Browse > Home / Media / What Is The Point Of Private Eye? The Magazine Lost Its Sense Of Direction Long Ago.

What Is The Point Of Private Eye? The Magazine Lost Its Sense Of Direction Long Ago.

July 13, 2009

Private Eye Magazine What is exactly the point of Private Eye, the supposedly satirical current affairs magazine? The one that is printed on cheap paper and has photos on the front cover with silly headings at the top and even sillier texts inserted into the bubbles?

The title, Private Eye, is supposed to imply that it is edgy, investigative and controversial. And many years ago, in pre-Labour times, it had been exactly that. And that was why it got sued on a regular basis, by all sorts of people.

But things have changed now: PI is very timid, it is politically correct and it is overly cautious. In fact, it does not really deliver what it says on the tin, or, in this case, what it says on the cover: it fails to investigate and ridicule and offend people who deserve to be ridiculed and offended - politicians, bankers, big businessmen, pompous hacks and pretentious celebrities. I would even say that it has become distinctly pro-Labour and, as a result, pro-establishment and pro-big business.

You do not believe me? OK, how about this: if Private Eye was really controversial and anti-establishment would big companies advertise in it? Common, tell me: would any big brand want to associate itself with a publication that takes no prisoners and has a go at everyone? Of course not. Because big brands, you see, have a reputation to safeguard and they would never get involved with titles that are prepared to be politically incorrect and mock and ridicule the powers that be.

Nowdays PI spreads its legs wide to the big boys and publishes full page ads of the biggest brands in the world. A bit of a contradiction there, don’t you think? All respectable and neat.

And another thing: would the pretentious civil rights group, Liberty, ever advertise in a politically unbiased, controversial magazine? You know, a publication that calls a spade a spade and ridicules those who call it an instrument for digging? Never in its life would Liberty do that. Never. But Liberty has been advertising in PI, calling on people to join its its ranks. So that is more proof that the magazine is not exactly what it pretends to be.

But let’s face it: all could have been forgiven if PI was funny. Who would have cared about the lack of edginess and a presence of political bias when you could have had a good laugh, or at least a chuckle or two? That is what really matters when you read a supposedly entertaining publication. You want to have a good laugh. Because life is hard enough anyway and most of the newspapers and magazines are now full of doom and gloom that you want to get away from.

But PI is not funny anymore. I am sorry, but it is not. Occasionally, very occasionally it is amusing, but on the whole the humour has become childish and irrelevant. And it does not really matter if the magazine continues to uncover some irregularities in local councils or notices discrepancies in statements of obscure officials. You want it to be funny first of all. Funny and not boring. Because there are so many other titles out there that publish serious articles about corruption and deceit and are extremely boring.

And, of course, the front covers of PI have become one big disaster. It is like a bunch of school children have spent a day and come up with absolutely stupid concept. Most of the covers look pathetic and do not upset anyone. I do not rememebr a single PI cover in the last 5 years that was funny or edgy. And I regularly look through all magazines and newspapers, so I would know. If I were the editor of PI I would be sacking my sub-editors and writers on a regular basis. after each issue, actually.

A magazine like PI should be outrageously funny and sarcastic. And for this it needs to have a really good independent minded editor, with a great sense humour. Not like Ian Hislop who is always saying correct inoffensive things on Have I Got News For You, a TV show that has never really been edgy or seriously controversial in all its history. In fact, it has mostly been about buffoonery but never about real political satire. Judge for yourself - during Tony Blair’s reign the contestants on the show spent most of the time attacking the opposition. So while Blair and his chums were causing mayhem in Britain and outside it Hislop, Merton & Co, funded by the licence payers, ridiculed the opposition, as if the opposition decided anything. In my opinion, the programme died when its presenter, Angus Dayton, was kicked out for being revealed as a cocaine user. And yet, the BBC still desperately tries to breathe new life into the corpse, hoping to revive it. Which says a lot about the show, by the way.

Ian Hislop has long ago become part of the establishment himself, getting paid around thirty grand an episode of HIGNFY. He is unable to run a magazine that is supposed to mock the establishment and ridicule politicians of all colours. I suggest that he renames his magazine into Private Dick and stops all the pretence of being editor of a satirical current affairs publication.

– End –

Related posts:

  1. The British People Have Lost It Completely! Their Sense Of Priorities, That Is

    Pardon me for spoiling the fun, ladies and gentlemen, but have you, the British people, lost it completely? Your sense of priorities, that is....

  2. A Royal Wedding In Hello! Magazine. How Sad Is That?

    I thought it was sad, that royal wedding in the Hello! magazine. Did it seem sad to you? I thought it was very sad. What...

  3. It’s Time To Scrap The G8. It Simply Lost All Sense Of Purpose

    It is always a good idea to wait a while after some event has taken place and then decide whether it was worthwhile or not....

  4. Time Magazine Names A 100 Most Influential People: How On Earth Did They Pick Them?

    What is wrong with people who run Time magazine? Do they live in a different world or what? They come up with a list of...

  5. Viewers Pick The Greatest Comedy Films: Something Is Wrong With Their Sense Of Humour

    As I sometimes glance through the so-called lists of best comedy films that are usually compiled on the basis of polling the British viewing...

Category: Media  ·
Tags: , ,

One Response to “What Is The Point Of Private Eye? The Magazine Lost Its Sense Of Direction Long Ago.”

  1. Cassandrina on July 13th, 2009 6:44 pm

    Unfortunately there is too much truth in your article.
    I find PI can in many cases leave me totally deflated from the endless sources of corruption in British political, institutional, and social circles, without the forgiving easing of tension by displaying true humour.

Would you like to add a comment?