Morons of the Internet: Steve Coogan (22/03/15)

This is the segment where I scour my favorite forums around the internet and find some particularly interesting articles about current affairs told in the words from some of my favorite human beings.

In this edition we have comedy legend Steve Coogan who thinks he's better than everyone else,proving why his new regime is the only way with the help of a 'Top Gear' controversy. I know this is an old article, but it's recently become quite popular again thanks to the Jeremy Clarkson fiasco.
_____________________________________________________________________________
http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2011/feb/05/top-gear-offensive-steve-coogan?CMP=share_btn_fb
_____________________________________________________________________________

Do you know what Steve, I'm also a fan of your work. I really do believe that the character of 'Alan Partridge' was really well put together. But I too have had enough when a comedian thinks they own the whole fucking genre and then subsequently judges other people like a power hungry dictator. In case you didn't know, this argument was started after the hosts of 'Top Gear' made fun of a Mexican supercar by comparing it to a stereotypical Mexican person, which as far as I'm aware is a common practice in comedy. I'm sorry it's not high brow enough for you Steve, but the bottom line is that stereotyping is a common practice in many comedic circles. But your reasoning for all this is just astonishing. You genuinely think a joke becomes deplorable when it targets a minority, which must be about 90% of all jokes told. Of course jokes are allowed to target minorities, the whole point in comedy is to put yourself on a pedestal and mocking something else out of their expense. Does it matter if that subject is a minority or a majority? No, of course it doesn't, it's still a perfectly valid joke. Surely by your own logic it's now despicable to even think about mocking yourself, since the individual is the greatest form of minority. Surely if we had everything your way then comedy wouldn't be such an entertaining subject, and you would make a lot of people unemployed, including yourself.

But let's see if your point holds up about the comedic value of 'Top Gear'. As a regular viewer myself I can tell you that many flashy cars are compared to the county of Cheshire, due to the various stereotypes of that particular area. Now many celebrities live there, they're certainly not a minority, and they're not in an exotic location; so the majority of the time 'Top Gear' do follow your didactic guidelines, and so why are you criticising the whole show based on one remark? Maybe what they said was a little extreme, but nowhere in the article is there anything to suggest that this was a rarity. I also find this argument a little hypocritical, as it comes from the creator of the 'Alan Partridge' character, who if I'm not mistaken is a stereotypical man from Norfolk. I know that still fits in with your criteria, but is there really much difference between making fun out of the people of Norfolk and the people of Mexico? I think only the well written script was what kept your character from being in the poor taste that you belittle Top Gear's comments for being. Your still sitting on that pedestal making fun out of people, so I don't understand why this is suddenly okay. What gives you the right to define comedy?

Are you seriously fucking suggesting that casual racism is worse than actual racism? I think someone needs a bit of a reality check here. I've often considered the racial state of South Africa much worse now thanks to the abolition of Apartheid. I mean that was the less sinister proper and oppressive racism, which doesn't even compare to the casual racial segregation that plagues South Africa nowadays. I guess Coogan never understood the fuss about Nelson Mandela since all he did was arguably make his country even worse. It just doesn't matter how easy they are to spot. It only matters that the issue happens in the first place, and I hardly think a joke in poor taste from the comforts of a television studio is a serious issue. The fact that you even compare a harmless joke to the atrocities of the KKK is simply unbelievable. 'Top Gear' apologised for their remarks and didn't breach any broadcasting guidelines, so what's the issue? Is it now going to be mandatory for jokes to be approved by you in case you don't like them? I didn't like a few of the jokes in 'Alan Partridge', but you know what? I just kept watching, because it really doesn't matter.

I just feel this whole article is patronising 'Top Gear' viewers. Steve, I know that stereotypes don't necessarily reflect reality. As an Essex boy you might be surprised to hear that I don't have fake tan on every part of my body, and no my girlfriend isn't a leggy blonde with fake nails, because you are allowed to be different in the beautiful county of Essex. The thing is though that whilst these stereotypes might not be the actuality, they still exist for a reason, no matter what personal experience you might have. If anything Steve, you're stereotyping the Mexican's that aren't even in their native country. It might not be a negative stereotype, but having a go at the principle when you're a culprit yourself is very hypocritical, especially when it's on such pathetic evidence. I for example can tell you that there are hardly any upper class people in the UK because I've met a few British people in Benidorm. Oh no, but that's a negative stereotype. I can't use that joke, not when the emperor of comedy has demanded so.

Oh yes, let's just promote my impeccable writing skills on my very own show. Yeah this doesn't sound bigoted at all. You just haven't grasped the fact that comedy is a subjective form of art, and so whilst your brilliantly written jokes might sound okay to you, they might be differently received by people behind a television screen. The world of comedy isn't owned by you Steve, and so you have no right to start bashing those low life failures on 'Top Gear' because you didn't like one of their jokes. You're now just becoming ignorant. You've become just another version of them, putting yourself on a pedestal to mock a television show that's made itself an easy target. You're not the first person to have come up with dramatic irony, so please stop trying to define it.

I just don't understand why you think comedy needs to be groundbreaking. What's wrong with rehashing old comedic formats? I'm truly sorry that their programme isn't as revolutionary as yours, but why does that make their jokes any less valid? You must understand that every programme has its own individual style, and if you don't like that then simply don't watch it. The millions of 'Top Gear' fans worldwide don't want the show to follow you autocratic joke format that dictates what form of comedy has to be used, as they subjectively prefer a different style as their human beings. Why should you make a joke out of 'Top Gear' for simply being better than them? Isn't there a bit of a mirror appearing here? Let me put it to you this way; let's compare 'Top Gear' to a fast runner. This fast runner can do the 100m sprint in under ten seconds, which is certainly commendable. Sure many people have gone quicker before, but it's still great fun to watch a man run very quickly over a short distance, and he should be applauded for that. Now 'Alan Partridge' on the other hand is more of a Usain Bolt. I'm sure many people would prefer to watch such a revolutionary and groundbreaking athlete, and he's a much superior athlete to that fast runner over the distance of 100m. But does that mean Usain Bolt should chastise that runner for being slower than himself? Maybe that runner has much more impressive talents elsewhere and so shouldn't be judged on one attribute alone. Maybe the majority of people would choose to side with that runner over Usain Bolt because there are many ways of doing things. This runner for example might beat Bolt at a game of FIFA, or in the case of 'Top Gear', the amount of viewers. The point I'm trying to make here is that just because you think you're in someway superior does not make it right to simply dictate the qualities of something you consider 'lesser'.

It just doesn't stop. Why should their content be regulated by you? To be fair to 'Top Gear' they have become the world's most watched factual television show, whereas 'Alan Partridge' never got anything like that in terms of records. I'm not saying that instantly makes the 'Top Gear' comments acceptable, but it seems as successful broadcasters they know that controversy equals cash. You then go back into hypocrite mode with a scathing remark that relies on stereotypes for its comedic value, which seems all too familiar. If we apply the same principles of your argument to your comment, comparing the hosts to middle aged punk rockers, then you become a culprit of everything you've told us to hate. Of course you would think this is fine considering how 'Top Gear' is in no way a minority, but you did it at the expense of punk rockers. Most punk rockers I know don't pogo at their niece's wedding, and so by your own standards this joke is in poor taste. It seems that your didactic regime is not only hypocritical but incredibly stupid considering the great Steve Coogan can no longer make a joke. Face it Steve, you're just as bad as 'Top Gear'. 

Don't get me wrong Steve, I think you're a twat, but you are entitled to an opinion, even if that opinion happens to be flawed and moronic. If you don't like their content then that's fine, and you're certainly welcome to write an article about it. But what I do have a problem with is when you try and talk down to viewers and the makers of 'Top Gear' like you're some supreme being who controls comedy simply because you're better than everyone else. To chastise a tried and tested formula for having content that is no less valid than your own is just ignorant. You make yourself look like a bigoted hypocrite. So start showing some common sense and we'll pretend that this never happened.