ABC Pretends Altruism

The need for entertainment drives much of network television. This includes programs that purport to a didactic end and pretend altruism.

The American Broadcasting Company (ABC) has a series called What Would You DO? Scenes are staged so passersby can observe a person in need and then show their concern by doing something ‑ or not.

The idea is that Americans do not intervene in the affairs of others enough.

A recent experiment had a man laying on a sidewalk. Many people passed him without giving aid. I can understand not approaching the person to give personal aid. But, I would expect some of the persons present would be capable of calling authorities to obtain competent assistance.

The avoidance of involvement is nothing new. The Kitty Genovese affair received much attention and remains a symbol of the public turning its back on a person in need. Genovese was stabbed to death on 13 March, 1964 near her home. The assailant attacked her three times. According to an article in the New York Times, thirty‑eight people witnessed the crime and did nothing. The journalist sensationalism was accompanied by hand‑wringing.

A September, 2007 article in American Psychologist has shown that the number of witnesses to the Genovese murder was not even close to the thirty‑eight claimed. Some people heard noises but believed them to be normal street noise. One person did shout and frighten off the attacker but assumed it was simply an argument. Two persons may have actually witnessed an attack. Genovese had crawled out of sight when her assailant fled after the first attack. Some persons did contact the police.

This incident prompted research into what is called the bystander effect. This is the occurrence of not getting involved in a situation where the appearance of needed aid is present.

There are behaviors that contribute to the effect. Two are labeled social proof and diffusion of responsibility. The first simply means that people look to others for the correct response in an ambiguous situation. The second is a social assumption that someone must have already acted.

I would like to propose a nearest neighbor factor. That is we use the behaviors of those only in close proximity to constrain or alter our own behaviors. This would be true in a mob or panic as well. This is the kind of behavior often found in flocks orÂ schools. This is not the same as social proof. This is simply behavior without thought. It is only observing those nearest to us with a glance. We humans are not as cognitive as we believe ourselves to be.

The What Would You Do? series doesn’t address these built‑in human behaviors. Nor does it address valid concerns of citizens regarding intervention. These concerns are that the incident can be staged with the intent of causing harm to the helpful person. The intervener can cause more damage by simple ignorance and open themselves to legal actions. The incident is not what it appears to be. And, intervention can cause an escalation of an existing problem.

So there can be some valid concerns about direct involvement. But, there remains the option that someone contact authorities.

There is a big blemish that has appeared in the series. Gender feminism and its bigotry were demonstrated on a setup involving persons appearing exactly like members of the Fundamentalist Church of the Latter Day Saints (FLDS). It was the FLDS that was the stated target from the start.

ABC’s John Quinones narrated the program that aired on 17 March, 2009, and made sure the viewer was aware that he was holding the FLDS out for public denigration.

The staging had a group of people sitting in a restaurant. They were dressed in the distinctive FLDS clothing, and the females had the FLDS hairstyle.

The group consisted of the obligatory patriarch (like Abraham) and several wives including a new fifteen‑year‑old bride to be. The scene had the new bride loudly complaining about her plight and the patriarch issuing threats.

The group was the only one in the area that had the appearance of outsiders. The sting was in.

There was a time during the skit when the group left the supposed child bride without any supervision for several minutes. The situation was truly fake. Even this group stopping in a public place to loudly discuss the problem is fakery. But, the naive bit the hook.

It is illegal in most states for fifteen‑year‑olds to wed without parental consent. So if the concern were for legality of the situation, a call to the police would be appropriate. And, that did occur, but ABC was not cited for responsibility for filing a false report.

Two adult females stepped in to offer the take the youth bride to their home. That could be illegal. The act of grabbing a teenager and taking them home is not an alternative to getting police involved. And, the women taking the child could find themselves facing sexual assault charges as well.

The putative hero of the tale was a woman who said she was a former wife in polygamy. She now has a mission to convert all wives to monogamy. The zeal of the True Believer shows that she believes she is more capable of making personal decisions for other adult females than adults themselves.

In the end, ABC engaged in manipulations of people and passed it off as public service. The intent was entertainment, and it used stereotyping and labeling as the means to the end. This airing also presented the ravings of gender feminists as legitimate statements.

This setup was staged with a very specific target, and the male patriarch was speaking lines that highlighted his evil shows how manipulative the gender feminists and ABC really are. This also demonstrated how gullible many people are.

The good folks at ABC have not presented any methodology for people to react to situations that might require intervention. There has been no explanation for persons who do not want to directly intervene about how and why to contact authorities better trained to deal with the public. There has been no attempt to warn people that getting physically involved can be hazardous to their own health. The program is drivel pretending to be goodness.