It's a popular format. Numerous celebrities are having a second-wind career from reality shows filmed around the true life scenarios of their own lives, and when it involves whole families, they create appeal to a wider age spectrum of viewers. The Gene Simmons Family Jewels show is a great example. It features former KISS rocker, Gene Simmons, and his girlfriend, actress Shannon Tweed, whom he proudly never married but has lived with since 1985 and is utterly devoted to her. Also integral to the show are their two children, Nicolas born in 1989, and Sophie in 1992. Occasionally Shannon's sister, Tracy Tweed also appears.
A host of others like the Ozzie Osborne Family Album and Hulk Hogan and his family and action film superstar Stephen Seagal now turned Lawman and Paris Hilton and M.C. Hammer all have tried or are trying their hands at this medium for making cash. And that is precisely my reason for mentioning this possibility in the context of British Columbia's Ministry of Children and specifically the child protection arm. MCFD and the public are constantly carping about the government budget cuts, the consequent staff shortages and large case loads. Critics of child removals and foster parenting are always putting forth arguments that allege monetary agendas. I just think we should meet these issues head on by considering a sure-fire solution for everyone.
I already write reams of posts that suggest that MCFD is a side show so why not capitalize upon this with a proposal to Canada's Global Reality Channel which specializes in such shows. It's a natural. A persuasive producer or two could persuade Mary Polak and Leslie du Toit and the cast of Regional Directors to agree to this enterprise. It holds the possibility of generating millions in revenue for the Ministry. The next BC Premier should be pleased because it reduces the headache of funding this behemoth of child care. Some of the begotten money could be dedicated to parents who have lost almost everything on legal fees. A couple of good writers could pull out true stories from all the regions, subscribe the participation of the principals, the clients, i.e. parents. A world class director could have his videographers and sound people in MCFD offices, family homes, at visitation sites, in the court rooms, wherever good authentic dialogue can be obtained to dramatize the contention between the Ministry of Children and broken-hearted parents and disillusioned children. Court observers and friends could be interviewed for their reactions and opinions. Can't you see it already! A Fantastic journalistic coup, a hit! And imagine being on site when a judge rules against parents, or when social workers high five each other in the hallway after a decision in their favour. The range of emotions make this a winner. Oh, and if good parents got their children back and a great musical score plays in the background – how great would that be! The spin off revenues from sales to the UK, USA, New Zealand and Australia would be astronomical. The show could be called one of the following, Big Money, High Risk, Flight or Fight, MCFD, Saddest Loser, or House-Broken.
I can see more of a show like "COPS" where there are dash-cams and a camera team following social workers as they interview children and parents alike, and perform removals.
ReplyDeleteA day in the life of a few foster foster homes or group homes filled with babies or troubled kids would be a show on its own.
I can definitely see this flying in the States. Canada is likely a bit too conservative for this sort of thing.
Fhe focus would only be on the money shots, blatent abuse cases, drug-addicted parents, hapless children etc. This would end up fueling more calls to such services. Children's hospital could scrap their purple hats program and follow the medical trauma of a shaken baby and follow the case through to courts, supervised visits, and eventual removal and adoption placement. What a show!
The catch is, as in COPS!, when the recipients of such services are not in control of the cameras, you get a one sided picture of events, and people end up sympathizing with those the camera wants.
We see manipulation of the public daily. The purple hats (Purple Crying) show, the Turpel-Lafond Polak show, the Campbel Vanderzalm show.
I think they are already making CPS into reality shows in the USA - I thought I saw a headline the other day about some reality show mom losing her child, or being investigated by CPS. It's all a sham, in the same way that much of the rehab and tragedy of celebrities is a sham*, but a certain segment of the population falls for it.
ReplyDelete*celebrities with non-existent drooping careers have discovered that all they have to do is be involved in some sleazy scandal (e.g., a sex tape or a cocaine bust) to make it big.
Here it is - but I didn`t read the full article because a) it`s just typical trash, and b) it re-directs to Perez Hilton`s site, which is just more trash and probably downloads spyware of some kind.
ReplyDeletehttp://jerseyshorereality.com/gossip/Teen-Mom-Opens-Up-About-Losing-Her-Child-3959751.html
What CPS is doing - and quite successfully - is integrating itself into popular culture. And CPS is indeed a natural for popular culture, as Ron points out.
ReplyDeleteHere is the kind of comment below (and this is probably fairly typical) inspired by the teen mom meets CPS reality show (the profanity is left in, in the original publication):
ReplyDelete====================
http://celebritybabyscoop.com/2010/10/01/teen-mom-amber-portwood-under-investigation-for-abuse
Teen Mom' Amber Portwood Under Investigation For Abuse
``Anonymous said:
you know what you pathetic loser my mom raised two children on her own and were just fine. She [teen mom Amber Portwood] is a f------ loser a-- b---- and she needs anger help. And i have anxiety that i take medicine for but i never f------- act like that. You obviously dont have eyes because she jumps when he says one thing. And if you say cuss words and abuse your significant other infront of your child then you need your kids taken away too. YOUR SO WORTHLESS!!!!!!!!!!!!`
----------
CPS no doubt knows that many of people who watch these `reality`` shows are the kind of people who will cheer on when CPS takes a baby or child away from anyone for the slightest reason.
Yet another reason to home school your children, so they aren`t exposed (or exposed as much) to this trash.
Ron; your blog has really gone wild today. You certainly touched some raw nerves.I just want to make a couple of comments about yesterday's input. First about the rep for children and youth.
ReplyDeleteI think that Judge Ted Hughes made a bad mistake when he decreed that Turpel-Lafonde should have no real powers. This means that her only means of persusion is the same as yours and mine, namely the power of the news media. Yes she does have the power to access documents, but sometimes the MCF drags its heels and gives incomplete information. If she wants something fast and complete she has to issue a subpoene. She is not allowed to comment on cases before court, so she has to remain silent about cases like the Baynes and this may give an impression of her being in cahoots with the MCF. I am not on the same page as her in her position on the child in home of relative programme, but then I know the inside workings better than she does. Quites simply if a child is with a relative, the ministry has no power to interfere unless there is clear evidence of neglect or abuse. It is irrelevant as to whether there is a criminal record or not, unless it is for child abuse. In the same way it is irrelevant for a natural family. We do not remove children just because a parent broke the law. If there is no evidence of a need for protection, then your options are to leave the child there with, or without financial help. If the relative is poor, the choice is a no-brainer. My guess is that a lot of work spent on criminal record checks would produce minimal outcomes and not be worth it. Simple answer--do a sample.
Secondly Eric Jones article in the Times-Colonist was largely written about Matthew Vaudreuil. We all know he was the poor boy whose short and miserable life ended in death at the hands of his mother. All the compelling evidence was ignored. Jones was simply pointing out that pendulum swings from "child centred" to "family centred" can contribute to such tragedies. His main point was that social workers with good skills and training can offer protection to children at the same time as maintaining the dignity of the parents. (He must have read my book)