It’s less than a fortnight since Mark Scott made his annual trip to Canberra for his annual dust-up with conservative politicians at Senate Estimates hearings. This gives him a full 50 weeks to prepare for next year’s breathless interrogation as to why the national broadcaster used taxpayer funds to fly John Safran to Israel so he could masturbate on television.

This at least will be the puritanical take on what unfolded on our screens at 9.30 last night in the debut of Safran’s mega-hyped new series Race Relations.

As part of his exploration of interracial relationships and attraction, Safran flew to Israel where he arranged for a Palestinian man to donate sperm which he then took to an Israeli fertility clinic. In return, the Jewish Safran donated sperm to a Palestinian fertility clinic, using a photograph of Barack Obama to arouse himself.

His reason – to create a new race of Jewish-Arabs called Jelestinians, framed around the theory that if the two most fractuous and divided ethnic groupings on the planet can unite, maybe we all can.

On paper, and no doubt when it is eventually recorded in Hansard, it sounds like one of the most shocking scenes ever put to air on Australian television.

It certainly eclipsed the most hotly anticipated part of the program, where Safran, who has a thing for Eurasian chicks, did a blind sniff test on 10 pairs of women’s panties – five from Jewish women, five from Eurasians - that he had stolen from their bedrooms or changerooms while fraudulently pretending to interview them.

Despite the superficially grotesque nature of that concept, the whole thing had a strange innocence to it – because it was Safran who was the focus of the joke, panting ecstatically as he inhaled from ziplock bags containing used briefs, in an absurd controlled laboratory environment.

Some will no doubt hail all of this as a sickening new moral low. An appalling waste of public money. An insult to our collective intelligence and possibly even a danger to the young, who are sex-mad enough as it is.

Unsurprisingly, that wasn’t the take on the youth-oriented social media sites tonight, where Safran was being hailed as some kind of comic genius. On The Punch, we covered the show in real time and polled our little focus group of readers at the end as to what they thought, with 93 per cent saying it wasn’t offensive and just 7 per cent that it was.

If anything Safran might face more criticism from younger and edgier viewers that the show failed to live up to the hype – as one viewer, Benjamin T, wrote on Twitter, “Safran if it doesn’t make me cringe, you’re not taking it far enough.”

The two strong things that the show has going for it, in my view, are the novelty and validity of its premise, and the genial nature of its star.

Safran said the reason for the program was that in our increasingly multicultural and multifaith society the chances of future Australian couples being from the same race and religion are diminishing by the day. It’s true, and it means that a comic exploration of those themes is a valid and engaging exercise.

And as Safran’s preparedness to demean not others but himself means that the show has none of the nastiness or cruelty that can mar comedy.

If it generates outrage it will be on the grounds of decency, not cruelty or taste, as was the case with the program-ending Chaser debacle over the ill-conceived sketch poking fun at the last wishes of dying children.

The ABC has also learnt a bit (from experience) about managing public outcry, with Director of Television Kim Dalton taking the unusual step this afternoon of using our website The Punch to warn conservative viewers not to watch.

They’ve also learnt a bit about marketing too – like Hitchcock’s promise to refund money to people who were too scared to stay in the cinema, talking up the horror in advance does you no harm at the box office.

59 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Clubwah says:

      11:09pm | 21/10/09

      “Safran if it doesn’t make me cringe, you’re not taking it far enough.” - that’s John Safran’s biggest concern too.

    • Ridsy says:

      11:15pm | 21/10/09

      Fantastic take. You nailed it. The show was great, uncomfortable at times. Wierd and sometimes not funny more OMFG uncomfortable. BUT it was a really great idea. Keep up the good work punch.

    • James says:

      11:31pm | 21/10/09

      But it wasn’t funny or interesting! What a disappointment! Everyone seemed so in on it ...

    • Frank says:

      01:12am | 22/10/09

      I’m starting to wonder if Safran is getting too old for this…
      No doubt this was a fantastically horrible piece of Australian satire, but the guy needs to grow up. This isn’t Race Around The World. 

      Mind you, his ex-girlfriend scientist isn’t a bad sort…

    • Dan says:

      02:10am | 22/10/09

      I really enjoyed it. For those who are complaining that he didn’t take it far enough, I have no doubt that will change in coming weeks. This was only the first episode, and next week, for example, looks pretty shocking!

    • trigger says:

      02:41am | 22/10/09

      didn’t see it, but love Safran.

      He makes an effort to walk both sides of the political divide (unlike 95% of comedians). Loves poking fun at inner city pinko lefties. And while he pokes fun at religion and the religious, he displays a geniune interest in the topic and admires people who have faith. He doesn’t follow the boring lead from athiests like the terrible Catherine Deveney.

      I really hope the religious lobby doesn’t attack him, as he is perhaps the biggest advocate for religion and communicator of religious issues in the mainstream media.

    • Ed says:

      05:52am | 22/10/09

      Pathetic! hardly entertaining nor is it comedy, just plain embarassing!  just bring back real comedy on ABC! I’m no wowser but surely we have better talent out there!

    • Scuzzi says:

      06:02am | 22/10/09

      I laughed and laughed, it was funny as, touching on taboo subjects with the particularly Aussie way of spoofing it.

      I have to hide my nicker collection now.;P

      Great work and keep pushing the envelope.

    • Anthony says:

      07:15am | 22/10/09

      I would rather my taxes be used to film a skinny jewish Woody Allen wanna be masturbate and ejaculate in a palestinian hospital over a picture of Obama, than Julia Gillard waste 1.7billion and call it a bump in the road. At least Saffran had a happy ending!

    • Danj says:

      07:15am | 22/10/09

      I watched it, and I didn’t get it. I listen to Saffran and Father Bob on triple J sometimes and like the fact that Saffran pushes boundaries and asks some big questions, but I think last night it was bordering on being a bit sick with no real purpose other than trying to shock the audience. Having said that I will probably watch again next week because there is nothing else on in that timeslot.

    • Mary says:

      07:28am | 22/10/09

      given the described nature of this show it would not shock me and i would love to watch it… however, john’s looks shock me, they disturb me far more than anything i have heard about the show, hence, i shall not be tuning in…that type of a show really needs a host that is easy on the eye at the very least

    • Sydney Collins says:

      07:55am | 22/10/09

      Well, it was certainly different. Believable? Not especially. Faked, v likely. Funny - at times. The Rabbi was good. Offensive, not so much. How many of them were in on the joke in some way? The sort of humour that trades on people’s innicent good will is a pretty low trick in my book.

      Earth shattering? Nah. Embarrassing? Nah. Watch it again? Depends. On how poor the competing offerings are, including the Off switch. This isn’t a must see for me. 

      The ABC needs a bit of spine. Perhaps this is the result of the Chaser nonsense - the formula had runs its course, really. The risk for Safran is falling into a similar rut, but without silly costumes.

      Be interesting to hear the reaction of the Jewish and Muslim/Palestinian communities.

      ABC: 8 out of 10
      Safran: meh. 3 out of 10.

    • BMJ says:

      07:58am | 22/10/09

      It’s just wasn’t up to standard. It’s like he’s trying TOO hard.

    • Bob says:

      08:00am | 22/10/09

      It has Klingons. Anything with Klingons can’t be all bad.

    • hamster says:

      08:07am | 22/10/09

      Brilliant, funniest thing I have seen on TV for a long time and made a lot of good points. Thanks ABC for putting this to air. Heaps better than BBC cop shows or period dramas.

    • Another James says:

      08:15am | 22/10/09

      I thought the bits where Safran got into girls houses/changerooms on the grounds that he was going to interview them, just so he could steal their underwear was good, but what made it more funny was showing the one question interviews and clipped answers afterwards. Very clever.

    • SM says:

      08:26am | 22/10/09

      Doesn’t hold a candle to Hungry Beast

    • Daniel says:

      08:27am | 22/10/09

      I watched it last night and it was quite good and not over the top. The guy is fine. Like the ABC head said if people dont like it they dont have to watch it.

    • Pedro says:

      08:45am | 22/10/09

      I watched last night and thought it was amusing. Glad there is someone on TV that isn’t being uptight and PC. Good onya John. You put a smile on my dial.

    • Ron S. says:

      08:54am | 22/10/09

      I agree with Ed at 5.52am. It was puerile at best. Not a good use od ABC money.

    • Null says:

      09:07am | 22/10/09

      The show may not have had me aghast, cringing or freaking out.  It did make me laugh out loud numerous times, which I can say I haven’t experienced from Aussie TV for quite a long time.  His ability to use self-deprecation with an inquisitive approach is bringing to the screen a classical Asutralian sense of humour.  I’ll be tuning in next week for sure

    • Critic says:

      09:09am | 22/10/09

      Cross between Chaser, Woody Allen, and Lettermann. Watched the show, then visited the website, there the penny dropped.  *Way* too much Letterman.

      A 30 minute wank joke, for Pete’s sake, and a thirty minute undies joke. We get it, already.  Do the set-up, deliver the punchline, then leave us to it.  Either that or do social commentary. Just don’t flog your points to death, OK?

      I’ll try and sit though one more episode. If its the same basic construction, I’m off. Safran’s history is one of repeated near misses. This looks to be another.

    • Dino says:

      09:21am | 22/10/09

      I thought the show great and not offensive at all. Some bits were a little gross but it was funny and enjoyable. I will watch next week. It is a excellent follower to Hungry Beast which I also enjoy. I hope at some stage the ABC can show the rest of the interviews with the eurasian women. I thought the first questions he asked of the Pussycat Doll and the first artist were very interesting and would have liked to hear the answers.

    • GingerStarlet says:

      09:31am | 22/10/09

      As with many of The Chaser’s more recent stunts, this had the distinct feeling of being “staged”. While I liked the ideas in theory, that Safran could so easily pinch the knickers of his more famous Eurasian subjects doesn’t seem feasible. And in the sperm donor clinics, wouldn’t staff first have to test the sperm of potential donors to see that they aren’t in fact “shooting blanks”, rather than allow just any old “walk-ins” to donate? Seems like a waste of time and money to me. Yeah, I didn’t buy a lot of the stunts on last night’s show. But hang on! Am I taking all that too seriously?

    • Steve Smith says:

      09:36am | 22/10/09

      Critic, were you watching the right show? Because Race Relations only went for thirty minutes, which by your calculations was just one joke.

      I enjoyed the show, and can’t wait for the remainder of the series. Hopefully people who tuned in because they thought it would be mainstream humour will turn off and continue complaining about the show on blogs.

    • Mick says:

      09:37am | 22/10/09

      Mmmm….I was bored after 20 minutes on undies sniffing. Turned off the TV and read my copy of Mojo instead.

    • Tim says:

      09:39am | 22/10/09

      Dear Mr Rudd, There is a guy in Palestine who I think may need asylum. He may be in danger. He’s a skilled TV sound guy and I am sure he’ll be able to secure a job at the ABC (right Mr Dalton?) so will not be a burden on the tax payers. I feel he will fit in nicely into the Australian way of life and clearly, he’s got a sense of humour. Please help him!
      Mr Safran, I like your style…. I’m still laughing.

    • VH says:

      09:50am | 22/10/09

      Laughed out loud, doesn’t happen often with TV, but I think perhaps Saffran is trying alittle too hard to be shocking, it came across abit transparent at times.  However will definatley watch again as I am hoping he continues to cross taboo subjects that make us uncomfortable, hence we laugh at.
      Would this become more offensive if Saffran was a aussie, white Christian, not sure?

    • Critic says:

      09:59am | 22/10/09

      Well it *seemed* like an hour!

    • Andrew says:

      10:10am | 22/10/09

      Funny certainly, funniest perhaps not, a w@nker, well there are plenty who should have that title before him: Daryl Somers, Paul Vautin & Co, Tim Bailey…...

    • Phil Gorman says:

      10:21am | 22/10/09

      As 65 year olds my partner and I enjoy Safran; and fear for his safety!  This program just pushed the envelope a little further, as it should on such a vital topic.  The sooner we realise that culture and nature are not synonymous the better.  There’s much to be said for hybrid vigour, and the breaking down of culturally erected barriers. 

      Tribalism/differentism: refuge of the ignorant, ill-informed, the insecure, and the scoundrel: top trait of terrorists; weapon of mass destruction.  The people with personality disorders who lust for power use ‘them and us’  to get it. 

      My slight criticism is that the contrivances of the program were a little too obvious.  The questions it raises need to be asked.  Safran is a lot more healthy than any shock jock wanker, and so is his sound man. The self-deprecating humour had us laughing and thinking.  Good on yer cobber!  A fair dinkum Aussie larrikin, bloody oath you are, maate!

      And the women were mostly young, lovely to look at and bright with it.  What a turn on!  Togo land’s Minister for Culture was just wonderful.

    • bella starkey says:

      10:26am | 22/10/09

      @Ginger Starlet:
      They are going to have to “submit a sample” before they do a test.
      How do you think one might do that?

    • AdamC says:

      10:49am | 22/10/09

      I watched the show last night. I thought the underwear bit was more effective than the sperm bank shenanigans, largely because of its delightful absurdity. There were definitely parts which fell flat (Safran’s visit to Togo to inquire about the attractiveness of a Togolese Melburnian) or where Safran tried too hard to shock and failed (the over-obvious Barack Obama picture self-gratification). However, any skit-based show, which is essentially what Race Relations is, will be hit-and-miss.

      On the decency question, of course the show was indecent, and often in poor taste. However, as David P says, Safran is lampooning himself, which makes his antics more bearable. I will probably watch next week, but then the novelty will likely wear off.

    • Schartos says:

      10:52am | 22/10/09

      I had a quiet chuckle or two. I think the whole idea of the show is quite interesting but I wonder how long it will remain so. I was definitely interested in the sniffing concept (not because they were undies mind) and the argument that we may be geneticly disposed to different cultures and using our senses to provide evidence - certainly I find certain cultures more appealing than others, including white Aussies (which I am), so coupling a somewhat serious idea with a completely deranged, self deprecating take on it added comedy to an interesting topic.

      If science were able to capture an array of sensory markers from different cultures (not underpants thanks) I would probably be intrigued to have a go to see what my proffered ‘sensory based culturally desirable demographic’ would be, though taken with a pinch of salt. If I came up with Somali or Congolese, I must say I might be disappointed, given the trouble in getting to these places - and staying alive once there. But if it were Tahitian or Brazilian, I’m sure I’d manage to convince myself the test must be 100% accurate whilst packing my bags and booking a ticket.

      The Palestinian / Israeli stunt seemed a bit pointless without some kind of end game or punchline. I was expecting outrage from both sides that their ‘stock’ may have been infected, so this joke seemed to simply fade without a bang. It did seem to be too contrived with a view towards shock value, sadly I think it fell flat on the last lap.

      Still, whilst the show delivered a chuckle and some interesting ideas, I certainly wasn’t shocked or laughing my guts out and I do wonder how long the concept can run before becoming tired.

      The preview for next weeks episode did more to get me excited about the show - in light of the recent Hey Hey / Black face fiasco - then this weeks episode and you can bet your bottom dollar I will be tuning in.

      Nice one, ABC.

    • crickit says:

      11:37am | 22/10/09

      Hi ‘GingerStarlet ’ - Please expand on your intended meanings here:
      “And in the sperm donor clinics, wouldn’t staff first have to test the sperm of potential donors to see that they aren’t in fact “shooting blanks”, rather than allow just any old “walk-ins” to donate? Seems like a waste of time and money to me. “
      I’m not clear on what you intended.
      Yes, they test a small sample from the donation for viable sperm before storage - was your concern that they seemed to store the donations for use straight away without testing? was this the ‘waste of time and money - to accept sperm for use without apparent testing?
      or did you think testing would reveal the ethnic source of the donor ‘walk-ins’ - and so filming the sequence was a ‘waste of time and money’ because they’d be ‘caught out’? - thanks

    • Graham S says:

      11:51am | 22/10/09

      If Safran is so good, so ‘edgy etc,etc, then why isn’t commercial television chasing him? The answer is as obvious: he really is downright pathetic. If he were to fund his own production then pitch it to the commercials they would fob him off as just another talentless juvenile uni undergraduate and make sure his ass hit the door on the way out. Even the Ten network which caters to the under 25’s and the bogun market wouldn’t waste what credibility they have in seeking a commercial sponsor to show Safran’s brand of rubbish. The ABC, TV & radio should be made to explain why Safran is continually indulged and at our expense. It is typical ABC and is why it’s hierarchy is made up of industry failures, time serving public servants and unaccountable bureaucrats, all of whom would not have one iota of a clue in justifying their reasoning in promoting Safran if they worked in the commercial world.

    • crickit says:

      11:58am | 22/10/09

      Hi AdamC - “where Safran tried too hard to shock and failed (the over-obvious Barack Obama picture self-gratification)”
      I wondered about that part myself.
      Could it be . . . he looks for porn first - there is none - then he has his idea - Obama’s photo - for motivation rather than sexual excitement - which is why he says ‘‘Yes we can!’ on achieving success - I agree, it would have fallen flat if he just repeated the previous wank scene
      - or is this all-too-subtle?
      Remember; we’d been fed the media PR grab for weeks - out of context - which raised the ire of many about the segment before they’d seen it
      - it was presented that he was gaining visual sexual stimulation from a photo of Obama.
      I don’t agree that he tried ‘too hard to shock and failed’
      When I interpret it this way it was clever!

    • pam says:

      12:01pm | 22/10/09

      The chaser team and others have been lured by commercial networks but they have said no because it would compromise their content…another example is Vasilis Garden from channel 31 to sbs then back to channel 31 again…that’s loyalty to your show!!

    • Scott says:

      12:04pm | 22/10/09

      I actually thought the Palestinian wanker was the funnier.

      If the ratings are anything to go by then “talking up the horror” did nothing to help the show.

    • crickit says:

      12:42pm | 22/10/09

      Graham S - you sad sad man! -  I have to at least try to educate you
      - by giving you the opportunity to think more on some of your ‘here’s my question/here’s my answer! closed-world’ view’ rant. You must feel smugly satisfied that you can answer your own questions so well!

      ‘Why isn’t commercial television chasing him?’
      Because they must suck up to sponsors who set the demographic.
      Remember why Karl Sandilands was dumped? ‘
      Newsflash: “Sponsors are pulling out because . . .”

      ‘It is typical ABC and is why it’s hierarchy is made up of industry failures . .”
      Currently ‘Good News Week’ on Ten, The Chaser, the recent pathetic US commercial rehash of the excellent BBC/ABC ‘‘Life on Mars’ series and many other programs over the years - started on the ABC - broke the ground - set the standard - and then - and then - the commercial sucks ‘dared’ to air them after seeing the audience following these programs had on the ABC - now they could hawk a proven drawcard for customers around for sponsor dollars.

      ‘Even Ten wouldn’t waste what credibility they have’
      The commercial networks have no credibilty - they have sponsor dollars dictating their every move: Eddie McGuire was told to stop his caustic comments early on in ‘Hot Seat Millionaire’ for this very reason.
      It’s no secret he didn’t want to do the show and doesn’t want to be there.
      Paul Mcdermott even jokes how ads destroy the flow and length of the show compared to the ‘good old ABC days’.

      Even ads are changed after market surveying: The ‘spell mortgage’ ad no longer has the two little girls laughing/sniggering at the boy who spells it incorrectly.  Bad for business? Then it’s gone!

      ‘and at our expense’.
      I’ll send you your ‘8 cents a day ’ !

      ‘if they worked in the commercial world’
      Thank God for Aunty - they don’t have to!!

      Graham! open your other eye - lift up Aunty’s skirt - check it out for yourself
      - a whole new world awaits you. Who knows? One day you may even venture as far as SBS (and they do have ads to keep you happy)

    • pete says:

      12:49pm | 22/10/09

      “Is John Safran the funniest wanker on tv?”
      No, he’s just a wanker 12 years past his use by date

    • A says:

      12:53pm | 22/10/09

      i think people are forgetting that this is not just a comedy, it is trying to get people thinking and talking too. if you just want comedy watch Ronnie Johns and act shocked at chopper or the good taste pony.

    • Joe says:

      01:03pm | 22/10/09

      I’m with you Crickit, Graham S is a sad, sad man - talk about John Safran being a wanker, Graham out wanks him ten fold, for free!

    • xiaoecho says:

      01:21pm | 22/10/09

      There’s a law against Palestinians and Jews marrying??!!! Crikey!

    • Jack from Perth says:

      01:27pm | 22/10/09

      @Graham S: I think you’ve just answered your own question. Yes, Safran is edgy, entertaining and different which is exactly why you won’t see it on the commercial networks. Commercial networks are after repetitive manufactured ‘entertainment’ to appeal to the masses (such as yourself). This sells more advertising space. I think you could do yourself (and the rest of the community) a favor and stick to watching Two and a half men.

    • Noncom says:

      01:38pm | 22/10/09

      Funny? Don’t ask me. But on the genetic premise, I understand the fact to be that genetic variability is as high within an ethnic group as it is between groups.
      So all it demonstrates is a set up.

    • pete says:

      01:44pm | 22/10/09

      Just an observation about media double standards;
      How come when 5 doctors paint their faces black on a commercial channel, there is an uproar. Yet, when Safran does it in this series, there is not even a murmur.

    • Scot says:

      02:07pm | 22/10/09

      No David, he is the sickest person on Television. He and the producers need to go and get some free medical treatment under Medicare as soon as possible. Typical of the sick and depraved persons from the Keating, Hawke era. What a waste of tax payers money.

    • crickit says:

      02:21pm | 22/10/09

      @pete - how is this a ‘media double standard’?
      (surely you are not suggesting that commercial & ABC media are protecting Safran/ABC in some way?)
      You sound like a closet ABC basher - come on out pete!
      The uproar was after the skit went to air.
      It was reported in all media - they tend to do that - they try to call it ‘news’
      Give it time - once again, this skit hasn’t even gone to air yet.
      ‘not even a murmur’? - you lot are still creating so much static from the last one no-one could hear you scream at the moment!
      You are just ‘ahead of yr time’ - in some sense pete - ?

    • crickit says:

      02:35pm | 22/10/09

      @Scot - we could have a reality TV show - just for you - ‘Howard’s Half Hour’
      where lil’ John could host the ‘20 to 1’ people’s lives and families he destroyed under ‘WorkChoices’
      You sound like you really do harbour deep resentment for every cent of your ‘8-cents-a-day’ - and as well - anyone without private health cover
      - you pay for that too! Come on - you’re really ‘born-to-rule’ David Flint aren’t you?

    • Ben says:

      03:08pm | 22/10/09

      “And as Safran’s preparedness to demean not others but himself means that the show has none of the nastiness or cruelty that can mar comedy.”

      This is often true, but not always. Sometimes, cruelty - if it’s being ridiculously cruel, ie, over the top - is what’s funny. Ie, the medium is the message, not the subject of the joke.

    • Graham S says:

      04:50pm | 22/10/09

      Hey Crikitt, well aren’t you just the little ABC defender, standing on the ramparts waving your little red flag, the self appointed judge of what’s good for us because of your fantastic insight into the commercial television world compared to your precious comfort blanket; The ABC . And Good News Week is on Ch10, be still my beating heart
      And poor little Paulie with his show being interupted by those naughty Philistines who pay the freight,the same people who have probably tripled his salary and then some but thank goodness you’re out there, fighting the good fight,  all excited and trembling with indignation like one of the oxygen thieves in the public service you surely must be. My point is, not that you have a clue, is Safran is a total waste of time and the ABC should be accountable for serving up his brand of tripe and the money would be better put to use developing the great Australian ABC programs of yesteryear of which there were so many No wonder great dramas aren’t being commissioned when this Safran clown is being indulged, a point you haven’t addressed as part of your diartribe posted today Not all commercial TV is rubbish and not every ABC/SBS production is an instant classic. And as for my viewing habits you haven’t a clue but then again your so overly excited about your precious ABC you can’t think straight. Take a Bex, have a good lie down and get a life’

    • Saneman says:

      05:27pm | 22/10/09

      Safran is a one trick pony. Different topic, same concept.

    • Mickyboy says:

      08:01pm | 22/10/09

      Good show Safran. What happened Graham S, did someone hurt your little ego?

    • Another James says:

      09:32pm | 22/10/09

      Pete…
      Because Safran will be making a valid point by disguising himself as a black man for his show, I assume to show how people react differently to different races.
      The boot polish and fake afro minstrel-like act on Hey Hey was naive and based on a blatantly antiquated form of theatre that traditionally made fun of African Americans, portraying them as characters with features to be laughed at. A form of theatre I thought was abandoned a long time ago, but it seems most Australians still think is valid for some reason.

    • Mother of 3 boys says:

      11:42am | 23/10/09

      The truest comedy is one in which the comedian makes his audience laugh at him and with him, not at him making fun of others.  Yes, I cringed and felt considerable embarrassment for John Safran.  That was his intention and he carried it out to great effect.  He is able to miraculously conjure up comedy in the strangest mix of subjects, and for that he should be commended.  I watched the show the other night just to see what all the hoopla was about and felt compelled to watch it through to the very end.  He is quirky, eclectic and obviously intelligent - and on the basis of the show the other night, I would definitely watch further episodes.  PS.  I am neither Jewish or Eurasian!

    • Gavin says:

      12:30pm | 23/10/09

      @graham S,
      if it was on one of those stations I would suck, because everything on those stations suck. look at the comments people made about channel 9 stealing top gear from SBS. Unlike you some of us want something different so lets make a deal you can keep your commercial channels and there mass produced pop enterainment (they still get significant gov’t protection from competion in form of broadcast licensing) and I will get to keep john on the ABC producing indepent alternative entertainment.

      and what dramas, name 3. the ABC has recycled BBC dramas for as long as i can remember not Aussie made ones.
      and it is more or less universally accepted that Good news week was much funnier when it was on ABC because they didn’t have to worry about sponsors opinions, evidenced by it having a cult following that has steadily dwindled.

    • Marlon says:

      07:05pm | 23/10/09

      Interesting bit of TV. I liked the premise but I think it was edited badly, the pacing was off and the opening title sequence has some of the worst music I’ve heard in a while.

    • Nigel Molesworth says:

      01:37pm | 25/10/09

      The panty stealing and sniffing didn’t bother me. Nor the w*nking. What I did find very worrying was the sperm donation switching. I don’t know a lot about sperm donation, but I believe that donors are matched as much as possible with the mother’s partner in terms of appearance for all sorts of obvious reasons. Mucking around with someone else’s life just because you think a ‘jalestinian’ is a good idea seems a bit too much like playing God to me.

      I hope it was faked or that he informed the sperm banks immediately afterwards. Playing a practical joke on an unsuspecting childless couple because it makes good TV offends me quite a lot.

 

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

David Penberthy

Time to put this summer of cricket out of its misery, writes Anthony Sharwood. Hear hear! http://bit.ly/9OLM07

David Penberthy

@geoffb oh, diddums.

David Penberthy

@Adam_Sims hell yeah. the recent past of australian tennis is in doubt!

David Penberthy

Libs reckon the future of australian tennis is in doubt due to rudd's ETS. They're smoking the same stuff as screaming lord monckton #qt

Gentle jabs to the ribs

US Superbowl: now with ad breaks worth watching

US Superbowl: now with ad breaks worth watching

Usually, when it comes to watching your favourite sport or movie on television, ads are the last thing… Read more

8 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter