Comments on: The Guardian Apologizes

By: texas chainmail masquerade

texas chainmail masquerade — Tue, 26 Oct 2004 02:27:30 +0000

Mickey, it’s not disturbing. When you take into account the very obvious fact that he’s not actually screaming a rallying cry to would-be assassins, it’s actually fairly light social commentary.

The article talks about Bush’s ineptness during the televised debates, then the wire issue and finishes with a swipe at Kerry and a plea that America vote him in regardless of his resemblance to a haunted tree. Not to mention the fact that the piece is in Brooker’s TV column – we’re not talking about a paper publishing a full-page rant from one of their political correspondents.

This is all bollocks, it really is.

By: Mickey

Mickey — Tue, 26 Oct 2004 00:24:40 +0000

Speaking as one of those who has tossed out some of the vitriol, I will add that I did, in fact, read the whole thing. Part of what I found disturbing was that within the whole context of the article itself Mr. Brooker was saying that stating that most Europeans are in favor of replacing the current President of the United States using, really, any means possible. When you end that by mentioning three well-known Presidential assassins then that thought takes on a whole new light, does it not?

By: texas chainmail masquerade

texas chainmail masquerade — Tue, 26 Oct 2004 00:09:50 +0000

To be fair, I’d say that most people that have taken the time to read about Brooker’s background and actually read the article in full will have appreciated that all he meant was that Bush should be hounded out of the White House and dumped in a ditch after a good kicking.

Unfortunately, most of the vitriol has come from those that read the “offending” extract in isolation.

News just in:

Tony Blair should be shot (for buying that tie).
Michael Jackson needs to be blowtorched in the face (as a precautionary measure because of excessive amounts of plastic being used on his last nose job).

Read the words around the words, kids. Otherwise you’re reading someones interpretation of the words, and that’s just stupid.

By: john b

john b — Mon, 25 Oct 2004 19:24:08 +0000

UPDATE: Yes, that�s a challenge for someone to point out either the irony or the joke in the original statement

I’ll take the bait. Charlie Brooker has a regular column in the Guardian’s TV Guide, in which he goes into deliberately absurd invectives vaguely inspired by the week’s TV. It’s a running joke, the humour value of which you may or may not appreciate – more like Archie Bunker or Basil Fawlty than a serious columnist.

So if you’re going to suggest that he’s called for the asssassination of President Bush, this does also require suggesting that he’s called for televised suicide as part of Pop Idol, for minor celebrities to be deported to torture camps, and for people who don’t pay their TV subscription to be hanged.

The Guardian website should probably distinguish better between deliberately absurd ranting and serious commentary pieces. However, there was no ambiguity in the print edition – this piece was on p54 of the TV guide; political commentary is in the back six pages of the news section.

By: Mickey

Mickey — Mon, 25 Oct 2004 03:17:19 +0000

Well, it’s not an apology. It’s damage-control.

What’s sad is that the next time President Bush visits merry old England, this nut will get a visit by MI5 and the USSS. We’ll see a Guardian article then about how his “free speach [sic]” rights have been trampled.

By: Vinny

Vinny — Mon, 25 Oct 2004 03:05:15 +0000

I don’t know about you, but to me that was the biggest “non-apology” I’ve ever seen.

By: Slobokan's Site O' Schtuff

Slobokan's Site O' Schtuff — Sun, 24 Oct 2004 21:36:33 +0000

Apology or Damage Control?
Appearing in The Guardian today:

The final sentence of a column in The Guide on Saturday caused offence to some readers. The Guardian associates itself with the following statement from the writer.

“Charlie Brooker apologises for any offence cau…

By: INDC Journal

INDC Journal — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

[...] but its shoe remains dirty. (Via Intellectual Intercourse)

By: Intellectual Intercourse » Did the Guardian violate the law?

Intellectual Intercourse » Did the Guardian violate the law? — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

[...] add to the discussion. Outraged I was, but all of those others just said it better. So I issued a challenge that someone point out either the irony or the [...]