In defense of the first columnist/reporter for Marla's story ...
Why didn't the first reporter do what the 60 Minutes crew did and investigate? Why did the New York Times art critic not question what was obviously art created by an adult?
As a reporter myself, I can help answer the initial reporters role, in her defense really. Of everything in this documentary, it’s the way this family and art dealer knowingly lied and gave false truths to this local columnist/reporter that I find VERY offensive and take very personally, thus my vent today (so thank you for your time)
The initial story done on Marla was a “column“, not a news story. Columnists reflect an opinion that may or may not reflect a people as a whole. When the reporter first seized this opportunity to write about Marla, it was simply to convey this apparently extraordinary child and the work she’s produced. A columnist must take their subject matter for face value, then fact-check the information being given, such as names, places, dates, etc. This is exactly what the reporter did, and did well. So well in fact, the NY Times picked up the small column from Binghamton (sp?). Unless the column was syndicated (which this one was not) this is extremely rare. From that very first column, there was no “smoking gun” leading to a fire, anywhere. Her column subject was simply an adorable, unique little girl - That’s it. There was no need to investigate anything further, other than your basic fact-check, as there was nothing to question about this child from the very beginning.
I place the blame of this entire farce strictly on the adults in Marla’s life, who knowingly conveyed to readers such embellishments and half-truths. These adults KNEW they were going to get some publicity, even if only in their small town, and that’s what they wanted. ALL of them. There isn’t an adult in this documentary who didn’t use Marla for some free advertisement and camera time. The mom, dad, and most definitely the art dealer basically “used” this columnist, and abused the TRUST these columns have been built upon. They did it for their own selfish gain and publicity - to get their names in the paper, and perhaps some public credibility to boot.
I work with subjects all the time who want to give me a story, just to get their names in the paper, for credibility in the public eye for whatever reason. Maybe they have a bad reputation, maybe an arrest record, and are looking to redeem themselves in the public eye - maybe even be something they are not. Perhaps a business owner is looking for some free advertisement. Or maybe there‘s a dad out there who felt like his artwork wasn’t appreciated enough so gaining fame through his own child was one way to get it. Even in a small city, your name in the newspaper can makes any person “famous” for a short while. Seems to me that’s all the adults in this story wanted … notoriety for THEMSELVES. The bottom line in defense of this columnist/reporter, is that this child, Marla, was KNOWINGLY used as a tool by the adults in her life, and used the good graces of a trusted, popular columnist to get it. This columnist should not be held responsible for that, and such reprehensible actions of this farce goes right back to the parents and art dealer where it belongs.
It’s clear to me in my experience that the Olmstead’s and art dealer couldn’t give two sh*ts about the RISK they placed on the reporter, and her possible loss of credibility , too. THEY DID NOT CARE, which makes me utterly sick since I report and write a column myself. Trust from the public, in the public eye, is a columnist/reporters living, our livelihood, our LIVES. People like the Olmstead’s and art dealer, did all this for their own smug, arrogant attention. Shame on them! This columnist/reporter obviously cares VERY much about her public work and reputation - while it’s painfully obvious the Olmstead adults and art dealer did NOT (probably still don’t).
At the end of the day, that one single column on Marla reached national news, and out of this columnist/reporters hands. What a shame, because she seems like a really decent reporter. If I were in her shoes right now, I’d be defensive too. I’d have to second guess any person who wanted their name featured in any column, for all trust is thrown completely out the window thanks to the Olmsted’s and art dealer for their deliberate lying to this columnist - risking the trust the reading public has placed in her.
I LOVE writing my column too, and my heart is in each story just like this reporter. But being burned like this? Hell, I’d have to dig waaaay deep from now on to find that joy of working with people and their stories again. It’s not just Marla these adults have taken advantage of … it’s this reporter included, who will have a hard time EVER trusting people again. Even the most lovely of hometown columns, such as charity events or about children, must now be second-guessed thanks to the selfish actions of the adults in Marla’s life.
In conclusion, I don’t think Olmstead’s or art dealer care about what they’ve done. I really don’t. It doesn’t appear they “have it in them” to think past their own greedy nature and apologize to this reporter, the public, and the art collectors they duped. I don’t think it matters to them in the least that this reporters credibility has come into question because of their lies, therefore, I don’t feel the least bit bad or guilty for reading and writing about the bashing of the Olmstead parents and art dealer. What did they expect? For the public to be duped again? Convince the public that “Ocean” is the same work of the original abstracts at the age of 4?
No! It doesn’t work that way. Perhaps the art dealer and Olmsteads felt they could “stick it to” all of us - not just art collectors they have seriously misjudged? The public (we) aren’t even close to being as naively and selfish as they are - and would like us to be, too.
All ranting aside … those poor children : ( . share