That was more than a decade ago. How is that relevant or meaningful, now?
What makes this 'politics', or even worth viewing/talking about?
Mr. Rogers is the subject of a documentary now playing in theaters and a biopic starring Tom Hanks, out later this year. Though most Americans assume he's a national treasure, he's widely loathed by some conservatives who center him in their myth of "participation trophy" culture.
So anyhow here's Fox and Friends complaining that young people are entitled and useless because Fred Rogers stressed the importance of love and its absense in their lives.
The veneer of mirth makes it seem ironic, humorous even, but even that has a stone-cold purpose, as explained here by a less moderate right-winger, Andrew Anglin:
https://i.imgur.com/OK0IBCW.png
this guy
https://www.cleveland.com/court-justice/index.ssf/2018/07/ohio_neo-nazi_andrew_anglin_lo.html
so we have some some people aspiring to be light hearted mass murderers. wonderful
I presume some people have better sense than that.
Mr. Rogers is the subject of a documentary now playing in theaters and a biopic starring Tom Hanks, out later this year
That would be 'Pop culture, or entertainment', not politics.
The rest of your comment does not answer my questions, or even seem to have a point other than ranting against some conservative boogieman.
You seem to be getting worked up over a shitty media broadcast from a decade ago. If you had to go back that far to find an example, then is is not relevant anymore.
Even if it was current,it's Fox. It's a media outfit that that says dumb shit for ratings.
What makes it discussion worthy?
because some people took mister rogers as pushing wishy washy liberal agenda