The Steve Wilkos Show: Multiple Tragedies for the Sake of Ratings
I saw a tragedy on TV a few nights ago. It wasn't in Darfur, Tibet or New Orleans. It took place in a Chicago television studio for The Steve Wilkos Show.
I don't watch much TV. No time - with two young kids, a husband, an ailing mother, my therapy practice and this blog. I happened to be mending a hem and flipped on the TV to pass the time. What I watched really upset me.
Apparently about a week before this show was taped, a four-year old girl told her mother that the boyfriend of her aunt (the mother's sister) had pulled down his pants and put his penis in the little girl's mouth. This man was the father of several children with this aunt though they had apparently not gotten legally married. Then, the little girl told this same story to her aunt when questioned during a drive they went on in the car. The aunt, without questioning her common-law husband about this allegation, took her children and left their home for an unknown destination.
On the TV show, Wilkos (a former Marine, police officer, professional wrestler and director of security for The Jerry Springer Show) badgered each of his guests about their decisions and actions building to a crescendo involving the suspect results of a lie detector test administered by someone affiliated with the show. The "results" did not indicate conclusively that the accused had lied about the contact he'd had with the girl, but there was some question about whether he was telling the truth.
I had some major issues with the show.
During the lie detector interview, questions had apparently been asked about whether the accused had ever had sex with males. It turned out that he had. And, based on the few things he said about it, he was probably more attracted to males than females. But in his Latino culture this taboo was so large he had desperately tried to fit in as a heterosexual by fathering a few children to seal the deal.
The revelation that the accused had these sexual experiences with men somehow made it all the more plausible to Wilkos that he was lying in his denial about the four-year old girl. Wilkos may fancy himself some sort of expert on questioning suspects from his 11-year service in law enforcement, but he is not an expert in the area of sexual offenses. It's a very rare occurrence for a bisexual or gay adult male to be interested in sexual contact with young female children. But, that didn't really matter to Wilkos. In his mind, once you're off the heterosexual path anything's possible.
At one point, Wilkos wondered out loud, "How could a four-year old make this up?!" And rather than have his staff do a little research, he ran full tilt at his target, a man in his twenties at least a foot shorter and probably a hundred pounds lighter - jamming his finger inches from the face of the diminutive accused and yelling into his face with one inch between the tips of their noses.
"How could a kid make this stuff up?" That is exactly what a Los Angeles community wondered when it tried the teachers of the McMartin Preschool in Manhattan Beach, CA in 1983. Yet, when it all came out in the wash, there was no corroboration of the statements made by 46 preschool children that included murders, underground tunnels, ritual abuse, dogs, trap doors, drinking blood, Santa Claus, clown suits and burials right on the preschool property.
It turned out that these children were led by unlicensed social workers (one Kee MacFarlane, in particular) in their interviews. It lasted six years - the longest US criminal trial in history. At a cost to the state of $15 million, it was also the most expensive. No convictions were obtained. Here are two good links about this topic:
This story filled national newspapers for six years. OK, Wilkos was in the Marines and perhaps wasn't in this country, but wasn't anyone on his staff reading the newspaper then? (Silly me, for wondering that. Most TV talk shows have scruples-free producers half my age. They were still running around in diapers then.)
But for one instance, which I'll explore in a moment, the accused man insisted throughout the show that he never did this or anything like it. Of course, many times when an accused perpetrator denies the action of sexual contact, she or he is lying. It isn't something that is always easily admitted.
The one instance was this: After a particularly prolonged session of badgering, the accused said to Wilkos, "Whatever you say, man. Whatever you say." Wilkos leapt upon this and berated him for joking about such a serious matter.
What dawned on me at this point was that this accused man was going through this show and enduring it in the same way that some men sit in the chair of a dunking booth at a carnival. He just stayed on stage and endured one verbal "dunking" after another. Why? There had to be money involved somehow. And, while I don't have the answer to this right now, my intuition still leads me in that direction.
So, how much money will allow a man to be branded (probably for life) as a child molester? How much will compensate him for the likely loss of contact with his own children?
Was it part of "the deal" that he had to stay on stage the entire time in order to receive his fee for participating? He knew why he was coming onto the show. He knew that his sister-in-law would be making these allegations. He knew that her very brawny husband would be right there ready to throttle him.
Did he hope that criminal investigators would see this show for its folly? (Up to the point of taping the show, charges apparently had not been filed.) I don't know. How much could be enough for the loss of his reputation, self-respect, and possibly his children?
I felt for this man. I don't know if he did it or not. Only two people really know what happened - him and the little girl. But even children who are interrogated in particular leading styles by adults who think they already know the answer can get to the point of believing that something that never happened really did.
Wilkos kept circling back to the lie detector test whenever the drama on his stage dropped even slightly. He never minded that lie detectors are not admissible to prove culpability in criminal proceedings (Cal.Evid. Code 351.1). The lie detector test proved everything to Wilkos.
As the show was coming to its close, Wilkos went up to the mother of the little girl and said with pseudo-endearing pathos, "Take care of that baby growing inside you." Yep, she was visibly pregnant. I thought to myself, "How could you? You've just put this woman through the ringer on this stage. No, that wasn't stressful to her or to the baby. How does an hour of non-stop adrenaline affect a fetus?" It was the height of smarminess - and it was tragic for everyone on that set, except Wilkos, his ratings were probably through the roof.
Related Topics: Technorati Tags: Steve Wilkos, reality TV, sexual abuse, child abuse, homophobia
I don't watch much TV. No time - with two young kids, a husband, an ailing mother, my therapy practice and this blog. I happened to be mending a hem and flipped on the TV to pass the time. What I watched really upset me.
Apparently about a week before this show was taped, a four-year old girl told her mother that the boyfriend of her aunt (the mother's sister) had pulled down his pants and put his penis in the little girl's mouth. This man was the father of several children with this aunt though they had apparently not gotten legally married. Then, the little girl told this same story to her aunt when questioned during a drive they went on in the car. The aunt, without questioning her common-law husband about this allegation, took her children and left their home for an unknown destination.
On the TV show, Wilkos (a former Marine, police officer, professional wrestler and director of security for The Jerry Springer Show) badgered each of his guests about their decisions and actions building to a crescendo involving the suspect results of a lie detector test administered by someone affiliated with the show. The "results" did not indicate conclusively that the accused had lied about the contact he'd had with the girl, but there was some question about whether he was telling the truth.
I had some major issues with the show.
During the lie detector interview, questions had apparently been asked about whether the accused had ever had sex with males. It turned out that he had. And, based on the few things he said about it, he was probably more attracted to males than females. But in his Latino culture this taboo was so large he had desperately tried to fit in as a heterosexual by fathering a few children to seal the deal.
The revelation that the accused had these sexual experiences with men somehow made it all the more plausible to Wilkos that he was lying in his denial about the four-year old girl. Wilkos may fancy himself some sort of expert on questioning suspects from his 11-year service in law enforcement, but he is not an expert in the area of sexual offenses. It's a very rare occurrence for a bisexual or gay adult male to be interested in sexual contact with young female children. But, that didn't really matter to Wilkos. In his mind, once you're off the heterosexual path anything's possible.
At one point, Wilkos wondered out loud, "How could a four-year old make this up?!" And rather than have his staff do a little research, he ran full tilt at his target, a man in his twenties at least a foot shorter and probably a hundred pounds lighter - jamming his finger inches from the face of the diminutive accused and yelling into his face with one inch between the tips of their noses.
"How could a kid make this stuff up?" That is exactly what a Los Angeles community wondered when it tried the teachers of the McMartin Preschool in Manhattan Beach, CA in 1983. Yet, when it all came out in the wash, there was no corroboration of the statements made by 46 preschool children that included murders, underground tunnels, ritual abuse, dogs, trap doors, drinking blood, Santa Claus, clown suits and burials right on the preschool property.
It turned out that these children were led by unlicensed social workers (one Kee MacFarlane, in particular) in their interviews. It lasted six years - the longest US criminal trial in history. At a cost to the state of $15 million, it was also the most expensive. No convictions were obtained. Here are two good links about this topic:
This story filled national newspapers for six years. OK, Wilkos was in the Marines and perhaps wasn't in this country, but wasn't anyone on his staff reading the newspaper then? (Silly me, for wondering that. Most TV talk shows have scruples-free producers half my age. They were still running around in diapers then.)
But for one instance, which I'll explore in a moment, the accused man insisted throughout the show that he never did this or anything like it. Of course, many times when an accused perpetrator denies the action of sexual contact, she or he is lying. It isn't something that is always easily admitted.
The one instance was this: After a particularly prolonged session of badgering, the accused said to Wilkos, "Whatever you say, man. Whatever you say." Wilkos leapt upon this and berated him for joking about such a serious matter.
What dawned on me at this point was that this accused man was going through this show and enduring it in the same way that some men sit in the chair of a dunking booth at a carnival. He just stayed on stage and endured one verbal "dunking" after another. Why? There had to be money involved somehow. And, while I don't have the answer to this right now, my intuition still leads me in that direction.
So, how much money will allow a man to be branded (probably for life) as a child molester? How much will compensate him for the likely loss of contact with his own children?
Was it part of "the deal" that he had to stay on stage the entire time in order to receive his fee for participating? He knew why he was coming onto the show. He knew that his sister-in-law would be making these allegations. He knew that her very brawny husband would be right there ready to throttle him.
Did he hope that criminal investigators would see this show for its folly? (Up to the point of taping the show, charges apparently had not been filed.) I don't know. How much could be enough for the loss of his reputation, self-respect, and possibly his children?
I felt for this man. I don't know if he did it or not. Only two people really know what happened - him and the little girl. But even children who are interrogated in particular leading styles by adults who think they already know the answer can get to the point of believing that something that never happened really did.
Wilkos kept circling back to the lie detector test whenever the drama on his stage dropped even slightly. He never minded that lie detectors are not admissible to prove culpability in criminal proceedings (Cal.Evid. Code 351.1). The lie detector test proved everything to Wilkos.
As the show was coming to its close, Wilkos went up to the mother of the little girl and said with pseudo-endearing pathos, "Take care of that baby growing inside you." Yep, she was visibly pregnant. I thought to myself, "How could you? You've just put this woman through the ringer on this stage. No, that wasn't stressful to her or to the baby. How does an hour of non-stop adrenaline affect a fetus?" It was the height of smarminess - and it was tragic for everyone on that set, except Wilkos, his ratings were probably through the roof.
Related Topics: Technorati Tags: Steve Wilkos, reality TV, sexual abuse, child abuse, homophobia
4 Comments:
When will people check the origin of their sources?
The group "FMSF" writes ALL of the propoganda about the McMartin case.
I am finally sick of trying to answer to all the people who assume nothing happened at McMartin preschool.
If Debbie Nathan or any of her associates is the source - it is a lie.
My daughter was "abused" there there.So were many other children in Manhattan Beach..
At least for the childrens sake, check your sources.
JM
I did check the origin of the sources. I read both of the articles recommended by the writer of this blog. Both articles have several citations, none of which is "FMSF." One of the articles cites Debbie Nathan, among others. She is a journalist for major newspapers, not the devil incarnate. All of the sources quoted seem far more credible than your sweeping accusations. Why would a subsequent prosecutor say, ""One of the things at that time that struck me was the total lack of corroboration ... hundreds and hundreds of charges and no corroboration, that is obviously disquieting." Why would a young man admit that as a child he lied under pressure to do so? There were no tunnels. There was no forensic evidence. The original accuser was mentally unbalanced. The Salem witch trials should have shown you just what hysteria can do. Did you ever study them?
I feel sorry for the children who were at that school. They were abused - by the social workers that talked them into being victims, by the parents who bought into this absurdity, by the church that fueled the flames of hysteria, by he media that helped fan those flames, and by a judicial system eager to bask in the lime light of publicity. They all should be ashamed of themselves. They were the abusers.
And I feel sorry for those teachers and childcare givers who were unfairly "burned" at the stake just as much as those women were purportedly burned as witches long ago.
Yes the Steve Wilkos show is a pointless scream fest. I made a vow to myself to never ever watch it again. There is certainly so much wrong with his guilty until proven innocent, if ever, approach. However there is more wrong with the audience that creates a demand for such shows. What's really sad IMO are the losers in the audience that need to badger pregnant crack whores just to feel better about themselves.
Anyhow, I have to say that at the same time I have abandoned the sort of PC arrogance that assumes to read Wilkos or its participants mind. As you did about the supposed homophobia angle.
There are hundreds if not thousands of men (and women) serving time or now of sex offender lists who never did a thing.
But the child is always right. I know of someone who plead guilty to a case 25 years ago, plead guilty to something he never did and when he served his time, they all of a sudden tell him that he must not register as a sex offender for the rest of his life! (something that was not in exisitance when he plead guilty!!! He never would have plead guilty had he known they would later, after the fact add this sentence to his life!) But now for the rest of this life, he will suffer because of another witch hunt back in the 1980's. No, he shouldn't have plead guilty, but when you get the wolves after you and you see your children being badgered by social workers and police, you do what you have to do to protect them. Kind of ironic isn't it? Hard to understand unless you are in it.
Steve Wilkos is an example of these losers who need to tear someone else apart just to make themselves look good, or to avoid looking within at their own twisted sexuality.
Hopefully, his show will be taken off the air soon. I don't know of anyone who likes it, or who watches it.
Post a Comment