Abuzz over Buster

He's just a rabbit. Poor little guy probably just wants to nibble on some lettuce, snooze in a pile of cedar shavings, and do all those other wild things that rabbits do.

Apparently "hanging out children who have lesbian parents" is one of them. And the Christian right has come out fighting, determined to keep the little varmint caged with children of traditional parental households and nobody else. What righteous and proper rabbit would dare to do otherwise?

It all started with the animated children's show Postcards from Buster, a spinoff from the popular Arthur kids series. In "Postcards", which airs on PBS, Buster visits with real-life kids and their families in different parts of the country while being exposed to their cultural heritage, ways of life, and local traditions. Recent airings have seen Buster learning everything from Mexican cooking to Tai Chi, from Native American drumming to Norwegian dance.

But in an episode not yet aired, the furry critter heads to Vermont to visit and learn about farming and maple sugaring. Two of the friends he meets happen to have lesbian parents, and both couples appear in the episode. And that's what raised the ire of Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings:

"Many parents would not want their young children exposed to the lifestyles portrayed in the episode," Spellings wrote in a letter sent Tuesday to Pat Mitchell, president and chief executive officer of PBS.

The network has decided not to distribute the episode to its affiliates, though PBS management claims it's for reasons unrelated to the Secretary's comments. Somehow I doubt it's a coincidence. WGBH in Boston, which produces the show, is one of 13 stations that will move forward with plans to broadcast it.

Though I'm far from a regular viewer, I've caught enough snippets of the Buster series to opine that, like Arthur, it's a tremendously positive show for kids. Buster seems to do a great job of exposing children to the diversity of peoples in our society, and the Vermont episode seems a fairly benign extension of that principle. There's no evidence that any outward vulgarity or promiscuity is displayed, nor anything sexually suggestive, in this episode or any other.

Postcards from Buster, along with Arthur, was created by Marc Brown, who released the following statement:

"I am disappointed by PBS's decision not to distribute the 'Postcards From Buster' episode to public television stations. What we are trying to do in the series is connect kids with other kids by reflecting their lives. In some episodes, as in the Vermont one, we are validating children who are seldom validated. We believe that 'Postcards From Buster' does this in a very natural way - and, as always, from the point of view of children."

Response from Democrats has also been swift, though they didn't pass up the opportunity to get in their jabs on tangential issues. DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe stated that Secretary Spellings was ''confined to a very narrow and selfish agenda if her first action in office is to threaten an American institution like PBS. While America's schools are crumbling and our students are falling behind in basic skills, Republicans in Washington are too busy pursuing an intolerant agenda to try to solve the real problems."

I'm quite certain the coming days will bring more comments in similar partisan veins from both sides of the aisle. But for now, we have the newly appointed and sworn Secretary of Education feeling duty-bound to throw in her two cents on the issue. As she should.

Similarly, activists and lobbying groups from the bible belt, as well as from the Hollywood- influenced left-leaning visual arts industry, will soon try to gain some elbow room in the Capitol. Most of them have no idea what Buster even looks like, yet they will feel compelled to air their views. As they should.

And many citizens, including those without children and those who've never watched the show, have been bombarding their local PBS outlets to support or decry the show's content. As they should.

So why should all these seemingly uninvolved yet meddling forces be allowed to interfere with the programming choices of a television network? The common thread that ties everything together is government funding. Postcards from Buster is produced with subsidies from the federal "Ready-to-Learn" program. As such, those in charge of overseeing the distribution and proper use of these funds, including the Secretary, have a duty to maintain an active interest in the content they subsidize. They are, after all, stewards of the federal taxpayers -- the ones picking up a substantial chunk of the tab for Buster, Frontline, Nova, and many other programs airing on PBS stations nationwide. The federal tax base includes both individual and corporate contributors, which is where the lobbyists and individual citizens come in. Their voices will, and should, be heard.

However, the real flap shouldn't be about lesbian couples on TV. Instead we should be assessing the role of government-funded television in society. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting was established by Congress in 1967, when American television was strictly a three-network circus. When PBS was formed under CPB's funding wing in 1969, its two original primary objectives were programming diversity and a commercial-free platform.

These days nearly every PBS show has multiple sponsors, and they all seem to be getting more than just a cursory mention. At the beginning and end of every This Old House episode, for example, we're treated to mini-commercials for Home Depot, Andersen Windows, GMC Trucks, and State Farm Insurance. And how could we forget the regular pledge drives, where several programs are interrupted up to four times an hour so station personnel can beg and plead for donations? All told, the "commercial-free" aspects of PBS have all but disappeared.

There's no question that 35 years later, PBS still provides tremendous programming variety, and I enjoy a good number if its shows including Nova, Charlie Rose, and the various cooking and home improvement programs that air on weekends. But if they were shown on a network other than PBS, I'd still be watching. With the vast proliferation of cable and satellite broadcast outlets, and the targeted advertising opportunities they bring, there's plenty of room in the private sector to make almost any type of programming a profitable endeavor. Most PBS programs are fully capable of standing on their own if privately produced and broadcast to targeted markets.

Kids programming such as Postcards from Buster could just as easily air on Nickelodeon or one of its offshoots. A network like MSNBC could broadcast Frontline. Ken Burns could sell his documentaries to ESPN, BET and the History Channel. Austin City Limits seems a perfect fit for the Nashville Network or CMT. The possibilities are endless.

Under such an arrangement, if an issue with content was to arise, it would become a private matter between the network, its sponsors, and its viewers. Government officials wouldn't have to waste their time with special interest groups debating the trivialities of "Two Mommies in the Kitchen" -- nor would they have the power or the right to determine their fate. Program producers such as Marc Brown could create artistic and editorial content unencumbered by congressional or judicial intervention. And the many individual cable channels wouldn't have to live in fear that their funding, predicated on the politics of governmental whim, would be slashed or disappear altogether.

Sure, cable channels generally carry more commercial advertisements than PBS, but so what? The gap between them has most certainly been narrowed. Don't want the commercials? Get TiVo. Hit the mute button. Record programs to DVD and edit the ads out. The technology's out there just waiting to be utilized.

Such steps would be but a minor nuisance if they helped to get Uncle Sam out of the "Politically Correct Broadcasting" business. Like the many cookie-cutter multi-purpose stadiums of the 70's, PBS has outlived its usefulness, and the $400 million spent each year by taxpayers would be better invested elsewhere, or returned to its rightful owners.