PBS kids shows teach (sometimes via a heavy hand, I'll admit) things like acceptance of people of different skin colors and ability levels. There's a show featuring Inuits called Molly of Denali, not McKinley. Some of the characters are even LGB (not trans as far as I've seen). Sadly in the current world these concepts are considered 'political'.
That "heavy hand" is precisely what makes things controversial or political. For instance Star Trek has pretty much always been 'woke.' My favorite series is Deep Space 9. The captain is black, the second in command (as well as the chief science officer) is a woman, the chief medical officer is Mideastern, and so on. And there were countless episodes that hit on all typical social justice themes, yet somehow these things were presented so 'naturally' that it all just felt very 'appropriate', for lack of a better term.
By contrast I was completely unable to watch things like Star Trek: Discovery (them choosing a title that would be acronymed as STD is already weird) because the identity politics were force fed so hard, to say nothing of 'Mary Sue'ism. It felt very unnatural and like a thinly veiled political rant. Back to PBS, Bert and Ernie - gay? I mean very possibly, if not likely. The creators say no, but they'd probably say no even if the answer was yes. And it's fine. It's introduced in a way that feels very natural, but when you suddenly start making such things overt, and one whose answer must be discussed and force-fed, it starts feeling much more like a political statement than just an inclusive context.
I'll certainly be letting my children watch old Sesame Street et al, but I think we'll be turning to things like Masha and the Bear for contemporary programming.
You hit the nail on the head. The issue is not writers wanting to tell stories that get people thinking about ethics and politics; the issue is that the writers can't restrain themselves from turning the show into a preachy, obnoxious mess. Older Trek series weren't perfect in this regard (to your point, DS9 had a couple of episodes where the writers very clearly took a side and were preaching at the audience), but mostly they were skilled enough to use a light touch and let the audience draw their own conclusions. The same is unfortunately not true for the writers currently in charge of Star Trek (or a lot of shows for that matter).
I don't watch the newer Star Treks so I can't connect with you there.
I should have been clearer in my post: PBS shows treat everything in a heavy handed way. Daniel Tiger will explain the main theme of the episode, have characters burst into song repeating that theme over and over again, and then repeat the theme again at the end. It's a long ways from Mr Roger, who seemed to treat kids like little adults. To be honest it's not my cup of tea. But I wouldn't call it the least bit political, just bad writing and/or best practices depending on who you talk to.
I'm completely with you on this. I think a lot has to do with Alex Kurtzman. He has that particular opinionated way and he needs to inject it in everything he touches, very "Hollywood safe and committee approved"
The earlier Star Treks went AGAINST the norm. Not the 'current' trend. There's a huge difference and as you say, it feels as if they see the viewer as stupid and unable to read between the lines.
I think you’re being unfair on Discovery in attacking its “identity politics” as being more intense than earlier Treks. I say this because Discovery intensifies EVERYTHING it does over earlier Star Treks. The visuals are more cinematic, the sets are much, much larger, the pace is faster, the costumes more detailed, the cheesiness is cheesier, the “science” is wilder, the tension is …. er… more tense. I think singling out Discovery’s heavy-handed wokeness as a sign they’re outting too much emphasis there ignores the fact that the entire show is more heavy-handed than previous Treks.
I know the reactor will explode in seconds causing a chain reaction that will echo back in time erasing the entire universe from existence, but I just have to stop for a minute or three to express my feelings and deliver a monologue about my motivations and info dump this hastily assembled backstory in case I need to nobly sacrifice myself for the greater good, while you just look on gormlessly nodding as the body count climbs. Everything might be turned up to 11, but the eye rollingly forced emotional bullshit managed to overshadow it all. I would have preferred the Seasame Street script writers to have written it.
Have you watched PBS in a while? It's easily one of the most left leaning channels out there. Sure, there are a few programs, many in the past, that might have been mostly neutral but that's certainly not the case today.
PBS has always been political, it's just the unfortunate reality that conservatives are upset over the past 80 or so years of progress and want a 'great reset' to try and reorganize things to benefit them. When the very notion of empathy is deemed to be woke, it's unfortunately no surprise that they would target PBS immediately.
Mr. Rogers frequently pushed the envelope in terms of welcoming Black individuals during a period where segregation was still very publicly affecting people even after the civil rights act. We look back on these episodes and don't see anything radical, but at the time they were very much so.
In that video you link to she’s talking about Wikipedia. I think her generalization is inappropriate, but her central point is a sound one: it’s crucial to Wikipedia’s purpose that Wikipedia does not seek truth directly, but aims to be an accurate summary of the best sources available.
You mean accurate summary of the best sources available _which support the desired narrative_ - and therein lies the rub. WP had been infiltrated by a Nomenklatura which makes sure things published on the site follow the Party line and one of the tools used to enforce this is the so-canned list of perennial sources which bans or warns against the use of sources which do not fit the desired narrative, usually under claims of 'inaccuracy' or 'bias' which would be just as applicable to the narrative-amplifying sites they explicitly allow as being 'factual'.
People often equate "Public" with meaning "middle-center" or "apolitical". Many would claim National Public Radio (NPR) is middle-center, politically-speaking.
Plenty of people disagree with that statement, and those who agree tend to like NPR's messaging - hence the "bubble" you referred to. Good, non-partisan reporting should make "both sides" groan from time to time.
If you find yourself in agreement with nearly everything said, then it's a fair sign the politics lean "your direction".
Bob Ross died 30 years ago, and Mr. Roger’s died over 20 years ago. Basing your argument on decades old examples is a pretty clear indicator of its merits.
PBS kids shows teach (sometimes via a heavy hand, I'll admit) things like acceptance of people of different skin colors and ability levels. There's a show featuring Inuits called Molly of Denali, not McKinley. Some of the characters are even LGB (not trans as far as I've seen). Sadly in the current world these concepts are considered 'political'.
That "heavy hand" is precisely what makes things controversial or political. For instance Star Trek has pretty much always been 'woke.' My favorite series is Deep Space 9. The captain is black, the second in command (as well as the chief science officer) is a woman, the chief medical officer is Mideastern, and so on. And there were countless episodes that hit on all typical social justice themes, yet somehow these things were presented so 'naturally' that it all just felt very 'appropriate', for lack of a better term.
By contrast I was completely unable to watch things like Star Trek: Discovery (them choosing a title that would be acronymed as STD is already weird) because the identity politics were force fed so hard, to say nothing of 'Mary Sue'ism. It felt very unnatural and like a thinly veiled political rant. Back to PBS, Bert and Ernie - gay? I mean very possibly, if not likely. The creators say no, but they'd probably say no even if the answer was yes. And it's fine. It's introduced in a way that feels very natural, but when you suddenly start making such things overt, and one whose answer must be discussed and force-fed, it starts feeling much more like a political statement than just an inclusive context.
I'll certainly be letting my children watch old Sesame Street et al, but I think we'll be turning to things like Masha and the Bear for contemporary programming.
You hit the nail on the head. The issue is not writers wanting to tell stories that get people thinking about ethics and politics; the issue is that the writers can't restrain themselves from turning the show into a preachy, obnoxious mess. Older Trek series weren't perfect in this regard (to your point, DS9 had a couple of episodes where the writers very clearly took a side and were preaching at the audience), but mostly they were skilled enough to use a light touch and let the audience draw their own conclusions. The same is unfortunately not true for the writers currently in charge of Star Trek (or a lot of shows for that matter).
I don't watch the newer Star Treks so I can't connect with you there.
I should have been clearer in my post: PBS shows treat everything in a heavy handed way. Daniel Tiger will explain the main theme of the episode, have characters burst into song repeating that theme over and over again, and then repeat the theme again at the end. It's a long ways from Mr Roger, who seemed to treat kids like little adults. To be honest it's not my cup of tea. But I wouldn't call it the least bit political, just bad writing and/or best practices depending on who you talk to.
I'm completely with you on this. I think a lot has to do with Alex Kurtzman. He has that particular opinionated way and he needs to inject it in everything he touches, very "Hollywood safe and committee approved"
The earlier Star Treks went AGAINST the norm. Not the 'current' trend. There's a huge difference and as you say, it feels as if they see the viewer as stupid and unable to read between the lines.
I think you’re being unfair on Discovery in attacking its “identity politics” as being more intense than earlier Treks. I say this because Discovery intensifies EVERYTHING it does over earlier Star Treks. The visuals are more cinematic, the sets are much, much larger, the pace is faster, the costumes more detailed, the cheesiness is cheesier, the “science” is wilder, the tension is …. er… more tense. I think singling out Discovery’s heavy-handed wokeness as a sign they’re outting too much emphasis there ignores the fact that the entire show is more heavy-handed than previous Treks.
Well, if that's the thing that makes them not like watching it, it's worth pointing out specifically.
I know the reactor will explode in seconds causing a chain reaction that will echo back in time erasing the entire universe from existence, but I just have to stop for a minute or three to express my feelings and deliver a monologue about my motivations and info dump this hastily assembled backstory in case I need to nobly sacrifice myself for the greater good, while you just look on gormlessly nodding as the body count climbs. Everything might be turned up to 11, but the eye rollingly forced emotional bullshit managed to overshadow it all. I would have preferred the Seasame Street script writers to have written it.
PBS is not simply Bob Ross and Mr Rogers. for example, PBS NewsHour
Also NOAA receives significant funding for climate change efforts primarily from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act
Have you watched PBS in a while? It's easily one of the most left leaning channels out there. Sure, there are a few programs, many in the past, that might have been mostly neutral but that's certainly not the case today.
PBS has always been political, it's just the unfortunate reality that conservatives are upset over the past 80 or so years of progress and want a 'great reset' to try and reorganize things to benefit them. When the very notion of empathy is deemed to be woke, it's unfortunately no surprise that they would target PBS immediately.
Mr. Rogers frequently pushed the envelope in terms of welcoming Black individuals during a period where segregation was still very publicly affecting people even after the civil rights act. We look back on these episodes and don't see anything radical, but at the time they were very much so.
[flagged]
This is how you know you live in a bubble.
PBS is unbelievably slanted; you just happen to agree with them in general.
Here is the CEO of PBS saying insane things about the truth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPYXrhOXkwU
"The truth is a distraction"
That is the CEO of NPR, not PBS.
In that video you link to she’s talking about Wikipedia. I think her generalization is inappropriate, but her central point is a sound one: it’s crucial to Wikipedia’s purpose that Wikipedia does not seek truth directly, but aims to be an accurate summary of the best sources available.
> accurate summary of the best sources available.
You mean accurate summary of the best sources available _which support the desired narrative_ - and therein lies the rub. WP had been infiltrated by a Nomenklatura which makes sure things published on the site follow the Party line and one of the tools used to enforce this is the so-canned list of perennial sources which bans or warns against the use of sources which do not fit the desired narrative, usually under claims of 'inaccuracy' or 'bias' which would be just as applicable to the narrative-amplifying sites they explicitly allow as being 'factual'.
People often equate "Public" with meaning "middle-center" or "apolitical". Many would claim National Public Radio (NPR) is middle-center, politically-speaking.
Plenty of people disagree with that statement, and those who agree tend to like NPR's messaging - hence the "bubble" you referred to. Good, non-partisan reporting should make "both sides" groan from time to time.
If you find yourself in agreement with nearly everything said, then it's a fair sign the politics lean "your direction".
that's a mischaracterization of what neutral or apolitical is.
The broadcaster doesnt have to report that killing puppies is good once in a while!
I'm confident you understand the difference between killing puppies and the bias, partisan reporting that occurs on many "news" stations.
Bob Ross died 30 years ago, and Mr. Roger’s died over 20 years ago. Basing your argument on decades old examples is a pretty clear indicator of its merits.