Jonathan Pie’s American Pie review – viral ranter takes a sub-Theroux US road trip
Tom Walker’s political insight as a fake Westminster correspondent amounts to little more than ‘I told you so’ and tedious Trump-apologism
Comedian Tom Walker and his co-writer Andrew Doyle have plied a healthy trade in viral rants with Jonathan Pie, the fake Westminster correspondent perpetually teetering on the precipice of his paper-thin patience, driven to apoplexy by the sheer stupidity of everyone on all sides of the political spectrum – apart from him. Jonathan Pie’s American Pie (BBC Three) takes this shtick away from its natural home of minutes-long shareable clips and extends it to an hour-long mockumentary, a format being slowly throttled by the BBC’s incessant overuse of it.
In November 2016, shortly after Donald Trump was elected president, a Pie video was released pointing out that of course Trump won. “How can everyone be so fucking stupid?” he ranted, blaming, among others, himself, as a person on the left; Hillary Clinton; and a culture of no-platforming that closed in on free speech. “Not everyone who voted for Trump is a sexist or a racist. Some of them are, but most aren’t,” he announced. It quickly went viral and proved popular on right-wing news sites. I mention this particular clip because the premise of American Pie is that same argument, stretched out for an hour, two years after the fact.
Pie has been sent to the US to report on the midterm elections. Clearly they were hoping that it would be a GOP knockout, so that his frustratingly superficial: “I told you so” analysis could be employed to mediocre effect once more. That was not the case, which leaves this as a curious rerun of arguments that have been made repeatedly over the past two years by people with greater political insight and better comedy chops.
There is a long segment on why Clinton was a bad candidate, in 2016, that turns into a cheap point about how the news can be edited to tell any story the media – of which Pie is both critic and participant – wants to tell. At last, someone calling out fake news! But the focus, still, is on who voted for Trump and why. Pie meets a comedian and a singer who voted for the president, as well as a handful of regular-Joe Trump supporters, who explain their essentially understandable justifications for choosing him over Clinton. The devastating conclusion Pie reaches is that not all Trump supporters are “toothless hillbillies with banjos”. Nor are they racist and sexist, he says, without specifying who he thinks believes that: British people? BBC Three viewers? His own fans?
Disingenuously, Pie includes himself in the category of lefty-liberal morons who think everyone in a Maga hat is one step away from fascism, and rallies against them, which manoeuvres him into a position of cynical immunity. Towards the end, there is a long, sweeping and patronising explanation of why “refusing robust debate” is leading to the rise of populism. I kept waiting for the punchline, the satire, the insight, but none arrived. More depressingly, this came after an interview with a white supremacist who advocates “a white ethno-state”, justified because, as Pie insisted, his views need to be aired in order to be challenged. The arrogance of Pie assuming that he is the person to dismantle this terrible person’s horrible views would be fair if he challenged them properly. But it is a desperately weak segment in which Pie simply declares those views – in favour of ethnic cleansing – to be “pretty abhorrent”.
The format does it no favours. It was billed as “Louis Theroux meets Alan Partridge” and there is a running gag about whether Theroux would have done it differently. But Partridge is funny because he is pathetic and human; Pie just has a sneering superiority complex. Theroux offers insight because he listens to people; Pie has too many scores to settle to offer an impartial ear. Odder still is a transparently “humanising” backstory about Pie’s collapsing family, which is intended to solder a heart on to this cold slice of cynicism. I understand the appeal of Pie’s “it’s just common sense” clips, even if the last thing I would choose to watch is another man shouting furiously about how stupid everyone is.
He has millions of followers, and perhaps they will love seeing even more of him, but the truth is that there’s little to justify taking it beyond a few minutes.
524 comments
- At least he stood up for freedom of speech when a guy was convicted of telling an off colour joke. That's more than the graun did.
- Who was this and what happened?My initial response (as I’m sure anyone will tell you) is that freedom of expression doesn’t mean freedom from responsibility but I don’t know enough about who you're referring to.
- He's referring to a Youtuber who goes by the name of 'Count Dankula' who was convicted under hatecrime laws for training his partners pug dog to respond to the phrase 'Gas the Jews' and to mimic a nazi salute. It was in extraordinarily bad taste, but was very clearly explained as a joke on his partner.
- I was thinking of Pie's shouty insistance that that we must debate these people when I read about Milo being 2 million in debt (which occurred after he was reoeatedly "No platformed"). Does Pie acknowledge that maybe debating illogical people which logic doesn't actually expose them at all, it just helps them?
- If you can't defeat an "illogical" person in an argument, you haven't won the argument.It's that simple.
- Well that's the point, you can't beat these people in an argument, Pie is foolish to think you can
- Then there are two alternatives:1. Get better arguments.
2. Cede the territory altogether.Unfortunately option 2 seems to be the preferred one for many. You can't just ignore or de-platform views you don't like forever, particularly when they appear to be in a majority. - Well, I want less Milo influence, and no platforming him has been far more effective in achieving this. Free speech fundamentalism isn't clever it's just dogma
- What’s your better argument against a white ethno state? Did it work?Are you really that intellectually bankrupt that you couldn't convince an audience that a white ethno-state is a bad idea?
- Well, I want less Milo influence, and no platforming him has been far more effective in achieving this.No it wasn't.He lost his influence because of his views on adult-child relationships. And (ding ding), putting him on a platform was what enabled that to happen.Ref: Griffin on QT as well.
- Check BNP's support after QT, it went up.Other way round, that caused Milo to lose his platform, and then influence. Alex Jones is another example.Free speech is sometimes the answer, sometimes not. Like nearly everything else it's a balance
- I don't think that's true. They were utterly wiped out in local elections and Euro Parliament after that appearance.Below is quite a good article. Either way the point is that you don't want to hide these kind of people from the glare of public scrutiny. If they are genuinely bad people that'll shine through.However, if it's just that some people disagree with them... well... that's something different.
- The assumption that the people reached by these lunatics/professional cynics can be swayed by logic is quite funny. If logic was enough, there would be no religions, 100% take up of vaccines and huge action on climate change. Vast swathes of the population don't care about logic. They care about their feelings.
- Er that shows the BNP vote going down 2,3 years after the QT appearance. It also mentions a lot of them were jailed just before the vote fell. Someone at work mentioned Roosh V to me, and I was thinking not heard about him in ages, another example of no platforming working.Why are you so convinced free speech is always the answer, where's your evidence for this?
- Agreed, ultimately its a lack of empathy that causes this. "I respond to logic, therefore everyone else should"
- Why are you so convinced free speech is always the answer, where's your evidence for this?Simply put I would defend free speech in general because I don't think you or anyone else should have the right to decide which political views people can and can't hear.The problems in managing how this is "decided" are insurmountable in a society of humans, who are subject to bias. The temptation to abuse such power is too strong, as history has repeatedly shown us.It's happening even today, look at the absurdity of no-platforming people like Greer and Bindel. Christ knows I don't agree with most of what Bindel says, but that was a truly worrying moment in the development of our country.
- >I don't think that's true. They were utterly wiped out in local elections and Euro Parliament after that appearance.The next European Parliament elections were in 2014, and although they lost seats at a council level in 2010, they nearly tripled their WM vote on the same day.
- Ordinary mortals can't be trusted to make their own minds up, I see.Why, if logic was enough, they'd all agree with bigDave and Pazoozoo.Yes, I can see why you'd be afraid to debate some nutcase from the alt right.
- As answered elsewhere on this thread: look at where they are now. 1.5k votes nationwide in 2015 and under 5k in 2017.It would appear this increased exposure was utterly fatal to their cause.
- I'd disagree, while it can be abused, it often isn't and overall I'd think it has worked out better than we don't give a platform to Milo et al. Sure it's a harder approach that requires more thinking than free speech for all, but I think worth it
- Chronologically, you're right to say that their decline set in *after* their appearance on Question Time, but you're wrong in suggesting a connection between these two facts. Again, in the wake of their Question Time appearance their vote went up.Of course, we could pretend that their vote went down five years later because it was only then that a good chunk of the UK public remembered that they had a recording of the programme and might as well watch it for the first time… but that would be stupid.
- You are not speaking about free speech here exactly, at least not in the legal sense. Free speech as a legal/human rights construct does not mean that we should air out all political ideas in public constantly, but is about not facing legal sanction for voicing your opinions (note that free speech is not absolute in any country I know of - there are always exemptions, even in the US).The concept you are talking about is 'the marketplace of ideas', which contains the assumption that 'truth will prevail' when ideas are debated together. That is an empirical claim rather than one of principle.
- Of course, we could pretend that their vote went down five years later because it was only then that a good chunk of the UK public remembered that they had a recording of the programme and might as well watch it for the first time… but that would be stupid.Presumably you can see a bigger picture here? My base argument, as stated above, is that increasing the platform of people with disgusting views will ultimately end in their self-destruction. QT was a clear step in that process, no?Ultimately Milo Yiannopolis went down the same path - interest in him skyrocketed when people tried to no-platform him. But once he'd been on enough platforms he started saying things no reasonable person could get on board with. Hence his collapse.
- A little from column A, a little from column B. They are both inextricable linked.If one feels one's ideas cannot compete in the marketplace of ideas, it will become attractive to try other means of getting competing ideas removed.
How did that work out with Hitler then? Can't find anything to suggest that he self destructed, quite the opposite in fact. It was just because made some shit military decisions that led to his defeat. Also how do you explain the rise in fascist parties across the World today, surely everyone must have got up to speed on why it isn't the answer to anything by now.My base argument, as stated above, is that increasing the platform of people with disgusting views will ultimately end in their self-destruction.- My base argument, as stated above, is that increasing the platform of people with disgusting views will ultimately end in their self-destruction. QT was a clear step in that process, no?No, and I say no is because your argument makes that process seem inevitable in a way that it isn't, because I read it as conflating the individual's self-destruction with their ideas (which are the problem) becoming unpopular and because the weight that people put on Question Time in discussions like this comes at the expense of the many people who actually put time into scrutinising and reporting on the BNP's ideas and actions.Ultimately Milo Yiannopolis went down the same path - interest in him skyrocketed when people tried to no-platform him. But once he'd been on enough platforms he started saying things no reasonable person could get on board withNo. Milo's brand was always about saying things no reasonable person could go on board with: his victimhood narrative, for example, depended on us imagining that he had a right to use private property to organise profit-making events where he could say those things — a narrative that these pages were not quick enough in questioning. He made his money through public appearances, it was through being denied access to private property and journalists exposing his collaboration with out and proud nazi organisations like Storm Front that that money dried up.
- I'm very much in favour of having robust protections for free speech, but it's certainly not that simple. There are plenty of rhetorical tricks that have been used since time immemorial in persuasive writing and debate, and many of them don't involve any logic, but appeals to emotion and prejudice.People frequently find lists of well-researched facts boring, but are excited by someone animatedly telling them their way of life is under threat from outsiders. In the case of people who are being wilfully provocative and making insincere arguments in order to provoke a backlash, the best option very often is to ignore them. Engaging with obviously stupid but loudly expressed views is the equivalent of trying to debate with a belligerent drunk in a pub parking lot- pointless and unproductive.In a free society people have the right to say what they want, but they certainly don't have the right to force us to listen to them.
- Have you considered that purpose of debating someone who is 'illogical' is not always to change their mind (although that can happen), but to influence the views of people watching?Also, and this is the thing which is really being lost on the no platforming culture, it might change YOUR mind, or at least cause you to think. The best way to test whether you have any blind spots is to debate people who think the opposite.
- I think you're avoiding the main point here. Obviously the two are linked. TMoI is an argument for a particular form of freedom of speech, but the rationale for that form is quite a specific claim - a claim of the truest arguments necessarily winning against deficient arguments.In your vision, people don't want to debate against (e.g.) Nazis because they are scared of the 'truth' contained within the Nazi's arguments and the deficiency in their own.
I think there are plenty of valid reasons to not debate someone/offer them a platform which do not themselves go against generally held principles of free speech (some of which are articulated well by other posters here), but do go against an absolutist doctrine of free speech. - Fantastic non-answer there. I’ve been here in the past, confronted by NF supporters where the reaction quickly turns to violence. How have you handled these situations? Tell me who it is that is intellectually bankrupt.
- Are you serious that you couldn't defeat an argument promoting a white ethno state?How about this: The vast majority of people don't want to live in one and implementing it would only be possible with abuse of human rights on a massive scale.
No comments:
Post a Comment