NOTE: I originally posted this on an animation board, since most children’s programming is animated. I bring you this post, only slightly edited, in the hope of intelligent discussion (and the hope that there are other childless Dopers out there who watch kid shows as much as I do.)
I was never a fan of L. Brent Bozell III and his right-wing organization the Parents Television Council. They’re an unusual group, in my opinion- instead of teaching parents to control what their children watch by monitoring content and blocking out channels, they think the right way to deal with inappropriate television is to write angry letters to the sponsors so they’ll stop running their advertising during the shows, thus depriving Nip/Tuck and their ilk of their precious ad dollars. When researching the TV ratings and whether or not the content descriptors (“V” “S” “D” “L”) are accurate, the PTC’s report only covered MTV. Shouldn’t they have done more than one network? (Bozell is also on the board of directors of the Catholic League, a group which believes that any criticism of the Catholic Church’s policies on birth control, etc. is a slam on the entire beliefs of Catholicism itself, but that organization is another story).
Anyway, the PTC today released a new report entitled Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing: A Content Analysis of Children’s Television. I was curious as to what the SDMB at large thought about the report. Here is a link to the PTC’s press release, which features a link marked “Full Report” at the bottom which links to a PDF file of the full report.
Some random thoughts regarding the report:
-The report makes no regard as to whether the character in question is a hero or a foil (I use the word “foil” rather than “villain” in this case as most of the characters the heroes go up against in cartoons are not true villains, but authority figures who try to stifle their creativity such as parents or teachers and/or class bullies. Of course, in superhero cartoons and other shows starring superpowered kids, there are both foils in everyday life and true, malevolent villains), or as if there is a lesson to be learned. SpongeBob learns that swearing is bad after using his “sentence enhancers” one time too many. (And although the report is right in saying that the words are obvious in most cases, the ending gag turns the whole thing on its ear- when an antique car horn is heard, Mr. Krabs’ mother is thought to have cursed, but in actuality it’s the sound of an actual horn! Are the noises replacements for swears, or are they the actual swears themselves? How the [dolphin chirps] should I know?) On The Fairly OddParents, Francis may bully Timmy, but he always gets his comeuppance. So does perpetual bully Kate on Lizzie McGuire. Although That’s So Raven’s brother Cory may steal, he learns that it’s wrong at the end. The report is correct that when most cartoon characters tell a lie, the lie is soon discovered. But how are you going to teach a lesson without having something being done that needs to be corrected?
-Among the shows that had no verbally abusive language included Tom and Jerry. I’m not surprised by this, seeing as this classic duo never talk!
-After commenting about Ren & Stimpy, the report states that “Rugrats opened the floodgates for the infusion of bathroom humor in children’s programming as well as themes of disobedience and disrespect.” It did? As far as I recall, the toilet humor (if any) on Rugrats was tame, perhaps even non-existant, compared to that of Ren & Stimpy. As for “disobedience and disrespect,” other than foil Angelica, who was always punished for her bad behavior, if there was any on the show, it was the fact that the babies would often leave the playpen and put themselves in peril as part of their unusual crusades which their parents knew nothing about (although if Tommy and his pals behaved and stayed put every episode, you wouldn’t have much of a show).
-“Bugs Bunny never called Elmer Fudd an idiot.” No, but he did call Elmer and other foils “maroons” (presumably a mispronounciation of “moron”) and other insulting names, though not to their faces. If you’re going to make a comparison about the animation of the past and the animation of the present, get the facts about the past right.
I’m sure you folks can deconstruct this thing more. I take it over to you.
