Media, you are truly a fickle bitch.
I am trying to understand what selection process takes place when the writers of media choose what stance to take on certain issues. The reason I'm thinking about this is the octuplets that the news people are currently fixated on.
Yes, it is insane that this woman, who already has six children, no job, no partner, and lives at her parents's home, would choose to undergo invitro fertilization and become pregnant again. No way am I going to try to justify or defend that. It was irresponsible, of course. Reckless even.
But does anyone remember the McCaughey septuplets from 1997? They were also born as result of fertility treatments. The parents already had one child. They were not wealthy enough to afford these children on their own. If I recall, their hospital bill came to something like $135M dollars! Yes, million!
The difference: the McCaugheys were media darlings. Sure, there were a few people saying how irresponsible it was and this and that, but mostly they were given gifts: full scholarships, a new van, a new house, two years worth of diapers, and free nanny services, to name a few.
I just read one news article that, in the same paragraph, scathingly criticized the mother of the octuplets for attempting to capitalize on the publicity by means of a book and/or movie deal, and then immediately followed by saying that taxpayers would be raising these children. Umm, make up your mind! If she sells her story then she'll have money to raise her own children. If people want to buy it, why not?
And please explain to me how that would be any different than the popluar reality show Jon & Kate Plus 8. They have twins and septuplets. The show is centered around the eight kids, whom the mother gets to stay home with because of the money made from the show. I've never heard anyone say how horrible or irresponsible it was for them to have invitro, or accuse them of being exploitative. Everyone just says "Awwww."
So what is the magic ingredient? Is the mother of the octuplets getting such bad press due to the fact she already had six children? If so, I can at least understand that.
Is it simply due to the bad financial timing?
Or is some of this stemming from the fact that there is no man in the picture? I think so.
Neither of the other two families mentioned above could afford the hospital stay for their pregnancies alone either, despite their being a daddy at home. Hell, only Brad and Angelina could afford that many kids- and look! Even they are criticized for it by certain members of the media for adopting and having so many children.
I'm sorry for such an unfocused rant. I am just puzzled by the media logic of "it was okay then, but not now."