Racial tension
OK, here's the good news: the Collings & Herrin Podcast is, once again, riding high in the iTunes charts, peaking at 15 in the all-podcast chart, which includes Harry Potter. (When I last looked, we were above Bruno and Adam & Joe.) Why the surge? Because a man called Leo Benedictus named it as one of the Top Ten best comedy podcasts in daily newspaper the Guardian yesterday, in a "Comedy Special" edition of its tiny G2 supplement. (We were at number 7 in this list, but only three podcasts were stamped with a red "highly recommended" star - ours, Adam and Joe and Marsha's comedy interviews for XFM - so in fact we must have been in the top three.) This is what Leo Benedictus wrote about us:Comedian Richard Herring and jobbing journo Andrew Collins meet once a week to quarrel obscenely about the contents of newspapers and their flagging careers. A gathering cult.This is essentially flattering, and not especially misleading - it certainly suggests he has heard it, to get the "flagging careers" angle - and the "gathering cult" is nice. I think it's funny that a man who really is a "jobbing journo" has labelled me one, even though journalism is now only a small part of what I do, and "comedy scriptwriter" might have been nice, or even "broadcaster" or, as one wag put it, "ex-EastEnders scriptwriter", in the style of Celebrity Masterchef schadenfreude. Still, it was good of him to include us.
This, though, was not the problem with the "Comedy Special", which also included some vox pops with comedians, an interview with Ruby Wax, a column by Charlie Brooker, some "tips" on how to attend a comedy gig, and - its centrepiece - an article by comedy critic Brian Logan about what he christened "The New Offenders". This is the piece in full, but I'm going to fillet bits from it, in the same way that Brian Logan filleted bits from what Richard Herring said to him.
This is the basic thesis: that comedians are moving away from the "political correctness" laid down by alternative comedy in the 1980s and attempting to inject some spice into their acts by actively seeking to offend. Brian Logan has interviewed Scott Capurro, Jim Jeffries, Brendan Burns, Jo Brand, Alexei Sayle and Richard Herring, and used what they have said to illustrate his point. However, because I know Richard Herring, and know what his new show Hitler Moustache is about, having watched it take shape before my very eyes and been involved in many of the discussions that shaped it on our gathering cult of a podcast, I also know that this gives a very misleading impression of it:
This year, veteran comic Richard Herring is sporting a Hitler moustache for his show, Hitler Moustache, in which he argues "that racists have a point".This is a complex, hour-long show, which I know goes in many different directions, but is ultimately about the reclamation of a certain type of moustache for non-racist ends from its current, abiding Nazi associations. If Richard argues that racists "have a point" it is within the contexts of an ongoing comedic discussion about racism. The way Brian Logan has written it, if you hadn't seen the show, or heard the podcasts, which most people reading the paper wouldn't have, you might assume that ... hmmmm ... Richard Herring thinks racists have a point. Logan's boxing-gloved summation of his show is not expanded upon further in this section of the article.
Here, for balance, is a thing that Richard Herring did say in the interview, and which reflects what he thinks: "In the 1970s, black and Asian people were getting shit put through their letterboxes ... But the world has moved on. Now we accept the [anti-racist, anti-sexist] tenets of alternative comedy as true, and don't need to patronise audiences any more." There are other quotes along these lines from other comedians. But soon, Brian Logan goes back to Hitler Moustache (whose poster image has proved a very handy one for the Guardian picture editor and website editors), and has this pretty unequivocal thing to say about Richard's racism:
Herring now does most of his work on the web. His weekly podcast, presented with Andrew Collins, makes a point of "pushing back boundaries and saying anything we want". One recent episode aired Herring's purported hatred of Pakistanis, a routine that he expands on in his new standup set. In another routine, he claims to support the BNP's policy to deport all black people from the UK.Now, if you are familiar with Richard's work, you will know that the issues mentioned will be discussed in both comedic and challenging ways in his show. If you are not familiar with it, you might once again assume his show is racist. If he did "purport" to hate Pakistanis it was within the improvised context of a heated and ridiculous discussion about racism, one of many over the weeks. He doesn't hate Pakistanis, any more than he hates any ethnic or racial group. Richard Herring hates racists. And he hates the BNP. But who wants to hear a comedian say that for an hour? That's not challenging anything. I am troubled on Richard's behalf that he has been portrayed as a racist in the Guardian newspaper. I am troubled on my own behalf that our podcast - which is a "highly recommended" Guardian comedy podcast - is being partly tarred with the same brush. The same toothbrush, you could say.
It is not for me to seek redress. But I hope that anybody reading the article in yesterday's Guardian, or online, will join me in spreading the word that Richard Herring is not only not racist, he is anti-racist. It would be deeply offensive if the way his words have been chopped up to fit a thesis in a national newspaper had any unpleasant knock-on effect, either at his coming shows, or in the street. I wonder if the people who write these pieces think about the actions of their words? I am a "jobbing journo" - sometimes - so I am one of those people, and I hope I would never misrepresent an interviewee on a such a serious subject to suit my own ends.
It is no laughing matter. Looking forward to the podcast this Thursday.
posted by Andrew Collins @ 10:43 AM
117 Comments
Contact
Andrew at
117 Comments:
Hey Andrew - watch your pencil. Yes, I am busily working in the BL too, when I'm not posting here I mean...
Honestly, I do not think anyone of sound mind would believe that Richard is either racist or genuinely a supporter of repatriation.
The intention to offend in comedy is a difficult issue, but for me can be simplified down to the point of whether it is funny. There is plenty of shocking humour out there - increasingly so. It is quite common to see comedians on panel shows start an anecdote which elicits little in the way of a response - so they toss some 'f' and 'c' grenades into the room to get a cheap laugh, and a recorded show at the Apollo. That's as lazy as Jim Davidson.
However, the ability to shock us out of the old and into the new can be a political act of great social and cultural importance.
Chris Morris is certainly someone who shocks and offends, and pushes the boundaries of acceptability. Not only does his work have a social function, but it is FUNNY.
We do not want that preachy Ben Elton style comedy that tells us what we already know. Or as Brecht put it, "Art is not a mirror held up to reality, but a hammer with which to shape it."
More hammering and less reflecting please.
I agree that it is unlikely that most people would be affected by the article but it is still clearly irresponsible. The irony that Richard uses is simply not evident in the article. I have complained to the Guardian (comments are off, it seems), but I doubt it will make any difference. It's not like me to act so seriously but I honestly feel bad for Richard.
Oh, by the way Andrew, I saw "Collings is a bummer" on the toilet wall in the Bedford in Balham last night. I'll post a pic this evening on Twitter.
Did I just get described as a "wag"? Splendid! :)
Oh, and a more serious note, I was dumbfounded by that Guardian article. I cannot believe that anyone could come away from watching Hitler Moustache and think that Richard is anything but anti-racist (and very funny too).
It's very clear about racism right from the start, and whilst there are some standups who don't contextualise their "shocking" material, this show does.
I don't really know what you can do, since articles can't be unwritten, but an apology is surely in order?
I too am looking forward to the next podcast.
I was so offended by the general awful of the article that I actually wrote in to complain, pointing out the cherrypicking of quotes and ideas. I feel like a 70 year old retired Brigadier, despite being a 22 year old student. I eagerly await their lack of reply.
I've been wondering how I could counter the statements made in The Guardian - certainly nothing he said about RH rung true with me from what I know of him (little) or his work (a bit more). You've said it better than I could (I guess as an ex-Eastenders writer you would have a better way with words than me), so I will be content with a "hear hear" and a "seconded" and hope that RH takes comfort from your support and my support of your support.
I completely agree, the article is misleading and clearly the implications of writing from such a standpoint did not cross Brian Logans mind. This really frustrates me, as if he had listened to more than one podcast in isolation or understood the purpose and premise of Richard's show, he would not have presented his article in such a way.
I would have expected more of the Guardian.
Ironically, Isn't Richard playing at the Guardian building tonight?
If I hadn't been an ardent listener of the podcasts I'd have been shocked and saddened by what I'd read in the G2 yesterday. Flippin lazy journos!
Get it sorted guys!
The same toothbrush! You should have saved that one for the podcast!
Great post - Richard is lucky to have such a bloody good 'colleague'.
It's amusing how seriously comedians take themselves. Is dressing up as Hitler some 64 years after he died really considered 'edgy' or 'challenging'? If he doesn't hate Pakistanis, maybe it would help if he didn't say 'I hate Pakistanis'.
Simon
The bit I found most interesting in that article was about Scott Capurro, who I have seen live and I think does base much of his act on trying to offend - or at least get a reaction - from the audience.
He wasn't having a particularly good night, and whenever he didn't get a big enough laugh he would imply that it was because we, the audience, were being sensitive or prudish, although I think it was because his material was weak.
It was interesting that his immediate reaction seemed to be that we didn't 'get' him as a comedian rather than that a particular joke was just unfunny.
As a Grauniad reader and regular podcast listener I too was disturbed by the hatchet job on Richard by Logan. I no legal expert but surely he must have some legal redress, it is bordering on libel and is certainly defamation. If the Guradian won't allow Richard an equal amount of space to counter argue (which he has done magnificently on his 'warming up' blog) then he should consider legal action or certainly take advice. Regular listeners to the podcasts and people who have seen Richard's show will see this as a vitriolic attack with little or no research; unfortunately to those who haven't it makes Richard appear as racist or, at the very least, accuses him of thinking that racism is funny (which of course it isn't)
Simon, did you hear the podcast in which Richard "purports" (to use the Guardian phrase) to hate Pakistanis? If you had done, I don't think you would have made this stupid comment. Context is everything. As for the Hitler pic: judging by the reaction, it seems still to exert quite a lot of power, 64 years after Hitler's death. In what way did Hitler's death erase what he had done and stood for? Unless you are being deliberately provocative and pretending to be stupid?
I wondered yesterday if Brian Logan has seen any previews of Hitler Moustache or someone told him "oh my god RICHARD HERRING SAID THIS". Since it's at the preview stage it may be understandable that he hasn't. If however he hasn't bothered to see the readily-available Brendon Burns DVD before making similar insinuations about him, well that's not quite so forgivable.
Putting it mildly: if Richard WAS racist, I wouldn't spend my money or time on what he does. Nor would the comedy fans I know, because they're all clever enough to know the difference between an offensive statement and a challenge to think.
In fact, being new to this comedy fan lark, Richard was the first ever comedian who made me realise comedy doesn't have to be the opposite of that - ie laughing to forget about stuff. It has another role to play alongside that definitely valuable one: making you consider things you maybe hadn't, and gaining a whole new perspective.
The fact that some idiot has been given a platform to misrepresent that entire style of comedy made me spit nails with rage yesterday.
AND they slagged off Robin Ince! Gits.
I've scanned Simon's post with my Acme Irony Detector, Andrew. It came up blank.
I agree with Oli. The Guardian is usually my paper of choice but i couldn't believe what i was reading yesterday.
Good idea to complain - I'll do the same later.
The fact they can write this but within a few pages 'highly recommend' the podcast is absurd.
I really hope RH doesn't lose out on any work or suffer in any way through the way he's been portrayed here.
Simon's comment is pretty funny. Apparently you shouldn't say anything in comedy that you don't mean.
"Where is this chicken that allegedly crossed the road? Show me."
"I don't believe Tim Vine really got into that ridiculous situation. Why would a butcher even say that to him? Is he lying?"
"One minute this guy says he's Ricky Gervais, the next minute he says he's called David Brent. What gives?"
If both articles are supposed to reflect the vies of the newspaper, does that mean the Guardian finds racism EXTREMELY funny?
Mr Logan (and, as it turns out, Simon above) is obviously too lazy to watch the show or listen to the podcast.
In fact, had he listen to the XFM Marsha Meets... podcasts featuring Brendan Burns & RH, he'd have understood the intricacies of the routines in question. Burns quite clearly states that the joke is on racism and racists and not on the target of each.
Excellent, measured responses from both Collings and Herrin. Looking forward to thursday...
Dear Andrew
I apologise for being 'stupid.' This is obviously what you are if you express an opinion outside the accepted liberal playground of 'oh aren't we delightful with our homophobia and racism, but remember the joke is on us really!'
I read the Guardian piece (yes, even though I am stupid I can read) and I thought it made some valid points about this sort of comedy. It's funny how comedians can say whatever they like with no comeback but when they read an article that questions them it's regarded as a disgrace and they are writing to the paper to complain.
It seems unreasonable to me to stray into this area and then not expect people to question at least some aspect of it.
But then again, I am stupid.
Simon
On reflection, I think this is really a sturm in a teacup (sorry). I am sad that Richard is upset and depressed about this, and I hope that he does not pursue legal channels. The article discusses a subject that I think is worth discussing - mainly because comedy is a useful way to find out about contemporary cultural shifts. It is something of a litmus test for the state of the nation and what we find acceptable.
But this is just an article, and I would be surprised if that many people (or anyone) would have their view of Richard changed by it. I think that the best think to do here is let this fade away.
On a side note, in the comedy tent at Glastonbury Festival in (I think) 1999, a girl of about five or sex had lost her parents and had wandered into the tent. Brendan Burns was on stage and proceeded to talk to the girl at length about why she had been abandoned, inferring that her parents were busy having sex. He then told a joke about a pedophile (you know, the ancient one that ends "...imagine how I feel, I have to walk back on my own."). I found this offensive and pointless, mainly because there was a real human being humiliated in public. When it was clear the girl was being helped by some people in the audience, I walked out. Easy.
The article ultimately failed because it did not rigorously discuss the nature of offensiveness and being offended, as it is applied to comedy. THAT would have been really interesting, rather than the cack-handed reactionary piece that the editor felt it was appropriate to run.
Have fired off an angry missive to Guardian defending Richard's reputation. God I hate sloppy journalism.
What is unreasonable Simon, is to take selective quotes out of a one hour interview and use them to give a totally perverse view of what Richard's show is about.
John in Ireland
Simon, you must clarify - otherwise it's difficult for me to enter into a dialogue with you (if that is what you're after) - did you hear the podcast in which Richard is accused of saying he hated Pakistanis? Whether you did or not will make a huge difference, because in your first comment you said, "If he doesn't hate Pakistanis, maybe it would help if he didn't say 'I hate Pakistanis'." Again, I suggest it's all about context. And if you didn't hear this in context, it's much harder to have a sensible discussion about it. I welcome a discussion, but we need to clarify our terms first.
My e-mail to The Guardian has been sent.
This is an implication that could spiral into something damaging unless Brian Logan issues a public apology. After 15 years of following Richard's career, it would be awful to see the work he has done be damaged so flippantly.
A friend sent me the article and we both felt that it was highly misleading to the comics featured.
I haven't seen Richard's Hitler Moustache preview yet, but having seen most of his other shows and being a podcast regular, I find it extremely difficult to imagine that it wasn't completely obvious that any pro-racism comments were tongue in cheek. What next? Listeners need to have it caveated that you don't really go on extended misogynistic rants that have to be excised from the show?
I understand from The Guardian that Richard also has rat syphilis.
Please pass on my best wishes to him and hopes for a speedy recovery.
It's odd that so many people seem to be surprised at the tone of the article simply because it appeared in The Guardian. Really, in terms of pursuing agendas and towing a particular political line, The Guardian is no better than The Mail. In this case, that idiot Logan decided he wanted to expose racism in an unlikely setting - so he made the story fit his agenda. Typical journalist (and typical Guardian) behaviour.
(Actually, there's one good thing that might come out of this: Collings and Herrin will maybe stop banging on about how fantastic The Guardian is.)
Anyway, I read the article in utter disbelief. Anyone who has listened to the podcasts or is even vaguely aware of Richard's work, will know, first of all, how liberal he really is. Secondly, they'll know what a nice fella he seems to be. If Logan really wants to root out some bad guys, there are fucking loads out there he could go for. But no; because he's a lazy, despicable cunt he decides to attack people who simply don't deserve it.
If it were me, I'd do more than seek an apology or legal redress - I think I really would have to punch him and hang the consequences.
I think I can see Simon's point, which is that it really should be water off a duck's back if one is to avoid hypocrisy, but I don't think that it quite applies here. Had the article been about how the author was offended by the distaste, or even if it had been an intelligent look at the nature of offense and comedy, then the comedian's involved could sit back and say "fair enough, each to their own". In this case, however, actual routines and interviews have been misrepresented, possible on purpose, by the author! Surely that is worth at least some reaction?
The more I think about that bloody article the more ridiculous I think it is. Purely on a "know your subject" basis how can the guy possibly lump together such a disperate bunch, many of whom have been doing comedy for 10, 15 or 20 years in to a "new" movement? I mean Scott Capurro has been offending idiots in his audience since.. I don't know. 1992? He mentions the sixties comedians in passing, but ffs, Lennie Bruce was doing long monologues about the word 'Nigger' in the early sixties.
It's a classic case of - I need to write a piece, I'll come up with an angle and I'll forge everything around that, regardless of the evidence.
It *is* possible, if you were from a different country, and had never heard of Sacha Baron Cohen to read and accept that there is a gathering of steam around taking on taboos and making deep seated fears in the mainstream visible, and ripe to be ripped apart. But to equate that with a rise in mysogynistic jokes from comedians aiming their unironic material bang at the mainstream - christ, to suggest what Jo was saying had anything to do with what Rich or Scott riff on is mortifying. It's not just wrong, it's insulting to all concerned.
...and this, just a few days after Richard was talking about how lovely it is to do a smart gig with Robin Ince, to a smart audience, who are willing to be taken on a journey and made to think. The point, surely is that *that* should have been the focus of the bloody article - that there is a growing confidence amongst a generation of comedians that their audience are not stupid.
Argh. I'm ranting somewhat now.
I said to Rich earlier, everyone who reads it will know it's a bunch of crap, it might have a few weird people turning up in the audience but I doubt that would last more than a few days. Industry people up in Ed will keep it live much more in their own minds simply by talking about it (reassuring about it) to Rich.
Word of advice for both of you in future - take a tape recording of interviews yourself, and before the interview, make it clear that you're doing it with the agreement from the journo that you will publish the unedited transcript in full *before* the article comes out. Several geek friends do that now, and it does work.
The poster is of me as Hitler for a reason - because the moustache is associated with him and I want to see why and if I can reclaim it from him for comedy. And it seems wrong that Hitler has this tiny victory over us all.
It is a valid comedic tool to say the opposite of what you think in order to make your point - to show how ludicrous the view can be. If you listen to the Pakistani routine or the one that I start by saying racists have a point and still think I am being racist or saying these things merely for effect then get back to me.
Given a huge proportion of my show is about challenging fascism and the BNP and demonstrating how ridiculous their arguments are, it is unfair to ignore this in the article. Or to make an assumption from an out of context quote and a poster which is supposed to get your attention and make you think, but not meant to be the final word on the subject. It's good to get people coming to a show with assumptions that you then subvert. I did it in Talking Cock which was similarly derided before anyone had seen it.
If you see the show and listen to the podcast and still feel my ideas and comedy is worthless, then I am fine with that. But it is more than annoying to have a show written off in this way, when it does the exact opposite (or aims to) of what is purported.
The whole of the Guardian's purported "Comedy Special" was poorly researched, at times lifted in full from Time Out, ripping off bits of Chortle (even though it got a paltry shout-out) and, to top it all, making some appallingly short-sighted, selective and sensationalist comments about a number of comedians who should, quite rightly, feel aggrieved about the portrayal of their comedy acts. Using selective snippets of comedy routines to imply that they are fully and fairly representative of the political views of the artist who performed them is unfair in the extreme.
It is grossly misleading of the writer Logan to make blanket remarks implying that the performers mentioned are part of a worrying new thread of racist, homophobic and misogynist views in stand-up comedy.
Herrin can make up his own mind on legal action, but in the meantime I am going to be one of the people who emails the Guardian asking them to publish an apology and full retraction. The piece was sloppily researched, poorly written and drew some appallingly unfair conclusions about people in the public eye who now have to go onstage in the fear that they will be the target of rasict accusations, or, even worse, that their audiences will now contain racists and idiots. It would be nice to think everyone who listens to and enjoys the podcast will do the same and try and get Justice For Herrin.
Sorry if I sound pompous.
Well, if we're honest, a lot of Richard's comedy is about saying outrageous things for comic effect so there's always the risk that some people are going to get the wrong end of the stick. That comes with the territory. I've been listening to the pod for a few months and at no stage have I ever thought either of you were racist. It's really impossible to draw that conclusion, but if hear a few jokes out of context then I suppose you could get the wrong idea.
Richard must know the risks of his comedy and, out of all the possible themes for a show, we can only assume he chose a Hitler theme mostly because it was provocative. There's always that fine line of taste you have to walk and you have to be careful that you don't make unacceptable ideas acceptable by joking about them. I think Al Murray is an example of someone who seems to have mislaid the location of that line, at the very least he seems to be playing both sides of it.
Slavoj Žižek is a progressive academic who likes to say that he couldn't imagine his life without racism. He talks about how the various ethnic groups in the Balkans constantly told racist jokes about each other and often their own ethnic group too. Once the trouble started, the jokes disappeared. Now you can argue that jokes that emphasize difference always entrench those differences to some degree no matter what the intention of the teller and that maybe if better jokes had been told ethnic differences might have melted away. Are outrageous jokes cathartic, do they diffuse tension, or do they always compound regressive memes to some extent? I'm not clever enough to work that out. Certainly the more high profile comedians tend to be observational and joke about common ground.
So I'd just say that Herring should obviously fight his corner but take it on the chin that this is a battle that is going to come with his comedic territory. Not that all of his humour is about shocking by any means, at least not in the podcast which is my only experience of him. It would be a shame if he were to allow himself to be defined, or worse to define himself, as a shock comic because he's better than that. All I know is that I laugh every week and have never once thought there was an ugly undertone to the humour. Not even close. The Guardian journalist looks like he's taken selective bits of Richards act to support his little thesis which is a poor effort. It's also hardly a new debate but then you can't go go around breaking taboos and then shy away from discussing the darker aspects of that type of comedy.
Perhaps if Richard was an American, he would have been described as an 'incendiary stand-up prophet'?
http://newstatesman.com/200610020034
Clearly, being from Cheddar doesn't cut the same ice with Brian Logan?
I got really livid on Rich Herrings behalf reading this...I saw a preview of 'Hitler Moustache' last week, and there's a horrible irony in a thoughtful show that muses on the issue of racism itself can being twisted to make its author look like chuckling cross between Nick Griffin, Rudolph Hess and Unity Mitford.
Do you think Max Mosely will now choose to be beaten by girls dressed as Richard Herring?
I can't understand how Logan got it so wrong. He sees straight to the heart of Scott Capurro, and rightly identifies his shock tastics are the joke themselves, rather than the subject of the gag being the target. How can he get that so right, and Herring so wrong? Of course there's a relationship there...many a Herring gag revolved around an audience reeling from the sheer wrong-ness of what's just been said, but he always contextualises it.
And yes, there's a point to be made about Al Murray, who I don't think does enough to clarify his satirical points to those members of his audience taking him seriously (I used to have to read his fan mail when I worked at Avalon...astonishing), as he's probably enjoying their money too much (oooh, slam!), but actually Logan pretty much leaves that be...while Herring who goes endlessly out of his way to clarify himself is torn to shreds here.
I'm a budding comic, I did a gag the other day where I accused some kids in the front row, wearing top hats and suits, of looking like "Edwardian chavs", and suggested that they couldn't play tomorrow because their Dad's would be taking them to Africa to "shoot darkies". Does that make me racist Mr. Logan? I was sure before, but I'd quite like you to clarify it for me.
No I chose the Hitler theme because I thought it was interesting and wanted to tackle the subject of racism in a grown up and interesting way, from the point of view of someone who recognises it as fundamentally ridiculous.
There is nearly always a point to the offensive things I say and the stuff we've done about that on the podcast, whilst improvised so not necessarily as rigorous as my stand up, is clearly parodying racists and comes from a liberal view point.
The problem with this article is it takes lines from obviously anti-racist routines, doesn't contextualise them and thus to the casual reader make me seem like a racist or someone trying to shock with no thought.
I have worked hard on this show and it has a very different message to that and it is a shame as this article will put off people from seeing it
The difference between Hitler Moustache and, say, some of Jimmy Carr's material, is that Richard very definitely contextualises what he's saying. There isn't a "knowing wink, aren't we all clever for understanding I'm being ironic" feel to it, or there wasn't for me. His stance on the subject is very clear, and I enjoyed being made to think as well as being entertained.
I would not feel awkward watching the show with *anyone*, because the only people who could come away offended or upset would surely be members of the BNP. And I can handle them being upset. Bastards.
My email to the grauniad:
Dear Sirs,
I am writing to complain about the recent Guardian article by Brian Logan "The new offenders of standup comedy"- this is lazy journalism at its very worst, taking bits of comedians' sets out of context to try and create some sort of controversy. I am not familiar with all of the comedians mentioned but I know that Richard Herring is the very archetype of a Guardian-reading woolly liberal and has been totally misrepresented by the quotes taken out of context in this article: e.g. "One recent episode aired Herring's purported hatred of Pakistanis, a routine that he expands on in his new standup set. In another routine, he claims to support the BNP's policy to deport all black people from the UK."
I feel a public apology by Logan is in order at the very least and I would question whether he should be commissioned to write for a so-called 'quality' paper like the Guardian again. This sort of ultra-lazy scaremongering would not be out of place in the Mail and I think Mr. Logan might be better off plying his trade for the likes of them instead. Or is the Guardian so desperate to generate some fake outrage that it will misrepresent intelligent comedians to the probable detriment of their careers and reputations?
I'd say RKH used Hitler in his show not because it's shocking, and more because it's interesting. Same reason books about Hitler sell so well - he's fascinating. It's interesting to read about someone who seems to embody 'evil', especially as he was apparently charismatic and reasonable intelligent.
I'd say it's OK for people to say they find what he does offensive - Richard frequently defends himself against this, often conceding where he's gone to far, or where a comment wasn't appropriate in the context of the venue. What's not fine is for him to be labelled a racist by cherry picking quotes, and using elements of an interview with him to imply that he's complicit in the illustration being given.
An accusation of racism would probably warrant a right of reply. The article used an interview with Rich in which he defended himself about touching on offensive topics, and using offensive statements to make (for want of a better phrase) politically correct points, and made it look like he was defending himself against self-confessed racism.
Good one Guy. I also referred to Herring as a 'wooly liberal' in my complaint.
I'd like to see an printed apology acceting that Herring is a wooly liberal. Then it would be official.
I think that there are other ways to talk about racism in an adult and humorous way, and other titles, metaphors and themes you could have chosen for your show, so you're not going to tell me that you didn't choose the Hitler one because it was attention grabbing, in other words provocative. That's all I'm saying. If you go looking for a reaction, not everyone sticks around long enough to hear the explanation.
I'm not claiming that there isn't intelligence behind your act, clearly there is. I get it all. For example, I thought the thing you said about racists being almost right (by saying that all coloured people were the same, just one step away from the truth) was very funny and very clever.
I agree, the article misrepresents you. I half remember the Pakistani joke but don't recall there being too much of a point about that one, maybe the arbitrary nature of prejudice at a stretch. We could laugh because we knew you weren't a racist. I thought you were just riffing to be honest and went along with it.
You're absolutely right to be annoyed though, and should ask the Guardian for a rebuttal piece at the least. I wouldn't put your humour in the same bracket as Murray or the Carr quip about gypsies and it could also effect your audiences like you say. I doubt one article will matter that much though to be honest. A few more and you should probably start to get worried.
So they are mixing up Richard with Catherine Tate again, I see.
[ To avoid any doubt, this is just a slightly humourous aside about The Guardian once again misrepresenting Richard's work. It is not an accusation of racism against Tate. ]
I have just read one line of Simon’s blog in which he says “But then again, I am stupid”. I have put my own interpretation on it, and have come to the only conclusion I can without being in possession of all the facts. That he is, indeed, stupid.
Simon, would you like to tell me the difference between what I have just done and what you are doing to Richard?
I have now read the whole blog and can put the statement into context. I have come to the alternative conclusion that Simon is not, stupid. He was in actuality, referring to a comment made by Andrew Collins in answer to his original post, and was in fact being facetious.
I will tell you the difference. I was just trying to prove a point, I don’t usually make judgements without having my facts straight, or at the very least having listened to what I am commenting on. I heard Rich and Andrew discussing “hating Pakistanis“, it was just about arbitrarily picking sides in conflicts, a surreal concept taken to an illogical conclusion…ie, A JOKE. It seems comedians are not the only ones who take themselves to seriously! Can't wait for Thursday podcast..should be a good one!
I'm hoping you get a proper apology in print.
This is the first time in my 21 years on this planet that I have felt the need to send an angry e-mail complaining about something, but this article really deserved it. Brian Logan is Mr. Hacketty Hack from Hack street, and I hope he gets the right shoeing he deserves in your next fantastic podcast.
Love you guys,
Matthew Rhymer
If Simon wants to skip listening to all 73 (plus extras) podcasts and skip straight for No. 57 he'll find Rich's sketch that makes reference to His hatred of Pakistanis and how racists have a point. He makes a point at the start to say he's being ironic.
In the "racists have a point" bit he says that, as racists treat both Pakistanis and Indian people the same by calling them all Pakistani before saying surely we SHOULD treat everyone equal, "we are all human after all".
I think Richard should definitely consider legal action. It would be more money for SCOPE for one thing. It wasn't even a review. It was a bloody hatchet job to support the journo's moronic thesis (i.e. it was for the hack's benefit).
A reasonable person would consider it meant that Richard was a racist, or was likely to be a racist. It could affect his ability to get gigs, and equally affect his ability to raise money for charity.
I consider it libellous, and I at least have a Graduate Diploma in Law, so I'm not totally uninformed.
You're wrong Duncan. I was interested in why the moustache has taken the blame for what Hitler did and why it is not associated with Chaplin who had it first (out of those two at least). And I thought it would be an interesting direction to tackle racism from, not in an ironic, let's say something offensive and leave it at that way, but in a let's really look at it properly and examine our own and other people's attitudes to it.
Over the months things have happened in the news that have changed the show and given it more of a political agenda than I intended.
But I didn't even really think having a show called Hitler Moustache was shocking and just wanted a poster that illustrated the show and didn't consider that anyone would find a man looking a bit like Hitler as being offensive. In fact I still don't see why it would be. Not until you find out what the show is about. And if it's about a man agreeing with Hitler then that would be offensive. But what's shocking or offensive about the poster really?
You actually have me here and I'm actually telling you what I was thinking when I came up with the show. If you think you know better about that then I do then good luck to you.
As mentioned above, i also dont usually email about things like this but I had to send one off this afternoon about this tool's (Logan) article. Just so lazy and looking for trouble where there isnt any. Grrrrr. Newspaper arent worth the paper they are written on nowadays.
bc- me too. I've listened to the podcast for about 10-15 episodes now and I read the Guardian all the time, and I've never felt compelled to write to them about the journalistic integrity of a piece, or to post on here.
hopefully there will be a public reply to this- at the very least Richard himself should receive one
Richard Herring once called me a "f*cking c*nt" on the podcast. I have always assumed that he was being ironic and saying the opposite of what he meant, but now wonder if he is racist (I am Irish) and gingerist (I am ginger). Thanks Mr Logan. You've ruined my day.
For those who've not seen it yet, Dave Gorman has just weighed in: http://gormano.blogspot.com/2009/07/not-just-wrong.html
Could everyone just remember that not all journalists are the same. It's the few bad ones that give the rest of us a bad name. We're not all muck-raking hacks with an agenda. But do also bear in mind a journalist is more often than not doing the bidding of his masters.
Can you really take any article seriously that describes Emma Thompson as "an comedian", did you see her solo series in the late 80's!
"But do also bear in mind a journalist is more often than not doing the bidding of his masters."
Would that be like the Nazi's?
That Simon is a spineless cunt, isn't he?
I too have written a strongly worded e-mail to the Guardian.
As a previously proud supporter of the BNP and avid fan of the collected works of Jim Davidson, I was delighted to learn from Brian Logan of a new show from Richard Herring that would seem to be right up my neantherdal street.
However, rather than revelling in a joyful hour of hackneyed racist themes and "pakistani hating" as I was promised, I discovered that Mr. Herring seemed instead to be holding a mirror up to my own prejudices and bigotry in such a way that caused me to re-evaluate my own opinions and how I viewed the world. If that wasn't bad enough, I was being subjected to this within the parameters of an intelligent, thoughtful and well-judged comedy show.
In future I shall be getting all of my comedy reviews and Edinburgh Festival tips exclusively from The Daily Mail.
Apologies if this comes across as elitist.
Ignorance comes up against something it cannot comprehend, so jumps about knocking things over and generally creates a stink from it's own sense of inflated importance.
I'm of two minds. Whether to just smile at the simple fools, giving them their own good time to realise to true intent behind Richard's art, or to take responsible action to show them that we good folk will not take this kind of misinfomation lying down.
Either way.. good cheer, the scum will not win!
peace
Well Andrew, I seem to remember you were quite happy to accept Morrissey as a racist on the NME's say so a couple of years ago. Perhaps now you'll be a bit slower to judge other celebrities.
Five-Centres: you just wrote "all journalists are the same... muck-raking hacks with an agenda". There! How do you like it!? Hmm? Hmmmm!?
.....
....just kidding....
Except Morrissey was being deliberately ambiguous for effect. Which is a bit sad, really, even if he was god at being a Smith.
Tess, you have to be kidding, right? How many times must I go over this? Morrissey was flirting with far-right imagery without explanation and we asked the question on the cover of the NME: "Flying the flag or flirting with disaster?" We reported on his Madstock gig appearance, asked him for a comment on the issue which Morrissey steadfastly refused to do, and a black writer, Dele Fadele, wrote an informed and impassioned editorial, whose conclusion was that Morrissey was not a racist, but that he was treading on dangerous ground and had some unsavoury friends. This has gone down in myth as the issue of the NME that called Morrissey a racist.
Quite where you draw the line from that incident to this one is beyond me. Here, we're talking about a comedian who is doing a show about racism and using ideas about racism to turn our preconceptions on their head. And a journalist has interviewed him and cherry-picked quotes and misrepresented his work to imply that he is in fact a racist.
I don't see the link. You're going to have to come up with one, if you wish to take the moral high ground with me, Tess. Since I never called Morrissey a racist - merely worked on a larger piece of writing in the NME that stacked up the evidence against him, very carefully, and asked questions rather than made claims, I really can't see why that somehow prevents me from being angry that my friend and comedy partner has been misrepresented in a national newspaper.
Come on - explain. It's very easy to come on here and toss of a couple of inflammatory lines then walk away. I'm all for a discussion.
And where's Simon? We never got to the bottom of that. There seem to be a lot of agendas here. Mine is simply one of fair and honest representation.
That's 'good' at being a Smith. I am an atheist after all.
Hi,
I'm being a lazy shit and sending identical posts to you and Richard - should qualify me for the journo vacancy that I hear will be coming up soon in the quality press
Thought I'd add my three ha'pence -see below for transcript of email sent to Grunadia:
Sir,
I have read Brian Logan's piece with mounting dismay and anger. It is an ill-conceived, ill- researched and quite possibly libellous article. Unlike Mr Logan, I have had the pleasure of listening to most of Richard Herring's podcasts, read every single page of his daily blog, now approaching its 7th anniversary and seen his last 3 Edinburgh shows. While this exposure has shown Herring up to be, like most people, a complex, multi-faceted character, I would suggest there is one constant throughout: not only is he not a racist, he is quite vehemently anti-racist.
Indeed, a good proportion of his latest show is devoted to berating his audience for not voting in the recent European elections for ANYONE OTHER THAN THE BNP as it was their apathy that allowed such pondlife the seeming legitimacy of office.
I would suggest that the least you should do now is to offer a full and unreserved apology plus equal space for Richard Herring to write his own rebuttal - a substantial donation to Scope, RH's chosen charity, wouldn't be amiss, either. Further, I would suggest Mr Logan considers his future career - and if he does not, you should consider it for him.
Yours faithfully,
Looking forward to next podcast - there's now bound to be loads to talk about as a fitting tribute to Tina
Best regards
I've got a horrible image of Brian Logan, frenziedly moving from comment page to comment page, priapically gleeful at the amount of controversy he's caused.
You can't help but think that, given the nature of the article, he must have intended to provoke controversy, and is probably delighted that he has.
I think I remember him from the Guardian Edinburgh Podcasts last year. He was organising a musical on the paper's behalf, and was really delighted that he had titled it 'Guardian: The Mueslical.' Whenever we see his name in print now, my friends and I all have a chuckle at Brian's Little Joke.
In other Logan-related memories, there was an article on the Guardian theatre blog recently wondering if there is a place for God in the performing arts. I suspect that Brian Logan thinks there is: Him.
No real point to this post, other than to share the Proustian memories that his name provokes, and to say that BRIAN LOGAN IS A TOOL.
Thanks anyway.
p.s. BRIAN LOGAN IS A TOOL.
Good points Andrew (and I've just read Richard's blog and the Dave Gorman one too which make similarly valid and coherent points).
I read the article yesterday and was surprised by the content, coming away thinking that Richard had a case for defamation, or that I had seriously misunderstood the nature of his work over the last few years.
Obviously, the trouble with the internet is that the article won't fade away - it's not just 'yesterday's fish and chip wrapper' any more - so all the more need to counter this kind of misrepresentation.
Pete
But Tess is right in a way. You saying The Guardian have cherry picked comments from Richard in order to imply he is a racist.
I agree, they have, but the NME did exactly the same thing with Morrissey. They scoured years of interviews to try and build their case and sorry it doesn't wash when you say you never actually accused him of being a racist, because The Guardian haven't accused Richard of being a racist either, they've not even implied it to the extent that you and your mates did with Morrissey. I didn't get the impression that Richard was a racist from that article. The NME article was very obviously painting Morrissey as a racist and no amount of wriggling can get you out of that one.
It is a bit double standards.
The annoying thing is that this could have been a great article. Certainly there are some very valid points to be made examining the seeming acceptance of misogynistic and racist material in some comedy these days. I've definitely had some very uncomfortable feelings while watching parts of Little Britian or Al Murray's ITV exploits, when those acts have delivered racist material in such a way that completely ignores any post-modern, ironic intentions. Mr Herrin, having worked with both of those acts in the past, and being somebody whose current show deals with the topic of race and racism, would undoubtedly have had a valuable insight.
Fair enough Richard, if you say so. But you did walk around with a Hitler moustache to see what reaction you'd get, talking about how people wouldn't know why you had it etc. That's part of the story isn't it? "I didn't consider that anyone would find a man looking a bit like Hitler as being offensive". Yes you did. You said so yourself on 5 Live which I happened to hear by chance. Am I missing something? That's the show! You shaved the thing off even.
I'm not denying the intellectual foundation for the idea, or that the idea came first. But you could have had a picture of yourself with a big smile, looking normal, with the toothbrush moustache and called the show 'The Lost Moustache' or something. I'm not saying you should have, I think it's okay to be provocative in the way that you are, but not everyone's going to get it. Not everyone has the time to spend 20 or so hours with you and Andrew like I have.
I first started listening after Andrew plugged the thing on 5 Live. In fact I wonder whether the recent spike in listeners might have something to do with your recent appearance on there. The first thing I heard was 'bumming, bumming' and I wondered whether it was going to be funny or not. It wasn't until probably halfway through the second podcast that I made my mind up to stick with it and that I trusted you both enough to go with the jokes.
All I'm saying is that you must already be aware of your humour's potential for offending or putting people off. You seem to think I'm saying you're just being provocative for the sake of it which I'm not. That's the game you're playing, to get people's attention and then use the comedy as a vehicle to explore serious themes, as well as simply to entertain, or so I thought. Without the provocative element, and the humour to go along with it, you're left with a dry lecture on the fascist appropriation of symbols.
In fact the Guardian has appropriated your poster to make their article more eye-catching, which might be one of the reasons you've been included actually. But you've got your fan base, not everyone reads the Guardian, lots of people have open minds and the comedians you've been lumped in with aren't exactly on their uppers. You still deserve an apology though. And good luck to you getting it.
I once had a chat with a psychologist who said that chimps make laughing noises when they hear something rustling in the undergrowth and it turns out to be non-threatening. He reckoned that this is why the unexpected is at the root of so much humour, it has a genetic basis. The unexpected punch line, non sequiturs, men in women's clothing, a politically incorrect statement, retelling a bizarre event etc. You confound people's expectations or social norms in a non-threatening way and people laugh.
I don't want to align myself with Tess, who I suspect might be carrying quite an old grudge. But I do remember the NME dredging up Morrissey's "reggae is vile" quote as evidence of... something. A jokey remark made with a fair dose of the speaker's customary irony. There was a certain amount of context skimming in that issue. But it was a question that a lot of people were asking. And although Morrissey maybe had a right to be offended that the question needed to be asked (and perhaps even about the way it was asked), he didn't do himself any favours by taking his cross home.
There's a worthwhile question to be asked about some modern comedy too. But this article - which I haven't read (if you're going to do this getting in a huff thing then at least do it properly, amateurs) - doesn't quite seem to have got there. It sounds so crass that I thought perhaps Brian Logan was trying to make a point by cleverly saying things that we all know aren't true. But where comedy routines don't really have to pass the logic test because that isn't the point, the same doesn't really apply to newspaper articles. So it probably is just a shit article.
A clip from Podcast 46 where you (and Duncan) can hear how the idea of Hitler Moustache began
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YejwHrceF4
I am writing to complain about the article 'The new offenders of stand-up comedy' by Brian Logan. Unfortunately for the Guardian the only true offenders here are the negligent editor and the disgraceful Mr Logan. As I’m sure you're now fully aware Logan made some wild and unfounded accusations about Richard Herring in this regrettable piece of irresponsible and libellous journalism.
Perhaps the most offensive and damaging public misrepresentation possible, to label an innocent man of being Racist in a national publication is a serious statement which cannot be ignored. Whether this public assault was a deliberate professional assassination, a desperate attempt to generate sales from controversy, or just an ignorant idiocy from an unprofessional hack is unclear as of yet but the severe damage on Herrings career has been done.
As a regular Guardian reader it is with sadness that I inform you that I will be boycotting the Guardian newspaper and urging my fellow 20,000 collings & herrin podcast listeners to do the same until the accusation is retracted and Richard Herrings name is cleared and justice is done. I sincerely hope that you act swiftly on this making a clear public apology as prominent as the original slur.
The sooner Herring is Acquitted and completely exonerated by you the more you can reduce the damage you have done on his reputation and the loss of sales on his current tour.
If you don’t issue a public apology soon there will be no other choice but to take further legal action, as the harm you have done is irreversible so financial compensation will be considerable. I’m sure I don’t have to tell you about the laws referring to breach of duty, trust and gross misconduct.
Please fix the problem you have caused.
Yours regrettably
Karl
Apologies for the late joining of this battle but I live abroad and due to work commitments have just caught up. Here is my contribution to the Guardian corrections column.
Dear Sirs,
I wish to complain about Brian Logan's piece - 'The new offenders of standup comedy' and in particular the apparent portrayal therein of comedian Richard Herring as a racist.
I am an expat who - until now - has chosen to read the guardian as I feel most closely aligned to the direction of this newspaper, and generally enjoy the standard of reporting and articles. However, after reading today's comedy article, I am extremely disappointed. I have followed Richard Herring's career since he came to my attention with 'Fist of Fun' and have enjoyed his thoughtful and honest blog for many years now. This is a blog where he often analyses and deconstructs his own work, and attitudes and responses to it. I'd go so far as to say that it would be hard to find a man with a more responsible, sincere and considered approach to both his comedy and how it is received. To suggest that this man is a racist is simply incorrect. Clearly Mr Logan has not fully researched this piece. I hope so - or else I would be more disturbed to find that the writer charged with detailing a perceived new trend in comedy is obviously unfamiliar with one of the most basic comedic devices - that of positing a clearly incorrect or ridiculous point of view in order to then challenge it.
I'm sure that a phrase that is re-occurring in your complaints inbox today is this: "This is the first time I have ever written to a newspaper to complain about anything, but..."
Well, it's true - I have never complained before, and I am only doing so now as I feel so strongly about this odious and inept piece of journalism. I feel Mr Herring has been slighted here, and his career potentially damaged due to some thoughtless writing - and equally thoughtless editing!
Please take the appropriate steps and discipline Mr Logan for failing to research correctly, (of course - if he is freelance, then simply do not use him again) and issue a clearly-visible formal apology to Mr. Herring - preferably accompanied by a sizeable donation to Scope - the charity he works hard to support. Of course I would be equally satisfied by a clearly-visible formal apology to Mr. Herring - accompanied by a sizeable donation to the charity of Mr Logan's choice. By the way - which charity does Mr Logan regularly publicize, take advertising donations, take buckets to his gigs, publicize there, collect money, take it to the post office and pay it into their account - all in his own time for?
E-mail sent. Kept it civil. Although I have to agree with Michael Legge's sentiments, to be honest.
It'd be nice to keep myself aloof and say that the truth will out etc, but in reality, I think Logan's a knob.
Great article, Andrew.
Misrepresentation in journalism is nothing new but when writing and article on offence and racism (in comedy or in any context) surely the author has to be very careful to understand the motives and background of the people they are quoting. That Logan fails here so badly is not just poor journalism it is inexcusable.
Add me to the list of wooly liberals who have never written a complaint letter to a newspaper but are doing so now. I've also written an appreciation of your podcasts / Richard and my reactionary demand for a Guardian apology on my blog.
For heaven's sake. The Morrissey story, in which we took him to task for flirting with far right imagery and language without backing it up, or explaining - and thus contextualising it - was written by three member of senior staff at the NME, including the editor, and one freelancer. It was a collective effort to build a picture, based on years of interviews and lyrics. We genuinely felt that Morrissey had overstepped a mark with this cumulative flirtation. We asked him to set the record straight. For whatever reason, he chose not to. Thus, the issue went to press without his direct contribution, which was his decision.
This Guardian article was written by one writer. It was one writer's thesis. He interviewed some people and used their comments to help illustrate his broader thesis. One of these people, we know for a fact, was misrepresented by the way this one writer edited the comments together. His reporting of Richard's show was misleading.
In that issue of the NME, we reported exactly what happened at the Madstock gig. A number of people had witnessed it. We drew conclusions and put them to the artist in question.
In the Guardian piece, it was the other way round - the piece was constructed from interview conducted for the piece.
We asked the question explicitly: flying the flag or flirting with disaster? I'm amazed at how often this still comes up. Morrissey seems to remain convinced that the NME plotted to stitch him up, when in fact, his biggest fans at the paper (myself, Stuart Maconie, Danny Kelly) wrote that piece with genuine concern at the direction he seemed to be going in. There was no decision to stitch him up. We were a music newspaper, reporting an event that had taken place, in front of thousands of people. We could hardly misrepresent what happened.
Brian Logan has misrepresented the act of a comedian by taking remarks out of comedic context. There was no comedic context to Morrissey's flirtations. He danced with the Union Jack at a time when the flag was still firmly identified as a symbol of the far right - rightly or wrongly. It was a provocative act, which we did not make more provocative by printing a photograph of it. There is much more ambiguity around Brian Logan's charge against Richard.
Still, I'm sure Rich is delighted to be compared to someone as famous as Morrissey.
I'm not going to get into the Morrissey thing because I've already offended Herring and will no doubt be ironically lambasted on the next podcast. There is a tenuous link though, in that in some ways the BNP have done to our flag what Hitler did to the moustache, although you could argue that the flag is already tainted by colonialism. I saw comments on YouTube that accused Iron Maiden of arrogant nationalism for waving a Union Jack around when it's actually used as a prop to add atmosphere to the song 'The Trooper', which is about a British soldier in the Crimean War.
All this talk of cherry picking quotes and taking them out of context doesn't quite do it for me. If someone photoshopped my face onto the face of someone at a BNP meeting, and published it in a national newspaper, then I wouldn't say they were cherry picking my face, or taking my face out of context, I'd say they were lying.
My assumption is that the Brian Logan (ah-boo!) doesn't have some great agenda against Richard Herring, nor does he actually think he's a racist comedian, but just that the recording of his interview with Richard contained words that were ideal for his article, and he didn't pause to consider how they would appear to the casual reader. He's probably aware now though.
Brian Logan is a new offender of comedy.
I don't know who this "Morrissey" bloke is, but I'll wait for Brian Logan to tell me whether he's racist or not.
I find it quite dissapointing the Brian Logan's article doesn't allow us to comment on it. Perhaps we could all email The Guardian to 'Report errors or inaccuracies' in this lazy piece of journalism - reader@guardian.co.uk
I think it's disgraceful that the bastards didn't recommend the Watch With Mothers podcast. It's clearly better than half of those on the list. The Guardian are largely staffed by idiots.
If they offered me work, I would happily become one of those idiots.
And Richard Herring is quite clearly a racist, as he has taken part in a marathon. Where he finished is of no importance - he raced, therefore he is a racist.
*looks confused*
*gets dictionary*
Surely Brian Logan has to explain himself, because without knowing why he wrote such an abortion of a piece, people are left speculating that:
A) He was ill. Suffering some sort of mental anguish that upset the balance of his mind and impeded his abilities of perception. Thus, In his confused state he is unable to identify a clear and vocal anti-racist from a racist.
B) He is the victim of a vindictive or/and lazy copy editor who has so completely misconstrued what he meant to say as to make it borderline libellous.
C) He has produced such an ingeniously elaborate joke that none of us are able to decipher the point or punch-line and we will all be very red faced when we find out, if we do indeed understand it.
D) He is a not a very intelligent man. In fact, such a dullard that he cannot understand something even when it is unambiguously explained to him and blindingly obvious to everybody else.
E) He is deliberately misleading people for his own publicity seeking ends. A liar if you will.
I wonder which it is...
Having listened to all the pod casts, read a bit of the blog (I'm new to it) and read all the comments I have to say I'm so offended that I feel compelled to cancel someone's podcast.
Clearly I cannot cancel yours as it makes me laugh so could someone please suggest an annoying one I can subscribe to then cancel in sheer and utter rage. I'd cancel my subscription to private eye but that makes me laugh too so I'm in a bit of a quandry here. I'd cancel my subscription to the mail but I've never bought it out of principle.
People who judge without listening annoy me, if you want to critisize something at least watch / read / listen to it first just in case your assumptions are wrong.
Anyone who listened to the podcast would immediately know how wrong the article was. Who would have thought the Guardian could ever be even a bit like the Mail? What has our world come to? As a wooly liberal I don't know where to turn.
Gav
I read the piece and thought it was a bit of a sprawling mess in which the point (as I perceived it) got lost.
I didn't actually feel Richard Herring was being labelled as racist, but that he was being questioned more broadly about whether use of contentious material in comedy might either a) offend some sections of an audience, or b) tacitly collude with the existing prejudices of other sections (it looked from the text as though Logan had possibly done a slightly longer interview with RIchard than with the other comedians quoted in the piece, and therefore had more quotes to 'pick' from, but I may be quite wrong about that. Maybe Logan just set out to give an unbalanced view.).
I don't think the premise of the piece is unreasonable. The comedy pendulum has, as could have been predicted, swung reactively away from the last generation of 'questioning', broadly left-wing 80s acts, which came to be perceived as partonising and lecturing, towards (in my view) something a lot more scattergun and adolescent. The line between 'edgy' and 'crass', is often blurred, and I speak as one who used to attend a lot of comedy gigs but now hardly ever does, as like Jo Brand, I don't often find much to laugh at in the current crop.
I think the piece lost its way because it failed to draw any conclusions - it might make a really interesting study, but as yet we don't know what the effects of 'contentious' comedy on audience beliefs and behaviours are.
Audiences are self-selecting groups and most will be at a gig (once an act is 'established', anyway) because they are familiar with the work and broadly approve of it. I doubt that Richard Herring's audience figures will suffer as a result of the Guardian piece. I certainly didn't start questioning his motives when I read about the 'Hitler Moustache' idea. He's a well established act with a very loyal following, and he can, as has been shown, hold his own against hecklers should the need arise.
I reflected while reading the piece that Chris Morris never gives interviews or answers questions about his work. I think we can all see why, on the back of this one.
Interesting debate, anyway. What a shame all the Morrissey stuff got tacked on the back of it.
The funny thing is if I was asked to describe Richard's comedy to someone I would probably use phrases like 'anti-racist' and 'Guardian-reading liberal'.
In a good way.
Surely if Richard is still in the development stage, pre-Edinburgh, then this is just brilliant content.
Every cloud, etc...
Honestly though, the non-news features in the Guardian these days are a joke. I'm relatively certain the people reading it would already be familiar with Rich's work and know his oeuvre is most certainly not of a racist bent.
I maintain, however, that you two are more badly behaved than Brand and Ross, yet are bizarrely still allowed to operate untouched by moral majority. And this sickens me.
It really saddens me that this has appeared in the Guardian, of all places! I have emailed them to complain. I think the mass of support for Richard will backfire on Brian Logan. I certainly hope so.
Is it just a mere coincidence that Brian Logan is (almost) an anagram of Gonad Brain (if you change one letter but there's nowt wrong with bending thruths to fit ones agenda is there?)
Richard I look forward to your forthcoming shows 'Saddam Spectacular', 'the Pol Pot Pourri' and one toned down especially for a British audience 'The Shipman Show' (only because we don;t have our own crazies on the scale of the aforementioned Mr Hussein and Mr Pot. Maybe you'll get accused of being ageist). Seriously, clearly you're not racist, but as soon as the word Hitler is mentioned you're bound to get some poor deluded fool accusing you of being xenophobic. It;s just the way some people's minds work. As a nation we've had political correctness drummed into us so much that it doesn't take much to set the twitchy ones off.
It's terribly sweet of loyal podcast listeners and fans of Richard Herring to rush to defend his honour against a horrible journalist, but let's face it, no amount of emails or letters of complaint will make a jot of difference. It's all publicity. You know that Andrew, being a journalist (albeit 'jobbing', apparently) yourself. Did you ever have to publicly apologise for anything you ever wrote?
When anyone complained about anything I'd written in the past, my editor was thrilled. Of course, if Brian Logan did not deliberately misrepresent Richard Herring then perhaps he should come out and say so. But if he meant to then that's another matter entirely.
I have a feeling that fans should not expect an apology, retraction or even an acknowledgment anytime soon. Though having said that, and with apologies being all the rage, anything could happen.
I'd just like to clarify one thing. I'm not a fan, i just fancied the idea of a show called 'Pol Pot Pourri'.
Not a word about it in today's Guardian, I see.
Ooh well this is rather like a wooly liberal version of the whole Brand/Ross and Sachs thing...I mean how many of the people that are writing to The Guardian in complaint read the original article when it appeared?
Well it's good to know that wooly liberals can be motivated in the same way as Mail reading, right-wing reactionaries...Hoorah for that!
Hmmmm....I guess tho' that this could possibly do actual damage to Herrings rep. I'm guessing it won't, but will more serve to show how many listeners/fans/strong supporters you (both) really have...
When I do on the odd occasions buy a newspaper it's the Independent...I'm sure The Guardian is loving this!
Hi Andrew,
Myself and others have managed to outlet our opinions on the most recent Brian Logan article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/2009/jul/28/standup-david-cameron?commentpage=1
So far, we've had one response from The Guardian simply saying 'Can we keep this on topic please? Thanks'.
It's a matter of time before we get something from them. I'm sure yourself and the rest of us will not let this lie until it has been formally addressed.
It's disgraceful writing, a disgraceful misuse of trust and above all, it's upset Richard. This wont affect his career as he has enough support from us all to see this through. It's just not very nice to see him sad and not talk about bumming for a few days.
A lot of posts and a lot to read.
To me comedy is about being funny. I'm reminded of the brilliant play by Trevor Griffiths The Comedians and there is nothing wrong to me with challenging the audience or taking risks as long as its funny and hopefully not too illegal.
From what I've heard, read and seen it seems unlikely that Richard is a racist. However he explores challenging areas and I'm not surprised he might occasionally get this kind of response. He is absolutely entitled to explore them and good luck to him.
For what it's worth, I also don't think there is anything wrong with a BNP member doing a piece that challlenges the liberalism in this country - which let's face it is a very fair target.
Ultimately a comedian should live or die by their humour and we all have the right not to watch a comedian who offends us or we don't like or don't agree with.
I confess I found the gypsy moth joke funny. I don't think that gypsies smell or the scent can carry for seven miles. What is more, if any gypsy is offended by my enjoyment of that joke, I suggest you never darken my driveway again.
Listen to the podcast, occasionally read Andrew and Richard's blog, and from these i would not have accused either of you of being racist.
In fact, I would have decided that you are both anti-racist.
Fine, and people who know you from your podcasts and blogs will accept this.
I would imagine that more people read the Grauniad though...
I'll tell you what I have taken away from this... A lot of blog commenters are self-important fork-wits... (particularly on that pink-coloured blog that Richard linked to).
And the most ironic think of all, is, I think that comedians simply do not have a responsibility for the moral education of their audiences. They are not teachers, politicians, or religious elders. And yet you have one comedian pointing out the logical falacies of racism is a way that is amusing, not didactic, and is CHALLENGING (which is what humour should be) and he's basically accused of being politically uncorrect...
And I love political correctness. (like Stewart Lee has ranted about on several occasions) and I love freedom of speech.
Hearing about comedy's new offenders is about as challenging and interesting as hearing about how A-Levels have got easier (YEAR AFTER YEAR!).
(and breathe)
er...Stephen Fry and a few others just let me do them on my blog. I'd love to do you. Could I?
http://popartforeveryone.blogspot.com/
x
Of course you can, Heart Person.
Blimey is this still going, I hope people are writing to the Guardian about other things too. You try you MP's, ministers now you've got the bug.
@BLTP- that's rather a patronising assumption- that people who read this kind of blog won't already be writing to their political representatives. I certainly use WriteToThem.com on a fairly regular basis and I'm sure other people here protest about things other than injustices to comedians.
Just sent my email of complaint to Guardian. I'm hoping the number of emails and comments will result in some for of apology or a right of reply from Richard. As I feel he was rightly offended from the lack of context and over simplification of his words and routines.
Duncan, I was talking about the poster specifically. I didn't think anyone would be offended ( by what?) and very few people have been. It's just a picture, it doesn't say anything. Would you get offended by a play poster with someone dressed as Hitler on it? Don't think do.
I did anticipate people being offended by me walking around with the moustache, but I wasn't doing it to offend anyone and greatly disliked the fact that it might.
In fact people mainly seem bamboozled or don't care.
Fair enough Richard, just the poster then, but I only used the word offensive in my reply because you did. I was talking about being provocative, controversial, but often stimulating (Chambers), serving or tending to provoke, excite, or stimulate (Merriam Webster) not offensive. To be honest I think this boils down to a semantic misunderstanding. I hope so anyway.
"To be honest I think this boils down to a semantic misunderstanding."
Having read the Guardian article, I can only conclude that Richard is anti-semantic. Or something...
Just read Richard's guardian article http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/jul/31/richard-herring-standup-comedian-offensive a nicely judged response, also Brendan get's his turn. Have to agree with the majority on here that Logan was at best unprofessional and sloppy he tried to balance things out with other comedians but left Herring and Burns hanging, will wait with baited breath for Logan's response... this one could run and run!
Jim
That Guardian article was disgusting, and Richard should sue them into the ground.
Re: Stephen's comment: "Where is this chicken that allegedly crossed the road? Show me."
I certainly hope you aren't using the word "crossed" in the sense of a burning cross, as that would be racist! You should think more carefully about what you say.
To be extra cheeky (in a playful, harmless way) for a second, Andrew Collins can probably tell us a thing or two about what it's like to be on the other side of such a scandal, can't you Andrew? You must have been working at the NME all those years ago in 1991, Morrissey, etc. Did the editor say to you, "This'll get everyone really riled up and sell a few papers!"?
But then again, Morrissey is a vegetarian, so maybe there's something in it...
In case you're not Guardian readers, or are boycotting the paper, here is Richard's eloquent reply from today's G2.
As Morrissey himself said "Stop me if you think you've heard this one before." I may be taking that quote out of context.
[verification: inglehot]
Logan has written this response to their responses to his original article.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/2009/jul/31/richard-herring-brendon-burns-comedy
Oh man, I really should have read all the comments here first before posting my comment. But there were too many! I blame all the other people for commenting before me. There's absolutely no way I could be expected to find earlier references to Morrissey on this page, apart from using the Ctrl+F feature, but apart from that there is absolutely no way.
Don't worry, Daniel - I have saved you from yourself and not published your previous two comments. Who's got time to read all the previous comments? Not me!
Cheers Andrew. You have always been my favourite one, almost, out of the two podcast men. To make up for my gauche intrusion into an already-inflamed-enough debate, I've bought your audiobook from gofasterstripe.com. (And because I want to hear it, of course.)
PS. I think £17 including delivery is exactly the right price for it! It just "feels" right, you know?
"But, like Herring, I assume my audience is intelligent and didn't think his routine needed spelling out."
So anyone who objects to a Liberal man being nationally made to out to be a fascist biggot is unintelligent. Thanks for clearing that up Logan. It is a shame you've been deluged by hundreds of us complaining idiots.
when you label someone an offender in print and highlight only the most offensive words. The reader, however intelligent has been deceived and misinformed.
I would have thought a Guardian Journalist would have the intelligence to know this.
Either Logan is intelligent and
deliberately mislead readers. Or he is unintelligent and stupidly distorted the facts. In both cases he should not be writing for the Guardian.
A very nice rebuttal -- and equally well done to you both on this week's podcast. (In fact, I might even direct my students to your blog when we discuss argument -- and, in the case of the article itself, fallacious use of source material. Disgraceful, that.)
Best of luck in Edinburgh!
Posting a response in the same paper that published the bilge in the first place seems a bit strange to me. The right may have been wronged superficially, but more copy has been provided for a paper that went ahead with an article that was, at best, ill-researched or, worse, wilfully skewed. Ultimately it has allowed them to house the debate.
Debates are good, but not when engineered this cynically. And the Logan article was cynically conceived and written. Not worthy of response-dignification.
Richard Herring is an absolute legend. It always pains me when the Guardian gets it wrong. Slightly off topic but I had a similar reaction after reading Flat Earth News about the Observer's disgraceful support for the Iraq war. Judging by the comments in Logan's weaselly mea culpa, most Guardian readers know it's a load of old pony
Legalman
Andrew,
I was blissfully unaware of all this until I finally got round to listening to podcast 74 today.
Surely this bawsack (ancient Scots insult) will be required to force a retraction or publicly apologise via the same newspaper. Even better if The Guardian were to make a donation to Scope by way of an apology.
Thank goodness Richard at least has his recorded words and thousands of people who listened to the actual podcast to back him up but imagine this "journalist" had misrepresented an up-and-coming comedian or even a member of the public. That sort of lazy journalism can ruin careers or even lives.
- Anthony.
Post a Comment
<< Home