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]

http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/peruncln.html

[Thumper1960]

Be sure your own actions are above reproach.

Lest you be examined too closely and be found wanting.

[scripter]

It is a very leading article suggesting that children are in danger of being molested by homosexuals. Its arguments consist of things like, and I paraphrase, "because we know that homosexuality and pedophilia are both perversions, it may be reasonable to assume that where one perversion exists, there will be another."

Here's what the article actually says:

It should be said from the outset that a homosexual orientation does not automatically lead to pedophilia, and most homosexuals do not abuse children. Moreover, most homosexual activist groups publicly denounce pedophilia.

and then it says:

there is a "substantial, influential, and growing segment of the homosexual community that neither hides nor condemns pedophilia."

And we have numerous studies (read the footnotes) that support their statement:

Child Molestation and Homosexuality
Homosexual Rape and Murder of Children
Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse
Homosexuality and child molestation: the link, the likelihood, the lasting effects.

Then add to that what Tammy Bruce said that most homosexual men she knows were molested at a young age, you've got a lot of information that supports this nutty article. You can call this article nutty, but saying so doesn't make it true.

[jwalsh07]

LOL, I'll put you in the eunuch column.

You have an agenda just like everyody else has an agenda, you just don't have the wherewithal to spell it out an support it.

Getting late but I'll keep an eye out for you in the future. You're an exceptionally good teacher when it comes to obfuscation and hubris. I can learn a lot from you.

[Long Cut]

No doubt that it is. I however am free to opine that what they are doing is irrational. And banning a show from the house because you "heard" that someone you don't like enjoys it is the very definition.

I have seen people here claim that they would not purchase a Subaru because of that company's marketing to, and sucess with, homosexual car buyers. Further irrationality.

And it is an indication of going off on tangents far removed from the more important, serious matters of politics.

[Thumper1960]

Perfect.

And, if that mother who deemed it fit for her child to use crack is charged, you'd defend her right to raise her child as she saw fit.

Rights and demands without regulation lead to...

[Long Cut]

Oh, I saw it. I was LMAO. As a general rule, I shun the "boycott" mentality. I've rarely seen it work on a major, multinational corporation. In fact, the ONE time I ever saw a boycott have the desired result was that of Smith And Wesson back in 2000.

[Zechariah11]

Irrational fear. Nah, she's just being protective of what she allows to influence her child. Of course, some might with to remove all restraint and expose the child to anything. That cartoon market is pretty competitive. Lots to see. There are also plenty of good books to read.

I used to enjoy sitting down and watching an episode now and then. (I had to keep current of the elementary school viewing habits.) I loved it! Now, I feel that the producers of the program sold out to political correctness and cast all of us "bigoted Bible-thumpers" overboard for the approabation of the "open-minded progressives."

[Thumper1960]

You may try to put me wherever you wish.

Just be sure to let an adult know where you went.

[nicmarlo]

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.

Personally, I agree with you. As I'm sure gays also like vanilla shakes, I'm not going to stop drinking them. But I won't condemn that particular woman; perhaps there's more than meets the eye with her reaction. It is equally likely that she believed, as many here do, that the cartoon that is played at home is promoting something against her values, when, of course, that isn't even the issue.

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.

I don't think the right, as a whole, takes extreme stances on minor issues. This particular issue, IMO, is not minor. BTW, Dr. Dobson is not, and has never been, a preacher. If you do a google search on him, you will find that he has worked in the medical field and is widely respected as a psychologist. The fact that he is also a Christian is why he is condemned when he speaks out.

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.

I'm truly glad to see you disapprove. Perhaps the only way for you to believe that there is something "sinister" going on here is to look at the specific materials yourself, while sitting in the classroom, listening and watching how it's taught. The alternative, of course, is to go to a school district and request to have access to the curriculum.

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.

Generally speaking, the right will always be attacked, no matter what they do, say, object to. It's ludicrous. However, just because I know, for example, that I would be characterized as a loon because I objected to certain curriculum being used when my children were in school (with valid reason), I cannot allow the fear of being politically incorrect dictate what I will verbally object to. I don't care what that makes me look like. I will take a stand against that which I believe is wrong; let the chips fall where they may. It is my duty to speak the truth, or hold up a light in a dark room.

[DaveDCMetro]

Perhaps you have some articles on the Flat Earth theory as well?

[EdReform]

Then add to that what Tammy Bruce said that most homosexual men she knows were molested at a young age...

Tammy Bruce, The Death of Right and Wrong, p99:

Almost without exception, the gay men I know (and that's too many to count) have a story of some kind of sexual trauma or abuse in their childhood - molestation by a parent or an authority figure, or seduction as an adolescent at the hands of an adult.

Tammy Bruce: Protect New York's Children from the Gay Elite:

Even supporters of the gay school concept admit that the so-called gay kids they’re dealing with suffer from sexual acting-out, suicidal tendencies, drug abuse, and homelessness. The fact is, all of these symptoms are indications of sexual molestation, not homosexuality. So, instead of helping these kids deal with a serious trauma, they’ll be called “gay” and sent to a school to become a chef.

Tammy Bruce, The Death of Right and Wrong, p99:

Tammy Bruce, The Death of Right and Wrong, p99:

[DaveDCMetro]

These types of things don't deserve a response.

[NCPAC]

"If you are one of those who automatically attaches significance to someone's opinion if they claim some religious mantle...."

Quite a few of those types out there. It's disgusting, disheartening, and politically naive beyond words.

[jwalsh07]

You may try to put me wherever you wish.

Very powerful.

Just be sure to let an adult know where you went.

Very profound.

An intellectual and comedic giant.

Ping me anytime on any issue, I enjoy being a blue collared guy who cuts self proclaimed intellectual giants down to size.

[DaveDCMetro]

Okay, I can't resist.

This little piece of once again VERY BASIC propaganda is attempting to convince folks that all homosexuals are the product of sexual molestation. This simplistic and illogical argument is meant to ease the mind of those who fear to venture outside of their artificially constructed theological orthodoxy.

But in recent years, sound science has provided intense evidence that homosexuality exists in many different species. Perhaps they were molested too? I always knew there was something fishy about that Tony the Tiger...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

[Zechariah11]

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

The mother is not letting the television babysit her child but is exercising prudence as to what the child is exposed. It might be fair to assume that the mother has not had the liberty to preview all episodes. Furthermore, if the gays single out that cartoon program for kudos, the mother might think that is good enough reason to be suspect.

It is like picking up the endorsement issue of the LA Times and doing just the contrary if you don't have tons of free time. Or if gays highly recommend one particular hole-in-the-wall bar, I don't think I'd frequent that one. If liberals hate Wal-Mart, I just might start shopping there.

[nicmarlo]

It's very late and I need to hit the hay. Sleep well.

[scripter]

Perhaps you have some articles on the Flat Earth theory as well?

And perhaps you should have thought before posting the above.

[lbmorris11]

Some animals eat their young so it must be normal behavior for us too. Healthy human sexuality is not comparable to animal sexuality. Seriously dogs are always humping strangers legs. No matter how clearly I explain that proves it's normal strange ladies still slap me. I don't get it they must be anti science too.