A 2006 episode of ABC's news show Primetime called "Stepfamilies in Crisis" depicted a fifteen-year-old girl being punched by her stepfather. That girl, Kyle Nelson, is now twenty, and she wants to know why ABC didn't intervene. She's suing the network for "gross negligence," reports the Press Republican. According to the AP, by the time ABC aired the footage, the statute of limitations had expired, so it was too late to prosecute the abuse.
When the show aired, viewers were furious to see no one stepping in to stop the violence. ABC addressed the controversy by having Kyle on Good Morning America to defend her stepfather. Here's an excerpt from CNN's coverage of the fallout:
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KYLE NELSON, DAUGHTER: Stop! Stop! Stop!
VARGAS (voice-over): A father beating his 15-year-old daughter.
DON NELSON, FATHER: I have never (expletive deleted) lied to you. Never have I lied to you, you little bitch!
VARGAS: This is the "Prime Time" footage that`s causing a big-time fuss, shown to the public but not reported to the authorities. ABC aired this controversial footage Friday night as part of "Prime Time`s" special focusing on pressures that stepfamilies face. It`s very hard to watch.
It all starts as the Nelsons, a New York family, discuss grades and homework. When things get heated, suddenly it`s an argument, and the father is out of control. He unleashes his fury on his daughter. ABC`s cameras catch the repeated hits.
The daughter, Kyle, screams as her stepmother not only watches from the couch, but pretends to hit her, as well. This particular piece of tape has viewers and authorities outraged. Thousands flooding the ABC web site, angry and disgusted viewers wanting to know why the tape wasn`t handed over to authorities.
D. NELSON: You dirty little bitch!
VARGAS: ABC News didn`t think Kyle was in danger. In a statement posted on its web site, ABC says, "While we felt the incident in question was disturbing, it was the only scene of physical punishment in the hundreds of hours of footage that ABC News reviewed."
A discussion of moral vs. legal responsibility ensues.
It seems pretty clear that even if the First-Amendment-protected press had no legal responsibility to report the abuse, there's a pretty strong moral obligation to do so. Who were they to decide that the girl wasn't in danger?
ABC's weak response - "it was the only scene of physical punishment" - suggests parents are allowed to abuse their child without penalty if it only happens once (in view of cameras).
It will be fascinating to hear what the court has to say about it now.
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 5)
1. I have to retreat behind humor to shield myself from the insanity of the parents and the news crew...
Question on an application for a newspaper photographer job. "You are walking in the park and see a pit bull attacking a little girl and an elderly lady drowning in a pond. You can only save one. What focal length lens would you use?"
alan at 5:49PM on Feb 21st 2008
2. If she was 15 in 2006, how could she be 20 now?
Amelie at 5:58PM on Feb 21st 2008
3. Amelie, kids age quicker now. Puberty only lasts about five hours.
Strados at 6:02PM on Feb 21st 2008
4. last time I checked, a week has more than a hundred hours in it. who are they kidding? They have no idea what the girl underwent, and they are totally lacking in moral footing.
Caterina Pryde at 6:05PM on Feb 21st 2008
5. Amelie, just because it aired in 2006 doesn't mean it was filmed in 2006.....just an idea.
As far as this article, it absolutely disgusts me that this was not reported!!! It doesn't matter if it's one time in "several hours" or several times in one hour.....abuse is abuse!
Amy at 6:39PM on Feb 21st 2008
6. Uh, the job of the press is to observe and report the news. It isn't to play hero, jump in and get beaten up or pretend to right the wrongs of the world. Media bring the people the world; the people are the ones who are supposed to change it in what passes for a democratic society.
@#$%^&! at 7:48PM on Feb 21st 2008
7. Well, the journalists were....ummmmm.....BEING JOURNALISTS. Part of (and perhaps the MOST IMPORTANT part of) being a journalist is non-intervention, no matter how repulsive the events being documented are.
Seth at 7:52PM on Feb 21st 2008
8. I am certain this and worse goes on in homes all across America between teens and their frustrated parents. This girl should have acted when this occurred. Now she is an adult looking for money.
Did ABC have a moral responsibility to report this to authorities? A tough question. The girl apparently was not seriously harmed. I am not defending the parents. They are a-holes. But rarely are these kinds of fights unprovoked - I am sure the girl was no innocent angel.
David S. at 7:52PM on Feb 21st 2008
9. Hopefully this doesn't sound wishy-washy, but I feel that it is a journalist's job to document and not to intervene. That, however, would not prevent one of the people watching from placing an anonymous call to CFSS. No, the girl was probably not an angel, but there is no call for that sort of verbal and physical abuse. The mother was pretending to hit the daughter? Can someone explain that to me? I think that it is silly for the girl to sue. I'm fairly sure that even if the camera people had intervened at that point, it would only have exacerbated the situation. I think this is an appropriate way to look at this: If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem if you don't stay out of it.
Valerie at 8:18PM on Feb 21st 2008
10. I hate to inform people of this, but this is so common that it is not even funny even in high-class homes when children exercise their right to not listen to their parents.
I've seen this myself and have had to step in numerous times when I was a teenager with parents who were crossing the line from discipline to abuse, usually because they were so angry at the child that they couldn't think straight or let something else that was going on in their lives overshadow what was happening.
Chrisotpher at 8:56PM on Feb 21st 2008
11. "But rarely are these kinds of fights unprovoked - I am sure the girl was no innocent angel."
This is actually true, the statement above..... the problem is that usually the child is an innocent angel because she/he is just exercising her right to ignore what her or his parents are telling them to do...... or the parents are totally overstepping their bounds and interfering in things that they have no right to be interfering in.
It is as I told my cousins: their parents have NO right to dictate anything to them in their lives and neither does society. Their lives are their own to live and therefore no one but they themselves has any right to tell them what they can and cannot do, unless they are physically harming someone else with the permission of that someone else.
Chrisotpher at 9:01PM on Feb 21st 2008
12. Christopher, I disagree. Parents are not just financially responsible for providing for their children, they are also LEGALLY responsible for their children's actions. In several states, if your child does not go to school, or misses too much, you get two choices: the parents go to jail, or the child drops out. SO yes, the parent DOES have the right to dictate what the child does, regardless if the action itself harms no one. TO say that parents can't parent...well that sums up alot of what is wrong with the world today. Not that they can't parent, but that they are afraid to or won't. Is it any wonder we have children taking guns to school and shooting their classmates? Granted, that's an extreme, and I don't blame the parents for it...but if you don't set firm boundaries, and children are allowed to believe they don't have to listen to their parents or show any sort of respect...well, why should they listen to or respect anyone else? A part of being a parent is establishing for their children the difference between whats right and what is wrong. Being a friend to your child before you are their parent will not establish that. Because they probably have childhood friends like you telling them 'You don't have to listen to them, do what you like.' I hope you grow up to have LOTS of kids, Chris. Cause when your 6 year old flips you the bird and tells you to F off...remember, you don't have the right to tell them not to do it. :P Life equals consequences. If you aren't teaching your children that their actions have consequences, you are setting them up for failure. Sorry Chris, but so long as parents provide the clothes, the cell phones, the Ipods, and a roof over their heads...then anything that child gets into is the parents business. No matter how large, or how small. I have co-workers and friends who tried the whole principle you are trying to put forth here. What did it get them? They have to raise their grandchildren because their children are in jail. And there is no innocence in having the 'right to ignore' what someone is trying to tell you. You chose to ignore them, then you accept the consequences. The girl getting hit was wrong, and any adult present, media or otherwise, should have notified authorities...to not do so makes them an accessory of the crime. But at the same time, this probably wasn't the first time something like that happened, just the first time a camera was there to record it for the world to see. So on the one hand, the girl had the responsibility and the RIGHT to report the incident to authorities herself. On the other, if you know your parents have a temper, probably best to just not make waves if you are unwilling to get yourself out of the situation. That is the one thing you are lacking in your view of the parent/child relationship...personal responsibility. If the parent has no right to interfer in their childs life, then when said child goes out, does something stupid, gets in trouble, then the parent shouldn't have any obligation to bail them out either. Especially when the parent already told them not to do it. Too bad it doesn't work that way, but maybe it should. IF you want to excersize your 'RIGHT' to ignore parenting...when you get your butt in a sling you should suck it up and take the consequences of your stupidity on your own and don't go crying to mommie and daddie to help you out. I actually LISTENED to my parents and I turned out just fine. No criminal record, perfect driving record, a good job, I pay my taxes, and I live my life the way I want to. If mom and dad hadn't cared enough to actually PARENT, then I probably wouldn't be able to boast about that. If you don't PARENT your children, when they become parents, they won't know HOW TO BE PARENTS themselves.
Wes at 10:56PM on Feb 21st 2008
13. ABC may be in trouble, too. If the State Law insists that citizens report instances of child abuse, the ABC camera team could be prosecuted by the State DA
stushie at 12:38AM on Feb 22nd 2008
14. The film crew was filming humans in an American home - not Wildlife on an African game preserve.
Robert E. Quillen at 2:13AM on Feb 22nd 2008
15. Hey Alan thats a direct quote from somewhere right? If not than you are just spreading more bad press about a beautiful breed that has done nothing except fall victim to malicious owners that treat them inhumanely.
Ann at 2:42AM on Feb 22nd 2008