What's Wrong with South Park?

Looking over my blog, I became concerned lest it degenerate into one of these apolitical, ha-ha, always merry pieces of fluff that one sees throughout the media. This is what's wrong with South Park: writers Trey Parker and Matt Stone have no ideals and no values. They just have a hankering for gay sex and drugs. Although I find some South Park episodes funny, most leave me feeling cold inside. I have watched their show for a long time and used to like it in the beginning, until I realized that the writers are evil. Evil is not funny.

South Park tackles only the stupidest, most meaningless hot button issues of the mass media, mainly celebrity gossip and the concerns of Hollywood. They shy away from anything with real meaning and importance in the world. I kept waiting in vain for South Park to do a show about the Iraq war, global warming, genocide, or the decline of U.S. manufacturing. I kept waiting for a show that demonstrated awareness about the lives of the middle-class and the poor around the world. On the few occasions when they did cover global warming, it was only to mock the scientists and celebrities concerned about it. Anyone who displays any concern with real issues, such as Al Gore and Sonny Bono, comes in for cruel mockery.

For a long time, I didn't understand why they raked Sonny Bono over the coals for caring about Africa, while giving George W. Bush a free ride for years. After watching a few seasons, I connected all the threads of their beliefs. Trey Parker and Matt Stone believe compassion is idiotic, and selfishness is the only ideal, an evil philosophy that can be traced to Ayn Rand. Their viewpoint is consistently upper class Republican, with two exceptions concerning gays and drugs. These two shrewdly selected political issues account for their popularity among journalists. Without gays and drugs, South Park would not have won an Emmy and promptly defecated upon it in the next episode. The only lesson they took from the 1960's has to do with what we insert into our own bodies. That's good, as far as it goes, but it doesn't go very far, does it?

I've read interviews with South Park creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker, and they claim that they don't feel prepared to express views on real issues, like the Iraq war, because they feel ignorant and uninformed. That's not much of an excuse, and I don't believe it anyway. They are wealthy and possess every opportunity to educate and inform themselves. At best, South Park provides an example of what a good comedy show could be--funny and irreverent with a creative technique. All that's needed is some soul.

The one comedy show that does have both soul and wit is The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. I find it very funny and can watch the show without guilt. The Daily Show makes a conscious effort to touch on the heavy issues of the day instead of tip-toeing through the tulips in order not to offend their corporate masters. South Park would be well-advised to do the same, but I don't see the show ever changing, now that they have hit upon a formula that gets them what they want--money, the only thing in the world they care about.

The pernicious influence of South Park permeates our culture now. Even gay conservative Andrew Sullivan appears to be a regular viewer, as revealed by his comment in the Atlantic Monthly, referring to Sean Penn's acceptance speech for the Academy Award for his performance in "Milk":

That acceptance speech was superb. I'm glad I caught it (even though I was in a restaurant at the time). But again: what courage does it require to stand up for gay rights on Hollywood night? And I'm sorry, but the script for "Milk" was mediocre at best. The cloud of smug that rose and hung in the air last night - reaching cyclone levels over the head of Sean Penn - was close-to-suffocating. (Penn is best buddies with rancid homophobes like the Castros). And then you notice the near-total absence of openly gay male actors in the movies and you realize what really motivates that industry: money and cant, packaged in smug.

Where do you think that Sullivan borrowed the imagery for a "cloud of smug that rose and hung in the air last night - reaching cyclone levels over the head of Sean Penn...?" Why, South Park, of course, season 10, episode 2, "Smug Alert," concerning the smugness of San Francisco for daring to care about air pollution. I'm a bit surprised that Sullivan didn't even give his heroes Matt Stone and Trey Parker credit for the phrase.

Why should Sullivan chastise Hollywood for caring? This is the sort of thing South Park does on a regular basis. If caring is wrong, what is right? As to whether the celebrities are smug or not, who cares? I'm not personally interested in what celebrities do, unless they are attempting to do some kind of good in the world, and if so, good! At least they are promoting gay rights instead of war as they have done so often the past. I also don't buy even for a second Andrew Sullivan's implication that Sean Penn is a homophobe. Sean Penn has been a pretty consistent political liberal as far back as I can remember. I can't even recall a movie Penn starred in (besides Milk), but I do recall his purchasing a full-page ad in the New York Times and several other major newspapers for a personal essay that he wrote in opposition to the Iraq war. He received much criticism at the time for doing so. I would be willing to wager that Sullivan disapproved of this as well, being a conservative in matters not related to sexuality.

Andrew Sullivan obviously gets plenty of his ideas from television shows, including South Park. That would explain why Sullivan is so concerned with Hollywood instead of Washington. Instead of holding Hollywood celebrities to such a high standard, how about holding conservative politicians, CEO's and rich owners like Rupert Murdoch to a high standard? They are the ones with real power. Yet you will never see a South Park episode make the slightest bit of fun about Rupert Murdoch. Why? Maybe you should ask Stone and Parker that question. Instead, it's U2's Sonny Bono and Al Gore, who have no power at all, that they choose to serve up for ridicule.