Whacking My Flak

You may not know this, but in addition to a published blogger, I'm also a published unpaid writer of brief articles for an unknown Internet entertainment and news website. That would be Flak Magazine. You may find my first article for Flak here. It's about the TV show "South Park."

Basically, I have been reading a lot online about theories tying the TV show "South Park" to the neoconservative movement in America, and have noticed myself that the show seems to lean more to the right than it did at one time. So, I wrote a brief little piece about it for Flak. It's called "Is South Park Right?" (Ha ha!)

Now, no offense to Flak, which is a nice little magazine kind enough to print something written by yours truly, spelling errors and all. But I didn't really think it had what you'd consider a high level of readership. So I was quite surprised to receive an e-mail today from my friend Jason, informing me that my article was being reviewed rather unkindly on the blog Scrubbles.Net.

Here's what main Scrubster mhinrichs had to say about my writing:

This article amounts to making something out of nothing (or, if your're feeling generous, very little). It appears the author of a new book wants to make the phrase "South Park Conservatives" into a byword for a certain kind of political body, like the Silent Majority or Soccer Mom Voters. That's a stretch.

Okay, okay, Hinrichs, let me stop you right there. And let me also note that your vaguely German screen ID makes me slightly uncomfortable.

You start off by saying that my article tries to make something out of nothing. Then, you proceed to reply to the main issue raised by my article ("Is there a right-leaning philosophy behind TV's 'South Park'"?)

By actually taking that idea and providing your own opinion about it in an article, aren't you in fact simply repeating what I have already done? Therefore, wouldn't it be fair of me to say that your blog post "makes something out of nothing"? After all, if I start with nothing, and then you reply to nothing, aren't you still left with nothing?

The fisking continues:

I'd characterize the SP episodes from the new season as vaguely right-leaning in the same way The Daily Show skewers ever-so-leftward, but essentially both are equal opportunity offenders.

Here, hinrichs continues to critique and comment on my article that had nothing to say. He also ends up essentially agreeing with my viewpoint, that "South Park" leans to the right in the same way as "The Daily Show" leans to the left.

What they don't mention in the article is how South Park's writing staff includes Norman Lear, who is far from politically conservative. I can't picture Trey Parker and Matt Stone as conservatives, so whatever.

What? TV legend Normal Lear writes for "South Park"? Really?

Um, no. The reason I didn't include this information is because it's totally not true. Here's a quote from a real newspaper, The New York Times, about Lear's involvement with the "South Park" guys:

It was Mr. Lear who came up with the idea for the giant talking taco and the reality television theme during a three-day retreat for the show's writers in February in Scottsdale, Ariz., a session that Mr. Lear said was unlike any writers meeting he had ever been to.

"These guys are nuts," Mr. Lear said during a conference call with Mr. Parker and Mr. Stone. "But they're also very, very smart. They throw out a lot in very little time."

Okay, so Norman Lear hung out with Matt and Trey for 3 days and imparted some of his wisdom. That's cool. He respects them, which is great. I, too, greatly respect them. In fact, the whole reason I wrote the article in the first place is because I care so much about "South Park." I think it's a great show, a classic, even, and so I think it is worthy of discussing as political satire, not just as an amusing cartoon show.

But does Lear's 3-day stint as mentor to Matt and Trey mean that they neccessarily share his politics? Of course not. And does he have any real involvement with the subject matter and tone of the show? No, no, clearly no. At the end of every episode of "South Park," there's always a credit: Written by Trey Parker. So, there you go.

You've got to love hinrichs closing out with a "...so whatever." You've got to finish strong! That's the secret of good blog writing.

But if only that were all, dear readers! Mr. Hinrichs had a comment on his post! A guy who had this to say:

The Flak Magazine article about SOUTH PARK is strange and schizophrenic.

It starts out as an attempt to thrash the show with snide phrases like "narcissitic apathy"(sic)...
But then it ends up calling SOUTH PARK "among the bravest, most outspoken and most politically aware shows on television."

Earth to Flak: Make up your minds already!

Okay, the spelling error? He got me. I'd love to blame Flak's copy-editors, but I'm sure that's an original Lons typo. It happens. Oops.

Everything else, though, is totally stupid. Did this guy even read my article?

First off, it's not schizophrenic, it's balanced. Now, I know that in today's media, an article that doesn't stridently take one side and then make up arguments out of thin air to support that side doesn't really have any place. But, what can I say, that's the kind of journalism I dig.

I begin by presenting my view of "South Park" - that the only solid philosophy presented is one of essential apathy and disregard for current affairs. Then, I provide a counterargument, that "South Park" aligns with a youth movement in conservatism, one that is pro-war and anti-PC. Then, I provide a possible compromise position - that the show is too complex and nuanced to summarzie as right or left-wing.

I think it makes total sense. Maybe you find it convoluted. That's fair enough. But schizophrenic? It's written like I have multiple personalities?

Also, I dig the little Earth to Flak comment. As if the article was written by some creature named Flak with his own magazine. My name's right there under the headline, jagoff.