The Sorry State of British Satire

The other week the author Jonathan Coe, writing in the Guardian Review section, made some pertinent points about modern day British satire. The gist of his comments is that most satirists tend to be politically centre-left, slightly sneery, middle class, Guardian-readers, as are their primary audience. Consequently, they simply preach to the converted, reinforcing, rather than challenging, their prejudices. This, he argues, simply generates a low-level cynical chuckling which allows the political powers-that-be to simply carry on doing what they want to do, unchallenged. (Coe puts it a lot more eloquently than my paraphrasing would indicate). I was fascinated to read his comments, as they put into words my own growing frustration with what passes for satire in the UK's media. Too much of it is effectively 'institutionalised', being produced by people from exactly the same background as our political masters, with, not surprisingly, many of the same prejudices as them, too. It all operates at the level of 'sniping' at anyone in a position of authority, seizing on whatever the current headline political story/scandal is, without ever engaging in any deep critiques of the prevailing political and economic system.

But, of course, they don't want to engage in any deep analysis. What they really want to do is preach, to use 'satire' as a way of pursuing their own moralistic crusades. Just look at the way the default form of TV 'satire' as become the to camera rant - no actual analysis or thought, just a stream of abuse. One of the worst offenders in terms of moral crusading masquerading as satire is Private Eye and it's editor Ian Hislop. Their attempts to always take the moral high ground with regard to politicians, the media, sex scandals and so on, are, frankly, nauseating. Hislop's recent rants (there's that word again) on Have I Got News For You about Judges effectively creating a privacy law by the back door by allowing the use of injunctions to prevent the reporting of politicians', sports personalities and celebrities affairs, was unbelievably pompous. Presumably, in Hislop's world, there's no need for a privacy law, as if people act 'immorally', by his standards, then they are fair game for the media, regardless of whether there is any public interest in raking their private lives across the media. If you act 'morally', then you've got nothing to hide. It's obvious that he's less interested in using the information he's being denied for satirical purposes, than in pursuing his personal crusade against 'immorality'.

He and Private Eye are also responsible for another aspect of modern UK satire I despise - the 'pox on all your houses' approach, whereby, in the interests of 'balance', they attack all targets indiscriminately, regardless of political ideology, social class or economic wealth. Since when has satire been required to be 'balanced'? Indeed, by denying themselves a clear ideological perspective from which to launch their satire, they are removing any chance of meaningful analysis. Basically, they're just interested in the quick cheap laugh, rather than any long-term comic enquiry of the issues at hand. This approach also undermines a fundamental plank of satire - that it focuses on those who have power, whether that power be political, economic or social, and calls them to account. So, having condemned the rant as a satirical form, that's my rant on the subject. I'm not saying that I'm exempt from these criticisms myself. All too often I feel that I'm preaching to the converted. All too often I go for the easy targets and the cheap laughs. All too often I pursue my own personal agenda to the detriment of any satirical purpose in my stories. However, I like to think that I've never lost sight of the real enemy - the powerful - and that, by tackling subject matter the likes of Hislop would never deign to touch with a barge pole, I try to push the boundaries and challenge the received wisdom and inherent prejudices of readers. And I try not to be smug and sneery. Rant over!