logo
Why South Park Struck a Nerve

Why South Park Struck a Nerve

The Atlantic4 days ago
Over the course of its nearly 30-year run, South Park has deployed toilet humor, ruthless political commentary, and profane asides to eviscerate wide swaths of people. No one is spared—celebrities, religious groups, foreign governments, and a variety of ethnicities have all been fair game. The series gained instant notoriety upon its 1997 debut thanks to this approach, and it hasn't let up since. But when South Park, which airs on Comedy Central,returned last week following an extensive hiatus, it was to a political moment that some satirists have found harder to work with.
In the past, President Donald Trump's second term would have been an obvious target for South Park, low-hanging fruit to tackle in a flashy, long-awaited premiere; the show has mocked the surreality of contemporary politics before. (A 2016 episode depicts a local elementary-school teacher, Mr. Garrison, triumphing in an election over Hillary Clinton; he soon adopts a Trump-style blond comb-over.) Yet in a Vanity Fair interview last year, the show's co-creator Matt Stone said that reflecting previous presidential elections had been a 'mind scramble' for him and his co-creator, Trey Parker, and they didn't care to tackle the specter of the 2024 campaign in South Park 's then-forthcoming season. 'I don't know what more we could possibly say about Trump,' Parker said.
Parker and Stone's solution to the quandary of Trump-era satire, it seems, is to use the president as something of a Trojan horse for mocking another subject entirely—and a way to dramatically up the stakes while doing so. Trump is not a bull's-eye in the episode, titled 'Sermon on the 'Mount,' despite numerous shocking jokes that might suggest as much: an AI-generated video of Trump's genitalia addressing the camera, and a recurring gag involving the president cozying up in bed with a grumpy Satan, prodding the devil into coitus. Rather, he is a high-profile conduit for the show's true target: Paramount, Comedy Central's parent company.
Paramount's investment in South Park is clear: The same week that the outrageous premiere aired, the company paid Parker and Stone a reported $1.5 billion for 50 new episodes and the streaming rights to the show. But the expensive deal also came days after Paramount canceled the popular Late Show With Stephen Colbert for what the company claimed were financial reasons. The timing fueled speculation about the company's motivations; two weeks prior, Paramount had agreed to settle a lawsuit with Trump for $16 million over the editing of a 60 Minutes interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris last fall. As some reports have pointed out, both the settlement and the Late Show cancellation—which Colbert referred to on air as 'a big fat bribe'—came amid Paramount's bid for federal approval of its merger with the media company Skydance.
These details fueled 'Sermon on the 'Mount,' which in a dense 22 minutes mashes up industry-focused satire with jokes about people's growing trust of AI and the cultural decline of 'woke' terminology. South Park reimagines the Paramount events as a community issue; in the episode, Trump sues the titular town for $5 billion, after local parents disagree with his administration's bringing religion into schools. While publicly protesting, the townspeople are joined by Jesus himself, who reveals through clenched teeth that even he's embroiled in a lawsuit against Trump. He urges them to hold their complaints, lest they face serious consequences: 'You really wanna end up like Colbert?' he hisses.
The scene is a thinly veiled, relentless prodding at Paramount's allegiances, as well as the chilling effect Trump's actions have created. This approach stretches across the bulk of the episode. Further twisting the knife is a parody of 60 Minutes that portrays its journalists as constantly hedging to avoid displeasing the president: The segment opens with a ticking bomb, in lieu of a clock, as a voice-over shakily announces, 'This is 60 Minutes. Oh, boy. Oh, shit.' An anchor then nervously introduces a report of South Park's protest against the president, who, he is quick to add, 'is a great man; we know he's probably watching.'
South Park isn't breaking new ground in criticizing its parent company. The sitcom 30 Rock featured frequent jokes-slash-metacommentary about NBC throughout its seven seasons, including about the network's own late-night-host drama; The Simpsons has ridiculed Fox constantly over the years. Even Barbie, for all its pink-colored wholesomeness, embedded jabs about Mattel; the movie's creative team publicly spoke of their successful bid to get certain gags into the box-office-dominating film, and a Mattel executive later heralded the jokes at the company's expense.
But what feels, frankly, so punk rock about Parker and Stone's approach is how big of a swing they took in biting the billionaire hands that are feeding them. By making Trump a vehicle for addressing the close-to-home Paramount drama, South Park 's creators did something canny: They transformed a politically layered scenario—one involving the show's parent company and America's leadership at the highest level—into a storyline that was both pointed and accessible to a wide audience. Instead of focusing on entertainment-industry satire, Parker and Stone feature Trump heavily—and, in a first, use his actual face over a tiny animated body. The bluntly provocative characterization, which went viral, helped the episode reach some viewers that otherwise may not have been as attuned to Paramount's recent decisions. As such, Parker and Stone managed to attract attention from audiences across party lines. Those who were ticked off by the president and delighted in his portrayal cheered the episode, while the White House issued a statement writing off the show as a 'desperate attempt for attention.'
In an ironic twist, the town of South Park follows in Paramount's footsteps toward the episode's end. Jesus persuades the town's parents to settle with Trump, warning that 'if someone has the power of the presidency and also has the power to sue and take bribes, then he can do anything to anyone.' The townspeople's attorney then talks Trump down from $5 billion to $3.5 million—'That's not so bad!' coos one parent. The mayor concurs: 'We'll just have to cut some funding for our schools and hospitals and roads, and that should be that!' In so closely linking Paramount's actions with Trump's bullying tactics, the episode manages to not just poke at the network's decision to settle in lieu of defending its properties in court. It also suggests that there's still potent satire to be wrung from the contemporary political maelstrom—and that South Park is willing to push the buttons of more than one powerful institution while doing so.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Largest Texas Newspaper Rebukes Greg Abbott Over Redistricting 'Power Grab'
Largest Texas Newspaper Rebukes Greg Abbott Over Redistricting 'Power Grab'

Newsweek

time12 minutes ago

  • Newsweek

Largest Texas Newspaper Rebukes Greg Abbott Over Redistricting 'Power Grab'

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The Houston Chronicle, Texas' largest newspaper, is criticizing Governor Greg Abbott in an opinion piece for what it calls his "Republican power grab" regarding his state legislature's push to vote and approve GOP-backed redistricting maps that could have drastic effects on and in the aftermath of the 2026 midterm election. Newsweek has reached out to Abbott's office via email for comment on Monday. Why It Matters Abbott had called a special session to address the flooding that killed 135 people last month in Texas Hill Country and the redistricting plan. Tensions have escalated between the governor, Republicans and Texas Democrats as 51 Democratic lawmakers in the Legislature fled the state to Illinois on Sunday to prevent Republicans from moving forward with a vote due to lacking a quorum. Two-thirds of members within the 150-member chamber must be present to pass legislation. In a letter, Abbott referred to the fleeing members as "derelict Democrats" and threatened to remove them from the Legislature altogether if they didn't return by 3 p.m. Monday, August 4. "Real Texans do not run from a fight. But that's exactly what most of the Texas House Democrats just than doing their job and voting on urgent legislation affecting the lives of all Texans, they have fled Texas to deprive the House of the quorum necessary to meet and conduct business," he wrote in part. Republicans have a slim majority in the U.S. House of Representatives and a slightly larger one in the U.S. Senate. Democrats hope to take back the House in next year's midterms, which traditionally have seen the party that is not in power in the White House gain a number of seats. During President Donald Trump's first term, Democrats picked up 41 seats in the midterms. Trump, meanwhile, has backed Abbott's move to redraw the state map. What To Know The Chronicle's editorial board published an op-ed piece on Monday, comparing Abbott's efforts during the recent deadly Texas floods to his political efforts to swiftly redraw and enact new districts across the Lone Star State. "The governor has followed his orders from Washington and put a Republican power grab before communities devastated by Central Texas floods," the editorial reads. "With a stroke of his pen, Abbott could have moved hundreds of millions of dollars by executive fiat. He could have called a session with the sole objective of addressing the still-unfolding crisis in the Hill Country." The editorial board continued: "But the lives of Texans come second to the desires of President Trump and his loyalists. When Trump utters the words 'very simple redrawing,' Abbott asks, how many seats do you want? And we end up with a Congressional map that puts Democrats on the endangered species list." Democrats have argued that if Republicans succeed in redrawing districts in Texas, Trump will push other states to do the same. The editorial also notes that both political parties, be it Republicans in Texas or Democrats in Illinois, have engaged in gerrymandering while in power to boost future prospects. The difference now, according to the Chronicle, is that Texas' bluest cities are being carved up and would hypothetically lead to a Republican majority on par with the nation's reddest state, Wyoming. Texas Democrats would safely hold about 21 percent of the state's congressional districts even though 46 percent of voters in last year's presidential election voted for Democratic nominee then-Vice President Kamala Harris. Abbott is also chastised for his threats of removal, with the editorial calling such an outcome "an attack on democracy itself." "None of this was necessary," the editorial concludes. "Abbott could've just made the special session all about flooding. Heck, lawmakers probably could've gotten a recovery package passed with plenty of time left over to sift through Lieutenant. Governor Dan Patrick's buffet of red-meat priorities. Instead, the well-being of Texans has once again come second to flagrant backroom partisan power-plays." George Strait, Greg Abbott, and Tom Cusick speak onstage for George Strait and Vaqueros del Mar's "Strait To The Heart": A benefit for Hill Country Flood Victims at Estancia at Thunder Valley on July 27... George Strait, Greg Abbott, and Tom Cusick speak onstage for George Strait and Vaqueros del Mar's "Strait To The Heart": A benefit for Hill Country Flood Victims at Estancia at Thunder Valley on July 27 in Boerne, Texas. More What People Are Saying Sergio Sanchez, a former Republican chairman and longtime radio host in Texas, told Newsweek: "This Texas GOP strategy is based on political reality. Almost the entire southern Texas border has shifted red. Red represents the traditional values, work ethic, economic opportunities, immigration controls and police protections no longer espoused by modern Democrats." He added: "The Democrats are again showing they have no values and solutions for Texas and the nation. Their cowardly response is laughable and sad. Democrats are clueless and lost." Former Democratic Texas Representative Colin Allred, also a past U.S. Senate candidate against Senator Ted Cruz, in a statement on Sunday: "This fight isn't just about maps—it's about power. When Republicans silence Black and Latino voters, they're not just rigging elections. They're rigging who gets health care, clean water, and a fair shot. "Let's be clear: they don't just want to rig the vote. They want to use that power to rig the economy — to keep helping the wealthy and well-connected while working families get left behind. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on X on Sunday: "I support the immediate arrest of these rogue lawmakers who've fled their duties. These radical Democrats are spitting in the face of every Texan they swore to represent. This is cowardice and dereliction of duty, and they should face the full force of the law without apology." Texas state Representative Gene Wu, the Texas House Democratic Caucus leader, said during a press conference in Chicago: "We will do whatever it takes. What that looks like, we don't know." What Happens Next? Republican State House Speaker Dustin Burrows said the chamber would still meet as planned at 3 p.m. on Monday. "If a quorum is not present then, to borrow the recent talking points from some of my Democrat colleagues, all options will be on the table...." he wrote on X. The lack of a quorum would also delay votes on flood relief and new warning systems in the wake of last month's catastrophic floods in Texas.

State Department may require visa applicants to post bond of up to $15,000 to enter the U.S.
State Department may require visa applicants to post bond of up to $15,000 to enter the U.S.

Los Angeles Times

time13 minutes ago

  • Los Angeles Times

State Department may require visa applicants to post bond of up to $15,000 to enter the U.S.

WASHINGTON — The State Department is proposing requiring applicants for business and tourist visas to post a bond of up to $15,000 to enter the United States, a move that may make the process unaffordable for many. In a notice to be published in the Federal Register on Tuesday, the department said it would start a 12-month pilot program under which people from countries deemed to have high overstay rates and deficient internal document security controls could be required to post bonds of $5,000, $10,000 or $15,000 when they apply for a visa. The proposal comes as the Trump administration is tightening requirements for visa applicants. Last week, the State Department announced that many visa renewal applicants would have to submit to an additional in-person interview, something that was not required in the past. In addition, the department is proposing that applicants for the Visa Diversity Lottery program have valid passports from their country of citizenship. A preview of the bond notice, which was posted on the Federal Register website on Monday, said the pilot program would take effect within 15 days of its formal publication and is necessary to ensure that the U.S. government is not financially liable if a visitor does not comply with the terms of his or her visa. 'Aliens applying for visas as temporary visitors for business or pleasure and who are nationals of countries identified by the department as having high visa overstay rates, where screening and vetting information is deemed deficient, or offering citizenship by investment, if the alien obtained citizenship with no residency requirement, may be subject to the pilot program,' the notice said. The countries affected will be listed once the program takes effect, it said. The bond would not apply to citizens of countries enrolled in the Visa Waiver Program and could be waived for others depending on an applicant's individual circumstances. Visa bonds have been proposed in the past but have not been implemented. The State Department has traditionally discouraged the requirement because of the cumbersome process of posting and discharging a bond and because of a possible misperceptions by the public. However, the department said that previous view 'is not supported by any recent examples or evidence, as visa bonds have not generally been required in any recent period.' Lee writes for the Associated Press.

August recess can't hide tensions ahead for Congress on spending and Trump nominations
August recess can't hide tensions ahead for Congress on spending and Trump nominations

Boston Globe

time13 minutes ago

  • Boston Globe

August recess can't hide tensions ahead for Congress on spending and Trump nominations

Lawmakers will use much of September to work on spending bills for the coming budget year, which begins Oct. 1. They likely will need to pass a short-term spending measure to keep the government funded for a few weeks while they work on a longer-term measure that covers the full year. It's not unusual for leaders from both parties to blame the other party for a potential shutdown, but the rhetoric began extra early this year, signaling the threat of a stoppage is more serious than usual. Advertisement On Monday, Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer and House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries sent their Republican counterparts a sharply-worded letter calling for a meeting to discuss 'the government funding deadline and the health care crisis you have visited upon the American people.' Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up They said it will take bipartisanship to avert a 'painful, unnecessary shutdown.' 'Yet it is clear that the Trump Administration and many in your party are preparing to go it alone and continue to legislate on a solely Republican basis,' said the letter sent to Senate Majority Leader John Thune and House Speaker Mike Johnson. Republicans have taken note of the warnings and are portraying the Democrats as itching for a shutdown they hope to blame on the GOP. Advertisement 'It was disturbing to hear the Democrat leader threaten to shut down the government in his July 8 Dear Colleague letter,' Thune said on Saturday. '... I really hope that Democrats will not embrace that position but will continue to work with Republicans to fund the government.' Different approaches from the House and Senate So far, the House has approved two of the 12 annual spending bills, mostly along party lines. The Senate has passed three on a strongly bipartisan basis. The House is pursuing steep, non-defense spending cuts. The Senate is rejecting many of those cuts. One side will have to give. And any final bill will need some Democratic support to generate the 60 votes necessary to get a spending measure to the finish line. Some Democratic senators are also wanting assurances from Republicans that there won't be more efforts in the coming weeks to claw back or cancel funding already approved by Congress. 'If Republicans want to make a deal, then let's make a deal, but only if Republicans include an agreement they won't take back that deal a few weeks later,' said Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass. Rep. Chuck Fleischmann, R-Tenn., a veteran member of the House Appropriations committee, said the Democratic minority in both chambers has suffered so many legislative losses this year, 'that they are stuck between a rock and their voting base.' Democrats may want to demonstrate more resistance to Trump, but they would rue a shutdown, he warned. 'The reality would be, if the government were shut down, the administration, Donald Trump, would have the ability to decide where to spend and not spend,' Fleischmann said. 'Schumer knows that, Jeffries knows that. We know that. I think it would be much more productive if we start talking about a short-term (continuing resolution.)' Advertisement Republican angry about pace of nominations Republicans are considering changes to Senate rules to get more of Trump's nominees confirmed. Thune said last week that during the same point in Joe Biden's presidency, 49 of his 121 civilians nominees had been confirmed on an expedited basis through a voice vote or a unanimous consent request. Trump has had none of his civilian nominees confirmed on an expedited basis. Democrats have insisted on roll call votes for all of them, a lengthy process than can take days. 'I think they're desperately in need of change,' Thune said of Senate rules for considering nominees. 'I think that the last six months have demonstrated that this process, nominations is broken. And so I expect there will be some good robust conversations about that.' Schumer said a rules change would be a 'huge mistake,' especially as Senate Republicans will need Democratic votes to pass spending bills and other legislation moving forward. The Senate held a rare weekend session as Republicans worked to get more of Trump's nominees confirmed. Negotiations focused on advancing dozens of additional Trump nominees in exchange for some concessions on releasing some already approved spending. At times, lawmakers spoke of progress on a potential deal. But it was clear that there would be no agreement when Trump attacked Schumer on social media Saturday evening and told Republicans to pack it up and go home. 'Tell Schumer, who is under tremendous political pressure from within his own party, the Radical Left Lunatics, to GO TO HELL!' Trump posted on Truth Social. Associated Press writers Mary Clare Jalonick and Joey Cappelletti contributed to this report. Advertisement

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store