Wednesday, December 23, 2015
Washington Post Promotes Dickensian Marketing Experiment on Poor Children
Published on
Monday, December 21, 2015
by
Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR)
Washington Post Promotes Dickensian Marketing Experiment on Poor Children
by
Adam Johnson
The Washington Post offers readers a chance to watch impoverished children
taunted with a cruel choice. (Screenshot)
In America, as a rule, we shame the poor, ignore the poor, blame the poor
for being poor, mock the poor and do little to nothing to protect the poor.
Increasingly, however, a new trend has emerged: using the poor as props in
shoddy "inspirational" viral content. One such effort was recently featured
in the Washington Post (12/18/15), and is as bad as such things get:
These Low-Income Kids Were Given a Gift for Their Parents and for
Themselves. But They Could Only Keep One.
This was in the "inspired life" section, presumably because this effort is
supposed to be inspiring to the viewer who is expected to be surprised by
the result:
These kids, who ranged from 6 to 11 years old, belong to the Boys and Girls
Club of Metro Atlanta, where 83 percent are from poor families.
Some can't afford to put up a Christmas tree at home. Their wishes for
themselves ranged from a computer to an Xbox 360 to a Barbie house. When
asked what they thought their parents would want, one little boy guessed a
ring because "she's never really had a ring." Another said a television. The
next said a watch.
Then the kids were given their dream gift. And the gift for their parents.
With both gifts sitting in front of them, the kids were told they could only
pick one.
In the end, they all chose to sacrifice what they wanted to make their
parent happy.
Much like the popular "homeless guy does the right thing" viral "prank"
videos, these PR stunts are fundamentally based on two flawed, rather vulgar
premises: 1) that the poor are somehow expected to not be altruistic
(otherwise, why not run this experiment at a private boarding school?) and
2) the cheap emotional pornography and shallow moralism these videos offer
the average social media consumer outweighs the inherently cruel act of
making poor children "choose" between obtaining material possessions they
can't normally have or stripping their parents of the same. The fact that
the marketing firm behind the experiment ends up giving the child both gifts
is supposed to make it OK, but it doesn't. This last-minute paternalistic
gesture doesn't justify the voyeuristic act of watching a poor child suffer
through such a task for no objectively worthwhile reason.
To make matters even more cynical, the effort-while in conjunction with the
"marketing specialist" at the Atlanta Boys and Girls club-was designed to
promote a schlocky, third-rate corporate network called UP TV. A media
channel "dedicated to uplifting programming," it's owned by $1 billion
private equity group, InterMedia Partners. Their senior vice president of
marketing, Wendy McCoy, was "amazed" that the poors can be selfless:
Wendy McCoy, UP TV senior vice president of marketing, said the organizers
were amazed at the children's selflessness and "how touched they were to be
able to make this choice."
Poor children subverting the glib assumptions of UP TV's marketing hacks are
not particularly newsworthy, except for the fact that they expose the biases
of the morally absent editors at the Washington Post-who somehow thought
this cruel experiment merited an uncritical write-up. Indeed, it's bad
enough an overzealous marketing firm in Georgia made such a tone deaf
"viral" video; it's much worse that one of the biggest names in news decided
to promote it.
The poor need food, housing, jobs and-not least of all-dignity.
Billion-dollar companies playing their plight off the prejudices of the
viral video-sharing masses isn't just in bad taste, it's a perfect microcosm
of how the media covers poverty. Typically, the right-wing press addresses
it in cruel fear-mongering or poor-shaming, while the nominally liberal
media all too often reduces it to this type of "inspirational" claptrap. But
the poor aren't our props; they're not the raw material of viral content
who, if edited properly, will subvert our "prejudices" and play the role of
noble savage. They're individuals. Human beings. Complex and nuanced.
Indeed, had some of these children told the producers to fuck off, they were
keeping the gifts they were promised-as I suspect some edited-out clips
showed-all the better. Poverty isn't a marketing gimmick, it's a scourge, a
cancer and a national shame. The media should be covering this decidedly
uninspiring reality, not its exploitation by cynical marketing firms.
Skip to main content
/ /
. DONATE
. SIGN UP FOR NEWSLETTER
Wednesday, December 23, 2015
. Home
. World
. U.S.
. Canada
. Climate
. War & Peace
. Economy
. Rights
. Solutions
. Bernie vs. DNC
. Debating Disaster
. Election 2016
. Renewable Future
. Black Lives Matter
Washington Post Promotes Dickensian Marketing Experiment on Poor Children
Published on
Monday, December 21, 2015
by
Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR)
Washington Post Promotes Dickensian Marketing Experiment on Poor Children
by
Adam Johnson
. 11 Comments
.
. The Washington Post offers readers a chance to watch impoverished
children taunted with a cruel choice. (Screenshot)
. In America, as a rule, we shame the poor, ignore the poor, blame the
poor for being poor, mock the poor and do little to nothing to protect the
poor. Increasingly, however, a new trend has emerged: using the poor as
props in shoddy "inspirational" viral content. One such effort was recently
featured in the Washington Post (12/18/15), and is as bad as such things
get:
. These Low-Income Kids Were Given a Gift for Their Parents and for
Themselves. But They Could Only Keep One.
. This was in the "inspired life" section, presumably because this
effort is supposed to be inspiring to the viewer who is expected to be
surprised by the result:
. These kids, who ranged from 6 to 11 years old, belong to the Boys
and Girls Club of Metro Atlanta, where 83 percent are from poor families.
Some can't afford to put up a Christmas tree at home. Their wishes for
themselves ranged from a computer to an Xbox 360 to a Barbie house. When
asked what they thought their parents would want, one little boy guessed a
ring because "she's never really had a ring." Another said a television. The
next said a watch.
Then the kids were given their dream gift. And the gift for their parents.
With both gifts sitting in front of them, the kids were told they could only
pick one.
In the end, they all chose to sacrifice what they wanted to make their
parent happy.
Much like the popular "homeless guy does the right thing" viral "prank"
videos, these PR stunts are fundamentally based on two flawed, rather vulgar
premises: 1) that the poor are somehow expected to not be altruistic
(otherwise, why not run this experiment at a private boarding school?) and
2) the cheap emotional pornography and shallow moralism these videos offer
the average social media consumer outweighs the inherently cruel act of
making poor children "choose" between obtaining material possessions they
can't normally have or stripping their parents of the same. The fact that
the marketing firm behind the experiment ends up giving the child both gifts
is supposed to make it OK, but it doesn't. This last-minute paternalistic
gesture doesn't justify the voyeuristic act of watching a poor child suffer
through such a task for no objectively worthwhile reason.
http://www.commondreams.org/donate http://www.commondreams.org/donate
To make matters even more cynical, the effort-while in conjunction with the
"marketing specialist" at the Atlanta Boys and Girls club-was designed to
promote a schlocky, third-rate corporate network called UP TV. A media
channel "dedicated to uplifting programming," it's owned by $1 billion
private equity group, InterMedia Partners. Their senior vice president of
marketing, Wendy McCoy, was "amazed" that the poors can be selfless:
Wendy McCoy, UP TV senior vice president of marketing, said the organizers
were amazed at the children's selflessness and "how touched they were to be
able to make this choice."
Poor children subverting the glib assumptions of UP TV's marketing hacks are
not particularly newsworthy, except for the fact that they expose the biases
of the morally absent editors at the Washington Post-who somehow thought
this cruel experiment merited an uncritical write-up. Indeed, it's bad
enough an overzealous marketing firm in Georgia made such a tone deaf
"viral" video; it's much worse that one of the biggest names in news decided
to promote it.
The poor need food, housing, jobs and-not least of all-dignity.
Billion-dollar companies playing their plight off the prejudices of the
viral video-sharing masses isn't just in bad taste, it's a perfect microcosm
of how the media covers poverty. Typically, the right-wing press addresses
it in cruel fear-mongering or poor-shaming, while the nominally liberal
media all too often reduces it to this type of "inspirational" claptrap. But
the poor aren't our props; they're not the raw material of viral content
who, if edited properly, will subvert our "prejudices" and play the role of
noble savage. They're individuals. Human beings. Complex and nuanced.
Indeed, had some of these children told the producers to fuck off, they were
keeping the gifts they were promised-as I suspect some edited-out clips
showed-all the better. Poverty isn't a marketing gimmick, it's a scourge, a
cancer and a national shame. The media should be covering this decidedly
uninspiring reality, not its exploitation by cynical marketing firms.
shington Post Promotes Dickensian Marketing Experiment on Poor Children
Published on
Monday, December 21, 2015
by
Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR)
Washington Post Promotes Dickensian Marketing Experiment on Poor Children
by
Adam Johnson
. 0
Tweet
. 705
Share
. 2
Share
. 0
Share
. 2
Pin
. 0
Mail
. 0
Share
11 Comments
The Washington Post offers readers a chance to watch impoverished children
taunted with a cruel choice. (Screenshot)
In America, as a rule, we shame the poor, ignore the poor, blame the poor
for being poor, mock the poor and do little to nothing to protect the poor.
Increasingly, however, a new trend has emerged: using the poor as props in
shoddy "inspirational" viral content. One such effort was recently featured
in the Washington Post (12/18/15), and is as bad as such things get:
These Low-Income Kids Were Given a Gift for Their Parents and for
Themselves. But They Could Only Keep One.
This was in the "inspired life" section, presumably because this effort is
supposed to be inspiring to the viewer who is expected to be surprised by
the result:
These kids, who ranged from 6 to 11 years old, belong to the Boys and Girls
Club of Metro Atlanta, where 83 percent are from poor families.
Some can't afford to put up a Christmas tree at home. Their wishes for
themselves ranged from a computer to an Xbox 360 to a Barbie house. When
asked what they thought their parents would want, one little boy guessed a
ring because "she's never really had a ring." Another said a television. The
next said a watch.
Then the kids were given their dream gift. And the gift for their parents.
With both gifts sitting in front of them, the kids were told they could only
pick one.
In the end, they all chose to sacrifice what they wanted to make their
parent happy.
Much like the popular "homeless guy does the right thing" viral "prank"
videos, these PR stunts are fundamentally based on two flawed, rather vulgar
premises: 1) that the poor are somehow expected to not be altruistic
(otherwise, why not run this experiment at a private boarding school?) and
2) the cheap emotional pornography and shallow moralism these videos offer
the average social media consumer outweighs the inherently cruel act of
making poor children "choose" between obtaining material possessions they
can't normally have or stripping their parents of the same. The fact that
the marketing firm behind the experiment ends up giving the child both gifts
is supposed to make it OK, but it doesn't. This last-minute paternalistic
gesture doesn't justify the voyeuristic act of watching a poor child suffer
through such a task for no objectively worthwhile reason.
To make matters even more cynical, the effort-while in conjunction with the
"marketing specialist" at the Atlanta Boys and Girls club-was designed to
promote a schlocky, third-rate corporate network called UP TV. A media
channel "dedicated to uplifting programming," it's owned by $1 billion
private equity group, InterMedia Partners. Their senior vice president of
marketing, Wendy McCoy, was "amazed" that the poors can be selfless:
Wendy McCoy, UP TV senior vice president of marketing, said the organizers
were amazed at the children's selflessness and "how touched they were to be
able to make this choice."
Poor children subverting the glib assumptions of UP TV's marketing hacks are
not particularly newsworthy, except for the fact that they expose the biases
of the morally absent editors at the Washington Post-who somehow thought
this cruel experiment merited an uncritical write-up. Indeed, it's bad
enough an overzealous marketing firm in Georgia made such a tone deaf
"viral" video; it's much worse that one of the biggest names in news decided
to promote it.
The poor need food, housing, jobs and-not least of all-dignity.
Billion-dollar companies playing their plight off the prejudices of the
viral video-sharing masses isn't just in bad taste, it's a perfect microcosm
of how the media covers poverty. Typically, the right-wing press addresses
it in cruel fear-mongering or poor-shaming, while the nominally liberal
media all too often reduces it to this type of "inspirational" claptrap. But
the poor aren't our props; they're not the raw material of viral content
who, if edited properly, will subvert our "prejudices" and play the role of
noble savage. They're individuals. Human beings. Complex and nuanced.
Indeed, had some of these children told the producers to fuck off, they were
keeping the gifts they were promised-as I suspect some edited-out clips
showed-all the better. Poverty isn't a marketing gimmick, it's a scourge, a
cancer and a national shame. The media should be covering this decidedly
uninspiring reality, not its exploitation by cynical marketing firms.
Skip to main content
//
. DONATE
. SIGN UP FOR NEWSLETTER
Wednesday, December 23, 2015
. Home
. World
. U.S.
. Canada
. Climate
. War & Peace
. Economy
. Rights
. Solutions
. Bernie vs. DNC
. Debating Disaster
. Election 2016
. Renewable Future
. Black Lives Matter
Washington Post Promotes Dickensian Marketing Experiment on Poor Children
Published on
Monday, December 21, 2015
by
Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR)
Washington Post Promotes Dickensian Marketing Experiment on Poor Children
by
Adam Johnson
. 11 Comments
.
. The Washington Post offers readers a chance to watch impoverished
children taunted with a cruel choice. (Screenshot)
. In America, as a rule, we shame the poor, ignore the poor, blame the
poor for being poor, mock the poor and do little to nothing to protect the
poor. Increasingly, however, a new trend has emerged: using the poor as
props in shoddy "inspirational" viral content. One such effort was recently
featured in the Washington Post (12/18/15), and is as bad as such things
get:
. These Low-Income Kids Were Given a Gift for Their Parents and for
Themselves. But They Could Only Keep One.
. This was in the "inspired life" section, presumably because this
effort is supposed to be inspiring to the viewer who is expected to be
surprised by the result:
. These kids, who ranged from 6 to 11 years old, belong to the Boys
and Girls Club of Metro Atlanta, where 83 percent are from poor families.
Some can't afford to put up a Christmas tree at home. Their wishes for
themselves ranged from a computer to an Xbox 360 to a Barbie house. When
asked what they thought their parents would want, one little boy guessed a
ring because "she's never really had a ring." Another said a television. The
next said a watch.
Then the kids were given their dream gift. And the gift for their parents.
With both gifts sitting in front of them, the kids were told they could only
pick one.
In the end, they all chose to sacrifice what they wanted to make their
parent happy.
Much like the popular "homeless guy does the right thing" viral "prank"
videos, these PR stunts are fundamentally based on two flawed, rather vulgar
premises: 1) that the poor are somehow expected to not be altruistic
(otherwise, why not run this experiment at a private boarding school?) and
2) the cheap emotional pornography and shallow moralism these videos offer
the average social media consumer outweighs the inherently cruel act of
making poor children "choose" between obtaining material possessions they
can't normally have or stripping their parents of the same. The fact that
the marketing firm behind the experiment ends up giving the child both gifts
is supposed to make it OK, but it doesn't. This last-minute paternalistic
gesture doesn't justify the voyeuristic act of watching a poor child suffer
through such a task for no objectively worthwhile reason.
http://www.commondreams.org/donatehttp://www.commondreams.org/donate
To make matters even more cynical, the effort-while in conjunction with the
"marketing specialist" at the Atlanta Boys and Girls club-was designed to
promote a schlocky, third-rate corporate network called UP TV. A media
channel "dedicated to uplifting programming," it's owned by $1 billion
private equity group, InterMedia Partners. Their senior vice president of
marketing, Wendy McCoy, was "amazed" that the poors can be selfless:
Wendy McCoy, UP TV senior vice president of marketing, said the organizers
were amazed at the children's selflessness and "how touched they were to be
able to make this choice."
Poor children subverting the glib assumptions of UP TV's marketing hacks are
not particularly newsworthy, except for the fact that they expose the biases
of the morally absent editors at the Washington Post-who somehow thought
this cruel experiment merited an uncritical write-up. Indeed, it's bad
enough an overzealous marketing firm in Georgia made such a tone deaf
"viral" video; it's much worse that one of the biggest names in news decided
to promote it.
The poor need food, housing, jobs and-not least of all-dignity.
Billion-dollar companies playing their plight off the prejudices of the
viral video-sharing masses isn't just in bad taste, it's a perfect microcosm
of how the media covers poverty. Typically, the right-wing press addresses
it in cruel fear-mongering or poor-shaming, while the nominally liberal
media all too often reduces it to this type of "inspirational" claptrap. But
the poor aren't our props; they're not the raw material of viral content
who, if edited properly, will subvert our "prejudices" and play the role of
noble savage. They're individuals. Human beings. Complex and nuanced.
Indeed, had some of these children told the producers to fuck off, they were
keeping the gifts they were promised-as I suspect some edited-out clips
showed-all the better. Poverty isn't a marketing gimmick, it's a scourge, a
cancer and a national shame. The media should be covering this decidedly
uninspiring reality, not its exploitation by cynical marketing firms.
