Rick Herrick Central - Hi there.

Update below

So on Memeorandum today, I see a headline that interests me:

Pox or Fox? We Report. You Decide.

And this is attributed to the PBX ombudsman Michael Getler. Well, that's interesting, so I click over there.

Here's the "controversy" in a nutshell: Oscar the Grouch is reporting forGrouch News Network, or GNN, dedicated to news that's "all grouchy, all disgustin', all yucky."

But another character feels that the Grouch is not grouchy enough and threatens to switch to "Pox News, now there's a trashy news show," she says.

Well, I chuckled. That's pretty funny. And as someone who grew up on Sesame Street, that's just the kind of take-off on familiar and iconic names that's been done throughout the life of the series. It's stuff that kids are aware of from the background of adult noise that permeates their lives but that they don't have any real connection to. As Lucie says every time we put on news on the radio or TV (NPR, sports talk radio, CNN, BBC, newspapers,whatever, they allget the same treatment from her), "Ugh, news, that's so boring!"

Oh, but back to the article! So why the hell is this a topic to be covered by the PBS ombudsman? Because people are upset! They're outraged!

The question is this: Did this icon of public broadcasting and gold standard for high quality educational broadcasting for children for 40 years stoop to take a camouflaged shot at Fox News?

Stoop? Camouflaged? There's nothing camouflaged about it! It's a pun on the name of Fox News. Fox News. Pox News. Trashy television. Get it?

Now, on one level, Pox News as an alternative and competitor to the Grouch News Network would seem to be a clever and appropriate title. But you would have to be anesthetized as a producer not to assume that many parents will hear this, or assume this, to be a clever shot at Fox News.

Really? So then you must have to assume that those parents are stupid and/or way more sensitive than parents that would hear "GNN" and assume that is a "clever shot" at CNN. Neither of them is a clever shot. They are both puns on well-established brand names. Both of them make silly jokes about the brand name in question. Neither "trashy television" and "all grouchy" are compliments towards their targets.

So why should the producers have been more aware of offending parents' sensitivities with Pox News than with GNN? Is there something special about Pox News that's not special about GNN? Is there something distinguishing about the particular group of parents that fall victim to the vapors over one pun that is indistinguishable in nature from another pun in the very same sketch?

Getler also adds:

It's a parody, a play on words, and has a timely feel to it at this time, especially, because of the battle now going on publicly between Fox and the White House. So it's probably not surprising that last week's showing got more people's attention.

Yes, but it's worth noting that the episode "aired for the first time two years ago and a couple of times in 2008 and this year," i.e. the episode predates the election of President Obama. This clearly has escaped the notice of letter writers such asAndrea Tarr of New Boston, NH, who writes:

I will never watch Sesame Street again and find it pathetic that you would use it as a platform for pushing the White House message and apparent conflict with Fox.

Clearly it's the hyperventilating extra-sensitivity of conservatives who are looking, searching for any way in which they might have been insulted or looked down upon by the "coastal elites" that's fueled the current spate of "outrage." The ombudsman has a duty to address the complaints of viewers, yes, but also has a duty to address whether there is an actual issue at hand other than the wounded feelings of those who seek insult to their fragile cultural egos.

In fact, Getler would do well to point out both that Fox News and CNN are far from unique in having their brand names sent up by Sesame Street. He would also do well to point out much more clearly than he did, to Andrea Tarr and her fellow hand-wringers, that this episode of Sesame Street predates Obama's election and thus could in now way have been intended as "a platform for pushing the White House message and apparent conflict with Fox."

Update: Unsurprisingly, Big Hollywood, which exists to dig up and cry about all instances of offense against the conservative body politic, is on the case. This may have actually been the post that drove people to respond to PBS, I dunno. Anyways, to Stage Right (the poster on Big Hollywood), apparently the biggest offense in the sketch is that Sesame Street didn't make enough fun of Fox:

Anderson Cooper from 4th place CNN, guest stars as a reporter for GNN.  He interacts with "Walter Cranky" and "Dan Rather-Not"... they talk about "Meredith Beware-a" and "Diane Spoiler." But no affectionate nicknames for Fox News personalities; no Spill O’Reilly or Brittle Hume—nope, and the only disparaging characterization of real-world news is reserved for Fox:  Fox is a POX.  It is trashy.

Note that the 4th place CNN is, again, a recent thing, so was not operative at the time the episode was produced. Also note that Diane Sawyer ("Diane Spoiler") is apparently assumed to be liberal, in spite of being a long-time aide to Richard Nixon. So just saying once that "Pox News" is "trashy" is insulting. But if they'd really laid it on thick, now that would have been fair and funny! At least, that's the only thing I can presume from Stage Right's post.

But all is not dark in Stage Right's world. Nope, things are looking up because "we have the cool kids on our side: Dennis Miller, Greg Gutfeld, Andrew Breitbart and yes, even Glenn Beck."

Maybe it's just me, but considering a washed-up bitter old "comedian" (Miller) and a former morning jock who turns on the waterworks on command to be the "cool kids" says a lot about where the right-wing movement is nowadays.

I sent the following letter to the PBS ombudsman:

Regarding people's sensitivity to "Pox News" and how the pun "should have been resisted."

If I understand you correctly, it's OK to do a take-off on CNN with the Grouch News Network. No one could be expected to be offended by that. But there is a group of people that the producers of Sesame Street should be wary of offending and thus THAT particular pun "should have been resisted."

How do you rationalize this distinction? What is the difference between "GNN" and "Pox News" that warrants the extra care and sensitivity in the latter's case? Indeed, what is the distinction between take-offs on familiar and iconic names in this particular sketch and sketches that have done on Sesame Street throughout the history of the show? Why is Fox News a particularly sacred cow?

Some of the letter writers "find it pathetic that you would use it as a platform for pushing the White House message and apparent conflict with Fox." Your duty as ombudsman obligates you to point out to this writer (and to your larger audience) that this episode predates *the election* of President Obama, let alone the White House's conflict with Fox. It's also your duty as ombudsman to point that Fox News is not the only target of humor in this same sketch.

I look forward to your explanation both of why Fox News should be spared the treatment that CNN receives and why you did not more clearly point out that the sketch predates the election of President Obama and thus is clearly not related to the issues between Fox News and the White House. Thank you.