The South Park debate: should "adult" cartoons be banned?

When you see a line of coloured and underlined hypertext, this means that you can click on that text to go to another information page.

The South Park debate: should "adult" cartoons be banned?

Echo Issue Outline 1999 / 18: copyright © Echo Education Services
First published in The Echo news digest and newspaper sources index.

Issue outline by J M McInerney

What they said ...
`It makes me laugh'
Comment on South Park from a teenage girl interviewed for Radio national's Media Report

`It is sick. There is never a place for depicting these sorts of subjects on television'
Dr Janet Hall, psychologist and motivational speaker

In September, 1998, an Australian family support group, Saltshakers, called for the adult cartoon South Park to be taken off television. In the United States, where the program is broadcast through cable television, at least one state does not accept the cable network handling the program. While at least one American school district has considered prohibiting T-shirts depicting characters and slogans from the show being worn by students. In England, at least one school has advised parents to refuse to allow their children to view the series.
The debate over the merits of the series and how its viewing audience can best be regulated has been alive since it was first broadcast in the United States in August, 1997.

Background
South Park was originally created by two young American film students, Matt Stone and Trey Parker. A copy of their animation found its way to Brian Graden, then an executive with the Fox Television Network. He commissioned Stone and Parker to produce a similar animation as a video Christmas card.
The animation was titled "The Spirit of Christmas" and introduced both South Park and the child characters who are now famous. Ultimately thousands of bootleg copies were in circulation, including on the Internet.
Parker and Stone were then approached to produce a South Park series for commercial release.
In The United States the series was first broadcast through Comedy Central, a cable network, toward the end of 1997. In Australia it is shown on SBS and in England it is shown on Channel 4.

There are now thousands of Internet sites dealing with the 'adult' cartoon, South Park. Many of these are fan sites, praising the show and sharing information about it. Some allow stills from the cartoon to be downloaded. There is also an official South Park home page. This is essentially a promotional site.

It is harder to find substantial discussion of the series and its possible effects on its audience.
The following Internet references will take you to sites where the cartoon is being considered more critically. Some of these sites are essentially positive about the series, others are not.
Some also consider the issue of censorship and whose responsibility it is to monitor children's television viewing.

A good place to start is with an article titled, South Park - morality, going, going, gone.
This was published in 1998 and is on the website of the Center for Parent-Youth Understanding. This is a United States' Christian family support organisation which brings out a regular publication that can be read on the Internet.
The article starts with a fairly neutral description of the principal characters in South Park and a summary of the first six episodes.
It ends with a series of objections to the cartoon and advice to parents as to how they might counter its possible ill effects.
The article can be found at http://www.cpyu.org/news/98fallh.html

Another discussion of South Park from a similar perspective can be found on the site of Shoot the Messenger. The article is titled Oh My God, They've killed South Park.
Shoot the Messenger is an on-line Australian magazine which discusses popular culture from a Christian stand point.
This article is less negative about the series. It also supplies some interesting information about the evolution of `adult' cartoons.
The article can be found at http://www.shootthemessenger.com.au/u_nov_98/tele/sthprk.htm

The December 1998 edition of Green Left Weekly, also includes a discussion of South Park.
The article is titled Who wants to live in South Park? and is written by Alison Dellit.
It is essentially positive about the cartoon and suggests that many of the supposedly anti-social attitudes present in the show are actually not supported by it.
The article can be found at http://www3.silas.unsw.edu.au/~greenlft/1998/344/344p16b.htm
Green Left Weekly is an Australian based `alternative newspaper' which aims to supply a different or radical perspective on current news and on social and cultural issues.

The opinion page of The Online Daily Evergreen published an interesting comment on calls to censor South Park on December 14, 1998. The comment is titled Censorship isn't as necessary as some think and was written by Erin Wheatley.
The piece argues that parents are responsible for monitoring what their children watch and that adults should not be prevented from viewing their preferred programs because children might also watch them.
It can be found at http://www.wsu.edu/~seftekha/dailyevergreen/opinions/week17/12_14_98.htm
The Online Daily Evergreen is the student newspaper of Washington State University

An interesting discussion of South Park occurred on Radio National's The Media Report on July 23, 1998.
A transcript of the discussion can be found at http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/mediarpt/mstories/mr980723.htm
This is a lengthy transcript, running for thirteen pages. Only the first ten deal with South Park. Despite its length it is worth reading.
It includes four excerpts from South Park which are then discussed.
The Media Report's moderator and interviewer, Robert Bolton, talks with Robert Allen, Professor of Communications, University of North Carolina. He also talks with Sharon Levy, a representative of Comedy Central, the cable company that broadcasts South Park in the United States and to Doug Stewart, SBS Classification Manager. SBS shows South Park in Australia.
Doug Stewart explains why SBS gave the first series of South Park a PG classification.

On January 30, 1998, The Hartford Courant ran a news item titled, TV Show Called "Appalling". The article was written by Stacy Wong. It indicates that the Connecticut school district of Cromwell considered banning the wearing of South Park T-shirts in all schools under its control.
The article can be found at http://www.oz.net./~torgy/southpark/reviews/cnews.html

In September, 1998, The Sydney Morning Herald published a report indicating that a national Australian conference on babies' and children's health had condemned the ABC for selling South Park T-shirts with the logo `Kick the Baby'. The article titled, ABC T-shirt sparks protest was written by Sally Loane and Jackie Dent and can be read at http://www.smh.com.au/news/9809/05/text/national6.html

Other sites indicate that there are at least some states in the United States where it is not possible to view South Park. On March 24, 1998, The Salt Lake Tribune carried a comment by its television critic, John Youngren, regretting that he was unable to see South Park. The piece is titled, Tuned Out in Utah: I Wish I Could Watch South Park
The article indicates that TCI Cablevision in Utah does not carry Comedy Central, the cable network that broadcasts South Park.
The article can be found at http://www.sltrib.com/1998/mar/03241998/recreati/29242.htm

On August 12, 1998, the Salt Lake Tribune carried another report titled KSL Refuses 'Stressed Eric' for `Crude, Vulgar, Stupid' Content. The article is written by Michael Hill and was originally published in The Washington Post.
'Stressed Eric' is an English cartoon that has been compared to South Park. KSL is the Utah affiliate of NBC which syndicates 'Stressed Eric' in the United States. KSL has judged that the cartoon's content is unsuitable for broadcast television.
The article details other censoring decisions taken by KSL.
It can be found at http://www.sltrib.com/1998/aug/08121998/food_and/47351.htm

There have apparently also been some school-based complaints in England.
The BBC reported on January 6, 1999, that a Cambridgeshire school had advised parents that they should prevent their children watching South Park. The school judged the cartoon `not appropriate' for its pupils.
The report titled School labels South Park 'filth' can be found at http://news2.thdo.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/education/newsid%5F249000/249940.stm

Arguments in favour of adult cartoons such as South Park
Those who favour South Park tend to do so from two slightly different perspectives.
Firstly there are those who stress the positive values of the show.
Supporters of the program claim that its irreverence is refreshing. They maintain that it is an antidote for the previous trend toward political correctness. (Political correctness refers to a trend towards avoiding racism, sexism and other prejudiced positions.)
Those who are critical of political correctness tend to be so either because they believe it has gone too far and has become an unreasonable limitation on freedom of speech or because they believe that it is hypocritical.
Those who consider political correctness hypocritical argue that many individuals and institutions only pay lip service to tolerance and fair play and use politically correct terminology to disguise the basic unfairness of their behaviours or operations.
This point has been made by Andrew Masterson in an article published in The Age in September, 1998. Mr Masterson claimed, `South Park is a necessary corrective to the constant promotion of nebulous standards like "family values" and "decency" in a world where such ideas are increasingly promoted to mask their ... absence.'
A similar point has been made by John Ryan, entertainment commentator for The Big Issue. John Ryan suggested, `There is no denying that the show is often in poor taste, but it uses this strategy deliberately to raise issues of community standards or, more precisely, double standards ...'
Supporters of the program also suggest that it actually endorses many of the socially desirably values apparently abused by its characters. It is also claimed that despite the vulgarity of its dialogue, South Park addresses many important social issues such as racism, homophobia and sexism.
This point has been made by SBS publicist, Chris McDonnell, who has claimed that every episode has an underlying moral theme and that the series is not negative.
A similar point has been made by SBS classification manager, Doug Stewart. Mr Stewart has argued, `Out of a lot of anti-social behaviour ... with a certain amount of swearing ... and ... irreverence ... there is actually a moral in many cases.' Mr Stewart has further claimed that South Park satirises many prejudiced attitudes.
It has also been claimed that reactions to the coarse language used in the series and to its supposed violence have been exaggerated.
This point has also been made by Mr Stewart in defending SBS decision to classify the first series of South park PG. Mr Stewart claims, for example, that the vulgar word most commonly used in the first series is the relatively inoffensive 'arse'.
Mr Stewart also claims that the series' supposed violence, particular the regular killing of the Kenny character, is `stylised and mild in impact'. According to Mr Stewart this places the series within the PG classification as used in Australia.
Part of the implication in Mr Stewart's comments appears to be that violence in cartoons, because more obviously unreal, it less disturbing to its audience than violence in more naturalistic forms.
The suggestion that a cartoon has a more benign impact than, for example, a film, has been made by a number of commentators.
There are others who argue that negative reactions to it are extreme, even if the series is not credited with making social criticisms or having a responsible community message.
These defenders of the series argue that it is primarily funny; that it is intended as a piece of entertainment, and that much of its crudity and coarse language is used for shock value to make its audience laugh.
This point also has been made by John Ryan, who has claimed, `... getting theoretical about South Park ... is really not what the program is all about. South Park, above all else, is funny.'
Those who hold this view tend to argue that even children are unlikely to be concerned by any vulgarities in the program and that those young people who watch it do so because they find it amusing.
Robert Bolton, in an interview broadcast on Radio National's Media Report, asked a teenage girl, `When you watch [South Park] do you think it's giving you a message ...?"
The girl replied, `Not really, it's making me laugh.'
Secondly there are those who oppose calls to ban it from a civil liberties position.
According to this point of view responsible adults should be able to choose what they wish to view.
Against the accusation that South Park attracts a young, not an adult, audience, the show's defenders argue that this is for parents to decide, not the censor.
From this point of view it is the responsibility of parents to ensure that children do not watch unsuitable programs. It is not appropriate for television networks to alter their programming so that only shows suitable for children are broadcast.
This point has been made by Erin Wheatley in the Online Daily Evergreen. Erin Wheatley argues, `Parents should be the ones deciding what they do and don't want their kids to watch on television. It's not up to the networks to parent the youth of America ... Just because a few parents don't want to take responsibility for their children doesn't mean television shows for mature adults should be taken off the air.'
Defenders of the program also note that it is shown in an adult time slot in all countries where it is broadcast. In England it is shown at 11.00pm. In Australia the second series was moved from an 8.00pm to a 9.30pm time slot.
It is also noted that the show receives an adult classification.
In the United States it has an MA (Mature Audience) classification. In Australia the second series received an M classification, also indicating that it was suitable for a mature audience. (Interestingly SBS rated the first series at PG - parental guidance recommended.)
This point has been made by John Ryan, `... there is a clear warning from SBS preceding the show. It is rated M. If children have access to it, it is a parenting issue, not a programming one.'

Arguments against adult cartoons such as South Park
Arguments against South Park and encouraging its removal from television free-to-air or cable networks also tend to be of two kinds.
Firstly there are those who are unimpressed by the nature of the series and who see it as having few, if any, valuable features.
While not promoting its banning, social and media commentator, Helen Razer, has disputed the claims of South Park's supporters that the program has any significant underlying message to impart.
Ms Razer claims, `South Park resides in a moral vacuum ... The drawings are crude and the humour is cruder still.'
One of the strongest criticisms of South Park's content has come from a Cambridgeshire school in England which judged, `[South Park] contains obscenities, swearing, and lavatorial actions and filth of a most unsavoury nature.'
Secondly, the other, and possibly the principal concern among South Park's critics appears to be that the series is attracting an audience among young people.
SBS has acknowledged that 26 per cent of the 1.3 million viewers who tuned in for a repeat of the first episode of the old series were aged between 13 and 17.
SBS Classification Manager, Doug Stewart concluded, `... there's a preponderance of young viewers.'
Those who are concerned at this argue that the series content is unsuitable for young viewers.
This view has been put by a Cambridgeshire school which argued that the show is `rude the whole way through' and that its `toilet humour' was being imitated by students.
Of particular concern to the school was the fact that children of 11 and 12 appeared to have been viewing the series and to have been influenced in this way.
Mr Peter Stokes, a spokesperson for an Australian branch of Saltshakers, a family values support group, has claimed, `The language, how these children are depicted in their attitude to their parents, and the topics covered are sleazy and sick.'
Those with this view appear concerned that the young characters who feature in the series are modelling undesirable behaviours, as are all the adults they encounter.
This last point has been conceded by some of the show's supporters.
Entertainment writer for The Big Issue, John Ryan, has claimed, `These kids [the principal characters in South Park] live in the latchkey twilight world between school and dinner: there is nothing to do. So they wait. With ... [a] surrounding cast of inept teachers, corrupt politicians and stupid law enforcers ...'
Some of the show's critics are concerned that the world it depicts will encourage undesirable behaviour in young people.
They are also concerned that it will foster depression and a lack of faith in adult institutions.
Psychologist and motivational speaker, Dr Janet Hall has expressed concern about the topics the show treats and how it treats them.
'It is sick,' Dr Hall has claimed. 'There is never a place for depicting these sorts of subjects on television.'
Dr Hall's particular concern is that the program will promote depression in its adolescent audience.
Dr Hall has suggested, `What we are telling them [young people] is that this [the world depicted in South Park] is normal. But it's not normal and they can't deal with it. It's morbid and depressing.'
Dr Hall has gone on to warn, `It's our depressed teenagers who are suiciding. They are at risk.'
Critics of South Park also appear to believe that the fact that is a cartoon makes it particularly appealing to a young audience.
According to this point of view, cartoons have traditionally been children's entertainment and are seen as such by children.
Critics have suggested that this is likely to mean that children will be encouraged to watch South Park because it is an animation. In addition, the principal characters in the cartoon are all children and the animation itself has a child-like simplicity.
This general point has been made by Peter Stokes of Saltshakers.
Mr Stokes has claimed, `They [the series producers] are seducing children into watching this program ...'
It has also been suggested that the merchandising that has been generated by South Park extends its impact and makes it more difficult for parents to protect their children from it.
This point would appear to be being made by the School district in the United States which considered prohibiting students from wearing South Park T-shirts. (In the event the school district received legal advice that such a prohibition might be unconstitutional.)
With regard to parental responsibility, some critics of the show acknowledge that it is not being exercised in many households.
It is maintained that audience figures around the world indicate that a large proportion of the show's viewers are in their early teens.
Mr Peter Stokes has noted, `SBS say they have got around the problem by moving it [South Park] to a 9.30pm time slot but this has attracted more kids, while others are taping it on their VCRs or just staying up to watch it ...'
A similar point was made by an English school in Cambridgeshire, `Once word goes out that something is cool, children will want to watch it ...'
There are those who have argued that at the very least, if parents cannot prevent their children watching the series or being exposed to its influence, they need to discuss it with them so that they can put a countering view.
It is the apparent difficulty of either preventing young people watching programs such as South Park or limiting their influence that appears to have led some to call for their withdrawal.

Further implications
It seems unlikely that South Park will be banned in the United States, England or Australia.
Broadcasters seem to consider this too extreme an option and argue that other means are in place to restrict its audience.
In the United States it is shown on cable networks which apparently have more liberal selection criteria than general broadcasting stations.
Robert Allen, Professor of Communications, University of California, has explained of Comedy Central, the cable network that shows South Park, `it's definitely a minority viewing option for most American families ...'
Professor Allen went on to explain that he did not think a show such as South Park would be shown on broadcast television.
`Broadcast television is regulated in the United States in a very different way to cable television, and ... the audience that broadcast television is trying to go after is different from the audience [of] a cable service like Comedy Central'.
A similar claim could be made about the Australian channel that shows South Park. SBS has the smallest audience of any Australian television broadcaster and its charter indicates that it is to cater to minority preferences..
In England it is shown on the BBC's Channel 4, again a more select viewing option, and it is not shown until after 11pm.
This suggests that the viewing access South Park audiences receive limits exposure to the show. It appears networks have judged that South Park is unlikely to appeal to a general audience and so it has been offered at times and through networks that mean that its audience has to make a deliberate decision to view it.
Nowhere has South Park been treated as prime time fare.
(In both the United States and Australia viewing times were put back by an hour or more after complaints that the original viewing time was too early.)
However, South Park has clearly been seen as a challenge by various parent bodies and by some schools and attempts are being made by these groups to either prevent children viewing the program or to restrict their access to its merchandise.
It will be interesting to see whether parents and schools have the capacity to restrict the influence of the media.
The broader question remains as to whether South Park represents a shift in popular taste.
Though its audience appeal may be restricted to certain groups, including young people, it has been credited by some with treating issues usually avoided on television and with treating them in a broad and vulgar manner which also is unusual.
It creators have claimed that their intention was to `push the envelop', or expand the boundaries of popular taste, and most commentators appear to agree that they have done so.
It is not unlikely that later series of South Park or reruns of earlier series will find their way onto popular commercial television broadcasting channels.
The other question that remains is what follows South Park.
Will the next `gross cartoon' offend sufficiently to be banned or will South Park have altered tastes to an extent where something more extreme also becomes acceptable?

Sources
The Age
13/4/98 page 11 comment by Roger Franklin, `How low can TV go?'
20/9/98 page 21 comment by Andrew Masterson, `Oh my God! The bastards are out to kill Kenny ...'
24/9/98 page 17 comment by Richard Neville, `The death of childhood'
24/9/98 page 17 comment by John Ryan, `South Park: the 20-somethings' bible'
29/1/99 page 13 comment by Tom Kemp, `A father, his son, and a chef with balls'
7/2/99 page 8 comment by Roger Franklin, `Oh my God, they're alive in Colorado'
20/2/99 page 7 news item by David Reardon, `Crude cartoons a ratings winner'

The Australian
12/8/98 page 9 analysis by Deborah Hope, `Dead-time stories'
13/8/98 page 9 analysis by Amanda Meade & Jody Scott, `Where parents want the censor to bite: the evening news'
22/8/98 page 12 news item by Amanda Meade, `Rude 'toon given time'
11/9/98 page 15 comment by Helen razer, `profound? No, just par for the coarse'

The Herald Sun
8/8/98 page 15 analysis by Terry Brown, `Gross jokes start a cult'
13/9/98 page 6 news item by Mary Viscovich, `Parents lash "sick" cartoon'