So last night 60 Minutes II does a piece about a guy bringing the sport of fencing to poor city kids. He shows them proper technique in “epee”, “foil” and “saber”.
I recall about a year ago seeing the exact same story, but replace “fencing” with “polo”. They took kids out of Harlem and had them riding around on horses smacking balls up in Connecticut or something.
I’m sure I’ve seen something similar about teaching them yachting, croquet, the violin, and probably flower arranging.
These stories are always the same thing . . . find some kid who used to be in a gang who turned his life around because of the “urban achievers cricket league”. Find a little kid whose dad is gone and his mom is working two jobs, so the teacher is the only role model in his life. Make sure the league is run by a tough guy who used to have problems of his own and takes no crap from the tough kids. Usually you should include 30 seconds of the interviewer going through the program so they can express a personal opinion about it.
I don’t pit the actual programs at all – I’m sure they are helpful for some of the kids. But rather, “60 Minutes” for thinking these things are interesting, or even unique. The simple fact that they can turn up one of these “riches-for-rags” stories per year is in itself indicative that its not newsworthy.
I suspect that the rich benefactors behind these programs somehow have pull with the rich producers of 60 Minutes and so they get these puff pieces aired.
Get over yourselves, 60 Minutes.
How about showing some real life stories of the down-trodden. Who knows? The ubiquity of drugs? A dearth of rehab clinics? Exploitative check cashing joints? What trying to get an education in these neighborhoods is like?