all 36 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 70 points 1 month ago (6 children)

Fred Rogers is rolling in his grave over how people are treating children's entertainers. Everything he did for kids is being torn apart.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 82 points 1 month ago* (1 child)

    Mr. Rogers had multiple episodes that saw limited airing or were removed entirely because they implied communication and diplomacy were better tools for resolving political tention than simply building up a stockpile of weapons and agitating your citizenry into conflict.

    In the Neighborhood of Make-Believe, a mysterious package is delivered to Carney the beaver, who is the leader of neighboring Southwood. King Friday hears the contents are parts for "things" that are being built for Southwood. Prince Tuesday comes home from school, where he has learned about countries and wars, and tells his father what he has learned. This sparks King Friday to assume the worst: Southwood is making bombs. The king orders his people to start building bombs as well. As a result, all the kingdom's finances are routed into stockpiling weapons, and the high priority of the initiative means there is no money left over for programs, like "music for the children." The misunderstandings, assumptions, diplomacy, and paranoia escalate the situation, until King Friday learns that Southwood is making a bridge, and the packages are supplies for doing so. Crisis averted.

    He had a few episodes that sent US reactionaries into hysterics

    The series wasn't the first time Rogers toyed with controversy. Four years after the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed, Rogers cast African-American actor François Clemmons as Officer Clemmons on his show, marking the first time a Black actor was given a recurring role on a children's show. As if that wasn't bold enough, the following year Rogers had a scene in the show where he was resting his feet in a kiddie pool, and invited Clemmons to do the same. It was a strong statement against racism, made even stronger when Rogers dried Clemmons feet with a towel on screen, a humbling act that Jesus himself did for his disciples in John 13:1-17.

    In 1981, Rogers took on the subject of divorce on the show, making it clear to the children watching that they were not to blame for their parents' struggles, and that even adults aren't comfortable with the topic. That same year he invited 10-year-old Jeffrey Erlanger, a quadriplegic, to appear on Mister Rogers' Neighborhood. Erlanger showed Rogers the bells and whistles of his electric wheelchair, and was given the time to explain how he had come to be paralyzed in his arms and legs, having had a spinal tumor when he was younger. It was successful in giving those with disabilities a real person that children could relate to.

    Rogers was also outspokenly in defense of federal funding for public broadcasting. A thing that would have almost certainly made him a target for harassment and denigration among the modern-day DOGE advocates, even setting aside his "Woke" politics.

    What's most curious is in how a prior administration notorious for being full of likeminded shitty assholes ended up embracing Fred Rogers rather than ousting him.

    Rogers's testimony was "considered one of the most powerful pieces of testimony ever offered before Congress, and one of the most powerful pieces of video presentation ever filmed", and has been studied by public relations experts and academics. Congressional funding for PBS increased from $9 million to $22 million soon after Rogers's testimony. In 1970, Nixon appointed Rogers to the chair of the White House Conference on Children and Youth.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 19 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    The controversial Fred Rogers? The controversial Jesus F Christ is rolling in his cave.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 39 points 1 month ago

    the controversial part is that she considers brown children to be humans

  • source
  • [–] 24 points 1 month ago

    To be fair, that is controversial in the Epstein Axis.

  • source
  • [–] [S] 26 points 1 month ago
    [–] 3 points 1 month ago

    I clicked on a Lemmy link this morning that led to the Guardian's website and it prompted me to disable my adblocker. Fuck that shit.

  • source
  • [+] 7 points 1 month ago (12 children)
  • [–] 22 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    No media use controversial to inject opinions on the topic as if it is ok to agree or disagree about objectively morally good positions

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] -1 points 1 month ago (4 children)
  • [–] 10 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    They might not be injecting it directly , but they certainly surface it by omission/language choice.

    Like saying the UK "commandeered" or "retrieved" a boat or transport , but would say "hijacked", "stole" or "pirated" for a demographics they didn't particularly favour at that time.

    You should be paying attention to the omissions and the choice of language overall, because that's where the bias is (usually).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -5 points 1 month ago (1 child)
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago*

    With "nation" and "rogue" being subject to the perspective(ethical, moral, fiscal etc) of the reporting body.

    It's worth looking but I think you'd be surprised by how much subjective leniency Russia gets depending on the politics of the time.

    Edit : I wasnt trying to point out a particular bias, just that the guardian is a tabloid rag with delusions of respectability.

    They aren't totally inept, nor are they a bastion of unbiased premium journalism

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago

    That's like saying

    The human effect on climate change is controversial

    Sure, you can argue that, technically

    But at the same time, giving it any time in the spotlight is a choice

    Given that one of the sides in that debate is objectively wrong and the point of the guardian is having journalists employed there presumably

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -6 points 1 month ago (5 children)
  • [–] [S] 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children)

    Olympic levels of mental gymnastics on display. You'd be right at home with people arguing that nazis were socialists actually.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -2 points 1 month ago (3 children)
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (2 children)
  • [+] -3 points 1 month ago (2 children)
  • [+] -7 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Putting toddlers in front of a TV yikes

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 month ago*

    Criticizing other people's parenting techniques is easy. Entertaining a toddler for an entire weekend without a break is less easy.

    I have no idea how anyone gets laundry done or dinner made without Ms Rachael as a distraction.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -17 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (5 children)