Advanced System Suckology Case Study: The Relationship Between Media And CPS

Another in depth analysis from the think tank Legally Kidnapped:

Advanced System Suckology Case Study: The Relationship Between Media And CPS

 0digg

Good morning to all of my dearly beloved readers. I really feel the need to analyze this article, as this is an important one. Why is it so important? Because it is one of the very rare articles that actually discusses the relationship between the media and the Child Protective Industry. This relationship has been somewhat of a special interest of mine, and is often the underlying topic behind the System Suckology articles that I have been posting over the last year or so.

Baby P report: social work journalism 'one-dimensional'

Some of this I agree with. Some of it I don't. The Wex often writes about bad journalism and how it leads to what he calls "foster care panic" and what I often refer to as "child abuse hysteria."


The article begins with by telling us about the criticism that Journalists are currently enjoying over their portrayal of the Baby Pthis kid to rest. I see his picture in my news feeds regularly.


This media exploitation led to public outrage against the child protection system. How could they let this happen? Social workers saw this kid more than 60 times. Had they done their jobs, this kid would still be alive today, and while that may be true the newspapers have certainly made a killing off of this kid, as it has been stated many times over the years, "Enquiring minds want to know."


See, they don't care. They don't care about the readers, they don't care about the reputations of the innocent. They focus on what sells newspapers. This is a business. You are not only the consumer, but you are also the product. The more newspapers they sell, the more valuable are their advertising slots. Their advertising slots are only of value when viewed by people. More so when an article is continued on page B-12 right under a half page advertisement, as they are in a more susceptible frame of mind when they turn that page.


Lets also not forget the fact that the mainstream media is owned, operated and controlled by a very few very wealthy and powerful multinational corporations. Therefore the mainstream media is friendly to and concerned about corporate interests. They develop relationships with the public relations departments of government agencies and corporations. They publish press releases, often without verification of the truth or accuracy of such information. Often times what is published is biased, opinionated, or flat out designed to sway the values and belief system of society into believing or acting a certain way.

The report by Professor Eileen Monro claimed that “one-dimensional” reporting could potentially make the child protection system less safe for children.


Monro cited an analysis on the reporting of social work and child protection issues in England between 1 July, 1997, and 30 June, 1998.


During that period almost 2,000 articles were produced on social work and social services, 80 per cent of which were negative. She said that common words used by journalists in stories about social workers were ‘incompetent’, ‘negligent’, ‘failed’, ‘ineffective’, ‘misguided’ and ‘bungling’.

There is an element of truth to this part of the article. I agree with Professor Monroe's assessment as stated literally. What I disagree with is that Professor Monroe seems to disagree with these stated descriptors of social workers. So there is an implied meaning here that Professor Monroe does not agree that British Social Workers are ‘incompetent’, ‘negligent’, ‘failed’, ‘ineffective’, ‘misguided’ and ‘bungling’.






I do not agree with the implied meaning, as social workers often fit these descriptors to a tee. Of course there are other descriptors that I would have added into this, such as 'liars', jack booted thugs', 'sadistic', self-righteous hypocrites', 'con artists', and 'frauds', but I would imagine that Professor Monroe did not find such adjectives in the articles that she studied.

Monro’s solution is for an overhaul in how social workers handle PR.

In other words, have the media banned from digging for the truth via strict confidentiality laws and release only that which they want you to know. This will enable the child protective industry to sweep such major screw-ups such as the Baby P case under the rug, as the general public will only hinder the cause, regardless of the fact that this particular case led to a rather large increase in business for Social Services. This will also enable them to control the flow of information to the public, which is going to believe whatever they see on TV either way, as the normal people of the world tend to be a rather easily misled and reactive bunch to what they experience with the senses. Video is imagery mixed with sound. An engaged viewer is often in a trance.


What the media did in the Baby P case was to create the greatest example of Child Abuse Hysteria that I have ever seen. In the aftermath, child removals went through the roof. Child protection policies, guided by political correctness and paranoia went as far as to ban parents from taking pictures at a school play and black out the eyes of children in the school yearbook.

As a solution, Professor Monroe suggests the following.

She said: “Given the sustained nature of the negative media images of social work that have been commonplace, social workers and social work employers should also take the opportunity to work proactively with local and regional media to present a more positive, balanced view of social work and its importance to society. "

However, such a portrayal of social workers, especially in the profession of child snatching, child marketing, child storage and conditioning, what have you could not be accurate if such a goal were to be achieved. In order to create a more positive portrayal of such social workers, you must eliminate fraud, lies, incompetence, etc from the story. Then you add in how foster parents open their hearts and homes to take in the poor abused and neglected children of the world and you come up with a belief system similar to that which is shared by most Americans. Which is that the Child Protective Industry works for the greater good.


Nor would such stories be considered newsworthy, at least not in a way that would sell newspapers and would therefore be tucked away into the middle of the paper under the guise of a human interest story.Kids getting murdered at the hands of psychopathic freaks on the other hand will be pasted on the front page for months or years to come. Simply because that's the sort of thing that sells papers. That's the sort of thing that causes the normal people to buy or to watch. That's the sort of thing that the normal people want to read about.

Under her recommendations, a new College of Social work will be established to "improve public understanding in relation to social work".

With the proper spin, any tragedy can be a benefit.

This is in response to senior journalists commenting on the “lack of a clear, strong voice for social work”


Through its policy and communications unit, the college would be involved in “developing a range of tools and services that can help support social workers, their employers and the media to work together to promote a more balanced public image of social work”.


Resources for journalists would include a pool of communications staff to deal with the media.

Control the flow of information and you will control society.

In the report, Munro told journalists: “Presenting the full picture in relation to the complexities of child protection can help society to understand more about what child protection work entails."

And it will help them to cover up all the fraud too. That way the child protective industry and all of its supporters, contractors, and beneficiaries will continue the path of increasing profits via the manufacturing of public tax payer support of the child protective industry and the foster care system, which is good for the economy.


So for all the negative's there are positives. For the child protective industry, the case of Baby P and the media's portrayal has led to a rather large increase in child removals in the UK. More kids available for adoption. More money being pumped into the system from the taxpayer.

Ricky Holland: The U.S. Version of Baby P

Michigan OCO Ricky Holland Investigative Report

Second Baby P Report Is Scathing

Second Serious Case Overview Report Relating to Peter Connelly Dated March 2009

Better Safe Than Sorry

This is a story out of the U.K. documenting the hysteria in child protective services after the death of Baby P.  You will have to do a search on the term "Baby P" on Legally Kidnapped to find the articles.  Baby LK has informed me that there are more than 300 stories on this.

Basically, this is what happened:

In 2003, Victoria Climbie was murdered in foster care.

In 2003, Lord Laming published findings with recommendations on the murder.

Lord Laming Report on the Murder of Victoria Climbie 2003

In 2007, Baby P was murdered.

In 2008, Lord Laming's recommendations were implemented.

In March 2009, annual review was made on the implementations.

Laming One Year on March 2010

As a result of the events, there has been mass hysteria in the U.K. leading to exponentially increase in the rates of removal.  No wonder why U.S. children are not receiving required preventive screening.  You might have your kid snatched!

Better safe than sorry, as Reno would say.

Baby P child abuse guidelines patronising to doctors — and dangerous
Camilla Cavendish: commentary

Doctors exercise their professional judgment every day. That is what we pay them for. There are very few doctors who, on finding a cigarette burn or an adult bite mark on a child, would not conduct a complete examination and, if necessary, contact social services. Those are classic signs of child abuse that have become, for tragic reasons, all too well known to the professionals.

To imply that doctors need new guidelines, which virtually order them to contact social services if they are in any doubt about a child, seems a little patronising. It is also dangerous. It reads like an exercise in back-covering that will encourage the over-reporting of everything from frequent crying to harmless bruises.

Several parents have told me that they have not taken their child to A&E because they were afraid a doctor might get the wrong idea and contact social services. One was a single father whose four-year-old tearaway was for ever falling over in the playground.

Another couple — lawyers — have a seven-year-old boy who had a painful penis. His mother asked her husband to turn the car around half way to hospital, because, she told me, she feared “the way the wind was blowing”.

RELATED LINKS
Analysis: Baby P reforms will do little to help
Ministers accused of failing after Baby P
Plea to put more children in care
I also know several women who have not sought help for post-natal depression because they, rightly or wrongly, were afraid that their doctor or health visitor might “report” them.

It is a terrible state of affairs when people start to see doctors as part of a hostile state apparatus rather than as trusted and caring professionals.

The irony is that the less trusted they are, the less authority they will wield over the parents whose children do desperately need protection — particularly when they are being told to detain children in hospital.

The guidance seems to have been sparked by the failure to save the life of Baby P, whose mother tried to cover up the extent of his horrific injuries. That he was already on the at-risk register makes it even more extraordinary that a paediatrician did not properly examine him.

Victoria Climbié, who died seven years earlier, was also on the at-risk register and was seen by several health workers, all of whom seem to have assumed that someone else — usually social services — was taking responsibility for recording her injuries and taking action. The answer must surely be to ensure that children on the at-risk register are examined regularly. That does not require a giant, counter-productive bureaucracy.

The BMA guidance fits a familiar pattern of encouraging public servants to generate “information” on which other agencies will feel they must act. This may stay on file despite all attempts by an innocent family to remove it.

One result is that overworked social workers are deluged in still more pieces of paper. Another is that doctors whose primary job is to treat patients will have been co-opted into a system which routinely breaks the age-old principle of patient confidentiality — apparently without a murmur of protest.

Most Medicaid Children in Nine States Are Not Receiving All Required Preventive Screening 2010