It was the day that Charlie Brooker’s role as Twitterati royalty was turned on its head, and the writer was forced into a bewildered fire-fighting exercise as the angry Tweets rolled in. The reason? A Guardian column that saw him resemble that other giant of rib-tickling, sententious hyperbole, Bill Hicks, more than ever before.
Just as the late American comedian saved his strongest sermonizing – Old Testament style – for those he viewed as poisoning the public psyche, so too Brooker hit his finest form for years by slagging off tabloid journalists for the same crime. For Hicks’ infamous: ‘if you work in marketing: kill yourself’ read: ‘you’re wasting your life actively making the world worse.’
But where these comic soul mates begin to diverge is that Brooker, with his trademark, just-smelt-a-fart face, has to accept some pretty legitimate accusations of hypocrisy.
For a start: his own growing media profile has long relied upon ‘the warm cave of celebrity chef shag-shocks and tragic tot death- porn’ (a classic Brookerism) to thrive. From savaging TV with his early TVGoHome website, through to repeating the trick on Screenwipe, Brooker has gorged on the gruel served in the D-list celebrity workhouse with the same enthusiasm as any tabloid: he just made sure his shit came out the other end smelling a little smarter.
The newspaper that pursued the News of the World phone-hacking scandal so vehemently – Brooker’s Guardian (for it is, make no mistake, Brooker’s Guardian, despite his defense of ‘just being a freelancer’ – or was that same exemption for tabloid freelancers subbed out of his column?) – also commission their fair share of celebrity fluff. Their ‘Lost In Showbiz’ column is a high-brow take on low-brow culture that they probably imagine aligns them with the traditions of Chaucer, but the problem with this approach is that it ties you inextricably to the same appetites you’re sneering at, as Brooker knows as well as anyone.
Then there is his most high-profile project to date – a weekly current affairs show jointly created with David Mitchell, Lauren Laverne and Jimmy Carr – that thumps its left-wing agenda against your cranium with all the dull insistence of a depressed male stripper’s testicles in a public exhibition no one is really enjoying. Just as Brooker imagines tabloid hacks must require ‘a mental leap beyond the reach of Galileo’ to delude themselves that they’re contributing to honourable journalism, it must require a similar feat for Brooker to imagine that 10 O’Clock Live is genuinely contributing to constructive political debate in this country, when in reality its attention-deficit attempts at both debate and satire resemble the ‘banter’ levels of the average 6th form common room.
There is a telling taunt in Brooker’s acerbic symphony. He tells tabloid hacks: “chances are you’re quite smart. And you probably love to write – or did, once…” I suspect this was the point that Charlie really got to them. The implication is clear: unlike him, they’ve sold out. Everyone starts off thinking they’re going to win a Pulitzer or write the Great British Novel at the weekends, but most of us end up churning out lowest common denominator candy floss for shadowy, media ring-masters with dubious tastes in right-wing governments. But not Charlie.
In this, there is more than a grain of painful truth. But what Charlie Brooker really has that most journalists do not isn’t a more accurate moral compass, or even just the ability to turn a wicked phrase. What sets him apart is the balls and entrepreneurial spirit it takes to set up your own satirical website in the late 90s, rather than stay with PC Zone until you’re made deputy editor and then retire in a death-rattle of averageness like the rest of us.
And here, for all the hypocrisy of the piece, is where intuitive journalists should stop debating how offensive Charlie has been and start asking themselves how he got in the position to offend them in the first place. It wasn’t with a degree from Oxford or via a Daddy in the Guardian news room. It was having the kittens-head-sized-cojones required to carve out an identity for himself in an industry where a million voices are bleating at once.
For all it feels a bit like Charlie has shat on his own kind, he is still making a salient point. Very few of us aspire to write malignant gossip about other people’s sex lives. Some of us may have to do it in order get started. But transcending all that takes an extra quality few people have.
We may not like it when his guns are turned on us but Brooker, like Hicks, can get away with being holier-than-thou, not because he’s very funny but because he embodies the essential truth of what’s he’s saying. I’m a journalist. I’ve wasted parts of my life actively making the world worse. But I’m not offended by the smug hypocrite – I admire and envy his right to be one.
FOLLOW SAM PARKER ON TWITTER
Enjoyed this, thanks. I think Charlie Brooker is great, but it’s interesting how he had to give up his column mocking TV celebs when he became one. Wonder if there’s the same problem with a journalist railing against journalists…
Thanks. I think the fact he quite the column when he became a TV celeb himself shows how self-aware Brooker is. I think the backlash took him by surprise but there’s nothing in the accusations (including those above) he won’t have seen a mile off for himself. Still one of the few laugh-out-loud (rather than smile-a-little) columnists out there.
Interesting stuff. I still like to read Brooker – his column in the G2 is entertaining, without question, especially when it’s a commentary on something oft-overlooked or inane. His recent article entitled ‘How to handle the shop snobs’ was great – especially if, like me, you can empathise with the points he was making.
Not a fan of what I’ve seen on 10 O’Clock Live though (which I have actively avoided since seeing it once). If for no other reason than Brooker seems socially awkward when he’s presented with dialogue and debate – sure, he can deliver a brilliant rehearsed monologue, and that is what tied Screenwipe/Newswipe together, but his smugness doesn’t come across as being comical when it’s delivered in real-time.
For my money, Brooker is best used as a cult hero – under the surface, out of the limelight, away from the mainstream. In many ways, it seems bizarre that he should have aspired beyond that: his cult following was clearly ever-growing. Fame based on contempt of the nature of fame as a modern trend always provides an unusual paradox.
Hey. Thanks for commenting. Don’t get me wrong, I think he’s one of the most entertaining writers in the country, and that this one was his sharpest for ages. But 10 O’Clock live does stink (not entirely Brooker’s fault, clearly). To his credit, it’s not like Charlie courts tabloid attention for himself despite having a high-profile partner so he’s not a completely hypocritical bastard but he was always asking for a backlash by having a go at other journalists…
“In this, there is more than a grain of painful truth. But what Charlie Brooker really has that most journalists do not isn’t a more accurate moral compass, or[...]”
Not a bad article overall but I think you’re over egging it a bit here. It may be that writers for The Sun are silently waiting undercover for the perfect opportunity to strike a critical blow against right wing malevolence, but until they do so, we should probably judge them, and Brooker, by their actions. Brooker might write about similar subject matter, but promulgating a subject matter and lambasting it are two very different things.
Perfectly fair assessment Bert -although if it seems like I was over egging it, that’s probably down to my attempts to make this a parody of Brooker’s style as well as a serious point about the storm that appeared in his tea cup. Thanks for taking the time to read and comment.
Pingback: Alexander7