Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => The Troubled Teen Industry => Topic started by: Anonymous on September 22, 2003, 04:29:00 PM
-
Why has the Sharon Osbourne Show backed off the WWASP report? Is there a connection between her and Barbara Walter's refusal to question the "behavior modification" program's that she once had her daughter in? Also, is Barbara Walter's afraid that airing a program on WWASP will hurt her daughter's own "Wilderness Program"? Who is the enemy? The abusers or the people who choose to remain quiet.
-
They probably know how incredibly irresponsible they would look if they did. :rofl:
-
who said she backed off? same with 20/20, i didn't hear they backed off. maybe waiting for the right timing.
-
Sounds familiar. I found out just a year or so ago that Nancy Reagan and Mike Wallace's mother were close friends. Sort of meshes w/ Wallace's softball treatment toward Straight on 60 Minutes back in the 80's.
Which TC did Baba Wawa have her daughter in? And what's the dish on Sharon Osbourn doing a show on WWASP?
America when will you be angelic
When will you take off your clothes....
America after all it is you and I who are perfect
Not the next world.
--Allen Ginsberg
-
Barbara's daughter was at CEDU's. Rocky Mountain Academy. That is what I heard. Dont know about Sharon O. But I think her new talk show is not about serious issues, but who knows.
-
http://www.daughtersatrisk.com/update.html (http://www.daughtersatrisk.com/update.html)
By the time Jacqueline Danforth, a Dalton student, was fifteen years old, she was into drugs, gangs, and alcohol. It was time for drastic action. Her mother, Barbara Walters, researched different options and Jackie entered the Rocky Mountain Academy, a 3-year degree-granting (high school diploma) wilderness school in Idaho. After 3 and 1/2 years, Jackie graduated with much more than a high school degree. ?It was a place where people cared, where people understood and were honest.? Although not agreeing with certain techniques used such as sleep deprivation, the program helped her and others achieve self-esteem and feel good about themselves.
http://www.daughtersatrisk.com/news.html (http://www.daughtersatrisk.com/news.html)
Other articles at New Horizons website, Jacqueline's program.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/822841.asp (http://www.msnbc.com/news/822841.asp)
Jane Pauley talks with Barbara Walters and her daughter Jackie Danforth about Jackie's troubled childhood and her efforts to help troubled teens today
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... &forum=9&5 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=3012&forum=9&5)
-
I'm confused, anon are you saying ABC 20/20 bailed on doing a story and if so, then Barbara Walters had something to do with it? That does not make sense. Any publicity, even negative, is good for this industry and if anything, her daughter's program would have benefited from the name recognition.
:???:
-
$25,000 for a mere 9 weeks! OUCH!!
-
She has a good idea here. She was at her program for 3 years and knows it takes "time" to make changes. I read the first article and she said she will start a "3 year program" which doesn't make a lot of sense ... I mean putting a time frame to it.
Barbara and any reputable reporter won't do the sensationalized reporting that the New York TImes or other less notable reporters BECAUSE they know that within any intervention program, there will be allegations of abuse. Since Barbara is so familiar with this with her experience with her own daughter, she would never go there, in my opinion.
I'm not familiar with CEDU, however, I've read the same allegations of abuse that are posted about WWASPS. Some of you say that kids at wwasp who have never met each other say the same things when it comes to abuse - guess what? It's the same stories they tell from CEDU or ANY of the programs.
Actually, I would send my kid to a wwasp program without any reservations, guilt feelings or fear. You know why? Unlike the hundreds of other programs for troubled teens, wwasp is under the microscope. They've always been among the safest in the industry, and right now, they could be THE safest.
That's why these news reports, articles and bashing are a good thing. I 'm not saying that some kids weren't mistreated by a staff member, but know that when it did happen the staff person was fired...probably the same ones that are now telling horror stories to get even. Their PR firm will be making recommendations, I'm sure.
So keep up the bashing. It's already made a positive difference for wwasp. :razz:
-
On 2003-09-22 20:02:00, Anonymous wrote:
"That's why these news reports, articles and bashing are a good thing. I 'm not saying that some kids weren't mistreated by a staff member, but know that when it did happen the staff person was fired...probably the same ones that are now telling horror stories to get even. Their PR firm will be making recommendations, I'm sure."
Do you know how many times wwasp has fired an employee then re-hired them? They tell the parents when they let an employee go for inappropriate behavior but then they neglect to update the parents when the same staff person is back after a few weeks.
-
WWASP has had more than a few complaints of abuse. They have had 7+ programs shut down.
-
As a reporter it is Barbara's duty to report the NEWS! I would say allegations of inhumane treatment of our children is a very BIG story. As far as waiting until the right time, when is the right time?! When someone else DIES! Come on people,NOW IS THE TIME!!!
-
It's frightening to think about it, but facts is facts. If Baba Wawa is a member or dedicated former member of a TOUGHLOVE hategroup, then she is simply not going to report the truth about the program because she can't see the truth about the program.
That's the power of cultism; the cult members identify so strongly with the cult philosophy and identity that any criticizm of it is a personal affront to them. My mother doesn't hate me because I'm ugly or stupid. My mother hates me because I won't accept TOUGHLOVE as a fair substitute for real love. I've never done anything to that woman but turn my back and walk away when I finally couldn't take any more abuse from her. I wonder how Baba's relationship with her daughter is.
If Baba has a conflict of interests that prevents her reporting objectively about her cult, then forget about her and try and get the word out to journalists who will report the story. If I am of the opinion that it is inexpedient to assign to the government the task of operating railroads, hotels, or mines, I am not an "enemy of the state" any more than I can be called an enemy of sulfuric acid because I am of the opinion that, useful though it may be for many purposes, it is not suitable either for drinking, or for washing one's hands.
Ludwig Von Mises
-
While all programs for children will have allegations of abuse -- not only because some kids lie, but because the employees are underpaid, undertrained, underscreened and often attracted to that work because they are pedophiles to begin with-- good programs will not move out of the country or from state to state. A good program may have one site shut by overzealous regulators, perhaps (highly unlikely, but possible)-- but not more than one.
Good programs will also not use restraint and isolation for punishment (in fact, good psychiatric facilities have reports of one or two uses of restraint A YEAR, not one a day-- which are heavily documented; good teen drug programs don't use restraint and isolation at all).
Good programs don't use attack therapy, humiliation, point systems that put a kid back to square one for one bad day, seminars based on est and have a complete lack of trained staff. Good programs will have-- indeed invite-- oversight and will have a legitimate way that complaints can be checked out built into their own procedures. Good programs will not tell parents to expect, and discount, accounts of abuse. Good programs don't assume that the kids are always wrong and the staff is always right.
Good programs will not keep people in isolation for days-- let alone months. Good programs may have lousy food-- but at least they'll have large portions of reasonably nutritional stuff and won't use deprivation as punishment.
Good programs will not advertise themselves on one site as a boot camp, on another as an emotional growth school, on another as a boarding school, on another as a wilderness program-- all for the same exact program.
Good programs won't accept kids just based on parents' say-so-- they will require a diagnosis and evidence that residential treatment is the least restrictive setting.
Good programs treat kids and parents with dignity and respect and recognize that while structure is important, so is fairness and that giving peers who are themselves disturbed power over others is inviting abuse.
-
Right On! Now that is a logical mind. This is a person who did their homework and approched this subject with thought and reasoning. Good on you!
-
Good programs do not PAY finder's fees to schmucks that "find" $40k placements for them.
-
On 2003-09-23 06:39:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Good programs do not PAY finder's fees to schmucks that "find" $40k placements for them.
"
Would you care to share the names of any programs for troubled teens that don't pay educational consultants (the schmucks?) Educational consultants also charge the parents high fees - so they're getting paid on both ends.
and the post above this one about good programs - care to share the names of "good" programs?
Seems like Barbara W has a great relationship with her daughter. Her daughter is grateful that her mom found help for her - what's all this garbage about family help being a cult?
-
Did you read the interview with Jane Pauly? Are you trying to redefine what constitutes a "good relationship"? They are civil and put on a good act to benefit Jac's program. That's my interpretation.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/822841.asp (http://www.msnbc.com/news/822841.asp)
?I?m doing an interview like this because Jackie said to me, ?Tell other parents,?? says Walters.
Tell them, Mommy, if it can happen to you, it can happen in any family.?
Jane Pauley: ?So you didn?t take maternity leave??
Barbara Walters: ?No.?
?There was no having it all,? says Walters. ?And there was not really a career for women. I never thought about it. I didn?t think, ?Can I juggle both?? I probably should have.
Jackie Danforth: ?She used to say that some mothers have babies from their tummies, and some have it from their heart. And you came from my heart.?
But while her feelings didn?t show, Jackie sensed that something was wrong with the picture.
?I think that somewhere inside you think, ?Why did people give me up??? says Jackie. ?I think that played a big, big part of it. I think that my mother being who she is played a huge part of it.?
Jane Pauley: ?Your mother?s nature, just as you have your own nature, your mother?s was very driven. I mean, she loved her work ? loves her work,
Jackie Danforth: ?Yes.?
Jane Pauley (laughing): ?I wish she didn?t love her work so much.?
Jackie Danforth: ?She loves her work.?
Jane Pauley: ?How much trouble were you really, potentially in??
Jackie Danforth: ?I would have been dead.?
Jackie Danforth: ?At that point in my life, for some reason I looked around. And I thought, you know what? This is not a bad thing. If my mom hadn?t called that transport company, I?d have been dead.?
Jane Pauley: ?Are you looking forward to being a mother yourself??
Jackie Danforth: ?No.?
Jackie has learned a lot about being a parent, but mostly that she never wants to be one.
Jane Pauley: ?That?s a firm decision??
Jackie Danforth: ?That?s a firm decision. I run a business. I don?t have a lot of time and it would be selfish of me to have a child. I couldn?t give a lot of time to that child.?
[Hmm....might BW have thought about this before she adopted a child she had no time for? Could that have affected her daughter's decision?]
Jane Pauley: ?Does your mother know about this??
Jackie Danforth: ?Yes. And it?s a very sore subject with us.?
Jane Pauley: ?She wanted grandchildren.?
Jackie Danforth: ?She wants grandchildren bad. She loves kids. My mom is the most nurturing person in the world.?
Jane Pauley: ?What if she never gives you grandchildren??
Barbara Walters: ?I don?t think she will give me grandchildren.The children that she is helping now are her life.?
Today Jackie Danforth has come full circle. Now she runs a wilderness program called ?New Horizons? in northern Maine, devoted to rescuing other people?s daughters ? troubled teenagers like she used to be.
Just like Jackie, half a lifetime ago, the girls come with nothing but their troubles and the clothes they are wearing. There is no makeup, no razors, no jewelry, no cell phones. And NO CONTACT WITH HOME.
[ This Message was edited by: Deborah on 2003-09-23 16:20 ]
-
Deborah - yes, that's your interpretation. My interpretation is that it took a great amount of courage and love to tell this story. :wink:
-
And, it could be that Barbara felt it was the least she could do, as she obviously had no time for her daughter when she was growing up, to offer her name and reputation in support of Jac's program.
-
Deborah - It sounds like your interpretation is the same as you would say to yourself about your own child. I agree with the interpretation that it took a lot of love and courage to go on national tv and share their story. And yes, Jac may have benefited from the exposure, but in reading the transcript, I didn't get that was her purpose. If Barbara helped even one parent find the help they needed, then it was all worth it.
-
*** Deborah - It sounds like your interpretation is the same as you would say to yourself about your own child.
Care to clarify or elaborate on this comment? I resent your attempt to speak for me with no knowledge of me personally. That's just rude and desperate.
-
If Barbara helps even one parent....??
I could tell you how preposterous this is, but my bullshit-meter has been broken since the last time somebody said "Your only choice for your child is the Program, jail, or the cemetery"
Who brainwashed you into accepting this absurd proposition as a valid decision-rule? May I suggest several alternative standards by which you could evaluate Barbara? Please consider a few others:
" If Barbara helps even one parent to send a child to an institution where even one child feels obliged to jump off the roof, then the parent is guilty of child abuse, and Barabara is an accessory before the fact." or...
" If Barbara helps even one parent to send a child to an institution which abuses 10 children for every one that is convinced that they have been helped, then one must conclude that the harm that is being grossly outweighs the benefit to the 'one parent' and the institution should be closed."
-
Are we talking about the rich taking care of the rich here? Is Sharon who appears to be a stand up kind of person, protecting Barbara's decision to send her daughter to a similar program for three years of her young life? In other words, if Sharon and Barbara have talked about the WWASP story coming out and the possible fall out, is this why Sharon has backed off? It seem's there must be a reason why 2 T.V. show's, who at one time were very hot on this subject, have now backed off. Is it "one hand washing the other"?
-
Ozzy! Save us! :grin: