The Guardian, Kate Hilpern, and Freedomain Radio: A Critical Analysis.

As mentioned in my last blog post (i.e. a few minutes ago) I am a member of Freedomain Radio, and thus paid special attention to an article by Kate Hilpern of British newspaper The Guardian.

This article can be found here, now, live and in color.

Of course, being the kind of guy who spits on my knuckles and jumps up at the slightest sign of injustice and adversity, I was compelled to write a paragraph by paragraph critical analysis of the article's content, tone and overall quality. There are so many people exalting the article as the greatest muckraking expose (put an accent mark on that last "e," if you don't mind) of all time that I can't help but post my response in a place where it'll hopefully be read:

(note: by "paragraph by paragraph" I mean that each paragraph in this response exactly matches the sequence of paragraphs in the article itself.)

A detailed analysis of Kate Hilpern's article:

Paragraph one.

We have an immediate problem here. The article starts out speaking from the mother's perspective. The title and subtitle smack of this, and make it sound more like a missing person mystery.

Paragraph two.

The story continues from the mother's perspective.

Paragraph three.

The article implies that Tom's choice of the form letter is simply him parroting what the website telling him to do, instead of deciding that the rough layout of Stef's suggestion for the letter was the best way to go.

Paragraph four.

The mother (henceforth referred to by her name for brevity's sake) comes across as stalkerish and calculating. "She worked out that if she ordered a cup of tea, he would have to listen to her for about a minute." She planned the attack ahead of time, hoping to trip his wires and get him to come back into the fold. It doesn't say what else she said besides "If you ever want to come home you can." I'm betting there's more to it than simply that. Barbara also doesn't get that the content of the site is what matters, not the site itself; she also can't conceive that "an ordinary family" might not be a *good* family.

Paragraph five.

Barbara admits that Tom did not follow her expectations; that he'd be living with her until he was 40. This is chilling; what kind of parent expects, much less wants, their child to be living at home at that age?

Paragraph six.

A charming little paragraph on special trips to this and that place. This, of course, ignores that such nice, happy rainbow infested days would not have been the norm. The paragraph also takes care to mention the opinion of one of Tom's older brothers, because John thinks that they had a great childhood.

Paragraph seven.

Nothing special to report here, except that it shows that as soon as something like computers entered the home, they were considered to be often more valuable to spend time with than the rest of the family. If the family is so great, then why all the computer time relative to family interaction?

Paragraph eight.

Barbara admits that she didn't often make any special effort to show interest in her childrens' lives or communicate with them. Also, apparently Tom is a really, really nice guy. I'm sure that the necklace wasn't cheap. So why is such a nice guy so wrong for deciding that he'd rather not be around her anymore?

Paragraph nine.

A generalization is made which implies that any and all family ties should (instead of simply can) be cut. It also makes an offhanded and sarcastic generalization that the only friends you'd obtain by engaging in the ideas discussed at FDR would be the other members of FDR. When paired with the tone of the paragraph overall, this would be conceived as a negative connotation to the unsuspecting reader.

Paragraph ten.

A generalization is made on what is primarily discussed in the chatroom and what the call in shows are about.

Paragraph eleven.

Nothing in particular about the content itself, but it's written completely outside of Tom's perspective and doesn't make any attempt to reason about his motives for his behavior or his interest in FDR.

Paragraph twelve.

By now it seems that Barbara herself might as well have written this article for all the objectivity it displays.

Paragraph thirteen.

More from Barbara's perspective. Only one minor specific given about Tom's "accusations," along with an a priori denial of his allegation. No reasoning given as to why it wasn't true.

Paragraph fourteen.

More from Barbara's perspective. "We really did try our best." Doubtful. "Who does have a perfect relationship?" Who does live freely? I mean, since nobody does, there's no sense in trying to live freely, right?

Paragraph fifteen.

"One day" on a dark and stormy night, "when Barbara got in from work, Tom had gone." Dun-dun-dun! *Lightning flash.* "She read the note and was devastated." The poor, poor mother's illusion of security shattered! "For a moment," actually a day, until further stalking confirmed the opposite- "she wondered if he had run away with his girlfriend, (who has also since cut off her family to devote herself to FDR),"-the disease spreads!- "but she and Tom had recently split up." Gasp! The plot thickens! The entire paragraph is written like a Lifetime movie, not a news article. It is clearly meant to keep us implanted in Barbara's shoes and make us sympathize with her, while Tom remains the ambiguous, rarely seen figure in the story.

Paragraph sixteen.

"Then Barbara thought of the website and began to investigate." i.e. She began to stalk. Note how, when she realizes what he's done, how she jumps to the conclusion that since he's dropped her from his life, that he will instantly spiral into the oblivion of total failure. Also note how Nick joins in on the stalking.

Paragraph seventeen.

The poor, dear mother has barely caught tantalizing glimpses of her son.

Paragraph eighteen.

The poor, dear mother struggles to live without her son. In the meantime, her son continues to live without her, without stalking her in turn.

Paragraph nineteen.

Barbara keeps tabs on Tom enough to know that he's not living within easy stalking distance anymore. She also wants to be part of his life-never mind whether he wants her to be a part of it or not.

Paragraph twenty.

Policy statement from CIC that refers to cults in general, with no actual statement that FDR is a cult. However, pairing that with Barbara's statement that she uses this policy statement as an excuse to further harass Tom insinuates that FDR is a cult.

Paragraph twenty one.

There is an assertation that FDR is what Tom considers his new "family," with no statement from him that this is what Tom really thinks. (Not that there's anything wrong with such thinking, necessarily.) Barbara admits to more and more stalking, even obsessing over Tom's actions online.

Paragraph twenty two.

Poor, dear mother isn't allowed to stalk anymore.

Paragraph twenty three.

Twenty three paragraphs in and we finally get some perspective from the guy who's apparently inciting good people to disobedience. Hopefully the uninitiated reader will not lose this in the middle of the sob story as told by Barbara through her ghost writing persona Kate.

Paragraph twenty four.

In very, very briefly discussing Stef's background Kate fails to mention that he also holds a master's degree in history, that he is a well educated man. It also implies that he is a hypocrite who shouldn't be having his own baby because he doesn't believe that there's anybody who is an example of a truly good parent, never mind that he can and probably has learned from the mistakes of others and intends to become the exception to this rule.

Paragraph twenty five.

Another all too rare quote from the actual person being accused of being the ringleader of this *dangerous, online cult.*

Paragraph twenty six.

The paragraph insinuates that subscription is necessary in order to participate in Freedomain Radio. This is so obviously false that it must be pointed out and laughed at. The critics also falsely assert that members never get closer to anyone else but each other (while insinuating that getting closer to each other is bad) and that if they're going to go to therapy, they'll waste valuable money trying to tell the therapist what they're already telling themselves.

Paragraph twenty seven.

Ah, finally, a concession of fact. However, this is immediately negated by the assertion that FDR is simply a trivial outlet for teen angst.

Paragraph twenty eight.

Very brief (and most likely skewed) summary of a call in show from April which insinuates that Stef considers Tom's birth an intrinsic form of abuse. Small wonder why Tom wouldn't want to talk to Kate.

Paragraph twenty nine.

Kate probably misrepresents the conversation further here, and further demonstrates her complete lack of journalistic ability by including her personal thoughts on the matter.

Paragraph thirty.

Another false line drawn between cult awareness and reasoning behind why someone might not want to talk to a nosy sensationalist. Also commits a serious tactical error by helping Stefan call this article out for what it really is, by quoting his thoughts on the matter directly.

Paragraph thirty one.

Apparently removing one brick causes the whole house of cards to fall down. Barbara admits that the situation has actually improved her relationship with Tom's brother, but apparently fails to equate this to the reason why Tom left.

Paragraph thirty two.

Another attempt to paint Stef as a hypocrite.

Paragraph thirty three.

There is hope for Tom and the poor, dear mother! But maybe not, because Tom is decisive and may not want to jeopardize his mental well being for the sake of his mother!

Paragraph thirty four.

The article begins, ends, and consists almost entirely of Barbara's perspective.

Conclusion:

Pulitzer would be proud; Kate has just written an article that is a throwback to the old days of yellow journalism. There is almost no attempt to see things from any perspective but Barbara's, and doesn't respect Tom's privacy in the slightest. Not entirely surprising, but saddening nonetheless.