College Trubine article on Travellers

Steibhin

Am I the only one a bit taken aback by today's Turbine article on Travellers?

Aside from it lack of humour its actually quite offensive. I know its only satire and you shouldn't take these things to seriously etc etc. But I feel it was a very cheap shot at an already marginalized group. Good satire should be able to pick on strong establishment targets within society and bring them down a peg or two through the use of humour. But picking on travelers, gays, immigrants or other minority groups its just childish.

The tribune themselves were very quick to condemn Youth Defensive for their attempt at satire last semester ('A cheap shot from cheap people') but at least Youth Defense didn't pick as soft a target as the Traveling community.

I expect there may be trouble over this.

hullaballoo

Comedy is comedy is comedy.

People slag off all sorts of already marginalised groups in comedy all the time and no one has a problem with it.

I know this is a cliché comment; but this is political correctness gone mad.

Steibhin

At what point does 'comedy' end and offensiveness begin? Just because it is classed as a satire piece do you have the right to to publish rasict and inflamatory remarks?

Todays article cut fat too close to the bone for my liking. If this article was filed somewhere else in the newspaper would it be any less offensive?
Lines like:

"Terrorizing old men is part of our culture"
and
"John 'Frog' Ward was unavailable for comment"

are extremely childish and downright offensive.

Like I say the Tribune took a hard line on Youth Defense when they published some satire that wasn't to their liking. Its a real shame they published this article. They must be really stuck to fill that page.

Red Alert

I agree with hullaballoo. Look at us, we're becoming so obsessed with not offending anybody that lexicon has become unwieldy.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Steibhin wrote:

Good satire should be able to pick on strong establishment targets within society and bring them down a peg or two through the use of humour. But picking on travelers, gays, immigrants or other minority groups its just childish.

Now come on, nothing can be sacred when it comes to satire, one has to treat all groups equally, otherwise your just discriminating.

If publications were to specifically avoid satirizing against minorities, they would just be discriminating against everyone else.

RuggieBear

Steibhin wrote:

but at least Youth Defense didn't pick as soft a target as the Traveling community.

I expect there may be trouble over this.

Are you calling the travellers soft....?

hullaballoo

Youth Defence published something that infringed copyright. It also wasn't funny.

Maybe you don't see this, but the Turbine is there to take the piss out of tabloid rags, not offend people. I mean, it's entirely fictitious and obviously in jest. On the other hand, the pamphlet that Youth Defence published was an underhanded shot at the Observer. It didn't even offend the Tribune, so the line they took was neutral: that Youth Defence were cowards. They never even acknowledged that it was them.

Having read the Travellers article, I do see that some people might be offended, but that's the nature of satire. I can't see my way clear to condoning the limitation of free speech in this regard.

Steibhin

Red Alert wrote:

I agree with hullaballoo. Look at us, we're becoming so obsessed with not offending anybody that lexicon has become unwieldy.

So it is okay to offend a group of people in the name of 'comedy'? To what extent can we take that? Rasict jokes? (which this is, a long winded not very funny rasict joke). A few weeks ago there was a controversy about a homophobic comment on CTN, which was far milder and less deliberate than what appeared today in the College Tribune.

Out of curiosity have either you of hullaballo actually read the article yet?

Vainglory

If the article had replaced "travellers" with "black people" or even the "n" word, would it still be inoffensive and "just satire"?

And if not, why not?

When I was Education Officer I brought out a group of travelling children to UCD during Access Week to try and encourage traveller participation in third level education, which as I'm sure you all know is extremely low. What if this had been the week that they came out, and they picked up one of those newspapers? What would I have said when they asked me what was going on? Sorry kids, it's just satire...but please consider working your balls off to get into college?

I think it's one of the most disgusting things I've ever seen in UCD.

Vainglory

FYI...

Turbine wrote:

Travelling Community Afforded Basic Rights

Emergency legislation is to be rushed through the Dail this week in order to ensure that the fundamental rights of the travelling community are upheld.

The legislation declares that travellers "cannot be held responsible for the ramifications of their actions. This includes terrorising old men, dumping loads of rubbish wherever they want and taking things out of shops without paying for them."

A spokesperson for the government told the Turbine, “The legislation is there to stop the discrimination that exists as a serious undercurrent in Irish society today. If travelers want to go around abusing people, then they should be perfectly entitled to do so. The Irish today are quite a racist society and border on infringing traveler rights at times.”

"One member of the travelling community, Shane "Toad" McGinty, spoke of his joy after hearing of the legislation. "It's about time. We're sick of people telling us what to do. Terrorising old men is part of our culture" he continued. "We've been doing it for hundreds of years, who are the settled folk to tell us what we should be doing with out time? It's part of our heritage and that's a heritage we’re proud of.”

A spokesperson for the Irish Equality Authority spoke at a randomly organized rally about the legislation, and declared, “It is the awareness of the values and lifestyles of the travelling community and their children that makes mutual respect and understanding possible. We are here to stamp out the racism that has taken a stranglehold on travellers who want to do what they want, when they want, because they should be allowed to do so.”

When it was explained at the rally that the legislation was in fact already (definitely) going through the Dáil, the crowd quickly dispersed with murmers of “You can’t beat a good protest” to be heard, along with “****e, what are we going to do with ourselves now.”

John ‘Frog’ Ward was unavailable for comment at the time of going to print.

Red Alert

But does anyone want to live in a 1984-esque world when you can't make a lexically accurate statement purely in aid of description for fear of offending people.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Vainglory wrote:

When I was Education Officer I brought out a group of travelling children to UCD during Access Week to try and encourage traveller participation in third level education, which as I'm sure you all know is extremely low. What if this had been the week that they came out, and they picked up one of those newspapers? What would I have said when they asked me what was going on? Sorry kids, it's just satire...but please consider working your balls off to get into college?

You wouldn't have to say anything. If they were mature, they would accept it as satire, if not, that's not anyone's problem only themselves.

Steibhin

Vainglory wrote:

What if this had been the week that they came out, and they picked up one of those newspapers? What would I have said when they asked me what was going on? Sorry kids, it's just satire...but please consider working your balls off to get into college?

Thats exactly what I was thinking. What traveler children would think if they was this article and level of prejustice within a 3rd level institute.

Vainglory

Red Alert wrote:

But does anyone want to live in a 1984-esque world when you can't make a lexically accurate statement purely in aid of description for fear of offending people.

You consider that article lexically accurate, and purely in aid of description?

Vainglory

sean_keevey wrote:

You wouldn't have to say anything. If they were mature, they would accept it as satire, if not, that's not anyone's problem only themselves.

They were 15 years old and already sceptical about the idea of coming to college because of the chance that they wouldn't be accepted socially.

I really cannot believe this ****.

Esmereldina

Vainglory wrote:

They were 15 years old and already sceptical about the idea of coming to college because of the chance that they wouldn't be accepted socially.

I really cannot believe this ****.

Initially I would have agreed with the first few posters who said that satire is satire and in a healthy democratic society should be allowed to target anyone in the name of humour and political freedom etc. After reading the article though, I have to agree that it is in extremely bad taste. The censorship road is always a dangerous one to go down though...

Boston

Steibhin wrote:

Out of curiosity have either you of hullaballo actually read the article yet?

Did you actually read hullaballo's post where he said he had read it. It's the one above yours.

Bunch Of D4 snobs the lot of yea. Remember Kids, it's satire.

GuffFromSwine

Hmmm...I think satire has a responsibility to treat all targets equally and therefore, in principle, nothing should be off limits. However, good satire traditionally targets cosy established elites and seeks to assault flawed pre-conceptions, both along non-racial lines. The tone of and language in this piece wouldn’t be out of place in a skinhead magazine. I would consider myself a satirist and therefore I’m as eager as anyone not to have the PC-police breathing down your neck every time you call a spade a spade but the tribune has overstepped the line here. There’s not a satirist in the world who would call this anything but accidental racism at best. It ceases to be satire when a: its not funny, and b: it becomes a pointed assault using language and stereotypes in a way which doesn’t make clear that this sort of language and these sort of stereotypes are themselves the target.

If anything, this is another example of the general downward trend in the quality of the Tribune’s output. If they can’t do a satire page, don’t bother. I’ve talked to people who edit the paper and I write for it myself and I know it’s always the last thing to be done. The tribune’s tone is confused, it doesn’t know whether it wants to be your mate or a serious paper, and the ‘turbine’ is a perfect example of this. This piece is trying to take a swipe at PC culture but its so confused it comes accross as racist.

The only redeeming feature of this article is the fact that it wasn’t intended to be racist. I’m not advocating censorship, just sensible editing. A combination of the language used and the lack of humour has made it seem racist and the sooner the tribune recognise this and rescind it the better or else they’re going to have a major issue on their hands, I’ve talked to a few other regular contributors to the paper and theres an element seriously considering not writing for it again until there’s an apology. That’s only on a production level. Can you imagine the s**tstorm the SU and labour youth will rain down on them? They won’t have a friend-or advertiser-in the world if they’re not careful.

Red Alert

I haven't read the article yet.

GuffFromSwine

RuggieBear wrote:

Are you calling the travellers soft....?

Haha

scop

Its genius. Nobody really cares about how offensive it is. I mean its cool if you do, but please don't expect us all to break down and cry at the sight of the poor helpless chaps of the travelling community being mocked (I live nearby some. They are believe it or not well able to exist without you rushing to their aid, and like most humans can take a ribbing. They even give it back! Shocking. ).

Mind better get the satire in quick before the PC strangle on language takes root for good.

Steibhin

Boston wrote:

Did you actually read hullaballo's post where he said he had read it. It's the one above yours.

We posted at the same time. But now its clear that Hullaballo did defend the article without reading it first. As did Red Alert. Hullaballo admitted having read the article that he could see how some could take offense.

Bunch Of D4 snobs the lot of yea. Remember Kids, it's satire.

Its very bad and very offensive satire.

Incidently, I am from Tuam, Co Galway. A fair distance away from D4 and a place where traveller issues are to the forefront. Believe me I am no bleeding heart liberal. This article goes to far however.

GuffFromSwine

scop wrote:

Its genius. Nobody really cares about how offensive it is. I mean its cool if you do, but please don't expect us all to break down and cry at the sight of the poor helpless chaps of the travelling community being mocked (I live nearby some. They are believe it or not well able to exist without you rushing to their aid, and like most humans can take a ribbing. They even give it back! Shocking. ).

Mind better get the satire in quick before the PC strangle on language takes root for good.

Fair enough, I think we've all acknowledged that we can make up our own minds on whether this is funny or not,but the issue is whether a newspaper which is purportedly representative of the student body should printing stuff this flawed

scop

GuffFromSwine wrote:

Fair enough, I think we've all acknowledged that we can make up our own minds on whether this is funny or not,but the issue is whether a newspaper which is purportedly representative of the student body should printing stuff this flawed

I see your point. The Tribute, IMO, is a fairly weak paper, and the Turbine is by far its weakest section. Personally I am not sure the papers are there to represent the student body as such. Unlike the Observer I don't think the Tribune is associated with the SU or anything. I just worry about meddling in what gets printed. I'm for openness in newspapers whether it offends or not especially when it comes to satire which can prick some sacred cows from time to time. The way I would look at it is that the article was perhaps tasteless. However, it has us talking about the issue. If it was a fairly standard piece on travellers rights etc nobody would read it. Sad but true.

Plus one can always register their complaint by sending in a letter to the paper, and see how they react.

Vainglory

This is all so great.

I look forward to a rapturous reception tomorrow, when I bring out my freesheet newspaper around campus entitled "Fluck N***ers and Spicks and their thieving ways".

It'll have "It's satire, stupid!" at the top though, so that's alright.

Next issue - Personal attacks on UCD students.

But it's satire, right? Huzzah for Free Speech!!

Jonny Arson

Jesus, the one time travellers get afforded basic rights and people are still complaining! :rolleyes:

Keep up the good work Turbine, hopefully the next headline article will target filthy thieving Northside scumbags

pretty*monster

We-el, the principle target of the article appears to be the politically correct brigade (incidentally that fact makes the out-cry in this thread deliciously ironic).

The articles execution could have been a little better and perhaps there are more culturally sensitive ways to mock equality legislation (is that an oxymoron?).

Spectator#1

Steibhin wrote:

Aside from it lack of humour its actually quite offensive. I know its only satire and you shouldn't take these things to seriously etc etc. But I feel it was a very cheap shot at an already marginalized group. Good satire should be able to pick on strong establishment targets within society and bring them down a peg or two through the use of humour. But picking on travelers, gays, immigrants or other minority groups its just childish.

I can see how you might have been offended by it. It's not quite a fair satirical take. Usually when satire goes out of its way to be offensive like this article it's making a comment on the ridiculousness of that viewpoint and people that hold it. This one has more than a few cheap stereotypes in it, fair enough.

I'd still say you could read it as a farcical take on the relativistic downside of multi-culturalism though. I mean, minority groups do tend to get away with seriously anti-social behaviour sometimes out of deference to their customs, not just travellers, of course (and so maybe the article was picking on a minority) but the point still stands.

Rather than blame someone for taking the piss like that; if I was a traveller, I'd be more annoyed at the members of my community who were carrying on in such a way as to prolong stupid stereotypes like that. And before anyone goes mad here, I have had more than enough experiences with travellers to know that some of them do behave like caricatures of a type - the same way every community does. Not all of them do, by any means, but some, and that’s enough.

I think you could relate it to just being Irish, I get embarrassed and ashamed every time I hear this whole 'I hate the British' thing, or the 'everyone loves the Irish' or 'Irish people are deadly at drinking'. I'd see the point if I was to read an article that aped that, exaggerated it, whatever, there is a basis for it in reality, albeit a tenuous one.

I know that no-one actually thinks that every Irish person is endowed with those characteristics, exclusively or otherwise, it’s just a type.

The tribune themselves were very quick to condemn Youth Defensive for their attempt at satire last semester ('A cheap shot from cheap people') but at least Youth Defense didn't pick as soft a target as the Traveling community.

You're making a severe category mistake if you're putting what YD wrote in the same classification as that Turbine article.

That Youth Defense publication was, quite simply, not satire. It was a rather poor revenge-motivated publicity stunt. Satire isn't about revenge, satire isn't about false impersonation, satire isn't about the propogation of militaristically enforced pseudo-ideological positions.

Satire has to be written on an ironic register – it has to entertain the fact that it is undermining itself, and again, and again. It is this duplicitous operation that makes it difficult to tie down in terms of intention and causes upset. That YD paper was a thinly veiled, poorly written, slap on the back for anti-abortionists while simultaneously attacking pro-abortionists and, bizarrely, a newspaper that had nothing substantively to do with anything except the fact that they reported on an event that related to YD in a tenuous way.

The Tribune was right to condemn what YD did.

So, no, that doesn’t make them hypocrites, unless, by ‘hypocrites’ you mean ‘heroes’!

Vainglory, I can see your point, that would have been an awkward situation with those children. You could definitely raise objections at the tone of the article or question the tastefulness of the messages it puts across but I don't think it's a cut-and-dried affair in terms of whether it passes for satire or not.

Personally, they probably should have avoided victimising the travelling community because they are poorly represented in college and you run the risk of looking snide, but I honestly don’t think that’s the spirit it was intended in or the only way of reading it.

cast_iron

Just because Travellers my be considered a marginalised section of society doesn't mean they should be immune from satire. Yes, if a traveller should happen to read the article, they may be offended.

But, to make a comparison, if a culchie or a D4 head was to read an article made in similar jest to this one, then would there be such an out-cry? Should there be? As one of the above, I have taken no offence to either (there has been plenty of satire written previously at the expense of both).

Simply put, satire, by definition, implies insult. If you can't understand that, then read something else - it's obviously something close to your own heart, which is not where satire is intended to hit.

Vainglory

Vainglory wrote:

They were 15 years old and already sceptical about the idea of coming to college because of the chance that they wouldn't be accepted socially.

I really cannot believe this ****.

But like,It's their own fault.They make the conscious decision not to go to college.They quit early.Why should we persuade them otherwise?They can can go on to make a lot more money than most of us(even if it is dubious what they make ther money on).

GuffFromSwine

I think a fair few people posting on this thread have something of a warped view on satire. Being a big bould fella and saying this most controversial things possible does not constitute being satirical, I'd say thats just being provocative and unnecessarily macho. The main issue I have with this article is the fact that its bold for the sake of being bold rather than the author seeing any actual target which deserves attack, probably a byproduct of this section being somehing of an afterhought for the tribune staff.
This combines with the general half-arsed tone of the tribune (not to mention the lack of ironic reference in the peice itself) to create a tone which would popularly be perceived as being racist.

As for the people blindly sticking up for the turbine on the grounds that its satire, I'd question whether you might find a satirical piece which is in fact worthy of your support rather than latching on to this blatant piece of pseudo-satire/journalism which unfortunately seems to be the next best thing.

For me, the main problem here is the fact that the tribune itself is so poorly edited that something as questionable as this would be allowed to slip through the cracks purely on its 'satirical' merit. The paper cannot be all things to all people, but unfortunatley everyone seems to have read 'the slate' and therefore believes they have a satirical mind. Honestly, satire is the hardest thng to write because your tone has to be phony and ambivilant yet clearly mocking, and this piece falls flat on its face here. the best option would be for the tribune to publicly say 'we made a mistake, we're student media and therefore novices. mistakes are there to be learned from'...i'd be more willing to tackle this issue if they stuck to their guns on ignorant journalistic principle. I think spectator#1 hit a lot of the issues here on the head.