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]

Republicans and conservatives as whole certainly do not share a radical view toward homosexuals. Looking at the final 2004 exit polls, Bush captured 24% of the popular vote from voters who favor either legal marriages or civil unions for same sex couples - he captured 26% of the populare vote from voters who favored no legal recognition.

It is certainly clear from this data that an anti-homosexual bent is certainly not the prevailing norm for conservatives. This can also be evidenced from the Alan Keyes election where he captured only 27% of the popular vote in a state where Bush captured 45%.

This data shows that virtually half of the republican VOTING base shares the same view toward homosexuality as you do - basically a live and let live philosophy.

The formatting of the table isn't that great, but I hope it is comprehendable.

	Overall	Bush	% To Total	Kerry	% To Total
Legally Marry	25%	22%	6%	78%	20%
Civil Unions	35%	52%	18%	47%	16%
No Legal Recognition	37%	70%	26%	29%	11%
			50%		47%

 Source Data

[DBeers]

It was supposed to be a humorous comment. Nothing more, nothing less.

-convince me --Take a critical objective look at post #57 and offer your opinion regarding this issue.

[RockAgainsttheLeft04]

Thanks for the table, Jeff. I appreciate it.


Yeah, I thought that I wasn't quite the anomaly that I feel like when talking about this issue on the FR boards. It's just that being behind a computer brings out the extremes in people's thoughts that they may not choose to express in a more civil, face-to-face discussion of the same matters. Many of that 22 % of all Bush voters who believe in legal marriage for homosexuals choose to keep that to themselves for fear of being branded as some kind of leftist/radical by more the more fundamentalist Republicans who populate the majority of the President's fanbase.

With Bush, as any politician, I tend to take the full package into consideration before I make my vote. Pres. Bush and the Republican party share probably 75-80% of the same values and political beliefs as I do, wheras I adamantly oppose John Kerry on probably 90% of every position that he takes (whenever he has the guts to take a position at all, that is).

Not every Republican is a radical theocratic like Jerry Falwell and James Dobsen, and not every Democrat is...well...actually most elected Democrats are leftist/socialist opportunists with no faith in personal liberty or the Constitution. The latter is why I post on FR, and I spit on the lunatics at DU.

[DBeers]

There are two "We Are Family" organizations. I do not believe this is the one promoting the video.

Suggest you take a look again because IT IS the one promoting the video. Note their website commentary about the video they are promoting and their logo both on their site and on the video.

[Corin Stormhands]

If you'd read the rest of the thread before responding, I already knew that.

[scripter]

Any idea on why he was banned?

Quite a few reasons, and lj summarized them quite well.

A discussion works both ways, and when somebody blows off time tested facts as propaganda, that's not having a civil discussion. Calling time tested facts propaganda is an argument we hear from the left and often the young.

[F16Fighter]

"So, now I'm an 'anti-theist'.

Brother, how could you be so wrong."

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

[loboinok]

Look, I'm not a Bible Belt conservative, and I don't live in an area where real men wear cowboy boots.

Go on...you're pulling my leg ain't ya?

P.S. Why has your account been banned or suspended?

[scripter]

The facts are religiously neutral and speak for themselves.

Indeed. If there are any posts here that refer to religion and homosexuality, they are few and far between. One of the reasons the categorical index was created was because folks were saying we only had religious arguments against homosexuality. Talk about ignorance...

The end of my FR profile contains information everybody should read. BTW, my net connect is up and down - mostly down, until they can figure out what the problem is.

[little jeremiah]

Homosexuals know lots and lots of homosexuals. Does that make them experts on the dangers of the "gay" life, experts on what's best for children, experts on how to stop AIDS, experts on how homosexuals can change, etc?

Whether I personally know any homosexuals or not has absolutely zero to do with the discussion at hand. I'm really surprised that you think it's even relevant.

I know a former homosexual or two, BTW.

And all the homosexuals I have known personally have had at least a few of the factors mentioned above in their background.

But the whole argument that "if you don't personally know any homosexuals you can't have an informed viewpoint" is so irrational that I must conclude that you are very, very young. Or singularly ill-informed and not practiced in logical and independent thought.

[little jeremiah]

I've got an idea.

Post some articles, studies, and research that backs up your viewpoint.

For instance, refute some of the facts about homosexuality that have been presented here.

Saying that you believe something not to be true doesn't count.

Calling those who consider homosexual behavior unhealthy, unnatural and immoral bigots is not a valid argument, BTW.

[paltz]

There are certain issues that some conservatives "take the bait" on and run with. This is one of them. What happens? Conservatives look like the big bad guys who want to ban some stupid cartoon and a new popular cult mascot becomes even bigger during pride weekend and late night tv.

[scripter]

For instance, refute some of the facts about homosexuality that have been presented here.

Oh, you're taking all the fun out of this, making folks actually support what they say. You know what's coming next, right?

1. silence
2. misdirection
3. back pedaling
4. discredited studies

I'm guessing we'll see #2...

[scripter]

To summarize the issue, as Pikamax did in post 1:

[We are ] concerned that these popular animated personalities are being exploited by an organization that's determined to promote the acceptance of homosexuality among our nation's youth...

... What we vehemently object to is using these beloved characters to help advance an agenda that's beyond the comprehension of 6 and 7 year-old children, not to mention morally offensive to millions of moms and dads...

...While some of the goals associated with this organization are noble in nature, their inclusion of the reference to "sexual identity" within their "tolerance pledge" is not only unnecessary, but it crosses a moral line.

That's why. That's the homosexual agenda trying yet again to desensitize children. 'nuff said.

[JeffAtlanta]

A discussion works both ways, and when somebody blows off time tested facts as propaganda, that's not having a civil discussion. Calling time tested facts propaganda is an argument we hear from the left and often the young.

If this were in fact a bannable offense then almost every creationist in the evolution threads would be banned by now. If you want some examples I'll be glad to provide some.

[Zechariah11]

Careful there, boyo

I just read your profile. . I'd go back and do some heavy editing before you become too condescending.

[DBeers]

If you'd read the rest of the thread before responding, I already knew that.

LOL -preemptive reply...

[Corin Stormhands]

Happens to the best of us.

[scripter]

I'm quite familiar with the crevo debates and your comparison is way off base. The rules enforced at pro-family sites like FR preclude pro-homosexual talking points disguised as civil discourse.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Post 57 will give you much of the information on the curriculum.