To be fair, that is controversial in the Epstein Axis.
this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2026
309 points (97.5% liked)
Inventing Reality
745 readers
325 users here now
When the media decides who you are rooting for.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
idk they seem to pretty pro-genocide with little to zero dissenters
Fred Rogers is rolling in his grave over how people are treating children's entertainers. Everything he did for kids is being torn apart.
Mr. Rogers had multiple episodes that saw limited airing or were removed entirely because they implied communication and diplomacy were better tools for resolving political tention than simply building up a stockpile of weapons and agitating your citizenry into conflict.
In the Neighborhood of Make-Believe, a mysterious package is delivered to Carney the beaver, who is the leader of neighboring Southwood. King Friday hears the contents are parts for "things" that are being built for Southwood. Prince Tuesday comes home from school, where he has learned about countries and wars, and tells his father what he has learned. This sparks King Friday to assume the worst: Southwood is making bombs. The king orders his people to start building bombs as well. As a result, all the kingdom's finances are routed into stockpiling weapons, and the high priority of the initiative means there is no money left over for programs, like "music for the children." The misunderstandings, assumptions, diplomacy, and paranoia escalate the situation, until King Friday learns that Southwood is making a bridge, and the packages are supplies for doing so. Crisis averted.
He had a few episodes that sent US reactionaries into hysterics
The series wasn't the first time Rogers toyed with controversy. Four years after the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed, Rogers cast African-American actor François Clemmons as Officer Clemmons on his show, marking the first time a Black actor was given a recurring role on a children's show. As if that wasn't bold enough, the following year Rogers had a scene in the show where he was resting his feet in a kiddie pool, and invited Clemmons to do the same. It was a strong statement against racism, made even stronger when Rogers dried Clemmons feet with a towel on screen, a humbling act that Jesus himself did for his disciples in John 13:1-17.
In 1981, Rogers took on the subject of divorce on the show, making it clear to the children watching that they were not to blame for their parents' struggles, and that even adults aren't comfortable with the topic. That same year he invited 10-year-old Jeffrey Erlanger, a quadriplegic, to appear on Mister Rogers' Neighborhood. Erlanger showed Rogers the bells and whistles of his electric wheelchair, and was given the time to explain how he had come to be paralyzed in his arms and legs, having had a spinal tumor when he was younger. It was successful in giving those with disabilities a real person that children could relate to.
Rogers was also outspokenly in defense of federal funding for public broadcasting. A thing that would have almost certainly made him a target for harassment and denigration among the modern-day DOGE advocates, even setting aside his "Woke" politics.
What's most curious is in how a prior administration notorious for being full of likeminded shitty assholes ended up embracing Fred Rogers rather than ousting him.
Rogers's testimony was "considered one of the most powerful pieces of testimony ever offered before Congress, and one of the most powerful pieces of video presentation ever filmed", and has been studied by public relations experts and academics. Congressional funding for PBS increased from $9 million to $22 million soon after Rogers's testimony. In 1970, Nixon appointed Rogers to the chair of the White House Conference on Children and Youth.
Sounds a little like how they treat Dolly Parton. They try to embrace her but everything she was trying to do was for people and 'woke.'
This shit is wayyyy more based than the bs that he was super soldier
The controversial Fred Rogers? The controversial Jesus F Christ is rolling in his cave.
Yea, but I wouldn't call Jesus a children's entertainer.
He gave us an entire class of people very interested in entertaining children.
They make video games about zombies all the time though
the controversial part is that she considers brown children to be humans
a reminder that this is par for the course for The Guardian https://dialecticaldispatches.substack.com/p/the-guardians-two-hundred-year-record
your post title: Ms Rachel: "Stop killing kids." The Guardian: "that's controversial"
That's not really what the guardian is saying though. They label her controversial not because they are the node determining what is and isn't controversial, but because controversiality is determined by the wider world's attitude towards it.
I would guess that Ms Rachel is unpopular with the right because even if a right winger agrees with 1 or 2 of her points, they may consider her work to be performative, too much a compendium of various left wing attitude for their palate.
As we all know but seem to be loathe to admit, the world is not simply left-wing people who oppose Zionist tyranny. The part of the world that doesn't completely fit that description, many of them will not like Ms Rachel.
Therefore Ms Rachel is, by definition, controversial. Nowhere in the headline does it pass a judgement onto the statement of "stop killing kids." She is more than that statement.
No media use controversial to inject opinions on the topic as if it is ok to agree or disagree about objectively morally good positions
It might be objectively moral, but people simply don't accept or realise that Israel is, objectively, genociding kids - that's one way the controversy comes into it. Yeah those people are living under a rock, but it does mean that Rachel publically denouncing Israel, and how she chooses to do so (using her platform of the kids show), can make some people go "irk!"
I do not think the guardian is injecting their own opinion in here and I don't think it helps at all for them to avoid that in their headline. I presume you think they should say "here is our interview with Ms Rachel the absolute saint our holy martyr of the Palestinian children " but that's like... less balanced? Also people know about her because she is controversial and just saying "Ms Rachel the Controversial" saves print space while also signalling to people who like her "it's the tv woman you like!" And to people who don't, "it's the TV woman you don't like!"
Part of the reason of platforming her is the possibility of some readers realising they like her more than they thought. But those readers will not read the article if it approaches from the standpoint of "she's already perfect and objectively correct' - you get no convincing done that way, and the same applies for the Palestine issue in general.
That's like saying
The human effect on climate change is controversial
Sure, you can argue that, technically
But at the same time, giving it any time in the spotlight is a choice
Given that one of the sides in that debate is objectively wrong and the point of the guardian is having journalists employed there presumably
They might not be injecting it directly , but they certainly surface it by omission/language choice.
Like saying the UK "commandeered" or "retrieved" a boat or transport , but would say "hijacked", "stole" or "pirated" for a demographics they didn't particularly favour at that time.
You should be paying attention to the omissions and the choice of language overall, because that's where the bias is (usually).
Like saying the UK “commandeered” or “retrieved” a boat or transport , but would say “hijacked”, “stole” or “pirated” for a demographics they didn’t particularly favour at that time.
I would say the former 2 are used for nationstates and the other 3 are used for "rogue nations" or terrorist groups, though Russia probably gets given the latter 3 verbs for their actions
With "nation" and "rogue" being subject to the perspective(ethical, moral, fiscal etc) of the reporting body.
It's worth looking but I think you'd be surprised by how much subjective leniency Russia gets depending on the politics of the time.
Edit : I wasnt trying to point out a particular bias, just that the guardian is a tabloid rag with delusions of respectability.
They aren't totally inept, nor are they a bastion of unbiased premium journalism
I would also argue that the entire fact they're platforming her with that article, the selection of portrait for the article, and the context that they're always bolstering figures considered "radical" with the exact same format of:
John Smith, controversial thinker, says "I'm know I'm q bit hated and here's why that energises me:" read here to find out more
All those three things taken together suggest that the guardian is supportive of Ms Rachel. i.e this is the formula they use for bolstering figures they believe to be unfairly attacked by other MSM outlets.
Olympic levels of mental gymnastics on display. You'd be right at home with people arguing that nazis were socialists actually.
You’d be right at home with people arguing that nazis were *actually socialists.
I don't think it's good debating practice to just hurl unrelated (unfounded) accusations at people.
Obviously nothing i talk about even touches on nazism, classifying governments, or justifying evil deeds. I'll have to assume any people up-voting that comment didn't read any of what I said, perhaps lacking the mental stamina for multiple paragraphs.
Wow! Stupid and smug!
That's not very non confrontational of you
Everything i have said is correct, you're just uncomfortable that someone isn't playing your game. Childish slogans do not capture hearts and minds like pure reason does.
Everything you've said is incorrect, lmfao. That's what I meant when I called you stupid. Hope this clears up your confusion!
Probably i dont get the nuance not right, but controversial is a neutral word, right? So the author just wanted to make clear, there is a discussuon regarding to the person. I wouldnt know a better fitting word for a short headline, without losing a professional tone. But English is not my first language, so probably idk
Yes but it also accepts that narrative as reasonable by not rejecting the premise. It creates space for the idea that it's a perfectly reasonable take to be pro genocide. So yes it's not explicitly negative, but it's still disingenuous. It's like giving equal airtime to a doctor and an antivaxer and treating them as equal.
It does not. It is value-free analysis. Some readers would have to open up the article to even see that Ms Rachel had commented on genocide - i.e you are relying on people having your pre-knowledge of the individual to reach that conclusion
It’s like giving equal airtime to a doctor and an antivaxer and treating them as equal.
This is precisely something a newspaper might choose to do - otherwise how else would you know that an anti-vaxxer is incorrect? There has to at least be correspondence of ideas (which amounts to "equal airtime" by equal exchange of words or letters.)
If we accepted things were right or wrong based purely on authority, everything you yourself currently oppose would be the status quo because nobody would have debated anything, ever. Anti-Vaxxing might be the status quo. Pure religiousity would be the status quo. Absolute monarchy. Why ever consider a different viewpoint ever? We knew those things were right because they were in place by the contemporary regime
The reason newspapers do not tend to put doctors next to antivaxxers is because the debates were already had about 6 years ago, sometimes longer ago. I still see doctors and anti vaxxers having debates. Genuinely how else would you reach an audience of anti-vaxxers?
Maybe if everything were subjective, but it isn't. I'm sorry but I'm going to trust experts over randos everytime, even if the experts are outnumbered. Once upon a time it was the duty of the media to do some of this digging/screening for the general public (though there always was and always will be a bias).
And it isn't value-free. They could have used any number of adjectives to describe her - award winning, popular, beloved, or no description at all - but they wanted you to know she's controversial. They decided that that was the most important thing for you to know about her. Even if you agree that she is, that's still speaks to how they want the story told.
I think you're projecting your own sense of neutrality on others. These individuals have an agenda, and the way they tell stories supports that agenda. That's not even to say I agree/disagree with them, just that we need to be aware that that's how they operate.
I find her controversial ass very sexy.
This is a thought that is better kept to yourself.
