Context Lost in the PFA Awards Storm

A Predictable Outrage

On Sunday night, at the annual Professional Footballers Association awards ceremony, the American comedian Reginald D. Hunter performed a stand-up routine. By Monday morning, a predictable media storm had erupted, followed by a classic press witch-hunt. Hunter was criticised for using the N-word during his set, with faux-outrage directed at him from all corners. The PFA chairman, Clarke Carlisle, swiftly admitted booking the comedian was a “huge mistake” and reports suggested the organisation was demanding the return of its fee.

This entire furore, however, has been constructed on hearsay. The debate is fuelled by those who read about the routine in the papers or on Twitter, not by those who were actually in the room to hear it. The criticism spiralled from a few journalists who, it seems, tweeted something to the effect of “Scandal! Hunter used the N-word to a bunch of footballers!” while conveniently neglecting to report the context or the intent behind its use. Their premise was simple and absolute: the mere use of the word is unacceptable, regardless of circumstance.

An Audience of Indifference

This was not a routine designed for cheap shocks. Hunter is a clever comedian who uses provocative language in a complex manner, turning racist terms against the racists themselves to expose their shallowness. The use of the word was not gratuitous; it was a weapon used in a sophisticated act intended to challenge the audience. It is the same principle that allows Elvis Costello & The Attractions to use the word in “Oliver’s Army” to make a point against prejudice.

The problem was not the material but the audience. This was the sixth PFA Awards dinner for some attendees, and at every single one, the comedian has faced an impossibly difficult room. The crowd is not there for comedy. Many are self-absorbed and ill-mannered, carrying on conversations at their tables, completely oblivious to the performer on stage. It should come as no surprise that a percentage of modern footballers are rude and boorish; trying to hold their attention is perhaps why comedians at such corporate events are so handsomely rewarded. Hunter received few laughs because the majority simply were not listening. His closing remark, “I’ve tried to be funny but I’ve ended up being interesting,” was a telling window into his feelings about the flat reception.

The disdain shown by the audience towards the performer was far more offensive than anything in his act. There were no gasps, no visible signs of shock, just a general air of indifference. The outrage was manufactured after the fact.

A Storm in a Teacup

This whole mess has erupted because a single word was isolated from its context. The implication that Hunter or his act is racist because of the language he uses is patently ludicrous. It is lazy, simplistic and scare-mongering journalism. Any regular visitor to a comedy club would have found the set completely unremarkable. It was what it was: a comedy act using a racist term to mock the small-mindedness of racists.

The PFA should have known what they were getting. They booked a witty, intelligent comedian who uses provocative language to make effective points. If a couple of journalists had not fixated on a single word to manufacture a story, nobody would have ever heard about it. But when the choice is between a comedian using humour to challenge racism and journalists publishing “Look at this - aren’t you outraged?” stories, the latter will always generate more noise.

Indifference is quite different to offence, and there was no evidence of the latter on Sunday night.