I don't know how many of you have heard about this (I'm procrastinating a deadline and am, frankly, sick of all the armchair quarterbacking of the stinking mess in the Middle East), but the host of PBS's Good Night Show, one of their 'Kids Sprout' childrens' shows, was recently fired, not for anything she has done recently, but for two mock Public Service Announcements that she did back in 1999 outlining how girls could avoid teenage pregnancy (and which she herself disclosed to her employers).

http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/TV/07/25/tv.goodnight.ap/index.html

PBS has had the screws put to it in the last few years by an administration that has threatened to cut Federal funding to it if it doesn't present a more 'balanced' viewpoint (all contracts for new programming must pass "objectivity and balance" scrutiny), has had a staunch conservative, Ken Ferree, appointed as the head of the CPB; and a witch hunt has taken place wherin several CPB officials with Democratic affiliations were fired.

The debate about PBS and its politics with regard to more adult programming is a bit far afield from this topic (and it's undeniable that PBS's children's programming has provided considerable positive benefits for generations of preschoolers), but my question is: How far back in the past, especially in this age of YouTube, etc, is one expected to be accountable for one's actions (which in this case were clearly off the cuff and not designed for viewing by children) with regard to passing a 'purity test' for the purpose of being involved with children's programming? It's not like Ms. Martinez had a lengthy career in porn, or did anything criminal, or her preschool audience is likely to encounter these videos - it smells a lot like someone's got in a snit of the 'righteous outrage' variety to me.

Even the Parenting Weblog thinks that this firing and its rationale (the head of the show says that these videos could 'undermine her credibility with her audience') is silly. But in any case, my question still stands: How much of a 'purity litmus test' should people involved in working with children (in programming specifically, but expand to include such things as Girl Scouting and the like) have to pass? When is the past allowed to be the past, and how much of a personal life are such people allowed to have outside their jobs as preschool educators and entertainers (the PeeWee question in a way, I suppose)?

By the way, the PSAs are hilarious; I nearly wet my pants from laughing so hard watching them:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1994546325179027565&q=technical%2Bvirgin

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3324966698620878691&q=technical%2Bvirgin

Regards,
Nydia

I read about the firing and immediately wondered how many pre-schoolers would question Ms. Martinez' credibility following this disclosure.

How far back in the past, especially in this age of YouTube, etc, is one expected to be accountable for one's actions


Well, that all depends on which side of the aisle is doing the attacking. In the case of the "Right" they like to go back to early youth, if you remember they would show a photo of Bill Clinton meeting John F Kennedy and say that he was conspiring since he was 12 to get the job of president. (Thats not a joke they actually did that)

The best ammunition against those who persecute for things like this, which barely if at all can be considered an indescretion, is to open up the skeletons in their closets as it is a 99.9% guarantee that they will have something tangible to go after.

The so called "Right" of this country is a sad joke and history will most certainly not treat them kindly.


I read about the firing and immediately wondered how many pre-schoolers would question Ms. Martinez' credibility following this disclosure.


Probably somewhere between 0 and none.

Unrelated (except tangentially), but speaking of 'crimes against purity':

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/5217424.stm

Two things of interest from this article: First, the case only came to light because the girl in question was sixteen, and thus under the age at which executions are legal (Iran signed the International Convention that prohibits this, which leads me to wonder if the US did ;) ), and second, the age of consent for girls under Sharia law is nine.

The article also states that Iran holds the greatest number of executions save China, which asks me to question how that statistic was compiled, and what the population ratio of Iran to China is...

But in any case, to launch way out there on the hyperbole diving board, it's days like this that make me wonder if there aren't those (who, often paradoxically, seem eager to spread 'democracy' to the Middle East at the point of a gun) that, ironically enough, wouldn't prefer their own version of Sharia law here...

Ugh, I told myself I wouldn't mention the Middle East, and I'm at T minus two hours on getting this project out. Stop me before I post again ;).

Regards,
Nydia

The so called "Right" of this country is a sad joke and history will most certainly not treat them kindly.


I must agree, as long as the right is represented by the likes of some wacko religious leaders, and anorexic blonde wasps who actually believe their own press releases.

Please, tho', separate the "right" from the Republican party. I know many Republicans are too dense to figure out how to do this, but it is a separation that needs be done, nonetheless.

Holy mackerel! While those parody spots are pretty funny, I'm not sure I can side with you guys on this issue.

I'm not opposed to anal sex or masturbation, but those ARE some very touchy subjects (no pun intended).

I'm not sure I can blame them for removing her from kids educational shows. What would Mr. Rodgers do?

Maybe I'm missing the point...?

Hey Tranzure:

I suppose the point is that these spots were in an obscure place on the Web, done seven years ago, and obviously *not* intended for children (I'm guessing she was in college when she made them). My point/question is: In this age of Web documents, etc, being basically immortal (because they're nearly always cached/archived someplace and can be dug back up), how far removed does someone have to be from their freedom of expression on the Web before we consider them 'absolved' with regard to being child safe? In other words, how long do they have to abstain from controversial expression before they get their virginity back? ;). Despite that flippant last sentence, it's not a trivial question - witness what is happening with regard to people getting fired because of unpopular or anti-company speech in their blogs, etc. This is a case of someone's expression that occurred a long time before they decided to go into childrens programming - does that earn them a ban for life? Something that (one would hope :) ) would have gone completely unnoticed by her target audience will now, ironically enough, end up being brought up by parents who may have to explain to their toddlers where the "Good Night Show" and its 'babysitter' have gone...

Regards,
Nydia

I'm thinking that she's not likely to ever be absolved. Not as far as PBS is concerned, I'm guessing. I can't imagine them ever wanting to have sexually explicit material hanging over one of their child oriented TV hosts heads. It's an image thing.

The show is supposed to be wholesome. It's not supposed to be about a mother showing her daughter how to use a vibrator (yes, even though the PSA was done years and years ago and has nothing to do with the Good Night Show. Still, try and explain that to the target audience). Even though that very same audience probably wouldn't know what anal sex is anyway...

Just tell the kids that the babysitter had to go home. When they grow up, let them laugh at the PSA's, 'cause they'll probably still be around. :)

I'm fairly sure that in another 50 years, anyone with hopes of a future public figure is going to proactively create a number of "pen names" for nearly everything they do before they hit it big in what will be a coup-de-tat for the next generation of the publicist industry. We are in the midst of a serious redefinition of identity thanks to externalized and permanently accessible memory in the form of digitized everything.

On the plus side, those "PSAs" have now likely be viewed millions of more times than they would have without her being fired. Good job reactionaries.

Personally I tihnk it was inexcusable to fire her for making videos for a different company for a completely different reason, especially since she disclosed it early on and the hired her or maintained her employment despite them. If there's any justice she'll be able sue the crap out them....

On the bright side, they were funny, I'm sure she can get a job on The Daily Show. :)

This is a case of someone's expression that occurred a long time before they decided to go into childrens programming - does that earn them a ban for life?

Sure does, if that is the way PBS wants to play.

However, if, as you say, she did disclose what she did to them before she was hired, and got the job anyhow, then perhaps she should not have been removed once they surfaced.

Oh, and if you *ever* do porno, don't plan on being a science teacher:

http://www.wdcmedia.com/newsArticle.php?ID=1562

Once again, no-one would have been likely to notice, since the film was over 10 years old, except she was going through a divorce and her soon to be ex-husband 'outed' her to the school district. Interestingly in this case though, since she's now 'born again', the Christian media outlet reporting on this is taking a neutral stance...

Regards,
Nydia

Oh, and if you *ever* do porno, don't plan on being a science teacher:

http://www.wdcmedia.com/newsArticle.php?ID=1562

Once again, no-one would have been likely to notice, since the film was over 10 years old, except she was going through a divorce and her soon to be ex-husband 'outed' her to the school district. Interestingly in this case though, since she's now 'born again', the Christian media outlet reporting on this is taking a neutral stance...

Regards,
Nydia

This sticks out from the article:

"She grew up in a very poor family and had an alcoholic father; she was abused sexually by an uncle when she was from six to thirteen. I mean, she got off to such a horrible start in life and then made something of herself,"

Well of course they should fire her, she's just a nobody, she has no connections that will get any payoffs for the politicians (school board members are elected) and how will that further their careers or add to their campaign coiffers? Maybe just maybe if she had taken the time and put some thought into who her parents were going to be before she was born she could have avoided this scandal.

The problem is that once something controversial like this becomes public, it's very hard to go back. PBS could fully reinstate her, but this cloud will always be there now, and the slightest percieved infraction in the future will bring it all back up.

Same with that science teacher. Once something like that is out in the community, you're pretty much done teaching.

Well, since she's getting so much media, chances are if she hires a decent publicist, she can spin this into a new found level of popularity. I bet Larry Flint would pay big bucks if she does a spread for Hustler. :D

Larry Flint would pay big bucks if she does a spread for Hustler. :D

Punmaster strikes again:rolleyes:

Sorry, couldn't help it. :)