Conor Friedersdorf has a thoughtful post up at The Daily Dish about the angry reaction to that awful story of Shellie Ross, the Florida blogger who tweeted the drowning death of her two-year-old son just 34 minutes after it happened.
Friedersdorf writes:
Isn't this just the latest example of people becoming insanely judgmental about a fellow citizen merely because she conceives of technology differently? It is unimaginable to me that people would react this way if Ms. Ross shouted over the back fence in the middle of the crisis to ask all in earshot to pray, and five hours later, still in shock, mechanically composed a letter to friends lamenting her loss... 'This woman is a perfect example of where humanity is heading as it becomes more enslaved by technology,' one commenter said. In fact, the callousness strangers direct via Internet at a grieving mother is a far more dire harbinger of where we're headed.
That sounds right. And not only about how people conceive of technology, but about how people conceive of death. If there's one truism about experiencing death, it's that every person deals with it differently. Some people might collapse in tears. Others might reach for a drink. Maybe some people would cook, or tidy up. Some people might burst out laughing. That's the thing about shock, about right? You never know. To attack someone for their reaction to such a tragedy, well, that's not very nice, to say the least. And, as Ross herself put it, "small minded."
Another blogger, Madison McGraw, tweeted, "Perhaps if Mrs. Ross had spent less time tweeting and more time playing with her son, this would not have happened," and warned against sending donations without verification in response to Ross' message. Explaining herself to ABC News, McGraw, a former paramedic and mother of three, said "I thought, 'Who would tweet that her son just drowned?' I couldn't believe it... I've seen people react [to death], but they're screaming their heads off, crying and they don't know what to do. They're not on Twitter. I've never seen that before and I was just shocked."
She was shocked. And she immediately tweeted about it. Huh.
Amazed, is my reaction, not angry. 34 minutes?
My point being, WTF WAS SHE DOING FOR 34 MINUTES THAT WAS MORE IMPORTANT?
When a friend's kid was taken away dead by an ambulance, they spent a while rolling in the front yard and screaming. So maybe that?
Maybe she was getting a tattoo of a sleeping whale being lifted out of the water by eight tiny red and white birds, because that would really bring this whole story in for a landing.
The awfulness of this story is only heightened by Ms. McGraw's most recent Tweet:
"On my way to MSNBC to discuss if Bryson Ross would still be alive if mother wasn't tweeting."
Brand-building!
that's disgusting. This woman is far more detrimental to positive society than someone tweeting about her sons death.
oh dear god.
"People who are attacking me are just trying to drive attention to their blogs,"
All right guys, fess up now.
Is this meta? I can't tell.
Did the little boy die while flying in a silver balloon?
She's an awful cunt, but she has a point.
STRONGLY DISAGREE
Well wait. Isn't it possible that Military Mom's friends/people she'd turn to in a time of crisis are her twitter followers? I believe her husband is deployed, and it's possible she's living on a base where she has few friends... I dunno. To point the "UNFIT MOTHER" finger at a woman who just lost her child? Just... uh... I can't with that. Sorry.
If I can't make snap judgments on situations I am totally unfamiliar with then the hell with all of you.
But seriously, Mom fucked up here.
AGREE. The folks she twitters with really might be her community.
Agreeing with JOLIE. If that wasn't clear.
I strongly disagree, too. (If you're saying that McGraw has a point. That's what you're saying, right?) Something like this can happen to any parent. Substitute "feeding the chickens" or "cooking dinner" or "going to the bathroom" for "tweeting." McGraw has no valid point. She should apologize and stop talking.
That is what I am saying. We disagree, it happens.
Oh, yes. Totally. It happens and it should happen.
No it shouldn't.
I'm going to go tweet about this.
If your point is just that "Mom fucked up," I don't think Mom will disagree with you. Both my grandma and my aunt and uncle (on different sides) lost children to drowning, and I can guarantee you that, decades later (about six and three, respectively), they all feel like they fucked up. They wish they'd been there, wish they hadn't turned their backs for a couple of minutes, wish they could do just about anything to get their sons back. And, y'know, in both cases, neither Twitter nor the Internet as we know it even existed. It's almost like tragedies sometimes happen regardless of the current state of technology.
But anyway, I'm sure Shellie Ross and my relatives and everyone else who's lost a kid this way really appreciate your underlining the point for them. They were feeling so blameless and great about themselves without that kind of helpful input.
Not to belabor this gross topic, which even makes me quesy, but the examples you provide are somewhat necessary. Tweeting is, mostly, an exercise in vainity (Jolie's point about it being her means of communication, while I am sure that is possible, I think it is unlikely). I think that is why people, like me, are reacting with less sympathy.
@res: Is that "exercise in vainity [sic]" bullshit a response to me? Besides not scanning as meaningful English ("are somewhat necessary"?), besides assuming that any medium, especially a new one like Twitter, occupies some objectively quantifiable valence in every user's life, it misses the point entirely, which is that when a child dies this way, parents generally feel like they fucked up -- whatever they were doing at the time -- and don't need to be reminded of it. You could be pulling someone out of a goddamn burning building, and if your kid drowns while it happens, you're not going to feel any better about it than if you were on the Internet. Moreover, for all you (or I) know, my grandpa could have been showing a neighbor his new watch when his son died. Vain!
So, no, the vanity, perceived or genuine, of what a parent was doing when their child drowned has no bearing on how much blame we should cast on them. I mean, yes, some parents are irresponsible (and maybe Ross was one, but I'll give her the benefit of the doubt since we don't know). But tragedies happen to responsible parents, too, and the fact that a parent happens to be on the Internet when a tragedy occurs isn't cause for indicting them.
Anyway, you're allowed to disagree! I think you should aim to make some goddamn sense when you do, but hey, that's a quirk of mine. Carry on assuming that the use of Twitter* somehow reflects on a person's moral character! Comic books, heavy metal, Dungeons & Dragons and Grand Theft Auto are also automatically detrimental to a person's soul, as history has shown. THE IMPORTANT THING IS NOT TO STOP THE ABSOLUTELY UNGROUNDED JUDGING, LEST THE INTERNET COME TO A HALT.
*Which I do not even care about as a technology, for the record.
what would you think if the mother had made a phone call or two?
This story makes me uncomfortable on a number of different levels. First, the boy should be memorialized and the family should be allowed to mourn as they see fit. Second, the lesson here is to keep your toddlers away from the pool, get a pool cover, take them to swimming lessons, use water-wings, alarms, etc., etc. Third, the family should sue the bejeezus out of the enclosure company for products liability. Finally, I'll reserve judgment on the mother and all those bloggers as god only knows what the real story is.
STRONGLY AGREE WITH IT ALL. And nicely put at the end there.
This whole response rather reminds me of people who get railroaded for killing their spouse or child or whathaveyou because the cops don't like their response to grief. They didn't look sad enough! They looked too sad -- faker! They went right back to work! Blegh.
Amanda Knox, for example! And it was just her roommate who she'd known for six weeks, not a relative or even a friend.
This is so sad.
Her son dies, her husband is scheduled to be deployed and now, this.
From what the article says, it sounds like the 11 year old left the door open to the pool...so there's that on top of everything else.
Tweeting is the least of her worries.
Apparently not.
It sounds to me like a shock response to a situation utilizing a tool with which she was most comfortable and familiar. But, who the hell really knows? It's just such a sad story all the way around.
Let's debate the cultural surrender to Twitter--because I'm game--but my stomach's not into doing it here.
Just wait 'til we all find out the kid wasn't actually in the pool.
Or it was her imaginary kid and she really is doing this for attention/imaginary reality show.
Too soon.
This makes me sick... and I'm not entirely sure why.
So it is of that we cannot
say, we choose instead to speak.
Also, between this and the food stamps story? I'm sitting here in a puddle of Balkish tears and, like, wiping my nose on my suit jacket. Can someone please hold me?
Does Foster have any wacky stories about water polo he'd like to share?
I don't think this is any worse than anything anyone else does when their child dies. There is no "right" way to react to that. Grieving parents should generally be given a free pass for 24-48 hours after the death, where it hasn't sunk in yet and a lot of what they do might not make much sense from an outsider's perspective.
As long as her tweet didn't use "LOL" or "WTF," she's alright by me.
I'd give it a lot longer than that.
Yeah, that was a bit tongue-in-cheek. Passing judgment on the timestamp of certain behaviors post-trauma is just silly.
Yeah - this is what "The Year of Magical Thinking" is all about. Grief causes a real break with reality and appropriate social norms.
"maman died today"
Or maybe yesterday?
People whose immediate reaction to this story was "How inappropriate of the mother" -- people like myself, to be honest -- are probably thinking more of themselves than of her.
They are probably imagining their reaction to receiving her extremely horrific news, inserted into their act of buying a cup of coffee or chatting to a co-worker. Didn't Emily write about this issue earlier? It is very hard to know what to do with agonizing news on the fly. I don't want to excuse the tut-tutters at all, just hypothesize where some of them might be coming from, however self-centered a place.
In possibly related news, I think that being on the computer is contributing to making me an increasingly sad person. I'm thankful to have opted out of Twitter.
clicking through the internet is like having a million nerves exposed. every goddamn horrible story is front and center. it's the opposite of ignorant bliss. i can't go to news sites because there are always stories about children and the horrible things that happen to them. i can't handle it. i got so upset once that i left my office, took my kids out of school, went home and played games the rest of the day.
i'm not cut out for this.
Come sit by me. Here, you can even wipe your nose on my suit jacket.
I've done this, but it was someone else's kids, and then the next day I was in the news.
YOU CAN'T WIN!
I have the same reaction to stories like this. I had to stop reading CNN.com because it started to seem like there was a Horrible Thing Involving A Kid Story Du Jour. Had to go out to my car and cry during a work day over one of those stories. I know tragedies and accidents like this happen and have always happened, but the Internet means I have to hear about each and every single one of them, every day.
Actually had to walk out of a couple of very popular movies in recent years for the same reason. Not cut out for this.
Gonna go hug my kid now.
That's such a good insight. People probably were offended because they didn't know how to respond, and Twitter isn't a place where others share their grief.
This is all very confusing. After trying to make sense of it all, I have come up with only one (1) conclusion - I wish it had been a mommy blogger who had drowned.
@moff. No. I was not responding to you, but, Mr. Bry.
Sorry for grammar/misspelling issues. But I don't the errors were what got you so riled up, was it?
I admit, I am a little uncomfortable responding to you due to your family history. You obviously feel very strongly about drowning and tweeting. Just in case it was not clear, please know that I had no idea of your family history prior to my comments; I was not trying to allege (or remind you or them) that they were negligent caregivers.
But, I made perfect sense. Part of my point was that there was less sympathy for this mother because many people consider tweeting as an inane time wasting exercise for the bored etc. You can feel anyway you like about twitter, but I am right -- people do feel this way about twitter and I believe that is why some have reacted this way. (Maybe even me.)
Agaub, I was not reminding anyone involved in this tragedy that they were a bad parent. I was commenting on theawl, which I would hazard a guess is not yet among the devastated mother's "favorites" websites.
One more point and then I am done. Of course, what a parent is doing at the time their child gets hurt of dies has bearing on how much blame we should cast on them. That is too stupid a comment to merit anymore of a response.
Sorry for your family's loss.
You're either joking or very young.
But the fact that many people think that tweeting is inane no more makes it inane than the fact that many people think homosexuality is wrong makes homosexuality wrong. It does make responses like yours predictable, but "predictable" and "understandable" aren't the same as "sensible."
You're saying, "If a parent is doing x when their child drowns, it makes sense to feel less sympathy for them." By that logic, if a parent watched her kid 23 hours and 50 minutes a day and took 10 minutes off to tweet, during which time her child drowned, she would be less deserving of sympathy than if she had -- what? Made a phone call, as someone mentioned above? Balanced her checkbook? Worked on a crossword? The point is, every parent -- and every person* -- spends some of their time on inane activities** every day. There's no way around that, because that's just how mentally healthy people operate. So if a parent happens to be involved in one of those inane activities when tragedy strikes, they're suddenly less worthy of sympathy? Or what -- if they're painting a masterpiece, they're more worthy? No, the particular activity, in fact, has no bearing on it. You need to look at a general pattern of parenting if you really want to render judgment on blameability and how much sympathy is merited (and I just don't think you have access to the necessary data).
If, that is, you really feel a need to weigh in on such things. I find that a good workaround is simply to assume that we should feel sympathy for any parent whose child has died. Not because the parent is going to read our comments on the Awl (although who knows?), but because, frankly, I don't see what purpose your weighing-in possibly serves. I don't buy into the whole "If you haven't got anything nice to say, don't say it" philosophy, but I do think that if you haven't got anything nice to say, at least it should make sense.
As for my family's tragedies, I'm not real worked up about them, actually, since one death happened before my mom was born and the other when I was too little to understand. So no worries there. I'm just irritated with your comments, is all, BECAUSE I LIKE IT WHEN PEOPLE ARE NICE AND/OR MAKE SENSE.
*Barring, perhaps, some saintlike individuals.
**Granting here for the sake of argument that tweeting is indeed inane, which you have not even conclusively demonstrated.
Wow. Comments much better than my original post. Thanks, Moff. And all.
You like dealing in absolutes, 'if I made this statement, I MUST believe this' etc. Not only are your examples flawed, but it is also HS debate club annoying.
For example: "You’re saying, “If a parent is doing x when their child drowns, it makes sense to feel less sympathy for them.†By that logic, if a parent watched her kid 23 hours and 50 minutes a day and took 10 minutes off to tweet, during which time her child drowned, she would be less deserving of sympathy than if she had â€" what? Made a phone call, as someone mentioned above? Balanced her checkbook? Worked on a crossword?"
It depends on what x represents, of course. If x is going to the bathroom, spending a few minutes on a crossword or balancing the checkbook, or even, yes, tweeting. No, I would not be angry.
However, if x represents smoking crack or an unhealthy time crushing infatuation with tweeting, well then yes, I feel anger towards the parent, and yes, still a great deal of sympathy.
You attempt to make a point by asserting that I did not "conclusively establish" tweeting is inane? OH! You got me there! You can't, conclusively establish that of course. Context, it is important, therefore, it depends on the individual tweets, right? I reviewed some of hers, which were cut from her twitter page before it was shut down. From the NY Post:
"Before the Monday tragedy, Ross had sent dozens of tweets about her dogs, her chickens and Christmas-tree ornaments."
I am comfortable making the statement that they were, for the most part, mundane crap. Feel free to disagree, I imagine you will.
From the limited facts available, it appears we have a mom who is obsessed with tweeting, from stream of consciousness crap to the horrific death of her own child. To me, that represents an unhealthy obsession; one that may very likely could have played a role in the fact that her 2 yr old was roaming in the yard where there was an uncovered pool.
My initial point, and the reason why I commented was twofold: one, to voice my opinion that the woman who responded to the mother in a accusatory manner is a cunt. To have an opinion on something is one thing, to voice that opinion to the mother is something entirely different. At least in my mind. Second, that the accusatory woman may have a point: that mom is/was too focused on tweeting.
Good night.
My point was just that there's a lot of mundane crap a person can be doing, but it seems to me that if it involves the Internet, and especially Twitter right now, the reaction is harsher. I feel like if the mother in question had been busy, say, knitting when the accident happened -- or frankly, talking on the phone, which I don't see as substantively different from tweeting -- there wouldn't be the same sense of outrage coming from some quarters.
But you're right that I was dealing in absolutes; I was being a dick, and arguing against a more extreme position than the one you were actually holding, and I'm sorry. That was poor form. Have a good night.
@resi: "... an unhealthy time crushing infatuation with tweeting ..."
How do you know her twitter behavior amounted to an "unhealthy time crushing infatuation"? She sent a lot of tweets. It's what she liked to do. So the fuck what?
“Before the Monday tragedy, Ross had sent dozens of tweets about her dogs, her chickens and Christmas-tree ornaments.â€Â
I am comfortable making the statement that they were, for the most part, mundane crap.
Ok first: fuck you for citing the New York Post as the voice of reason in defending yourself against charges of being callous in the face of a tragedy.
Second: again, so the fuck what? She sent "dozens" of tweets on "mundane" topics. Each one may have taken a second or two to send, so there's no reason to believe they took up that much of her time, really. (How long did it take you to type the dozen comments you've posted in this thread?) Either way, why do you think it's tasteful and appropriate to judge the quality of the communication topics of a grief-stricken mother who's just lost her toddler to a horrible, tragic death?
As a parent of child who was 2 years just a few years ago, I can tell you that this could happen to anyone. It's every parent's worst nightmare. When parents read something like this, our first thought is: "There but for the grace of God go I." (That's my first thought anyway, and i don't even believe in God.) We don't think: "God, what a bunch mundane crap she liked to tweet about!"
A child can drown in seconds. SECONDS. No parent can watch their toddler every last minute. You have to take your eye off them once in a while - whether tweet or to piss or to do something else that you may find more "healthy" or less "mundane." The child is no more or less dead, the blame no more or less severe, and the grief for the parent no more or less horrific.
This is late down the thread, so I wonder if it's worth it to write anything. My nephew, my sister's first kid, my parents' first grandchild, died of crib death at 8 weeks, 35 years ago. No internet, no cell phones, no tweets. Only sitting alone and calling one friend after another, which was so hard. And that was all we had then. I had to endure a year of "So, how's your new nephew?". I wish i had had a way of breaking the bad news.
Jesus fucking Christ. Are you going to criticize this woman for not using foolscap and quills? She was in pain. She communicated in a way that would get her in touch with as many people as possible. She was probably thinking of her best friends; maybe didn't even consider her followers.
If this had happened in the early 70's would she be judged for using a touch-tone instead of a dial phone?
Well, and would it be as big of a deal if she had been googling or responding to email or using another extraordinarily popular website on the internet when it occurred, and then emailed relatives to pray 35 minutes later (the article said she didn't actually tweet about the death until 5 hours afterward, and that the tweet at 34 minutes was to tell them to pray)? I feel like this gets extra flack because some people think Twitter is cult-like.
I'm late to commenting, but I was mostly disturbed that the mother tweeted up to the minute *before* the 911 call. So she was tweeting away all day - 74 'tweets' that day, including 5 in the 5 min prior to the last one (and uploaded two pictures). It is indeed sad that she tweeted while her son was drowning. And no, it does not take a second for a child to slip away, get in the pool and get enough water in his long that he cannot be revived via CPR.
Another disturbing part is that the mother was a semi-professional blogger, so social media for her was not just "community" & "friends" but also traffic to her blog, advertising revenues, and freebies from companies. Her twitter profile states "Wal-Mart BeyondEleven Mom, MEO of Blog4Mom, product reviewer, Ford Flex test driver, PR friendly soccer mom blogger" - does it mean that Ford gave her a free vehicle to "test"? "PR friendly soccer mom" essentially means "I'll review your product on my blog/promote it to my 5,000+ follower if you give it to me for free (or pay me)."
The whole "mommy blogging" phenomenon baffles me. Apparently, many consumer goods companies spend a lot of money catering to "mommy bloggers" including free products, sponsorships, trips to "mommy blogging events" etc.
So yes, it does bother me that the mother was so busy building her online reputation that he entrusted supervision of her toddler a 11-year old (and how does *he* feel now?
It doesn't take a second, but it can happen more quickly than you'd think. I don't know how long it took my two-year-old cousin to drown, just that my uncle was right there, along with other adults including both my grandparents, and all everyone ever said was that it happened so fast no one could believe it; the speed is what's mentioned right away anytime it comes up. And 11 is not a crazy age to be entrusted with supervising a sibling while a parent is home -- I mean, I think a lot of kids start baby-sitting other people's kids around 12.
But anyway, people seem to be conflating their negative feelings about the Internet (which may well be totally valid) with their feelings about this incident. I guess I don't understand why she couldn't just as easily have been an author who worked on a typewriter, or a seamstress, or a welder, been deeply involved in and busy with her work, and had exactly the same thing happen. I don't get why her bloggerhood is "disturbing."
If the blogging/social media/twitter was a business, and it looks like it was, then she should have a babysitter taking care of the toddler, or have him attend daycare. That's exactly moms who are welders or writers do. It is impossible to work from home while taking care of a toddler.
On the "pro" status - the mother posted 74 tweets between (I'm guessing) 8 am and 5:22 PM.
Question for those who tweet a lot - how much time do 74 tweets take? Let's say 3 min per tweet (including posting, reading other ppl's tweets, clicking on links) - is this conservative or too generous? But let's assume 3 min per tweet - that's 3.5 hours of being online & not taking care of the kids. And we all know how engrossing being online can be.
I'm sure she spend nowhere near three minutes per tweet. We've already heard that the tweets were about mundane things like her dogs and Christmas tree ornaments. I'm guessing she probably spent more like 20 seconds per tweet, if that.
Also, you don't know that the woman was working instead of watching the kid. That's pure conjecture.
Also, there was an 11 year old there to watch the toddler. As others have pointed out, many families have a kid that age watch a younger sibling once in a while; it's very typical in families.
In general, if you'll forgive me for saying this, I think it's kind of repulsive how people are going out of your way to find mundane stuff to criticize this woman about after she suffered such a horrible tragedy. Go make your point about criticizing the "blogging/social media/twitter business" in some other context, please. In this context, I think it's inappropriate and more than a little tasteless.
To MisterHippity - yes, I do wish that the mother decided not to share a personal tragedy like that with 5,000 spectators, so that it eventually got out into the national press.
Followers on twitter are not 'friends' or 'community' - don't kid yourself. The mother in question was not following bacl 3000 of her followers, so she was broadcasting at them, not 'building' a community. So yeah, somebody who was following her for useful or funny info perhaps (3000 of them at least) did not expect something as personal as this, and it shocked a lot of people - hence the attention of the national press.
Moff your overbearing relativism is astounding. You're arguing for the validity of the mother's emotional response to her child's death by Tweeting, while simultaneously arguing against the validity of other Twitter users' emotional responses to said Tweet. Either Twitter is a culturally acceptable emotional vehicle or it isn't.
Nope, I haven't even mentioned her response to her child's death -- just said that her being on Twitter while he was dying is not of itself any worse than her doing a thousand other things while he was dying. If I'm mistaken, please, quote the offending text! Otherwise, READ BETTER.
But agreed that I've been pretty overbearing!
No, you haven't been overbearing, in my book. I've agreed with everything you've written. You've saved me from having to type hundreds of words stating the same points (but not as well).
As a parent of a young child, I can't imagine how anyone can criticize mundane crap like how much somebody twitters after that person has suffered a horrible tragedy like this.
I was often on the computer when my daughter was two years old and I was the only one home watching her. And yes, I took my eye off her for a minute or two here and there ... probably long enough for something like this to happen. And the way some people are picking apart the "mundane" quality of this woman's tweets -- or going on about how much they disapprove of the content of her web site -- makes me so sick to my stomach that I wish I could slap them in the face for their idiotic and mind-boggling insensitivity.
Well, thanks, but I feel overbearing. It's been a long, shouty day.
I just don't really get the whole "Well, I don't have any more information than anyone else here, but here's why I think she did something wrong" mind-set. I don't get the purpose it serves. I mean, I don't think those comments should be banned or anything -- I just don't get 'em.
"...when a child dies this way, parents generally feel like they fucked up â€" whatever they were doing at the time â€" and don’t need to be reminded of it."
Moff, here you're generalizing in defense of your viewpoint, while downplaying the motivation for others' who disagree with you, which is that there is a marginal chance that the use of Twitter less than an hour after the death of a child may, in some small way, indicate that perhaps this certain individual did not experience the general emotional response that most people, including yourself, would attribute to a normal parent who just lost a child.
Yes, I was giving the benefit of the doubt to the woman whose child died, as I tend to believe we should do even for people whose children haven't died. I don't get the point of doing otherwise. I mean, you're right! There's a chance that she's not in good emotional order! So...anyone who called it gets a prize? Because they accomplished what? They were right? My point was not really about being right.
"The use of Twitter less than an hour after the death of a child may, in some small way, indicate that perhaps this certain individual did not experience the general emotional response that most people, including yourself, would attribute to a normal parent who just lost a child."
I don't care what the "viewpoint" or "motivation" of others is. That statement is just plain stupid. There, I said it.
What if she made a phone call less than an hour after the incident instead? Or sent an e-mail? Or an IM message? Would her "emotional response" meet your standards for what a "normal parent" should feel then?
It's too bad we all don't have any video of those tragic moments in her home, so you could judge whether her wails of sorrow were of the appropriate volume or duration to meet your standards for grief-stricken-parent behavior. You know .. based on what one would attribute to a "normal parent who just lost a child."
This is only the beginning; in 10 years time video will be available as well. We already live in a world of oversharing, it will only get worse.
MisterHippity I very clearly stated (and which you omitted) that this was a MARGINAL possibility. Is it likely? No. Do I hope it is true? Absolutely not. You are obviously very emotionally tied to this news story, but don't let that emotional attachment get in the way of acknowledging that this woman's critics aren't just heartless zombies looking for a victim to pounce on. They are simply asking what it means to Twitter a death? Such a question would have been preposterous until it happened. Twitter, something viewed by many as a casual time-waster, has suddenly taken on a new dimension. Now we are soul-searching. I think it amazing that this discourse is happening. We are defining, through healthy debate and not name-calling, what function social media will play in our lives.
OK, you're right that I have an emotional reaction to this story that is probably affecting the nature of my responses here. Sorry if my tone was obnoxious or confrontational. It's probably best for me to step away from this whole topic now.
Shellie Ross tweeted 74 times from 8:30 until 5:22. Her last five tweets were between 5:17 - 5:22 - all about her chicken coop and she even uploaded 3 pictures. That all takes time. Time that could have and should have been spent keeping an eye on her 2 year old around a pool. She tweeted over an average of 100 Tweets a day and STILL AFTER HER SON DROWNED BECAUSE SHE COULDN'T DISCONNECT - she CONTINUES to BLOG and TWEET. The tragedy is that she has NOT learned a thing and is not be held responsible in anyway.
If your babysitter was tweeting while ur kid died, would you give her a "pass" because she felt "really guilty." And if she felt "really guilty" why would she CONTINUE to stay connected?
NB, from the editors:
The Jessica Gottlieb posting above and below this comment is not this Jessica Gottlieb:
http://twitter.com/JEssicaGottlieb
http://www.jessicagottlieb.com/
....who is talking about this case online and on various TV networks this week.
Wait, really? I am very tired, and my irony-meter is not working well.
agree
the real Jessica Gotlieb makes my uncomfortable as the chief crusader in this case. She's now instigating a "tweet in" against MSNBC for airing a piece that did not agree with "mommy bloggers": http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/34484610#34484610
Notice that Jessica's twitter bio says "Nielsen Power Mom" & she's wielding this power to protect one of her own.
Hey Moff--
Sorry, I know, weird note from me. But yes: it's not that Jessica Gottlieb. The real Jessica Gottlieb wrote in to say that this is someone else with, at best, the same name. Far more likely: someone else with NOT the same name.
I am not in league with either of these Jessica Gottliebs but I did want to set the record straight here, since (real) Jessica's possibly being identity-spoofed online.
Yes, we get it Kess. You don't like "mommy bloggers."
I wish to hell you'd find some other way to make that point than this one - attacking a poor, grieving mother who's just lost her child to a horrific, tragic accident. She is no more blameless than any other parent who ever took their eye off their toddler for a minute or two - which means every parent who ever lived, basically.
Go take your War against "mommy bloggers" somewhere else. Your insensitivity makes me sick.
Her last five tweets were between 5:17 â€" 5:22 â€" all about her chicken coop and she even uploaded 3 pictures.
Again, I ask: So the fuck what>! What if she spent that five minutes talking on the phone, or writing a letter or watching TV? Would you attack her in the same way? Somehow I don't think so.
Really, the ugliness brought out by this all this anti-twitter-hostility is breathtaking. Why don't you just go the toddler's funeral and spit in the mother's face while you're at it?
You ask if she spent 5 min on the phone, etc - I'm not sure if you have kid of have taken care of babies/toddlers. The point is you don't let them out of your sight when they are in your care. if you writing a letter, talking on the phone - make sure you have a visual on your toddler. If you want to be online, do it when the child is asleep for the night or nappping. I work while my child is in day care. 5 minutes spent tweeting is way too long not to know what your 2 yr old is doing.
As far as judging goes, of course we judge, it's in our nature. When you see a shocking story like this -- I think it was "2-yr old drowns while mum tweets" in Google News - of course you are going to have an opinion about. Not all opinions agree, such as mine is different from yours. If you don't want to be judged don't broadcast your story to 5400 strangers (maybe a few hundreds were 'friends' or 'community' but not all 5400.)
(74 tweets is one tweet every 7.5 minutes - plus there's facebook, other people's blogs etc. I do feel that her use of social media was excessive - if blogging/twitter is a job, get a part time babysitter or send kid to daycare.)
Yes, I have a kid and have taken care of a toddler.
You try to watch them every second. But it's a rare parent who *never* took their eye off there toddler for a moment or two here or there, at some point or other -- especially if they had an 11 year old there to watch too (as this woman did).
My question is: Have *you* ever raised a kid? Because you seem to have an unrealistic notion of how perfect a parent can be 100% of the time.
You do not know that this woman spent five minutes tweeting without watching her kid. You are speculating again.
For all you know, she may have taken her eye off the toddler for only 15 seconds - enough time for the kid to disappear from view (they can move so fast once they learn to walk/run!) - and then she may have spend three minutes frantically looking for the kid before she found his dead body in the pool. That's all it takes: 3 minutes. Dead.
And again you go on about the "tweeting," as though that specific activity is what makes this all so unforgivable in your view.
Also - it's one thing to accidentally kill a kid b/c they darted out in front of your car, it's another to kill a kid b/c he darted out in the road and you were too busy on Twitter to notice.
something does not feel or sound right about this story. a stuggling and overwhelmed military mom she was NOT. She was very affluent (her address was made public on one of these blogs) and seemed absolutely wrapped up in herself. if she were drunk in front of the TV while her kid drowned, would she be negligent? if she were merely deeply engrossed in a personal pasttime, is that a good reason to let he off the hook? and what in the world does the reference to "my million dollar baby" mean? is she already thinking about product liability suit...the pool enclosure company? this is very wierd.
The million dollar baby refers to the fact that Bryson was conceived with fertility treatments. Shellie often called him her million dollar baby.
I really do understand your skepticism, but when the whole story comes out (too bad that it has to) everyone will see that it could have been them.
Since everyone is being so cautious, wouldn't it be wonderful to err on the side of kindness and compassion?
Thanks for that.
It really is a terrible story, and I don't want to represent anyone but myself.
The Ross family just lost a baby, they have other children in the house and a father who is ThisClose to deployment.
Don't mistake one person for many voices. There's one very loud voice trying to make life difficult for the Ross family, and the rest is all just very sad.
I liked your post about this very much (http://www.jessicagottlieb.com/2009/12/all-moms-are-fallible/). I wish more people could read it and see the sense in it.
Nicely said, Jessica. Good to see you here.
I've watched this entire thing unfold (and I don't know Mrs. Ross on any level) and all I could feel was sympathy for her. I can not begin to fathom her pain - particularly now. She had just moved to that house 3 weeks prior to this; she knew no one so she turned to her on-line community for support and prayers. How anyone could judge her is beyond me.
The narcissistic personality that has blown this entire sad situation into epic proportions to gain her 15 minutes of fame is what is truly concerning to me, but I digress. Please don't feed the animal...
McGraw is, frankly, a judgmental scumbag. She's got at least three or four online identities, some less-than-mediocre books to sell on Amazon, a shrinking pool of relatives she hasn't alienated yet for reviews, and a bottomless desire for attention, apparently. And disturbingly, people have accepted her version of events, which is designed to serve her agenda, not establish what really happened.
For example, you'll never hear her admit that some of the MOm's tweets were quite clearly coming from her phone. Nowhere do you see her admit that the mom was performing actual chores at the time the child was in trouble. Nowhere does she acknowledge that this tragedy is a fairly common one: the childhood drowning, which can happen in an instant. Everyone makes mistakes. No one is perfect. Except, of course, Madison McGraw---or whatever her real name is.
I can't imagine a third party in a tragedy taking it upon herself to call detectives, demand that the mother apologize (for what?) and pursue TV networks and reporters. It's obscene. If she could dig up the kid's body and use it for publicity, I bet she would. Meanwhile, that poor mother.....I cannot imagine what she's going through, even without all this abuse on top of it.
I find it amazing how people who have know idea what they're talking about always have an opinion especially when it comes to someone else and how they live their lives. I lost a 2yr old son to a drowning in our pool 7yrs, 7mths, 3days, and approximately 8hrs ago I know I will NEVER forget. I was not on twitter when it happened, I was watching a baseball game and for a short time with my son. It takes a fraction of a second for somebody to lose track of a child when you're living a day. I even went as far as to put up a baby barrier fence around the pool to prevent a tragedy like this from happening but it wasn't enough. That day we failed to shut the gate (how stupid was that). He entered the pool area reached for a ball, fell in, hit his head. My wife thought he was with me and I thought he was with her. A part of me died that day but I survived it as I am sure this Mrs. Ross will too. She will have to deal with this loss for the rest of her life, always wondering what if I was only watching him closer, second guessing everyone of her actions that day. You cannot be there 24-7 no matter what others think. No matter what she was doing, she will always feel it was wrong. She shouldn't be second guessed by people that have never walked in her shoes and no idea what they are talking about. Not a day goes by that I don't rethink the whole day of events and what I could have done differently and the feeling of guilt that I should have paid more attention to him. It's all for not because I did not have the convenience of what some people commenting to this terrible tragedy have. Hindsight is a wonderful thing but worthless because it is always after the fact, to arm chair QB about this ladies misfortune is just wrong and will serve not value as accidents happen and people die. Instead of providing bull crap comments and meaningless discussions about how terrible the lady is or what she should have been doing before or after her son passed, maybe we should ALL TRY to close your eyes, put your hands together & ask God to help this family get through this very difficult time while they grieve in the manner that suits them best. Just because it's not the way you would deal with it doesn't mean it's not the right way. We live in a cynical world when a tragedy of this magnitude can occur and all people can do is criticize another for how they react only because it's not in the same fashion or manner as they would. I prey for this woman and her family because I know what the next years have in store for them. The GIGANTIC empty feeling that she must have in her heart knowing that she will not get to watch her son grow up to become an active member of this same cynical world in which we all live. I prey for this woman and her husband as statistics show that 85% of all marriages that involve the death of a child are most certain to end in divorce. I prey for this woman and her husband (a GREAT American fighting for our right to voice our opinions in this manner) that they can find the strength to help each other through the worst nightmare of their lives and I tell them that the strength you need is right in front of you. NEVER ask yourself, why would God take my son, remember God did not take your son, he merely gave him a place to go to be happy & loved. I'd like to suggest to Mrs Ross a book that helped me when I was hurting the most, written by John Edward - "One Last Time". To the Ross Family My Prayers & thoughts are with you. Please keep your heads held high and know that your son is in a better place and being look after by your loved ones that have passed to the other side. Dear God please Bless the Ross family and watch over them in this very difficult time as they morn the loss of Bryson Ross.
This happens to good parents every day.
I'm so sorry.