Well, you do have to admit that Spongebob is gay to the bone.

what if it had been a black couple or a jewish couple? would we then say that the agenda was clearly driven by the NAACP or the ADL?

some people just happen to be gay, and their mere presence on television doesn't need to considered a political act.

Oh, please. It is and you know it.

that was one hell of a response. you certainly told me.

Hey! Looks like Totten's got another bigot-line going here, doing his best to distract people from realistic concerns. It's better for his side to get people yammering about something that's none of their business, rather than addressing a valid issue. Regardless of the bigotry & animosity Totten apparently promotes, I object to "children's programming," period. Who the fuck wants (or deserves) programming anyway? Do you wanna be programmed? How would you like to be re-programmed? It's better to be free.

And who the fuck is clueless enough to watch television in the first place?

Hahahahahaha. The gay agenda. (Which is what? "It'd be nice if you didn't beat us up or spit at us in the street"?)

The Great Playschool Outrage.

Oy vey.

The show was written by people who made a conscious decision to include a lesbian couple. It has to be intentional, else how would you ever know they were lesbians? Casting characters of different races or ethnicities doesn't require that part be written with a particular skin color in mind unless the point is to write a piece about race. In this case, they didn't write the show only to have the casting director say "Ooo, let's cast two females in the parental roles because no males showed up"; the show was written that way for a specific reason.



[Edited on Feb 04, 2005 by Michael_DeSade]

Yes, it was written in deliberately. In the Play School episode, it was a real family with two mothers who were featured.

SO WHAT?

This is not a "conservative" agenda or a "liberal" agenda being promoted, in the sense that party allegiance or future voting preference is being presented. In the Play School episode an actual family was shown doing everyday things, like an everyday family, with a slightly unorthodox family makeup.

They weren't picketing a church, they weren't agitating against the government, they weren't carrying signs for a cause.

They were going to an amusement park.

The reason for me linking the Australian case is that it isn't presenting a debate -- it's just showing aspects of how the world in fact is.

(Did the Playchool producers have an agenda? A hidden motive? Maybe. Point stands.)

Umm, sorry, but I wasn't responding to your post.



[Edited on Feb 04, 2005 by Michael_DeSade]

You've got time to right now 'til s5 returns.

Did the Aussie government pay for Playschool?

It's on the ABC, our "government channel", so yes.

This was, of course, the essence of the complaint made against it -- using public funds to push "an agenda".

I don't GET the agenda thing, and that's why I reacted to what you said. It IS NOT the same as pushing a partisan political line, whether it be liberal or radical or conservative. It's simply presenting a facet of society that isn't the majority one, but a real one nonetheless. I very much doubt it's going to make kids queer.

If it makes them the tiniest bit more tolerant, then all the better.

The "agenda" being pushed in both cases seems to me a simple one -- let's not pretent to kids that absolutely everyone is heterosexual.

I'm not as familiar with Australian television networks as I am with American, so pardon me if I ask seemingly obvious questions.

Here, the closest thing we have to a 'government' channel is PBS, which runs off the funds it gathers from private donations, and a subsidy from the government. Pre-cable, it was the only place to see anything even remotely non-commercial in nature. Sesame Street was a big hit on this network, and was a great example of what publiclly funded television programming for children could become. Then along came Barney and the whole thing went into the crapper.

But seriously, it has always been populated with shows that were produced for educational purposes, by people with low budgets and a desire to pass on their particular specialization; Ivory Tower TV.

It become a battleground in the culture war because it has largely been perceived as the last undisturbed bastion of liberal expression, especially when it comes to children's programming and investigative documentaries. Adults think of PBS' childrens shows and Sesame Street pops into their head. Because it is a public network, schools get free access to all it's programming, making it a direct line between the 'liberals' and the kids.

I'll go on the record now and say that the concept of a kids show explaining different relationships in an upfront and non-sexual manner doesn't bother me. What bothers me is when people try to sneak their agenda into something they represent as a pre-schooler's show and have the gall to get defensive when someone calls them on it. I would feel the same way if James Dobson put out a show on PBS called "Cracker Alley" that was inserting homophobic characters into their show about how baloons are made.

What it boils down to is this: if you want to produce a show that openly discusses the various forms that human relationships take, more power to you. If you pitch a show as a 'bunny' visiting Vermont to learn about maple syrup, don't use it as an excuse to push your own agenda on the sly, be it liberal or conservative.

My description of the ABC wasn't meant as a "Duh!", just as clarification -- it's a public channel, so, yes, government funded, but not a "government channel" in the sense of being a mouthpiece for the government of the day.

The "culture war" aspect of the ABC is similar to what you describe. The ABC is our BBC equivalent, meant to be fervently and fiercely independent, so depending where you stand on the political spectrum, it either IS fiercely independent, OR it's just knee-jerkily anti-government. (Note: any government will be apt to resent the ABC's scrutiny although the current one more than most.)

In fact, the management of the ABC, and relationships with its board, have been contentious issues in the last few years, with the government being seen as pushing its OWN interventionist agenda, appointing a controversial managing director, blah blah.

So: the cultural context is similar.

BUT ...

Here's the crux of my reaction to your argument. Gayness, its existence, and our need to deal with it, is NOT a "liberal thing" or a conservative or any other thing. Presenting the reality that gay folk exist, whatever the motives of the producers and writers, is not a part of a "liberal agenda" in the big picture, it's just saying "this is what's out there."

If they were presenting them as radical gay activists, then I'd say, yes, that's pushing a partisan line on a political issue. But that gay folk exist should be no more noteworthy than that some people have pets that are not simply dogs or cats. Not necessarily common, but part of life's rich pageant.

I have to say, I think this IS a Bush issue. His whole reelection was on galvanizing the hard right that doesn't usually vote into voting. And it sorta worked. They came out of the woodwork, but so did the liberals. But before the election Bush said that individual states should determine gay marriage for themselves. He changed his mind when it became in Karl Rov'es eyes politically beneficial for the PResident to e AntiGay. He's spreading hate for political gain, not for right or wrong. All this intolerance that is being spread, it's part of that. I know tons of people who didn't care what gays did either way until the right wingers TOLD them to care about it.