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]

Screaming matches put the brakes on intelligent debate and this screaming match was perpetuated by ad-hominem attacks against the MOTIVES of other posters to the detriment of the logical discussion.

I did another quick read through and I didn't see any screaming match that involved Dave. I did see one on a sub topic that didn't involve Dave, but none of those were banned.

Ad-hominem attacks are not unique at all. Many posters routinely attack the motives of other posters and never get banned. Check any evolutionary thread and creationists will routinely claim that those on the evolution side of the debate only feel that way so that they can "justify their immoral acts." If not that, they are accused of hating God and having a black soul.

In this very thread, Dave's endured ad-hominem attacks against his motives - he was accused of wanting to further the leftist gay agenda. He posted links from National Geographic to further his point that homosexuality is not symptom of sexual molestation and he was accused of posting leftist propaganda.

I'm hoping that their is more to this banning that what I've heard from those in this thread. If believing that homosexuality is just a personal choice and not a symptom of some childhood molestation is reason enough to get banned then this place is going to get real empty real fast.

[fatima]

Jeff,I have been following this thread and it might be because he was a retread,was banned before-just guessing.

[fatima]

Then I have no clue.

[JeffAtlanta]

Jeff,I have been following this thread and it might be because he was a retread,was banned before-just guessing.

I hope so and that sounds more consistent from what I've experienced on FR. The FR mods seem to be pretty fair and only ban if a person attacks other posters, is an OBVIOUS troll or breaks board rules. Having a different ideological bent doesn't seem to be a violation of board rules as we even have a member named LiberalLarry. haha

BTW, I read your tagline - I'm certainly cheering for the Falcons today but I like your guys' chances.

[little jeremiah]

You're 100% wrong. The guy slammed those who are not in lockstep with the homosexual agenda, and that was his purpose in posting on FR, just as yours is, apparently. People treated him with civility and he was rude. Once he revealed himself as a homo-promoter, kid gloves were off.

In case you don't know, the founder and owner of FR doesn't want this forum used to promote the "gay" agenda.

[JeffAtlanta]

The guy slammed those who are not in lockstep with the homosexual agenda,

What do you consider the homosexual agenda?

[spinestein]

[Ad-hominem attacks are not unique at all. Many posters routinely attack the motives of other posters and never get banned. Check any evolutionary thread]

That's why I don't participate in those anymore.

I'm also not going to participate in anymore homosexual content threads after this last sentence.

I'm out of here.

[nmh]

"I have a different name for it: WILLFUL IGNORANCE."

YOU put is better than I.

Isn't it amazing that they considers themselves "conservatives" of some form - LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!

[nmh]

"I have a different name for it: WILLFUL IGNORANCE."

YOU put is better than I.

Isn't it amazing that they consider themselves "conservatives" of some form - LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!

[fatima]

Jeff,It will be a great game:)A lot of posters I respect have added to this thread and I just read the comments for debates later.I do get a lot of questions.

[little jeremiah]

If you don't know what the homosexual agenda is, you have either:

1. Been in a 20 year coma and just woke up,

2. Never read anything on FR for years,

3. Agree with it.

Just in case the answer is 1 or 2, read up and then get back to the discussion:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1026551/posts?page=381#381
homosexual agenda article links page

[LowOiL]

I have never seen the "spongbob" show/cartoon, but my wife said she has seen one and that was enough for her. The one show she watched was geared towards kids about the age of my kids (ages 3-7) and dealt with the subject of a "Panty Raid". Not subject material we want shown in our house.

[JeffAtlanta]

If you don't know what the homosexual agenda is, you have either:

Respectfully, I was asking what THE homosexual agenda was, I was asking what YOU considered the homosexual agenda to be. It was a fair question and I don't see the need for questioning my motives. From doing a quick reading of Dave's posts in this thread, I didn't any evidence of his promoting the gay agenda (whatever that is).

[little jeremiah]

Click the link, read for an hour or so, and you'll get the picture. If you want to get the picture.

[JeffAtlanta]

I figured that you could just point out which part of the gay agenda that Dave was pushing. I certainly don't want to waste an hour of my life reading a thread like that.

Maybe this will help - is disagreeing with the assertion that homosexuality is a symptom of sexual abuse considered, by you, part of the "gay agenda".