Charter Member of the Sub-Media

March 07, 2005

"Public" Broadcasting and Biased Mainstream Media « GWOM »
The message of this piece is even less unmistakeable than that of Rosin's, and it is: "Only a cranky bigot could possibly object to using taxpayer funds to propagandize small children in favor of same-sex marriage."


Even when confronted with affirmative evidence that there is rather more to the Buster story, Montgomery contrived not to notice it. "Pieper [one of the women featured in the Buster Vermont episode] said the producers had been looking for two-mom families and settled on hers after another option fell through. They liked how Emma and her siblings and moms interacted." In other words, this is not a case of some over-active imagination over-interpreting Tinky Winky's handbag. Buster's producers consciously intended to use their position of trust as publicly funded broadcasters of children's programming to advance a highly controversial agenda of their own. For them to act shocked, shocked, shocked that anybody might object is highly disingenuous. And for a reporter to feign shock along with them is doubly disingenuous.

By David Frum.

Posted by Nathan at 08:21 AM | Comments (2)

Well, the series is about Buster's travels. Buster's "postcard" came from Vermont, a state that happens to be very open and accepting of gay unions. I would say portraying a a family with gay members is not inappropriate. Furthermore, kids are going to have schoolmates with homosexual parents. Maybe it's kindergarten, maybe it is 1st, second, or not until sixth grade. All those years ago, I was a freshman in high school when first chair alto sax had a openly gay dad.

That said, I can understand why some parents are upset, and think it was best to inform parents of the content ahead of time.

But gay parents are out there, they are part of the social landscape. So what do you do?

Posted by: Jo at March 7, 2005 09:17 AM

Well, for starters, how about not treating Christians like whacked-out freaks while treating lesbians like the bedrock of normalcy and stability?
That is an unfair juxtaposition, I admit. PBS wasn't sneering at Christians, and the Washington Post doesn't use public funds.

Maybe a better explanation is: Sometimes my posts cannot be taken singly. With all the discussion recently about what can/should be shown on broadcast vs cable TV, the "public" ownership of the airwaves was cited many times (completely ignoring that the bandwidth devoted to satellite transmission of cable TV signals is also just as owned and regulated by the government...). And so I thought it was interesting that with all the furor over not being able to say "F***" in prime-time on cable TV, it might be interesting to glance at what doesn't ruffle the same feathers on broadcast.

Then again, I wouldn't bar my kids from watching that show. There are all sorts of things I don't agree with going on at PBS, but I can deal with it.

However, this underscores the fact that if you separate out children's entertainment from adults, someone with an agenda will always try to hijack the kids' minds for indoctrination.

Far better to make adult entertainment be safe for kids. As I said before, there are appropriate ways to deal with adult situations and sex and violence that won't impinge on what the kids' understanding or consciousness in an inappropriate manner.

Posted by: Nathan at March 7, 2005 09:25 AM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?