by John Lacey
Following complaints over a skit in The Chaser’s War On Everything, ABC Managing Director Mark Scott has indicated that broadcast approval procedures will be re-examined.
We’re going to look at those processes … I mean we all know that The Chaser push the edges and it’s a tightrope that we walk, and I suppose there are many, many skits that they’ve put to air that have offended someone along the way – that’s part of the nature of the satirical and black comedy that they do.
The usual processes were put in place around this program, but the red flag didn’t go up [and] we could see today, that that was the wrong judgment call.
The skit – depicting critically ill children being denied wishes from the ‘Make A Realistic Wish Foundation’ whose tag line was ‘Why go to any trouble when they’re only going to die anyway?’ – has been edited out of the episode shown on ABC iView.
Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has suggested that the Chaser team should ‘hang their heads in shame’ for the effort [Ed Note: Kevin Rudd would probably say puppies playing in a bathtub full of soap suds is 'revolting' if it meant he got his mug on TV for another 2 minutes].
The Daily Telegraph noted a similarity between the Chaser segment and a video from The Onion in which a child bankrupts the Make-A-Wish Foundation by wishing for never-ending wishes.
39 comments
The Patrician says:
Jun 5, 2009
Actually the skit pretty much ripped off a small segment of a Family Guy episode.
Given how many Starving African Children TM could be permanently cured of starvation for the price of sending a sick, relatively wealthy Australian kid whose had the privelige of dieing in luxury to Disneyland, I really don’t think the Make a Wish Foundation should be beyond reproof or satire.
It’s middle class indulgence and so a prime target for mockery, though I don’t think this was the Chaser’s actual intent with the skit. (I’m more of a bastard then they are.)
Sweet Sister Morphine says:
Jun 5, 2009
I can see how parents of terminally ill children would take it entirely the wrong way, but I don’t think the skit was that offensive, considering The Chaser‘s target audience and usual shtick.
Then again, I have a pretty twisted sense of humour.
batman says:
Jun 5, 2009
People complaining about this really need to get over it, I’ve read some of the comments about this on abc.net.au many of them hysterical over nothing. It’s obvious the skit was aimed at the Make a Wish Foundation and not the kids, but even if it was I don’t see it as a big deal this is a comedy show not ACA.
The Patrician says:
Jun 5, 2009
Now the ABC has just suspended broadcasting the Chaser for two weeks: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2009/06/05/1243708623806.html
Either our nation has reached new heights of pointless hysteria or it’s a brilliant piece of marketing (The TV Show they couldn’t Bann!).
Quite possibly it’s both.
The Patrician says:
Jun 5, 2009
And somebody has cashed in their story of suffering to our premier tabloid news site: http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/story/0,28383,25591179-10229,00.html
I feel ever so sorry for her.
Tobias says:
Jun 5, 2009
That’s stupid. The ABC is trying to prevent Australians from watching a television program produced at the taxpayers’ expense.
Why is being offended the only yardstick for withdrawing a program from the air. If I and thousands of other people find the 7:30 report boring, should we be able to complain and take it off the air? Why is it considered any worse for me to be offended than bored? In either case, if I don’t like it I can just not watch it.
Daniel says:
Jun 5, 2009
“Men talk for hours with the faces of a college of cardinals about things like golf, or tobacco, or waistcoats, or party politics. But all the most grave and dreadful things in the world are
the oldest jokes in the world–being married; being hanged.”
- GK Chesterton
Sara says:
Jun 5, 2009
We seem to be missing the point here – it does not matter where they are from, middle class, lower class, africa or australia, but when a child dies somebody grieves especially as children are not supposed to die. 80 something year old grannies are supposed to die not our babies!! I wonder if any of the chaser’s comedians have children themselves and how that would change their opinion on the subject!
batman says:
Jun 5, 2009
This comment takes the cake:
“Two weeks is not enough. The suffering they have caused will last much longer.”
Yes, because The Chaser causes cancer. So much idiocy.
Icaria says:
Jun 5, 2009
I’m not disappointed that the ABC decided to censor itself in the face of public outcry (it can be a reasonable reaction and it certainly beats someone else censoring them) so much as I’m disappointed that they bowed over such a stupid, non-issue.
They’re really just enabling this inane mentality that seeks to validate people’s feelings of offence, regardless of whether there’s any sound or substantive basis upon which to be offended. This is an obvious example of there not being a rational basis for offence and the ABC, in it’s decision-making, is sending the message that they respond to hurt feelings and knee-jerk reactions from people who automatically assume their personal issues should be everyone else’s, rather than cogent objections from thoughtful individuals.
Coenraad says:
Jun 6, 2009
I’m outraged; not by the skit, but by the subsequent media beat-up and the spineless response from the ABC. A few people decided to blow smoke because they chose to watch something that offended them, and the ABC starts kowtowing, cuts the content and suspends the whole program. This seems like a rather dangerous precedent for dealing with contentious content, and over such a trifling matter.
And, as always, Rudd jumps on the bandwagon to express his ‘disgust’, just like he did with Henson, even though he hasn’t watched the skit himself.
Syd Walker says:
Jun 6, 2009
I thought it was an extremely tasteless skit.
Remarkable that anyonbe in the Chaser team thought dying kids a legitimate subject for their naff humour.
Now we’ll have to endure the predictable, boring aftermath of unctious moral panic and impassioned defense of the public broadcaster’s (illusory) ‘free speech’.
Surely they can come up with better publicity stunts than this?
Pharaoh says:
Jun 6, 2009
I guarentee 90% of the people complaining about the skit to the ABC wouldn’t have known it existed if A Current Affair and Today Tonight hadn’t tabloided all over it. Commercials trying to kill competition?
Big Pete says:
Jun 6, 2009
Such hysteria over nothing, the only thing wrong with that skit was that it wasn’t funny, not much of this current series has been.
As for Rudd with his “hang their heads in shame” comment, he should just stick to his day job of bankrupting the country and leave the comments to someone else.
And as for the outraged, either watch something else, switch the tv off or just harden the fuck up.
Frank Filippone says:
Jun 6, 2009
I thought the Chaser’s sketch borrowed heavily from a previous sketch on The Comedy Channel’s The Mansion:
A Reasonable Request Foundation – The Mansion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFoV2HHWdxI
Obviously the Chaser pushed it a lot further.
For reference, The Onion News Network has also done a segment using Make-A-Wish:
Child Bankrupts Make-A-Wish Foundation With Wish For Unlimited Wishes
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/child_bankrupts_make_a_wish_0
Pharaoh says:
Jun 6, 2009
There was also a Family Guy episode where the main plot centred around scamming the Make A Wish Foundation. You can buy DVDs of it in Big W.
Ten’s news updates have been using ‘the Chaser apologises and got kicked off the air for two weeks’ as their lead story, also claiming the skit attacked ‘dying kids’. Slow news day or trying to feed the rage?
Icaria says:
Jun 6, 2009
Syd Walker: “I thought it was an extremely tasteless skit.
Remarkable that anyonbe in the Chaser team thought dying kids a legitimate subject for their naff humour.”
You speak as if you’ve never seen The Chaser before. It’s never been tasteful and only sporadically, “legitimate”.
Yongobongo says:
Jun 6, 2009
The ABC needs to harden the fuck up and not give in to the so-called “majority” who were offended (ie. Today Tonight’s viewer-base).
I’ll bet most of the people who actually complained were (may fit any/all of the following criteria): a) faggots, b) people who never actually saw the skit, just complained like the oh-so unbiased Australian (commercial) media told them to, c) people who don’t understand the concept of satire or d) old people who were trying to get used to using their phone and accidentally dialed the ABC complaint line.
In all honesty, I was not offended by this sketch AT ALL. Censorship is bad. We’re not China. Save your censorship for naked kiddies, not sick ones, Conroy.
And idiots who say “OMG MY MONEY PAYS FOR THEM TO AIR THIS, BAN NOW”, The Chaser is self-funded as well as ABC funded. So stick that argument up your crinkly old arse, you geriatric fart.
Sidenote: The Chaser also have dropped on the hilariousness scale (in my opinion). Maybe this suspension will give them time to get the show back on track. I have another theory that says this was intentional, for public attention and time to get it all together and make the show “good” again.
Carolyn says:
Jun 7, 2009
do you think if it hadn’t been the chaser, they would have gotten away with it?
Syd Walker says:
Jun 7, 2009
Icaria, I have seen the Chaser before
On occasion i think it’s been very funny. I like irreverent humour.
As someone else pointed out above, this segment was not very funny (listen to the declining audience reaction as the skit carries on). One was therefore left with a sense that one of the most pitiful targets (in the true sense of the word pitiful) was lampooned for no reason.
Perhaps they had a skit lined up next about cancer surgeons who die of brain tumours? How about a skit making fun of abortionists who get shot?
This is not a matter of censorship, IMO. I’m not advocating an end to the Chaser. Nor does anyone, as far as I can see, advocate that The Chaser should be entirely free to do whatever they like with no editorial constraint at all from ABC management.
It’s therefore a debate around the margins. For me, it’s really a matter of taste. As a society, we have a right to expect a modicum of tastefulness in our mass media. We don’t expect to see displays of overt cruelty on our TV screens, for example, No one switches on the TV expecting to see a family pet disemboweled or a group of children sitting around giggling while their grandmother is strangled. Decency has a role to play in our culture.
In 1982, when the British sunk the Argentinean Navy cruiser sunk ‘General Belgrano’, Rupert Murdoch’s Sun newspaper ran a one-word headline: “Gotcha!”. It elicited controversy and complaints. I for one thought it was beneath contempt, even for the vile Sun
No-one was saying that journalists shouldn’t be allowed to argue the pro-war case rationally. The problem was the callous use of a headline and the brutal, jingoistic mentality that underpinned it.
I think the Chaser team should take a look at themselves. It may be a tad more humanity might help inspire them to return to their best form as comedians. Crass egotists rarely amuse for long.
Icaria says:
Jun 7, 2009
> “Nor does anyone, as far as I can see, advocate that The Chaser should be entirely free to do whatever they like with no editorial constraint at all from ABC management.”
I wouldn’t phrase it quite like this. The ABC has the right to do whatever it pleases with it’s content and set out whatever guidelines it feels appropriate but in the same manner that hotheads complained about the apparent desecration of a sacred cow, I have the right to object to their new review policies.
> “As a society, we have a right to expect a modicum of tastefulness in our mass media.”
I wasn’t aware of any such, “right”. This seems to fit more within the thinking that if enough people want something, they should get it regardless, ie. an all-and-sundry application of democratic theory, with little thought given to the merit or rationality of ideas.
> “We don’t expect to see displays of overt cruelty on our TV screens, for example, No one switches on the TV expecting to see a family pet disemboweled or a group of children sitting around giggling while their grandmother is strangled.”
It’s unfortunate that you need to resort to using such dramatic and cherry-picked scenarios. Aside from the fact that I’ve seen quite a bi of animal cruelty on SBS/ABC docos and the like, there’s really no comparison between facetious dying children being the butt of someone’s joke and actual animals being sadistically slain.
> “Decency has a role to play in our culture.”
Problem is, neither of the two key words here: “decency”, and, “culture”, have particularly finite definitions and are as readily invoked by the worst of fascists, as they are by your run-of-the-mill concerned citizen. You used another, equally sloppy keyword word in closing: “humanity”. I’m afraid you’re just not making an argument specific or reasoned enough, that I can appreciate.
One thing I can’t fault the ABC for, though, is this back-handed gem in their official statement: “We need to fully review the ABC’s approval processes for programs that deliberately challenge public attitudes.” At least they’re acknowledging the ridiculousness of the whole situation.
Syd Walker says:
Jun 7, 2009
You make interesting points Icaria. I agree that concepts such as ‘decency’ are slippery – and very much in the eye of the beholder.
Of course I agree you have a right to oppose the ABC’s review.
You say I cherry pick my examples. True, but it was to make a point. I think we both perhaps agree some things are innappropriate on broadcast TV – at least at prime time. We’d probably disagree about where the line should be drawn, as would any two individuals.
I think it’s healthy to have that debate in the public domain.
BTW, I believe that a completely different – and MUCH less restictive – set of rules should apply to narrowcast media, such as websites on the Internet. I’m deeply uneasy about any prohibitions in that case.
I also believe that the Chaser case is somthing of a distraction. Censorship is conducted 24×7 by the ABC – and other mass media in this country – on some topics. Some political views and historical opinions are simply Verbotten; they never get a run.
I’ll give an example. For more than a decade and counting, British historian David Irving has not been interviewed on the ABC. Yet his name is mentioned quite often. He is only mentioend in order to revile him. He’s given no right of reply. His critics (eg. Richard Evans), by contrast, enjoy an absolute dream run. Philip Adams interviewed Richard Evans several years ago for an entire hour, asking Dorothy Dix type questions throughout. The entire program was devoted to crapping on Irving’;s name and reputation. It has been replayed numerous times in the years since. Yet no right of reply, whatsoever, has been given to Mr Irving.
That’s real censorship. One does not have to be a supporter of David Irving’s to notice it. Yet few if any ‘public intellectuals’ in this society complain about it.
That’s real cowardice, IMO. I’m more interested in rectifying that agregious case of censorship and bias than defend the Chaser’s right to foist really naff jokes on the nation.
The Chaser team, by comparison with someone like Mr Irving, are very much part of the current media establishment. They can – and do – look after themselves.
Jarrod says:
Jun 7, 2009
I don’t think it is completely the Chaser’s fault for the outrage that has been displayed by many in the community over the last week. TT, ACA, 3AW and others in the media placing there on spin, continually repeated the skit and posted it on there website. The video was shown to its unintended audience that probably don’t fully understand satire and didn’t pick up on the fact the Chaser were acting so extreme that it wasn’t meant to be take literally.
I would really wish the ABC would release the number of complaints they received and when they were received. Eg; the amount straight after the show aired and the number after a day or so when the media messed with a few peoples heads.
The 2 week ban in disgraceful, it does nothing but punish fans of the show, many such as myself that were not offended by the skit at all. It’s just what the Chaser do, push boundaries, make fun of things left right and centre, all in the name of comedy.
Regardless of your views on the skit, i fail to understand how anyone can take a skit on a comedy show to heart. If you are that easily offended i recommend you stay well away from the Chaser or any other black comedy shows out there.
I fear this may evolve into the point where too many topics may become off limits and the Chaser will just not be the Chaser anymore.
james says:
Jun 7, 2009
I find it funny to hear an anti-semite like Syd whining about ‘decency.’
And the first poster got it right:
“It’s middle class indulgence and so a prime target for mockery” — it was fairly clearly a pitch-black poke at a ‘feel-good’ charity.
But don’t expect the ACA/TT/3AW crowd to understand such satire. Their outrage button has just been pressed and they’re in the grip of manufactured fury.
Sadly, there are some subjects on which an absurd status-quo prevails merely because people find any discussion of it confronting. Rather than being a leap-off for a back-and-forth, someone cites offense with the intention to squash dialog. Call it the tyranny of the offended: ‘We cannot discuss whether some military action is appropriate, because that is an affront to soldiers’ or ‘we cannot discuss whether some charity actually helps dying children, because that is an affront to dying children.’
Syd Walker says:
Jun 7, 2009
Back to silly name-calling James? Perhaps you’ll grow out of it some day?
Other subjects on which the ABC completely ‘denies’ balanced and open debate include 9/11, the 7/7 London bombings and the Port Arthur Massacre. In each case, views critical of the mainstream narrative are either ignored or misrepresented (rather as you misrepresent my views, James).
That’s real censorship. As for ‘middle class indulgence’, the Chaser qualifies rather well for that acolade IMO. Nothing wrong with that – and yes, they’ve done witty stuff over the years. But free speech heroes? I don’t think so. Their political views, insofar as they can be inferred from the shows, fit nicely within the cozy verities of the ABC’s worldview.
I’m a fan of Bill Hicks myself, RIP. A comic with a brain – and guts too.
See http://sydwalker.info/blog/2009/01/31/laughing-at-the-warren-commission/
Icaria says:
Jun 8, 2009
> “I think we both perhaps agree some things are innappropriate on broadcast TV”
Sure – just don’t assume I think anything needs to be done about inappropriate content; that I think it’s an issue worthy of being ‘solved’, at any cost-to-benefit ratio.
> “That’s real censorship.”
I wouldn’t describe that as censorship so much as acknowledging that there isn’t always two (equal) sides to a debate.
Moreover, an obvious example of where the opposite to what you’re describing happens is anything to do with climate change: the mainstream media never miss an opportunity to equate individual scientific opinions (more often, not even that) with the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community, and obnoxiously end their piece with an instruction along the lines of, “you decide”.
The motivation in both cases is to ensure maximum viewer/reader returns. The only reason you don’t see headlines like, “The Holocaust: did it really happen?”, in the same vein as many climate change articles, is because that’s not a dramatised, money-making narrative the mass media can get away with, without major public backlash (like we’ve just seen over a perceived ‘war on teh childrenz’).
The thing I find most curious about your comments, however (besides thinking there’s any real debate to be had over the holocaust, that is) is that you’re decrying perceived censorship in one breath, yet attempting to justify it in another (albeit, in a slightly different form). I hope you’re experiencing at least some cognitive dissonance over this.
Syd Walker says:
Jun 8, 2009
Hi Icaria
When Clive Hamilton et al were busy a while back telling anyone who’d listen that TV, radio, newspapers etc were already censored, so why not the Internet too?.. I put some effort into explaining why the Internet, in my opinion, is nothing like the broadcast media.
I don’t really support the Chaser 2-week ban, not do I really oppose it. My rather cynical initial comment was that it’s a been like a publicity stunt for a flagging series. I was only half joking.
The truth is, this is a very low order issue for me. I see attempts to turn the Chaser team into free speech heroes as misguided.
There are many much higher order issues, where I feel free speech is genuinely denied and/or under threat and serious issues are at stake. I gave a few examples.
One of them was about Mr Irving. Nothing I said was untrue – and I said nothing about whether or not I ‘support’ David Irving or his many views. The case against censoring him does not require that one supports him. It’s a simple matter of fair play. If the ABC doesn’t think he’s worth talking about, why do they keep bad-mouthing him while denying him any right of reply?
I don’t accept the term ‘Holocaust denial’ is meaningful and I don’t allow myself to be branded with such a label. We don’t use this loaded term ‘denier’ in relation to other historical events. If someone disputes the mainstream historical account of the US civil war, they’re not called a ‘denier’. They are simply a more or less informed person with a heterodox view on that aspect of history.
Of course, it’s harder to make a case such a person is a loathsome, fearsome villain who merits imprisonment, so the term ‘denier’ is used. This makes it sound more reasonable then their free speech is denied. But I for one repudiate the term absolutely.
Of course broadcast media can’t always show every side to a debate (not enough minutes in any program). Ditto the newspapers. But when very well supported dissident views are simply excluded from the mass media, it clearly reflects bias and censorship. Have you noticed how may qualified engineers and architects now publicly doubt the official version of events on 9/11? If you want to find out, the ABC won’t help you out – better use the Internet, while it’s still uncensored…
I was in the England in mid-2003 when the ‘Hutton Inquiry’ into the death of Dr David Kelly and related events was in progress. Media coverage was at saturation levels, but not once, in all the time over several weeks that I listened to and watched the BBC, was the possibility that Kelly was murdered ever mentioned. By that time, a number of leading medical experts had written a joint letter to The Guardian newspaper expressing the view that suicide, given the known facts of the case, was effectively an impossibility. I asked an old friend of mine about this. He remarked that while the BBC never mentioned the possibility of murder, no-one he knew believed Kelly hadn’t been murdered.
How about that for cognitive dissonance – on a grand scale?
Toejam says:
Jun 8, 2009
Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal seems to be oddly relevant.
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1541#comic
Icaria says:
Jun 8, 2009
> “If the ABC doesn’t think he’s worth talking about, why do they keep bad-mouthing him while denying him any right of reply?”
I don’t know as I have not witnessed this. Indeed, I can’t find much, if any, “bad-mouthing”, when searching the ABC website:
http://search.abc.net.au/search/search.cgi?query=David+Irving&sort=&collection=abcall&form=simple
Some of the articles give the man far more credit than he deserves (the uninitiated could easily read the article on his conviction and come to the conclusion that he’s simply a swell guy; they don’t even bother to refute his holocaust denial …denial, which would be a piece of piss for them to do, if there were any intent to deride the man), while most deal strictly with legal matters, or matters where his name is merely incidental.
> “I don’t accept the term ‘Holocaust denial’ is meaningful … But I for one repudiate the term absolutely.”
Would you prefer the terms racist and historical revisionist, then? These were also the findings of the British court when he lost his libel case against Lipstadt (the fact that he managed to lose a libel case in Britain should tell you something). These are not simply the words of ‘the media conspiring against him’, although I suspect all pointing this out will do is bring a tirade against the British legal system, next.
> “about Mr Irving. Nothing I said was untrue … very well supported dissident views”.
Besides that.
Anyway, this is degenerating into discussing your pet views on any number of issues. Frankly, I don’t care: you’re portraying your own bias, lop-sided interpretations and susceptibility towards narrative, in trying to make a point about media bias and narrative, which is ultimately detracting from your efforts. I don’t even know how this tangent began, anyway…
Daniel says:
Jun 8, 2009
It wasn’t all that funny, but I did have a chuckle before going, oh wow, this is gonna bite them.
But I’m surprised at the vehemence of the public reaction. Are we really so sensitive and in need of protection from content? Personally, I read it as them having a go at the soppy, romanticist, heart-tugging, tear jerking style of these kinds of ads we are endlessly exposed to on commercial TV – all these different, sad causes competing for our wallets – in a world where even charity seems to have become little more than a commodity and an industry, another product competing for our wallets, what else do you expect from The Chaser but a darkly sarcastic attack? I think it’s a bit silly to think they would actually have intended to target dying kids. I mean they’d have to be right heartless bastards if that were the case. But even if it were, that’s not how I choose to read it.
They say that laughter’s the best medicine, so I guess, point made. And Nietzsche said a lot of interesting stuff about the intimate relationship of comedy to tragedy as well.
And as for the father watching it with his terminally ill 7 year old – no one pointed out the basic fact that the show expressly states at the beginning that it is not suitable for children to watch. I thought that was the whole reason we have ratings anyway? To warn people about unsuitable content so they can choose to switch off in advance?
Notwithstanding, if nothing else, I guess The Chaser has done well in showing us where we draw the boundaries between good humour and “not funny mate”.
Syd Walker says:
Jun 8, 2009
Ixaria, it happened because, out of several examples that I gave of what I consider to be real censorship on part of the ABC, James and yourself chose to obsess about this particular ‘tangent’ and make accusations against me which I’m not willing to leave unrefuted.
But you are right, this isn’t the place to discuss that tangent in detail.
Incidentally, here’s the most amusing skit I’ve seen in the last year or so on the ‘Sponsor a…” theme. The target is rather more appropriate and the skit considerably more amusing than the Chaser’s effort, IMO.
See ‘Sponsor an Executive’ at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDC0qcf0kzE
Cameron says:
Jun 8, 2009
The Chaser “incident” should be getting the Media Watch treatment tonight. Keep an eye out.
ABC: Don’t mention the war - Somebody Think Of The Children says:
Jun 8, 2009
[...] you think the Chaser sketch was funny or not, offensive or not, the words of the ABC managing director Mark Scott seem really [...]
Steve says:
Jun 9, 2009
I’ve seen the Chaser skit countless numbers of times (thank to the commercial channels repeating it and telling us we should be outraged by it) and it’s funny, plus it shows what a farce the “Make a Wish” Foundation is. I would think that a sick childs no. 1 wish would be for a cure (Not going to happen). And what happens if they send the kid to Disneyland he comes back and has a spontaeous remission. Does he have to pay the money back? He has to die to keep his part of the bargain. “Make a Wish” are a bunch of creepy ghouls.
Tonia says:
Jun 9, 2009
I think the Chaser had a bit of a go at a similar joke way back in their CNNNN days with their hamburger chain “Fungry’s” giving hamburgers to sick kids
I didn’t think it was making fun of sick kids , but they muddied the joke by not making it obvious enough (especially to the irony imparied) what it was about – was it about piss-weak charities, charities being affected by the economic downturn or manipulative images used to raise money?) – I don’t even think they were consciously having a go at the Make a Wish Foundation actually – just a fictional chartiable doppelganger.
But the outcry and calls for punishment for a 1 minute throw-away gag is so over the top.
Can’t people be bothered getting outraged at real life events rather than jokes that fall flat? And the number of people who are complaining about their children who watching the Chaser being upset – seriously? Why are they watching a M rated comedy show at 9:30 at night? I’m sure a lot of this is beat up by the commercial channels.
Matti says:
Jun 11, 2009
Very surprising the way a small minority have decided to find this skit distasteful.
It was amusing, but certainly not harmful to anyone, including terminally ill children.
It was a joke, nothing more.
The fact is, Chasers is about about picking on ‘issues’, so if it isn’t to your liking don’t feel compelled to watch it.
AileenWuornos says:
Jun 18, 2009
“We seem to be missing the point here – it does not matter where they are from, middle class, lower class, africa or australia, but when a child dies somebody grieves especially as children are not supposed to die. 80 something year old grannies are supposed to die not our babies!! I wonder if any of the chaser’s comedians have children themselves and how that would change their opinion on the subject!”
No Sara, it seems to be YOU who is missing the point. If a child gets sick, it’s generally cos they’re NOT MEANT TO BE ALIVE ANYWAY. Dumb-ass.
Not everyone wants or likes children. The world doesn’t revolve around you and your patriarchal status quo of mummy, daddy and their babies.
“It’s therefore a debate around the margins. For me, it’s really a matter of taste. As a society, we have a right to expect a modicum of tastefulness in our mass media. We don’t expect to see displays of overt cruelty on our TV screens, for example, No one switches on the TV expecting to see a family pet disemboweled or a group of children sitting around giggling while their grandmother is strangled. Decency has a role to play in our culture.”
Dude, what the HELL are you watching? I don’t get that shit on my free-to-air. I smell bullshit.
“Can’t people be bothered getting outraged at real life events rather than jokes that fall flat? And the number of people who are complaining about their children who watching the Chaser being upset – seriously? Why are they watching a M rated comedy show at 9:30 at night? I’m sure a lot of this is beat up by the commercial channels.”
Ex-fucking-zactly.
Karl says:
Jun 24, 2009
This is a clear case of censorship. The skit was the funniest segment of the show, anyway. If people don’t like the Chaser, they are free to change the channel.
June 2009 Posts » BLOG :: Part Of The John Lacey Network says:
Jul 4, 2009
[...] Think Of The Children (Guest Contributor)ABC: Don’t Mention The WarChaser’s War On Editing If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed or add it to Del.icio.us | Digg | [...]