Perhaps the next assault in this war on terror should be against a hateful group of Brit journalists working at The Guardian Unlimited. On Saturday, October 23, one of their so-called "journalists" wrote this after bemoaning the fact that it was likely that George W. Bush would be reelected on November 2nd:
"John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr - where are you now that we need you?" Charlie Brooker, Saturday October 23, 2004 - The Guardian Unlimited
Perhaps my reply to "The Guardian" should be something like, "George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin - where are you now that we need you?" But I don't want to go there, first of all because any good historian knows that the American Revolution occurred through a long list of misunderstandings on both sides of "the pond." Despite that bump in our history, and a few others, the US and Great Britain have been long-standing allies and, together, a positive influence in this world.
Furthermore, I think British Citizens have the right to question actions that may effect them, just as we would have the right to question them under similar circumstances. The Guardian's sponsorship of a letter-writing program to undecided voters in Clark County, Ohio, though tacky, is an example of that, though, it's very likely a campaign which will help the President, not hurt him, come November 2nd.
With all that said, what in the hell is Charlie Booker thinking?! The Guardian did pull the article and printed a retraction, but the article itself is still viewable through Google and it's one of the most blatantly hateful screeds I've read this year.
In the text of the retraction and brief apology, Guardian editors mention that, "[a]lthough flippant and tasteless, his closing comments were intended as an ironic joke, not as a call to action " An "ironic joke"... Personally, I have a hard time believing this.
Let's examine some additional comments from the article, then you can judge for yourself:
- the rest of the world bangs its head against the floorboards screaming "Please God, not Bush!"
- The internet's a-buzz with speculation that Bush has been wearing a wire, receiving help from some off-stage lackey... Quite frankly, the man's either wired or mad. If it's the former, he should be flung out of office: tarred, feathered and kicked in the nuts. And if it's the latter, his behaviour goes beyond strange, and heads toward terrifying.
Each time he recalls a statistic (either from memory or the voice in his head), he flashes us a dumb little smile, like a toddler proudly showing off its first bowel movement. Forgive me for employing the language of the playground, but the man's a tool. - Throughout the debate, John Kerry, for his part, looks and sounds a bit like a haunted tree. But at least he's not a lying, sniggering, drink-driving, selfish, reckless, ignorant, dangerous, backward, drooling, twitching, blinking, mouse-faced little cheat. And besides, in a fight between a tree and a bush, I know who I'd favour.
- On November 2, the entire civilised world will be praying, praying Bush loses.
I wonder, is this the typical British definition of "humor"? I sincerely hope not!
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
1 - Tim Hall
I really can't understand the hysterical overreaction from the Freeposphere over this one stupid article.
Ok, it was rather over the top and crass piece, and the last line (which everyone is quoting out of context) was uncalled for. But seeing the amount of equivalent crap written by the likes of Coulter, Hanratty etc, I can't help feeling the right wing of the Blogosphere are protesting far too much.
2 - Bryan
OUT OF CONTEXT! WTF?
Ok, how about this. Anyone that lives in America will understand that the quote isn't taken out of context. The guy fucking insinuated that President Bush should be killed. Its not to hard to take that out of context.
Pisses me right off for those that just brush a statement like this off.
http://www.juicedthoughts.com/archives/bush_assassination_as_a_joke.cfm
3 - David Flanagan
Brooker was quoted out of context?? Okay, lets just assume you are correct. Here is the full context:
Actually, taken in context, the quote sounds MUCH worse to me. I realize that you don't understand this, so let me explain.
There comes a time when the criticisms of a president can be become SO over the top that it demeans the entire country. That is why, when congress moved forward to impeach President Clinton, I wrote to my reps in Congress to urge caution. Impeachment was a very radical step, a bit more than I thought was necessary.
I would have been happy with a congressional censure on the issue, not impeachment. I think the whole impeachment issue ramped up the level of anger between conservatives and liberals in this country, which was then made worse by the close election in 2000.
Now we have a free-for-all on the rhetoric from DNC leaders, wackos like Moore and Brooker, and others. The fact that you have seen worse tells me that we are in a very bad place in terms of the politics of our day.
We are on this path of escalation that could easily lead to violence if we don't learn to control both the anger and the rhetoric. I really feel that if Kerry loses this election, as he is likely to do, and DNC leaders again ramp up their rhetoric in response, it will lead to violence.
The Afghanis had a miraculously violence-free election, despite Taliban threats. Why can't we?
David
4 - Tim Hall
Yes, it was out of context.
Charlie Brooker is not a journalist. He's a TV satirist. This article didn't appear in the main newspaper, but in the TV listings magazine.
The entire piece is gross satire; only an idiot would think he's literally calling for Bush's assassination.
I still think it was a mistake for the Guardian's TV listing supplement to have printed it.
5 - Bryan
Well, irregardless of the guy's employment position at the guardian, he should be fired! Plain and simple.
And yes, it was NOT out of context.
When you make any reference to the assissanation of a sitting President of ANY country, its IN context, plain and simple.
6 - Jim Carruthers
Actually both England and France know what to do with incompetent rulers, execute them. Something you 'murricans might learn from. Put Shrub out of his misery. After all, if it was good enough for Old Yeller ...
7 - Tim Hall
The French didn't just stop with the King. They went after his supporters as well. So it's off with the heads of Flanagan, RJ and the rest!
For the humourless, this post is satire....
8 - Jim Carruthers
The real reason the 'murrican right is so offended by the article is because it posits natural selection, survival of the fittest, in short, evolution.
And that just ain't right, ain't it, Cletus? After all, if a monkey was yer uncle, then how do you explainiate cousin George?
9 - andy marsh
you canadians just crack me up!!!
10 - boomcrashbaby
This insane rhetoric should motivate you to get to the polls on November 2nd to make sure the President wins his second term.
What happened to voting on policy? Now we should vote to spite a foreign writer?
11 - Jim Carruthers
Hell no! You should vote to spite yourselves! In fact, you've had it too good for too long. Elect the worst leader you've ever had, because you really deserve it.
12 - boomcrashbaby
So I take it Jim, you're rooting for Bush.
13 - Jim Carruthers
As they say in Australia, I'm always rooting for bush, mate.
14 - David Flanagan
Charlie Brooker is not a journalist. He's a TV satirist.
First: Are TV satirists NOT journalists? Are they a part of the media or not?
You are starting to sound like Bill Clinton here, "It depends on what your definition of 'is' is."
Second: He spent his entire article dumping on the president, with a dash of Kerry belittlment (remember the "Kerry as tree" comment?) and you are not the least bit offended?
Are you Candadian too? If so, then I understand a bit better.
As for some of the other comments deriding the President... Typical, predictable and quite laughable.
David
15 - bhw
Personally, I would differentiate between a journalist and a satirist. But sadly, as the Jon Stewart/Crossfire episode illustrated all too well, there is really no difference anymore in the American media.
16 - Tim Hall
No, I'm not Canadian, I'm British, from a country where taking the piss out of politicians has been accepted practice for years, and foreign politicians are not immune.
Spitting Image's "The President's Brain Is Missing" from the Reagan years would probably make your head explode as well. Let alone the original UK TV version of "Whoops Apocalypse".
17 - Jim Carruthers
Flannelman, as a Canadian, what I really need to know: have you stopped beating your closeted Log Cabin Republican boyfriend?
18 - RJ
"But seeing the amount of equivalent crap written by the likes of Coulter, Hanratty etc, I can't help feeling the right wing of the Blogosphere are protesting far too much."
Cite ONE example of either Coulter or Hannity calling for someone to assassinate Kerry.
19 - RJ
"Personally, I would differentiate between a journalist and a satirist. But sadly, as the Jon Stewart/Crossfire episode illustrated all too well, there is really no difference anymore in the American media."
My short response: LOL!
My long response: There is indeed a vast difference between real news media and bogus crap that claims to be funny. But, since a large chunk of America is too stupid to tell the difference, even inane "comedy" counts as news, for some...
20 - David Flanagan
I'm British, from a country where taking the piss out of politicians has been accepted practice for years, and foreign politicians are not immune.
Oh, so you go around levelling death threats at your elected officials all the time do you Tim? And you call us overly aggressive.
David
21 - geaftech
Hmm. It is astounding, the sheer number of -mostly American- people that are getting their knickers in such a rabid, frothing-at-the-mouth twist over this.
As has already been stated, Charlie Brooker is put simply, a COMEDIAN.
Yes yes yes, we can call him a Journalist, we can call him a TV Columnist (which incidentally is what his Job description would be). We can NOT call him a Political activist nor a threat to the security of ANY nation or indeed, ANY Nations Leader!
Comedy in the UK is, apparently something a LOT different from comedy in the US.
For some kind of yardstick on this see
Friends = Fawlty Towers.
Or even 'The Office' against its US equivalent.
To us Brits, Americans do not have the cynical edge or the wit of sarcasm to see the funny side in -almost- ANYTHING, namely we satirise the people we KNOW well, our politicians, YOUR politicians (when they become as familiar as our own, or in this case, are joined at the hip!). We have ahistory and tradition of this type of comedy. It happens in the street, at school...it is the way we are.
Getting on to the American Interpretation of Humour:
There is a totally uncalled-for reaction to Mr Brookers words.
Al over the world, from australia to Oklahoma to Thailand there are news reports headlined 'UK GUARDIAN JOURNALIST CALLS FOR ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT BUSH' etc etc etc.
What tripe.
The guy is and always has been first and foremost, A COMEDIAN.
If you know of him and his column in The guardian, you would also know that he is funny BY THE FACT that he is so scathing and cruel to the people he is putting down and ridiculing. The whole premise of his column is to do exactly that!
So when someone says it has been taken out of context, IT HAS!
Unless you want to go back through the archives and READ ALL OF HIS ARTICLES on other subjects too, until you get the general feel for his writing 'style', then, by reading even this FULL ARTICLE alone, without reading more Charlie Brooker, you are taking HIM out of context. Definitely.
And to speak of 'shooting him', 'assassinating Guardian staff', sacking him and all the other stupid knee-jerk rubbish I am sick of seeing on websites, is just pathetic.
Get a sense of humour people!
If you cannot see the sense of humour that is in place within the 'Charlie Brooker Fanclub!' then, as is your choice, DO NOT READ IT!
Please don't read a small snippet and spread it around calling for his apology and for him to be held up as an example...fed napalm and castrated -or whatever else madness I have read!.. he was JOKING.
Do I think that 'assassinating a President' is a topic that can be joked about?
I do.
EVERYTHING is fair game for a joke.
There are limits of course. I wouldn't joke about rape for instance.
What I should say to make it more clear is that, people in public eye, presidents, famous people, royalty etc have, through the ages been the butt of humour and comedians jokes.
This will never change and this is also why some comedians rise to such high status in some countries, because people LOVE it. Correct me if I am wrong but I am aware that British Humour is also well respected the world over, for this VERY SAME cynicism and sarcasm, wit and satire.
I am amazed at the lack of will to see that charlie Brooker doesn't ACTUALLY want Mr Bush to be killed. He just fantasised about it.
Like most British and 'rest-of-the-world' people do....
22 - geaftech
Screen burn. The Guardian Uk's Tv Column:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguide/brooker/0,14946,1280131,00.html
Charlie Brooker, Comedian extrodinaire:
http://www.arbitary.i12.com/geniusontoast.html
23 - Levi
Ha ha ha ha ha.