might make an assumption from the name of the show and the poster - that's his own problem that he's created for himself. To be wilfully misrepresented by a critic who knows what Herring is doing is another thing entirely.
...is the fact that PC was imposed by smarmy Oxbridge educated left-wing dinner party cunts in the eighties on a lot of people who thought the whole idea of political correctness was ridiculous, hypocritical, and harmful. Which it is. Look at any of the greats: Pryor, Carlin, Hicks, etc. None of them gave a fiddler's fuck about political correctness, and their comedy was the better for it.
Pryor, Carlin, Hicks... racist sexist homophobes to a man
You seem to think non-PC = Racist, sexist, etc. It is possible to be neither bigoted nor PC, you know. That's the beauty of the human mind.