Reality TV or Child Abuse?

[livius drusus]

Kid Nation (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/18/arts/television/18kid.html?ref=arts) is a reality show that put 40 8-15 year olds on a ranch in New Mexico, without their parents or much in the way of adult supervision to film them as they "create their own society".

Needless to say, the premise is causing a bit of a stir. At least one parent has written a letter complaining that the show was glorified child neglect. Her daughter was burned when grease splattered on her face while she was cooking.

Even if the idea itself weren't shady, the choice of location puts up a red flag or two, as do the rationalizations from CBS about how little kids working from dawn until 9:30 isn't child labour because they only got stipends, not wages.

Tom Forman, the executive producer of the show, told television writers last month at the semi-annual Television Critics Association press tour that New Mexico had been chosen because Bonanza Creek offered a unique setting. New Mexico also had no specific regulations concerning the use of child actors in television and film production, which many states, including California and New York, do have.

Though the children spent six weeks away from school in April and May, no tutors were present on the set. Though many states limit the number of hours children can work a day on television productions, Mr. Forman said the children set their own hours. [...]

Ms. Serna’s office was among those that received the information, but by that time the production was already packed up and gone from New Mexico. “This type of setting, with 40 kids away from their parents for an extended time, would have required some notice and work prior to actually bringing the children into the state,” she said.

Mr. Anschell of CBS disputed that, saying that the network’s correspondence with the attorney general’s office produced nothing except a warning that as of June 15, state law had been changed to limit the number of hours that children can be on the set of a television production.

Mr. Anschell also said that state labor laws did not apply. “The children were not employed under the legal definition,” he said. “They were not receiving set wages for performing specific tasks or working specific hours.”

But the parents were told before the children left to go to the set that they would receive a $5,000 stipend for their participation. The children also had the opportunity to earn a gold star that was given at the end of each episode — or roughly every three days of filming — that at the end of the session could be turned in for a $20,000 check. In addition, the children were assigned tasks and were paid for those with buffalo nickels, which they could then use to buy items at a dry-goods store or a candy shop or to buy drinks at a root beer saloon.

Nevertheless, Mr. Anschell said, “those were not wages and did not create an employee relationship.”

So, because the kids don't have SAG cards and because they weren't paid an honest wage for 14 hours of work a day in the middle of the school year, therefore it's not child labour? Shady.

If you're wondering what the parents were thinking here's a brief statement (http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/tv/la-et-kidnationparents-17aug17,1,2797730.story?coll=la-entnews-tv) from 3 of them. Here (http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/tv/la-et-kidnationkids-17aug17,1,6249256.story?coll=la-entnews-tv) are some Q&As with the kids themselves. It definitely seems to have been an enriching experience for some of them, at least.

What do y'all think about this?

[beyelzu]

i like it, im going to make a reality tv show about kids working in my sneaker factory.

i wont actually pay them or anything i will just give them a stipend and if they make enough shoes i will give them a gold star that they can turn in for 1000 dollars at the end or a drink of water during the "work day" as i will not be providing them with even the most basic of necessities.


also at the factory i plan to have a conch shell and a stick sharpened on two ends.

wish my endeavor luck

[Nullifidian]

i like it, im going to make a reality tv show about kids working in my sneaker factory.

i wont actually pay them or anything i will just give them a stipend and if they make enough shoes i will give them a gold star that they can turn in for 1000 dollars at the end or a drink of water during the "work day" as i will not be providing them with even the most basic of necessities.


also at the factory i plan to have a conch shell and a stick sharpened on two ends.

wish my endeavor luck

Is Nike going to be your corporate sponsor?

[livius drusus]

:dancebey: :blame: :piggy:

[beyelzu]

i like it, im going to make a reality tv show about kids working in my sneaker factory.

i wont actually pay them or anything i will just give them a stipend and if they make enough shoes i will give them a gold star that they can turn in for 1000 dollars at the end or a drink of water during the "work day" as i will not be providing them with even the most basic of necessities.


also at the factory i plan to have a conch shell and a stick sharpened on two ends.

wish my endeavor luck

Is Nike going to be your corporate sponsor?


yep, and the tagline for the show will be

"just do it, bitch, before i beat your ten year old ass"

[beyelzu]

:dancebey: :blame: :piggy:

:tmgrin:

[beyelzu]

just in case it isnt obvious, i have no idea what the fuck cbs was thinking, and i sincerely hope they get fucked on the child labor laws issue.

though i think they will get away.

[Ari]

I'm always amazed at what people would do if only rules/regulations didn't prevent them.

[Ensign Steve]

Reality TV or Child Abuse?

Can't it be both?

:popcorn:

[Ari]

For fear of being outdone I bet Fox will come out with a "Child coal miner" reality show. the twist being half the kids are white supremacists and the other half black gang members but they will have to learn to work together to survive.

[Shelli]

It all sounds incredibly shady to me. One also has to wonder what the parents were thinking that let their kids do this. Oh wait.. yeah.. :dollah:

[beyelzu]

For fear of being outdone I bet Fox will come out with a "Child coal miner" reality show. the twist being half the kids are white supremacists and the other half black gang members but they will have to learn to work together to survive.


wow i would almost want to watch that one.


:tmgrin:

[livius drusus]

For fear of being outdone I bet Fox will come out with a "Child coal miner" reality show. the twist being half the kids are white supremacists and the other half black gang members but they will have to learn to work together to survive.
Oo, good one! So many learning opportunities, too, like how we're all black under the alveoli, or how the black seam is a uniter not a divider.

[Ari]

Oh wait.. yeah.. :dollah:
Don't forget the 'My kid wants to be an actor, so what better way than an exploitive reality show to start their acting career.' It reminds me of the girls who flash on girls gone wild because they want to be models.

[Nullifidian]

I'm always amazed at what people would do if only rules/regulations didn't prevent them.

Fortunately, regulations do now prevent them. New Mexico closed this loophole in its child labor laws, so there's definitely a legal problem with a second season, as no other state in the U.S. allows this shit.

Maybe they can try Bangladesh or Indonesia next time.

[D. Scarlatti]

Can't be any worse than Scott Baio is 45.

[Freddy]

"A New Mexico official whose department oversees licensing of congregant child-care settings said in an interview that the project almost assuredly violated state laws requiring facilities that house children be reviewed and licensed.

The official, Romaine Serna, public information officer for the New Mexico Children, Youth and Families Department, said Friday that CBS had never contacted the agency. If the department had known of the parent’s allegations when the incidents occurred, she said, “We would have responded and would have assured the children’s safety.”

CBS officials say they broke no laws. “We feel very comfortable that this was appropriate from a legal point of view,” Ghen Maynard, the executive vice president for alternative programming at CBS, said in an interview Friday."

Looks like an investigation by NM into CBS's reality show might cost them?

[ChuckF]

Oh, here we go again :rolls:

Big Brother telling good, wholesome business what they can't do. These kids are in this situation because of a personal choice, which is what America used to be all about before the trial lawyers got to it. I think it's great that CBS is trying to teach them a lesson about personal responsibility too. They should be happy to get to earn some wages and live away from home. I'll bet they enjoy it! But nooo, here comes the litigating lily-bottoms to interfere.

I know why you dumb fuck socialists are so upset about this. Because this TV show was about to show the world that when left alone, without trial lawyers and Marxists, a highly efficient free market will emerge spontaneously, and it will make our current welfare state look bad. And all the people in power and the parasites that feed on them - like trial lawyers - would absolutely hate that since they could no longer suckle at the teat of the state coffers.

Even 12 year olds can figure it out! Why can't you stupid faggots?

[Watser?]

You been hanging out at Little Green Footballs again Chuck? :eyebrow2:

[Leesifer]

Can't be any worse than Scott Baio is 45.

Chachi is 45? :nojustno:

Can't we just send the kids up the chimneys like in the good old days?

[ChuckF]

You been hanging out at Little Green Footballs again Chuck? :eyebrow2:
:chuckle:

No. But I am thinking of starting a libertarian blog. For lulz.

[Adam]

Too hard to film inside the chimneys...poor lighting, you see.

I guess, technically, they kids weren't employed, so I don't see that it's a violation of labor laws, although it's pretty damned shady. It's legal to exploit someone as long as you don't pay them?

I'm more worried about the other details. They pulled the kids out of school for this and didn't adequately supervise them? This sounds like the sort of fucked up social experiment that would cause an academic institution that tried it to lose all credibility and probably funding. Hey, it's on TV, though, so it's all right, right?

[livius drusus]

It actually is a violation of current labor laws in New Mexico, and it was a violation of every other state's labor laws before then. They seem to have sought out the one state where they could limbo just under the legal bar.

They could never have pulled kids out of school for this in California (and lots of other states) without having x hours of on-set tutoring a day. I really don't know how they can justify that. "Oh, they're learning how to clean out their own latrines. That's worth, like, 10 geography classes."

[Stormlight]

I love this part:

To at least one parent of a participant, who wrote a letter of complaint to New Mexico state officials after the show had completed production, the experience bordered on abuse and neglect.

Oh really? How about not sending your kid to the labour-camp in the first place? Greedy bitch.

[wildernesse]

I feel more annoyed with the parents after reading their statements. Couldn't they have just sent their kids to regular camp?

Also, who thinks that a 12 year old saying "[i]f you don't let me go, it's something I'm going to regret for the rest of my life" is a persuasive argument for allowing that child to do something? Isn't that the argument for everything when you are 12?

[LadyShea]

I dunno. I think kids are possibly too coddled and protected these days and never learn that they can, ya know, actually do stuff to contribute. Would I want that lesson taught by him being away from me for 6 weeks and being on reality TV...not really. I can, however, see the benefit of working within their own environment to help the lives of everyone in that environment.

How many of us have parents or grandparents that worked with their family; raised younger siblings, helped with sewing, cooking, well digging, crops, livestock, harvest etc.? My grandma picked cotton and cooked for 10 siblings plus field hands. My grandpa helped run his family horse ranch. Surely even today some kids still do such things. Not much opportunity for it in the 'burbs, though.

Many educational philosophies count such an experiences as gardening, building, camping, shopping as "school" and if you home-school you can turn in anything you want to consider a school-day to fulfill state attendance requirements.

[biochemgirl]

I understand what LadyShea is saying, and I agree to a certain extent, but in this situation it seems like clear exploitation to me. What disturbs me the most is the parents profiting off of this.

Not that it is too surprising reality shows have come to things like this. Have you ever seen the show Solitary or the new Solitary 2.0? I realize people voluntarily sign up for these things but that doesn't mean it is ethical.

[Adam]

I dig what you're saying, LS, I'm just uncomfortable with a) the fact that the kids were pulled out of school, rather than just waiting a couple months and filming during their break and b) the fact that they're being exploited for profit using a weakness in the labor laws. If this was some sort of summer camp thing, and there was sufficient supervision, I'd be totally down with it.

[beyelzu]

back in the good ole days kids worked 10-15 hours a day in hazardous work conditions in factories and by god they did well, fuck they gave birth to the greatest generation.

im not a big fan of child labor in general.

i havent seen the show, obviously, and i think i would be ok with the children working with adults to improve the world or just learn a work ethic.

but that aint the case.

as to coddling and protecting kids, hell where exactly do you draw the line?

[livius drusus]

I dig what you're saying, LS, I'm just uncomfortable with a) the fact that the kids were pulled out of school, rather than just waiting a couple months and filming during their break and b) the fact that they're being exploited for profit using a weakness in the labor laws. If this was some sort of summer camp thing, and there was sufficient supervision, I'd be totally down with it.

:yeahthat:

I have several friends whose parents made them pick spinach all summer. Hell, one friend from Mississippi was actually made to pick cotton because her parents (an assistant district attorney and a linguistic professor) wanted her to know what backbreaking labour it was like for slaves.

Although I would have been horrified at the thought of having to sharecrop, I can definitely see the draw of creating your own society of peers with the sweat of your brow. I just would have whined about latrine duty. And possibly booted. A lot.

It's the trappings and bullshit of the show that I have a problem with: the dodging of labor and school attendance laws, gold stars and drib drabs of money and cameras up everyone's asses and parental contact intentionally limited out of self-protection or to increase drama.

[Ari]

Yeah working on the farm, helping the community or going to camp are all good learning situations. That generally happen on summer break. Not only do the parents get a bit more control but those running the organization generally care about the kids and not about their ratings/bottom line. It makes me think of kamp Krusty where the kid's "leather working" class is really a sweatshop for making fake wallets to sell on the street.

A reality show isn't a real representation of reality but a drama designed in such a way to reduce costs, so I'm not sure how much of what they learned could apply to the real world.

[Angakuk]

The positive benefits associated with this program (i.e. skills development, self-discovery, self-confidence, team work, etc.) are already being fostered by a variety of existing programs (Outward Bound comes to mind). It's just that with those programs the parents actually pay for the benefits their children receive rather than receiving pay for allowing their children to be exploited for the benefit of network ratings. Anyway, I say: "What the hell, turn the little blighters out and let them support the parents for change. What's the point in having children if you can't make a buck or two off them? It's called getting a fair return on your investment. It's the American Way."

[LadyShea]

I think there are ethical problems with it, for sure, as well as general "ick" factor for most reality TV scenarios. I do not think it is in any way analogous to sweatshop children or slaves, though.

I feel pretty safe in assuming the following:

If any child was injured or became ill they were/would have been treated promptly

Unless kidnapping and slavery laws cease to exist at the NM line, then any kid who really wanted to leave could not have been forced to stay

Arrangements were made with the kids' home states regarding school attendance requirements. Most states have truancy statutes, and can fine parents for their children's non-compliance with attendance laws. 6 weeks could have been taken care of with private tutors, summer school, or by a statement of homeschooling.

If my assumptions are correct, then the kids weren't in undue danger (they didn't drop them on a deserted island 100 of miles from anywhere to recreate Lord of the Flies), weren't being forced to work, and their educations didn't truly suffer.

[wildernesse]

I don't think that the kids were in undue danger, or that it hurt any of them to work all day long, or even for them to miss 6 weeks of school. Eh. But, this is probably the exception to the rule. In general, it is not ok for kids to be away from their families, working for profit for those hours and at those jobs, or to miss school for that amount of time. Reality tv is not, imho, a good enough reason to make an exception to that rule.

However, I do not think that it is a safe assumption that those children could leave when they wanted to. It is unclear how much contact they had with their parents, or vice versa. They are children, far from home, without (it appears) an independent advocate who had their best interests in mind. If the reasons for their participation are those that their parents stated, I wonder how often they had been away from home on their own for any length of time and how they dealt with that.

Six weeks is a long time to be away from all that is familiar to you.

[LadyShea]

A kid having frequent meltdowns or constantly crying hysterically because they want to go home would probably be difficult to film around and/or edit...not to mention it would be a legally scary area for the producers wrt lawsuits and possibly criminal charges. I don't care how good a waiver they had the parent signs, traumatized children are not a good thing to have on your hands. I really don't think they could or would have kept a kid there completely against their will.

Now, parental pressure and coercion to participate or stay I would be more apt to believe, quite frankly. Some parents are scary, and these show signs of being those spooky types.

All this being said, I do not think this is a good idea for a TV show, nor do I think it was good for the kids, nor would I have allowed my kid to participate. All of my points in this thread have been to counter what I feel were somewhat hyperbolic comparisons to children working in factories, etc.

[Corona688]

Disgusting. This actually happened? Those responsible should be held liable.

[beyelzu]

well call me captain hyperbole, no worries on that score.

but i think that it is pretty obvious that the children were laboring and evidentally for long periods of time otherwise why do it in new mexico to ignore such labor laws.

and maybe the laws were inacted for coal mines and factories, but i do believe the do and should apply to the entertainment industry.

also, a whole lot of assumptions seem to hold up your argument.

just pointing it out.

[LadyShea]

Which is why I bolded assumption.

[livius drusus]

and maybe the laws were inacted for coal mines and factories, but i do believe the do and should apply to the entertainment industry.
Right. Child actors had to struggle for a long time to get some semblance of legal rights. I think it's pretty twisted that CBS, which obviously has an in depth knowledge of those rights, intentionally sought out a way to dodge them by putting kids to work in front of camera without pay. It's quite clever as cynical ploys go, really.

[LadyShea]

In 2005 several networks aired versions of Brat Camp ABC included and maybe USA; they filmed a "wilderness therapy" program for troubled teens. The one I caught a few episodes of had these highlights: kids were forced to hike for miles, live for 40 days in the Oregon wilderness, withstand a blizzard, and at one point camp alone isolated from the group... as well as undergo woo therapy sessions. It was not voluntary, their parents had put them there.

I don't think the kids were paid, and that probably this was considered "documentary" rather than acting, therefore wouldn't fall under child labor laws either. I shouldn't think (could this show be considered similarly?)

Apparently there are UK, German, and Canadian versions of the show, all at different camps. The kids names and "problems" are listed at Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brat_Camp)

Do you feel that show was similarly exploitive and disgusting? USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-08-16-brat-camp-edit_x.htm) questioned the ethics, as did I. I found it much more disturbing than this scenario.

Again, I agree with he points that CBS acted shadily in bypassing laws, but I just don't see that voluntarily living like a pioneer, and working together as a group without being forced to do so (after all there was no adult telling them "do this, do that") to create an orderly pseudo-society is inherently harmful.

[livius drusus]

Do you feel that show was similarly exploitive and disgusting?
More. I think those kids should sue their parents and especially their so-called therapists, all of whom should have their licenses revoked.

I just don't see that voluntarily living like a pioneer, and working together as a group without being forced to do so (after all there was no adult telling them "do this, do that") to create an orderly pseudo-society is inherently harmful.
Who thinks that's inherently harmful?

[LadyShea]

More. I think those kids should sue their parents and especially their so-called therapists, all of whom should have their licenses revoked.

I feel the same way.


Who thinks that's inherently harmful?

Comparisons to the real children today living horrible lives working in dangerous and unregulated factories, as well as comparisons to the children coal miners and factory workers of America's past- both situations I find inherently harmful- led me to believe some here found the situations analogous.

If I misread the intent of the comparisons, then I need it explained.

[beyelzu]

nope you totally didnt misread my intent at all.


i do think it is inherently harmful to put a bunch of kids in the middle of nowhere and let them form their own little society.

if kids were capable of forming their own little society we wouldnt need adults.

you keep painting a very rosy picture of the situation. i suggest that you might want to send your posts to cbs, probably would make a great advertising angle for them.

if you dont see how it is exploitave and analagous to my proposed

"nike masterpiece theatre" reality show, well i dont know what to say.

:shrug:

[beyelzu]

i mean fuck i will totally have people there to give them medical attention.

btw didnt a parent bitch that one of their kids was splashed with some grease and another one drank bleach left in an unmarked container, bet that made for some exciting tv. n i suppose that is just the sort of positive learning environment that cbs has set up.

oh, btw, i consider most of the people who homeschool their kids to be crackpots so the appeal to laws and regulations regarding homeschool really doesnt have much impact on me.

oh and as a complete aside i love cbs bringing back the concept of paying its workers in script, that was one of the most badass things from the good ole days.

i guess many of the kids did learn a valuable lesson on how to exploit others and get fucked by the man.

[viscousmemories]

However, I do not think that it is a safe assumption that those children could leave when they wanted to.A kid having frequent meltdowns or constantly crying hysterically because they want to go home would probably be difficult to film around and/or edit...

I really don't think they could or would have kept a kid there completely against their will.I don't believe it's safe to assume that any kid who wanted to leave but felt trapped would be having frequent meltdowns or constantly crying hysterically. I think they'd be just as likely to swallow their anxiety and present a brave face to the other kids.

[LadyShea]

Okay whatever, you're right. No kid has ever been burned or drank bleach in their own safe supervised home, and small children who feel traumatized and trapped are completely able to hide their emotions for over a month, and temporarily "roughing it" to a small extent is no different than malnourished, completely uneducated, third world kids running dangerous manufacturing machinery.

[livius drusus]

nope you totally didnt misread my intent at all.

i do think it is inherently harmful to put a bunch of kids in the middle of nowhere and let them form their own little society.

if kids were capable of forming their own little society we wouldnt need adults.
They weren't dumped out there completely alone, though, although if the stories about bleach and oil burns are accurate, I'd say the supervision was at the very least inadequate.

But the live-like-a-pioneer-kid-self-government idea itself doesn't seem inherently harmful at all to me. If their parents had been there, I would have thought it was actually pretty awesome. (I loved PBS 1900s House (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/1900house/).)

[viscousmemories]

...small children who feel traumatized and trapped are completely able to hide their emotions for over a month...
'Traumatized' was your word, not wildy's or mine. I think a kid might be unhappy and feel trapped without being traumatized, and that any kid could easily hide such feelings from their peers for six to eight weeks. If there's any relationship between what I said and the rest of your post I don't see it.

[LadyShea]

...small children who feel traumatized and trapped are completely able to hide their emotions for over a month...
'Traumatized' was your word, not wildy's or mine. I think a kid might be unhappy and feel trapped without being traumatized, and that any kid could easily hide such feelings from their peers for six to eight weeks. If there's any relationship between what I said and the rest of your post I don't see it.

You're right, I introduced the word traumatized.

I got homesick and cried my first year at camp, and felt "trapped" because my parents had paid a buttload of money to fulfill my desire to be there, and I didn't want to wuss out on them. It only lasted a day or so though and the remainder of the summer I found enriching. Is this analogous to what you were criticizing?

I fail to see a possibility lasting harm, or the possibility of drawing a conclusion that they were "forced" to stay against their will and/or being abused, if a kid felt merely homesick and unhappy, to the point of discomfort but not trauma.

[viscousmemories]

I didn't say anything about lasting harm, abuse or being forced to stay against their will either! All I did was agree with wildernesse that there isn't sufficient evidence to conclude that they could leave any time they wanted.

[LadyShea]

I didn't say anything about lasting harm, abuse or being forced to stay against their will either! All I did was agree with wildernesse that there isn't sufficient evidence to conclude that they could leave any time they wanted.


If they weren't being forced to stay against their will, then what other conclusion could safely be drawn other than that they could leave if they really wanted to? As I stated, parental coercion and pressure is possible, even probable, but that wouldn't be a problem with the scenario or producers.

I am really not trying to put words in anyones' mouths here, I just see some inconsistencies and am trying to understand the major criticism.

[Uthgar the Brazen]

My, what an eloquent 10-year old. At least on the second "Q&A" the editor remembered to put in "like" several times to try for a more realistic feel...

[Ari]

I'm going to take a stab and say that if grown adults can get caught up in an environment and not only feel trapped but to start to take on new roles (prisoner/guard) then debating over how a kid might deal with this using rational thought and logic seems a bit pointless.

My problem with it isn't as much the environment or the idea of the show but that CBS planned to cheat these kids out of proper treatment so they found ways around the law (or at least attempted to). It makes me wonder if there were no child labor laws what kind of show CBS would make.

[Adam]

I am really not trying to put words in anyones' mouths here, I just see some inconsistencies and am trying to understand the major criticism.

To clarify what I said earlier, it's not so much that I think the actual experience is directly harmful*, but that I think the whole setup, designed as it seems to be to skirt child labor laws, reintroduce historical abuses like the use scrip in a company town, etc., in the name of making a buck in reality TV, is exploitive. If the experience were offered as s summer camp rather than a reality show, I don't think I'd have a problem with it.

* - With the stated exceptions that a) it should have been done during the summer rather than during the school year, and that b) the adult supervision (not so much in the sense of someone to tell the kids what to do, but to keep them from getting injured) seems to have been lacking.

[wildernesse]

There is another article in NYTimes about this show--link (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/23/arts/television/23kids.html?hp)

Are the phrases quoted by the newspaper standard entertainment contract clauses? It makes me wonder if the parents and children had representation of their own before they signed up. Also, several of the participants seem to have been from Georgia, and I wonder if the show actively recruited from areas that would have less experience in the entertainment industry in the same way that they chose a state with laws that gave them more wiggle room.

[InTheServiceOfZeke]

here i am abusing my son by exposing him to the realities of tv...

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y115/michael1111/zekeanddada.jpg

shame on me.

[livius drusus]

Good God.

As is standard in such agreements, the parents and the children agreed not to hold the producers and CBS responsible if their children died or were injured, if they received inadequate medical care, or if their housing was unsafe and caused injury.

But while such agreements might be standard for adult participants in a reality show, it also takes on a different tone when the minor and the parent are being held solely responsible for any "emotional distress, illness, sexually transmitted diseases, H.I.V. and pregnancy" that might occur if the child "chooses to enter into an intimate relationship of any nature with another participant or any other person."

It's not 20 years olds partying on Real World Vegas, for chrissakes. These are little kids they're talking about. What kind of person thinks it's just dandy to treat kids like this just because adult contracts include such this sort of language?

As for the parents, I have to assume they didn't read what they signed, because that is some seriously disgusting shit.

[LadyShea]

Is such a contract even enforceable when the contracted person is a child? Surely child endangerment statutes would trump contractual agreements made on their behalf?

[wildernesse]

I don't think that the contract would be enforceable if it were against public policy or a crime--child abuse and endangerment would fall into those categories. It is probably boilerplate that wasn't intentionally written or allowed to remain with the idea of child actors involved, but it certainly doesn't look good.

[MonCapitan2002]

This is the part that got me.

Violating the confidentiality agreement carries a $5 million penalty. CBS and the production companies, Good TV Inc. and Magic Molehill Productions, retained the rights to the children’s life stories “in perpetuity and throughout the universe.” And that right includes the right to portray the children either accurately or with fictionalization “to achieve a humorous or satirical effect.”

So it looks like CBS can do whatever it wants with this material and in perpetuity regardless of how it makes these kids look. So these kid's life stories are now CBS's property? What if the one of the kids decided to write memoir about their experiences? Can the child be sued by CBS for writing about their own life? The idea that CBS now claims the right to these children's life stories for all time boggles my mind.

That has to be an exaggeration on the part of the New York Times reporter. I can't see anyway that a lawyer would actually leave such language in such a contract intact. Considering some creative interpretations, such language is ripe for all kinds of abuse.