Charity as Reality TV

shereads

Sloganless
Joined
Jun 6, 2003
Posts
19,242
Did anyone else see this feature story on this morning's Today Show? And did any of you find it as tasteless and shameful as I did?

A serviceman stationed in Iraq has been unable to help his family who were left homeless after a disaster. The Today Show and Home Depot shared the cost of renovating the house, buying new furniture and clothes for the man's wife and young daughters - and then treated us to a live broadcast of the family's reaction this morning when they were led blindfolded into their new house - while Dad, in uniform, stands in front of a remote camera in Iraq so we can watch is face.

The children burst into tears when they see their pretty new things. One of them hides her face. Dad in Iraq is speechless and expressionless. Ann Curry, who is hosting the piece, begins to seem embarrassed as she tries to elicit comments from everyone - and maybe begins to wonder, as I do, whether this isn't one of the most humiliating moment's of this young father's life.

The younger child wants to go upstairs to see if her bedroom is as pretty as her sister's, but Ann has to tell her to wait, because it's time to go outside and thank the people in the orange Home Depot aprons.

What a nice thing to do. What a cruel way to do it.

Are we unable to provide for a soldier's homeless family without turning their tragedy into a marketing stunt? Whatever Home Depot spent on materials and labor, it was a tiny fraction of what they'd have paid for three minutes of advertising on the top-rated morning show - starring a man in uniform, no less. As for the Today Show, I usually enjoy it because I like the cast. But this isn't the first time their producers have come up with a "human interest" feature that ended up looking as if Oliver Twist was being presented with better-quality gruel in exchange for expressing his gratitude in front of 20 million people.

To whom it may concern: If I ever need charity, thanks in advance for whatever the corporate world can spare. But don't be surprised if I look more ashamed than thrilled when you take off my blindfold in front of the cameras and tell the world how pathetic I was before you took pity on me.

P.S. Before you ask, I will not wear a propeller beanie with your company's logo. I'd rather beg for spare change in traffic.
 
Well Jesus, shereads. What's the use of charity if you can't puff up your ego and enhance your bottom line? ;)
 
If you look at it from a certain point of view, all charity sucks ass. Because in the best of worlds, it shouldn't be needed.
 
"there, there...let us give you something that your father can't provide and make him feel like total failure while hes out there putting his life on the line."
if i didn't know better, this could have been something i came up with?
 
shereads said:
What a nice thing to do. What a cruel way to do it.

Yes. I'm trying to imagine how my husband would feel if we were in such a situation.

Especially if he were fighting a "war" far away from his family and in essence, leaving us to beg in the streets.

On live TV.

With a camera feed for him to watch it all happening without him.

Makes me very sad.

shereads said:
P.S. Before you ask, I will not wear a propeller beanie with your company's logo. I'd rather beg for spare change in traffic.

But thanks for this, cause that made me smile.
 
Oh - addition to previous post. Did you see Queer Eye's version of this?

They did real things for the couple and their young child.

First - a big marriage ceremony and celebration (because they married hastily the first time), they redid the apartment, bought a ton of things for the baby (including a huge gift card to JCPenny's I think - nice touch, not Dillards, but JCPenny's, something more down-to-earth.)

And then? Matching laptops, cell phones, digicams, so she could record baby things and send him images while he was gone.

No fanfare except for Carson's squeals.

It was very nice.
 
This makes me feel fortunate to be at work early in the morning.

I imagine Katie Couric telling us how touching a moment it was.

Time to visit the 'gag' thread.
 
The incident should have been publicized.

However, it should not have been publicized as an opportunity to exercise a broadcaster's globally publicized charity, but rather as an opening to fulfill their function as a news agency to question why troops sent to Iraq are (1) under funded in their supplies and armaments, as well as their pay, (2) kept there far longer than the troops expected/ were promised/ could prepare for, and/or (3) returned too frequently to enable the troops to reestablish their credit at home, while (4) the administration cuts back on much of the funding previously available to troops and their families.

This would require work, journalistic integrity, and possibly even alienation from the extraordinarily sensitive Administration controlled FCC.

It would also mean rising to a level of humanity slightly higher that which is normally exhibited by participants on an average Jerry Springer Show.
 
If they had protected the family's identity, the story would have served a purpose: making people wonder why a man on an extended tour of duty in a combat zone can't rest assured that his wife and children won't be made homeless if something goes wrong. I guess Home Depot - who got a few million dollars' worth of free publicity in exchange for repairs to a tiny tract house - is one of those Points of Light whose generosity make social spending unnecessary.
 
Virtual_Burlesque said:
The incident should have been publicized.

However, it should not have been publicized as an opportunity to exercise a broadcaster's globally publicized charity, but rather as an opening to fulfill their function as a news agency to question why troops sent to Iraq are (1) under funded in their supplies and armaments, as well as their pay, (2) kept there far longer than the troops expected/ were promised/ could prepare for, and/or (3) returned too frequently to enable the troops to reestablish their credit at home, while (4) the administration cuts back on much of the funding previously available to troops and their families.

This would require work, journalistic integrity, and possibly even alienation from the extraordinarily sensitive Administration controlled FCC.

It would also mean rising to a level of humanity slightly higher that which is normally exhibited by participants on an average Jerry Springer Show.

You are soft on Terror.
 
I didn't see this, on account of how I have no cable T.V and hardly any reception. BUt it's sickening. :mad:
The posters here had such really heartfelt intelligent and eloquent views on the subject- and we sure are writers- If you want to drop NBC a line and tell them what you think, it might be a surprise to them!.
Hell, I'm going to, and I didn't see it! :)
 
Virtual_Burlesque said:
The incident should have been publicized.

However, it should not have been publicized as an opportunity to exercise a broadcaster's globally publicized charity, but rather as an opening to fulfill their function as a news agency to question ...

You clarified what has bothered me about this thread from the start -- this isn't about charity as "Reality TV" it's about "Charity as Manufactured News" and cheap "feel-good" news at that.

Many of the DIY and home-improvement shows and about 60% of TLC's "makeover" programming is "Charity as Reality TV" and I don't have any real problem with that kind of programming -- there is clearly an understanding that the "charity" comes with a price tag of being used as entertainment programming.

However, this case doesn't seem to have that clear price tag of "charity for ratings" and presented as a "news" story to disguise the sef-indulgent sef-congratualtions while voiding any real "news."
 
Stella_Omega said:
I didn't see this, on account of how I have no cable T.V and hardly any reception. BUt it's sickening. :mad:
The posters here had such really heartfelt intelligent and eloquent views on the subject- and we sure are writers- If you want to drop NBC a line and tell them what you think, it might be a surprise to them!.
Hell, I'm going to, and I didn't see it! :)

And don't forget Home Depot, who negotiated a plum deal for themselves at the cost of these kids' privacy and their father's pride.

Maybe we should have every homeless person in America wear a sponsor's t-shirt in exchange for a meal at a soup kitchen. The program would pay for itself.

"I WAS FED BY HOME DEPOT"

"MY KID SLEPT INDOORS!
THANKS, BURGER KING"
 
Weird Harold said:
You clarified what has bothered me about this thread from the start -- this isn't about charity as "Reality TV" it's about "Charity as Manufactured News" and cheap "feel-good" news at that.

Charity as Entertainment would have been more accurate. Like most reality TV, it was live but it wasn't real.
 
You two are arguing semantics.

Whether it is Manufactured News or Manufactured Entertainment, both are manufactured by same group, for the same effect, and all with damned little regard for Reality.
 
Virtual_Burlesque said:
You two are arguing semantics.

Whether it is Manufactured News or Manufactured Entertainment, both are manufactured by same group, for the same effect, and all with damned little regard for Reality.

Why do you hate freedom and coddle terrorists, VB?
 
shereads said:
Why do you hate freedom and coddle terrorists, VB?
Have you ever actually TASTED the Freedom fries in the Senate Cafeteria?



But they do serve a nice Coddled Terrorist Egg.

Boiling water is poured over a security checked egg, then let let stand (without benefit of council) for seven minutes, serve in six ounce glass filled to the brim with Jack Daniel's Old No. 7 Tennessee sipping Whiskey and one ounce of Tabasco to disguise the salmonella aftertaste.
 
Back
Top