[kasperl]

I think that has a humourous song, this thing kind of misses the point. I've heard a lot worse, and I do think it's funny.

It isn't a serious political statement, as far as I noticed. Therefore, the debate is invalid.

[Turnsky]

Originally posted by kasperl
I think that has a humourous song, this thing kind of misses the point. I've heard a lot worse, and I do think it's funny.

It isn't a serious political statement, as far as I noticed. Therefore, the debate is invalid.

personally i just think it was poking fun at things in general..

" "Here’s a little song I wrote the other day while I was out duck hunting with a judge… It’s a new song, it’s dedicated to the FCC and if they broadcast it, it will cost a quarter of a million dollars.""

- Eric Idle

[aldo_14]

And on the same subject http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/4685415.stm

[mikhael]

Originally posted by Goober5000
I'm not challenging any of that.  I'd just like to point out a few things:

1) Both Eric Idle and Michael Savage take it for granted that their audience accepts what they say as already proven.  They don't argue or persuade, they preach to the choir.

2) Both of them get their point across by sprinking a few choice facts among a sea of name calling.  In general, people who disagree with them focus more on the name calling than the facts.

3) Both are successful people who have a large following.

Yet Eric Idle is called "funny as hell" and Michael Savage is called a "bigoted, racist ****" (to pick on aldo).

Yes. Because Eric Idle is being funny. Savage is a pushing his political agenda. Comedy != Political Agenda. Comedian != Political trendmaker.

Looking to Idle for serious political commentary is about as useful as asking an actor or athlete. Sure, they can have political opinions, but if you're getting your political information from a comedian, athlete or actor, you've got problems. I reference you back to John Stewart's commentary on Crossfire.

If I really thought that Idle was pushing a serious political agenda there, I'd consider this to be almost as bad as Savage. In that case, Idle's only saving grace is that he's not a racist bigot (and yes 'racist bigot' is a description of anyone who calls for hating someone for their racial stock, as Savage does regularly on his show).

[Bobboau]

"hating someone for their racial stock"

realy? I've listened to his show a bunch of times, I don't think he has ever atacked anyones ethnicity. hmm the show's on right now, now that I think of it.

[Bobboau]

http://www.971talk.com/streaming/index.aspx

he's useing Churchill.

[Goober5000]

Originally posted by mikhael
If I really thought that Idle was pushing a serious political agenda there, I'd consider this to be almost as bad as Savage.

So what determines whether or not someone is pushing a political agenda?

It seems to me that Eric Idle is pushing a political agenda via comedy just as Michael Savage is pushing a political agenda via talk radio.

[Bobboau]

it's what the main poitnt is, are you trying to make a joke useing politics, or make politics useing a joke. do you see the diference between the two?

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Goober5000
So what determines whether or not someone is pushing a political agenda?

It seems to me that Eric Idle is pushing a political agenda via comedy just as Michael Savage is pushing a political agenda via talk radio.

Ever heard of satire?  If that was considered pushing a political agenda, 90% of BBC2s comedy programming* would be off air.
*slight exaggeration

I don't know how prevelant political comedy is in the US (although I suspect nowadays it'd be called 'unpatriotic' or some crap), but there's a fundamental difference between making a joke and trying to hammer an opinion into someone else.  For one thing, what Savage 'does' - and any political commentator - is suppossed to have factual basis (whether it does or not is a debated issue AFAIK).  On the other hand, comedy is evaluated based on its comedic value.

Incidentally, I peeked up the wikipedia entry on Savage, and I guess this is (part) of the reasoning for the racism charge; http://mediamatters.org/items/200405140003

I'm somewhat glad that the UK seems to be free of this sort of (on either side) extremist bollocks, where political affiliation (the whole liberal/conservative thing) is adopted as an insult.  Maybe it's (the lack of fairly far left or right wing books on politics) partly due to the fact our PM is placed under more direct questioning than the US leader, or simply because we're a smaller country.

[mikhael]

Originally posted by Goober5000
So what determines whether or not someone is pushing a political agenda?

It seems to me that Eric Idle is pushing a political agenda via comedy just as Michael Savage is pushing a political agenda via talk radio.

Ah, but when's the last time you heard Idle say 'Go an vote for candidate X'. Hint you haven't. Even if you have, I'm willing to bet it was not on stage/air during an act. He's a satirist, a comedian. A comedian can talk about politics (and indeed should, since its a great source of humor).

Savage regularly tells you who to vote for and who not to. He's not making jokes. He's dead serious. He even tells you he's dead serious.

The point is, Goob, that Idle and Savage determine who is cracking jokes and who is pushing an agenda. Their actions (or lack thereof) and their statements are indeed the way you tell. Eric Idle makes fun of the FCC and takes some potshots at the powers that be in Washington as a humorist and its funny/cute. When Savage and Limbaugh and the like took shots at the Clinton White House, however, it was politically motivated. They weren't making fun; they were trying to effect rally the troops--they even claim this to be so. If that doesn't make the delineation clear, I don't know what will. I'll leave the rest for others.

[Ford Prefect]

Satire isn't satire unless it's making a real political or social point. Nobody composes satire with political views other than his or her own; Eric Idle may be funny, but you can't tell me his message isn't genuine.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Ford Prefect
Nobody composes satire with political views other than his or her own

If you were to watch (for example) Bremner, Bird & fortune over a protracted period of time, it becomes obvious that isn't right; that aformentioned programme(and specifically Rory Bremner)  'attacks' every side of the political spectrum.

[Ford Prefect]

That only means that their political views line up against multiple regions of the spectrum. They're still expressing genuine opinions that relate to politics, as opposed to simply being funny. Pure comedy cannot be agreed or disagreed with.

[aldo_14]

If you look at the definition of satire, it doesn't imply political (or indeed for any subject) bias.  What does imply (or lead to the possibility) bias is the choice of what the satire highlights; but that also means an individual can choose to select the topic of the satire based on comedic value (and probably with a view to equality so as not to annoy the regulators).

Also, IMO there's an arguement that true satire is only based upon (in a foundation-for-the-joke sense) factual observance, and thus this limits the scope for personal opinion (but not personal interpretation, of course).

[Ford Prefect]

satire.

1. A literary work in which human vice or folly is attacked through irony, derision, or wit.
         
2. Irony, sarcasm, or caustic wit used to attack or expose folly, vice, or stupidity.

Any paradigm that is deconstructed, be it political, social, or whatever else, and for whatever reasons, is always going to have opponents and defenders. Because one person's "human vice or folly" is always going to be someone else's human triumph, satire is by definition biased. People who support the FCC will not identify with Eric Idle's satire, regardless of how funny he intended it to be. I wouldn't say that Michael Savage is an equivalent on the other end of the spectrum, but neither one has universal appeal, by any stretch of the imagination.