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.

[DaveDCMetro]

I'm sorry, but the brand of conservatism I belong to is not an ideology of hate, and that's what your articles represent.

[lbmorris11]

Saying you are morally opposed to a lifestyle is not equivalent to hating people.

[scripter]

Thanks, ER. I wasn't able to find the exact quote and my copy of the book isn't accessible at this time.

[DaveDCMetro]

But you wouldn't argue that the dog's desire to "hump" is unnatural? Quite to the contrary, it is completely normal, but the reason we humans don't go around doing the same is that we have evolved intellects that allow us to reason and make the decision that such a move would be socially unwise (to say the least!). But just as the desire for heterosexual gratification exists in both dog and man, so does the existence of homosexual desire.

[DaveDCMetro]

"Saying you are morally opposed to a lifestyle is not equivalent to hating people."

Agreed. But the articles I was responding to were disgusting tripe attempting to convince folks that homosexuals want to molest their children. Are you prepared to defend that?

[scripter]

The Animal Homosexuality Myth

[Thumper1960]

LMAO

Fooled ya!

I'm really from Aldebran. You could visit, someday. Have a few beers down by the shore. Watch the sorority sisters pledge at Cherry Hill Reformatory.......

[Zechariah11]

That is their slam against the Biblically-minded while their secular,ideological cohorts ("who have ventured outside artificial theological constructs") are imprisoning Bible-believers in other parts of the world. These people are the true haters and they especially hate those of the "household of faith."

[scripter]

I'm sorry, but the brand of conservatism I belong to is not an ideology of hate, and that's what your articles represent.

There's that magic word again: hate. We see it here a lot as a common and very incorrect argument.

[lbmorris11]

Having desire is not an argument for morality as I understand it. Right and wrong is used to control things we desire that are harmful to ourselves or others. I naturally am attracted to more women than my wife for instance. To be clear I do think homosexuality is wrong but am not advocating any form of discrimination. I don't hate them. However, I have a knee jerk reaction when people force feed kids ideas I disagree with. I guess the only I hate is government using schools as propaganda

[scripter]

He's banned.

[EdReform]

The Animal Homosexuality Myth

[scripter]

Beat ya to it. ;-)

[scripter]

the articles I was responding to were disgusting tripe attempting to convince folks that homosexuals want to molest their children.

Yet another misrepresentation of the article you responded to. The article said most don't, but a growing segment is pushing pedophilia.

[EdReform]

For future reference:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1026551/posts?page=385#385


You KNOW how I like to archive information!

;o)

[EdReform]

Another one bites the dust!

[scripter]

For some reason I thought that post was closer to post 1, so I couldn't find it... I'll post a link to it in the database. And I just love your archives!

[RockAgainsttheLeft04]

As I view it, Longcut, there is no issue simpler than this one.

I have no problem with homosexuals or their behaviors (though their actions don't exactly make me comfortable, per se), and I am probably one of the most "liberal" FReepers on this one issue, opposing any sort of Big-government legislation aimed at denying homosexuals the same legal rights as straight couples. I hate Dr. Dobson and nearly everything he usually stands for, such as his many obsessive quests against all percieved moral "lapses" in the entertainment industry. My respect for him is akin to my respect for the ACLU, Pat Robertson, the modern-day NAACP, and the Christian Coalition--- that is to say, NONE.

That said (and on the record for good), I have to say that I agree that the most basic outrages committed in this case were committed by overzealous, militant gay rights activists. I don't believe that it is now, nor is it ever acceptable for a political group to co-opt a popular children character or children's TV mascot for the advancement of their own agenda, and that is what is being done with SpongeBob Squarepants by his appearance in the tolerance video. Truth is, tolerance of the homosexual lifestyle is something that the government has no right to teach in schools using taxpayer dollars, and it is the specific duty of a child's parents and a child's parents ALONE (provided that the child has parents) to raise up that child within the religious or moral system that the parents may believe in. If this means that the child will grow up with a bigoted opinion of homosexuals, than so be it; the greater threat to America's freedoms in the long run is a government which takes upon itself the right to form the minds and opinions of children that said government neither conceived of, bore, or cares for.

There might be a few good, small-government libertarian 'Pubbies out there who understand what I am saying, but for the rest of you...FLAME ON!

[scripter]

Probably a returning banned poster, too. The arguments looked familiar...

[EdReform]

Check out all the new articles at NARTH:

http://www.narth.com/menus/clinical.html

More material for the Index of Links!