You Snooze

I was reading an old Newsweek article about the discovery of Shawn Hornbeck. To quickly recount, Hornbeck was reported missing by his parents October 6, 2002, some five years ago. His parents had been distraught, even going on the Montel Williams show and having alleged psychic Sylvia Browne tell them he was not alive. They started a foundation for missing children, not ever knowing that he was still in the same city.

Shawn Hornbeck was found as a search was made for Ben Ownby. Both were found living with Michael Devlin, who apparently had spent most of his life working at a pizza place. Apparently, Devlin didn't consider it a problem when Hornbeck befriended Tony Douglas who often stayed over.

So why did this make news? Arguably, the reason was Shawn Hornbeck. He had disappeared several years earlier and was thought to be dead. Had Ownby been found by himself, the local papers may have pointed it out, but it wouldn't have made national news. What made this story so enticing that it played on Newsweek?

As you dig into a story like this, you realize that everyone's trying to find a story that grips a nation, if only for a few days. The first thought I had, and it seems that everyone else had it too, was "why didn't the kid try to escape?". Most accounts give "Stockholm syndrome" and state the boy was threatened with harm to his family, so he just went along with it.

The second thought, and it's funny that such thoughts almost immediately follow is, was Shawn molested? The suggestion is yes, this happened. Then, there are some snippets about how, upon being first captured, he was routinely awakened every 45 minutes. Newsweek pointed out that such actions are often taken by torturers. This begs the next question. Why would Devlin resort to means of torture? OK, given that he's probably not a well person because he'd kidnap someone, what's the reason he'd think that torture would serve him in getting Shawn's compliance?

And there's a simpler question. Why kidnap Shawn at all? What was the point? The fact that these questions were not answered suggest Newsweek had nearly no access to Devlin, nor the two kidnapped kids. They were faced with trying to get answers given no more information than anyone else. Indeed, it was Oprah who managed to get the parents on the air.

Newsweek's cover featured Shawn, Michael and Ben, and the cover makes you realize that the sensationalism that Newsweek resorted to. Shawn appears to have his picture taken since he was captured (he has some sort of lip ring?). Michael, the abductor, is centered, his picture likely made into black-and-white from some color image, and cropped on the edges to create that psychopathic look. Ben's picture has to have been from before the kidnapping since he was missing only four days. The picture tries to put two innocent looking children on either end side of their abductor, pictured somewhat like a crazed individual.

This imagery is meant to reach to the fears of parents. Again, with lack of access, Newsweek was then forced to recount kids that have been kidnapped of wide notoriety. The majority appear to be young girls, and they all appear to be white. I recall, many years ago, when JonBenet Ramsey was in the news, that some reporters lamented that the only reason her story was splashed across newspapers around the country was because she was the white daughter of rich white parents. That, and the fact she was some prepubscent beauty queen, and how her parents were so shallow as to try to enter her in these contests (one wonders if JonBenet had not happened, would there have been a Little Miss Sunshine?).

Kidnappings occur more often that we'd like, and yet only a handful make national news. Why? And why are the majority white? Is it to create white fear? Sure, poor inner city kids might get kidnapped, but what happens when it his rich families?

And why do magazines like Newsweek indulge it? Probably for the same reason I'm blogging about it. There's some morbid curiosity about what drives people to do the things they do, but not such a morbid curiosity to really figure out why. No newsmagazine, for example, wants to say that Devlin was justified in his way, or that Hornbeck's parents were more dysfunctional than was let on so that despite Devlin's act of kidnapping, perhaps Hornbeck was better off. But the reality appears to be that our gut instinct is right, that Devlin was a bad man, that Hornbeck's parents did what they could, that Shawn was scared to reach out to his parents.

It's this superficial information that leaves people wanting to find out more, and yet, for now, there is no more, so the news heads back to Iraq, to declining poll numbers, and other news. News has that flavor about it. It's quick to latch onto a story that appears to have legs, and just as quick to abandon it. Newsweek, like other news sources, had little time to report it, but probably had no real desire to follow up, again, due to lack of access.

That newsmagazines must stoop to tabloid-like sensationalism is a kind of sad commentary on modern news. It would say something if the US was more or less prone than other countries to have people do such things, and to determine why such things happen at all. We like to chalk it up to the evil that men do rather than to understand the causes, and to understand the aftermath. Ownby is likely to fare OK, a little shaken by the incident (it honestly depends on what happened the few days he was kidnapped), but Hornbeck lived like this for years. What happens to his education which was missing for years? What happens to his socialization? Is he messed up for life? If he recovers to lead a mostly healthy life, does that says something about the resilience of people?

Ultimately, such incidents leave more questions than answers, and some of those questions have little to do with what happened and why, and more to do with why it was covered, and why it was covered this way.