Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Use my Amazon Portal
DISGUSTING...Where were the parents?? This kid is the one who is going to grow up to shoot up a school, not Barron Trump!
It points out a significant problem with the progressives - how parents and schools are raising/teaching the children to hate America. If Fox reported on it without showing it, they would be called Trump Shills and liars. Yes, it was ethical.
If other news stations didn't do things like show little girls holding anti-Trump signs, then I'd say Fox was in the wrong here. Much of the left leaning media has made it seem that engaging children in protest is a harmless, or in fact great, thing, while this is showing that there's also a negative side to radicalizing kids.Let's call it an alternative fact that wouldn't be necessary if the left hadn't politicized the use of children in their favor for years. In an ideal world, neither would be happening.
The more kids are kept out of this the better. That goes for Fox, but it also goes for this kid's parents who brought him (let him go?) to a protest of this sort. We seem hell-bent on robbing kids of their innocence.
Was it ethical? Why on earth do you even raise the question?Kid needs to taken away from his parents immediately.
We always hear it is wrong to teach kids to hate. Yet, these parents precisely that.I watched the inauguration with my sick 7 yr old. He was unhappy Obama was leaving. I didn't badmouth Barack. I answered his questions and said it is important that we are able to make changes like this without massive bloodshed.
We are seeing more evidence each day that the Dems are unhinged.
Progressive parents are irresponsible monsters.
Birth control, Ho Chi Minh, Richard Nixon back again.
You can argue the pros and cons of having kids involved in politics, but you just shouldn't let your kid play among masked men who are masked because they're perfornming illegal acts. This is not a subtle ethical question.
If Trump wants to insure his reelection, he should invite the kid to the Oval Office and put him over his knee.
Ethical? Hmmm...because he was a minor starting a fire instead of an adult. I expect it illustrates the thought processes of democrats much more than seeing them burn, destroy, shoot and punch other people.
They shouldn't have aired it. He's a kid. His parents are fucked up.
I saw this report and I believe that it was shown live. They couldn't have anticipated what the kid would say and the reporter moved away quickly.
"They shouldn't have aired it. He's a kid. His parents are fucked up."-- Why not? They show video of parents with adorable little kids marching to protest Trump, why not show this kid? Because he's not being an adorable little kid with a #NotMyPresident sign as a prop for their parents? If we're going to air one, seems to me that it is only ethical to show both.
My ex-daughter-in-law and my 16 year old granddaughter attended the women's march in Washington. The ex-DIL took a photo of my granddaughter flipping the bird at the White House. The photo was posted on my granddaughter's Instagram account.The ex-DIL is a college social work professor at a state university. She is a hater of the highest order. My granddaughter's indoctrination is nearly complete.My parents never talked openly about politics. My wife and I were careful about political discussions when our kids were young. I'm appalled by the political hatred being taught to children today. Whatever happened to the concept of the "loyal opposition"?
ADDED: Was it ethical of Fox News to show this clip?It was broadcast live on Tucker Carlson when I saw it. Immediately after, Krauthammer said exactly what I was thinking at the time: the young man setting fires had “a whiff of ISIS to it.”VIDEO: Krauthammer: Young Man Starting Fire at Anti-Trump Protest Has ‘A Whiff of ISIS To It’[relevant remarks begin around 1:15]
Why not? They show video of parents with adorable little kids marching to protest Trump, why not show this kid?Yes, why not? It's not like his future employer is going to deny him tenure over this.
"Was it ethical? Why on earth do you even raise the question?"The ethics question is about whether Fox News should have protected this boy by not showing the video!The parents are completely responsible. The boy's identity should have been protected, i believe. We protect children from public exposure when they are arrested for murder.
Click on my "children in politics" tag.I am opposed to almost everything -- positive and negative -- that appropriates childhood for political purposes. I don't even like children being inculcated with political ideology that they are not equipped to analyze and choose to accept or reject.
If the parents feel it is ethical to teach their child to hate, to start fires and be proud of his actions as protestor.....then yes. It is perfectly ethical to give the child and the parents what they have been striving for for, obviously, many years. The parents made this happen. They trained the child to be THIS. They don't have any position to complain with the fruits of their labor become evident.Plus. It gives the rest of the people who may know these depraved people and their warped child a heads up. I wouldn't want to invite that little pyro to my kids birthday party :-) Forewarned is forearmed.
"I don't even like children being inculcated atwith political ideology that they are not equipped to analyze and choose to accept or reject."I mean I don't like when this goes on in private, as parents foist their ideas on children. Children should be nourished with child-appropriate ideas, such as understanding the people, places, and things in their immediate, seen environment. At some point, when they are emotionally ready, they should receive child-appropriate lessons in history and science. It should all be about developing their minds and their character, and never instrumental toward any adult's political or policy agenda.
The left seeks publicity of this stuff, then hides if any criticism comes from the right. Do you remember the kids singing a hymn to Obama back in 2008 ?The ex-DIL is a college social work professor at a state university. She is a hater of the highest order.I have a DIL who is pretty far left and it has affected my relationship with my son. It's a shame when this stuff happens.
"Screw our president!"Rape-y.
Sure it's ethical. Look at those BS ads that Hillary ran about what a nasty example Trump was for the kids. Now we can see what happens when someone actually sets a bad example.
"I don't even like children being inculcated atwith political ideology that they are not equipped to analyze and choose to accept or reject."I mean I don't like when this goes on in private, as parents foist their ideas on childrenI agree. It is despicable and is child abuse to use your children as pawns in your ideological wars. To warp their childhood with concepts that are far beyond their understanding.THIS is what cults like ISIS, Hamas and others are doing to their children, right now, this very moment. The fact that the Liberals are also programing their children, but in a much less violent (for now) manner doesn't make it any different. This little boy is only starting fires and not setting of bombs.....yet.Putting this story under the radar because it is a child, only hides the corruption, the rot, the evil. I would say the same thing if it is a child being taught to hate by KKK parents or any other cult.Ignoring it will not make it go away. Sad as it is, this child needs to be seen and his parents need to be shamed. If it were parents tattooing the child with swastikas and instilling hate, Child Protective Services would be called in to remove the child from those parent's. This is no different.
If it wasn't beyond FNC control (upthread someone mentioned that this was live and they cut out soon after realizing what they were dealing with) I would say they should have aired the clip with the boy's face obscured. Protect him from the backlash that the POS parents have set him up for.A related ethical question: should Prof Althouse have embedded the clip?
I believe that it would have been preferable to conceal the kid's face when the video was broadcast, but it was certainly ethical to broadcast it. This was a news-worthy event, as evidenced by the substantive discussion about it on this blog.
@ damikescI watched the inauguration with my sick 7 yr old. He was unhappy Obama was leavingMay I respectfully ask, how involved can a 7 year old be in politics to even care one way or the other about this. How do things that that happen?I don't recall being exposed to politics at that age. My earliest memory of my parents being political was with Jack Kennedy and that was mainly because my mother was a staunch Irish Catholic and so very proud that someone of her faith was being considered for President. She was over the moon when he was elected. I was 10 years old during the campaign and other than my mother being excited it was a big meh to me. I was more interested in riding my bike than anything political.
I recall a video from many years ago. I think 60 Minutes aired it. Showed a little blond boy of perhaps 7or 8,I'd guess.The parents asked him, "Who do we hate?"He responded, "Ni**ers and Jews".Proud parents beaming. One of the most horrifying things I've ever seen.Welcome to the left of today.
He wouldn't be saying that if Hillary was president.
Not only is it ethical, it is necessary. If deranged kids of deranged parents show their derangement in public, that is real news. America needs to see the left for what it is. Then we have a choice, in two years and four years. Of course, the derangement also gives the lie to the love-trumps-hate and let's-be-inclusive lefty mantras.
@ JAORE...The cast of characters is similar these days but the chant has changed. It's now, "Who do we hate? Mediocre Blacks and Zionists"
Krauthamer called that young terrorist " a whiff of ISIS." The Hitler Youth is back.
Public space. Endangering people. Destruction of property. The child should not have been there, let alone be a material participant.
May I respectfully ask, how involved can a 7 year old be in politics to even care one way or the other about this. How do things that that happen?For B (my youngest), it was just that he was the only President he knew. Nothing major. He wasn't bawling, but he was unhappy that the only President he knew was leaving (I was unhappy when Carter left for the same reason). Kids dislike change. His 2nd grade class was discussing the government (the branches and all), so Obama's name, Biden, Scott, Graham, and Joe Wilson's name (our Senators and our Rep) came up with the teacher. He learned that the VP is a tie breaker in Senate and the like.I RARELY discuss politics and only when asked (and then, in a very sanitized way). I teach my kids to leave their opinions at home because not everybody agrees and not all people love them, so some might be mean about your beliefs or opinions.
That kid looks fairly blond. Listen and you can hear the first strains of Tomorrow Belongs to Me.
@ damikescThank you. I suppose that children today are just, in general, more exposed to politics than they were in the ancient past, when I was young :-)More television, internet, connectivity and the public schools discussing politics. It is probably inevitable. A calm and reasoned discussion, as you did, explaining the changes and the system is a good thing. Kids ARE like cats in that they don't like changes.
Krauthamer called that young terrorist " a whiff of ISIS." The Hitler Youth is back.Naaaaah! I think when this kid is a teenager & figures out what shitheads Mom & Dad are, & how they used him for their political fantasies, he's gonna rebel big time.I think we're looking at the future president of some college's Young Americans for Freedom chapter.
There were children at some of the Trump rallies too that had some foul mouths while the parents beamed proudly. It's never ethical to show the children like that, even if the parents are standing by giving permission.
Blogger Dust Bunny Queen said..."The parents made this happen. They trained the child to be THIS. They don't have any position to complain with the fruits of their labor become evident."So the parents should be neither surprised nor dismayed when Junior decides it would be fun to set fire to the living room...
So the parents should be neither surprised nor dismayed when Junior decides it would be fun to set fire to the living room...Nor should they be surprised if someday he turns them in for doubleplusungood Thought Crimes.
This is probably the kid's grandmother. Note that grandpa lost his "set" after years of marriage to this SJW.Woman kicked off plane for berating Trump supporter in viral videoI suspect most of us here know at least one lady like this.
Well - apparently this was live, and unexpected, so it is no kind of ethical breach. Otherwise, I would say it could be aired with the boy's face obscured digitally. I would say that this video is probably not something I would republicize on my blog - yes, I know it is out there, but why increase the damage? I think you could discuss this without showing the video. At his age, the boy is entirely without responsibility for this - this is a reflection of his environment, and so I consider him an innocent victim of bad adults. That's the problem with kids - they act out the logic they have been taught. It is not just the parents, though. Think of all the newsies who have been talking about boxcars, Hitler, hatred, racism and so forth. A child, seeing and hearing some of this without the normal adult layer of skepticism would not be wrong in drawing the conclusion that something terrible is happening. It's probably important for the general public to understand what kind of damage the fevered, to-the-limit political dialogue is doing to children though. And yes, seeing the video (which I won't watch) would hammer that point in very viscerally, so maybe Ann is right in showcasing it. At some point the country is going to have to stop what we are doing. Maybe that will happen ten years from now. It would be beneficial if it happened sooner rather than later.
"I am opposed to almost everything -- positive and negative -- that appropriates childhood for political purposes."Agreed. However, this instance is a close call I think. He either chose the public spotlight, indeed it appears to be the purpose of his act, or it was chosen for him.
Think of the Unplanned Children!
DBQ, my earliest memory is watching the Republican convention on TV when I was 4. My family has discussed politics my whole life. My parents took the position that we were responsible for what we believed and what we did. So, child 1 doesn't care about politics and has voted only twice. Child 2 is an extreme small government person. Child 3 is an extreme lefty. Child 4 is a moderate. Child 5 is an extreme small government person. I raised my daughter on the same principles and don't see any problem with early age introduction to politics.
In this era when everyone has a camera and getting "noticed" is glamorized this is common. Not unlike the Darwin effect. Natural selection is operative, your children may not rise above you.
Seems to me airing it was a public service: it's clear and convincing evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of child endangerment by his parents and an admission of intentional destruction of property and vandalism by the kid.The child needs to be in a juvenile detention facility and the parents need to be in jail.
The little tyke said it. He should own it. Or more correctly the parents who filled the kids head up with left wing mush should own it.
I'm amazed at the number of my friends who would never think of foisting a religion on their children, who drag them to political events.
As children (same age as Althouse) we were exposed to politics by watching the evening news and an educational system where we had weekly student assemblies where we pledged allegiance to the flag and sang the national anthem; as well as classes called "social studies" where we were taught about the founding of the country. There was an expected sense of reverence towards our country, our history and symbols of authority. I guess you can say we were indoctrinated. I was 12 years old when Kennedy was assassinated. The whole school was in shock and in tears, and school was dismissed early -- so clearly we were deeply aware of politics. I don't remember the kind of rudeness we see so commonly being expressed today towards leaders happening before the Viet Nam era -- maybe that breaking of the norms of civility was a by product of the "counter culture," i.e., the drug culture? And that culture has never left, and the fruits of that are children starting fires in the street to protest an election result. The child was unsupervised; IMO the parents should be brought in and questioned. In a way the network was acting "in loco parentis." In that sense what they've done is ethical.
It doesn't seem any worse than our local station "interviewing" children younger than him at the Women's March, when in fact the kids were obviously reading a script that was being held up for them just off camera. At least in the case of the little arsonist there was some real news as opposed to the staged news in our local report.
Did you notice the kid's gangsta move at the end of the interview when defiantly pulls his arms inward toward his chest?Almost, but not quite when...Kid wakes up from surgery and thinks he's a gangster.
That is the face of a kid who is searching desperately for a parent who can say, "No."
Ann Althouse said..Children should be nourished with child-appropriate ideas, such as understanding the people, places, and things in their immediate, seen environment. That "seen environment" seems carefully chosen, Professor. Would you like to start a discussion about the proper age for religious instruction?
Would you like to start a discussion about the proper age for religious instruction?The tenor of your questions suggests that you think it wrong and abusive to provide religious instruction at any age. If you are not such a militant anti-theist, I apologize for that conclusion.But to answer your question -- the proper age for religious instruction is when the child is in the womb, to be continued at birth and thereafter, by the parents first expressing their love -- love which is reflective of God who is Love.
@edhThat was interesting. I discovered a whole genre of YouTube video of people coming out of anesthesia.Is is wrong to watch that stuff and be amused?I'm assuming the person was amused and consented to making it public.
It's ethical because Fox had the implied permission of the parents. They put him out there, to riot, set fires, or be interviewed by reporters, as the case may be.
Ethical?It WAS REAL NEWS of life in a fragmented world full of BS.It was imperative that it be shown to all the deniers.
When I was in ninth grade, Henry Cabot Lodge (Nixon's running mate in 1960) came to our town on his whistle-stop tour. The high school marching band and the entire junior and senior high student bodies marched en masse from the school (both schools at the time were housed in separate wings of the same building) to the train station where we were taught the Nixon campaign song (I still remember it--"Merrily we roll along a hundred million strong") which we performed when Lodge arrived. I have no recollection of taking a permission slip home to my parents prior to the event. In fact, my recollection is that the outing came as a complete surprise to us that morning. It's hard to believe it actually could have happened that way, but, hey, it was a whole different era. In any event, if there was a public outcry, it was so muted none of us ever heard about it (and we had a large Catholic contingent most of whom supported Kennedy). Certainly my parents had no problem with it. I should mention that our community was not small town, heartland USA, but an affluent bedroom community in the New York metropolitan area.There were many children at the Tea Party gatherings I attended, lots of them carrying signs. This is not something only progressives do (although most right wing parents certainly would draw the line at setting fires). Is it a case of using our children inappropriately or one of exercising the right to instill our values through practical demonstration?
Suky! How you been girl. The last time I saw you was at the Theater de Lys on Christopher Street in the Village in New Yawk back in '61. How ya been? I remember you and was always worried that Mackie had hurt you or maybe even done you in after marrying Polly-- he always was such a charming rogue. Of course, in those days you spelled your name differently but with friends like Mack I guess you probably had good reason to go incognito, everyone feared the knife that can't be seen.Suky old friend. I find myself at the end of my string and mere hours away from going to my torment. Could you spare Three Pennies for an old companion? Two for my eyes and one for a stein of ale to help me meet the devil with a stiff upper lip.*** Sorry about getting off topic, I just slammed into that ol' wall of nostalgia! If you know what I was babbling about, wonderful. If not, I am sorry to have taken up your time and believe that it was presented with warmth and joy.
Post a Comment