New Yorker's Bert And Ernie DOMA Cover Sparks Controversy, Homophobia

[marmar]

To celebrate the death of the Defense of Marriage Act, the New Yorker featured an illustration of Sesame Street's Bert and Ernie snuggling on a sofa on the cover of its upcoming issue.

"It's amazing to witness how attitudes on gay rights have evolved in my lifetime," cover artist Jack Hunter told the magazine's Culture Desk. "This is great for our kids, a moment we can all celebrate."

Many have lauded Hunter's endearing cover art, with some calling the depiction of the fictitious duo "adorable," "fantastic," "amazing," and "moving."

The response to the New Yorker cover hasn't been all positive, however. ....................(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/30/new-yorker-bert-ernie-cover-backlash-homophobia_n_3522949.html?ir=Entertainment

[Arkansas Granny]

1. I'm sure I'll catch some flak over this, but I don't feel it was appropriate to use

icons of preschool TV to make their point. Maybe Beetle Bailey and Sarge or Dilbert and the boss with pointy hair or even Batman and Robin would have been a better choice.

[msongs]

3. yes we musn't poison the minds of children with all this gay is good stuff eh? nt

[burnodo]

6. really a nonsensical reply

Were Bere and Ernie ever portrayed on the show as gay?

[yardwork]

16. Are they portrayed as gay on the cover of the magazine?

How can you tell?

[Arkansas Granny]

10. I don't think anyone's mind is being poisoned, but I think it's

inappropriate to mix things related to toddlers in a discussion of sexual matters. It's the same way I feel about pageants where preschoolers are dressed up like sex kittens.

[yardwork]

15. Discussion of marriage is not a discussion of sexual matters and I'm offended that you compare it to

toddler sex pageants.

[Arkansas Granny]

17. Be offended if it suits you.

The comparison I made was concerned with using children's icons to discuss adult topics.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

4. You ain't worth it.

[dixiegrrrrl]

5. I am pretty sure pre-schoolers are not reading New Yorker.

or
Beetle Bailey and Sarge or Dilbert and the boss with pointy hair or even Batman and Robin.

[yardwork]

9. To make what point? That it's ok for Bert and Ernie to snuggle together on the couch?

The illustration doesn't portray them having sex. It portrays them cuddling on a couch watching marriage celebrations.

The frustration many of us gay folk feel is when people insist on seeing our struggle for rights as a discussion of sex. Being gay is a lot more than sex. When I mention my partner who is a woman I'm not talking about my sex life any more than a straight couple is talking about sex when they mention that they are married or boyfriend and girlfriend.

Is it inappropriate to tell preschoolers about marriage?

[Arkansas Granny]

12. It's not about sex or even about marriage. I just don't see

set why characters that appeal to preschoolers should be used in a discussion of adult matters.

My children knew from infancy that among our friends, Tom and Bob, Jill and Sue, and Bill and Julie were all couples. It never occurred to me to explain the sexual side of any of these relationships and I'm not even sure at what age they figured it out. If they had questions they were given age appropriate, truthful answers.

[yardwork]

14. Your second paragraph refutes your first paragraph.

Marriage is not just an adult matter. It affects everybody, even preschoolers.

The cover of the magazine doesn't say that Bert and Ernie are gay. It doesn't say that they are married. It shows them on the couch together watching equal marriage being celebrated.

[janlyn]

2. Bert & Ernie

The original ambiguously gay duo!! Love it!

[Nye Bevan]

7. It's pretty stupid. I watched "Sesame Street" with my kids and there was never any suggestion

that Ernie and Bert were ever more than friends. So why pick two random kids' characters and pretend that they are gay?

[dsc]

8. Truth be known I would have preferred a real couple

from which there were many to choose. Edie and Thea may have been the best one to go with.

[gvstn]

11. I guess the New Yorker had a year to get used to the cover before printing it.

Gawker says the idea was a year old and just slightly updated before put to press. http://gawker.com/that-bert-ernie-new-yorker-cover-has-been-on-the-inte-608776824

I think most of the flak is not home grown but the media jumping on any story that puts PBS in a controversial spotlight. Heck it has worked since they have successfully gotten funding cut for their only competition in the news reporting business. PBS also has less money for new dramas.

It is sad. With increased spectrum, if we funded PBS properly we could have four channels to choose from each offering us REAL history or the arts or children's programming or science. And no conglomerate could come in and buy the station and replace the educational programming with reality shows.

[Arkansas Granny]

13. I hadn't tonight about it in that light, but it gives

those on the right, especially the fundies, another misguided train to see PBS as being "too liberal" and insist on more funding cuts.

[gvstn]

18. The whole liberal MSM thing drives me crazy.

News coverage is not liberal. It should be factual. It isn't really factual anymore because the MSM is afraid of being called liberal so they present both sides of a "report" equally. This in itself is ridiculous. I think it has to do with the idea that "News" is now entertainment or punditry rather than reporting. There is no line drawn between the two, it all blends together. So now we never get a "News" report but a conversation about a topic. There just doesn't seem to be any, "Here are the facts that we have learned about an event", it becomes "What do you think about this story, let's discuss it." which isn't "News".

Before the last 10 years where news became entertainment there was a liberal bias by National news reporters because they are more educated and more worldly. By liberal bias, I mean no bias to the status quo. They didn't take sides in the Civil Rights movement because with a more worldly view they knew the world as a whole didn't treat blacks different than whites and the US was backward in that respect. So they reported the facts without making the proposed changes to the laws seem repugnant. Similarly with gay rights, reporters working from NYC knew more gay people than did people in smaller towns and didn't try to color the argument against gays by inflecting disdain into their utterance of the word "gay" or "homosexual". That could be construed as bias but I consider it more educated and worldly.

Any kid from a very small town learns the prejudices that gain them acceptance in that town and internalizes them. If they stay in that town they usually keep them for much of their life (I'm talking pre-internet). If they go to college in a large city and are exposed to more people from more varied backgrounds they begin to see some of those prejudices were based on false assumptions and wrong. So they throw out the prejudice which was based on superstition/suspicion and replace it with a larger reality. This used to be considered critical thinking and a good thing. It has only been demonized in the last 35 years.

PBS is just the one victim they can't outright buy out. So when it still tries to educate kids and broaden their horizons it is demonized. Parents should be able to determine if their kids are thought to think critically. Their remedy to this is that no one should expose their kids to new ideas. It is sad. Or perhaps pathetic is a better word. Sorry, my Liberal Elite colors are showing--"pathetic" is a 3 syllable word which I probably learned by age 12 at my "pinko" high school in a southern 80%+ Republican political district.