Letters
Substance‐related disorders Environmental health Social determinants of health
Volume 191 - Issue 7

Smoking and The Simpsons

Author:  Nicholas Jefferson-Lenskyj

Med J Aust 2009; 191 (7): 415-416. || doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2009.tb02868.x
Published online: 5 October 2009
Download PDF (73 KB)
Share: Share on Blue Sky Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share by email

To the Editor: Eslick and Eslick believe that the television program The Simpsons causes children to smoke.1 What they gloss over is that in this show, only “losers” smoke.

The characters Patty and Selma are old, ugly, mean-tempered, sexually frustrated sisters working in deadening jobs at the motor vehicle licensing office. They don’t just smoke, they chain-smoke — a well established television trope for sleaze and disease — and then they cough, hack, and wheeze. Krusty the Clown, if the name doesn’t tell you already, is a beaten-up, ageing, balding guy. He’s nasty, neurotic, and estranged from his father for abandoning his orthodox Jewish roots for the sinful life of television. Mrs Krabappel, the schoolteacher, is old, divorced, ugly, hates her job, hates her life, and hates children.

It may be that children watch The Simpsons. I don’t know, and Eslick and Eslick cite no data that show they do. The questions, though, are: Do children understand what a loser is? Do they emulate losers, or shun them?

Eslick and Eslick cite studies showing that any portrayal of smoking causes children to smoke.1 If this is so, why bother to differentiate between “neutral”, “positive” and “negative” portrayals of smoking? And what, precisely, do these labels mean? If, as they say, the “most notable characters” who smoke are these four loser characters, it is strange that they have coded most smoking instances as neutral rather than negative.

Even if the authors have a valid labelling system, and even if neutral portrayals cause children to smoke, the question then becomes: is this effect greater than any countervailing effects, such as, perhaps, that of discouraging adults (and adults who are parents) from smoking, or that of creating a broad cultural association between smoking, social failure, and sickness?

The logic of the argument put by Eslick and Eslick is that smoking should not be depicted at all in television programs that children watch. Given that children see people smoking in real life, and presumably look around them for some guidance as to whether they should do it too, it seems to me that it is actually commendable to tell them that only losers smoke. Strong evidence and argument that this approach does more harm than good would be very valuable.

View this article on Wiley Online Library

More like this

View more