Latoria Macon Dr.

Henderson Eng 1020-058 13, February, 2012

Its Provocative! It gets the people going!

Many may have their disbeliefs on the underlining imagery and messages presented to us via popular sitcoms, reality television, and/or basic TV shows that graze television sets daily in American homes. Yet it leaves you to ponder what are they really trying to tell us? In Antonia Peacokes Family Guy and Freud: Jokes and their relations to the unconscious she shines light on the topic of what are we are really watching everyday on our favorite television shows. Peacoke travels in the depths of understanding to reveal the twisted humor on the hit Fox sitcom Family Guy. Stating that she was once not even a fan herself, it took her some time to truly understand the particular brand of humor (Peacoke 300). First, agreeing with biased views on the show, Peacoke was introduced to the show from various negative commentators such as Stephen Dubner, co-author of Freakonomics. A cartoon comedy that packs more gags per minute about race, incest, bestiality, etc. than any other show [he] can think of. (300). Though, unable to escape the overwhelming popularity of the show, Peacoke finally found herself watching the show devotedly along with her surrounding family and friends; however, she took a different approach on viewing it. Making no reluctance to also expose the dark side of

Macon 2 the sitcom she begins by unfolding the issues the show has encountered. From a lawsuit with comedian Carol Barnett, and being one of the few television shows in history to be cancelled not once, but twice, she goes into detail to show that the sitcom has met its fair game of turmoil (Peacoke 300). Nonetheless, she reinforces the strength that lies within the show; going on about its countless awards, ratings, and die-hard fans that protested for the re-airing of the show, she mentioned once more how difficult it was to not indulge in the life of the Griffin family. Gaining a more positive prospective on the show as her exposure of it grew, Peacoke says she began paying more attention to the creators intentions. Those who dont watch the program, as Dubner admits he doesnt," Peacoke explains, could easily come to think that the cartoon takes pleasure in controversial humor just for its own sake (303). Also using many scenes from the show throughout the passage, she brings her point across that it takes actually understanding the underlining humor and sometimes even obvious irony, by displaying the shows comical satire. She then continues to uncover the more provocative side of Family Guy by adding the point of views of Dana Stevens, author of Thinking Outside the Idiot Box and Douglas Rushkoff, Bart Simpson: The Kind of Irreverence, those in which grasp the same concept by commenting on the of the viewers who watch the similar show, The Simpsons, for the sheer ridicule and entertainment. Peacoke carries on discussing Rushkoffs argument about The Simpsons and how it pertains to Family Guy excluding the aspect that the creators of The Simpsons do not comment on social issues as much as they do on the media imagery around a particular social issue (296). She further goes on to say how MacFarlene and company do the opposite, actually magnifying Americas flaws with mockery in the most bigoted ways sometimes. Yet Peacoke still manages to shine light on the sitcom, conveying it as nothing more than dramatic satire that

Macon 3 should not be taken for face value, but viewed for no more than what it actually is, dramatic satire. Making note of how Family Guy having its own special response through episodes, Peacoke adds on with another scene from the show; while furthermore pushing her balanced views that some of the humor should not be taken offensively. Finally closing with a statement that shows she does not agree with each and every aspect Family Guy offers it viewers because of the thin line between reality and fiction. Much attention goes to the popular sitcom The Simpsons as well, as Douglas Rushkof explains his view on the matter. In his essay Bart Simpson: Prince of Irreverence, Rushkof demonstrates the satire present throughout the long lived show. Diving right into his opinion, Rushkof wastes no time in explaining how The Simpsons are the closest thing in America to a national media literacy program. Continuing to say it mimics a kids cartoon; he bluntly states that the show gets away with murder, the virtual murder of our coercive media iconography and techniques. Preparing his own view of how Americans viewed media before The Simpsons; Rushkof designs an organized way to get right to his perspective of the show, its meaning, and its dramatic change he thinks it has had on the media. In a persistent matter, Rushof begins to strategically plant his seed of opinion as he goes to say how the TV became Americas unquestioned window to the world as the Simpsons were conceived onto daily screenings as to the mini segments it once had on the Tracey Ullman Show. Further explaining how the things we see on television are called programing for a reason, for TV programmers are simply programing the viewers. He then begins to explain the plan of the programmers. The author creates a character we like, he says and gets us to identify with the heros light. Further saying how the character faces different disadvantages only to overcome in the end, yet increasing that longing

Macon 4 to view the show again and again. Also saying, in the earlier years, viewers had no choice but to submit and watch the show, because to change the channel would require 50 calories of human effort, an argument in which he uses to convert into his next theme New tools for media Literacy. Using examples such as the remote and a joystick, he reaches further into his case of explaining how far American has gone to make media literacy so easy to attain. Finally reverting back to his main focus, The Simpsons, Rushkoff goes right for the creator of the sitcom, Matt Groening. Breaking down the major parts of the show such as the important role the protagonist, Bart, plays in the dance of irreverence, the town the family lives in and other aspects of the show, Rushkof makes little hesitation to show the satire he relies on throughout the remainder of the essay. A platform for sophisticated satire, titles one of the many body paragraphs within the essay. Rushkoff begins by talking about the writers behind the sitcom, whom two thirds of them are Harvard graduates. One goes to say The Simpsons is one of the most literate shows in TV. Bringing light to their technique, Mike Reiss says We take subjects on the show that we can parody. Yet the writers go on to say they have no certain agenda with the show. As writers, Rushkof goes to say, they see themselves as feeding the show and using the other media references as the fodder. Even insisting that Bart is in on the gag of the show, Rushkof brings up an episode where Bart raises an irrelevant moment up. The mother Marge asks him Why did you bring that up? It was an amusing episode, responds Bart, half looking at the camera then adding of our lives. This is demonstrating Barts awareness to being on TV. Wrapping up his essay by renovating the highlights of his points, Rushkof concludes how The Simpsons uses its high level of irreverence to grasp the audience who tunes in for the skillful satire as well as the kids that what it for the simplicity of a cartoon. Once we fully recognize the way that our

Macon 5 media attempts to make us care about things we ought best not care about-from the label on our sneakers to the hair style of our politicians, Rushkof states, Barts lesson in media literacy and activism will be complete. In reading both of these essays, I agree with them both, well of course, to a certain extent. We often are blinded by the glitz and glamour of TV, that we often time forget that many of the shows we tune in to watch on the daily are sending us a message on how the writers behind the scenes feel. Both shows have done an amazing job at doing what they were set out to do, prove a point and getting the gears of many people turning. I must admit that using such a diverse tool, such as a cartoon, to broadcast opinions and views is alluring and creative; although, we cannot forget the power of the tool at hand. Being that these two very popular cartoons hold such substance and underlying humor, it is almost forgotten that myself personally, is still watching a cartoon. I say that to say this, what lengths are we really willing to go through to prove a point? In both shows, Family Guy and The Simpsons, there is sexual content, profanity and other negative things that should not be exposed to our children. I mean sure, there are ratings on every show presented to us on TV, but how can you tell a child No, you cant watching this cartoon. Though, you do have to have a certain level of intelligence and literacy to ready between the lines of the humor getting thrown at us, what about the visuals they imply? I feel we are slowly losing our future generations to a virtual world, where we are no longer the teachers of life, but Bart Simpson and Peter Griffin are. Clever? Yes. Politically Incorrect? Most definitely. Yet are we going to do something about it? No, because just as the children are anticipating the new episodes and are glued to the TV during re-runs, so are we as the older generation. Never will I condemn freedom of speech, and whatever way anyone chooses to use

Macon 6 it, but I will plant the seed of awareness. Both essays were exceptional pieces that broaden my aspect on what I watch on TV. Now Im not saying I will no longer watch the programs, because they are great, funny attention grabbing shows; nonetheless, I will have my eyes wide open for what many biased opinions are offered , as well as what I let continue to play for my future, my daughter.