I found out who Mr Rogers was the other day when I asked in this thread, and what I know of him is this thread (pretty clear he was a Presbyterian minister, for example) and his Wikipedia page. But it seems clear that he's a much loved figure within the US. Fine. I felt broadly the same way about a load of people (who, it turns out, are all sex offenders - but that's a different matter.)
But look at the title of this thread. It seems to be a lot of people are suggesting that criticising the man is morally wrong. That any sort of examination of his influence, thoughts, etc makes the examiner an inhuman monster with no "ethics or soul". I'm not sticking up for Zeitgeist here, I'm making a broader point. What is wrong with a news network examining the influence of someone? That seems to me precisely what news networks should be doing. Sure, you don't agree with their conclusions. That's both fine and dandy. But criticising a network for even having the temerity to have conclusions is a little extreme, and it seems in places that that's what's happening.