I grew up on Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood; it was still in production when I was a child.
I still occasionally hear criticism of the show as being unrealistic, that it papered over things or was shallow or ungrounded. As if children's perception, compared to adults, is particularly realistic, deep or stable! What adult worries about going down the drain after a bath? Who understands the deep, existential angst a child feels looking over the precipice as the two most important people in their lives "suddenly" aren't together anymore? Rogers' genius was to take what was meaningful to a child and speak frankly about that. He never belittled those anxieties; he merely explained them and what they could do. And if there wasn't anything they could actually do, he could at least convince them the world would not end.
The show represented an idealism that you just don't see anymore. I was too young to have seen the episodes first-run where black community members were simply introduced, without fanfare, but that's exactly how he would have done it. Of course black people live in our city. Lots of people live in our city. They're just like you and me. They have the same jobs and live in the same houses because why shouldn't they? It wasn't polarized or political, it wasn't beating people over the head for not believing what he believed. It was simply matter-of-fact.
When he did the Emmys in 1997, you saw that idealism in practice. Of course there are special people in your lives who brought you to where you are today. Why wouldn't you honour them? And people obeyed, for he was right. (If you don't know this story, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Rogers#Emmys_for_programm... .)
I have a DVD of some of the episodes with a little toy cardigan wrapped around them. I was quite upset when he passed away, even with a graduate degree by then.
As a moral authority, there couldn't have been one much better in the United States.
I agree. In terms of being unrealistic I think it is important that we have to be able to picture a better world if we are going to obtain it. You want kids to know that certain things don't have to be the way they are, that the world can be a different place.
Star Trek, to me, is more realistic to the inner workings of ourselves as social members and as individual minds/hearts than any other program that has before or since existed. It shows what the unknown feels like, it shows how each person is not only a member of the whole but also a complete whole in and of themselves, it shows not only compassion when things go wrong but also justice (angry justice or not). Everything is there on the final frontier! Literally the limits of human attainment and a drama within that exact scenario.
Star Trek has a lot of great aspects, but its model of utopian society is the "benevolent dictator" one. Captain Kirk is the dictator - he's brave, benevolent, incorruptible, and fixes everyone's problems by decree. His minions utterly lack ambition and selfish desires, and are ideally altruistic members of the collective.
Kirk was the captain of a ship, not of society. A ship captain is generally the dictator of their vessel.
There are certainly valid criticisms of the quasi-utopian vision of society in Star Trek, but that one ship was not meant as a model or microcosm of how the whole of their society was run. Just one aspect.
> Kirk was the captain of a ship, not of society. A ship captain is generally the dictator of their vessel.
That's correct, but the Enterprise was clearly written as a metaphor for the perfect society. I've also seen it referred to as such by people wanting to create the perfect society.
> That's correct, but the Enterprise was clearly written as a metaphor for the perfect society.
My perspective: I grew up in and around the military, I understand military command structures and I see them as distinct from our overall society. That doesn't mean that there is no place for that sort of structure within a society. Star Trek always appeared to me as representing that military structure within the overall structure of the Federation's society. In fact, most members of the Federation were not members of anything military-like (or so it's claimed in the show, you don't really see too much outside the ship and non-Federation planets). The ship, the Enterprise, never seemed like a metaphor for anything (the Federation, on the other hand, was clearly meant as an analog to the the US and most of Western Europe, or the direction Rodenberry thought they were headed).
> I've also seen it referred to as such by people wanting to create the perfect society.
I do not doubt that you've seen this. But I've, personally, only heard and read people reference the Federation as a perfect society, not the Enterprise. Until today.
Not much is ever seen of the Federation in ST. But the parent I replied to, and its parent, are referring to the Enterprise.
Also, when I've seen references to ST as the model of utopia, Captain Kirk is often talked about front and center. Clearly, they are referring to the society on the Enterprise.
You can also see in this article cited later in this discussion:
What I find ironic is on the set William Shatner was a dictator on set too.
Get had huge amount of power on that set.
I never understood why the other actors didn't seem to like the guy, until I heard this,
'He would refuse to do an episode if he didn't have more face time.'
It really bothered me when I heard that. As a kid, I worshiped the guy. I remember being in 7th grade, and a kid asked me why I wore a tan polyester tee shirt--every day.
My response, because the Hang Ten shirt reminds me of something Capt. Kirk would wear. The kids laid into me, but since I was stronger, it didn't go too far.
My sexy science teacher overheard the conversation, and made me her assistant. My God did I want her to molest me in that supply room. (Different time folks.). Well she never did, but she shared my love of Star Trek. We used to talk about the good episodes while cleaning Pyrex. Boy do I miss her. I remember my heart was broken when I saw her at the beach with her boyfriend. They were kissing. I remember wishing I was older.
In Enterprise Picard was similar but often had his missteps and faults, which were usually helped along by the empath. Enterprise is what I was mainly speaking to, actually.
The original Star Trek and Captain Kirk as a character were much closer to portraying a "Navy in space" than the socialist ideals that would start to creep into TNG.
Although I find your criticism to be fair for TNG itself - when Roddenberry had greater creative control and the Federation began to be developer as having evolved beyond petty human desire and conflict, although there were some exceptions because sometimes the writers didn't get the memo (Barclay's OCD tendencies and Geordi keeping a holographic girlfriend come to mind) and it's just impossible to write good drama where all of the characters are just insufferably perfect. Even Superman has to have kryptonite.
But TOS is the series where McCoy is pretty openly racist towards Spock and where people get into fistfights all the time - it's a lot more grounded in plausible reality.
* The Next Generation (starting point, but be prepared to sit through the slower first seasons).
* DS9
* Voyager (however optionally skip anything from the Kess seasons that you feel like)
I only liked about 1/3rd of Star Trek Enterprise episodes, the entire series is kind of filler. Has that same wasted potential feeling that I got from Stargate Universe; it COULD have been more interesting if the pacing had been better and if they had focused on fitting the stories in to an overall plotline (much more like Babylon 5; which, BTW, you should TOTALLY watch if you haven't).
Star Trek Discovery was good, but is more an edgier more action packed thriller kind of series than the earlier series. I do like where they're going with rebooting the overall universe though and I feel that this brings the modern FX capacity in to the series in a way that makes sense for today.
For something you can show to your parents or if you generally don't get Star Trek, the Orville is a GREAT comedy focused take on the ideas that Star Trek (everything) classically presented, but covering modern social issues.
I recommend The Next Generation. I find the crew in that series to be more variable and interesting, and the production is obviously more modern. You might be interested in the crew member Data, who is an android, considering the tech nature of HN!
I too recommend TNG. If you get to the end of the series and you still want more, there's also Voyager, which is essentially the same as TNG and slightly more modern.
I really enjoyed Deep Space 9, too. It's got a comedic twist, and I just can't get enough of Quark and the other Ferengi. The Grand Nagus Zek, whose mellifluous voice I was sure I'd heard somewhere before, turns out to be played by Wallace Shawn, the "inconceivable" guy from the Princess Bride.
The original is a great place to start, especially if you don’t mind older media. The first 3 original movies are also exceptional. After that comes Star Trek: The Next Generation, which is my personal favorite. If you’re still hooked, and don’t mind a change of pace and scenery (and in both cases, a slow start) Star Trek: Deep Space 9, and later Voyager would be the order for it.
Visualization of success has been strongly suggested as an effective means to gain success in athletics, weight loss, and more. It’s magic, and it can go to far, but the healthy form is just what you said: a vision of how things could be, an something to strive for. Imagining yourself crossing the finish line won’t make up for a total lack of fitness and training, but if you’re physically prepared, it can definitely help. Focusing on the goal rather than discouraging outcomes is part of mental preparedness.
I've read a few accounts where he made the audience break down like that. Of course, none of those are televised, but his impact on the generation that watched him is larger than himself, yet he was large enough to fit in his own shadow.
It's hard to know how TV has impacted the children who watched it. When I was older, I remember seeing kids watching Barney and Teletubbies and...
It goes without saying that Barney could never stand at the Emmys and taken seriously. I'm not sure who could be a Mr Rogers v2.
Unfortunately, I have no way of articulating my thoughts without sounding like a curmudgeon. I don't really know how the shows I grew up on, like Sesame Street, Letter People, and Reading Rainbow shaped my attitudes growing up, for better or worse. I just know that Mr Rogers would be the most likely to be acknowledge by an older generation without being them being embarrassed about it. He just a human; that human we all wished was our neighbor.
> I still occasionally hear criticism of the show as being unrealistic, that it papered over things or was shallow or ungrounded
I really don't understand this criticism. On a first-principle basis alone it does not make any sense, because the same is true for any children's cartoon. I know this is anecdotal, but wanting to act out the fantasy in Transformers, Thundercats and whatnot certainly affected the playground in my childhood, why would the opposite part be any different? Also, why would people worry about the violence in those series, but not appreciate the better world depicted in this one? Fiction matters.
Some people argue whether morality is totally subjective which I do not think is true. There is definitely a core set of values and actions that are objectively good. Helping others, being truthful to yourself and society, being kind and polite. I always think about Mr. Rogers when I visualize a "good person" he definitely was a huge positive influence in the world and an amazing role model. Perhaps one day there will be a Mr. Rogers religion and I'm fine with that.
> [Black people] are just like you and me. They have the same jobs and live in the same houses because why shouldn't they? It wasn't polarized or political...
There was a debate going on in America when Mr. Rogers made those shows. There were two sides. Exactly one of them was represented in Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood. Telling one side of the story and pretending the other doesn't exist is the Platonic ideal of polarization.
I'm not apologizing for the racists here. What they believe is repugnant. But we should remember that in suppressing them we have done things that a lot of people would object to in other circumstances.
It's been so long since I've watched these shows, but like the GP I watched them regularly as a child. As an aside I can't get my kids into it, but they have enjoyed Daniel Tiger.
As I remember it, there were quite a few episodes where race was dealt with indirectly. By that I mean, the idea of difference would constantly come up in regards to things like the clothes people were wearing, or characters who wore glasses or not, etc.
Treating people the same regardless of differences was a constant theme of the show from my memory. Helping people, not holding them back. It was by no means ignoring the other-side of this, it just took the unapologetic stance that there is only one proper way to treat people, and wouldn't it be great if we could all live that way everyday?
My kid was into Daniel Tiger and our first attempts at getting into Mr. Rogers didn't really get anywhere. Now that he's 5, he's all about it (although Nature shows are starting to be the usual pick).
That being said, we're very regimented in screen time. My son maybe gets 20-30 minutes of TV time per day. We've also changed the format where each family member gets a turn to pick what to watch so we can expose him to more things.
I watched the show every day after Sesame Street and before Reading Rainbow. Good times.
I take issue with what you say here:
a> It was by no means ignoring the other-side of this
No racist ideas ever appeared on the show. That is the definition of "ignoring the [racist] side of this."
Ignoring != suppressing. Ignoring thoroughly debunked and discredited notions is healthy, and universal. NASA isn’t suppressing flat Earthers by not presenting their views alongside their scientific discoveries. It’s the job of the flat Earthers to present their own ideas, not act as social and intellectual parasites while crying that others aren’t carrying their weight for them. Mr. Rogers, on his own show, presented his own views, and that isn’t “suppressing” anything either.
Whether or not your intention is to troll, that's the effect. Please stop.
> Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents.
It’s a shallow understanding of free speech and expression, not to mention argument, which believes that every issue has eternal value on all sides. Society doesn’t suppress the flat earth view of reality by ignoring it, because it’s been addressed and destroyed. Life is finite, and too many are happy to waste what time we have on craziness or hate, and we have no obligation to meet them halfway.
If there was some new information in the debates over race in the 60’s, then your point would stand. That wasn’t the case though, and there was nothing to suppress except a persistent, ancient, hateful ideology. This is true in the same way that balanced reporting shouldn’t boil down to giving a scientist explaining why the Earth is round, with a lunatic who thinks it’s flat. They’re entitled to their beliefs, and tell them to anyone who wants to listen, and we’re entiteld to ignore them like they don’t exist. That’s not “suppression” in a meaningful sense.
Treating black people as human beings counts as suppressing racists now? How could he have been less polarizing? Should he have started each conversation with "some people think that your skin color makes you subhuman and that's fine too"? Or should he just never have had a black person on the show?
Rogers didn't supress the racists. He answered them with his own vision. That's a big difference. He didn't go out and stop them from speaking. They could've made their own shows (and probably have, actually) that countered his position. He presented his views, he had no obligation to present "the other side", they have their own voices.
Everything could be argued to have two sides. There are still racists who argue that their view is legitimate, but that doesn't mean anyone is obligated to give it an airing.
I think Rogers was not polarizing because he delivered his views in a calm, measured and reasoned manner. Polarizing statements are ones deliberately calculated to reduce someone else's view or accusing the other side of something to advance your own views.
> Polarizing statements are ones deliberately calculated to reduce someone else's view or accusing the other side of something to advance your own views.
But that's exactly what he did. He wanted to reduce the power of racism. He deliberately targeted a receptive audience -- children too young to have internalized the racist worldview. His goal was to advance his own views on tolerance and racial equality.
I think you've been blinded by that "calm, measured and reasoned manner" you mention. Yes he was calm and measured and reasoned and, of course, morally right. But that's just the surface. Look underneath, at what he did, at what he said and how he said it, and you'll find he was using the same tricks of persuasion that underlie all political discourse, from Pol Pot to Abraham Lincoln.
If I show someone peanut butter and bread, but I neglect to mention that they can be combined into a peanut butter sandwich, I still don't think I've done anything polarizing. I would not consider that "showing exactly one side of the peanut butter sandwich debate".
But suppose peanut butter sandwiches were illegal, and people were fighting and dying in the streets for the right to make them. (That's what it was like in the 1960s and 1970s as far as civil rights were concerned).
So depicting a peanut butter sandwich might be illegal. Or it might be like marijuana, where depicting a peanut butter sandwich, while technically legal, is seen as an inducement to commit a crime and so is suppressed by extralegal means. On the other hand, depicting peanut butter and bread but no sandwich... well, obviously, a peanut butter sandwich is what would have come next, if the filmmakers weren't under the thumb of the government. Obviously
If sandwiches are contested, then showing them (or not showing them) is political. Civil rights was and is contested; Fred Rogers' presentation of a colorblind little slice of utopia to America's children was political too.
This is important to understand because attitudes like GP's affect views on current actions. If you think the forward progress that people look back on fondly was easy and uncontroversial, you'll object to any forward progress that seems hard or divisive.
Besides the senate testimony linked in this article, my favorite Mr. Rogers fact is this:
He would help move freshman into CMU and Pitt dorms every year, because he lived only a few miles away and he wanted to welcome them to his actual neighborhood.
How cool would it have been to look up from figuring out where to put your bag of clothes to see Fred Rogers holding a box of your books...
This story [1] from Anthony Breznican stuck with me after he shared it on twitter. I firmly believe that the actions Mister Rodgers took would come across as insincere and self-serving if it were basically any other “celebrity”. However, that was the power of Mister Rodgers. He could connect with anyone and made everyone feel like they genuinely mattered to him.
I grew up in Pittsburgh and was in a Catholic Grade School when he died. We held a special memorial mass for him because of the impact he had on both our city and kids generally. I can’t think of anyone else that would be done for, not even Dan Rooney or Mario Lemieux. Mister Rodgers was one of a kind.
> I firmly believe that the actions Mister Rodgers took would come across as insincere and self-serving if it were basically any other “celebrity”.
On the one hand, I think Fred Rogers was a wonderful human being. What I say next is not meant to detract from that in any way at all.
I don't think Fred Rogers was special.
Anyone can do what he did; the problem is that most people simply don't want to, I think. We've been taught that that kind of behavior is tiring, that we deserve "me" time and thoughts, that the public space is also "our" space.
When I think about Fred Rogers, my mental image is that service is first, then celebrity came from that consistent service. Any modern day celebrity could slowly take on a Fred Rogers-like image if they chose to consistently and wholly devote themselves to kindness and service.
In the beginning, it may seem insincere, but then as it continued consistently, I think that sincerity would be born from that consistency. Especially if they ceased other commercial activities or used those activities solely to plainly drive their service.
Edit: I've been reading the Esquire article about him (https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/tv/a27134/can-you-say-...) and interestingly enough, there's a quote about this: "You would think it would be easy by now, being Mister Rogers; you would think that one morning he would wake up and think, Okay, all I have to do is be nice for my allotted half hour today, and then I'll just take the rest of the day off . . . But no, Mister Rogers is a stubborn man"
Everybody has skeletons in their closet. Lots of people have tried to dig up dirt on Mr. Rogers' saintly image, but failed.
Meanwhile, Melanie Martinez, the host on PBS' "The Good Night Show" for children got canned when some "offensive" humor video she had made prior to her position surfaced. Her on-air personality was perfectly congenial.
Mr. Rogers only worked because he was less human than the rest of us. He never slipped up. We never caught him picking up hookers by the docks. We could never find a reason to take him down.
Indeed. I knew this kind of comment would come up, which is why I tried to address it at the beginning.
The point I really want to make is that for all that people talk about how fantastic he was and how he should have been canonized etc. -- he was just a guy who decided to do that. There's nothing stopping anyone else from doing that, from being nice and going the extra mile for other people.
There isn't some intrinsic quality that prevents anyone from being like that other than the decision to, well, do that.
It requires a lot of talent to figure out what children need developmentally, the kinds of things they’re going through and how to turn that into calming entertainment, talent to be a puppeteer and a song writer, talent to be a host and have a consistent vision, and a lot of raw drive to keep it going for decades.
It takes a special kind of person to probe someones feelings when its obvious they are upset. Most people don't want to share the baggage - although the term awkward is more commonly used. But Mr. Rogers was all about feelings.
Not quite as cool, but I got to meet David Newell ("Mr. McFeely") at an appearance when I was a student at the University of Florida; got his autograph for my Mister-Rogers-age baby sister. Dude was every bit as gracious as he and Mister Rogers appeared to be on television. They don't hardly make 'em any more.
Recent CMU alum here and I probably would have lost my mind if Mr Rogers helped move me in.
With that said, the freshman orientation experience involved pulling in volunteers across the school to help move people in. After going through it as a freshman, I got a chance to volunteer for the next two years of students. I remember one particular family had made an entire trip out of it by doing a multi-state bike-and-drive to get to Pittsburgh.
While I get this isn't particularly unique to CMU, it really helped to know that there was a group of people who were excited to see me there. And it felt good to be the person doing the welcoming to the university.
I moved to Pittsburgh for school, and became interested in the 'mythology' that had grown up around Fred Rogers. In particular, there's an anecdote that gets shared around that his car once got stolen, but it ended up parked back in the spot a few days later with a note on the dash that said "If I'd known whose it was, I wouldn't have taken it!"
As best I can tell, that one's just an urban legend. But what I discovered most surprisingly poring over the newspaper clippings and books is that almost everything else I'd heard isn't. Of every childhood hero I had, Fred Rogers is the only one who turned out to be exactly who that child thought he was. And more than that: his work was driven from both his education in theology as a Presbyterian minister and his tutelage under Dr. Margaret McFarland, child psychologist and associate professor at University of Pittsburgh. His show's content and structure was grounded in those philosophical and scientific foundations.
My favorite anecdote I can source (http://www.neighborhoodarchive.com/misc/mr_rodney/index.html): Burger King ran an ad campaign for a bit in '84 that featured a 'Mr Rodney' parody taking shots at McDonald's for inferior quality. Fred Rogers contacted Burger King's SVP, Don Dempsey, and simply asked the ad be pulled, because he was concerned it'd be confusing to children.
BK yanked the ad. As news sources quoted Mr. Dempsey, "Mister Rogers is one guy you don't want to mess with."
As a Mormon missionary I lived in Latrobe, PA in a house just neighboring a house Fred Rogers had lived in growing up. Latrobe was a quaint town with the sort of mailman and library and cute little streets that I remembered from "Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood". It was a well-ordered place in many ways (though obviously with its own intrigues and local politics---people are people.) But I could see that the show in many ways portrayed a not-that-idealized version of a real place. To those who call it "unrealistic" I say that there actually are lovely places and people in this world, and especially in the eyes of a compassionate and loving person like Fred Rogers we can make our communities and countries better and more beautiful.
I was living in Latrobe at the time of Rogers' death. We attended a memorial service his Latrobe connections held in his honor, and the esteem he was held in there was substantial.
The article is a good reminder of the power of a positive vision and of consistency and compassion to make islands of love in this divisive human existence. A very timely message indeed.
I served in the Pitt Mission from 89-91. He had the missionaries for dinner every few months.
I had the honor of being one of those missionaries, though at the time I thought he was condescending. I've come to realize he was, but not the negative kind. He was a genuinely kind and compassionate man.
The only thing I remember about that dinner was his opinion on our missionary service, which was that even though we were misguided, our hearts were good and God counted that. He sincerely prayed for our success as well as our conversion. I left a very humbled young man.
Honestly, I recommend reading everything you possibly can about Mr. Rogers. I never watched his show as a kid, but I still idolize him. Stories of his life and doings are good for the heart.
Were he a Catholic, Fred Rogers would have by this point been beatified if not fully canonized. Few people within living memory exemplified the values Christianity purports to teach as thoroughly as he. If his approach was unrealistic, it was supposed to be. He applied a sort of extreme version of the Kantian categorical imperative: always acting as if he were at the same time willing that the real world be as peaceful, gentle, and tolerant as the Neighborhood of Make-Believe.
He was actually a Presbyterian minister, and the mission that the church gave him was to do his show. He approached everything in a way that was incredibly kind and caring for everyone, without being preachy in the slightest. He was even part of an LGBT outreach program at his local church! I'm not Christian (though I did grow up with a very religious mom and nana) nor am I a particularly religious woman, but I'm sure Fred Rogers would be chilling with the most holy people up in heaven lol. Like I honestly think that he was one of the most "Christ-like" people in a long time.
I think of Mister Rogers as a towering moral authority; he is basically my Jesus. That said, the entirety of his goodness is boiled down to his simple commitment to taking others exactly as they are. It seems simple, but it's magic.
I grew up with MrR. However when I try to show it to my 5yr old, he can only sit through the factory-on-site visits ( which are very cool ) the rest he doesnt have the patience for as those interactions can't compare to all the hyper activity of NetFlix Kid's shows. He prefers to watch a marathon of Power Rangers kicking ass all day long.
Is there a moder-day Mr. Rogers out there ?? If not someone please invent him.
I grew up with him also, but Mr. Rogers isn't something we'd put on and sit and watch and do nothing else. It's something that's on while you're playing with other things. For example, building a Lego castle while the TV is on. The non-factory scenes are more about listening and occasionally looking up rather than staring at. At least that's my experience.
Years ago we'd leave on the TV in the background and watch sparingly sometimes. But now, my TV is always on-demand and if I'm not watching a series or movie, I'm on my computer in the other room.
A big part of Mr. Rogers appeal was back in the pre-Internet less-connected world, he and his cast were people you could see and who talked to you when you were home alone.
The real question should be why your generation could watch Mr. Rogers, but most kids of this generation can't concentrate enough to enjoy it. I changed my kid's routines away from most TV (allowing slower paced educational stuff) and they seem to be much better for it.
Worth noting is that in the spectrum and history of children's programming, MRN is the only show that didn't use jump cuts (for the in-house scenes, at least, I don't remember the external stuff). The camera just pans and fades, and there's never those jarring transitions from one shot to the next.
Rogers' personality aside, even the presentation of the show itself was meant to be gentle.
Daniel Tiger's Neighborhood is produced by the Fred Rogers Company. I haven't watched much of it, but it seems kinda like Mr. Roger's Neighborhood crossed with a more contemporary style.
Daniel Tiger's Neighborhood is meant to carry on Mr. Roger's legacy. They talk about feelings in every episode, and deal with childhood issues like Mr. Roger. It's wonderful.
They also have some of the same characters, and they ride a trolley to get around town.
... the show for which Rogers created many of the later famous characters. In between (beginning in 1961) he did over over 300 'MisteRogers' shows for CBC.
Sesame Street is like a fossil record or tree cross section for attention span in television. Some of the older Sesame Street clips like the one about milk, are trippy long format art pieces. Very very different than the quick cuts / short segments that happen today. Whether that’s good or bad is up to you. I suspect the old style simply wouldn’t compete for viewers today.
A bonus: Stevie Wonder playing Superstition on Sesame Street might be my favorite “music video” of all time. https://youtu.be/_ul7X5js1vE
We've been able to work through issues where a related Daniel Tiger episode helped. A few months ago, one of them was having difficulty with us leaving them with a babysitter and we put the episode about Daniel being left with a babysitter on, talked about it, and it really made an impact.
I think it's helped much more so than other PBS shows, but that might be because they're at the right age to be able to relate to some of the content.
God. That sometimes comes into my head unbidden by any humanly comprehensible reason. It’ll be in my head the rest of the evening now (as you intended!).
I agree. There's a lot to be said for a kindly human figure explaining these (to a child) weighty topics. An anthropomorphic tiger seems to undercut the message.
(Mind you, this is not intended to be a heavy slam on the show, which in my limited experience is head and shoulders above what passes for children's TV now.)
The show isn't entirely animated. Each show intersperses live action cuts, although with rotating characters relevant to the episode, not a star character like Mr. Rogers.
But too be honest...these parts are terrible. It's what inspired by 2.5 yr old to learn how to use the fast forward button on the remote control.
I completely agree. I can't stand the hyperactive, high pitched activity and voices in most kids shows now. I wonder how much effect it has on behaviour.
He always reminded me of the James Stewart character in Harvey:
Years ago my mother used to say to me, she'd say, "In this world, Elwood, you must be" – she always called me Elwood – "In this world, Elwood, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant." Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. You may quote me.
I have to admit that I have trouble following stories with holes in basic details. Conclusions drawn or stitched together end up missing something or being wrong.
Early on the story notes:
> the former Presbyterian minister
Except his biography notes:
> He graduated from the Seminary and was ordained as a Presbyterian minister in 1963 with a charge to continue his work with children and families through the mass media.
When telling the story of someone it's important to get core characteristics right (or try to). His belief and faith, no matter how any of us feel about it, was part of that.
> 1. Article was not a biography but a rumination over the values and impact of his show (with historical commentary).
The values of his show were part of an active ministry, not as a pastor for a local congregation but a different form of ministry. To talk about values and impact while not capturing where those intentionally came from is misleading at worst and at least a poor portrayal.
> 2. "Former minister" refers to an occupation. It's accurate.
This is trying to put the concept of minister into the job designations we typically have in the current work force structure we have today. It doesn't fit.
There are many ministers who have the job of Pastor of a church congregation. There are some who don't have have a job doing something that is part of their ministry.
He had an active ministry, with the Presbyterian church, to do this. If anything we get into semantic debates on roles rather than former vs active association.
Interesting. I think it's a rather small mistake, which does not invalidate the whole story, but I agree it does change the perspective somewhat.
Do you know how much he was involved in the church? Was he a member of a presbytery? Did he attend synods or general assemblies? (I might not be using the terms exactly correctly.)
I'm just curious, doesn't change things much either way. My grandfather was a Presbyterian minister and very much still considered himself active after retiring from being a pastor to a congregation – I think in large part because he attended a lot of the organizational meetings, mentored young pastors, etc.
Being involved in the church is lovely, but rather separate from bring a pastor. That's the point with Mr Rogers. He was an active pastor who ministered outside church.
Sure, agreed, I totally get that point. I was trying to figure out to what degree he was involved in the organization and to what degree they officially supported him, endorsed his ministry, etc.
Like I said, it wouldn't affect my high opinion of him, but it could affect my opinion of the church somewhat. I know the church honored him when he died, but I was curious if they considered his show a Presbyterian ministry – i.e., outside of a church does not mean outside of the church.
on 2 I think you're slightly off though it may be coming down to semantics.
His ministry was in the media with a focus on children and families so it was in no way former. To my understanding that "charge" was given as part of ordination after he was into his professional career and throughout it he remained an ordained minister within the presbyterian church.
It's really not hard to reconcile the fact that someone is no longer performing the usual job duties of a minister with the fact that some of his personal values may have been shaped by his time at the Seminary and those values may have formed a part of his teachings to children on his show.
I wouldn't call that a hole in basic details unless you are thinking literally like a computer.
Star Trek (the original series) first aired two years later and it's often cited as "the first" for many things. But... Mr. Rogers often did it first. He really was a pioneer.
I grew up on Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood; it was still in production when I was a child.
I still occasionally hear criticism of the show as being unrealistic, that it papered over things or was shallow or ungrounded. As if children's perception, compared to adults, is particularly realistic, deep or stable! What adult worries about going down the drain after a bath? Who understands the deep, existential angst a child feels looking over the precipice as the two most important people in their lives "suddenly" aren't together anymore? Rogers' genius was to take what was meaningful to a child and speak frankly about that. He never belittled those anxieties; he merely explained them and what they could do. And if there wasn't anything they could actually do, he could at least convince them the world would not end.
The show represented an idealism that you just don't see anymore. I was too young to have seen the episodes first-run where black community members were simply introduced, without fanfare, but that's exactly how he would have done it. Of course black people live in our city. Lots of people live in our city. They're just like you and me. They have the same jobs and live in the same houses because why shouldn't they? It wasn't polarized or political, it wasn't beating people over the head for not believing what he believed. It was simply matter-of-fact.
When he did the Emmys in 1997, you saw that idealism in practice. Of course there are special people in your lives who brought you to where you are today. Why wouldn't you honour them? And people obeyed, for he was right. (If you don't know this story, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Rogers#Emmys_for_programm... .)
I have a DVD of some of the episodes with a little toy cardigan wrapped around them. I was quite upset when he passed away, even with a graduate degree by then.
As a moral authority, there couldn't have been one much better in the United States.
I agree. In terms of being unrealistic I think it is important that we have to be able to picture a better world if we are going to obtain it. You want kids to know that certain things don't have to be the way they are, that the world can be a different place.
Exactly.
Another notable show that tried to represent the future 'as it should be' was Star Trek.
It had a Russian and a black woman as officers an 'alien' as 2nd in command etc...
Star Trek, to me, is more realistic to the inner workings of ourselves as social members and as individual minds/hearts than any other program that has before or since existed. It shows what the unknown feels like, it shows how each person is not only a member of the whole but also a complete whole in and of themselves, it shows not only compassion when things go wrong but also justice (angry justice or not). Everything is there on the final frontier! Literally the limits of human attainment and a drama within that exact scenario.
Star Trek has a lot of great aspects, but its model of utopian society is the "benevolent dictator" one. Captain Kirk is the dictator - he's brave, benevolent, incorruptible, and fixes everyone's problems by decree. His minions utterly lack ambition and selfish desires, and are ideally altruistic members of the collective.
It's a nice fantasy, but completely unworkable.
Kirk was the captain of a ship, not of society. A ship captain is generally the dictator of their vessel.
There are certainly valid criticisms of the quasi-utopian vision of society in Star Trek, but that one ship was not meant as a model or microcosm of how the whole of their society was run. Just one aspect.
> Kirk was the captain of a ship, not of society. A ship captain is generally the dictator of their vessel.
That's correct, but the Enterprise was clearly written as a metaphor for the perfect society. I've also seen it referred to as such by people wanting to create the perfect society.
> That's correct, but the Enterprise was clearly written as a metaphor for the perfect society.
My perspective: I grew up in and around the military, I understand military command structures and I see them as distinct from our overall society. That doesn't mean that there is no place for that sort of structure within a society. Star Trek always appeared to me as representing that military structure within the overall structure of the Federation's society. In fact, most members of the Federation were not members of anything military-like (or so it's claimed in the show, you don't really see too much outside the ship and non-Federation planets). The ship, the Enterprise, never seemed like a metaphor for anything (the Federation, on the other hand, was clearly meant as an analog to the the US and most of Western Europe, or the direction Rodenberry thought they were headed).
> I've also seen it referred to as such by people wanting to create the perfect society.
I do not doubt that you've seen this. But I've, personally, only heard and read people reference the Federation as a perfect society, not the Enterprise. Until today.
> Until today.
Not much is ever seen of the Federation in ST. But the parent I replied to, and its parent, are referring to the Enterprise.
Also, when I've seen references to ST as the model of utopia, Captain Kirk is often talked about front and center. Clearly, they are referring to the society on the Enterprise.
You can also see in this article cited later in this discussion:
http://grantland.com/features/next-generation-turns-25/
with quotes like this:
"and Picard’s personification of enlightened humanism"
Picard was a model of a good leader. That doesn't mean a spaceship command is a model for how all society functions.
What I find ironic is on the set William Shatner was a dictator on set too.
Get had huge amount of power on that set.
I never understood why the other actors didn't seem to like the guy, until I heard this,
'He would refuse to do an episode if he didn't have more face time.'
It really bothered me when I heard that. As a kid, I worshiped the guy. I remember being in 7th grade, and a kid asked me why I wore a tan polyester tee shirt--every day.
My response, because the Hang Ten shirt reminds me of something Capt. Kirk would wear. The kids laid into me, but since I was stronger, it didn't go too far.
My sexy science teacher overheard the conversation, and made me her assistant. My God did I want her to molest me in that supply room. (Different time folks.). Well she never did, but she shared my love of Star Trek. We used to talk about the good episodes while cleaning Pyrex. Boy do I miss her. I remember my heart was broken when I saw her at the beach with her boyfriend. They were kissing. I remember wishing I was older.
In Enterprise Picard was similar but often had his missteps and faults, which were usually helped along by the empath. Enterprise is what I was mainly speaking to, actually.
The original Star Trek and Captain Kirk as a character were much closer to portraying a "Navy in space" than the socialist ideals that would start to creep into TNG.
Although I find your criticism to be fair for TNG itself - when Roddenberry had greater creative control and the Federation began to be developer as having evolved beyond petty human desire and conflict, although there were some exceptions because sometimes the writers didn't get the memo (Barclay's OCD tendencies and Geordi keeping a holographic girlfriend come to mind) and it's just impossible to write good drama where all of the characters are just insufferably perfect. Even Superman has to have kryptonite.
But TOS is the series where McCoy is pretty openly racist towards Spock and where people get into fistfights all the time - it's a lot more grounded in plausible reality.
For those who don't know much about it - can you recommend which series to watch? I googled it and there seems to be a great deal of variety.
I'd personally recommend:
I only liked about 1/3rd of Star Trek Enterprise episodes, the entire series is kind of filler. Has that same wasted potential feeling that I got from Stargate Universe; it COULD have been more interesting if the pacing had been better and if they had focused on fitting the stories in to an overall plotline (much more like Babylon 5; which, BTW, you should TOTALLY watch if you haven't).Star Trek Discovery was good, but is more an edgier more action packed thriller kind of series than the earlier series. I do like where they're going with rebooting the overall universe though and I feel that this brings the modern FX capacity in to the series in a way that makes sense for today.
For something you can show to your parents or if you generally don't get Star Trek, the Orville is a GREAT comedy focused take on the ideas that Star Trek (everything) classically presented, but covering modern social issues.
I recommend The Next Generation. I find the crew in that series to be more variable and interesting, and the production is obviously more modern. You might be interested in the crew member Data, who is an android, considering the tech nature of HN!
I too recommend TNG. If you get to the end of the series and you still want more, there's also Voyager, which is essentially the same as TNG and slightly more modern.
As a companion read to diving into (or back into) ST:TNG, I have to recommend what is still quite possibly the best pop-culture essay I've ever read: http://grantland.com/features/next-generation-turns-25/
I'm more a fan of the original. The moral lesson taught every TNG episode so bludgeoned the viewer I tired of it and stopped watching.
I really enjoyed Deep Space 9, too. It's got a comedic twist, and I just can't get enough of Quark and the other Ferengi. The Grand Nagus Zek, whose mellifluous voice I was sure I'd heard somewhere before, turns out to be played by Wallace Shawn, the "inconceivable" guy from the Princess Bride.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SG_A0IOCfdM
One of the important ongoing themes is the relationship between Commander Sisko and his son Jake, which this article is about:
Deep Space Nine Is TV’s Most Revolutionary Depiction of Black Fatherhood
http://www.vulture.com/2018/01/deep-space-nine-revolutionary...
Here's an interesting interview with Avery Brooks (Sisko) and Rene Auberjonois (Odo):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnWmATqfebQ
The original is a great place to start, especially if you don’t mind older media. The first 3 original movies are also exceptional. After that comes Star Trek: The Next Generation, which is my personal favorite. If you’re still hooked, and don’t mind a change of pace and scenery (and in both cases, a slow start) Star Trek: Deep Space 9, and later Voyager would be the order for it.
Don't forget Barney Collier in Mission: Impossible, who was not only a black man critical to national security, but also a brilliant engineer.
I'm bistellar. I love both Star Trek and Star Wars.
Visualization of success has been strongly suggested as an effective means to gain success in athletics, weight loss, and more. It’s magic, and it can go to far, but the healthy form is just what you said: a vision of how things could be, an something to strive for. Imagining yourself crossing the finish line won’t make up for a total lack of fitness and training, but if you’re physically prepared, it can definitely help. Focusing on the goal rather than discouraging outcomes is part of mental preparedness.
I've read a few accounts where he made the audience break down like that. Of course, none of those are televised, but his impact on the generation that watched him is larger than himself, yet he was large enough to fit in his own shadow.
It's hard to know how TV has impacted the children who watched it. When I was older, I remember seeing kids watching Barney and Teletubbies and...
It goes without saying that Barney could never stand at the Emmys and taken seriously. I'm not sure who could be a Mr Rogers v2.
Unfortunately, I have no way of articulating my thoughts without sounding like a curmudgeon. I don't really know how the shows I grew up on, like Sesame Street, Letter People, and Reading Rainbow shaped my attitudes growing up, for better or worse. I just know that Mr Rogers would be the most likely to be acknowledge by an older generation without being them being embarrassed about it. He just a human; that human we all wished was our neighbor.
After he died, someone put up a billboard in our town. It showed a sweater on a hanger, and just said, "We'll miss you, neighbor."
It moved me to tears. In fact, it still does. And I didn't even watch the show very much.
> I still occasionally hear criticism of the show as being unrealistic, that it papered over things or was shallow or ungrounded
I really don't understand this criticism. On a first-principle basis alone it does not make any sense, because the same is true for any children's cartoon. I know this is anecdotal, but wanting to act out the fantasy in Transformers, Thundercats and whatnot certainly affected the playground in my childhood, why would the opposite part be any different? Also, why would people worry about the violence in those series, but not appreciate the better world depicted in this one? Fiction matters.
Some people argue whether morality is totally subjective which I do not think is true. There is definitely a core set of values and actions that are objectively good. Helping others, being truthful to yourself and society, being kind and polite. I always think about Mr. Rogers when I visualize a "good person" he definitely was a huge positive influence in the world and an amazing role model. Perhaps one day there will be a Mr. Rogers religion and I'm fine with that.
> I still occasionally hear criticism of the show as being unrealistic, that it papered over things or was shallow or ungrounded.
Where do you hear that? Shallow or ungrounded compared to what? GI Joe? Caillou? Barney?
> Of course black people live in our city. Lots of people live in our city. They're just like you and me.
For many people, "they" are you and me, not an object lesson to be taught about.
> [Black people] are just like you and me. They have the same jobs and live in the same houses because why shouldn't they? It wasn't polarized or political...
There was a debate going on in America when Mr. Rogers made those shows. There were two sides. Exactly one of them was represented in Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood. Telling one side of the story and pretending the other doesn't exist is the Platonic ideal of polarization.
I'm not apologizing for the racists here. What they believe is repugnant. But we should remember that in suppressing them we have done things that a lot of people would object to in other circumstances.
It's been so long since I've watched these shows, but like the GP I watched them regularly as a child. As an aside I can't get my kids into it, but they have enjoyed Daniel Tiger.
As I remember it, there were quite a few episodes where race was dealt with indirectly. By that I mean, the idea of difference would constantly come up in regards to things like the clothes people were wearing, or characters who wore glasses or not, etc.
Treating people the same regardless of differences was a constant theme of the show from my memory. Helping people, not holding them back. It was by no means ignoring the other-side of this, it just took the unapologetic stance that there is only one proper way to treat people, and wouldn't it be great if we could all live that way everyday?
My kid was into Daniel Tiger and our first attempts at getting into Mr. Rogers didn't really get anywhere. Now that he's 5, he's all about it (although Nature shows are starting to be the usual pick).
That being said, we're very regimented in screen time. My son maybe gets 20-30 minutes of TV time per day. We've also changed the format where each family member gets a turn to pick what to watch so we can expose him to more things.
I watched the show every day after Sesame Street and before Reading Rainbow. Good times.
I take issue with what you say here:
a> It was by no means ignoring the other-side of this
No racist ideas ever appeared on the show. That is the definition of "ignoring the [racist] side of this."
I watched the show every day after Sesame Street and before Reading Rainbow. Good times. I take issue with what you say here: a> It was by no means ignoring the other-side of this No racist ideas ever appeared on the show. That is the definition of "ignoring the [racist] side of this."
Ignoring != suppressing. Ignoring thoroughly debunked and discredited notions is healthy, and universal. NASA isn’t suppressing flat Earthers by not presenting their views alongside their scientific discoveries. It’s the job of the flat Earthers to present their own ideas, not act as social and intellectual parasites while crying that others aren’t carrying their weight for them. Mr. Rogers, on his own show, presented his own views, and that isn’t “suppressing” anything either.
Why do you say racism is thoroughly debunked and discredited when it played such a big, obvious role in the election of Donald Trump?
Whether or not your intention is to troll, that's the effect. Please stop.
> Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
It’s a shallow understanding of free speech and expression, not to mention argument, which believes that every issue has eternal value on all sides. Society doesn’t suppress the flat earth view of reality by ignoring it, because it’s been addressed and destroyed. Life is finite, and too many are happy to waste what time we have on craziness or hate, and we have no obligation to meet them halfway.
If there was some new information in the debates over race in the 60’s, then your point would stand. That wasn’t the case though, and there was nothing to suppress except a persistent, ancient, hateful ideology. This is true in the same way that balanced reporting shouldn’t boil down to giving a scientist explaining why the Earth is round, with a lunatic who thinks it’s flat. They’re entitled to their beliefs, and tell them to anyone who wants to listen, and we’re entiteld to ignore them like they don’t exist. That’s not “suppression” in a meaningful sense.
Treating black people as human beings counts as suppressing racists now? How could he have been less polarizing? Should he have started each conversation with "some people think that your skin color makes you subhuman and that's fine too"? Or should he just never have had a black person on the show?
Rogers didn't supress the racists. He answered them with his own vision. That's a big difference. He didn't go out and stop them from speaking. They could've made their own shows (and probably have, actually) that countered his position. He presented his views, he had no obligation to present "the other side", they have their own voices.
Everything could be argued to have two sides. There are still racists who argue that their view is legitimate, but that doesn't mean anyone is obligated to give it an airing.
I think Rogers was not polarizing because he delivered his views in a calm, measured and reasoned manner. Polarizing statements are ones deliberately calculated to reduce someone else's view or accusing the other side of something to advance your own views.
> Polarizing statements are ones deliberately calculated to reduce someone else's view or accusing the other side of something to advance your own views.
But that's exactly what he did. He wanted to reduce the power of racism. He deliberately targeted a receptive audience -- children too young to have internalized the racist worldview. His goal was to advance his own views on tolerance and racial equality.
I think you've been blinded by that "calm, measured and reasoned manner" you mention. Yes he was calm and measured and reasoned and, of course, morally right. But that's just the surface. Look underneath, at what he did, at what he said and how he said it, and you'll find he was using the same tricks of persuasion that underlie all political discourse, from Pol Pot to Abraham Lincoln.
If I show someone peanut butter and bread, but I neglect to mention that they can be combined into a peanut butter sandwich, I still don't think I've done anything polarizing. I would not consider that "showing exactly one side of the peanut butter sandwich debate".
But suppose peanut butter sandwiches were illegal, and people were fighting and dying in the streets for the right to make them. (That's what it was like in the 1960s and 1970s as far as civil rights were concerned).
So depicting a peanut butter sandwich might be illegal. Or it might be like marijuana, where depicting a peanut butter sandwich, while technically legal, is seen as an inducement to commit a crime and so is suppressed by extralegal means. On the other hand, depicting peanut butter and bread but no sandwich... well, obviously, a peanut butter sandwich is what would have come next, if the filmmakers weren't under the thumb of the government. Obviously
If sandwiches are contested, then showing them (or not showing them) is political. Civil rights was and is contested; Fred Rogers' presentation of a colorblind little slice of utopia to America's children was political too.
I think what the quoted passage was trying to convey is that Mr. Rogers wasn't polarizing or political in the way community diversity was presented.
This is important to understand because attitudes like GP's affect views on current actions. If you think the forward progress that people look back on fondly was easy and uncontroversial, you'll object to any forward progress that seems hard or divisive.
Besides the senate testimony linked in this article, my favorite Mr. Rogers fact is this:
He would help move freshman into CMU and Pitt dorms every year, because he lived only a few miles away and he wanted to welcome them to his actual neighborhood.
How cool would it have been to look up from figuring out where to put your bag of clothes to see Fred Rogers holding a box of your books...
This story [1] from Anthony Breznican stuck with me after he shared it on twitter. I firmly believe that the actions Mister Rodgers took would come across as insincere and self-serving if it were basically any other “celebrity”. However, that was the power of Mister Rodgers. He could connect with anyone and made everyone feel like they genuinely mattered to him.
I grew up in Pittsburgh and was in a Catholic Grade School when he died. We held a special memorial mass for him because of the impact he had on both our city and kids generally. I can’t think of anyone else that would be done for, not even Dan Rooney or Mario Lemieux. Mister Rodgers was one of a kind.
[1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/05/23/mr...
> I firmly believe that the actions Mister Rodgers took would come across as insincere and self-serving if it were basically any other “celebrity”.
On the one hand, I think Fred Rogers was a wonderful human being. What I say next is not meant to detract from that in any way at all.
I don't think Fred Rogers was special.
Anyone can do what he did; the problem is that most people simply don't want to, I think. We've been taught that that kind of behavior is tiring, that we deserve "me" time and thoughts, that the public space is also "our" space.
When I think about Fred Rogers, my mental image is that service is first, then celebrity came from that consistent service. Any modern day celebrity could slowly take on a Fred Rogers-like image if they chose to consistently and wholly devote themselves to kindness and service.
In the beginning, it may seem insincere, but then as it continued consistently, I think that sincerity would be born from that consistency. Especially if they ceased other commercial activities or used those activities solely to plainly drive their service.
Edit: I've been reading the Esquire article about him (https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/tv/a27134/can-you-say-...) and interestingly enough, there's a quote about this: "You would think it would be easy by now, being Mister Rogers; you would think that one morning he would wake up and think, Okay, all I have to do is be nice for my allotted half hour today, and then I'll just take the rest of the day off . . . But no, Mister Rogers is a stubborn man"
> I don't think Fred Rogers was special. Anyone can do what he did ...
He's special because he stepped up and did it.
In this day and age though, who would want to?
Everybody has skeletons in their closet. Lots of people have tried to dig up dirt on Mr. Rogers' saintly image, but failed.
Meanwhile, Melanie Martinez, the host on PBS' "The Good Night Show" for children got canned when some "offensive" humor video she had made prior to her position surfaced. Her on-air personality was perfectly congenial.
Mr. Rogers only worked because he was less human than the rest of us. He never slipped up. We never caught him picking up hookers by the docks. We could never find a reason to take him down.
Indeed. I knew this kind of comment would come up, which is why I tried to address it at the beginning.
The point I really want to make is that for all that people talk about how fantastic he was and how he should have been canonized etc. -- he was just a guy who decided to do that. There's nothing stopping anyone else from doing that, from being nice and going the extra mile for other people.
There isn't some intrinsic quality that prevents anyone from being like that other than the decision to, well, do that.
It requires a lot of talent to figure out what children need developmentally, the kinds of things they’re going through and how to turn that into calming entertainment, talent to be a puppeteer and a song writer, talent to be a host and have a consistent vision, and a lot of raw drive to keep it going for decades.
I don’t think just anyone could do it.
It takes a special kind of person to probe someones feelings when its obvious they are upset. Most people don't want to share the baggage - although the term awkward is more commonly used. But Mr. Rogers was all about feelings.
Sigh, a story chopped up over 29 tweets.
Not quite as cool, but I got to meet David Newell ("Mr. McFeely") at an appearance when I was a student at the University of Florida; got his autograph for my Mister-Rogers-age baby sister. Dude was every bit as gracious as he and Mister Rogers appeared to be on television. They don't hardly make 'em any more.
Speedy Delivery!
I would have died right there. He impacted the lives of so many children, that it was a guarantee many of them grew up watching him.
Recent CMU alum here and I probably would have lost my mind if Mr Rogers helped move me in.
With that said, the freshman orientation experience involved pulling in volunteers across the school to help move people in. After going through it as a freshman, I got a chance to volunteer for the next two years of students. I remember one particular family had made an entire trip out of it by doing a multi-state bike-and-drive to get to Pittsburgh.
While I get this isn't particularly unique to CMU, it really helped to know that there was a group of people who were excited to see me there. And it felt good to be the person doing the welcoming to the university.
I moved to Pittsburgh for school, and became interested in the 'mythology' that had grown up around Fred Rogers. In particular, there's an anecdote that gets shared around that his car once got stolen, but it ended up parked back in the spot a few days later with a note on the dash that said "If I'd known whose it was, I wouldn't have taken it!"
As best I can tell, that one's just an urban legend. But what I discovered most surprisingly poring over the newspaper clippings and books is that almost everything else I'd heard isn't. Of every childhood hero I had, Fred Rogers is the only one who turned out to be exactly who that child thought he was. And more than that: his work was driven from both his education in theology as a Presbyterian minister and his tutelage under Dr. Margaret McFarland, child psychologist and associate professor at University of Pittsburgh. His show's content and structure was grounded in those philosophical and scientific foundations.
My favorite anecdote I can source (http://www.neighborhoodarchive.com/misc/mr_rodney/index.html): Burger King ran an ad campaign for a bit in '84 that featured a 'Mr Rodney' parody taking shots at McDonald's for inferior quality. Fred Rogers contacted Burger King's SVP, Don Dempsey, and simply asked the ad be pulled, because he was concerned it'd be confusing to children.
BK yanked the ad. As news sources quoted Mr. Dempsey, "Mister Rogers is one guy you don't want to mess with."
> Of every childhood hero I had, Fred Rogers is the only one who turned out to be exactly who that child thought he was.
Same. I like to think I'm not so wrapped up in the characters of celebrities, but a scandal around Mr. Rogers would be a serious bummer.
I literally lived in Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood.
As a Mormon missionary I lived in Latrobe, PA in a house just neighboring a house Fred Rogers had lived in growing up. Latrobe was a quaint town with the sort of mailman and library and cute little streets that I remembered from "Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood". It was a well-ordered place in many ways (though obviously with its own intrigues and local politics---people are people.) But I could see that the show in many ways portrayed a not-that-idealized version of a real place. To those who call it "unrealistic" I say that there actually are lovely places and people in this world, and especially in the eyes of a compassionate and loving person like Fred Rogers we can make our communities and countries better and more beautiful.
I was living in Latrobe at the time of Rogers' death. We attended a memorial service his Latrobe connections held in his honor, and the esteem he was held in there was substantial.
The article is a good reminder of the power of a positive vision and of consistency and compassion to make islands of love in this divisive human existence. A very timely message indeed.
I served in the Pitt Mission from 89-91. He had the missionaries for dinner every few months.
I had the honor of being one of those missionaries, though at the time I thought he was condescending. I've come to realize he was, but not the negative kind. He was a genuinely kind and compassionate man.
The only thing I remember about that dinner was his opinion on our missionary service, which was that even though we were misguided, our hearts were good and God counted that. He sincerely prayed for our success as well as our conversion. I left a very humbled young man.
When I feel sad and frustrated, I watch the melodysheep remix of Mr. Rogers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFzXaFbxDcM
Definitely read the Esquire profile of him: https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/tv/a27134/can-you-say-...
Honestly, I recommend reading everything you possibly can about Mr. Rogers. I never watched his show as a kid, but I still idolize him. Stories of his life and doings are good for the heart.
I recently listened to the audiobook of The Simple Faith of Mr. Rogers. It's good:
https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-simple-faith-of-mister-...
Were he a Catholic, Fred Rogers would have by this point been beatified if not fully canonized. Few people within living memory exemplified the values Christianity purports to teach as thoroughly as he. If his approach was unrealistic, it was supposed to be. He applied a sort of extreme version of the Kantian categorical imperative: always acting as if he were at the same time willing that the real world be as peaceful, gentle, and tolerant as the Neighborhood of Make-Believe.
He was actually a Presbyterian minister, and the mission that the church gave him was to do his show. He approached everything in a way that was incredibly kind and caring for everyone, without being preachy in the slightest. He was even part of an LGBT outreach program at his local church! I'm not Christian (though I did grow up with a very religious mom and nana) nor am I a particularly religious woman, but I'm sure Fred Rogers would be chilling with the most holy people up in heaven lol. Like I honestly think that he was one of the most "Christ-like" people in a long time.
I think of Mister Rogers as a towering moral authority; he is basically my Jesus. That said, the entirety of his goodness is boiled down to his simple commitment to taking others exactly as they are. It seems simple, but it's magic.
Obligatory XKCD: https://xkcd.com/767/
Be sure to read the alt-text.
I grew up with MrR. However when I try to show it to my 5yr old, he can only sit through the factory-on-site visits ( which are very cool ) the rest he doesnt have the patience for as those interactions can't compare to all the hyper activity of NetFlix Kid's shows. He prefers to watch a marathon of Power Rangers kicking ass all day long.
Is there a moder-day Mr. Rogers out there ?? If not someone please invent him.
I grew up with him also, but Mr. Rogers isn't something we'd put on and sit and watch and do nothing else. It's something that's on while you're playing with other things. For example, building a Lego castle while the TV is on. The non-factory scenes are more about listening and occasionally looking up rather than staring at. At least that's my experience.
Years ago we'd leave on the TV in the background and watch sparingly sometimes. But now, my TV is always on-demand and if I'm not watching a series or movie, I'm on my computer in the other room.
A big part of Mr. Rogers appeal was back in the pre-Internet less-connected world, he and his cast were people you could see and who talked to you when you were home alone.
The real question should be why your generation could watch Mr. Rogers, but most kids of this generation can't concentrate enough to enjoy it. I changed my kid's routines away from most TV (allowing slower paced educational stuff) and they seem to be much better for it.
It's worth noting that France banned the marketing of shows targeted at children under three [source](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/259...)
[TV causes concentration issues](https://www.news.iastate.edu/news/2010/jul/TVVGattention) [similar study](http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/113/4/708?sso=...)
[TV causes school and health problems](https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=1...)
There's a much more questionable effect of increasing violence [source](http://www.latimes.com/health/la-hew-kidviolence2002-story.h...)
Worth noting is that in the spectrum and history of children's programming, MRN is the only show that didn't use jump cuts (for the in-house scenes, at least, I don't remember the external stuff). The camera just pans and fades, and there's never those jarring transitions from one shot to the next.
Rogers' personality aside, even the presentation of the show itself was meant to be gentle.
Daniel Tiger's Neighborhood is produced by the Fred Rogers Company. I haven't watched much of it, but it seems kinda like Mr. Roger's Neighborhood crossed with a more contemporary style.
Daniel Tiger is a sort of modern cartoon spin of the Mr Rogers universe.
Daniel Tiger's Neighborhood is meant to carry on Mr. Roger's legacy. They talk about feelings in every episode, and deal with childhood issues like Mr. Roger. It's wonderful.
They also have some of the same characters, and they ride a trolley to get around town.
Mr Rogers is the modern-day Mr. Rogers, and a good detox from the patience-destroying sensory-overloading shows like Power Rangers.
Yes. It's available to stream on PBS Kids starting this past week, and my family is going to watch it as much as possible.
My kids really like Tumbleleaf and Curious George.
Thats pretty sad and telling about youth these days. Rabid 12 year olds playing Fortnite.
Errata: that should read: WQED and 'The Children's Corner'. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0250142/
... the show for which Rogers created many of the later famous characters. In between (beginning in 1961) he did over over 300 'MisteRogers' shows for CBC.
Mr. Rogers was nice and calming. So were the early Sesame Streets. Now children’s shows are hyper and frantic, refining that 3 second attention span.
There is a congressional testimony video in that link. He was still nice and calming speaking to an asshat politician. He is like a kid’s Carl Sagan.
If you need to de-stress, bring up Mr. Rogers.
Sesame Street is like a fossil record or tree cross section for attention span in television. Some of the older Sesame Street clips like the one about milk, are trippy long format art pieces. Very very different than the quick cuts / short segments that happen today. Whether that’s good or bad is up to you. I suspect the old style simply wouldn’t compete for viewers today.
A bonus: Stevie Wonder playing Superstition on Sesame Street might be my favorite “music video” of all time. https://youtu.be/_ul7X5js1vE
Here's a recurring segment about counting, with vocals by Grace Slick no less: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WSHvbGM6oE
The new animated show "Daniel Tiger's Neighborhood" is a rare example of a successor that is true to the spirit of the original. My kids love it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Tiger%27s_Neighborhood
We've been able to work through issues where a related Daniel Tiger episode helped. A few months ago, one of them was having difficulty with us leaving them with a babysitter and we put the episode about Daniel being left with a babysitter on, talked about it, and it really made an impact.
I think it's helped much more so than other PBS shows, but that might be because they're at the right age to be able to relate to some of the content.
Grooowwn ups come back
You're welcome. /evilgrin
God. That sometimes comes into my head unbidden by any humanly comprehensible reason. It’ll be in my head the rest of the evening now (as you intended!).
I think it does miss out on some aspects of Mr. Rogers's humanity, though. I think it's harder to learn from abstract characters.
I agree. There's a lot to be said for a kindly human figure explaining these (to a child) weighty topics. An anthropomorphic tiger seems to undercut the message.
(Mind you, this is not intended to be a heavy slam on the show, which in my limited experience is head and shoulders above what passes for children's TV now.)
The show isn't entirely animated. Each show intersperses live action cuts, although with rotating characters relevant to the episode, not a star character like Mr. Rogers.
But too be honest...these parts are terrible. It's what inspired by 2.5 yr old to learn how to use the fast forward button on the remote control.
I think most of PBS's offerings are all really good on this front.
I completely agree. I can't stand the hyperactive, high pitched activity and voices in most kids shows now. I wonder how much effect it has on behaviour.
I’m not sure if it’s related to the anxiety epidemic, but my stress levels spike through the roof when there’s modern kids programming on near me.
Just watch autism rates skyrocket over the next decade and ask that question then.
He always reminded me of the James Stewart character in Harvey:
Years ago my mother used to say to me, she'd say, "In this world, Elwood, you must be" – she always called me Elwood – "In this world, Elwood, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant." Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. You may quote me.
Sesame Street took a few years to figure out what they wanted to be, though:
http://theweek.com/articles/454359/10-classic-sesame-street-...
I think the best years were 1973 through 1994 or so, but that's very subjective.
Sesame Street's best years are definitely behind it.
I have to admit that I have trouble following stories with holes in basic details. Conclusions drawn or stitched together end up missing something or being wrong.
Early on the story notes:
> the former Presbyterian minister
Except his biography notes:
> He graduated from the Seminary and was ordained as a Presbyterian minister in 1963 with a charge to continue his work with children and families through the mass media.
https://www.fredrogers.org/fred-rogers/bio/
When telling the story of someone it's important to get core characteristics right (or try to). His belief and faith, no matter how any of us feel about it, was part of that.
1. Article was not a biography but a rumination over the values and impact of his show (with historical commentary).
2. "Former minister" refers to an occupation. It's accurate.
A couple thoughts...
> 1. Article was not a biography but a rumination over the values and impact of his show (with historical commentary).
The values of his show were part of an active ministry, not as a pastor for a local congregation but a different form of ministry. To talk about values and impact while not capturing where those intentionally came from is misleading at worst and at least a poor portrayal.
> 2. "Former minister" refers to an occupation. It's accurate.
This is trying to put the concept of minister into the job designations we typically have in the current work force structure we have today. It doesn't fit.
There are many ministers who have the job of Pastor of a church congregation. There are some who don't have have a job doing something that is part of their ministry.
He had an active ministry, with the Presbyterian church, to do this. If anything we get into semantic debates on roles rather than former vs active association.
Interesting. I think it's a rather small mistake, which does not invalidate the whole story, but I agree it does change the perspective somewhat.
Do you know how much he was involved in the church? Was he a member of a presbytery? Did he attend synods or general assemblies? (I might not be using the terms exactly correctly.)
I'm just curious, doesn't change things much either way. My grandfather was a Presbyterian minister and very much still considered himself active after retiring from being a pastor to a congregation – I think in large part because he attended a lot of the organizational meetings, mentored young pastors, etc.
Being involved in the church is lovely, but rather separate from bring a pastor. That's the point with Mr Rogers. He was an active pastor who ministered outside church.
Sure, agreed, I totally get that point. I was trying to figure out to what degree he was involved in the organization and to what degree they officially supported him, endorsed his ministry, etc.
Like I said, it wouldn't affect my high opinion of him, but it could affect my opinion of the church somewhat. I know the church honored him when he died, but I was curious if they considered his show a Presbyterian ministry – i.e., outside of a church does not mean outside of the church.
I think one could argue that he was a Pastor of children, with a remote congregation.
A televangelist, then.
I'd be okay with them all following his lead
on 2 I think you're slightly off though it may be coming down to semantics.
His ministry was in the media with a focus on children and families so it was in no way former. To my understanding that "charge" was given as part of ordination after he was into his professional career and throughout it he remained an ordained minister within the presbyterian church.
You don't become un-ordained, generally, unless you do something Extraordinarily Naughty.
"He ceased to serve in parish ministry" would be a better phrasing.
That’s the thing, he never was a parish minister
ah, true enough. "he was a minister who never lead a parish", then.
It's really not hard to reconcile the fact that someone is no longer performing the usual job duties of a minister with the fact that some of his personal values may have been shaped by his time at the Seminary and those values may have formed a part of his teachings to children on his show.
I wouldn't call that a hole in basic details unless you are thinking literally like a computer.
Mister Rogers' Neighborhood first aired in 1968.
Star Trek (the original series) first aired two years later and it's often cited as "the first" for many things. But... Mr. Rogers often did it first. He really was a pioneer.
Star Trek debuted in 1966, not 1970.