Ahmedinajad gets C4's alternative Christmas message slot

[Azrael]

It also reinforces the idea that there really is a "clash of ideas" here, as regularly promoted, that what is actually happening when states are fighting over resources is that there's a Culture War, an Ideological Battle, rather than different tiny groups of people wanting control over the same thing.

It can be both, surely?

Anyhow, I agree that it was epic trolling by Channel 4. Julie Burchill, Queen Troll of the media class, must be fuming at being outdone.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

It is alternative in the terms defined by the Christmas message. He's not a monarch thus is an alternative to having one give the message.

Seriously does anyone think Ch4 are going to waste broadcast time with some British anarcho spouting the usual 'revolutionary' bollox the majority of the UK cares little about?

 

[revol68]

It is alternative in the terms defined by the Christmas message. He's not a monarch thus is an alternative to having one give the message.

Seriously does anyone think Ch4 are going to waste broadcast time with some British anarcho spouting the usual 'revolutionary' bollox the majority of the UK cares little about?

as opposed to self serving lies by the head of a state that hangs homosexuals?

It's an alternative in the same way that Fast Food Rockers are an alternative to Steps.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

It can be both, surely?

But it isn't.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

It is alternative in the terms defined by the Christmas message. He's not a monarch thus is an alternative to having one give the message.

Given that there's only one British monarch at any one time, and they only give one speech at Christmas which isn't on C4, defining "alternative" as "not by the queen" isn't all that meaningful....

 

[Kid_Eternity]

Given that there's only one British monarch at any one time, and they only give one speech at Christmas which isn't on C4, defining "alternative" as "not by the queen" isn't all that meaningful....

They could've chosen another monarch...besides no self respecting anarchist would waste their time with this. Can you imagine Noam Chomsky's response if asked to give this?

 

[Azrael]

But it isn't.

Certain puritianical theocrats have ideas completely at odds with secular norms. (This goes for Christianity and Islam.) Those ideals are going to factor in to a conflict over resources.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

They could've chosen another monarch...besides no self respecting anarchist would waste their time with this. Can you imagine Noam Chomsky's response if asked to give this?

Technically speaking the "Christmas Message" is always given by whatever British monarch is around at the time, so technically speaking any one given by anyone else would be "alternative". But there are extra meanings to the word "alternative".

I think Chomsky would jump at the chance tbh. As long as he had someone decent editing it, that could be pretty good. (He's not an anarchist btw if you were implying that.)

 

[Azrael]

As an aside, I find the idea of a regular "alternative Queen's speech" odd. The Queen (and her speech-writers) aren't putting over a deliberately partial view; they're trying speak on behalf of the entire nation, and the speech is usually such a collection of meaningless platitudes that few could disagree save on principle. The monarch is so utterly powerless that dissent is better focussed elsewhere.

It's an amusing stunt once or twice, but Channel 4 should come up with something new.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Certain puritianical theocrats have ideas completely at odds with secular norms. (This goes for Christianity and Islam.) Those ideals are going to factor in to a conflict over resources.

He's not a puritanical theocrat though, he just plays one on TV. The regime plays to certain principles domestically which don't affect its behaviour in terms of international politics.

 

[revol68]

Technically speaking the "Christmas Message" is always given by whatever British monarch is around at the time, so technically speaking any one given by anyone else would be "alternative". But there are extra meanings to the word "alternative".

I think Chomsky would jump at the chance tbh. As long as he had someone decent editing it, that could be pretty good. (He's not an anarchist btw if you were implying that.)

Agree with everything expcet Chomsky does define himself as an anarchist. I disagree some of his 'politics' but I'd say he is loosely an anarchist.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

As an aside, I find the idea of a regular "alternative Queen's speech" odd. The Queen (and her speech-writers) aren't putting over a deliberately partial view; they're trying speak on behalf of the entire nation, and the speech is usually such a collection of meaningless platitudes that few could disagree save on principle. The monarch is so utterly powerless that dissent is better focussed elsewhere.

It's an amusing stunt once or twice, but Channel 4 should come up with something new.

They're not trying to speak on behalf of the nation, except in that they think what they have to say is automatically on behalf of the nation. I actually listened to the queen's speech this year for the first time ever, and wibbling on about how great Charles is, how Our Boys are heroes and also a bit of Jesus is not value-neutral, even if it isn't controversial as mainstream political opinion.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Agree with everything expcet Chomsky does define himself as an anarchist. I disagree some of his 'politics' but I'd say he is loosely an anarchist.

Oh? Okay, fair enough, yeah, I see he does actually. -1 points on Chomsky Knowledge for me there. I wouldn't have called him one myself based on what I've read but I've not read everything.

 

[Wolveryeti]

Well, I watched it, and the lulz quotient was shambolically low.

I think the moral of the story is that Christmas messages are dull no matter who does them.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Spot on - this isn't an alternative christmas message, if it was they would have chosen someone without the access to the national media or the powerful, someone fighting against oppression, not one of the oppressors. Choosing Ahmedinajad puts it on exactly the same footing as the official one.

It's not like there's a lack of other options too - if they insisted on doing something to with the area they could have chosen someone like Maryam Namzie or another of the many political activists chased out of Iran by the Theocracy under penalty of death and they'd have got some who'd make the argument against both US intervention and the Theocracy. If they wanted to pick some simply to piss off the US (which is the sniggering schoolboy approach i think led to Ahmedinajad being chosen) Moazzam Begg. They could've got someone from human rights watch, medicenes sans frontieres and so on.

Instead they chose the holocaust questioning head of a theocracy that kills people for being gay, locks people up for setting up trade unions or political parties and so on - all so that a group of aging tv execs at a channel whose broadcast content consists almost exclusively of reality tv, property shows, crap teenage soaps with wannabe stars and american trash can pretend to themselves they still run a radical channel. Fucking pathetic.

Well said.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

. Can you imagine Noam Chomsky's response if asked to give this?

He would have done it. Exposure to a large audience.

 

[ch750536]

Well done C4, a great 'one up 'em' to the establishment.

Thought it was a much better message than any of the others too.

In return, may the people of Iran have a peaceful and fulfilling new year.

 

[Azrael]

He's not a puritanical theocrat though, he just plays one on TV. The regime plays to certain principles domestically which don't affect its behaviour in terms of international politics.

I can well believe that Mr Ahmedinajad is playing to the gallery, but that doesn't stop there being a general clash of ideas. (And I doubt anyone can know for sure how much the man actually believes.)

They're not trying to speak on behalf of the nation, except in that they think what they have to say is automatically on behalf of the nation.

You're right of course, the speech isn't value-neutral. No speech is. "Trying" doesn't mean the Queen/her speech writers will get it right, merely that they attempt to.

Overall her majesty's speech was suitably vague and inclusive. The Queen was careful not to support the wars themselves, focussed on the "inspiration" of Christ's good teaching (no claims of divine truth) and the bit about Charles focussed on his charity work. The gist was "we live in interesting times", and "selfishness is bad", hardly disputed or controversial statements.

Channel 4 having Ali G make silly comments is one thing, but they seem to be taking the "alternative" seriously. Which, given the bland inoffensiveness of the proper article, I still find strange.

 

[panpete]

The queen looks like a cod.
As you were.

 

[Blagsta]

Well done C4, a great 'one up 'em' to the establishment.

fucks sake

 

[Zachor]

I would urge those who are unhappy with Channel 4 promoting a politician who has made antisemitic statements and whose nation funds and promotes terrorism in the middle east and elsewhere and whose agents hunt down and harrass Iranian dissidents in the UK to write to the station copying their letter to their local MP.

As a republican I'm all for giving an alternative to the Saxe-Coburg-Gothas but to put up the Iranian President in this position is nothing less than disgusting.

This is much more of an abuse of broadcasting power than a cockup in the voting on Strictly Come Dancing.

 

[Prince Rhyus]

I think it was a bad idea to have him on because there are so many other people out there that could have said something far more amusing and controversial that would have raised a debate about what was said rather than whether it was or wasn't right to have gay-hate-dinnerjacket saying his stuff.

For example, we could have had a message from someone - anyone, that poked fun at the media and political cliches of the day:

"At this time of year we are thinking about our brave soldiers who are away from their families and are doing a fantastic job - but not fantastic enough to ensure that they get the correct equipment, decent pay and security for themselves and their families once they leave the services;"

Or

"At this time of year we are aware of the challenges that we face due to the economic downturn, but we're not aware of the people and organisations that got us into this mess in the first place, or who refused to do anything about it despite numerous warnings;"

Or

"As a nation we must come together in the face of the challenges that we face, and show that we back Britain, unlike some other organisations and people that back foreign places."

 

[Azrael]

I would urge those who are unhappy with Channel 4 promoting a politician who has made antisemitic statements and whose nation funds and promotes terrorism in the middle east and elsewhere and whose agents hunt down and harrass Iranian dissidents in the UK to write to the station copying their letter to their local MP.

I'll not be writing. Mr Ahmedinajad is not on my Eid card list, but free speech and all that. C4 are free to broadcast his speech, I'm free to call them numpties for doing so.

And on a practical note, Channel 4 would doubtless love complaints and controversy. Mary Whitehouse effect. Don't feed the trolls.

 

[DexterTCN]

I would urge those who are unhappy with Channel 4 promoting a politician who has made antisemitic statements and whose nation funds and promotes terrorism in the middle east and elsewhere and whose agents hunt down and harrass Iranian dissidents in the UK to write to the station copying their letter to their local MP.

As a republican I'm all for giving an alternative to the Saxe-Coburg-Gothas but to put up the Iranian President in this position is nothing less than disgusting.

This is much more of an abuse of broadcasting power than a cockup in the voting on Strictly Come Dancing.

Did he promote bombing any countries for having WMD?

Which country/leader are you comparing him.......against?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I'll not be writing. Mr Ahmedinajad is not on my Eid card list, but free speech and all that..

Free speech is free speech, but why not give a free speech forum to someone who doesn't have his own news agency?

 

[Azrael]

Exactly. Fielding Mr Ahmedinajad is a farce. But Channel 4 should be free to do so, and I see no purpose in mailing MPs about it.

 

[Orang Utan]

I thought it was a great message coming from the wrong mouth - maybe John Pilger could have said it instead of that scumbag

 

[Gingerman]

I thought it was a great message coming from the wrong mouth - maybe John Pilger could have said it instead of that scumbag

Nothing wrong with the message,just who was delivering it.

 

[Orang Utan]

Yes, that's what I was saying

 

[AnnO'Neemus]

I would urge those who are unhappy with Channel 4 promoting a politician who has made antisemitic statements and whose nation funds and promotes terrorism in the middle east and elsewhere and whose agents hunt down and harrass Iranian dissidents in the UK to write to the station copying their letter to their local MP.

As a republican I'm all for giving an alternative to the Saxe-Coburg-Gothas but to put up the Iranian President in this position is nothing less than disgusting.

This is much more of an abuse of broadcasting power than a cockup in the voting on Strictly Come Dancing.