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.

[FreedomCalls]

Note that characters like Jimmy Neutron and Clifford the Big Red Dog also appear in the video. Why is it that SpongeBob is getting all the attention?

Because that's the way the NY Times twisted the story. Did you read the article at the top of the page?

[nicmarlo]

If there is no such thing as INFLUENCING CHILDREN (or adults) by their viewing IMAGES or LISTENING to slogans (or curriculum thats intent is to influence):

Why would there be such an outcry against such IMAGES as JOE CAMEL (eliminated from advertisements after repeated accusations from antismoking advocates and government regulators that the company used Joe Camel, a cartoon character, to attract young smokers)

Why would there be yet another outcry against the MARLBORO MAN (for similar reasons)........

Why would there be SLOGANS like "JUST SAY NO,"

and "JUST DO IT"

Why would there be COMMERCIALS aimed at children for BREAKFAST CEREALS or TOYS (especially at Christmas time) on Saturday mornings?

Because IMAGES and SLOGANS are effective tools in "SELLING IDEAS" and the intended objective is vastly achieved.

[nmh]

"Because IMAGES and SLOGANS are effective tools in "SELLING IDEAS" and the intended objective is vastly achieved."

No argument here.

You're preaching to the choir ;)

But hey, neocons and the left LOVE those images and the neocons simply are too cowardly to take a stance that's righteous.

[EdReform]

The indoctrination continues - January 24-28:

No Name Calling Week?

[spinestein]

EdReform has found the information that seems to answer everyone's questions. See links in reply #57.

There is a lot of reading to do but it supports the idea that the schools are engaging in social engineering that may not be along the lines of something many parents agree with.

[garbanzo]

Yes I did. But the AFA article posted on FR a few weeks ago only mentioned SpongeBob and the other cartoon characters in passing. It does seem clear to me that for some odd reason SBSP is being singled out for particular criticism. You can't turn this into a NYT conspiracy - that article from the AFA/worldnetdaily was posted a while ago. In fact, I suspect the NYT picked the story up from here because it wasn't being widely reported except in the fringe-right media.

[nicmarlo]

lol, I know I was singing to the choir....just thought you'd enjoy me "chiming" in! : )

[k2blader]

Okay, some Freepers owe Dr. Dobson an apology.

[hineybona]

It's a friggin cartoon man..Geeeezz A cartoon ..It's funny , stupid funny as a cartoon should be .There are NO homo hidden messages in it and anyone who see's thatin Spong BoB has a REAL problem . The cartoon itself is innocent ..People are really nuts I swear to God they are.

[hineybona]

there are no gay messages in Spong Bob stop acting like a nut case .

[nicmarlo]

The cartoon itself is innocent.

Yes, the Saturday cartoons of Spongebob and other characters are, IN AND OF THEMSELVES, innocent. This is not the point.

The point: the video being sent to 61,000 schools, which happen to have Spongebob (and other characters) IS NOT INNOCENT.

The video has a goal. Along with it specially prepared curriculum, it is USING Spongebob and other innocent characters) as a means to promote certain ideas to children. Those ideas include acceptance of homosexuality as "normal."

Most parents do not believe, and do not want their children being taught that homosexuality is normal.

[nicmarlo]

there are no gay messages in Spong Bob stop acting like a nut case .

The video that was specially made and being circulated to 61,000 schools is not the Saturday cartoon shows. The video is promoting homosexuality and it is USING Spongebob, other characters, and curriculum to promote that message.

[Nightshift]

What I do know is that, regardless of any culture war that may exist between Red and Blue America, SpongeBob is not a player in this conflict. Dobson's demagoguery is good, old-fashioned propaganda that follows a formula that's as old as time.

Whether you agree with or against Dobson, the simple truth is that the homosexuals have made Spongebob and the others, players in this field. They have used these cartoons to promote their agenda.

I have seen all the SpongeBob shows. I have yet to see anything in it to promote religion of any kind, so why do we have to have the homosexuals add their agenda to it or anyone else's for that matter. What kind of media outcry do you think there would have been if God had been made part of the cartoon?

Once the door was opened (by the homosexuals) it became open for debate. No one would have heard a word from Dobson, if they had just left the cartoon where is was, on the television.

This attack has all the makings of demagoguery at its finest. It plays on the fears of rural conservatives of those "evil" gays in big blue cities.

In case you haven't noticed, homosexual activity (not the person) is "Evil" to most of those in the red cities. Why do you think there is a culture war between red and blue America?

[EdReform]

It's a cartoon.

Perhaps you missed Hanity and Colmes last night - Dr Dobson was a guest on the show and adamantly reiterated his position, as was posted by Pikamax in reply 1:

From the outset, let's be clear that this issue is not about objections to any specific cartoon characters. Instead, Dr. Dobson is 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.

The complaint is NOT about the cartoon characters. If the video We Are Family were not being accompanied by extensive curricular supplements, there would be no complaints. However, all of the major homosexual organizations have signed on to support this video and assist with the development of the cirricular materials, as documented here, here and here. These organizations have no business being involved with programs in the public schools in any way.

I never saw anyone getting their knickers in a twist about a cross-dressing Bugs bunny.

Because a cross-dressing Bugs Bunny was an absuridty. It was outlandish and therefore funny. At that time, you didn't have organizations such as GLSEN, the NEA, and PFLAG in the public schools celebrating cross-dressing and promoting it as normal. It's a different story today. For example:

An excerpt from "Queering the Schools"

"... Two videos come particularly highly rated by gay activists and educators as tools for making primary school queer-friendly. Both films strive to present homosexuality in a favorable light, without saying what it actually is. It’s Elementary, intended for parents, educators, and policymakers, shows how classroom teachers can lead kindergartners through carefully circumscribed discussions of the evils of prejudice, portrayed as visited to an unusual degree on gays and lesbians. In That’s a Family, designed for classroom use, children speak directly into the camera, explaining to other kids how having gay and lesbian parents is no different from, for example, having parents of different national backgrounds.

GLSEN even provides lesson plans for the promotion of cross-dressing in elementary school classes. A school resource book containing such lesson plans, Cootie Shots: Theatrical Inoculations Against Bigotry for Kids, Parents, and Teachers, has already been used in second-grade classrooms in California. A children’s play in the book features a little boy singing of the exhilaration of striding about “In Mommy’s High Heels,” in angry defiance of the criticism of his intolerant peers:

They are the swine, I am the pearl. . . .
They’ll be beheaded when I’m queen!
When I rule the world! When I rule the world!
When I rule the world in my mommy’s high heels! ..."

An excerpt from "Targeting Children - Part two: How the homosexual movement uses public schools as instruments of change"

"GLSEN activist and New York kindergarten teacher Jaki Williams said starting in kindergarten is a must, since children at that age are still developing their ideas about the world around them. Even at that age, she said, “the saturation process needs to begin.”

Williams, in fact, is a model teacher when it comes to this “saturation” process. She regularly initiates conversations with her children by reading to them such controversial books as Heather Has Two Mommies, Daddy’s Roommate, and One Dad, Two Dads, Browns Dads, Blue Dads. She also hosts a viewing of the video Both of My Moms’ Names Are Judy: Children of Lesbians and Gays Speak Out, produced by a San Francisco pro-homosexual advocacy group.

According to one writer for The Lambda Report, who infiltrated a 1997 GLSEN workshop, one former teacher admitted that changing the mind of a child required more than a one-time effort. She said she had to expose her children to a constant stream of homosexual words and images, because "It’s really a conditioning process."

See also:

Human Rights Campaign Foundation invades saturday morning cartoons (My title)

Queering Elementary Education

[EdReform]

Precisely! See reply 74.

[DaveDCMetro]

I was replying more to some of the responses than the actual article. I saved criticism of Dobson for my subsequent post.

[jwalsh07]

Nice posts Ed.

[DaveDCMetro]

So you're going to punish SpongeBob because of gay activists? Um, how about going after the gay activists themselves. From what I've read, SpongeBob does not in any way advance their agenda. Even the elementary school film isn't doing that. So what gives?

[Nightshift]

I think what the profeesor is saying, whether it be public or private, if you don't like whats being taught, then send them elsewhere, just as you did when you sent your children to public school instead of keeping them in the lesser private parochial schools.

profeesor, did I get what you were saying right?

[Nightshift]

You are correct that SpongeBob does not advance their agenda, so why even use him in the film? Why could they not just come up with their own cartoon character. Have you tried to explain sexual orientation to a 1st grader?