Austin returns for a second series despite criticism of its far left propaganda

Image: ITV Press

By Jon Donnis

The TV comedy Austin might be gearing up for a second season with all the fanfare of international collaborations and heartfelt promises, but not everyone is laughing. The series, touted as a "life-affirming exploration of neurodiversity," has come under fire for what many critics describe as far-left propaganda disguised as humour, alienating a significant portion of its audience in the process.

The eight-part comedy, which follows the exploits of the straight-talking Austin (played by Michael Theo), has faced increasing backlash since its first season. While it's celebrated by some for its depiction of neurodivergent characters, detractors argue that the show's attempts to tackle social issues feel heavy-handed, poorly researched, and loaded with cheap, partisan jabs.

The biggest gripe? The show's jokes often come at the expense of conservative-leaning viewers, with many feeling that Austin takes joy in belittling their values. From clunky one-liners about politics to out-of-touch swipes at traditional American culture, the writing seems more interested in scoring points on Twitter/X than delivering smart, inclusive comedy.

Season one's narrative was criticised for leaning too far into caricatures. Attempts at tackling serious topics like inclusivity and acceptance often ended up as unsubtle attacks on anyone who didn't align with the show's progressive worldview. Some viewers noted that the series seemed to portray anyone with differing opinions as ignorant or regressive – a tired trope that has alienated a wide swath of potential fans.

As filming for season two gears up, it's clear the producers have no intention of steering away from their original formula. Instead, they've doubled down on the show's "progressive" tone. Executive producer Ben Miller proudly refers to the project as "joyously neurodivergent," but critics argue that this framing feels more like a self-congratulatory pat on the back than a meaningful attempt at authentic storytelling.

Even the behind-the-scenes praise has drawn side-eye. Comments from figures like Holly Trueman, who described Austin as "progressive" and perfectly aligned with the values of Screen Canberra, haven't helped quell accusations of ideological bias. While inclusivity and representation are laudable goals, critics argue that Austin is so consumed by its mission to send a message that it sacrifices nuance, alienates potential viewers, and stifles authentic comedy.

It's worth noting that audiences in the US have been particularly vocal in their criticisms. Many felt that the jokes aimed at conservative America in season one were not only inaccurate but downright insulting. Whether it was clumsy commentary on the culture wars or ham-fisted jokes about certain States the show repeatedly painted broad strokes that left little room for mutual understanding or, indeed, clever satire.

The question remains: who is Austin really for? While it certainly has its fans, its detractors argue that its divisive tone makes it difficult for the show to build a broader audience. Instead of uniting people around shared laughter, it risks further entrenching divides – hardly a fitting legacy for a show that purports to celebrate acceptance.

As the cameras roll on season two, one thing is clear: Austin may continue to capture headlines for its progressive credentials, but whether it can capture the hearts of audiences across the political spectrum is another matter entirely.