Rushkoff - Bart Simpson: Prince of Irreverence

Question #1

Rushkoff does not explicitly state his thesis in the reading Bart Simpson: Prince of Irreverence, but my interpretation is:

The Simpsons have long given us laughs and comical satires, but more than important they have given us insight into our own lived by portraying today’s family’s media connection by “deconstructing and reframing the images in our media to allow us to see them more objectively, or at least with more ironic distance” (Birkenstein, Durst, Graff 254).

Question #2

In the reading Rushkoff supports this thesis in several ways.

He begins with America’s encounters with television media claiming that “the television became America’s unquestioned window to the world: (Birkenstein, Durst, Graff 242). This generation of media was much more captivating to viewers mostly due to the strategies used by television programmers to program the viewers, not the television. As technology advanced, the new generations of television viewers were able to program the television to their liking with the use of a remote (known as screenagers) rather than the previous generation. It became more difficult for television to target their viewers.

The newer generation of viewers would prove as a challenge for television media and the only way they can relate to screenagers was to create a narrative that resembled the modern day family. Thus, the comical satire The Simpsons was formed with each family member representing a different part of the media audience. Bart, the most mischievous, represented the new wave of television audience, which was hard to please and not easily attracted by media influence. Homer represented the vulnerable audience of the earlier generations believing everything the media presents. Lisa represents the intellectual audience, “but feels completely alienated by the media around her” (Birkenstein, Durst, Graff 249).

With multiple different views compiled into one television family, The Simpsons go on to recreate the media we see in an amusing way to objectify our life events (global, local, media, personal).

Question 3

Rushkoff would respond to Goldwasser’s What’s the Matter with Kids Today in agreeing with her standpoint. Both of these writers seem to have the similar views on today’s society and its media influence. Rushkoff views television media as enticing, but his review of The Simpsons does not condemn media hypocrisy, but accepts and receives it as today’s advancing families and their increasing awareness in utilizing different resources to find validity in media messages. Similarly, Goldwasser defends the use of media, specifically internet, among the youth as an acceptable form of voluntary reading. Today’s society is based so much on technology and electronic devices that banning this from learning has become inefficient.

Rushkoff would partially agree with anything that Steven stated in Thinking Outside the Idiot Box. Steven claims that “the medium [television] seems neither like a brain-liquefying poison nor a salutary tonic” (Birkenstein, Durst, Graff 234). Rushkoff, would argue that media does contain evidence of knowledgeable literature in the most unexpected scenarios. For example, The Simpsons often reenact real-life events, processes, such as political, and courthouse processes. Today’s media has increasingly become more active in involving classical literature and relevant facts in their programming and not every channel contains fictional reality-based recreations. There are also informational and learning channels such as the History and Discover channels.

Graff, Gerald, Cathy Birkenstein, and Russel Durst. They Say, I Say: With Readings. New York W.W.W. Norton & Company,, 2009. Print.