Jeremy Clarkson’s recent commentary on the television series Landman serves as a springboard for a wider discussion on perceived societal shifts and their reflection in media and politics. Clarkson praises Landman for its perceived lack of "wokery," contrasting its depiction of oilmen behaving like oilmen with what he sees as the pervasive inclusion of diverse characters and socially conscious themes in other contemporary television shows. He argues that modern television often feels didactic, pushing agendas related to gender identity, sexual orientation, environmentalism, and political viewpoints. This, he suggests, differs from Landman‘s approach, which he sees as presenting characters and their perspectives without overt moralizing.
Clarkson extends this critique to a broader societal context, lamenting what he perceives as a lack of room for debate in public discourse. He suggests that accepted opinions on topics like diet, transportation, and political figures are presented as unquestionable truths rather than subjects open to discussion. He juxtaposes this with Landman‘s* characters expressing views on alcohol consumption and energy sources that challenge prevailing societal norms. This, for Clarkson, embodies the show’s refreshing departure from what he sees as the restrictive nature of contemporary discourse. He believes the show’s success lies in its presentation of a drama, not a lecture, echoing his desire for entertainment that doesn’t prioritize social messaging.
Beyond Landman, Clarkson touches upon several other societal observations. He criticizes a BBC correspondent for highlighting the capitalist nature of American society when discussing the use of private firefighters by wealthy individuals during wildfires, arguing that Britain is also a capitalist country with private services like healthcare and security. This, he implies, is a reality that should be acknowledged without judgment. He then sarcastically comments on the dismissal of a police inspector for using derogatory language towards climate protesters, highlighting the perceived sensitivities around language while simultaneously employing subtly critical language himself.
Clarkson further satirizes the adoption of new vocabulary by young people on social media, citing examples like "journey," "literally," "unreservedly," "profoundly," and "egregious." He mocks the overuse and often inaccurate application of these words, presenting it as a symptom of a desire to sound sophisticated without necessarily understanding the nuances of language. This commentary extends his critique of perceived superficiality and performative wokeness in contemporary culture.
Moving to a more global perspective, Clarkson recounts the predicament of two astronauts stranded on the International Space Station due to a faulty spaceship. He humorously notes the failed rescue attempt by Elon Musk’s SpaceX rocket, highlighting the uncertainty of their situation. This anecdote serves as a lighthearted interlude within his broader societal commentary.
Finally, Clarkson criticizes a government initiative requiring restaurants to display calorie counts on their menus. He argues that the effort is ineffective, citing research showing a negligible reduction in calorie consumption. He uses this as an example of government overreach and ineffective policy, questioning the rationale behind similar government interventions in other sectors. This reinforces his broader skepticism towards government intervention and what he perceives as unnecessary regulation.
In essence, Clarkson’s commentary, using Landman as a central point of reference, expresses a frustration with what he perceives as the overly sensitive and preachy nature of modern media and public discourse. He advocates for a return to less didactic forms of entertainment and a more open space for debate on various social and political issues. He believes Landman embodies this ideal, offering a refreshing alternative to what he sees as the prevailing trends in contemporary television. His broader observations on societal issues, from language policing to government initiatives, reflect a consistent skepticism towards perceived overreach and a preference for individual liberty and less regulated environments.
