Mark Laita's Soft White Underbelly

A while back yt's algorithm finally succeeded in getting me to watch the interview with the Whitaker family, now I'm apt to watch any given interview that piques my curiosity into the lives of those less fortunate, or those who live on the margins of society. Mark is a caring interviewer who givea his subjects a voice into the mainstream as well as donating financially when needed. It doesn't necessarily feel exploitative, but do I really need to look into the life of a person addicted to spice or a master & slave couple?

As a complete square who has lived a very sheltered, safe life in the ‘burbs, this stuff is fascinating. My right-wing neighbors should be more or less forced to watch stuff like this; perhaps it would help them be more empathetic.

NC

It's fascinating but it's exploitation. He also asks some incredibly uninformed questions, which I realize sometimes need to be asked because there are incredibly uninformed viewers, but he asks them with little awareness of how that can affect his subject. Dude is clearly not trauma-informed. Also he is incredibly naive, and has unintentionally helped at least one pimp continue to exploit his trafficking victim. I appreciate these people's stories, but I do not appreciate the way that he has collected them. Crap, WF5 because the people are real and deserve to have their humanity acknowledged.

Chud Fusk wrote: Wed Aug 03, 2022 12:43 pm It's fascinating but it's exploitation.

I don't have an opinion on this (currently) because I acknowledge to be one of the uninformed, but...

Could you clarify how it is exploitation?

The folks being interviewed are doing so voluntarily.

Is Mark making $ off of them through advertising revenue?

Again, I am just trying to understand and don't (necessarily) agree or disagree.

Thanks.

rsmurphy wrote: person addicted to spice

Man, I didn't think we had to worry about this for another 20,000 years.

jfv wrote: Wed Aug 03, 2022 1:03 pm

Chud Fusk wrote: Wed Aug 03, 2022 12:43 pm It's fascinating but it's exploitation.

I don't have an opinion on this (currently) because I acknowledge to be one of the uninformed, but...

Could you clarify how it is exploitation?

Even the best documentaries are exploitative by nature, in that they take a real-life situation and make it into a form of entertainment, informative as it may be. That's not a criticism, just a definition. Mark Laita goes to Skid Row and gives addicts $30 to tell their life stories. Some of them get more money from him, some get money from viewers who are moved by their stories to donate often thousands of dollars though gofundmes etc., which spectacularly backfired when that one girl (literally girl, underage sex trafficking victim) was having it all taken by her pimp.

jfv wrote: Wed Aug 03, 2022 1:03 pmThe folks being interviewed are doing so voluntarily.

The prostitute, addict, incest victim, and battered spouse all do things "voluntarily" that they truly have no control over.

jfv wrote: Wed Aug 03, 2022 1:03 pmIs Mark making $ off of them through advertising revenue?

It's his youtube channel, so anything it does make surely goes to him, but he's already rich so that might not be his motivation. Honestly I think some day we are going to learn some gross shit about this dude.

^ Thanks for describing.

I think where it would fall on the good/bad ledger for me, then, would be how much of it he puts back into actually helping the people who really need it. Sounds like that's been a bit of a mixed bag so far.

jfv wrote: Thu Aug 04, 2022 7:53 am ^ Thanks for describing.

I think where it would fall on the good/bad ledger for me, then, would be how much of it he puts back into actually helping the people who really need it. Sounds like that's been a bit of a mixed bag so far.

"Help" is hard to define. Money only helps if lack of it is the source of the person's struggle. Money is poison for addicts and perpetuates the struggle for the exploited.

I think the best episodes are with ex-gangsters, former cops (same thing innit), and other people with agency over their lives. He should use the proceeds from these to help the meth heads and trafficking victims behind the scenes. Putting their despair on camera is highly unlikely to improve their welfare in the long term.

There's only one Soft White Underbelly IMO.

jfv wrote: Thu Aug 04, 2022 7:53 am ^ Thanks for describing.

I think where it would fall on the good/bad ledger for me, then, would be how much of it he puts back into actually helping the people who really need it. Sounds like that's been a bit of a mixed bag so far.

I think that it's always risky to view helping people and interviewing them as the same thing. There are lots of ways to help anyone, but I think "using them as content to further your media career" is one that needs a bit of thought before being classed as "helping". Sure, it's important to create awareness of issues, whether specific or generalized, and to give people a voice, but the moment any established media outlet, whether it's a paper, TV show, youtube channel, podcast, etc starts to think that it's helping people simply by "giving them exposure", I think there's usually some dishonesty and vanity in play.