‘South Park’ creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker appear at Comic-Con 2025 in San Diego on July 24, 2025. Amy Sussman/Getty Images
How ‘South Park’ could help Democrats win back the young voters the party lost to Trump
Nick Marx, Colorado State University The Season 27 premiere of “South Park” in July 2025 began like so many of the show’s episodes: Resident bigot Eric Cartman is pissed off. He directs his ire at the Trump administration, which had recently pulled federal funding for NPR, because he enjoyed hearing liberals “whine about stuff.” In other words, Cartman is irate that Trump has stolen his hateful, vindictive shtick. As the episode goes on, other South Park residents join Cartman in rallying against Donald Trump. In the show’s infamously over-the-top style, the president is depicted as thin-skinned, deceitful – and, well, sexually ill-equipped. The episode ends with a surreal, graphic deepfake scene of a totally nude Donald Trump stumbling around a desert. The White House immediately blasted “South Park” as irrelevant and “desperate for attention.” The ratings tell a different story. The season premiere scored 6 million viewers across Comedy Central and Paramount+, with even more tuning in two weeks later for the follow-up. Each ensuing episode has further skewered Trump and his administration. “South Park” has long targeted ineffectual authority figures with ripped-from-the-headlines timeliness, which is made possible by its weekly production schedule. Whereas most animated television shows require months of production lead time, series co-creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone need just a weekor two to write, voice and animate an entire episode. While the ever-churning news cycle has made it more difficult to hold those in power accountable, the cartoon’s timely satire still galvanizes viewer attention. This makes it uniquely suited to channel rage toward Trump and other political leaders – and, perhaps, influence an audience that has recently proved elusive to Democrats.
A history of poking the powerful
The appeal of “South Park” doesn’t necessarily lie in partisan attacks on Republicans. Its politics have always been all over the map, with both liberals and conservatives railing against the show at various points. The 2006 episode “ManBearPig” ridiculed former Democratic Vice President Al Gore’s climate activism. In 2014, liberal critics decried an episode titled “Mr. Garrison’s Fancy New Vagina” for deploying transphobic tropes. And “The Pandemic Special,” which aired in 2020, mocked the restrictive vaccine policies promoted by progressives. Meanwhile, conservative watchdog groups such as the Parents Television and Media Council have long targeted “South Park” for its allegedly harmful influence on children. The none-too-subtly titled 1999 movie “South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut” satirized these efforts: Throughout the movie, Kyle’s mom, Sheila, tries to censor the graphic children’s cartoon characters Terrance and Phillip. That movie also marks one of the earliest appearances of the Iraqi despot Saddam Hussein. It portrays him as a crazed, lecherous supervillain hellbent on taking over the world alongside his gay lover, Satan.Former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein has been a recurring character on ‘South Park.’ The current “South Park” season has animated Trump with the same cutout, stop-motion style as it did with Hussein, implying direct parallels between their dictatorial desires. Behind the scenes, Trump has reportedly been “seething” over the depiction. In the 2006 two-part episode “Cartoon Wars,” Parker and Stone warred with Comedy Central over the right to show an animated depiction of the Muslim prophet Muhammad. The network rejected the idea after political violence followed in the wake of a Danish newspaper’s publication of a cartoon featuring Muhammad. Eventually, censored animations of Muhammad aired with disclaimers from Comedy Central, but only after Parker and Stone’s refusal to address the issue before broadcast. The cartoon continues to relish poking its corporate benefactors. The current season premiered hours after Trump’s Federal Communications Commission approved a merger for the show’s parent company, Paramount. The administration delayed the transaction in order to settle its lawsuit against the Paramount-owned news show “60 Minutes,” which Trump had accused of favorably editing an interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris while she was running as the Democratic nominee for president. That same day also saw the announcement of a new US$1.5 billion deal keeping “South Park” at Paramount. Parker and Stone’s skewering of Trump sends a message to Paramount in the wake of the “60 Minutes” settlement and the cancellation of “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert”: Let politics dictate your content at your own risk.‘South Park’ has sought to take President Trump down a notch.Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images
Reaching the right voters
As the Democratic Party’s establishment struggles to appeal to young, internet-savvy, male voters – look no further than party strategists’ attempts to find “a liberal Joe Rogan” – “South Park” is garnering record viewership with young audiences. The rest of the season, meanwhile, has provided a timely, steady drumbeat of Trump mockery. The second episode of the current season calls out the Trump administration’s illegal ICE raids. The next episode lampoons Trump’s affinity for lavish gifts and compliments. In it, tech CEOs and world leaders obsequiously note that Trump “does not have a small penis.” The fourth episode depicts him as a negligent and emotionally abusive lover to Satan, further connecting him to the show’s previous portrayals of Saddam Hussein.Satan is depicted as President Trump’s lover in Season 27 of ‘South Park.’ Despite its penchant for outrageous and, at times, scattershot satire, “South Park” has an important lesson to teach Trump’s political opponents. The appeal of both Trump and “South Park” to many young men is not in the positive ideas they offer, but in the way they both humiliate their opponents. I research comedy on the right, and I’ve written about how right-wing humor has long thrived on “owning the libs.” Now, “South Park” is owning Trump, and with each new lurid reveal in the Jeffrey Epstein saga, it will have plenty of fodder as the season progresses. Simply calling attention to Trump’s hypocrisies and corruption – long the forte of media figures such as Jon Stewart, John Oliver and the hosts of the podcast “Pod Save America” – becomes white noise after a while. But actually animating the sitting president with a micropenis? Making a mockery of the self-serving business deals of the “dealmaker in chief” and his spineless corporate cronies? Well, those things won’t win an election on their own. But they inadvertently could help Democrats lure back some of the young men who drifted to Trump in 2024. Nick Marx, Professor of Film and Media Studies, Colorado State University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Fact Check: Did Mike Rogers Admit the Travis Walton UFO Case Was a Hoax?
A fact check of viral claims that Mike Rogers admitted the Travis Walton UFO case was a hoax. We examine the evidence, the spotlight theory, and what the record actually shows.
In recent years, viral YouTube videos and podcast commentary have revived claims that the 1975 Travis Walton UFO abduction case was an admitted hoax. One of the most widely repeated allegations asserts that Mike Rogers, the logging crew’s foreman, supposedly confessed that he and Walton staged the entire event using a spotlight from a ranger tower to fool their coworkers.
So, is there any truth to this claim?
After reviewing decades of interviews, skeptical investigations, and public records, the answer is clear:
There is no verified evidence that Mike Rogers ever admitted the Travis Walton incident was a hoax.
He Vanished for 5 Days After a UFO Encounter | Travis Walton Case
Where the Viral Claim Comes From
The “confession” story has circulated for years in online forums and was recently amplified by commentary-style YouTube and podcast content, including popular personality-driven shows. These versions often claim:
Rogers and Walton planned the incident in advance
A spotlight from a ranger or observation tower simulated the UFO
The rest of the crew was unaware of the hoax
Rogers later “admitted” this publicly
However, none of these claims are supported by primary documentation.
What the Documented Record Shows
No Recorded Confession Exists
There is no audio, video, affidavit, court record, or signed statement in which Mike Rogers admits staging the incident.
Rogers has repeatedly denied hoax allegations in interviews spanning decades.
Even prominent skeptical organizations do not cite any confession by Rogers.
If such an admission existed, it would be widely referenced in skeptical literature and would have effectively closed the case. It has not.
The “Ranger Tower Spotlight” Theory Lacks Evidence
No confirmed ranger tower or spotlight installation matching the claim has been documented at the location.
No ranger, third party, or equipment operator has ever come forward.
No physical evidence or corroborating testimony supports this explanation.
Even professional skeptics typically label this idea as speculative, not factual.
Why Skepticism Still Exists (Legitimately)
While the viral claim lacks evidence, skepticism about the Walton case is not unfounded. Common, well-documented critiques include:
Advertisement
Financial pressure tied to a logging contract
The limitations and inconsistency of polygraph testing
Walton’s later use of hypnosis, which is controversial in memory recall
Possible cultural influence from 1970s UFO media
Importantly, none of these critiques rely on a confession by Mike Rogers, because none exists.
Updates & Current Status of the Case
As of today:
No new witnesses have come forward to confirm a hoax
No participant has recanted their core testimony
No physical evidence has conclusively proven or disproven the event
Walton and Rogers have both continued to deny hoax allegations
The case remains unresolved, not debunked.
Why Viral Misinformation Persists
Online commentary formats often compress nuance into dramatic statements. Over time:
Speculation becomes repeated as “fact”
Hypothetical explanations are presented as admissions
Entertainment content is mistaken for investigative reporting
This is especially common with long-standing mysteries like the Walton case, where ambiguity invites exaggeration.
Viral Claims vs. Verified Facts
Viral Claim:
Mike Rogers admitted he and Travis Walton staged the UFO incident.
Verified Fact:
No documented confession exists. Rogers has consistently denied hoax claims.
Viral Claim:
Advertisement
A ranger tower spotlight was used to fake the UFO.
Verified Fact:
No evidence confirms a tower, spotlight, or third-party involvement.
Viral Claim:
The case was “officially debunked.”
Verified Fact:
No authoritative body has conclusively debunked or confirmed the incident.
Viral Claim:
All skeptics agree it was a hoax.
Verified Fact:
Advertisement
Even skeptical researchers acknowledge the absence of definitive proof.
Viral Claim:
Hollywood exposed the truth in Fire in the Sky.
Verified Fact:
The film significantly fictionalized Walton’s testimony for dramatic effect.
Bottom Line
❌ There is no verified admission by Mike Rogers
❌ There is no evidence of a ranger tower spotlight hoax
✅ There are legitimate unanswered questions about the case
✅ The incident remains debated, not solved
The Travis Walton story persists not because it has been proven — but because it has never been conclusively explained.
Dive into “The Knowledge,” where curiosity meets clarity. This playlist, in collaboration with STMDailyNews.com, is designed for viewers who value historical accuracy and insightful learning. Our short videos, ranging from 30 seconds to a minute and a half, make complex subjects easy to grasp in no time. Covering everything from historical events to contemporary processes and entertainment, “The Knowledge” bridges the past with the present. In a world where information is abundant yet often misused, our series aims to guide you through the noise, preserving vital knowledge and truths that shape our lives today. Perfect for curious minds eager to discover the ‘why’ and ‘how’ of everything around us. Subscribe and join in as we explore the facts that matter. https://stmdailynews.com/the-knowledge/
Rod: A creative force, blending words, images, and flavors. Blogger, writer, filmmaker, and photographer. Cooking enthusiast with a sci-fi vision. Passionate about his upcoming series and dedicated to TNC Network. Partnered with Rebecca Washington for a shared journey of love and art. View all posts
George Plimpton’s ‘Paper Lion’ Exposed the Brutal Reality of NFL Training Camp in 1966
How writer George Plimpton went undercover as a Detroit Lions quarterback in 1963 and created the sports journalism classic ‘Paper Lion.’ Discover the bruising truths he revealed about NFL training camp and what separates fans from players.
Green Bay Packers wide receiver Romeo Doubs (87) and Detroit Lions cornerback Terrion Arnold (6) show off their athleticism on Sept. 7, 2025. AP Photo/Matt Ludtke
George Plimpton’s 1966 nonfiction classic ‘Paper Lion’ revealed the bruising truths of Detroit Lions training camp
Stephen Siff, Miami University As the Detroit Lions barrel toward a Thanksgiving Day game with the Green Bay Packers, some die-hard fans may be fantasizing about what it would be like to be on the field themselves: calling plays from the Lions huddle, accepting the snap from between a crouching center’s thighs, and spinning to hand off the football before the defensive linemen come crashing down. In 1963, Lions head coach George Wilson allowed writer and Paris Review editor George Plimpton to enact that fantasy. With a Sports Illustrated contract in hand, Plimpton convinced Lions management to allow him to enter preseason training camp at Cranbrook, the private boys school in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan. His plan was to go undercover as a rookie quarterback for a magazine article that would reach dramatic culmination when he called a series of plays in a game of professional football. No one expected the amateur athlete to survive for long on a field with real-life Lions. But in writing about the experience, Plimpton turned off-field fandom and on-field bumbling into literary gold.Little, Brown reissued Paper Lion in 2016.Little, Brown His resulting 1966 book, “Paper Lion: Confessions of a Last-String Quarterback,” became a bestseller that was praised by The New York Times as “one of the greatest books written on sports, and the most thoroughly engaging book on any subject in recent memory.” A 1968 movie based on the book starred Alan Alda as Plimpton and members of the 1967 Lions team as themselves. Decades before I became a journalism professor at Miami University of Ohio, I discovered Plimpton’s sportswriting from reading the paperback versions I found on my parents’ bookshelves. Plimpton was a leading member of a mid-20th-century class of literary journalists, including Tom Wolfe, Truman Capote, Gay Talese and Norman Mailer, who were becoming known for applying novelistic techniques and sometimes personal, subjective perspectives to nonfiction. While the other literati tackled heavy topics, Plimpton’s engaging, conversational prose goofed around on the fringes of pro sports. Many of his books followed the same “participatory journalism” formula. He wrote about pitching against MLB all-stars, traveling with the PGA tour, boxing a bout against Archie Moore and playing with the Boston Bruins. Those were just the full-length books. Other television and magazine projects had Plimpton competing in tennis and bridge; performing stand-up comedy; acting in a Western; playing with the New York Philharmonic; and attempting to be an aerialist with the circus. However, he is best known for trying his hand quarterbacking for the Lions.
Posh writer meets the gridiron
In some ways, Plimpton seemed exactly the wrong person for this job. The possessor of a distinctively old money accent and patrician wealth and manners, he was founding editor of The Paris Review and in 1967 a mainstay of literary salons in Paris and New York. “Author, critic, interviewer, party-giver … friend of everybody, gifted, personable, energetic, bright, with-it, rich, a legend in his own time,” The New York Times gushed. Just the kind of person whom your average football fan might enjoy seeing knocked flat.American journalist and literary critic George Plimpton was no fan of pain, and that limited his ability on the football field.Evening Standard/Hulton Archive/Getty Images Plimpton joined a team he described as recovering from scandal. After ending the 1962 season with an 11-3 record and a Playoff Bowl victory for third place in the NFL, the NFL commissioner’s office fined six Lions for gambling on the championship game between Green Bay and New York. More significant on field, the commissioner suspended Lions great defensive tackle and future Pro Football Hall of Famer Alex Karras for one year. Without him, the Lions would end the 1963 season 5-8-1. Plimpton wrote his way onto the team by promising to “just hang around on the periphery of things and not bother anyone, just try to participate enough to get the feel of things.” Wilson agreed, and Plimpton arrived at training camp a few months later with his own football, purchased from an army-navy store in Times Square, and a “mild fiction” about having played quarterback at Harvard and for the nonexistent Newfoundland Newfs. Plimpton’s attempt at deception might raise ethical questions; however, the joke is always on him. The coaching staff seemed to have thought it would be hilarious if anyone on the team actually took the gangly 36-year-old with the nasal accent as a professional football player. It seems unlikely that anyone did. “I never had the temerity to pretend I was something that I wasn’t,” Plimpton wrote. “The team caught on quickly enough.” At camp, Plimpton hung around the dining hall and sat in the back of team meetings. A master of small talk, he lets the reader eavesdrop on conversations with Hall of Famers Karras, Dick “Night Train” Lane and Joe Schmidt. Plimpton takes us with him one night to a bar frequented by coaches, where we listen in rounds of liars’ poker with Wilson, Scooter McLean and Les Bingaman. We tag along as he chats with Karras at Lindell’s A.C., the bar the player owned in downtown Detroit at the time.
Lessons in grit
At training camp, Plimpton faced the teasing of players but earned respect by facing the brutality of sport and by persisting despite the inevitability of pain. He never played football in school, beyond a beery game between Harvard Crimson and Harvard Lampoon, and did not know the basics of playing quarterback. Several days into camp, he was allowed to participate in a play where, as quarterback, he was supposed to quickly hand off the ball to another player. “At ‘two’ the snap back came,” Plimpton wrote. “I began to turn without the proper grip on the ball, moving too nervously, and I fumbled the ball, gaping at it, mouth ajar, as it fell and bounced twice, once away from me, then back, and rocked back and forth gaily at my feet. I flung myself on it (…) and I heard the sharp strange whack of gear, the grunts, and then a quick sudden weight whooshed the air out of me.” The same thing happened when Plimpton was allowed to take the field in an annual intra-squad game played in Pontiac. Over his first three plays he lost 20 yards by falling down, getting knocked over by his own teammates and being literally picked from the ground by a zealous defender. On the bus ride home, Plimpton admitted to Wilson that he didn’t like being hit. The coach gently explained that “love of physical contact” was necessary to make it in pro football. “When kids, out in a park, chose of sides for tackle rather than touch, the guys that want to be ends and go out for the passes, or even quarterback, because they think subconsciously they can get rid of the ball before being hit, those guys don’t end up as football players,” Wilson mused. “They become great tennis players, or skiers, or high jumpers. It doesn’t mean they lack courage or competitiveness.” “But the guys who put up their hands to be tackles or guards, or fullbacks who run not for daylight but for trouble – those are the ones who will make it as football players.” This quality of great football players – an irrational enthusiasm for bruising physical contact – is celebrated by Plimpton in the veteran Lions who take him into their orbit. He becomes friends with Karras and offensive lineman John Gordy, in particular, and shoots the breeze on topics ranging from the NFL commissioner to Adolf Hitler. In a subsequent book, Plimpton goes with the pair to a madcap golf tournament and starts a ridiculous business venture, suggesting the on-field madness necessary to succeed in football bleeds into off-field life as well. But it is not Plimpton’s way to delve into the psychology of his idols. Rather, he listens as they spin tales that show how reckless the grown men who run toward trouble really are.Stephen Siff, Associate Professor of Journalism, Miami University
George Plimpton’s 1966 nonfiction classic ‘Paper Lion’ revealed the bruising truths of Detroit Lions training camp
The Sports section of STM Daily News is your ultimate destination for all things sports, catering to everyday fans and dedicated enthusiasts alike. We cover a wide range of topics, from the thrill of amateur competitions to the excitement of semi-professional and professional leagues. Our content delves into physical and mental fitness, providing insights and tips that help individuals elevate their performance, whether on the field or in their personal wellness journeys. Stay informed and inspired as we explore the dynamic world of sports, celebrating both the passion of the players and the joy of the fans.
In the 1970s, Lynwood, CA, dreamed of a downtown mall anchored by Montgomery Ward. Decades later, the empty lots told a story of ambition, delay, and renewal.
In the early 1970s, Lynwood, California, dreamed big.
City leaders envisioned a new, modern downtown — a sprawling shopping and auto mall that would bring jobs, shoppers, and a sense of pride back to this small but growing city in the southeast corner of Los Angeles County. At the heart of the plan stood a gleaming new Montgomery Ward department store, which opened around 1973 and promised to anchor a larger commercial center that never fully came.
But for those of us who grew up in Lynwood during that time, the promise never quite materialized.
Instead, we remember acres of empty lots, chain-link fences, and faded “Coming Soon” signs that sat for decades — silent witnesses to a dream deferred.
The Vision That Stalled
In 1973, Lynwood’s Redevelopment Agency launched what it called Project Area A — an ambitious plan to clear and rebuild much of the city’s downtown core. Small businesses and homes were bought out, land was assembled, and the city floated bonds to support new construction.
For a brief moment, it looked as if the plan might work. Montgomery Ward opened its doors, serving as a retail beacon for the area. Yet the rest of the mall — the shops, restaurants, and auto dealerships — never came.
By the mid-1970s, much of downtown had been bulldozed, but little replaced it. And by the time Ward closed its Lynwood location in 1986, the vast lots surrounding it had become symbols of frustration and unfulfilled potential.
What Happened?
Some longtime residents whispered about corruption or backroom deals — the kind of speculation that grows when visible progress stalls.
But newspaper archives and redevelopment records tell a more complex story.
Lynwood’s plans collided with a series of hard realities:
The construction of the Century Freeway (I-105) disrupted neighborhoods and depressed land values. Environmental cleanup and ownership disputes slowed development. Economic shifts in retail — as malls in nearby Downey, South Gate, and Paramount attracted anchor stores — drained the local market. And later, political infighting among city officials made sustained redevelopment almost impossible.
Advertisement
To this day, there’s no public record of proven corruption directly tied to the 1970s mall plan. What did exist was a tangle of bureaucracy, economic change, and missed opportunity — a perfect storm that left Lynwood’s heart half-built and half-forgotten.
Growing Up Among the Vacant Lots
For those of us who were kids in Lynwood during that era, the story is more personal.
We remember the sight of the Montgomery Ward building — modern and hopeful at first, then shuttered and fading by the mid-1980s.
We remember riding bikes past the empty dirt fields that were supposed to become shopping plazas. And we remember the quiet frustration of adults who had believed the city’s promises.
Those empty blocks became our playgrounds — but they also became symbols of the gap between what Lynwood was and what it wanted to be.
A New Chapter: Plaza México and Beyond
By the late 1990s and early 2000s, the dream finally resurfaced in a new form.
Developers transformed the long-idle site into Plaza México, a vibrant commercial and cultural hub that celebrates Mexican and Latin American heritage.
It took nearly 30 years for Lynwood’s downtown to come alive again.
The result is beautiful — but it’s also bittersweet for those who remember how long the land sat empty, and how many local businesses and residents were displaced in pursuit of a dream that took a generation to fulfill.
Advertisement
Looking Back
The story of Lynwood’s lost mall isn’t just about urban planning.
It’s about hope, change, and resilience. It’s about how a community tried to reinvent itself — and how the children who grew up watching that effort still carry its memory.
Sometimes, when I drive through that stretch of Imperial Highway and Long Beach Boulevard, I still imagine what might have been: the bustling mall that never was, and the voices of a neighborhood caught between ambition and uncertainty.
📚 Further Reading
Montgomery Ward will close its Lynwood store. (Jan 3 1986) — Los Angeles Times.
Dive into “The Knowledge,” where curiosity meets clarity. This playlist, in collaboration with STMDailyNews.com, is designed for viewers who value historical accuracy and insightful learning. Our short videos, ranging from 30 seconds to a minute and a half, make complex subjects easy to grasp in no time. Covering everything from historical events to contemporary processes and entertainment, “The Knowledge” bridges the past with the present. In a world where information is abundant yet often misused, our series aims to guide you through the noise, preserving vital knowledge and truths that shape our lives today. Perfect for curious minds eager to discover the ‘why’ and ‘how’ of everything around us. Subscribe and join in as we explore the facts that matter. https://stmdailynews.com/the-knowledge/
