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.

[Thumper1960]

You deny Christ was an observant Jew?

[jwalsh07]

Sexuality is the province of the individual. Teaching right from wrong is the duty of the family/parents and their spiritual teachers.

Nice juke but it dodges the question. The question was pretty simple. Should have been easy for an intellect like yours.

[k2blader]

For parents who are upset about that which is contrary to their religious beliefs and values is not "moronic." To voice their objections is also not "moronic." Indeed, they would actually be morons to be upset and still allow such undermining of their teachings because they're afraid it would hurt someone's feelings.

Or afraid folks would think it's not "politically astute".

Some of us worship Something a lot more important than politics.

[EdReform]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1326199/posts?page=74#74

[jwalsh07]

It's another controversy that won't die. Regardless of what Dobson said, it was he that created this controversy by bringing it up, in the full knowledge of how it would play out.

Dobson did not create a controversery, he simply alerted parents to an organization with an agenda inconsistent with the parents who listen to James Dobson. Thecontroversy was created by left wing spinners attempting to paint Dobson as a lunatic seeing homosexuals runnin aok n Spong Bob cartoons.

Sadly there are many like you who re more than willing to grab that goofy ball and run with it. Why, is beyond me.

It also is another example of the Right being off on a wild goose chase. Which, BTW, it will continue to be so long as segments of it listen to charlatans, and follow their commands to action.

Oy vey.

[Thumper1960]

One would have to accept your question is constructed in a factual and legitimate manner before answering in your desired manner.

Does anyone support brainwashing? Of course not. Unless it's our accepted brand of brainwashing.

So darned transparent.

"Good Conservative"......sheesh.

[Shortstop7]

Not now, the grown-ups are talking.

Your arrogance is amazing...........this thread truly is like the nonsense at the DU. I've seen very few "grown ups" on this thread. More nonsense to make us all out to be "radical rightwingers"....... Somebody tell the "grownups" to just shut up before they do more damage.

[Zechariah11]

LOL! That was from left field. Yes, the LJC was an observant Jew. His death was full of meaning (propitiation, etc)

The consequence of that death was a change in dispensations and man's approach to God. It is through a simple, non-meritorious act of faith in Him/His sacrificial death and resurrection whereby man is justified. A further consequence is that believers are no longer bound under the OT practices (Galatians). the apostle Peter was even chastised twice for not seeing this -- once by the resurrected Christ in a dream, second by Paul during a communal meal.

[TheWriterInTexas]

Dear Ghost:

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.

[Thumper1960]

Don't tell some of the "grownups" that Mr. Dobson would make a good mullah, given half a chance and a few armed true believers.

[Zechariah11]

I'm glad to see that you can more clearly state your point of view. Welcome!

[Long Cut]

If you would read my original post, I was reacting to another posters' irrational claim that once she heard that Gays liked the cartoon, she prohibited it in her house. That sort of thinking is a perfect example of someone going off on a completely useless tangent.

I merely expanded it to include the Right as a whole...and it DOES do this, on a number of topics not limited to cartoons. Most times in fact, it is encouraged into its folly by some or other preacher like Dobson or Wildmon.

As for the video and curricula, I am fully aware of it. I also disapprove of sexuality being taught in any way beyond simple fact in schools. I'm not certain that this is indeed the case here.

What IS certain is that a segment of the Right and a prominent member of it are now associated with an attack on a cartoon character, and will thus be portrayed and remembered. They should have known better. I'm not surprised that they did not, however.

[nicmarlo]

I will say that there is no conspiracy

That is your belief, based on what? Your opinion? There are others who disagree with you and have more than that: they have posted links to websites, or titles of books, page and number, that expose a contradiction to your opinion.

If it's a matter of faith as to whose opinion is "correct," isn't it best to read curriculum material for yourself, listen to those who have actually taken coursework at teacher colleges and at least have some first-hand knowledge to back up that opinion before declaring those who don't agree with you may be kooks or over-reacting, or what not?

For myself, I have formulated my opinion based on personal experience, what I've seen and heard from others (i.e., Phyllis Schlafly, for example, though there are many others), and what I've read (i.e., curriculum and textbooks written for students at teacher colleges).

the desire for respect is a desire all humans possess.

Very true. But I don't have to respect everything that every person does. Nor do I have to respect immoral people, such as Hitler, Stalin, the man who just murdered the Wal Mart clerk, or those who do things to my children, behind my back.

[nicmarlo]

Or afraid folks would think it's not "politically astute".

Yes, exactly.

[Zechariah11]

I was reacting to another posters' irrational claim that once she heard that Gays liked the cartoon, she prohibited it in her house.

Sounds like a conscientious parent trying to do her best to raise her child right.

[Politicalmom]

You can't demand respect or compel it.

And I won't allow my children to be taught to respect sin.

[DaveDCMetro]

Sounds more like someone who allows emotion and irrational fear to trump logic and reason.

[Long Cut]

Are you serious? It was like saying that since gays like hamburgers, she wouldn't feed them to her kids.

I'm sure some gays like your brand of motor vehicle. Better sell it now!

I just want to know, why would you defend irrationality like that?

[Politicalmom]

What business is it of yours? It is the parents' responsibility to decide what is acceptable for their children.

[DaveDCMetro]

LOL. You should have been here earlier. I was opining as to how, eventually, all major corporations are going to include sexual orientation in their nondiscrimination policies. And once they do, look out! Can't buy those Kellogg's cereals. Otherwise, the kids will visit their website, click five links, scroll down to footnote 15, and be exposed to the homosexual agenda. I always knew there was something fishy about that Tony the Tiger...