The father of public television -- is this how to treat him?
Cait Dee is entirely, and eloquently, right. For Fred Rogers to be shunted to the sidelines by PBS when he singlehandedly lobbied Congress for continuing to fund its very existence in 1969 is unconscionable. I imagine that many of the people making this decision wouldn't even >have< jobs today if it wasn't for Fred Rogers.
My local affiliate (Chicago's WTTW, in what must be the third or even second largest broadcast "market" in the nation) repeats at least one of its kid's programs twice a day, yet is summarily killing off Mr. Rogers with no alternative time slot or broadcast space whatsoever in just a few days. What's most disturbing is the smiling "spin" with which PBS is encouraging them to do it; how can PBS claim to support a show that it is paring down and chopping up from its very specific and carefully planned five-times a week story format?
My three year old loves Mister Rogers. He is not in any way irrelevant to her, he is not outdated. He is as gentle, as real and as deserving of trust as a "television neighbor" could ever hope to be.
Mister Rogers Neighborhood is a quiet, awkward, human, honest alternative to the candy-colored slick effusion which PBS is producing to replace it, and without Fred Rogers, the once genuinely unique alternative which PBS offered to commercially-driven television will have completely vanished. I certainly won't be one of the people offering my support to any of public broadcasting when the fall pledge drives start up again.
No, only Fred Rogers could lobby me to do that.
