I was really intrigued by the points raised in Higgie’s article that we unpacked during week eight, on the topic of Australian news satire and politicians engagement with it. It raised some thoughts and questions that I had never really considered. I was particularly interested in the idea of the ‘larrikin’ as a character that is played out by Australian politicians.
“In other words, larrikins have an ‘ordinary’ and ‘common-sense’ knowledge that is privileged as trusted and authentic. The larrikin, due to its alignment with a perceived real, authentic Australia, is therefore a useful figure to associate oneself with in politics.” p65
It’s an interesting concept to wrap your head around, and can definitely be applied to present and past Australian politicians. I’d go so far as to say it’s generally the male politicians that actively try to align themselves with the larrikin value – that down-to-earth, true blue, common Aussie bloke.
Higgie’s article also brings up the tumultuous relationship that politicians have with comedy and satire. It seems to be this pattern of ignoring -> acknowledging ->laughing along -> actively participating. The initial points stem from an embarrassment of being the butt of the joke, while the latter speaks to the notion of ‘if you can’t beat them, join them’. This is a clever tactic to take as a politician to try to seem more relatable, but it certainly doesn’t take away from the fact that the satire still exists. They are indeed still the ones being parodied, and are still the ones being laughed at. Which points to the idea that the politicians still aren’t grasping the concept or point of the satire. The satire is still getting the job done, and presumably still – to some degree – igniting a response in the audience.
I think I went on a bit of a tangent there, but I’ll end the reflection with this; this was probably my favourite article we have read all semester.