Jackson Free Press

As I normally do on Thursdays, I was reading the Jackson Advocate and the Mississippi Link for news stories that I may have missed or that they exclusively covered. This one about one of the families featured in the Tom Brokaw special got my attention: http://www.mississippilink.net/index.php?id=226

I think we will all remember the Fameika Thomas story, the young lady who was rearing her two sisters because of her family's painful history with drugs, etc. Well, it seems as though the family is now saying that they didn't know all of that was going to be aired. According to the Mississippi Link story the younger sisters didn't know about their mother's drug problems and now that their lives have gotten national coverage they feel as though they were deceived.

Previous Comments

ID

107204

Comment

This story in the Link is a bit confusing to me. I was one of the ones who said that I didn't feel as though the coverage of Jackson was fair and a bit slanted, but it is hard for me to understand that this family didn't realize what they were saying when the cameras were rolling. The older daughter claimed that she didn't know the name of the show she was being interviewed for or that her mother's history was going to be exposed. She also says in the Link piece that she didn't know that her mother was going to be even be shown. If that was the case, why would you let them film at the graduation where your mother is sitting beside you? In my opinion, this is to me the only danger that I worried about when it came to an hour special that supposedly covered 8 or so months. You give these people access into your life to tell your story, but you don't want the whole story told. Unfortunately, when it comes to letting the cameras role on your life you can't pick and choose the truth you want told. I hate that they feel betrayed, but it was their decision to open the doors of lives.

Author

c a webb

Date

2006-07-27T23:14:36-06:00

ID

107205

Comment

Just one more point on this: it is also strange to me that the family has a problem with the drug addition of the mother being talked about, but nothing is said about the two younger sisters (Mable Thomas, 18, and Alexandria Thomas, 1) who wrote a rap laced with profanities about their classmates. This incident got them in trouble at school, and there we saw the older sister yelling at them AGAIN ON NATIONAL TELEVISION, but the girls thought it amusing enough to sing the song while the cameras were rolling.

Author

c a webb

Date

2006-07-27T23:17:51-06:00

ID

107206

Comment

my question is where did NBC get the information if not from the oldest daughter? And i can understand how the Thomas' feel ashamed about the public knowing about their family history (but why agree to the filming in the first place) but i did find their story inspirational. Fameika should feel proud of what she has done and accomplished.

Author

jd

Date

2006-07-28T00:43:59-06:00

ID

107207

Comment

jaydortch, your point is exactly what I was thinking. what people should realize that anything and everything you say while being a part of something like this is subject to be aired. maybe she got caught up in the whole experience, but i don't understand how the younger daughters didn't know in the first place. where did they think their mom was or what she was doing? did they not question why their older sister adopted them?

Author

c a webb

Date

2006-07-28T01:01:16-06:00

ID

107208

Comment

I don't get the fixation on the song. Looking at the transcript, it sounds like normal adolescent teasing to me--nothing like what was in, say, Columbine shooter Eric Harris' notebook. I think Brokaw was so desperate to make a hip-hop connection that he went way out there and he really shouldn't have. I mean, judging by the transcript (which may be a mistake), it seems to me that he covered all the usual bases--blame hip-hop, blame lack of education, blame multigenerational poverty, tut-tut about how bad off "those people" are, offer no constructive solutions, and end feeling righteous--and told us absolutely nothing that we didn't already know, though he packaged it well, choosing sympathetic folks to interview. It was a classic example of "rational elitism"--say something so insipid that N-JAM and the progressive community can both eat it up with a spoon, then exit stage left without putting anything on the line. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-07-28T04:03:05-06:00

ID

107209

Comment

Tom, i wasn't saying that the song was deadly, but it seemed odd to me that the three girls who were trying to beat the odds would fall into the trap of calling the so-called cool girls b!tches and haters. If you think I am going on about it, you should have seen the way the older sister was yelling at them about having recorded the song. Tom, to me it was not about hiphop, just not using good judgment. The main point i'm trying to make here is that if you wrote the song: fine. But why would you sing it for national television as a part of the representation of yourself, knowing how it could make you look? Or like I asked earlier was the glare of the lights and cameras prompting you to try and get your 15 minutes of fame. That's why I even started this thread. The idea of being on a special sounds so "glamorous" to some, thinking it will lead to their being famous. For others, however, it leads instead to their being infamous.

Author

c a webb

Date

2006-07-28T06:56:58-06:00

ID

107210

Comment

Confusing, indeed. Did they try to talk to NBC about this? This is a pretty intense accusation to make without getting NBC's response: A majority of sensitive, shocking family information NBC revealed was done without the knowledge or permission of the Jackson family. I believe that NBC likely did not tell the families the exact frame they were going to use, and can believe that they weren't as forthcoming as they could have been. That happens all the time, and is unfortunate. And it is a lesson when national media come trolling. But I doubt seriously that NBC doesn't have the signed releases they need to tell everyone they told in this piece. And who the heck is "Ramerez" who appears in the last sentence without notice? With due respect to the Link, this reads like an ambitious story that they couldn't, or didn't, quite pull off. Also, Tom, agreed on the "rational elitism" statement. The hip-hop segment was just dumb as it was presented and added nothing to the conversation.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-07-28T07:34:20-06:00

ID

107211

Comment

Donna, you are right: something is definitely missing, and I have no idea who "Ramerez" is or what he has to do with the story. Did you notice how the older sister said that the only reason NBC approached her was to talk with her sisters? Something about that is not right, because the way her segment was set up was how she was overcoming the odds. That was the tie-in with her family in the first-place. I also am not getting how the mother's four years drug-free was not something that was widely known. She says that they talk about it at work now---- and how her family is having to "fix" this situation now.

Author

c a webb

Date

2006-07-28T17:20:19-06:00

ID

107212

Comment

How many students could you find from JA, St. J., St. Andrews or for that matter, Callaway, or Murrah whose parent/guardian would allow Mr. Brocaw or anyone to spend 8 months filming without their consent and representation by a lawyer. One condition for publication could have been that the film would be viewed before it was broadcasted nationally.It was interesting that the Priesters played such a major role in the film production; however, with all of the expertise in law, no one looked after those kids to apprise them of what would/COULD become of the information once it was filmed. Again, this is the sadness of the poor and the uninformed. Sh## happens! And by George, it happens for a reason. Donna, if these people could figure out the ramifications of the post effects of this type of presentation, they would not be in this situation to start with. Brocaw wanted to do a story about Jackson, MS. He has done that and the purpose was not to lift Jackson up by reporting a balanced/fair documentary. Some of the crapp reminded me of the Jerry Springer Show and if you observed and listened closely, a lot of it was scripted, in my opinion.

Author

justjess

Date

2006-08-01T15:54:41-06:00

ID

107213

Comment

I doubt NBC would have agreed to let them view it before airing. That's a journalistic no-no; we would never agree to someone reading one of our stories before printing. Personally, I found the Priesters' role in this fascinating. Am I wrong that they are very close to Mr. Melton; I want to say that I've heard him say that he helped send their son to Harvard or such -- but I cannot swear to that. But, certainly, Judge Priester is the one who allowed him to pull that weird Vidal stunt. And Charlene Priester was an attorney in the YMCA lawsuit. Maybe they were there to protect Mr. Melton. ;-) He made out fine in this, considering the messes he's involved with. And with the national ACLU today accusing him of racial profiling, it could be that NBC missed a major story under their noses, eh? All that said, I doubt seriously that NBC really spoke to the families about the potential ramifications of all this. You'd think that the Lanier folks might have done that, or any others who were involved in setting NBC up with the families. And Best Practices dictate that journalists "first, do no harm" with people who aren't public figures. I agree with you: They seemed to be following a pre-ordained script, or narrative as I have called it in my editor's note to be published Wednesday.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-08-01T16:06:19-06:00