Hands Off SpongeBob!(Reuters more accurate than the NYTIMES)

Toonzone via Instapundit. ^ | 01/21/05 | Maxie Zeus

[Pikamax]

---

First they came for the Teletubbies and I did nothing, because I hate mewling horribles who live in Orwellian romper rooms. But then they came for SpongeBob SquarePants. Now it's time to march.

That's the reaction a lot of people--not all of them cartoon fans--seem to have had when The New York Times on Thursday reported that James Dobson had criticized Nickelodeon's cheerful yellow sponge for appearing in a video promoting tolerance. The problem, apparently, is that the kind of tolerance being promoted would extend to (among others) people who are gay.

People who read the Times account weren't very happy with Dobson. Over dinner, for instance, my sister laid it on the table with the off-hand remark, "I see that now they're attacking SpongeBob for being gay." "They" are not one of her favorite groups. Nor one of mine.

At Toon Zone, we haven't followed this story with focused interest. But I have watched, with a mounting dread, as each piece of the current controversy started to fall into place. Last November we reported on the video now being criticized.

We reported, too, when the attacks started earlier this month.

And on Thursday we duly carried a summary and link to the Times article (registration required; here is a hassle-free copy).

So I'm not exactly surprised to see this break out into the wider world. While posting the earlier articles I could be heard silently muttering to myself: "3… 2… 1… Make controversy go now!" Complaints that cartoons are corrupting our kids are about as bewhiskered as the Bugs Bunny in a dress gag. This kind of hysteria makes me very tired, both because it's very silly and also very old.

At the same time, let's remember that it's The New York Times we're dealing with. These days it helps to have an advanced degree in Kremlinology while perusing their articles.

Look at the Times opening grafs:

On the heels of electoral victories to bar same-sex marriage, some influential conservative Christian groups are turning their attention to a new target: SpongeBob SquarePants.

"Does anybody here know SpongeBob?" James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, asked the guests Tuesday night at a black-tie dinner for members of Congress and political allies to celebrate the election results.

In many circles, SpongeBob needs no introduction. He is popular among children and grownups as well who watch him cavorting under the sea on the Nickelodeon cartoon program that bears his name. In addition, he has become a camp figure among adult gay men, perhaps because he holds hands with his animated sidekick Patrick.

Now, Dobson said, SpongeBob's creators had enlisted him in a "pro-homosexual video," in which he appeared alongside other children's television characters such as Barney and Jimmy Neutron, among many others.

Compare it with this summary from Reuters:

Christian Conservative groups have issued a gay alert warning over a children's video starring SpongeBob SquarePants, Barney and a host of other cartoon favorites.

The wacky square yellow SpongeBob is one of the stars of a music video due to be sent to 61,000 U.S. schools in March. The makers -- the nonprofit We Are Family Foundation -- say the video is designed to encourage tolerance and diversity.

But at least two Christian activist groups say the innocent cartoon characters are being exploited to promote the acceptance of homosexuality.

Notice the difference?

The Times: Several conservative Christian groups are criticizing SpongeBob SquarePants for appearing in a video that they claim promotes homosexuality. (Those are the words of our reporter Ace the Bathound.)

Reuters: Christian groups are criticizing a video that exploits cartoon characters to advance a pro-gay agenda.

As Reuters describes it, Christian groups are attacking a video; the various cartoon characters and entertainers who appear in it are being criticized indirectly (if at all) for lending themselves to an agenda that these critics deplore. As the Times describes it, though, these groups are specifically attacking SpongeBob. And by sticking in an early and gratuitous reference to SpongeBob's popularity with gay men (a point utterly irrelevant to a story about the video), the Times creates the impression that Dobson is attacking SpongeBob for being a gay icon. No wonder a casual reader comes away with the impression that Dobson is attacking SpongeBob for being gay.

In fact, if you read the Times article carefully you'll see that it adds nothing to the story carried by WorldNetDaily two weeks ago, except for some innuendo about a popular cartoon character. (Reuters' more pellucid summary makes clear that the story hasn't advanced in the last two weeks.) Of course, I don't know for sure: maybe Dobson went off on an anti-gay tirade in which he mocked SpongeBob for his cheerfulness, his tendency to skip and sing, and his fondness for holding hands with his best friend Patrick. But if so, why is the only Dobson quote in the Times the colorless "Does anybody here know SpongeBob?"

I'm not interested in the "gay" angle to SpongeBob, and as an editor and reporter on this site I have no interest in gay marriage, gay rights or any of the other social controversies that so exercise Dobson. I think Dobson and his allies are very foolish to treat what sounds like a bland grammar-school video as a threat to American values; I think it is execrable that he should try piggybacking his social agenda onto innocent cartoon characters and their innocent creators.

But the Times, intentionally or not, appears to be guilty of the same thing. Deliberately or not, it appears to have twisted Dobson's position and imputed to him (without evidence) an argument he does not seem to have made. And in making SpongeBob sound like a martyr, it appears to be trying to piggyback a rival agenda onto his very thin shoulders: Save SpongeBob from the bluenoses!

Cartoons don't deserve this. SpongeBob doesn't deserve this. And SpongeBob's creator, Stephen Hillenburg, certainly doesn't deserve to have his creation kidnapped and turned into a giant puppet in some freak protest parade, no matter what its cause.

To Dobson and the Times I've a simple message: Get your hands out of SpongeBob's square pants.

Update: Dobson's organization has released a statement on the controversy.

[JeffAtlanta]

The rules enforced at pro-family sites like FR preclude pro-homosexual talking points disguised as civil discourse.

What were his pro-homosexual talking points? All I saw is that he disagreed with the assertion that homosexuality is a symptom of childhood sexual abuse. Is this the official FR position?

Its funny - I believe that homosexuality is a personal choice. That is, a person isn't born 'gay' - people are born with different tendencies (sexual, criminal, etc), but its a personal choice on whether to act up them or not.

I take hits from the rabid gay groups because I don't believe that person is "born gay" and I talk hits from the rabid anti-gay groups because I believe its a personal choice.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

I believe you are unintentionally mistating your stats: It is estimated that 1 in 4 girls and 1 in 7 boys will experienced unwanted sexual contact before they turn 18. This can range from someone grabbing their backside (not in a playful nature, but a sexual nature) to full blown rape. When mentioned in other articles, it can easily be interpreted as assault (leading the reader to believe it means the most serious acts). I don't have the source saved, but I can dig it out if given time. Nonetheless, this is still too much sexualization for our little ones.

Thanks, writter, for the more detailed explanation. All of that does fall under the term "molest." None of it should ever happen to a child, and teaching kids to tolerate everyone's sexual identity when they might easily be a victim of this sort of thing is just irresponsible.

[EdReform]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1026551/posts?page=373#373

[k2blader]

I don't automatically attach - or dismiss - significance to someone's views or opinions strictly because they may or may not adhere to a certain set of religious beliefs, if any. I like to think I judge the merits of the argument on the argument itself.

That's well and good. But this thread and discussion specifically deals with the concerns of Christians like Dobson, myself, and several others, so we're coming from a particular viewpoint that is based on biblical precepts. It's the way Christians look at moral issues.

My thought was that if one does not share the same biblical worldview as Dobson does or as I do, maybe *that* is the main source of disagreement; and maybe I could attempt to adjust my arguments to take that into account.

The defensive reaction to my question is still confusing to me. If, say, I happened to post on a thread on which atheists were discussing something they strongly believed in, and in response to my post one of them asked me, "Are you an atheist?", I would simply say "No, I'm a Christian." And then we'd move on.

If your worry is that I think certain posts are of greater value *only* because the poster says "I am a Christian", you couldn't be farther from the truth. It would always depend on what the argument is, what the rest of the words say. Even Christians disagree (and rather strongly at times) with each other--if you doubt this, check out the religion forum once in a while :-).

Besides, are we all not free to decide what arguments are more valid than others?

On many issues I will always place more value on an argument I believe to be "Bible based". That's just how I view the world as a Christian, because for me the Word is the center of everything.

[jwalsh07]

I happen to agree with you that DaveDC Metro did nothing on this thread to get banned. I think his logic was faulty and his postions wrong but he should not have been banned based on this thread.

[scripter]

What were his pro-homosexual talking points?

I highly suggest you read The Homosexual Propaganda and Media Manipulation Game... and compare that to some of the things he said.

All I saw...

Seriously, you really missed a lot. His continued and complete misrepresentation of others, including Tammy Bruce, is something we often see from the pro-homosexual crowd. There appears to be a very low tolerance for misrepresentation on this issue at FR.

I'm not sure why you would take hits from the rabid anti-gay groups because [you] believe [homosexuality] is a personal choice. But then your definition of anti-gay groups may be different than my own. I consider the Fred Phelps (GHF) group rabid. Look him up.

[NCPAC]

Thank you for the depth and tenor of your response. It is a good thing when disagreements can be had without insults being tossed about!

[Thumper1960]

Hey bro -- those are the cards you tossed on the table. Read it and weep.

Learn to read a poker deck and leave the pinochle cards to the old folks.

"Bro".

[little jeremiah]

I get the feeling that he and his supporter who likewise got banned were re-treads. Maybe even the same re-tread.

[k2blader]

Thank you for hearing me out, or would that be reading me out. :-)

[JeffAtlanta]

I get the feeling that he and his supporter who likewise got banned were re-treads. Maybe even the same re-tread.

Who else got banned?

[Mockingbird For Short]

The following comes from off the "We Are Family" website:

The We Are Family Foundation together with its partners the Anti-Defamation League, Crown Theatres, Disney Channel, FedEx, Nickelodeon, HIT Entertainment, Nile Rodgers/Sony Publishing/The Bernard Edwards Estate/Warner Chapel, Nelvana, Scholastic, Sesame Workshop, Toni Mendez Shapiro Estate, and WGBH have come together to produce and distribute this unprecedented children's educational music video and curriculum....Each package will include a DVD of the music video and a booklet containing educational lesson plans developed in collaboration with the Anti-Defamation League's Miller Early Childhood Initiative of A WORLD OF DIFFERENCE ® Institute. The lessons aim to put the video's themes of respect, understanding and appreciation of diversity into practice and are designed for pre-K through first grade audiences with additional teaching guidelines for grades two to six.... All teaching guides will be available for download from both the Anti-Defamation League (www.adl.org) and We Are Family Foundation (www.wearefamilyfoundation.org) Web sites. In addition, a preview of the children's video is available at the We Are Family Foundation Web site...

Apparently the curriculum that comes with the video for March 11 has not yet been put on their or the Anti-Defamation League's website. Until we see the curriculum that is to be taught to the children at the same time as the video is shown, we can't know firsthand if it's something objectionable or not.

[scripter]

Who else got banned?

Somebody named: matteads76, apparently starting in post 333.

[savagesusie]

When Sponge Bob and some other character were talking about raiding grandma's panties

Are you kidding?????

[little jeremiah]

matteads76 signed up right after the Dave fellow got banned, made 3 or 4 comments all in his support, and promptly got zotted. I am sure he was either the same person or another seminar poster.

[little jeremiah]

Please check out this other thread, same topic, especially post #28 provided by Dave Tesla:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1326446/posts?page=28#28

Here's part of what he found:

For ‘not promoting homosexuality’ the Writing for Change
guide spends an amazing amount of time dwelling on the
subject and having the teacher discuss with their young
aptive audience such appropriate and soul searching
exercises as: (Remember these are for elementary school
age children)

Identify ways in which homophobia and compulsory
heterosexuality are at work in your daily life.

Find some examples of compulsory heterosexuality in your
daily life.

How are you affected by compulsory heterosexuality?

How are you affected by homophobia?

How would you be affected if your sexual orientation were
different than it is now?

How would others you know – friends, family members,
classmates, members in your clubs or organizations – be
affected?

How will understanding these definitions change your
thinking about compulsory heterosexuality and homophobia?

Will this change any of your behaviors? If so, how?

Ah yes, the great evil of compulsory heterosexuality.
Their definitions are enough to raise an eyebrow or two
and aren’t what you would have typically found in an
episode of Mr. Rogers.

"Homophobia: Thoughts, feelings, or actions based on fear,
dislike, judgment, or hatred of gay men and lesbians/of
those who love and sexually desire those of the same sex.
Homophobia has roots in sexism and can include prejudice,
discrimination, harassment, and acts of violence.
Compulsory heterosexuality: Thee assumption that women
are “naturally” or innately drawn sexually and emotionally
toward men, and men toward women; the view that
heterosexuality is the “norm” for all sexual
relationships. The institutionalization of heterosexuality
in all aspects of society includes the idealization of
heterosexual orientation, romance, and marriage.
Compulsory heterosexuality leads to the notion of women as
inherently “weak,” and the institutionalized inequality of
power: power of men to control women’s sexuality, labor,
childbirth and childrearing, physical movement,
safety, creativity, and access to knowledge. It can also
include legal and social discrimination against
homosexuals and the invisibility of or intolerance toward
lesbian and gay existence."

[SweetCaroline]

I AM NOT KIDDING!!!!!!!!!

SIT DOWN AND WATCH IT SOME TIME AND SEE WHAT THEY EXPOSE KIDS TO.

[weegee]

You sure loves your conspiracies, boss.

[weegee]

Kinsey's Sexual Behavior of the Male came out in 1947. Long before Beaver Cleaver.

Troll your bunk elsewhere.

How old are you anyway???

[garbanzo]

Kinsey's Sexual Behavior of the Male came out in 1947. Long before Beaver Cleaver.

Ok...and your point is what exactly? Are you saying that the media environment of the Boomer generation wasn't censored enough? Even with the Hayes' Office Code and strict standards and practices guides on TV and prayer in public schools? I seriously doubt much of the boomers read Kinsey when they were children.

To make this concrete, consider that someone who turned 18 in 1968 was born in 1950. Kinsey may have been something they read in college, but I doubt it had any strong influence in their more formative years, say 1955-1965, which was kind of my point. "Leave it to Beaver" ran from 1957-1963, probably reaching this key demographic during their most value-formative years. That media enviroment seems to have had little effect on their adult political values and moral choices, which is why I'm skeptical of the it's-for-the-children arguments. I'm not convinced it matters that much.