Julie’s News from Maryland

I heard this week on various news sources that Bill O’Reilly from Fox News commented on his TV show that Shawn Hornbeck, the young boy that was recently found after having been kidnapped 4 years ago, didn’t escape or ask for help from police because he liked living with his kidnapper.  O’Reilly claimed that he doesn’t believe that Shawn was affected by Stockholm syndrome, but rather preferred living with his kidnapper rather than his parents because he didn’t have to go to school.

My initial reaction was outrage that anyone could think that.  I thought it unfathomable that anyone could believe that a young child would prefer being raped regularly than going to school.  It just doesn’t seem possible than any rational adult would believe that.  And then it hit me: O’Reilly doesn’t really believe that.  He knows that no one would prefer being raped and abused to going to school.  He knows that a child would be scared and lonely and tortured in that situation.  O’Reilly didn’t say that because he thinks it is true, he said that for the money.

Television and television shows are about money.  TV shows make money.  The more ratings a show gets, the more advertisers it gets, which means more money for the network and those associated with the show.  O’Reilly knows that when he says something controversial that everyone will talk about it (just as they have done) and more people will tune into his TV show and he’ll make more money.

I think this disgusts me even more than the idea that O’Reilly actually believes this is true.  It’s one thing to say controversial, and potentially untrue things (read LIES) about public figures: politicians, actors, hotel heiresses.  People that have deliberately put themselves in the public spotlight are subject to scrutiny, even by people that tell lies about them.  But to deliberately tell a lie about a child - a child that was kidnapped, held in captivity, and raped for 4 years - all to make another buck, that is despicable.  This poor child has been abused at the hands of an adult male for 4 years, he certainly doesn’t need any more adults abusing him by questioning the choices he made while in captivity.

I guess I could be wrong.  Maybe O’Reilly really is that ignorant and naive about the situations of children that are abused.  Or worse, maybe O’Reilly was abused as a child and is in such deep denial about his own pain that he can’t recognize the pain of others.  But it is hard for me to believe that someone that is educated and successful says such a thing without having full knowledge of its affect.