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.

[Mockingbird For Short]

Spongebob is kind of a cult hero in the gay community for whatever reason. I think it is because he is often running around in his underwear and showing off his butt and other juvenile humor.

Ya' know, I've often wondered if part of a homosexual's problem is that he/she is sort of stuck, sexually and emotionally, in that juvenile phase of growing up where "playing doctor" with friends of the same sex is considered natural.

[RockAgainsttheLeft04]

RE: "These sort of "folks" are VERY rare (I don't know anybody like this and I don't want to) but it does send chills up my spine that you would knowingly work alongside a person who would murder a gay at the slightest provocation."


Oh, I'm not sure why you think that that kind of person is so rare. Sad to say, but I've known several people in my past who talked this very way about homosexuals, mostly when I was in High School. You know the kind, the "AIDS kills F*** dead" crowd. Truly horrendous people that they are, most are also so cowardly that they'd never even think of taking the drastic, violent measures against gays that they claim to believe in.

I've never allowed one of these types to keeps my aquaintance for long, and I angrily cursed one of these moronic bigots out in Senior class (man, but it was worth the trip to after-school detention; just like the time I stood up for the rights of the unborn in a class hostile to pro-life ideas-- we are all activists in our own little ways, my friend).

[Mockingbird For Short]

Where can we find the curriculum that goes with the video? (If you already answered this question, I apologize for re-asking, but I haven't read this whole thread yet. By the length of it, it might take a while!)

[Mockingbird For Short]

Your post #25 is one of the saddest things I've ever read. No child should have to endure sexual abuse, whether for only a moment, or repeatedly for years. This is so sad. It is interesting that shame is such a natural response to having been used sexually. A child doesn't need to be informed that sexual abuse is creepy and wrong; they know it instictively.

[k2blader]

Hopefully you read #214 too, rather than assuming a prejudice that is itself disgusting, disheartening, and naive.

[Mockingbird For Short]

Dr. James Dobson, the psychologist, founder of Focus On the Family, and educator based in Colorado Springs, owns cell phone towers in Oklahoma???????

[JeffAtlanta]

He's banned

Any idea on why he was banned? I came into this thread late but he seemed to be having a civil discussion with several about homosexuality and whether there is a link to sexual abuse.

[NCPAC]

I read the entire thread, k2.

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.

What concerns me is that I see far too many posts on FR where one poster or a another states he/she is a Christian as though that somehow gives his/her argument more leverage or power than the posts proffered by FReepers who may not be (or do not state) their Christianity or faith in any religion. It's nonsense.

[Ginifer]

http://www.reuters.com/printerFriendlyPopup.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=7400526

[nicmarlo]

They don't seem to mind, as long as it is their beloved Sponge Bob!

As long as they like the messenger, the message can be anything. Yes, it's going to 61,000 schools across the nation.

Of course, they haven't published a list. No matter where I've looked, all I see is a number.

But I don't wonder why they're withholding the names of schools.

[nicmarlo]

That's a great thread. Thanks for posting link.

[nicmarlo]

If we arbitrarily pick which animal behaviors to value, then any such study from which we get insights for human behavior is a complete waste of time.

Beyond being a great post, very LOGICAL analysis.

[Politicalmom]

It is absolutely rational not to want to spend one's money at a business that promotes something that one is against.

[Politicalmom]

You are nuts.

Using drugs is against the law and harmful to the child.

Being selective about TV is NOT.

[little jeremiah]

I can't take credit for it, I got it from a post of Scripter's! I saved it for when people trot out those "bonobos are homos so it much be normal and natural" arguments.

[little jeremiah]

He was slavishly promoting the homosexual agenda in the usual troll manner; ignoring rational arguments, innuendo, slamming the messenger, straw man arguments, etc. Transparently. Also, very likely a "recidivist".

[nicmarlo]

I saved it for when people trot out those "bonobos are homos so it much be normal and natural" arguments.

Bringing out that kind of argument is absurd. Dogs pee on fire hydrants; should we as well?

[nicmarlo]

Also.....that kind of argument is the same as saying: "let's bring our behavior and expectations down to the lowest common denominator."

[Long Cut]

"It is absolutely rational not to want to spend one's money at a business that promotes something that one is against."

Again, no disagreement. Where we would disagree on that is probably in the effectiveness of such a personal boycott.

However, that was not the discussion. It was not a "business that promotes something...", it was "something someone else liked". To use THAT as a basis for a boycott is ridiculous.

[Politicalmom]

You used the example of the car company marketing to gays. I was responding to that.