| The Washington Canard Where C-SPAN is the local TV news |
|
Thursday, April 13, 2006
NEXT WEEK'S TARGET: BILL DONOHUE? As Memeorandum indicates, by late afternoon the so-called South Park "Cartoon Wars" overtook Iran's nuclear ambitions and Scooter Libby's pre-trial motions in terms of blogospheric attention. I don't have much to add, except that after last week's nearly perfect part one, I thought the to be continued was itself a joke. I was wrong, and the first half of the episode didn't work for me. The presidential press conference didn't work for multiple reasons. Repeated too many jokes from last week. And South Park has already paid homage to The Simpsons, so I'm not sure what the Bart character was doing there (except perhaps to separate that show from Family Guy, a show I never liked when it was first on, kinda grew to appreciate during its post-cancellation DVD golden age, but soon grew tired of when it returned). That said, the second half — the imagined retaliatory al Qaeda cartoon making fun of the U.S. and Trey Parker and Matt Stone's exposing of Cartoon Network's/Paramount's/Viacom's free speech hipocrisy — more than made up for it. Good show. While The Simpsons will always rank as the greatest show of all time (and have you noticed the current season is the strongest in a few years?) it's South Park that will prove the more serious work. They won a Peabody for the last season. Give them a Nobel next time.Update — Underscoring how rarely I go to church anymore, or perhaps just my forgetfulness about that one aisle at the supermarket, it takes the AP's David Bauder to remind me:
But even better, also via Bauder, is this:
But anyway, let me get this right: Donohue likely would prefer that South Park not be on television, and so he appeals to Parker and Stone on principle in encouragement to leave the show, so eventually it wouldn't be on television. Not to mention, that's exactly what nearly happened to Family Guy in the "Cartoon Wars" episodes. That's actually pretty clever, even if prima facie disingenuous. Or maybe I'm being too harsh? I wrote the foregoing before reading the next paragraph:
Bauder declines to clarify the Scientology analogy, but his description of last week's episode is worth concluding on:
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||