a little late to the conversation

This is about the Chaser and their “Make a Realistic Wish Foundation” sketch. So i’m a little slow;  jumping into the debate jacuzzi when the hot water’s run out and all the champagne bottles have been popped and drunk. Or some other, better, metaphor.
What i’m trying to say is I’m bringing it up because I haven’t seen my opinion reflected anywhere. People are happy to say they went too far and it was in bad taste and highly offensive and insensitive to sick kids and charities, but it seems that if you disagree, you somehow are laughing at sick kids and discrediting the work that charities are doing. The same way that people against “pro-life” are somehow “anti-life”. I don’t see it like that.

I agree that there is ‘a line’ in satire, but I think we can only ever find it when we cross it, therefore crossing it is necessary. But I don’t think that’s what this is.  People have railroaded the argument to say it is wrong to laugh at sick kids – even MediaWatch claimed that – but the Chaser’s sketch never had the kids at the receiving end of the joke, it was the crappy, cheap reincarnation of the charity that was the butt. In his Herald Sun article, Colin Vickery describes the sketch as “making dying children the but of a sick joke”. Amanda Meade at The Australian tells us that “mocking dead celebrities is one thing, mocking terminally ill children is quite another.” Even Prime Minister Kevin Rudd stated that “Having a go at kids with a terminal illness is really beyond the pale, absolutely beyond the pale.”

These statements don’t correlate with the Chaser’s sketch. If you were laughing – or assuming you should be laughing – at the dying kids, then surely it is you who should be looking at your values, not the Chaser. The gags in the sketch are the “realistic wishes” that are granted. The first joke lands when Tabitha, whose dying wish was a trip to Disneyland, is given a pencil case instead. A digital sparkle is added as the crappy pencil case is presented – clearly this is the joke. The irony of a charitable organisation run by greedy corporate types who see no point in spending money on kids who “are only going to die anyway”. I find it extremely irresponsible of journalists to suggest that we are supposed to be laughing at the kids. This is a complete misinterpretation of the sketch and only feeds hate and anger.

Jim Schembri of the Age writes that “there is no target to the piece other than terminally ill children.” and that “The Chaser team is simply making fun of sick kids for being greedy, the MO, presumably, being to get a laugh out of being grossly insensitive.” This is completely off the mark, anyone who watches the clip again can see it, but a suggestion otherwise easily manipulates you into thinking that the jokes are about the kids. They just aren’t. The media and even Kevin Rudd are to blame by making this about whether we should laugh at sick kids, not whether we should have the right to make satire.  If people are offended by the sketch that is fair enough – people can be offended by anything, and they have the right to. We should debate what is right and wrong. If enough people feel that the Chaser overstepped the mark then the consequences should be an apology for offending and a gesture of goodwill, such as a large donation. But censorship is going too far, and enters extremely dangerous ground.

Josef Fritzl

I personally didn’t find the sketch particularly funny, but I honestly didn’t find it offensive at all. It only reminded me of the great Mr Show sketch about the essentially same thing. But I did think that the sketch that followed it, which turned Fritzl’s dungeon of incest into a kitsch Brady Bunch opener, was actually quite offensive (and hilarious).  I think it would be hard to argue that a survivor of incest (or Fritzl’s actual daughter) would be not offended, but a child who has had a wish granted by the Make a Wish Foundation would/should be upset by the a young girl getting a stick instead of meeting Zac Efron.

Zac Efron

I think the truth is that the Chaser boys picked a charity which has its reputation at stake and doesn’t want to be satirised (which ironically (?) will most likely see an increase in donations due to the exposure). I think that is the main reason it’s been classed so offensive. The charity has a loud voice, groups such as incest survivors do not.  Even if the sketch simply referenced dying children, and not a specific charity I don’t think it would have had somuch exposure.

Steve Price of 2UE posted a video blog about it all asking how the Chaser boys are  “allowed to make jokes about dying children and get away with it?” This was asked by Steve the day after the sketch aired, and thanks to his misinforming rhetoric, spurred on people to get upset about television “mak(ing) fun of children who are dying.” Pricey got his wish and the Chaser has since been pulled from the air for two weeks, and Amanda Duthie, Head of ABC TV Comedy lost her job over it (after MediaWatch‘s name and shame, also falsely claiming that the joke was about dying kids).
I think it is disgusting and a real blow to the power of satire, which has always been the leader in the pushing important issues. Ever since Shakespeare, ‘the fool’ has always been the smartest.

Also, you can tell how Steve has his finger on the pulse by ending his to-camera by saying the Chaser is “boring telivison that just upsets everyone.” Boring? Are you suggesting that people have been driven to offence whilst in a panic induced by boredom? You’re only deflating your own argument by using a description that completely contradicts your sentiments.  It sure was ‘boring’ how those chaser guys forced us to laugh at kids with cancer, I almost broke my jaw yawning.

The other thing that pisses me off about this is how a bunch of the blog/news websites will say how terrible and offensive it is, then feel the need post it as proof. If it really is so terrible that it should never have been shown, then you can’t claim it is any less offensive when showing on the net.  How it is less offensive now? It’s only proving that in certain contexts it’s ‘not offensive’.  One of those contexts would have to be satire.  So the Chaser Boys should be able to push the boundaries within satire which should always safe ground.

Or is it  possible that that if the sketch itself was actully funnier then no-one would have been offended? Meaning that because people weren’t really laughing they assumed it was because they were shocked.

It’s as if everyone wants to jump on the Chaser bandwagon, but then they don’t want to stay along for the ride. If you find it offensive because you don’t understand the black humour and where the jokes actually lie, don’t watch it.