Should children's media portray same-sex parents?

I love "programming" for TV, but I'd rather that this included books ("Heather has Two Mommies" et al) + movies.  So that's again "children's media."

Some examples of the phrase:

Coalition for Quality Children's Media
Children's Media Policy Coalition
Children's Media Awards

Programming, I used it right there and passed over it...

"Should children's programming portray same-sex parents?"

I think there's a lot more disagreement when it comes to children's programming rather than in general.  "Postcards from Buster" vs. "Will and Grace."

"Educational" would get that, I guess.

(What's wrong with "children's media"?  I see it as media aimed at children, pretty straightforward...)

i can't do "children's media".  what is that? 

i'd like to stick with:

Should the media air programs portraying same-sex parents?

or if you must narrow, which i think you should not, go with:

Should educational programs portray same-sex parents?

Should the media portray same-sex parents?  (this was Jacki's suggestion)  I agree.

Sample evidence:

Thursday, January 27, 2005; Page C01

PBS was surprised to receive a letter from new Education Secretary Margaret Spellings, warning the public TV network against airing an upcoming episode of the kids show "Postcards From Buster," because PBS had already informed her office it would not send the episode to its stations, programming co-chief John Wilson says.

"We made the decision . . . [Tuesday] afternoon, a couple of hours before we received the letter from the secretary of education," Wilson told The TV Column yesterday.

"It came at the end of many days, maybe even a few weeks, of looking at rough cuts of the program and deliberating."

Spellings, who has been charged with the difficult task of fixing the nation's troubled public education system, took time out on her second day on the job to fire off a letter to PBS CEO Pat Mitchell expressing "strong and very serious concerns" about the "Postcards From Buster" episode. Specifically that, in the episode, called "Sugartime!," the animated asthmatic little bunny visits Vermont and meets actual, real-live, not make-believe children there who have gay parents.

...

"You should also know," Spellings says, "that two years ago the Senate Appropriations Committee raised questions about the accountability of funds appropriated for Ready-To-Learn programs." A bit ominous, we think.

"We believe the 'Sugartime!' episode does not come within these purposes or within the intent of Congress and would undermine the overall objective of the Ready-To-Learn program -- to produce programming that reaches as many children and families as possible," Spellings wrote.

...

Because, Spellings explained in her letter, "many parents would not want their young children exposed to the life-styles portrayed in this episode." She did not say how many is "many," or cite a source for that information.

WaPo

agreed.

Sounds good.

issue prior to revisions:

Nice issue, nicely revised. And maybe Media could be cross-referenced under Family and Society the way Film is...

Excellent, I like that formulation.

I think it comes down to parenting in a lot of ways, but I'm fine with having it in Media.

This should go under media.

 

"Should children's media portray same-sex parents?"

Sure, that looks good to me.

I think "appropriate" is still kind of biased. I'd temper it even more.

Should children's media portray same-sex parents?

Went ahead and revised, new title might get more input.

issue prior to revisions:

I completely see how this one is a little difficult to word.  It's definitely an issue that will generate some discussion, I'd think.

Thanks for your comments, CGogg, I see what you're saying.

This was a hard one to word (and I didn't do a very good job).  I had a few things in mind, but a big one was the "Postcards from Buster" flap of a year or two ago.  That was the PBS show with the animated rabbit (Buster) who goes and visits real kids and learns about their lives, and for this show the kid he visited had two moms.  The moms were in the background doing mommish things -- I don't think they so much as held hands in the show -- but nonetheless there were people who were absolutely outraged.  I was surprised at the outrage -- I had heated discussions with people who were otherwise supportive of gay people, pro-gay-marriage and stuff, who still thought there was something bad about showing this to kids.  "But but but they'll ask QUESTIONS!"

Maybe "appropriate"?  

Is it appropriate for small children to see portrayals of families headed by same-sex partners?
-  Yes
-  No

That's better than my initial formulation (thanks for the nudge), but I'll wait for more comments before going ahead and revising.

I do want to keep it to the gay/ lesbian issue I think -- "alternative" gets a little too hard to define, and then the question either becomes really long or remains vague.  (Step-families?  Older parents?  Families with one disabled sibling?  Etc.)

Should this maybe be a little more universal.  Perhaps instead of "families that are headed by gay partners" could we simply say "alternative families" or families living lifestyles alternative to their own?  I think there is a concern by many conservative groups that such exposure might cause "damage" but I wonder if, for the purposes of this issue, we should be exploring the "impact" such exposure would have rather than suspected "damage" it could cause.

issue prior to revisions:

issue prior to revisions: