<nettime> Satire is out? They can't be serious

["shannon o'neill" <alias@aliasfrequencies.org>]

http://www.smh.com.au/text/articles/2002/05/29/1022569792730.htm

Satire is out? They can't be serious

Date: May 30 2002

A court decision has delivered a low blow to comedians and the good old 
Aussie sense of humour, writes Andrew Bock.

A serious miscarriage of humour was upheld by a full bench of the Federal 
Court of Australia last week. In a copyright wrangle over the use of TV 
footage, the full court ruled, among other things, that satire alone did 
not constitute a form of criticism, review or news reportage.

Aristophanes, Juvenal, Chaucer and Moliere would be turning in their 
graves. Barry Humphries, Clive James and John Clarke are not likely to be 
entertained.

The court's frightening conclusion issues a restriction to comedians in 
Australia. But perhaps a worse outcome of the ruling is that it may force 
the electronic media to take current affairs even more seriously.

The case concerned a dust-up over the use of Nine's footage by Ten's 
satirical current affairs show The Panel, which rebroadcast a number of 
pieces of Nine's footage and made fun of the subjects, without paying for 
the footage. The copyright act allows one to borrow footage or reproduce 
works for the purposes of making a news story or for the purposes of 
criticism or review.

Much time was spent in court debating what constituted a serious news 
treatment and what was merely "poking fun".
Justice Finkelstein argued in classic deadpan style that John Howard 
singing Happy Birthday to Donald Bradman on the Midday show was newsworthy. 
"An incident where the prime minister of a country has behaved in a way 
which some might call `silly' is certainly newsworthy," Finkelstein 
declared. His argument implies that Howard does not always appear "silly".

Discussion of the merits of particular Panel segments relied upon making a 
distinction between news and entertainment. The judges admitted this was 
not an easy distinction to make but nevertheless persisted. A singing prime 
minister was considered newsworthy. Silly disguises used by anonymous 
interviewees were merely entertainment.

The court's assessment of other segments from The Panel hinged on the 
notion that making fun was not fair dealing unless there was also an 
element of serious or "recognisable" criticism. In other words, the court 
managed to rule that it is no defence to make fun of something unless you 
also take it seriously.

Some would argue that in the case of Howard singing, this is impossible.

Satire - having a lend - is an Australian institution. It saves us from 
political correctness. It saves us from being defined. It saves us from the 
tyranny of the establishment, which is often the tyranny of the serious. 
The right to razz ought to be preserved in the Constitution, let alone the 
common law.

Ten's counsel should have argued that the whole problem here was that Nine 
couldn't take a joke.

An absurd outcome of the court's decision is that it may now be safer and 
cheaper to produce serious current affairs programs than funny current 
affair programs.

Michael Hirsh, co-executive producer of the The Panel, said the ruling may 
restrict all stations, including Nine, from creating programs easily from 
one another's footage.

Nine has arguably shot itself in the foot. This ruling cannot be good for 
ratings. It may also make it harder for TV shows to satirise other shows. 
This, in turn, means the media may be forced to take itself seriously. This 
is not good for ratings or circulation either. It is satire, for example, 
that gives radio breakfast shows their popularity.

I once asked the comedian Glynn Nicholas why he thought people liked 
comedians more than politicians. His response was deadpan: "Because they're 
more interesting."

The law, it seems, would have the media treat all subjects in the way that 
lawyers do - seriously and critically. This is not an especially surprising 
ruling to come from an institution which excels in taking itself seriously. 
You're not allowed to make fun of the law. You'll pay if you do, mate.

Which is why lawyers make particularly good comedy subjects.

John Cleese once said that humans were funniest when they took themselves 
most seriously. By his reasoning, judges are perhaps the best comedians in 
the country. Which is no doubt why they felt qualified to limit the use of 
satire.

Andrew Bock is a former Age journalist.

This material is subject to copyright and any unauthorised use, copying or 
mirroring is prohibited.

#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net