So, here I am enjoying avoiding coverage of Dubyah's E-nog-yer-ashun and I find a story that SpongeBob is part of a conspiracy to "promote the acceptance of homosexuality." A video released was created by Nile Rodgers, founder of the We Are Family Foundation. "Rodgers said he founded the We Are Family Foundation after the Sept. 11 attacks to create a music video featuring 100 well-known cartoon characters dancing to his song in order to teach children about multiculturalism." It includes SpongeBob SquarePants, Bob the Builder, Barney, Winnie the Pooh, many characters from Sesame Street, Jimmy Neutron and many others; SpongeBob, who was singled out plays a very small role in the video. As pulled from the Reuters report: "'Their inclusion of the reference to 'sexual identity' within their 'tolerance pledge' is not only unnecessary but it crosses a moral line,' Dr James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, said in a statement on Thursday. "Rodgers was astounded at the attack. 'That is so myopic and harsh. You have really got to look hard to find anything in this that is offensive to anyone. The last thing I am going to do is taint these characters,' he told Reuters. "Dobson was quoted by the New York Times on Thursday as having singled out the wildly popular SpongeBob during remarks about the video at a Washington D.C. dinner this week. "SpongeBob, who lives in a pineapple under the sea, was 'outed' by the U.S. media in 2002 after reports that the TV show and its merchandise was popular with gays. His creator, Stephen Hillenburg, said at the time that although SpongeBob was an oddball, he thought of all the characters as asexual. "It is not the first time that children's TV favorites have come under the critical spotlight of the U.S. Christian right. Tinky Winky, the purse-toting purple Teletubbie, was in 1999 declared a homosexual role model by Rev. Jerry Falwell." It's always good to see Tinky Winky back in the news. Are they serious? Aren't there better things to worry about? Is this even a good idea? Well, ChurchMarketingSucks.com tackled that very argument: "I'm not going to get into the political, social or moral debate at all, because that doesn't have anything to do with marketing. What I am going to tell you--and this isn't a suggestion, but a straight up marketing imperative--is don't ever, ever, ever get in a fight with a fictional characacter. I don't care if it's the protagonist in a classic novel, a lead figure in a play, a cartoon animal, a comedic role in a modern sitcom or the animated spokes-thing for a major brand of pet-food. It's a lose-lose-lose proposition for you from a PR standpoint. Why? Four main reasons.
- You look foolish.
"You're arguing about (and potentially with) something that doesn't exist. That's bad enough in the business and political world, but even worse in the world of faith. If you think that a particular type of entertainment or show is problematic, say so simply and back it up scripturally. You don't need to poke fun or villify the authors or creators of the work. All that will do is turn their fans into enemies. And fans of creative work are some of the worst enemies you can have from a PR perspective. - You're on their turf.
"Created characters actually live in the world of information. That's all they are--content. You have to eat, sleep, walk the dog, sit in traffic, etc. You have friends whose opinions matter to you. You have family. They do not. They are not real. They can defy the laws of space and time. Dead presidents can speak on their behalf. They can appear on 20 different shows at the same time. It's like trying to outswim Flipper. Bad idea. - Reason isn't reasonable.
"The fans of fictional characters love them because they aren't real. Serious, rational arguments about their 'faults' don't count. - They bite.
"It's one thing to get taken down a peg by a real-life antagonist; someone with an argument better than yours or a competing organization that simply does a better job at what you're trying to do. It's another thing entirely for a fictional character to take you out back and spank you like a redheadded stepchild. Murphy Brown did it to Dan Quayle. Not pretty. "Again... if you have a problem with the message being delivered by a character, show, medium or cultural sector, you should not hesitate from speaking. But to single out one particular character for public chastisement, ridicule or attention is asking for trouble from a marketing and PR stance.Couldn't have said it any better myself. 1,461 days and counting before people like James Dobson figure out that they're not actually in the majority. |