Jump to content

20/20


  • Please log in to reply

877 replies to this topic

#1

lovemesomevos

lovemesomevos

    Couch Potato

Posted Jan 13, 2004 @ 4:31 PM

John Stossel was one of my childhood heroes. I used to look forward to 20/20 all week long. Now he has lost his bite.


He hasn't so much lost his bite as he has just let himself become Andy Rooney lite. He isn't old enough to continually refer to the ''way things used to be'' without the slightest hint of irony or self-effacement.
  • 0

#2

janbrady

janbrady

Posted Jan 24, 2004 @ 1:53 PM

Did anyone see it last night (1/23)? It was 10 myths that John Stossel debunked. I fell asleep around number 4. Does anyone know what the top 4 were?
  • 0

#3

The Evil One

The Evil One

    Fanatic

Posted Jan 26, 2004 @ 10:58 AM

Barbwah Wah-Wah to leave 20/20... CNN Story
  • 0

#4

Julieyousuck

Julieyousuck

    Fanatic

Posted Jan 26, 2004 @ 2:06 PM

Not I'm not a big fan of "Babs" but it DOES sound kinda cold what they did to her though.
  • 0

#5

Ernos

Ernos

    Fanatic

Posted Jan 26, 2004 @ 2:22 PM

It sounds to me like it's her own choice to leave; what are you referring to that they did to her?

Me, I can't stand her. My memory may be hazy, but I seem to remember her talking to relatives of the 9/11 victims shortly after the WTC was attacked, and getting them to cry on camera. I know it's her "thing" to get emotional responses out of people, but that seemed beyond callous, at that time.

Still, she'll still have the View, and a bunch of celebrity interviews, and the whole pre-Oscar thing. She's keeping plenty busy.
  • 0

#6

lovemesomevos

lovemesomevos

    Couch Potato

Posted Jan 26, 2004 @ 4:02 PM

Not I'm not a big fan of "Babs" but it DOES sound kinda cold what they did to her though.


What did they do to her? The CNN link and this blurb from TvGuide Online both indicate it's her decision to leave. According to CCN she's 74, TvGuide says 72, but either way the old gal has certainly earned her keep. I don't blame her for getting out. Now if she would just can The View it would be a happy semi-retirement all the way around.
  • 0

#7

Julieyousuck

Julieyousuck

    Fanatic

Posted Jan 27, 2004 @ 7:11 PM

It's her decision to leave.

Here's what I mean. in the linked article, Baba Wawa talks about how hard it is to secure "gets" (interviews with famous and prominent people.) Recently (from what I heard) Barbara "got" a sought-after interview with Howard Dean and his wife. It was assigned to Diane Sawyer (Babs's defacto "rival"), however, for various reasons. Now given that, as explained, that "gets" are hard to establish as it is, imagine then having one of those interviews then dumped in someone elses lap after all that trouble. Although I'm sure there are probably other concurring reasons for her departure from 20/20, I strongly suspect that was one of them (or at least the proverbial "final straw.")
  • 0

#8

jechaplin

jechaplin

    Channel Surfer

Posted Feb 4, 2004 @ 3:57 PM

Did anyone see it last night (1/23)? It was 10 myths that John Stossel debunked. I fell asleep around number 4. Does anyone know what the top 4 were?


You can find it here
  • 0

#9

Putrid

Putrid

    Video Archivist

Posted Apr 25, 2004 @ 10:59 PM

I hope I have the right show-- I was so taken back by what I saw, I don't remember if it was 20/20 that Barbara Walters was pimping at the time.

There is going to be a "very special" story about four families battling for a baby up for adoption. It was made to look as sensational as possible-- very game show/reality TV-- which is so wrong on so many levels.
  • 0

#10

My78Chevette

My78Chevette

    Channel Surfer

Posted Apr 26, 2004 @ 10:46 AM

I saw two commercials for this "competing for a baby" 20/20 episode last night. I am absolutely appalled. I can understand why these couples might be willing to "compete" for this baby, especially if they are persuing adoption after battles with infertility. It is possible that they so badly want to adopt a child, that they think they have very good odds by agreeing to do this show. But for 20/20 to take advantage of that desire for a child, turn it in to a competition, and then air it on a so called "news program" is just sickening. (However, if they are just famewhores looking for their 15 minutes, well, then, they are just sick and wrong.)

The other thing that really got to me was (from the looks of the commercial) that they are not dealing with a pregnant woman here who wants to give up her child...the child in question has already been born and is far from being a newborn. I'd say 4-6 months old from the brief shots they showed of the baby. I can understand if the birth mother decided that she's not cut out for motherhood and that the best thing for all involved is to give the baby up. But I worry about the infant's attachments, as well as the mother's motivation for giving her baby up in this fashion.

Shame on Barbara Walters and everyone at 20/20 for thinking this is a good news idea. Absolutely disgusting.
  • 0

#11

lila

lila

Posted Apr 26, 2004 @ 12:32 PM

Here's the overview from ABC's 20/20 site

Per the site, the mother was 8.5 months when she selected the family, but was having second thoughts anyway about adoption. The documentary will provide an update now, 6 months later, hence the baby in the commericals.

I was horrified by the commercials. From reading the site, I understand the documentary they are doing, but I HATE how they are marketing it. Even the site says:

20/20 cameras were there last October when the competition for Jessica's baby began as the finalists arrived at the agency one by one. Each couple would have less than half an hour to convince Jessica that they should be the parents of her unborn son.....

"We were joking about the fact that it's like The Bachelor, The Bachelorette. You're in or you're out tonight," says [one competing couple].


That's awful. I'm sure the mother's intentions are good, but a baby is not something to be won in a game show, which is how 20/20 is positioning it.
  • 0

#12

My78Chevette

My78Chevette

    Channel Surfer

Posted Apr 26, 2004 @ 2:08 PM

Okay, after reading the article on the ABC site, I feel a bit better about the show, knowing that the baby was/was not placed with the adoptive parents shortly after birth, not at the later age as is shown in the commercials. But I still stand behind my earlier post and still find this whole episode extremely distasteful and appalling.

As one of the "contestant" parents alluded to, this is very much like The Bachelor or some other reality type show where people are vying for a prize. Only in this case, we're talking about a baby...a real, live, baby, people. Not a million dollars, not an engagement that's going to fall apart as soon as the cameras go to commercial, but a small human being who is depending on everyone involved.

Now, I'm saying this without having seen the show, and who knows, perhaps 20/20 will be able to pull something worthwhile and responsible out of their wazoos. Even so, this is still a crass and dispicable way of promoting it.
  • 0

#13

TV_Buffy

TV_Buffy

    Fanatic

Posted Apr 27, 2004 @ 12:03 PM

I was coming to complain about this show and am glad I read the article first. I thought the "winner" was going to be chosen live or something like that. I had visions of the prospective adoptive parents eating worms or bungee jumping to "prove" their love for the baby. I'm so relieved that this is nothing like that.

Horrible, horrible marketing aside, this does seem like an interesting documentary - other pregnant girls can get to see their options and those waiting to adopt can get some hope. Unless, of course, she decided not to give up the baby.

Someone in ABC's marketing department needs to be fired. I never realized how desperate ABC was.
  • 0

#14

mamatude

mamatude

    Channel Surfer

Posted Apr 27, 2004 @ 6:21 PM

As an adoptive parent, I'm also hoping that this show will turn out to be a serious look at the open adoption process, and not a cheap attempt to play reality show games with a child's life. The ads, though, are downright offensive. For anyone who missed seeing these ads (or can't quite believe they saw what they thought they did), the text of one has been transcribed here (scroll down to third post).

I try to be a grown-up and understand about ratings and getting shows talked about in a competitive environment -- but all I can think about is this kid seeing a tape of that ad somewhere along the line. Dealing with being adopted is hard enough without having been marketed as a game-show prize.
  • 0

#15

lila

lila

Posted Apr 28, 2004 @ 10:37 PM

From E!Online:

REALITY OOPS: ABC's 20/20 receiving numerous complaints from distressed viewers upset over teasers hyping its Friday program Be My Baby, which portrayed a segment on adoption like a reality show contest. ABC has since altered the promos so it shows that viewers will be watching less a reality series and more a documentary.


And here's a longer article from Newsday.

I am really glad they changed the promos. The adoptive couple, identified in the article (so much for reality game show suspense ABC!), is also unhappy with the ads.

Edited by lila, Apr 28, 2004 @ 10:42 PM.

  • 0

#16

anadyr21

anadyr21

    Loyal Viewer

Posted May 2, 2004 @ 4:20 PM

Did anyone watch the Be My Baby segment? I was actually somewhat disturbed by the mother's "demands". I understand wanting an open adoption and having some contact with the baby, but as soon as the question was asked "how do you feel about naming the child Liam", I know I would have walked out on this. As one of the couples said, you get the impression that the mother wants to play with the baby and have contact and some control, but not have the responsibilities. I have a bad feeling about this case in 5 years. This open adoption thing, to me, would seem to be confusing to the child. Maybe someone else may have more insight?
  • 0

#17

mickif

mickif

    Couch Potato

Posted May 2, 2004 @ 7:06 PM

I caught the last half hour and I too was disturbed by the mother. One of her complaints was that most of the couples wanted to know about the baby but "they didn't seem to care about me." Considering that they were looking to adopt her baby, not her, that doesn't seem out of line.
In the end I suppose it all worked out but regardless, I felt uncomfortable with the final outcome. The adoptive family must be practically saints to be so welcoming not just to the biological mother but her parents, aunts, uncles and cousins too. In a way, they did end up adopting the biological mother as well.
This was really a compelling story. It's a shame that it was advertised in such a sleazy manner.

Edited by mickif, May 2, 2004 @ 7:07 PM.

  • 0

#18

Dana Girl

Dana Girl

    Fanatic

Posted May 2, 2004 @ 7:50 PM

I actually have friends on both sides of the open adoption thing- a friend who gave her baby up, I guess ten years ago now. I also friends who have a beautiful adopted two year old son.

I would say that it really has worked out remarkedly well. My friend was really young when she had her baby, and she describes her relationship with that child as like a half sibling you're seperated by a big age gap. She looks forward to her visits, she's good about presents, the baby's parents came to her high school and college graduation.

My adoptive friends have much the same story. In fact, the girl on the show sort of reminded me of their birth mother.

I didn't like the parents she chose.
  • 0

#19

My78Chevette

My78Chevette

    Channel Surfer

Posted May 3, 2004 @ 2:13 PM

I managed to get a chance to watch bits and pieces of this episode, and I was pleasantly surprised that they managed to pull this off much more credibly than the promos would have you believe. It seemed much more credible and less like the "reality show" they plugged it as.

However, I'm glad that I'm not the only one thinking that the birth mother seemed to want too much control over her son once he was adopted. I think it's a bit too much to want to name the baby you are giving up for adoption. Like someone else said, it's like she wanted all of the "fun" aspects of being a parent, but none of the responsibility. On the other hand, I can't imagine how hard it is to give a baby up for adoption.
  • 0

#20

Gwynevere1

Gwynevere1

    Couch Potato

Posted May 6, 2004 @ 7:00 PM

Hi. I read before that tomorrow night in a "Mother's Day Special," there was supposed to be an interview with Patty Duke, Sean Astin, and Mackenzie Astin, but now it's not listed on the show's site. Does anyone know if/why this was changed. Thanks.
  • 0

#21

atomi

atomi

Posted May 8, 2004 @ 2:39 PM

They showed something about young Royals which turned out only to be a preview of next week's show, but it was an awfully long preview. Maybe they padded the Kate Hudson interview too. Something must have happened with the film of Patty Duke and Sean Astin. I didn't know MacKenzie was supposed to be on as well.
  • 0

#22

Jer2002

Jer2002

    Fanatic

Posted May 17, 2004 @ 5:26 AM

I saw the Young Royals episode. Being a Royals fan for some weird, odd reason, I liked it. I'm even gonna watch Prince Felipe of Spain's Wedding on TV at 3 AM this Saturday. Heh, I need help.
  • 0

#23

Chambliss

Chambliss

    Video Archivist

Posted May 17, 2004 @ 5:43 AM

Heh, I need help.


And you don't know the half of it. My sister-in-law had the same nutty fixation with royals, convinced that she'd marry a member of the one of Europe's reigning monarchies. At Thanksgiving dinner last year, I overheard her telling my grandmother that she'd had sexual intercourse with Prince Felipe. I'd ask her next time I see her about Felipe's wedding, but to tell you the truth, I really don't want to get her started.
  • 0

#24

HeavenLy

HeavenLy

    Fanatic

Posted May 19, 2004 @ 2:53 PM

Personally, I think Elizabeth Vargas is an improvement on Barbara Walters. At least EV doesn't have a weird raspy lisp. However, John Stossel is no Hugh Downs. I guess ABC can't force poor Charlie Gibson to do everything.
  • 0

#25

mightymos

mightymos

    Fanatic

Posted Sep 25, 2004 @ 6:54 AM

I couldn't find this thread last night, but Glark pointed me in the right direction.
I'm just cutting and pasting last night's post.

I'm watching Barbra Walter's interview with Mary Kay Letourneau. I can not believe that she's being interviewed but the amount of delusion is almost criminal. This woman needs to be in a mental institution. She's attempting to describe how this TWELVE YEAR OLD BOY approached her and wooed her. I'm completely floored. My sister said that if it was "Paul Peter Letourneau. there would be an angry mob outside of his door."
This is just disgusting.
  • 0

#26

gaPeach

gaPeach

    Fanatic

Posted Sep 25, 2004 @ 7:36 AM

I'm watching Barbra Walter's interview with Mary Kay Letourneau. I can not believe that she's being interviewed but the amount of delusion is almost criminal.


ITA! Why are they giving this poor sick woman so much air time? It is beyond sad now. Actually it was beyond sad when she was arrested the 2nd time for being with her underaged boyfriend.

I did not watch this trainwreck.
  • 0

#27

malificent

malificent

    Channel Surfer

Posted Sep 25, 2004 @ 8:26 AM

What upset me most about this interview was the double-standard. If a man had done what she did--slept with a 12 year old, kept in contact for years, and then planned to marry her after being incarcerated--he would be killed. But, since it's a woman, it's OK. I wish Barb had asked, "How would you have felt if one of your children's teachers had slept with your child?" And I can't believe that she didn't think it was a felony to sleep with a child. You would think that the school would mention something like that during orientation! It's such a sad, sad story. She seems so messed up--especially since she still wants to have more children. How does she plan on raising them? She won't be able to find much gainful employment being a sex offender and ex-convict. And I don't think that he finished high school. How strange for his mother--knowing that her son is going to marry someone her age. Must be interesting during family dinners.
  • 0

#28

mightymos

mightymos

    Fanatic

Posted Sep 25, 2004 @ 11:10 AM

A big fat Word to all of you.
She's messed up this boy's life. I know that he's 21 but it's telling that Barbra told John that they still have a "teacher/student" relationship. Of course they do! Those are the only circumstances they have ever known each other under. And she is just as old as his mother.
She's screwed him up emotionally. He never finished high school. He doesn't have a GED. He doesn't have a job. He's got 2 children. She wants to have more. They want to get married. What kind of life is he going to have after he realizes that it's not what he wants. Because at 21, he's going to realize it. He's also going to realize that the woman is off her rocker.
And honestly, as a person who suffers from bipolar II, I find it insulting that they are blaming her behaviour on bipolar. She's got a mental illness for sure. She's got a number of them. But BP is a MOOD disorder. I think she suffers more from borderline personality disorder than anything else.

ETA: I couldn't watch all of the interview, I was just getting way too worked up about it. I don't know if they mentioned it in the interview but I remember reading somewhere else that she/someone/Jesus was saying that she suffered from Bipolar disorder.

Edited by mightymos, Sep 25, 2004 @ 11:11 AM.

  • 0

#29

katymo

katymo

    Fanatic

Posted Sep 25, 2004 @ 11:48 AM

I'll add my word to the bunch. It's all very very creepy!

Her explanations for her behavior were very weird, like she couldn't stay away from Villi the second time because she couldn't see her kids? Yeah those two sure go with one another! Not. This woman's crazy. The psycho mommy dearest look she had on her face the whole time made me want to run and hide. She needs new hair too.

She fucked up so many people's lives by letting herself be seduced by a pre-teen! I fear for their kids, man. How is that going to be explained to them when they get old enough? I think Villi's mother has some responsiblity in this too, from what I've seen she's been wayyy to passive about all of this, though I do applaud her for raising the two girls. I'm 22 and cannot begin to imagine what his life is like at my age, knowing he's had all this shit before he could even see a PG movie by himself.

I'm with you, mightymos, I've got the same BP and it really makes me sick when behaviors like hers get blamed on it. I think that was just the initial ruse to get her out of prison time when they first got caught. Frankly I think she's probably got some mental think going on, but mostly stupidity and selfishness.
  • 0

#30

malificent

malificent

    Channel Surfer

Posted Sep 25, 2004 @ 12:03 PM

I also am disappointed with the interview because it didn't really explore anything. I don't want to know if they had passionate sex. I would like to know how she felt she could justify her actions because her marriage was in shambles. And I still don't understand her reasoning that she felt that she would be closer to her children by going to prison instead of staying away for 6 months after her release.

There was a Law and Order episode where a female principal had sex (raped) her student and she was found to have a brain tumor that basically interfered with her ability to reason and control her impulses. This is just about the only excuse I would accept for these types of actions.

It appears that she didn't get enough counselling or help in prison because she is still a fragile mess. She indicated that she had quite a few sexual partners before she was married--and after the act questioned how she could have slept with them. It seems like she has a lot of unresolved father and Christian issues. Though these issues don't excuse rape--regardless of whether or not they were in "love" and whether or not he "seduced" her. We rely on those who are older to be more in control of the situation and put on the brakes.
  • 0