Not a Defense of South Park:

The Way that Televisions Most Innovative and Sensational Show is so Much Better than
Everything Else out There
By Jay Solomon

South Park differs from its contemporaries in that by having characters inside
the show get the point of the show, it can have a moral or social message,
whereas the others are limited by their form to what I would call social
commentary. A social message tells us what to do or be, whereas a social
commentary just tells us what not to do or be.1

1 Despite potential flaws with these definitions, they create a necessary distinction. Aaron Fortune, I Learned
Something Today: South Park and the State of the Golden Mean in the Twenty-First Century, in South Park and
Philosophy: Bigger, Longer, and More Penetrating, by Richard Hanley (Chicago: Open Court, 2007), 261.

South Park is one of the most remarkable shows on television. Not only is it one of the
most successful, with the most fan generated web sites of practically any television show,2 over
half a billion dollars in merchandising sales,3 and twelve continuous seasons of one of the
highest rated shows on television and in over a dozen countries at that but it consistently
delivers important social and moral messages in practically every episode. 4 South Park has a
vision of the world: what it should look like, how people should behave and treat one another,
and how we can all function together harmoniously. While most major political parties have
attempted to associate South Park with their own agendas, the creators of South Park have
repeatedly eschewed any political labels (despite their notable Libertarian Party affiliations),
insisting that they hate both the left and the right and want to stand between the two sides,
laughing at both of them. Trey Parker, one of the shows creators, said, We find just as many
things to rip on the left as we do on the right. People on the far-left and the far-right are the same
exact person to us.5 South Park is a battle against extremism not against the beliefs
themselves but against the believers who insist that their way of viewing the world is the only
right one. Moderation and tolerance mixed with scorn and skepticism for those who try to tell us
how to live our lives is just part of South Parks regular message. What makes South Park
particularly unique is not the message itself but the way the show manages to convey that
message to its audience.

2
Toni Johnson-Woods, Blame Canada! South Park and Contemporary Culture (New York: Continuum
International Publishing Group, 2007), 27-55.
3 Ibid., 68.
4 This final point is debatable. Some episodes are rather digressive and not necessarily intent on emphasizing some
overarching message or point. However, none of its episodes fly in the face of South Parks pervasive social
message, and whenever it is present, it is consistent and highly relevant.
5 Trey Parker, In Focus magazine, October 4, 2004.

South Park is an animated television show about four eight year old boys in elementary
school. In each 22 minute episode, a controversy is established, the boys must learn about the
issues surrounding this controversy, and then they must somehow thwart the negative
consequences of the controversys more extreme adherents from bringing utter destruction and
ruin to their home town. Finally, they must summarize what they learned.6 Because it is
animated, South Park is not bound by reality when it creates the outrageous problems and
scenarios surrounding any controversy. This format also allows the show to incorporate
numerous poorly impersonated celebrity guests. For example, the children are forced to confront
Barbra Streisands ego before she transforms into an enormous monster and tries to conquer the
world, Rosie ODonnells self-righteousness before she is consumed by a mutated Dawsons
Creek Trapper Keeper, and John Edwards douchiness before he wins the award for Biggest
Douche in the Universe after being taken to an Academy-Awards-like ceremony populated by
thousands of alien celebrities. While these conflicts might seem ridiculous and pointless, they are
entirely germane to one of the shows primary messages: celebrities are just like everyone else.
They do not know better, and they should not pretend to be such great specimens of the human
race, guiding and saving the American people. Each is targeted by the show for a specific reason.
Streisand was lampooned after insisting that she would cease using her Colorado vacation
home if the state legislature passed anti-gay marriage legislation. South Park wanted to show that
no one cares what Streisand thinks and that she is not doing anyone any favors by blessing
Colorado residents with her occasional presence. Despite the fact that the shows creators favor
gay marriage, they nonetheless remain convinced that obnoxious celebrities like Barbra Streisand

6 The

episodes are not quite so formulaic, but this will suffice as a general sketch of many episodes pattern.

have no right to try to influence matters in places that do not concern them. Rosie ODonnell was
in an episode about a kindergarten classs voting a class that included her nephew, who she
defended in a run-off. After heinously interfering in favor of her nephew and ignoring the rights
of the opposing candidates supporters, the classs teacher, Mr. Garrison, harangues, You dont
give a crap about them because theyre not on your side. People like you preach tolerance and
openmindedness all the time, but when it comes to Middle America you think were all evil and
stupid country yokels who need your political enlightenment, but just because youre on TV
doesnt mean you know crap about the government!7 This episode was aired during the BushGore run-off controversy when celebrities ruthlessly backed one or the other candidate (although
mostly Gore). Finally, John Edwards, a man who claims that he talks to peoples dead relatives,
is lambasted for this fallacy, for giving people false hope and for telling them lies. After an
episode spent examining why people are so gullible and why he is such a douchebag, Edwards is
given his galactic award. Again, each of these celebrities demise is fantastic and imaginary, but
such are the benefits of using a cartoon. The show is not bound by the constricting confines of
reality and is free to create the most outrageous scenarios in order to demonstrate the writers
feelings on certain matters. Notice too, that in each of these cases the beliefs themselves in
gay-marriage rights, for the election of a specific candidate, or in supernatural communication
are not the issues under scrutiny. It is the believers and people who are attacked and ridiculed for
insisting that others should operate as they do and be subject to their nonsense.
The distinction made by Aaron Fortune above, between social messages and social
commentary, is useful for understanding South Parks unique approach when shedding light on

7 South

Park, Episode 413, Trapper Keeper.

Americas disturbing, hypocritical, and outrageous culture. An interesting parallel worth

exploring one that also employs hyperbole to get peoples attention and prompt societal change
is the example of the biblical prophet.8
Classical prophecy, that which existed from the rise of the Assyrian Empire in the middle
of the eighth century BCE to approximately the time of Ezra in the middle of the fifth century
BCE, acted as one of the foremost social message transmitters in ancient Israel. Classical
prophets delivered Gods messages to the people of Israel messages that were always relevant
to the particular problems of the time. For instance, when the people acted radically immoral
oppressing the poor, the widow and the orphan, raping and pillaging unnecessarily and generally
behaving despicably towards one another the prophet would deliver a message about the
pointlessness of sacrifice in light of such wantonness,9 tell of a future destruction resulting from
Gods wrath at peoples wretchedness, and perhaps even speak of a harmonious future when
Israels once great ruler, David, would be properly restored to his thrown in order to lead the
people to a better future.
Prophets railed against the corrupt and incompetent political establishment that the
people mimicked for lack of better leadership, against the worthless aristocratic priests that
perfunctorily performed their duties while feeding off the impoverished masses, and against the
false prophets who claimed to know the truth and profess it in the name of God. Although

8 This is by no means intended to insinuate that the creators of South Park are truly prophetic. If I did believe in
prophecy, I would be forced to agree with the rabbis that prophecy ceased by the time of Alexander the Great or
with the Christians, that it ceased after Jesus (or was renewed with the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost?) or
with the Muslims that it ceased with Mohammed. Well, who knows whos right. Lets just conclude that Trey Parker
and Matt Stone are not prophets, but that there social role functions in a similar way.
9 Despite what many like to contend, this is not classical prophecys abrogation of the sacrificial system. Rather,
classical prophets emphasized that there was no point in offering sacrifices to God if you were not also a good
person because that was simply disrespectful and pointless. That does not mean that you shouldnt sacrifice and just
be moral. It means you should do both.

classical prophets often spoke about the past, using it to warn the people of their own imminent
future,10 or spoke of the future, whether a destructive or redemptive one, they never really cared
about any time other than the present. Their messages of doom were meant to have a corrective
effect on the present population; such outrageously frightening words were intended to cause the
people to see the errors of their ways, change, and lead better lives. Although many believe that
the prophets messages extend to their own times and have resounding relevance throughout the
ages,11 prophecy was nonetheless a message delivered to and intended for the people of that
prophets day. South Park is no different.
South Park began in 1997, and is scheduled to run through the beginning of 2009. That is
twelve years and twelve seasons. The messages of South Park are meant for those living between
1997 and 2009: the episodes pertain to specific issues of that period. Just like the prophets
problems, those addressed in South Park undeniably permeate many times and places; they are
issues of morality, the establishment, relationships between man and man, etc. In that way, both
the classical prophets and South Park have messages deemed relevant to more than just their
own day. This does not change the fact, though, that each is delivered in its own time with the
contemporary population as its intended audience. That said, we are the ones that South Park
hopes to reform. Prophets and South Park creators alike do not want their messages to be
relevant for a future audience because if they are, it means they failed to reform the people of
their own time in any permanent fashion.
Just like the prophets, South Park speaks about being a good, moral person, about
treating others with respect, and about bettering ourselves in order to create a better future. Just
10 Like
11 And

for instance, speaking of the destruction of the Northern Kingdom of Israel by the Assyrians in 722 BCE.
Im not denying that they might.

like the prophets, South Park constantly speaks out against the corrupt and incompetent
government, the moronic elite (celebrities) with their sense of entitlement and misguided notions
that they should lead the foolish rabble, and the false prophets: those who claim to know the
unwavering truth with the conviction that everyone should follow them and their ways or else
perish (religious and political figures, environmentalists, etc.). The prophets castigated the same
people in their own day in an attempt to bring a valuable message of change and improvement to
the people, and in our time, South Park does the same. Moreover, it is the flexibility and
extremity provided by its genre that allows the show to do this so skillfully.
The prophets did not sit calmly, saying that they disapproved of the peoples actions and
recommending that they change their ways.12 Mild critiques and polite suggestions do not get
peoples attention. Classical prophets knew this as well as Trey Parker and Matt Stone (the
creators of South Park). You grab people by being obstreperous, exaggerating and shocking
them. Thus, the prophets preached mercilessly of Gods wrath and fury, his past actions like the
intentional destruction of the Northern Kingdom as a warning to Judah, and a future filled with
mayhem, havoc, and chaos: that is, the destruction of Judah, Jerusalem and the Temple. They
told detailed stories, describing the wretchedness of the people. They told of a horrible fate
should reform not come, and they railed about an impending doom: the encroaching armies of
the great empires of the east like the Assyrians and the Babylonians. Their stories were loud,
hyperbolic and terrifying.
By using animation, South Park is able to have the most outrageous events imaginable
occur to its characters in an attempt to convey its particular message to those already grappling to

12 Unless

you count Jesus maybe, but thats a whole different story in a whole different time.

understand the world around them. Animation means that God can speak in South Park, that
supernatural events do not need justification, and that nearly anything goes. With real people,
viewers tend to question the occurrence of impossible events, but in a cartoon, we all know that
its not real anyway. While the prophets may not have wanted similar conclusions drawn about
their work and statements (that they are making stuff up, to be blunt), they nonetheless stretched
their imaginative faculties (a quality some considered essential to becoming a prophet) in order
to convey the proper message to the people of ancient Israel. Thus, as far as goals and
methodology are concerned, the prophets and South Park share many noteworthy similarities.
South Parks success as an animated satire follows in the footsteps of The Simpsons. The
Simpsons was one of the first cartoons not intended for children and not aired on Saturday
morning. Rather, it was a groundbreaking show about an animated American family from
Anywhere, USA that is, Springfield, a town that exists in every single state aired during
primetime on Fox, an upstart network with little to lose by taking chances.13 As animation, crazy
things could happen to the Simpson family. They could travel all over the world, have three-eyed
fish because of the local nuclear power plant, have characters fall down mountainsides without
permanent damage, bring in the occasional alien for Halloween episode specials, and so much
more than what was limited to real life families like those on Full House14 and Married with
Children. The Simpsons broke with convention and opened up a different world. Like many
family comedies with real people, though, the shows target audience was not children. The

13 On the evolution of cartoons as a television genre and the 1990s emergence of cartoons not targeted at children,
see Jason Mittell, Genre and Television: From Cop Shows to Cartoons in American Culture (New York: Routledge,
2004), 56-93, but specifically 81.
14 The creators of South Park hate full house, considering its stupidity harmful to peoples mental health. Trey
Parker, interview with Jeff Otto, http://movies.ign.com/articles/612/612094p3.html.

Simpsons was a sophisticated satire with savvy cultural references and serious situations.15
Younger children would never have understood the crude humor and adult situations, puns and
cultural commentary. There was even the occasional curse word.
The Simpsons was still bound by the family-structured show, with issues tending to focus
more on interfamily problems such as love, communication and the family dynamic. The
particular composition of the family (nuclear, gay parents, divorced with uncles hanging around,
multiple children, etc.) allows other issues to become relevant in shows like this: school,
maturing, dating and relationships, and more. Family shows are usually driven by the antics of
the father (Fred Flinstone, Homer Simpson, Peter Griffin and Al Bundy), and the other characters
often have generic roles: the mother holds the family together, one child is the smart one, the
other the rebellious one, a family pet adds to the mix and maybe there is an important neighbor
(the Darcys, the Flanders, Barney Rubble). The Simpsons had all this and even more because it
was animated. That meant the shows writers could invoke crazy scenarios (without risking life,
limb or property), and after 18 years on the air none of the has aged. This animated show for
adults opened that genre and made way for shows such as South Park.
Unlike The Simpsons, South Park is not a show centered around a family. It is about four
eight year old boys, which offers an entirely different dynamic. The idea is that these boys are
constantly confronted with complicated situations that should actually be handled by adults.
However, all of the adults in their town parents, educators and law enforcement are total
buffoons, and so ingrained are they in their current habits and beliefs and so susceptible are they
to the nonsense around them that it is the children who must constantly save the day. Because

15 Serious in that they reflected adult scenarios like the decision to have more children, money problems, drinking
and sex. I dont mean serious as in taking these issues too seriously.

10

they are children the boys are naturally inquisitive, questioning everything and demanding to
know more than the robotic garbage adults spew at them. They dont know many definitions and
words (circumcision, clitoris, etc.) and must ask around to find out. This allows them to learn and
critically judge everything that confronts them, whether whacky religious beliefs, government
lies or celebrity nonsense. So, the show is different because it is about children and not adults or
a family. Aside from access to unreal situations, why animate children rather than film live ones,
though?
The issues under investigation in South Park are for an adult audience that thinks
constructively. Real children could not talk about these issues, and that is why South Park tells
the story of four animated children, written and voiced by the adults who created them. In this
way, the children can say anything they like about adult experiences. They can curse, vomit,
crap, fart, die, kill, or do anything else because they are animated. Moreover, when situations
must become out of control like flying into space, getting abducted by aliens, using Moses and
Jesus, Mohammed and Buddha as characters, and much more in order to make a point with
dripping satire, animation is not inhibiting in the least.
Other animated shows also came in the wake of The Simpsons, but they functioned
similarly to that show and have not matched the communicative nature of South Park. For
instance, Family Guy and King of the Hill are also successful, animated shows about a nuclear
family (and are also both on Fox). While Family Guy is infinitely more crude and silly than King
of the Hill, with far more outrageous plots and scenarios, both shows are bound by their family
structure and can only show us characters behaving in a particular way that is, telling stories
about them leaving the decision up to us about what should and should not be emulated. Even

11

Futurama (by the creator of The Simpsons) functions similarly. While like Family Guy and King
of the Hill in that it is not necessarily meant to teach us lessons about life but more to entertain
and let us watch what happens to its particular cast of characters (not a family but a group of
friends who have an intergalactic delivery service), all three shows are nonetheless filled with
cultural references and do contain occasional messages about good and bad behavior. Again,
though, these must be teased out by watching the show. South Park acts differently.
Its main characters are entirely aware of their position in the show. They know that they
will be confronted with ridiculous situations, that no one else will be able to solve them, and that
they will have to figure out what to do and provide summary lessons at the end. Each episode
concludes with one of the boys stating, You know, Ive learned something today, followed by
his new understanding. In recognition of this pattern, in a fifth season episode, the little Jewish
boy says, All my life I was raised to believe in Jehovah, to believe that we should all behave a
certain way and good things will come to us. I made mistakes, but every week I try to better
myself. Im always saying, You know, I learned something today.16 Most of the time these
concluding messages are telling extremists to calm down, asking people to let everyone lead
their own lives as they see fit, and demanding that the world play nice and that people be good
and moral whatever that means. The shows self-awareness of its constant preaching and status
as an adult cartoon is best demonstrated by a two part episode in the tenth season entitled,
Cartoon Wars. Ostensibly, these episodes of South Park are about Family Guy.
In this saga, there is a national concern that a Family Guy episode featuring an image of
Mohammed should not be broadcast. Fortunately, according to this episode of South Park, Fox

16 South

Park, Episode 506, Cartmanland.

12

Network censors the image of Mohammed an image that is not tied to the plot, nor relevant to
anything, nor offensive to Islam or the prophet himself. Indeed, Family Guy is known to be an
incredibly random show, packed with obscure cultural references, and replete with jokes that
have nothing to do with the immediate situation. An adult in South Park explains to the boys that
this censorship is part of a necessary sensitivity to Muslims and in response to the Danish
cartoons that featured Mohammed and offended Muslims around the world. Thus, the Family
Guy cartoon had to be censored. We learn, however, that this episode of Family Guy is a twoparter (just like this episode of South Park, interestingly enough), and that Mohammeds image
will be shown again uncensored! in the second episode. In response, Muslim leader, alJawari, threatens America with retaliation, claiming that Family Guy isnt even that well written
of a show because all of the jokes are so entirely nonsequitor.
Talking to his friends just after the first episode, Cartman claims that showing an image
of Mohammed is offensive and insensitive to the Muslim religion. Kyle challenges his sincerity,
asserting that Cartman does not care at all about offending others religions (Cartman constantly
mocks Kyle for being Jewish), and Cartman retorts that Family Guy is a cartoon while he is just
a little boy. Cartman then argues that it is simply not worth airing the show if it could result in
terrorist attacks. Cartman vows to go to Foxs studios and fight for this episode to be removed.
Although initially skeptical of Cartmans intentions, Kyle eventually believes that his motives
are honest, and agrees to help him have the episode pulled. However, on their journey to Fox
Network, Kyle discovers that Cartman actually hates Family Guy and is trying to have the entire
show taken down by beginning with the removal of one episode; he believes that if one subject

13

becomes taboo then any other can be considered taboo as well. Such is the belief of South Parks
creators: everything must be up for discussion or we make it okay for nothing to be.
Cartmans hatred of Family Guy stems from having his own humor compared to the
humor of Family Guy. Cartman insists that he makes situational jokes entirely relevant to plot
and character development not random digressions designed to elicit a laugh (he sounds like he
is speaking on behalf of South Park). Kyle tries to stop Cartman, believing that censorship is
wrong and that people must stand up for free speech and not succumb to terrorist threats.
Cartman manages to thwart Kyles attempts and persist alone with his mission, leaving Kyle
bleeding and injured on the side of the highway.
Arriving at Foxs studios, Cartman learns that another little boy also wishes to have
Family Guy removed. This boy is a crude representation of Bart Simpson. The creators of South
Park, then, believe that The Simpsons another adult cartoon whose jokes are based on plot
development and relevant character interactions would also be bothered by Family Guy.
Cartman asks Bart to let him handle the situation with the Fox producers. Bart explains that he is
a pretty bad kid and should be able to take care of the problem. In response, Cartman asks Bart
what the worst thing he ever did was, and Bart responds that he cut the head off of a statue (this
is from a real Simpsons episode). Cartman tells the story of Scott Tenerman, an older boy that
once picked on him. Cartman had his parents murdered, ground them up into chili and fed them
to Scott while his favorite band, Radiohead, watched and laughed at him for being a giant
crybaby (this was also a real episode of South Park in which Radiohead actually starred). Bart
agrees that Cartman is much more extreme and lets him handle the producers. Extrapolation
yields South Parks comparison of itself to The Simpsons at large: the former is simply more

14

extreme. In fact, this is a common complaint among those attracted to the genre: they simply
cannot enjoy The Simpsons anymore because it is too tame compared to South Park and the way
that show dares to make its points. If you can believe it, the multiple layers of meaning persist.
As the first episode ends, the following questions are asked as a trailer for the next
episode:
Will the cartoon be allowed to appear uncensored?
Will Family Guy be destroyed?
Will television executives fight for free speech?
Or will Comedy Central puss out?
Tune in to see part two of Family Guy next week on South Park!17
This summarizes only a fraction of the issues being dealt with in this episode: censorship, free
speech, whether Comedy Central will air the image of Mohammed (not Fox since this is not
really about them) and the silly notion of one cartoons next episode being aired on the other.
Neglected here are other notions covered in this episode, including terrorism, religious respect,
and tolerance.
Returning to our story, Kyle eventually arrives at Fox Studios, having been given a ride
by a nice man, who explains that he likes Family Guy, including its random jokes, because At
least it doesnt get all preachy and up its own ass with messages. This is South Parks way of
digging at itself. This episode is drowning in serious, preachy messages (like so many others),
and South Park recognizes that some people like disconnected jokes irrelevant to the plot and
may get annoyed by South Parks unwavering insistence upon delivering philosophical, moral
and socially constructive messages in every episode. Despite some peoples problem with Family

17 South

Park, Episode 1003, Cartoon Wars, Part I.

15

Guy humor (Cartman and Bart Simpson as synecdoches of their respective shows, for instance),
South Park realizes that it too is disliked for its particular style.
As Kyle tries to get to the Fox President to convince him to air Family Guy, Cartman
learns the dark secret about the Family Guy writing staff and why they are so insistent that the
image of Mohammed be aired. As it turns out (brace yourself), the Family Guy writers are
actually manatees who pick thought-balls out of their giant tank, each with a different word
written on it: verbs, nouns and pop culture references. When enough balls are picked, other
writers sling the words together in whatever fashion they can in order to create a random joke.
These are manatee-jokes. This, South Park believes, is how a show like Family Guy gets its
pointless and entirely un-germane humor.18 Cartman learns that if the image of Mohammed is
censored, the manatees will stop working something Fox does not want as Family Guy is their
most popular show.19 The manatees firmly believe that either everything is okay to write about or
that nothing is an attitude South Parks own writers highly respect. Manatees are the animal
kingdoms most ethical writers, we learn. Thus, censoring one Family Guy episode really will
result in the destruction of the whole show.
As this takes place at Foxs studios, all of America has literally started burying their
heads in sand, fearing the Muslim response to a cartoon that features Mohammed. They believe
that if their heads are in the sand they can disavow all knowledge of Family Guys insensitivity
and distance themselves from all responsibility. South Park repeatedly emphasizes that people
will believe in free speech but that they will not fight for it. It is easy to believe in something

18

It is noteworthy that Family Guy writers found this very funny and an accurate reflection of their writing and
now call all random jokes manatee jokes.
19 Just like South Park is Comedy Centrals most popular show and the one that allowed the network to see its first
year with prophets.

16

when no one challenges it, but when it comes time to defend whats right, America is backing
down.
The episode climaxes after Kyle and Cartman fight and wrestle their way into the office
of the Fox president. During this brawl they journey through Fox studios, past the writing staff of
King of the Hill, another of the animated adult Fox television shows mentioned above. The two
eventually find themselves standing before the president, trying to convince him that he should
either cancel the show (Cartman) or air it uncensored (Kyle). Cartman threatens him with
violence terrorism, Kyle asserts and Kyle explains that to do what is right, the president must
resist threats and stand up for free speech, ultimately airing the image of Mohammed. Either
everything is okay to write about, Kyle explains, or nothing is. This is, in fact, the hard line of
South Park creators and writers, Matt Stone and Trey Parker. Numerous times during
controversies of censorship, they contend that this is their firm belief. Indeed, when Kyle
addresses the Fox president he calls him Doug, the actual name of the Comedy Central
president, because South Park is trying to tell one of the men instrumental in getting their show
on the air back in 1997 that he cannot cave into political pressures and censor their show. He
must defend the first amendment and not puss out. Talk about getting preachy and up your own
ass with messages.
In the name of what is right, the Fox President agrees to show the episode of Family Guy
uncensored. When this fake episode actually airs on South Park the picture of Mohammed
(handing a salmon-helmet to Peter Griffin) is censored by South Parks own network, Comedy
Central! Where Mohammed is supposed to be are the words, Comedy Central has refused to
broadcast an image of Mohammed on their network. Comedy Central has officially pussed out.

17

Interestingly, in the fifth season of South Park, Mohammed was an important character in
an episode called Super Best Friends in which he shot fire from his hands and teamed up with
Jesus, Lao Tzu, Buddha, Joseph Smith and Moses to defeat evil cult leaders with dishonest
intentions. This episode was never censored. Moreover, the opening of South Park always
pictures every character that has ever appeared on the show and therefore, from the fifth season
on, a tiny image of Mohammed buried amidst hundreds of other characters has appeared at the
start of every South Park episode. Those images were not censored before and have not been
censored since. Comedy Central was simply scared to show an image of Mohammed in fear of
potential backlash. Because within the context of that episode of South Park Family Guy did
indeed air the image of Mohammed, we still get to see the response of an angry Muslim leader.
In retaliation the Muslims broadcast a cartoon of Americans, including President George W.
Bush and Jesus, shitting all over each other and on the American flag. This was not censored. AlJawari insists that his cartoon is funny, unlike Family Guy, because it is in context.
The layers of meaning in this episode go beyond what has been recapped here. What we
see, however, is more than enough to get a sense of South Parks self awareness. They satirize
three other animated adult shows The Simpsons, Family Guy, and King of the Hill. This
episode even mocks a show that appears within South Park, Terrance and Phillip; an episode of
this fake show has an image of Mohammed censored as well! It is clear that South Park is
picking on the big players in their genre. They differentiate themselves from Family Guy by
emphasizing the style of humor and the fact that South Park has clear messages for every
episode. Other than noting that South Park is a lot more extreme in the way it makes its point,
South Park distances itself from other shows like The Simpsons and King of the Hill in a more

18

subtle way. As Aaron Fortune says, South Park, rather than simply being a social commentary, is
a show filled with social and moral messages. In other shows, we watch stories unfold about
characters the trials and tribulation of Homer Simpson and his crazy family, for example and
we learn by their actions and behaviors that this is a messed up family and that we do not want to
be like them. If this is the all-American family, we are to think, we should strive to do better.
Indeed, The Simpsons is a satire of the American family, emphasizing Americans lesser qualities
and mocking them thoroughly. Thus, it is a social commentary.
On the contrary, South Park is not presented in this fashion. It is true that we are taught
not to emulate certain people. For instance, the moronic adults in the town who do not think or
reason properly are portrayed as foolish and silly. Moreover, Cartman, the most evil of the boys,
is clearly not a character to imitate.20 While this is one element of the shows lessons, this is not
the way it differentiates itself from other programs in this genre. The boys are constantly
confronted with dilemmas and complicated adult situations: is stem cell research okay, should
smoking be banned in all public places, must we vote in all elections, etc. In a Socratic fashion,
the boys find themselves confronted with both extremes of any issue. They question back and
forth between the poles, drawing out the fallacies of either side, often arriving at a moderate and
centrist position not one that equivocates, but one that shuns extremism and a claim on truth.21
Again, it is not the actual ideas that are eschewed but the extremists who propound them and
who try to force others to live and believe as they do. Thus, the characters in the show are aware
of the point of the show itself. They want us to get the point, and if we have missed anything,
20 In fact, Matt and Trey recall a letter they received from a young boy acting in a school play about Rosa Parks
being forced to change her seat on the bus. The boy was the bus driver and said that he played the character like
Cartman, indicating his awareness that Cartman is not a good person.
21 Richard Hanley, South Park and Philosophy: Bigger, Longer, and More Penetrating (Chicago: Open Court,
2007), ix.

19

one of the boys will look straight into the camera at the end of the show and utter the ever
familiar line, You know, Ive learned something today. While occasionally spoofing
themselves (like when the boys try desperately to derive a moral from a particularly confused
and unclear situation), these messages are often profound and insightful.
I believe that an animated television show is one of the only media in which one might
successfully do what South Park does: comment upon so many issues in such an outrageous
fashion while providing so many moral lessons about them. It is true that Trey Parker and Matt
Stone could have just written a philosophy book or a book that was, effectively, a social
commentary. They could have discussed all those issues they believed needed discussing, written
what they thought and published a book. But who would have bought it? And how would their
messages have come across? It is not necessarily that South Park has such a unique message. It
doesnt. Its that it has found a medium that allows it to express its message in such a way that
millions of people cannot help but pay attention. Television provides a potentially massive
audience numbers difficult for a book to reach (except for Harry Potter, apparently). Moreover,
in a book, these lessons would not be derived from situational conflict (most likely) but simply
written out as morals and thoughts. That is, philosophy, not satire. True, many people write satire
successfully, thereby commenting upon their societies and expressing their beliefs. Think of
Mark Twain, Jonathan Swift, and more recently, George Orwell. However, these books are like
The Simpsons more than South Park.
By reading stories about the characters we can understand what is wrong with society,
rather than working with characters that are aware of developments and seek for our sake to
become better and more moral individuals. To echo the sentiments of Aaron Fortune, these books

20

show us what should not be rather than what should. Moreover, such books are stuck in time.
Sure, like the classical prophets, they continue to have relevance in our own day who doesnt
still enjoy The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn? but they cannot be easily expanded when new
and exciting issues arise in society that pose difficult challenges. An author could write another
book, but not quickly and maybe not with the same characters (depending upon what happened
to them in the previous work). South Park allows us to learn week to week with the same
characters, further ingraining their patterns and habits so as to better teach us. South Park, as a
computer animated television show, can also be written, produced, and ready for broadcasting
within days. When Saddam Hussein was found in a rat hole, South Park aired an episode about
that four days after his capture. Books dont have this ability. Matt Stone has noted, though, that
as far as satirizing specific events, timeliness is not South Parks largest concern. He leaves that
to another genre of television: late night talk shows. The real timely stuff, he says, is more the
Letterman/Leno, that's more their territory. We try to just take something that's going on and
make this whole thing. I think that's kind of what makes those things impressive is like, 'Wow,
that looks like something that could come out anytime and it just happens to do with [the news]
this week.' It's not just like Terry Schiavo jokes, like Late Night in an animated form.22
In the world of print, certainly newspapers have a faster turnout, often publishing daily,
but newspapers are not filled with moral lessons, and even when they are such lessons are not
found in elaborate and satirical stories. Newspapers cover the news in a different way than South
Park; newspapers are more concerned with the volume of news delivered than emphasizing one

22 Matt

Stone, interview with Jeff Otto, http://movies.ign.com/articles/612/612094p3.html.

21

issue to make a greater point. The closest section to moralizing in a newspaper might be the
editorial section.
Magazines are the only print media I can imagine that might be able to do something
comparable to what South Park does. They can be published weekly, bi-weekly or monthly,
which allows them to keep up with current issues. Moreover, they have the variety and depth to
cover enough different topics. They still, however, generally lack interesting and engaging fiction
stories with consistent moral lessons (except for perhaps Highlights, the greatest non-parental
guidance a child can have). Magazines such as Mad Magazine or Crack, which constantly spoof
celebrities, Hollywood and other segments of American society are the closest magazines to a
social commentary, but even they do not use the same characters issue to issue nor do they
moralize. The issue of readership like with a philosophy book also arises with magazines.
Television reaches millions instantly. Magazines simply do not.
A final medium worth mentioning is the internet. Blogs are an exciting new forum that
millions of people can access at once (although they rarely do, if ever), and they can be filled
with whatever content the writer wishes. If she wants to tell stories and moralize, she can do so.
However, this is probably not done visually (like in the form of an animated cartoon) and is
again something that must be read. Fortunately, blogs at least overcome the issue of timing; since
they can be updated any second, all issues can be covered.23
In the end, though, South Park, as an animated television show aimed at adults, is able to
outshine each of these other media. South Park is aired multiple times a day to audiences of
millions of viewers. It is available on DVD and any episode can be found on the internet. Indeed,
23 I recognize that there are numerous other media to explore and compare to what South Park does and even many
other elements to discuss within the suggested media. However, given the constraints of this paper, what has been
provided seems sufficient enough to emphasize the uniqueness of South Park.

22

the creators encourage downloading their episodes off the internet, preferring that people see
them that way rather than not at all. But a large audience and properly chosen platform are still
not enough for success. It is the idea and approach behind South Park that make it so different.
Using four boys instead of a family and animating them rather than filming real people is a
winning combination, especially when those inquisitive children know that it is up to them to
solve their problems and that they must learn valuable lessons in the process. Rather than being
straightforward and realistic, the animated nature of the show allows outrageous things to happen
so that we can laugh and have no doubts about the flaws in the arguments that are being
presented to us. The boys awareness of their situation allows us to learn along with them and to
investigate the problems of our society and how we might go about changing them. In the end,
we must learn that extremism is often the wrong path, that we should never push our views on
others, and that a little tolerance could go a long way. Sure, it may be a simple and trite message,
but nobody conveys it like South Park.

23

Work Cited
Donnelly, Kevin, Adult Animation (The Simpsons/South Park). In The Television Genre Book,
edited by Glen Creeber, 73-75. London: British Film Institute, 2001.
Fortune, Aaron. I Learned Something Today: South Park and the State of the Golden Mean in
the Twenty-First Century. In South Park and Philosophy: Bigger, Longer, and More
Penetrating, by Richard Hanley, 259-269. Chicago: Open Court, 2007.
Hanley, Richard. South Park and Philosophy: Bigger, Longer, and More Penetrating. Chicago:
Open Court, 2007.
Hirsch, Paul M. and Newcomb, Horace M. Television as a Cultural Forum: Implications for
Research. In Interpreting Television: Current Research Perspectives, ed. by Willard
D. Rowland, Jr. and Bruce Warkins, 58-73. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1984.
Johnson-Woods, Toni. Blame Canada! South Park and Contemporary Culture. New York:
Continuum International Publishing Group, 2007.
Mittell, Jason. Genre and Television: From Cop Shows to Cartoons in American Culture New
York: Routledge, 2004.
Neale, Steve and Turner, Graeme. Introduction: What is Genre? In The Television Genre Book,
edited by Glen Creeber, 1-7. London: British Film Institute, 2001.

24