Kid Nation - Join me in protest...

[super8man]

I did my part and wrote to CBS about how bad this is on so many levels. The NPR piece was interesting about New Mexico changing their child labor laws after this shoot. So, they cannot shoot a second season anywhere in the USA.

CBS has stumped to new lows.

http://www.cbs.com/primetime/kid_nation/

Cheers,
M

[MovieStuff]

I thought I was the only one that had written in protest. Yeah, this is bad no matter how you look at it. They shot in New Mexico because that was the only state that had a loophole that would allow them to get around child labor laws. I guess if the show is a hit, they'll have to shoot in some third world country or something since that loophole has been closed. I guess networks just can't get it up to pay writers these days. Good god. How did television survive before reality shows. I'd rather watch reruns of Martin or Three's Company than this crap. Everyone needs to protest and let the advertisers know this stinks.

Roger

[MovieStuff]

Of course the "Lord of the Flies" comparisons are inevitable. But back in 1969, there was a very short lived series called "The New People". They made 17 whole episodes and then that was it.

http://www.snowcrest.net/fox/TNP/index.html

It was about a group of students that get shipwrecked on an island after their plane makes a crash landing in the ocean. (Sound familiar?). The island was an unused atomic test site so it has buildings, etc.

Dunno if this is available on DVD or not but it parallels Kid Nation in that you have a group of young people given the chance to set up their own society, rules, etc. Not "reality" television but neither is reality television, what with cameramen, producers, doctors, technicians, grips and the such only a few feet behind the camera and an air conditioned Winni around the corner, if needed.

Anyway, Rod Serling had some input on "The New People" series. Haven't seen a frame of it in a million years but my very young memory seems to remember it as being fairly cutting edge for the time period. But, then again, I thought The Monkeys was hilarious, too, so go figure. :roll:

Roger

[David M. Leugers]

Back when I was a kid they called TV the "boob tube". It had nothing to do with breasts, mind you. I can't imagine what my grandparents would have thought of what passes for entertainment on TV these days. Mindless drivel and really damaging to the zombies watching...


David M. Leugers

[Angus]

How long before TV executives realise that reality TV isn't actually where its at?

[yolia]

I find it humorous that some people find the idea of children working horrifying. A testament to how our society has changed since the industrial revolution (not necessarily a good thing in some respects.)

Children worked in colonial days, and society did not call it exploitation. In fact, children were encouraged and expected to work, to be productive, to contribute to the family and their community as a whole. Children worked in all ancient culture including Native American (Children still work in the third world--but this is a whole other animal.)

Work builds character, it strengthens the spirit, especially meaningful work! Work teaches responsibility, duty, self-respect, discipline, and a host of other values that humans in general hold sacred in all cultures. Benjamin Franklin worked at the age of 8. In his autobiorgraphy he discusses at length what work taught him and the positive influence it had on him. Franklin HATED school and preferred to go work. In fact, he only had one year of grammar school--he was entirely self-taught.

Work will teach a child more about him/herself than sitting in a classroom ever will. This is proven. But politicians and child labor laws would have you believe that allowing kids to work is immoral (There is somethign cynical in a society that allows children--even babies--to work as actors in TV and film, but thinks it scandalous to allow the same children to work in any other sector of our economy. Which is the greater exploitation? Certainly child actors are being exploited and pimped by their parents and the show biz industry.)

On the other hand, I certainly wouldn't want to see children forced to work in coal mines or sweatshops, or factories as they did in the turn of the 20th century. This was clearly exploitation. It was work that risked children's lives and aimed at maximizing profits for the owners.

But this is a sharp contrast to what children did in colonial days or what they could be doing today or what the CBS show seems to be depicting. I'm not opposed to the show--at least not opposed to the idea of having children make their own food, wash, organize, etc., and learn what it means to build a stable community. This is a REAL education and it is what children USED to do!

Victor

[super8man]

"On the other hand, I certainly wouldn't want to see children forced to work in coal mines or sweatshops, or factories as they did in the turn of the 20th century. This was clearly exploitation. It was work that risked children's lives and aimed at maximizing profits for the owners. "

So, this is like the pornography argument: I know what it is when I see it but I can't otherwise describe it?

Nope. In the cases you mention, children working for family undertakings is one thing. This would be non-paid labor in as much as me making dinner for my family is unpaid. It's what people do.

Bottom line, we (in North America) live in a society where we all agree (99%) that humans under a certain age do not have the CAPACITY to make certain decisions. Like asking an 8 year old if he should eat candy or vegetables. They are called MINORS for a reason. And it's our duty to protect their interests until they reach the age of MAJORITY. Now, if folks don't agree with that basic principle then, by all means, move somewhere that fits with your moral outlook.

What would Walter Cronkite say?

And that's the way it is this Sunday afternoon.

[MovieStuff]

Children worked in colonial days, and society did not call it exploitation.

The average lifespan was about 35, also, and girls married and regularly gave birth to children at age 15. What we would consider "teenagers" now would have been considered "middle aged" back then.

In fact, children were encouraged and expected to work, to be productive, to contribute to the family and their community as a whole.

Agreed but "education" took on a different meaning on the frontier. Most skills being taught to youngsters were related to survival and not higher learning, as we know it today. To put it in perspective, take a typical college graduate, run him through the Way-Back Machine to colonial times so that he suddenly had the responsibilities of a typical colonial 15 year old and see who starves first.

Work builds character, it strengthens the spirit, especially meaningful work! Work teaches responsibility, duty, self-respect, discipline, and a host of other values that humans in general hold sacred in all cultures.

Agreed. But there is a difference between character-building and exploitation to make an easy buck.

Roger

[yolia]

Children worked in colonial days, and society did not call it exploitation.

The average lifespan was about 35, also, and girls married and regularly gave birth to children at age 15. What we would consider "teenagers" now would have been considered "middle aged" back then.

In fact, children were encouraged and expected to work, to be productive, to contribute to the family and their community as a whole.

Agreed but "education" took on a different meaning on the frontier. Most skills being taught to youngsters were related to survival and not higher learning, as we know it today. To put it in perspective, take a typical college graduate, run him through the Way-Back Machine to colonial times so that he suddenly had the responsibilities of a typical colonial 15 year old and see who starves first.

Work builds character, it strengthens the spirit, especially meaningful work! Work teaches responsibility, duty, self-respect, discipline, and a host of other values that humans in general hold sacred in all cultures.

Agreed. But there is a difference between character-building and exploitation to make an easy buck.

Roger

Sounds like we are on the same page. What's exploititive about the CBS show is that it's being televised (for profit, for ratings, etc.) But if this were a cooperative learning project designed by a public school and not televised, would any one here object?

I think these kids can learn some valuable lessons.

Victor

[yolia]

"On the other hand, I certainly wouldn't want to see children forced to work in coal mines or sweatshops, or factories as they did in the turn of the 20th century. This was clearly exploitation. It was work that risked children's lives and aimed at maximizing profits for the owners. "

So, this is like the pornography argument: I know what it is when I see it but I can't otherwise describe it?

No.

[/quote]Nope. In the cases you mention, children working for family undertakings is one thing. This would be non-paid labor in as much as me making dinner for my family is unpaid. It's what people do.[/quote]

This was my point.

[/quote]Bottom line, we (in North America) live in a society where we all agree (99%) that humans under a certain age do not have the CAPACITY to make certain decisions. Like asking an 8 year old if he should eat candy or vegetables. They are called MINORS for a reason. And it's our duty to protect their interests until they reach the age of MAJORITY. Now, if folks don't agree with that basic principle then, by all means, move somewhere that fits with your moral outlook.[/quote]

It's our duty to provide guidance to children. To expose them to experiences that will build character, self-respect, discipline, etc. It's true that children do not have the capacity to make certain decisions, but with proper guidance they can.

[/quote]What would Walter Cronkite say?[/quote]

Forget Cronkrite. What would Ben Franklin say? What would David Farragut say? He was the US Navy's first admiral, was commissioned midshipman on the Essex at the ripe old age of ten! Read his and Franklin's story to learn what children are truly capable of!

[/quote]And that's the way it is this Sunday afternoon.[/quote]

??

[MovieStuff]

What's exploititive about the CBS show is that it's being televised (for profit, for ratings, etc.) But if this were a cooperative learning project designed by a public school and not televised, would any one here object?

I think these kids can learn some valuable lessons.

Actually, there are shows like this that take a different and more ethical approach. For instance, there was a show on the Discovery Channel where a group of British kids built an enclosure for endangered orangutans and the program followed their ups and downs and interviewed them along the way. Another was a documentary I mentioned before called "Mad Hot Ballroom" about inner city kids involved in ballroom dance competition. The difference is that these kids had signed up for these field projects beforehand and were going to do them whether the documentary crew was going to be there or not. The CBS show, on the other hand, was specifically formulated around the involvement of the kids. No kids = no show.

Roger

[yolia]

What's exploititive about the CBS show is that it's being televised (for profit, for ratings, etc.) But if this were a cooperative learning project designed by a public school and not televised, would any one here object?

I think these kids can learn some valuable lessons.

Actually, there are shows like this that take a different and more ethical approach. For instance, there was a show on the Discovery Channel where a group of British kids built an enclosure for endangered orangutans and the program followed their ups and downs and interviewed them along the way. Another was a documentary I mentioned before called "Mad Hot Ballroom" about inner city kids involved in ballroom dance competition. The difference is that these kids had signed up for these field projects beforehand and were going to do them whether the documentary crew was going to be there or not. The CBS show, on the other hand, was specifically formulated around the involvement of the kids. No kids = no show.

Roger

So you object to the fact that a TV network came up with the idea. I still think it's a great project--kids learning how to build a community. BTW, the parents who signed up their kids for this show are just as unethical as the network.

[MovieStuff]

So you object to the fact that a TV network came up with the idea.

No, the difference is that if the kids involved in building the orang enclosure all decided to quit, then that would be part of the documentary, as well. But if all the kids decided to quit Kid Nation, then there would be no Kid Nation. That the network has millions riding on the participation of the kids creates a different kind of pressure than kids participating in a character building project where they can quit at any time without their parents losing $20,000 or the network losing sponsors.

Roger

[yolia]

So you object to the fact that a TV network came up with the idea.

No, the difference is that if the kids involved in building the orang enclosure all decided to quit, then that would be part of the documentary, as well. But if all the kids decided to quit Kid Nation, then there would be no Kid Nation. That the network has millions riding on the participation of the kids creates a different kind of pressure than kids participating in a character building project where they can quit at any time without their parents losing $20,000 or the network losing sponsors.

Roger

Different kind of pressure?!? For the TV executives you mean? They have to keep the show going of course. Money is at stake. That's clear. Am not sure how this relates to the kids. Maybe if we could read the contracts they signed... Still sounds like you object to the network organizing this project. Regardless of the money involved, regardless of the fact that CBS is running it, doesn't change the potential of this project to be a great experience for kids. Moreover, if any of these kids learn something about themselves and community, they'd be wise to write about it in their personal essays when they apply to college. Experiences like these are what college acceptance boards love to read from their applicants.

[Nigel]

I don't have a TV but I did hear the radio story.

My thoughts aren't that CBS hit a new low.

Rather I questioned the parents of the children. You know that they didn't just walk the street nabbing kids. Their parents were aware of everything and signed what I am sure was a very lengthy release.

Not only that...But who really buys the concept that reality tv is real?? It is amazing that the "Survivor" actors never seem to loose a bunch of weight or that the women seem to have clean bikini lines after a month or two. Or, the fact that "Man Vs Nature" is putting their guy up in hotels after a day of shooting.

To think that any one of these shows simply lets go of the situation is just as unreal as what you are watching.

Studios always fake reality--Be it in a feature narrative film or a show that claims to be educational. Tame panthers, bears, pets snakes have long been the standard of natural history TV. No one really cared.

Hell, even when people called out Marty Stauffer with "Wild America" he simply pulled the sheet off what the industry had been doing since its start.

From "Nanook of the north" to "Kid Nation" there has always been staging.

Good Luck
PS--The WGA may be partly at fault for making shitty contracts for their writers to then battle the studios over.