NORAD's Santa mission takes flak
DENVER — The U.S. and Canadian military will entertain millions of kids again this Christmas Eve with second-by-second updates on Santa's global whereabouts. But there's something new this year: public criticism.
A children's advocacy group says an animated video on the NORAD Tracks Santa website injects militarism into Christmas by showing fighter jets escorting Santa's sleigh. It's a rare swipe at the popular program, which last year attracted a record 22.3 million unique visitors from around the world to its website.
The North American Aerospace Defense Command defends the video as nonthreatening and safe for kids.
The kerfuffle erupted two weeks ago over a 39-second video on noradsanta.org called “NORAD Tracks Santa Trailer Video 2013.”
A 5-second segment of the video — which is also available on youtube.com — shows two fighter jets flanking Santa.
The Boston-based Campaign for a Commercial Free Childhood said the video brings violence and militarism to a beloved tradition. Blogs and Twitter lit up with volleys from both sides.
Josh Golin, the coalition's associate director, reiterated his criticism but called the brouhaha “a media-manufactured controversy.” The coalition didn't know about the fighter jet video until reporters called, he said.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Carnegie Mellon expert to school Congress on security
- Tribune-Review poll: Cable news rises as network news falls
- Clinton portrait refers to Lewinsky scandal, Philadelphia artist says
- EPA ripped for evading request for information
- $4.8M in gold taken in armored truck hijacking in North Carolina
- Lawmakers press Veterans Affairs for improved access to rural health care
- Dems keep blocking joint negotiations on immigration orders
- Several states in path of wintry blasts
- Hillary Clinton may have broken federal record-keeping laws, New York Times reports
- IRS audits of businesses reach 8-year low
- Los Angeles rookie officer claims shooting victim grabbed his gun