Parenting

Sunday, November 29, 2009

Octomom puts herself -- and her kids -- back in the spotlight

photo credit: AP Photo/Nick Ut

photo credit: AP Photo/Nick Ut

The ink is barely dry on the multi-year reality TV deal Nadya Suleman inked with U.K. company Eyeworks last month. Now, Fox TV has announced that it will air a two-hour special on the single mom of 14 as soon as next week.

Why do we keep extending her 15 minutes of fame?

The program will use footage originally shot by Radar Online, which was reportedly cited by the California Labor Commission recently for having violated child labor laws by failing to get the proper permits and by videotaping Suleman’s infant octuplets for too long. Fox says its Aug. 19 special will be made up of “never-before-seen” footage, some from as far back as the octuplet’s birth in January.
 
I’m no fan of reality TV shows -- especially ones involving kids -- but this seems even worse to me, somehow. At least there’s some kind of scripting, some sort of lesson, no matter how flimsy, when it comes to most so-called reality TV. This is just a clips reel of outtakes that weren’t fit for consumption when they were shot by a website months ago. Aside from the train-wreck curious, voyeuristic aspect of it, what’s the point?

When news broke of her reality deal in July, I felt sorry for her. Of course she needs to earn money to take care of her kids, and how many ways are there, really, for a single mom of 14 kids to do that? Her kids will earn about $250,000 altogether from the Eyeworks agreement (no word on how much Suleman herself will get from the deal) and Fox says they will “set aside a six-figure sum for Suleman's children” for this two-hour production, even though they’re not legally obligated to pay them. That's better than using food stamps and state aid, or providing for her children with money from her student loans, right? Her kids will earn about $250,000 altogether from the Eyeworks agreement (no word on how much Suleman herself will get from the deal) and Fox says they will “set aside a six-figure sum for Suleman's children” for this two-hour production, even though they’re not legally obligated to pay them.

Still... I get the feeling that this isn't just about the money, anymore. It's about celebrity. And I'm not sure who's most to blame. Suleman, for selling out her kids? Fox TV, for ordering the special? The media, for writing about and promoting it? Or the rest of us, for wanting to watch?

Lylah M. Alphonse writes about juggling career and parenthood at
The 36-Hour Day and Work It, Mom!, is the Child Caring columnist for Boston.com/Moms, and blogs at Write. Edit. Repeat.
Syndication:

From the Community…

Comments 1-10 of 32
  • anonymous whatever's Avatar
    Posted by anonymous whatever Mon Aug 10, 2009 7:00pm PDT

    BOYCOTT CIRCUS FREAK SHOWS WITH MOMS WHO SPIT OUT LITTERS!!

    It is disgusting and needs to shop. DHS needs to take away her children since she cannot provide for them and is exploiting her kids which should be illegal!

    I am tired of watching insta-families because they are too selfish to only have one egg implanted during the use of fertility treatments.

    BE WISE.. don't support BAD BEHAVIOR BY BAD MOMS!

    Report Abuse
  • Yliana's Avatar
    Posted by Yliana Mon Aug 10, 2009 7:14pm PDT

    Uually I dislike to read such harsh comments as the one posted by anonymous whatever, but, in this case, I feel the same way. Especially about the first statement, 'litters' thats what I call it too!

    I'm not one to advocate government legislation of people's personal lives but I think there should be a law against that kind of fertility treatment. I mean if Donald Trump's wife, or some other mega rich person who can afford umpteen kids, wants it, fine, but there should be some kind of wealth screening before giving someone a kid-un-friendly payday like that. It's unhealthy for the innocent children involved!

    Report Abuse
  • ChiBulls09's Avatar
    Posted by ChiBulls09 Mon Aug 10, 2009 9:03pm PDT

    I agree with Anonymous. There was only one thing on homegirls mind : MONEY

    Report Abuse
  • Dubs's Avatar
    Posted by Dubs Mon Aug 10, 2009 10:44pm PDT

    This is about as wrong as having a show where a guy who's sired dozens of children with multiple women living under one roof. It could be called "Polygamists Gone Wild" starring Warren Jeffs.

    In one episode, the Duggars, Gosselins and Octomom meet up with the Jeffs and all head to Waco Texas to pay their respects to the Branch Davidians only to be chased into a building by Janet Reno and the infamous torch bearing ATF & FBI...all running around to a score of Benny Hill chase music.

    After shooting the episode all you would hear would be...."Where's my kid?"

    I'd totally watch it. :P

    Report Abuse
  • kim r's Avatar
    Posted by kim r Tue Aug 11, 2009 5:28am PDT

    Ditto to all the above.

    Report Abuse
  • another hockey fan's Avatar
    Posted by another hockey fan Tue Aug 11, 2009 6:24am PDT

    Here's a perfect example of a woman who exploited her kids from day one and doesn't seem to give a crap about it. Her and the Gosselin's. The only family I don't agree is exploiting their children is the Duggers. Fame or not, they are still the same loving and supportive non materialistic family and you don't see them doing or saying things that demoralize themselves or their beliefs. I'd like to see Octomom and Kate and Jon offer to build an addition to another family's home purely out of the goodness of their hearts. That will never happen. At least the Dugger's are showing a positive aspect to reality TV.

    Report Abuse
  • MeganW's Avatar
    Posted by MeganW Tue Aug 11, 2009 6:34am PDT

    First of all referring to these children as "litters" is inexcusable. Are you saying that if you make under a certain amount of money, the children that they aren't really children at all? They are litters right, not worthy of our tax dollars? The comments above make me sick. Our society has a history of comparing people of color to animals so whether you realize it or not its an extremely racist as well as classist comment. And as far as the wealth screening component...I guess only rich people deserve a chance to have a child.

    Report Abuse
  • Princess's Avatar
    Posted by Princess Tue Aug 11, 2009 7:08am PDT

    Wow MeganW you obviously have some issues and you need seek therapy!

    Describing a overwhelming amount of kids in one family using the term "litter" is not a RACIST explanation. No one said "Suleman is an animal", you are being hypersensitive and reading your own hatred for people not of YOUR color falsely into these comments.

    No one said they were not children, but they did in fact say that Suleman can not care for the children on her own. Her mother said so herself. These innocent children have been the tax-payers burden, and the only way to get around that is for her to exploit them.

    Everyone deserves a chance to have a child (if they want to), only the rich can afford to be foolish about they way they do it. Suleman was and still is very irresponsible and immature.

    I wish you well in seeking to find peace in your heart towards people not of YOUR color.

    Report Abuse
  • Kathy's Avatar
    Posted by Kathy Tue Aug 11, 2009 7:59am PDT

    I'll pass on watching this show. There are plenty of good books to read instead.

    Report Abuse
  • impatientmom's Avatar
    Posted by impatientmom Tue Aug 11, 2009 8:03am PDT

    I DOUBT that octo w----mom's kids will see any of the money they get from this deal. She'll probably use it for plastic surgery, fancy cars, or something else FOR HERSELF! If one of those 14 kids doesn't get homicidal, it would be MIRACULOUS!

    Report Abuse
Comments 1-10 of 32

leave your comment

You must sign in to post a comment

Sign In for personalized information

New User? Sign Up

Updates Chatter on Shine…

parenting byte

When entrusting your child's health to a pediatrician, you are bound to have concerns about whether you are picking the right practice or doctor. Here are five questions to ask when choosing a pediatrician.