I don't know if you saw this article. I don't totally agree with it, but I thought it was well done.
THAT'S LIFE
For Adults Only
by Michelle Cottle
Printer friendly
Only at TNR Online | Post date 06.19.02
E-mail this article
This week, I feel compelled to say a word in defense of the
loonies--specifically, the religious conservatives whom television critic Tom
Shales, in Tuesday's Washington Post, condescendingly termed "the most
alarmist and paranoid" among us.
It seems Shales, among other media types, is aghast at the dust-up that arose
after the folks at Nickelodeon announced their intention to air a half-hour
"Nick News" segment about kids with gay parents. Hosted by Linda Ellerbee
and featuring Rosie O'Donnell, last night's program--or, rather, advance word
of the program--prompted some 100,000 emails and phone calls from panicked
social conservatives protesting the controversial subject matter. It was the
zealots at the Traditional Values Campaign who organized the write-in. Jerry
Falwell, for his part, called for a boycott of the show--this, despite having been
interviewed for it.
Journalists from New York to Dallas to L.A. promptly responded, seemingly
in unison: Here go the wingnuts again. Many expressed dismay that
conservatives were condemning the program sight unseen. Others were more
subtle: On the "Today" show, Katie Couric did a segment with Ellerbee, who
stressed that her only agenda was to promote tolerance, then brought on an
adorable mother-daughter duo to discuss the challenges of being a gay family.
Shales offered perhaps the most pointed critique. Judging the show
informative, even-handed, and utterly non-controversial, he ruled, "Only the
most alarmist and paranoid could find anything insidious or threatening here."
Wrong. No matter how
delicately Ellerbee
handled the issue (and I
thought she did a decent
job), gay parenting ranks
right up there on the list
of controversial political
topics with partial-birth
abortion, human cloning,
and whether or not
Andy Card really
trashed Karl Rove to
that guy from Esquire.
Although journalists tend
to regard homosexuality
as no big deal, various
surveys from the past
couple of years show
that the rest of the
country still gets a bit
squiffy when the subject comes up. Nearly half of Americans consider
homosexuality a sin, half oppose gay adoption, and more than half oppose gay
marriage and regard homosexual behavior as immoral.
Now, like most of my media colleagues, I disagree with such beliefs
vehemently. We support gay marriage, gay adoption, domestic-partner
rights--you name it. And it's hard not to roll your eyes at the Traditional
Values Coalition's characteristically overwrought proclamations regarding this
special: "It is a cover for promoting homosexuality for kids." "Sodomy is not a
family value." It's as though these activists sit up nights trying to think of the
language most likely to get them branded hysterical.
That said, of course thousands of social conservatives freaked out at the
thought of a children's network running a show about gay
parenting--specifically, one entirely devoted to the discussion of gay mommies
and daddies rather than, say, one merely featuring a gay parent as a
character. Even without seeing the special, conservatives could be relatively
certain of two things. One, that the program would depict only glowing images
of gay families, with an emphasis on the pain endured because of the
closed-mindedness of others. (Which it did.) And two, especially with Rosie
involved, the underlying message would be one of acceptance. (Which it
was.) Yes, the special included voices (including Falwell's) asserting that
homosexuality is sinful, and Ellerbee stressed repeatedly that she wasn't trying
to tell anyone what to think. But conservatives (like the rest of us) understand
that nothing promotes acceptance of a political, racial, cultural, or religious
subset faster than positive depictions on television. This is precisely why my
friends and I tend to cheer programs like Ellerbee's--and precisely why many
more conservative folks do not.
Moreover, you don't have to find the show itself objectionable to question
whether the whole topic of sexuality--whether of the homo- or hetero-
variety--is appropriate fare for children. The "Nick News" series itself is
aimed at kids ages 8 to 14. Ellerbee started the program by emphasizing that it
was not about sex, but expressed the hope that it would serve as "a good
starting point for a discussion of your own family's beliefs about this subject."
But many folks might consider second, third, or fourth graders a bit young to
chat with about issues of alternative sexuality. (Ellerbee's position seems to be
that if a child is old enough to have learned naughty words like "fag" or
"queer," they're old enough to discuss what it means. Try telling this to the
mother of a five-year-old whose older brother has just taught him to say "rug
muncher.")
Sure, uneasy parents with advance knowledge of the show had the option not
to allow their kids to watch. And perhaps in deference to such concerns,
Nickolodeon pushed the airtime back a half hour to nine p.m. But, in many
parents' minds, the great thing about a children's network is that it provides a
reliable haven in the pop cultural jungle--a place where they can let kids roam
without constant supervision, without having to worry that certain grown-up
topics (like sexuality) will arise in the first place. In their view, Nickelodeon
should be about the adventures of SpongeBob SquarePants, not heartfelt talks
about why some people disapprove of Sarah's two mommies.
Now, Nickelodeon is a private broadcaster. Its directors have every right to
tackle these sorts of issues. But, when the network ventures into the world of
adult subject matter--and any discussion that touches on sexuality falls into this
category--they have to be prepared to alienate some parents. And while
journalists have a right (an obligation, even) to champion the virtues of
tolerance towards gays, they should also recognize that the issue remains a
controversial one. Sneering at the fears of the more conservative-minded only
furthers Middle America's conviction that we are a bunch of godless, soulless,
drug-abusing, elitist, pinko perverts. This perceived liberal bias is what makes
folks like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity so successful--which should give
the rest of us more than a little pause.
MICHELLE COTTLE is a senior editor at TNR. |
