4 ms·

Is there an element of exploitation here from the media? It looks like Leo was on the Today show. I recall the homeless guy with a "radio voice" also got the sa

Is there an element of exploitation here from the media? It looks like Leo was on the Today show. I recall the homeless guy with a "radio voice" also got the same treatment, and ultimately, they both weren't able to normalize back into society. The idea that homelessness is just a financial problem and that if we come up with a ad-impression friendly narrative, then we can just solve it via a little fame and a little elbow grease is crazy. I guess the system got what it wanted: the Today show got its feel good story for overfed housewives and Today show advertisers got the eyeballs they wanted. Larger, more important, narratives were conveniently ignored. Meanwhile, the larger narrative on how the US's private healthcare system means huge barriers to entry and especially for mental health issues, gets swept under the rug. Leo doesn't want a bank account for non-rational reasons. A little money and fame aren't going to change that. The whole article seems to skirt around the obvious mental health issues here. Its just incredible we can just pretend they don't exist and come up with ham-handed rationalizations on why Leo doesn't want a bank account. Yeah, its because he's mentally ill and is unable to functional in a normal way.

jobu 12y ago
> I guess the system got what it wanted: the Today show got its feel good story for overfed housewives That comment is as narrow minded as the people that yell at homeless people to "stop being lazy and get a job". This story has the possibility to change perceptions about homeless people and the challenges they face living in our society. Setting up a new bank account is a pain in the ass (at any bank I've every used). Finding a reasonable place to live can be stressful as well. If you really think about it, the things we do as part of our life can be very frustrating or stressful, and it's even worse if you don't have friends or any kind of support network to help or give advice.
omegaham 12y ago
Luckily, the radio guy seems to be doing relatively well, although he's still got issues to deal with. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Williams_%28voice-over_artist%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Williams_%28voice-over_arti...
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
pessimizer 12y ago
>ultimately, they both weren't able to normalize back into society. It's been 8 months. >Leo doesn't want a bank account for non-rational reasons. You're making an assumption based on what you think of Leo. Have you met him?
vinceguidry 12y ago
> Is there an element of exploitation here from the media? Media outlets rationalize this with the, probably justified, view that both parties, as well as society at large are benefiting. Leo very probably wouldn't have gotten close to $10,000 had there been no coverage of his story. You can't blame them for not knowing that he wouldn't be able to take the money. As for society, we get to have this conversation and some people hopefully get a more nuanced understanding of the problem of homelessness. You seem to want to change the narrative towards the healthcare system and it's "huge barrier to entry" by saying it's getting swept under the rug. That's an admirable position, but that's a completely different story. How would it look if they started with Leo still being homeless, then segued arbitrarily into editorializing over health care? People would accuse them of having an agenda, and rightfully so.
- drzaiusapelord 12y ago
  >Leo very probably wouldn't have gotten close to $10,000 had there been no coverage of his story. In the article, Patrick claims he didn't want media attention. Who knows how well the app would have performed without it. Lets say it made $7,000 instead of $10,000 but Patrick gained the privacy and dignity to work out issues with Leo without the endless media attention. Maybe that would have worked out better. Generally, media attention makes sensitive things of this nature worse, not better. >As for society, we get to have this conversation What conversation exactly? Are the people who are watching the Today show talking about mental healthcare? It seems like this is the cheap "make easy money now, even a homeless person can do it" narrative, except with an undercurrent of "hard work fixes all!" Apparently, it doesn't. >That's an admirable position, but that's a completely different story. I don't think so. I think the story is so focused on the money, but not the well-being or core issues Leo faces, most of which look like mental illness to me. >then segued arbitrarily into editorializing over health care? Heaven forbid we ask why Leo can't handle the idea of a bank account. The idea that its rational and sane to lose $10k is laughable. The guy clearly has problems. The question that's obvious and should be asked for by a compassionate society is why can't Leo get the care he needs? The money, fame, attention, etc are all secondary. Ironically, the money isn't helping him get what he needs because he's literally too dysfunctional to turn it into to healthcare.
rch 12y ago
> Despite the pressures of his surge to fame, which at one point prompted a relapse, Williams ("radio voice") remains steadily employed by Kraft -- http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2014/03/14/catching-up-with-ted-golden-voice-williams/ http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2014/03/14/catching-up-... > Leo doesn't want a bank account for non-rational reasons. I'd really like to see some discussion on this point. Specifically, what discrete banking options should be available if someone is homeless, owes child support, and maybe has open warrants someplace. I don't know the situation in this case of course, but that's not an uncommon scenario.
- hluska 12y ago
  > Specifically, what discrete banking options should be available if someone is homeless, owes child support, and maybe has open warrants someplace. I used to publish a street paper and have been trying to solve this problem for the past six years. Street papers are theoretically great because they solve many of the problems associated with homelessness. However, their efficacy is being cut because more and more people don't carry cash. Unfortunately, to take part in a cash free economy, you need things like a bank account, credit, or a device. Another problem was cash management. We would launch an issue and out vendors would start selling. Then, after four hours, they might have made $80. This was problematic because some of the problems that lead to homelessness can usually be exacerbated by a sudden surge of cash. In my experience, paranoia and/or fear of the system is the biggest barrier to discrete banking. Homeless people are disproportionately affected by laws banning camping in public parks, or that 'close' public parks at 11pm. When society continuously passes laws making it harder for you to live, it doesn't take long before it's hard to trust society. Add in schizophrenia (which is an epidemic amongst homeless populations), and banking is very hard. Some of the ideas we came up with include: - selling ads to cover 100% of the magazine's cost, thn 'selling' the paper to vendors for $1 a copy. We'd hold this amount collected in our bank account and hand it out on request. We abandoned this idea because it felt too much like enabling addictive behaviours. - building a new payment card system. If you buy a magazine, you would put cash onto a vendor's card. Then, we'd have a list of merchants (ie - grocery stores, landlords) who would accept it. Not only is this idea insanely difficult to pull off, but it attacks dignity. A loss of dignity is a cause of continuing homelessness. This entire question is complex and if you explore it deeply enough, you quickly run up against money laundering/banking regulations. But, if we can solve it, we can solve a huge problem. Consider social assistance cheques. If you don't have a bank account, you have to use cheque cashing services instead. Cheque cashing companies charge a large premium to cash cheques. In the case of government cheques, there is virtually no risk other than counterfeiting. Thanks for bringing this up!
jmspring 12y ago
Even in a city like Stockholm (with a very strong social health system), there are homeless that might not fit in well with society -- granted the social net is much better. I've only seen one or two in my brief winter visits, but my last trip a couple of weeks ago, there was a "tent city" under one of the bridges near Gamla Stan as well as assorted out of the way individuals (camped out near buildings) in Normmalm/Kungsholmen. With nice weather, I did a lot more walking/exploring this last trip.
JonnieCache 12y ago
>I guess the system got what it wanted: the Today show got its feel good story for overfed housewives and Today show advertisers got the eyeballs they wanted. This is the beginning and the end of the story. All you need to add for a complete understanding is that change was avoided on all sides. The status quo is, as always, self-preserving. Crucially this includes unchanging moral certainty for the housewives, as well as unchanging poverty for Leo and unchanging profit for the media/various related industries. The circle of life continues.
- sliverstorm 12y ago
  The status quo is, as always, self-preserving Of course it is! Much like how the only species that last are the ones that reproduce, any lasting system has trended towards the solution that is stable. The systems that didn't trend towards stable probably fell apart. It wouldn't be the status quo if it wasn't self-preserving.
  - dllthomas 12y ago
    The interesting thing here is that we've demonstrated that the reason the status quo is self-preserving in this case is not simply a lack of access to marketable skills on the part of the poor.
- xacaxulu 12y ago
  I feel like you would enjoy thelastpsychiatrist.com
  - JonnieCache 12y ago
    You don't think I make this stuff my myself do you? ;) I do wonder sometimes if his stuff is deep insight or raving mania. His basic point about "the system" just being a sum of the force vectors representing everyones desire for a stable self is pretty correct I think. A lot of stuff certainly makes sense through that lens, but I suppose that isn't the best heuristic for truth.

jobu 12y ago

> I guess the system got what it wanted: the Today show got its feel good story for overfed housewives That comment is as narrow minded as the people that yell at homeless people to "stop being lazy and get a job". This story has the possibility to change perceptions about homeless people and the challenges they face living in our society. Setting up a new bank account is a pain in the ass (at any bank I've every used). Finding a reasonable place to live can be stressful as well. If you really think about it, the things we do as part of our life can be very frustrating or stressful, and it's even worse if you don't have friends or any kind of support network to help or give advice.

omegaham 12y ago

Luckily, the radio guy seems to be doing relatively well, although he's still got issues to deal with. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Williams_%28voice-over_artist%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Williams_%28voice-over_arti...

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

pessimizer 12y ago

>ultimately, they both weren't able to normalize back into society. It's been 8 months. >Leo doesn't want a bank account for non-rational reasons. You're making an assumption based on what you think of Leo. Have you met him?

vinceguidry 12y ago

> Is there an element of exploitation here from the media? Media outlets rationalize this with the, probably justified, view that both parties, as well as society at large are benefiting. Leo very probably wouldn't have gotten close to $10,000 had there been no coverage of his story. You can't blame them for not knowing that he wouldn't be able to take the money. As for society, we get to have this conversation and some people hopefully get a more nuanced understanding of the problem of homelessness. You seem to want to change the narrative towards the healthcare system and it's "huge barrier to entry" by saying it's getting swept under the rug. That's an admirable position, but that's a completely different story. How would it look if they started with Leo still being homeless, then segued arbitrarily into editorializing over health care? People would accuse them of having an agenda, and rightfully so.

drzaiusapelord 12y ago
>Leo very probably wouldn't have gotten close to $10,000 had there been no coverage of his story. In the article, Patrick claims he didn't want media attention. Who knows how well the app would have performed without it. Lets say it made $7,000 instead of $10,000 but Patrick gained the privacy and dignity to work out issues with Leo without the endless media attention. Maybe that would have worked out better. Generally, media attention makes sensitive things of this nature worse, not better. >As for society, we get to have this conversation What conversation exactly? Are the people who are watching the Today show talking about mental healthcare? It seems like this is the cheap "make easy money now, even a homeless person can do it" narrative, except with an undercurrent of "hard work fixes all!" Apparently, it doesn't. >That's an admirable position, but that's a completely different story. I don't think so. I think the story is so focused on the money, but not the well-being or core issues Leo faces, most of which look like mental illness to me. >then segued arbitrarily into editorializing over health care? Heaven forbid we ask why Leo can't handle the idea of a bank account. The idea that its rational and sane to lose $10k is laughable. The guy clearly has problems. The question that's obvious and should be asked for by a compassionate society is why can't Leo get the care he needs? The money, fame, attention, etc are all secondary. Ironically, the money isn't helping him get what he needs because he's literally too dysfunctional to turn it into to healthcare.

rch 12y ago

> Despite the pressures of his surge to fame, which at one point prompted a relapse, Williams ("radio voice") remains steadily employed by Kraft -- http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2014/03/14/catching-up-with-ted-golden-voice-williams/ http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2014/03/14/catching-up-... > Leo doesn't want a bank account for non-rational reasons. I'd really like to see some discussion on this point. Specifically, what discrete banking options should be available if someone is homeless, owes child support, and maybe has open warrants someplace. I don't know the situation in this case of course, but that's not an uncommon scenario.

hluska 12y ago
> Specifically, what discrete banking options should be available if someone is homeless, owes child support, and maybe has open warrants someplace. I used to publish a street paper and have been trying to solve this problem for the past six years. Street papers are theoretically great because they solve many of the problems associated with homelessness. However, their efficacy is being cut because more and more people don't carry cash. Unfortunately, to take part in a cash free economy, you need things like a bank account, credit, or a device. Another problem was cash management. We would launch an issue and out vendors would start selling. Then, after four hours, they might have made $80. This was problematic because some of the problems that lead to homelessness can usually be exacerbated by a sudden surge of cash. In my experience, paranoia and/or fear of the system is the biggest barrier to discrete banking. Homeless people are disproportionately affected by laws banning camping in public parks, or that 'close' public parks at 11pm. When society continuously passes laws making it harder for you to live, it doesn't take long before it's hard to trust society. Add in schizophrenia (which is an epidemic amongst homeless populations), and banking is very hard. Some of the ideas we came up with include: - selling ads to cover 100% of the magazine's cost, thn 'selling' the paper to vendors for $1 a copy. We'd hold this amount collected in our bank account and hand it out on request. We abandoned this idea because it felt too much like enabling addictive behaviours. - building a new payment card system. If you buy a magazine, you would put cash onto a vendor's card. Then, we'd have a list of merchants (ie - grocery stores, landlords) who would accept it. Not only is this idea insanely difficult to pull off, but it attacks dignity. A loss of dignity is a cause of continuing homelessness. This entire question is complex and if you explore it deeply enough, you quickly run up against money laundering/banking regulations. But, if we can solve it, we can solve a huge problem. Consider social assistance cheques. If you don't have a bank account, you have to use cheque cashing services instead. Cheque cashing companies charge a large premium to cash cheques. In the case of government cheques, there is virtually no risk other than counterfeiting. Thanks for bringing this up!

jmspring 12y ago

Even in a city like Stockholm (with a very strong social health system), there are homeless that might not fit in well with society -- granted the social net is much better. I've only seen one or two in my brief winter visits, but my last trip a couple of weeks ago, there was a "tent city" under one of the bridges near Gamla Stan as well as assorted out of the way individuals (camped out near buildings) in Normmalm/Kungsholmen. With nice weather, I did a lot more walking/exploring this last trip.

JonnieCache 12y ago

>I guess the system got what it wanted: the Today show got its feel good story for overfed housewives and Today show advertisers got the eyeballs they wanted. This is the beginning and the end of the story. All you need to add for a complete understanding is that change was avoided on all sides. The status quo is, as always, self-preserving. Crucially this includes unchanging moral certainty for the housewives, as well as unchanging poverty for Leo and unchanging profit for the media/various related industries. The circle of life continues.

sliverstorm 12y ago
The status quo is, as always, self-preserving Of course it is! Much like how the only species that last are the ones that reproduce, any lasting system has trended towards the solution that is stable. The systems that didn't trend towards stable probably fell apart. It wouldn't be the status quo if it wasn't self-preserving.
- dllthomas 12y ago
  The interesting thing here is that we've demonstrated that the reason the status quo is self-preserving in this case is not simply a lack of access to marketable skills on the part of the poor.
xacaxulu 12y ago
I feel like you would enjoy thelastpsychiatrist.com
- JonnieCache 12y ago
  You don't think I make this stuff my myself do you? ;) I do wonder sometimes if his stuff is deep insight or raving mania. His basic point about "the system" just being a sum of the force vectors representing everyones desire for a stable self is pretty correct I think. A lot of stuff certainly makes sense through that lens, but I suppose that isn't the best heuristic for truth.