politics

Why can’t I have an Australian IP?

61 Comments

So funny, even Lubos ran it:

Current.com ran a story and explained the comic interviewer had little trouble getting the interview, reporting

“We literally just asked him for an interview. I had realised from watching him before that he is incredibly keen to talk to people – he’ll do the most pissant interviews with basically anyone. He didn’t want to know any background about us. We just told him that it was for a production company and that it might be shown on the ABC. We didn’t mislead him in any way. “


After I saw this, I had to google to find “The Chasers” and “The Hamster Wheel”. I found this this. I clicked the video to watch, but evidently only Australia IP’s get to watch that online. Darn!

I consoled myself watching visiting a link recommended by one of Lubos’s commenters:

If you can tell me where to find more Australian comedies, I’d love to watch them.

61 thoughts on “Why can’t I have an Australian IP?”

  3. ursubtitche–

    I don’t get what you mean by “sour grapes” Are you suggesting I’m claiming the Australian shows are bad because I can’t watch them? I’m saying the opposite. These shows I can’t get look funny as heck!

  4. Lucia I wish you could take the Chasers and keep them.
    It’s the usual leftwing uni humour on the ABC and paid for by the poor bloody taxpayer.

    Let’s face it we’ve all got our differences but to me this is about as funny as a tooth ache.

  5. Neville– I am glad our taxpayers don’t foot the bill for producing tv. I admit that I wouldn’t want to do that. Do you dislike both videos? Just one? Just the other?

  6. As someone who does have an Australian IP I have to agree with Neville.

    It’s fine to pillory Monckton but where are their similar interviews with Flannery, or Garnaut, or Steffen, or Pachauri?

    They made their name by satirising the orthodoxy but as you can see from the 2nd video they struggle to satirise the green orthodoxy.

    …and like Neville, I’m paying for it.

  7. rc–
    I thought they did a good job satirizing the group they call greens in the 2nd video, though I admit to not having any idea what greens in Australia are like. But in the US we have various people who seem to join groups for shall we say more “social” reasons. (Impressing a chick, going to parties and so on.) I figured that must be what they are saying about greens.

    But I can sympathize with people having gripes if any of these things are tax payer funded.

  8. As an Australian and a former Greens member, I find both clips highly amusing. Like most tv comedy teams that have to produce new material every week, IMO some of the Chaser’s stuff was gold, some a little tedious and at times,well, cringe worthy. Perhaps it did tend toward the left, but as with the ‘Why I voted Green’ clip they didn’t hesitate to take the piss across the political spectrum when warranted. Personally I wish I could have a US IP so I could watch Jon Stewart.

  10. lucia,

    In the same vein of hilarious comedy, try the ‘Inconvenient Truth’ with the fave Mssr Gore in the lead role. Be carefull of death by giggling. : )

    John

  11. John,
    There are parts of AIT that make me laugh. Generally the bits with Gore trying to look pensive, or walking around his family’s tobacco farm etc. I don’t think those were intended to be funny though.

  12. I didn’t find it very funny. I didn’t find Borat very funny either, and for the same reasons: poking fun at someone (even someone who seems as silly as Christopher Monckton) by misleading them about your intentions is just not humorous. Had these people been up front about what they were doing, Monckton would never have done the “interview” in the first place. Not a classy act.

  13. “It’s fine to pillory Monckton but where are their similar interviews with Flannery, or Garnaut, or Steffen, or Pachauri?”

    Why on earth should there be any? That is such a bizarre sentence I can’t really begin to comprehend what motivates it. To put it as simply as possible: Monckton is a figure of fun, absurd and completely unaware of it. That’s why this interview worked. The people you list are not. Interviews with them in this style would not be funny.

  14. Just search YouTube for Chasers War on Everything, and you can find most of their stuff. Its like an odd mix of Monte Python and Jon Stewart.

  15. SteveF–

    It’s true Monckton wouldn’t have done it. No doubt about it.

    I was a bit surprised that Monckton didn’t try to check out the program or person who was interviewing him. I know in the US, if Stephan Colbert scheduled an interview, one needs to watch out. In fact, if any comedian schedules an interview, you should watch out. If cameras are coming, its wise to find out if it’s a comedy group, 60 minutes or whatever. (When I was a kid he said *no one* should ever let themselves be interviewed by 60 minutes. Ever. It’s never good.)

    On thinking it’s funny– clearly I am meaner than you are. When I was a kid, I liked candid camera and similar set up type shows. I don’t know if we have much similar anymore. (But then, I don’t get cable. Seems to me that there must be something similar on one of the zillions of cable channels.)

  16. stevo (Comment #84372),

    I think you miss the point here. It would be equally unfair (and equally unfunny) to use a similar deception with anyone. It looks to me like you are letting your personal political views justify behavior which is both cruel and dishonest. Does Monckton merit ridicule for what he says and does? Perhaps so, but not this way. While I am not wild about Jon Stewart (I don’t find him very funny), he is at least honest with those he invites onto his program for interviews; they appear on his show knowing exactly what they are doing.

  17. Lucia,

    I had no problem with Candid Camera, especially since the show was not attempting to criticize individuals. (I suspect that the ‘victims’ on Candid Camera could always refuse to allow their footage to be shown.) Candid Camera was an honest attempt at humor. This show was an attempt to publicly humiliate Monckton via willful deception. Could he/should he have been more careful? Sure, and I suspect he will be in the future. But that someone is naive is for me no justification for taking advantage of them.

  20. SteveF–
    I grant that you are right. It was unfair in a way Candid Camera was not. But even if it’s a failing of mine, I still can’t help laughing.

    My point in being surprised Monckton didn’t check isn’t to say he deserved this if he didn’t check. I’m just saying I was a surprised he didn’t. I would have expected him to be more savvy about who various members of the media are. Evidently, I was wrong.

  22. here is Ali G interviewing Newt Gingrich.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skv-wWCvGyw

    the funny thing is that Newt stated it he didn’t think ‘Ali G’ (Sacha Baron Cohen) was any more misinformed or ridiculous than a lot of journalists he had been interviewed by.

    Sacha Baron Cohen has a cousin, Simon Baron Cohen. Simon is the leading expert on Autism in the UK; not a lot of people know that.

  24. Lucia,
    “I would have expected him to be more savvy about who various members of the media are.”

    Me too. His lack of savvy is evident in his technical analysis as well. But I note that this consistent naivete supports the contention that Monckton may be just grossly incompetent and poorly informed about many things, and is maybe not ill intentioned, as many have suggested. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt if I possibly can… even if some might see this as naive.

  27. Watched the start,didn’t go any further.I have seen this show on Austar here,it is not funny,but as usual appeals to the lefty loonies,that is the only humour half the so-called comedians know.Aussies have always been able to laugh at themselves,not anymore.It’s all about laughing at people who have different political views.
    The second clip is from chasers war on everything,a bit funny,but anybody could have written as it is what the Green supporters are percieved to be.
    I used to watch them,but their jokes got old and they went too far,I was not surprised,usually happens with lefties and their contempt for the human race.
    http://www.smh.com.au/news/entertainment/tv/2009/06/04/1243708544308.html

  28. SteveF (Comment #84371) says:

    I didn’t find it very funny. I didn’t find Borat very funny either, and for the same reasons: poking fun at someone (even someone who seems as silly as Christopher Monckton) by misleading them about your intentions is just not humorous.

    On reflection, I can see some merit in SteveF’s position, personal amusement at the expense of others is not always particularly edifying. At the same time, Monckton seems to have cultivated a public persona that is bound to trigger a level of comedic response. If you are determined to figure prominently, you are likely to be satirized. Isn’t this the point of many of Josh’s cartoons?

  31. I saw this mentioned on twitter a few days ago (Simon Singh, retweeted by somebody else, I forget who). Nicely done.

    If you like this sort of thing you might try the UK series “The Day Today” and “Brass Eye”, though they are much edgier. The Brass Eye interviews with UK politicians and celebrities being persuaded to fulminate against “Cake”, described in the interviews as “a made up drug”, are particularly good.

    From Australia I miss Schnezel’s World; for years I used it as my standard test of whether I had installed Flash correctly.

  32. McIntyre runs for the ice.

    “The Value of Independent Analysis
    The purpose of audits in business is not to overturn the accounts prepared by management, but to provide reassurance to the public. 99% of all audits support management accounts. I’ve never contested the idea that it is warmer now than in the 19th century. If nothing else, the recession of glaciers provides plenty of evidence of warming in the last century.”

  34. Ian,

    At the same time, Monckton seems to have cultivated a public persona that is bound to trigger a level of comedic response. If you are determined to figure prominently, you are likely to be satirized. Isn’t this the point of many of Josh’s cartoons?

    Yes, of course, and Josh’s satirical cartoons are fair for people who put themselves in public view (like climate scientists acting as public policy advocates). But Josh does not use deception to put people in a situation in which they will be made to look ridiculous. For me it is a simple case of the ends most definitely not justifying the means. Satire is not what I object to; it is dishonesty used to injure that I find much less than humorous.

  36. I think Monckton simply expects people to be whom they purport to be and to mean what they say. It is old fashioned and a touch naive but it epitomizes the expression, “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.”

  37. Bugs, I thought that was their best effort that stunt at APEC in Sydney, lucky they weren’t shot. But that parody of Greens voters is classic (can’t stop replaying it). Unfortunately they sometimes overstep the line into bad taste and I feel the Monckton interview was rather disrespectful. I would have felt the same way if they similarly interviewed Al Gore.

  38. SteveF,

    I wasn’t overly fond of the concept of the movie Religulous with Bill Maher either. It was directed by Larry Charles, who also directed Borat. Perhaps the people interviewed by Maher knew what they were getting into, as opposed to those in Borat. But then I don’t like Bill Maher. The title of his TV show, Politically Incorrect, was the height of irony as it was possibly the most politically correct show on TV.

  39. DeWitt–
    The few times I watched Politically Incorrect, the format seemed to be:
    * Invite a roughly 4 currently not very well known comedians.
    * Ask them questions.
    * They tried very hard to be funny or outrageous. Some tried to be funny by feigning thoughtfulness.

    In any given show at best 1 in 4 of the comedians managed to be funny in that format. Some of these comedians were funny when doing standup or reading someone’s script. Some may have been funny doing normal improve. But mostly, on Maher, they couldn’t consistently think of funny punch lines and mostly, you got a mish-mash of moderately lame attempts at humor mixed in with some sincere thoughts.

    I don’t think it was my political outlook that made me see it this way. I suspect people watching 5 years old re-runs who have no particular position would see it similarly. (Mind you, people who liked the POV might have liked the show. People often enjoy fairly lame shows if they like the message.)

    One thought I had: Late Night Talk guys can be consistently funny because they have a whole lot of script writers watching the news, trying out many possible ideas, and then creating a 1 hour show. Otherwise… they probably wouldn’t be. I suspect that if we just filmed scriptwriters for 1 hour, the show would contain a lot of clunkers even the script writers would not feed to a seasoned comedian who is good at delivering lines.

  40. SteveF:

    But that someone is naive is for me no justification for taking advantage of them.

    You’ll never make CEO at a major corporation with an attitude like that.

  41. I found the, to use a colloquial English expression, ‘piss take’ video, about as funny as Mosher’s Monktopus and equally as unedifying.

    School yard bullying is even more repugnant when it comes from those with an analytical mindset, I can only assume this is a egalitarian chip on the shoulder thing, disappointing even so.

    Would you think it funny to mock those afflicted with Down’s syndrome?, if not, why do it those who suffer from Graves disease!

    PS If you really want to study Graves disease humour youtube Marty Feldman

  42. Re: lucia (Oct 24 08:14),

    Late Night Talk guys can be consistently funny because they have a whole lot of script writers watching the news, trying out many possible ideas, and then creating a 1 hour show.

    That’s probably true for Letterman and Leno. I’m much less sure about Craig Ferguson. His monologue is probably written, at least somewhat. When the show ends on time enough to run the credits, though, only a couple of writers are listed. It would be interesting to find out just how much is ad lib and how much scripted. He makes a show of tearing up his note cards when a guest sits down.

    Once when I was at the 24 Hours of Daytona, I listened on my scanner to the live feed of the TV commentators which included what the director was saying in their ears that the TV audience doesn’t hear. Talk about multitasking. I was quite impressed with how difficult it really was.

  43. This has nothing to do with Monkton, or humor/humour, or Thai floods. While off-topic and not even funny, I thought some readers might find Razib Khan’s post Think right, not deep worth a look-see. While Khan isn’t discussing climate science, certain parallels are fairly obvious. He writes (links and emphases stripped out),

    Over the past few weeks I’ve been observing the response to {Governor] Rick Scott’s suggestion that Florida public universities focus on STEM, rather than disciplines such as anthropology…

    [snip]

    As you can see [from the linked graph], the ratio of Democrats to Republicans in anthropology is about 30:1. This obviously has an effect in the orientation of the discipline in terms of the values which they impart to their students. A substantial number of anthropologists don’t consider themselves scientists. Quite often they’re clearly activists, and you know very well what direction their activism is going to go. … I have seen firsthand how narrow-minded and partisan people who come out of the social sciences aside from economics can be. While a liberal biologist is strongly influenced by their political outlook and will defend it forcefully, anthropologists seem trained to throw around scurrilous terms and associations as if that was the ultimate training of their profession. While normal people believe that their ideological opponents are wrong, it seems that many anthropologists as activists believe that their political enemies are malevolent demons. Who wants to continue funding wannabe-kommissars?

    At least I haven’t risked derailing a technical thread. 🙂

  44. Gras–
    I like Marty Feldman. He used his appearance in his humor.

    I admit the chasers did say Monckton was funny looking. But I don’t think the gist of the interview about Monckton was “you are funny looking” . I noticed they mentioned Moncktons’ using of Nazi emblems– not caused by Graves disease. They pointed to his odd claims about having published peer reviewed papers– not caused by Graves disease. They pointed to Monckton’s outrageous proposals about AIDS victims.

    While I agree with SteveF that it’s unfair to get interviews by deception, I think people can, if they wish, poke fun at these political stands. Others my not like the fact that certain positions are seen as absurd bordering on comic by others, but people who put themselves in the public light are subject to this. I don’t think Grave’s disease ought to be seen as some shield that puts Monckton out of bounds of comedy; I think it’s silly to equate people making fun of Monckton who travels widely and speaks publicly with someone making fun of of an individual with Downs who sits quietly outside the public sphere.

    I’m not going to buy into the idea that there is some blanket prohibition against making fun of Monckton anymore than there is a blanket prohibition against making fun of Gore. Both are public. Both are primarily politicians. Both do silly things in public. Both are going to be made fun of.

    Moreover, if someone is going to object to Mosher’s use of “moncktapus” or people commenting on Monckton’s appearance, then they ought to at least be a bit balanced and object to Monckton’s tendency to call people names and criticize their appearance. Examples include calling Maurice Newman a “shrimp-like wet little individual”, saying of Abraham “at least we are spared his face — he looks like an overcooked prawn”, breaking from critique by comparing to crustaceans, “rebutting” Abraham with “the snake-like Abraham” and labeling students who disagreed with him “Hitler youth”.

    While Monckton’s constant use doesn’t excuse lapses in others,
    if you object to bullying, you ought to object to Monckton’s frequent tendency to mock others appearance and argue by name-calling. Some people do object to both. As for me: I think Monckton — who labels people Hitler Youth– exhibits much more virulent attempts at bullying than Mosher who made up the ambiguous, silly name of “Moncktapus”.

  45. I have a low opinion of Monckton and a number of Greens I have heard expounding on environmental issues, but the comedy of the videos doing the putdowns went either over my head or under my feet. Without the benefit of the doubt, I think that was simply low grade humor.

  46. Lucia

    Although Monckton comes across as a thoroughly unpleasant character I wouldn’t know if that’s true in real life as I’ve never met him.

    Yes, he did it first, so what, it’s no justification for belittling his appearance, he can’t help the way he looks any more than Gore can help the way he counts…

    Has anybody asked Mann about this?

  47. Gras–

    Yes, he did it first, so what, it’s no justification for belittling his appearance,

    The video above makes fun of his Nazi rantings, his peer review mutterings etc.

    Ask Mann what?

  48. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and ‘frozen.’…

    Rules for radicals playbook.

  49. Lucia, you need to understand that this is old fashioned and discredited.

    Have a qo go at Schmidt or Hansen why don’t you?

  53. Carrick,

    You’ll never make CEO at a major corporation with an attitude like that.

    No.
    Nor would I want to. Some things I will not do, regardless of financial compensation.

  54. Lucia,

    While I agree with SteveF that it’s unfair to get interviews by deception, I think people can, if they wish, poke fun at these political stands.

    Of course. I hope you do not get me wrong here: Christopher Monckton is what military types might call “a target rich environment” for critique. He says things which are demonstrably incorrect, often offensive, and sometimes in the realm of the bizarre and absurd. With such good basic material to work with, there should be no need for a satirist to use deception to score points.

    Good night from Japan.

  55. ‘E Pluribus Unum’ about Monckton here . . . not.

    I really like Monckton’s strategy and see his tremendous value as an effective vector of critical thinking wrt the IPCC’s credibility. He has kept the criticism of IPCC politics/ideology highly visible.

    And he is extremely identifiable by his trademark style, which is very effective marketing.

    My evidence? Well, heck, it has even gotten lucia involved with marketing it. Thank lucia.

    Monckton set up the stage for the current intense discourse on the IPCC’s lack of credibility.

    Then enter Donna L.’s expose of the basis of the lack of credibility of the IPCC.

    My estimate is that, when the future overviews/critical accounts of the IPCC fiasco are finally written, Monckton’s efforts will be viewed as a key contributing factor.

    Go Viscount M of B!

    John

  56. John,
    It’s fine with me if you are a fan of Monckton.

    I don’t believe Monckton “set up the stage for the current intense discourse on the IPCC’s lack of credibility.” Lots of people discuss this before he did. Lots discuss it totally independently of him. The fact that he is one of the people chattering hardly gives him a central role.

    He does have a trademark style– and easily mocked one. And when people mock it, it’s pretty easy to laugh. Because the trademark style is the overblown and side splittingly funny style caricatured by Monte Python way back when I was in high school. The caricatures were funny the they are now. The style looked silly before Monckton adopted it and will continue to look silly long after.

  57. lucia,

    Thanks for your views.

    Fan? Why lucia, you make me feel like a giddy teenager at my tender age of 61. : )

    We assess the world through our world views, even when it is the same world we both identify through our senses. Your world view and mine likely share few premises or conceptual cognitive processes. Whereas Monckton does probably share more with me. Of course, it makes no difference in the end for the IPCC.

    And as my professor of the history of philosophy at the University of Buffalo used to warn me, “Adversus solem ne loquitor.

    John

  58. John–
    I don’t think being a fan is restricted to the young. There are certainly a lot of rabid baseball and football fans around here– and many are positivity geriatric!

  59. Few Australian viewers of our national broadcaster the ABC would not know of Monckton. He has had some exposure in the press and has done more than one one lecture tour here. He was supported and paid for by those that oppose the Labor/Green governments ideas about how we going to fix global warming. His views should be addressed seriously and not ridiculed. There are many in the ABC who are a grade alarmists who seek to mold the public view. I see this as a tactic discredit him before their blinkered audience gets a hint there might be something worthwhile to hear. These days I try to avoid watching the ABC because of their extreme left bias. So not at all funny manipulation never is.

  61. This is the first time I see some video’s of the “chasers”, and all I can say, Australians are lucky. I find this stuff very funny, unlike what we see on US commercial TV. Maybe it’s because I’m European, and have a hard time ‘getting’ US humor, even though I lived here for almost 20 years, but somehow this Australian show matches with my sense of humor.

    As far as the prank they pulled on Monckton, I have no idea why anyone could object to that. Monckton is an entertainer, but one with a sinister motive, and not transparantly so. Monckton has fooled millions (not just thousands as “chasers” suggests) into thinking that the IPCC wants to create a form of “world government”, and that the US will sign away it’s sovereignty by signing a global climate treaty (for which he obtained the “Pants on Fire” award by Politifact), has declared on international news shows that global warming is “a scam” while citing debunked science, and after invitation from Republican representatives, testified in front of US Congress as a ‘climate expert’ making misleading and verifiably false statements. And I’m not even talking about the ad hominem attacks (including threads of libel lawsuits) laughed against people pointing out flaws in his work or the abundant amount of posts on various internet blog sites he made that Lucia has already shown to be flawed, misleading or false. This guy is not simply a tv personality, but a professional misleader and deceiver with political objectives disguised as pseudo-scientific makeup. It was about time that he would be treated as he treats his audience.

    All I can hope for is that the people that believed Monckton’s deceptions will remember “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.”

Comments are closed.