I am assuming, based on the fact that this story was featured on the conservative muckraking website Brietbart, that some people think it is inappropriate to award three Daytime Emmys for children’s programming to Kevin Clash, the Muppets puppeteer whose career as fuzzy red monster Elmo on Sesame Street ended with a series of child molestation accusations.
If I am right, these people are dead wrong. Clash is an artist, and a talented one. Whether or not the allegations of his having illicit contact with under-aged boys are true, and none have been tested in court, his skill in manipulating and voicing the cutest and most vulnerable of the Muppets is beyond debate. The Emmy has never been nor claimed to be a character award. An Emmy recognizes excellence in television, in this case children’s programming, and it doesn’t make a smidgeon of difference if an artist is a child molester, a bank robber, a cannibal, a Nazi or a Billy Ray Cyrus fan—if he or she delivered the best artistic product, the honor is deserved.
___________________________________
Spark, Facts and Graphic: Breitbart
Ethics Alarms 
By your reasoning, should Roman Polanski be lauded?
Not since “Chinatown”.
I think Jack would say he should be honored for his art and his art only IF it’s strictly an artistic award. He wouldn’t go see one of his films though. Nether would I.
As a director? Sure. Except that he should be in prison,and not directing anything. Personally, I refuse to watch anything he does.
This group felt compelled to honor this man, this year, not once, not twice, but three times? Since he was Elmo for twenty-eight years, he must have entire rooms full of these awards. You may fairly posit that any objections implicit in Breitbart reporting this are unacceptable as a failure to overcome Ick Factor, but perhaps this story would be better considered for inclusion in your friend’s “rubbish” category?
Also, I’m curious about your using the term “muck raker” to describe the Breitbart blog. Do you mean that in a perjorative sense or in the original sense of the progressive newspaper people who exposed corporate greed and malfeasance in early Twentieth Century American commerce? I think we were inculcated with the notion that muck raking in TR’s time was a good thing. In 2013, is Breitbart’s muck raking good or bad?
Breitbart has been both good and bad, but since the site cheats (see: Shirley Sherrod), I don’t trust it.
The Sherrod complaint is, I think, quite unfair, but I won’t defend the site as it exists today.
Personal knowledge of both its management and its employees and the numerous ACTUAL fuck-ups they have made since the passing of Andrew last year have made that place into a god damn punchline.
Here, I’ll give you the VERY short list of people to read at Breitbart…
Jeremy (aka RebelPundit)…
Ummm…
Well, Liberty Chick’s CyberBeat is good…
… Uhhh…
You know, I’m going to have to get back to you…
No, Breitbart’s coverage, to me, signals to the “those Hollywood people are ethically inert” crowd. Now, they are inert, but this staory doesn’t prove it. The question of how we factor non-artistic conduct into our assessment of artists interests me, if noone else.
Fair enough.
Again, I just wonder whether this situation was a very good example for investigating the issue. The awards seemed almost gratuitous. Maybe they should have given him a life-time achievement award since he’s now out of the business? Or maybe wait until the dust settles and the courts have spoken (or the plaintiffs have settled and the lawyers have been paid) and then give him a life-time achievement award? Doesn’t this strike you as a little bit of an “in your face” to those hicks in fly-over country (or the unwashed at Breibart)? Isn’t this holding down one end of the bell curve on the non-artistic conduct/artistice achievement issue?
Except that the Emmys routinely give the same awards to the same artists year after year. Clash’s work was in the books; he’s the best in the biz, or was. If they didn’t give him the prize, it would look like they were punishing him for an unresolved legal matter. It only looks “in your face” as confirmation bias.
“The question of how we factor non-artistic conduct into our assessment of artists interests me, if noone else.”
I’ve wondered the same thing. Kanye, Brown, MJ, etc…
Would knowing he has 26 daytime Emmys (including consecutive 2009-2013) and 1 prime-time award (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Clash#Awards_and_honors) change your opinion? I’m guessing Breitbart did not mention that either.
OK, upon that information, I swallowed my self-loathing and clicked the link (I don’t even click through to read Liberty Chick’s Cyber Beat post because I refuse to give them the traffic…
And Jack, I think you were a bit unfair here (and please understand how disgusted I am at myself for saying that) – It is a UPI article, the wire service Breitbart LLC uses. No one at Breitbart actually wrote that.
I don’t think I understand this art form. I find Elmo to be the most annoying and least entertaining character on Sesame Street — with the one possible exception of Baby Bear. So I guess I don’t understand why this guy wins every year. But I do agree with Jack — innocent until proven guilty. I don’t watch Polanski or Woody Allen films for the same reason — although many would argue that Allen did nothing wrong.
If you really know of someone who seriously argues that cheating on one’s virtual spouse with her (and your) adopted teenaged daughter isn’t wrong, please send me his or her address. That’s all I’m going to say.
Technicalities Jack! Mia Farrow was the only legal parent — so it’s perfectly acceptable to sleep with your “virtual” underage daughter as long as she is not your “actual” underage daughter.
I stand corrected.
In some states sleeping with your adopted daughter even after she is an adult is considered incest.
I’d call it incest myself. The issue isn’t genes. but the relationship.
But of course, Elmo’s not intended to appeal to you, or any adult. I worry about adults who can tolerate Elmo. And curse you for reminding me of Baby Bear, who really is unbelievably annoying.