Reply
Fri 19 Jan, 2007 06:47 am
Yesterday, on Oprah, she had those two boys from Missouri who had been kidnapped. One boy had been away from his parents for 4 years, the other a few days.
I understand that Oprah is interested in ratings, and that to a great extent, she is a humanitarian, and believes that what was learned on the show could be generalized to help other people.
I am wondering though, if she stepped over the line when she had a show about the two Missouri boys who had been kidnapped by some guy who worked in a pizza joint.
Link
The younger child, who had been kidnapped only days before, did not go on the show, but his parents did. They wisely felt that he had been traumatized enough, and they did not want to put him through the stress of him being on TV, telling his story.
I felt very sorry for the older boy. His body language said everything. You could just see that he wanted to crawl into a hole. I think that his parents were very unwise for permitting him to go on the show, no matter how noble the intentions.
Even if one might consider the good that airing a story like this would do, when is enough? When is the line crossed where certain things should remain private, and not open to public speculation?
It was very strange. Now the papers are coming out that the boys may have been sexually abused. Duh! What an insight!
When I first saw the two boys, my first thought was that if the kidnapper was a pedophile, he took the second kid because the older one was becoming too mature for his tastes. I don't think that you have to be a rocket scientist to figure that one out.
Who knows what would have happened to the older boy, if the kids had not been rescued? In addition, the kidnapper is being questioned about yet another kidnapping in Missouri.
Should material like this be shown on national TV? If not, is there a more humane way to use these stories as teaching tools for other people, without causing more trauma to the children involved, and their families?
I think that, before we say anything about those shows like Oprah - whose existence depends on titillation, we should ask about the news "journalism" that shoves a microphone in the face of traumatized victims, sometimes minutes after the trauma.
Oh, I agree with you on that, Snood. I think that there are a lot of ghouls in journalism.
With this particular issue, it is about kids who have been traumatized, badly. I really don't know what was in the parents' heads when they came on TV, and in the case of the older boy, allowed him to be seen by the entire country.
In an age where peples's dirty underwear and vilest habits are daily fare, I can see why they think Oprah's show was all right. Personally, I would have demanded complete privacy for my son and family.
I saw that show. It was heartbreaking. I felt guilty even watching but still I watched.
I asked myself the same questions of "why" and came to the conclusion that the family was probably being hounded by the media and felt that if they made an appearance (in a controlled environment) that maybe some of the furor would die down and they could have some peace.
Both families seem to be getting good advice. I can't imagine that they would appear on Oprah recklessly.
I really wish they had talked to the FBI guy more -- especially about how to drill the message into your kids about how they need to tell you things and about how to stay safe.
I thought it was pretty tacky. Wonder how much money was involved?
I think that's the way it goes. And that's the rationale mostly used in situations like this. These sad people sell their souls to the media for much-needed cash to pay for hospital bills, lawyers fees, etc.
I don't know where the families would get a top notch professional, living in some little town in Missouri. I think that the older boy especially, needs to go to one of the "big guns", some expert on kidnapped and sexually abused children, and not some local shrink.
Just looking at that boy made me shudder. I would be very surprised if he were not suffering from some level of post traumatic stress disorder.
I didn't see the show in question
Quite possibly one of the Big Gun Professinals advising the family of the 15-year-old urged them to allow their son to make his own choices as a way of counteracting the years of helplessness.
Quite possibly the 15-year-old visualized being a TV Star rather than a subject for questioning.
I'm not a Big Gun Professional, but I had some training from a local Rape Crisis Council on preventing trauma in abused and exploited women and children.
Some professionals feel that as much trauma can inflicted by the friends and the family of the victim as by the original abuser.
Suppose a kid in a Rest Room has been grabbed in the crotch by a Weenie Wagger in full performance and the fun and games are interrupted by a passer by
Now, if the kid's family goes around anouncing, "You're ruined. You're ruined. Why didn't you run? Why did he pick you?" the kid is going to experience lots of secondary trauma.
If the kid's family says, "Weren't we all lucky that the Passer By passed by? My goodness, that Weenie Wagger is a creepy man. Weren't you smart not to hit him--he's so much bigger than you are. We're so upset that he'd try to upset you--we just love you so much."
Granted a five minute encounter in a public rest room is not the same as four years of abduction, but the basic underlying principles are the same.
As for the whole tangle between public and private life: those boundaries are in acceleration transition and the subject deserves its own thread.
Besides concern for the children in this case, I have some concerns re media exposure... and eventual prosecution, re picking jury, etc.