Leontine G. sent in a troubling example of the framing of children’s deviance, and their own complicity in this framing. She included two links: one to a "Today" show story about a 7-year-old boy who took his family’s car on a joyride and got caught by police, and one to a CNN story about a 7-year-old boy who took his family’s car on a joyride and got caught by police. Different 7-year-olds. One white, one black.

The white boy, Preston, is interviewed with his family on the set of the "Today" show. Knowing his kid is safe, his Dad describes the event as “funny” and tells the audience that if this could happen to a “cotton candy all-American kid like Preston,” then “it could happen to anybody.”

When the host, Meredith Vieira, asks Preston why hid from the police, he says, “cause I wanted to,” and she says, “I don’t blame you actually.” With Preston not too forthcoming, his Mom steps in to say that he told her that “he just wanted to know what it felt like to drive a car.” When Vieira asks him why he fled from the police, he replies with a shrug. Vieira fills in the answer, “You wanted to get home?”

Vieira then comments on how they all then went to church. The punishment? Grounded for four days without TV or video games. Vieira asks the child, “Do you think that’s fair?” He says yes. And she continues, “Do you now understand what you did?” He nods and agrees. “And that maybe it wasn’t the smartest thing?” He nods and agrees. “You gonna get behind the wheel of a car again?” He says no. Then she teases him about trying out model toy cars.

They conclude that this incident just goes to show that “Any little kid, you never know what can happen…” and close: “I’ll be seeing you at church buddy boy!”

All in all, exactly what you’d expect from the "Today" show: a heartwarming, human interest story with a happy ending. The child is framed as a fundamentally good kid who was curious and perhaps a bit impetuous. When he has no answers for Vieira’s questions, she slots in innocent ones. And the mild punishment is seen as incidental to the more important idea that he learned something.

This story contrasts dramatically to the CNN story about Latarian Milton, a black 7-year-old who took his family’s car on a joy ride. I’ll put the video first, but be forewarned, it’s disturbing not only because of the different frame placed on the boy's actions, but because of the boy’s embracing of the spoiled identity (apology for the commercial):

With an absolutely polar introduction of “Not your typical 7-year-old,” this story is filmed on the street. Whereas the "Today" show screened the chase footage in real time, this one is sped up, making it seem even more extreme.

The interviewer, off-camera, asks Latarian why he took the car. He replied: “I wanted to do it ’cause it’s fun, it’s fun to do bad things.” The interviewer asks further, “Did you know that you could perhaps kill somebody?” And he replies: “Yes, but I wanted to do hoodrat stuff with my friends.”

The interviewer asks him what punishment he should receive and Latarian offers a punishment very similar to Preston’s: “Just a little bit… no video games for a whole weekend.” In a longer version of this news story, now taken down, the camera focuses on a reporter who explains that the police plan to go forward with charges of grand theft against him. While he’s “too young to go into any type of juvenile facility,” he says, “police say they do want to get him into the system, so that they can get him some type of help.”

The implication here, of course, is that this child is not innocent or impetuous like Preston, he’s a pre-criminal who needs “some type of help.” The sooner they get Latarian into “the (prison?) system,” the better. No cotton candy kid this one.

Unfortunately, Latarian says all the right things to make the narrative fit. He says he likes to do “bad” things, calls himself a “hoodrat,” and seems unremorseful, even defiant, for at least part of the interview (he looks a bit sheepish in the end when he finds out his grandmother is going to have to pay for the damage he did to other cars).

One way to interpret this is to say that Latarian IS a pre-criminal. That he DOES need to get into the system because he’s clearly a bad kid. Someone inclined to believe that black people were, in fact, more prone to criminal behavior could watch these two videos and feel confirmed in their view.

But there is good evidence that people, beginning as children, internalize the stereotypes that others have of them. As Ann Ferguson shows in her book, Bad Boys: Public Schools in the Making of Black Masculinity, black children, especially boys, are stereotyped as pre-criminals; not adorably naughty, like white boys, but dangerously bad from the beginning. And studies with children have shown that they often internalize this idea, as in the famous doll experiment in which both black and white children were more likely than not to identify the black doll as bad (see this similar demonstration of white preference on CNN and a discussion of the original doll experiment at ABC). So I think this terribly sad story of Latarian is showing us how children learn to think of themselves as deviant and bad from the society around them. Latarian, remember, is 7, just like Preston. They’re both children, but they are being treated very differently, as these programs illustrate, and it is already starting to sink in.

Both stories fit the way the country sees both kids. I don't believe it's necessarily racism. Both needed a good old fashioned ass whooping.

If you ignore the racial undertones of these two stories, why would any parent go on National TV with their 7 year old child after they take the car out for a spin? Aren't you just advertising to the world that you are a shitty parent?

Yes.

As the not-shitty parent of a 7 year old, I don't personally find it cute when a kid does mischievous things. There's nothing cute or funny or adorable about a child getting behind the wheel of a car and almost killing himself. Guy ought to be ashamed of himself for trying to laugh it off.

If you ignore the racial undertones of these two stories, why would any parent go on National TV with their 7 year old child after they take the car out for a spin? Aren't you just advertising to the world that you are a shitty parent?

Guy ought to be ashamed of himself for trying to laugh it off.

Both stories fit the way the country sees both kids. I don't believe it's necessarily racism. Both needed a good old fashioned ass whooping.

Of course it's racism. The white kid is being portrayed as Peck's Bad Boy and the black kid is being portrayed as Jeff Fort Jr., but they did the same damn thing.

It's a lack of knowledge in some cases. The way the media tends to portray urban kids leads to this lack of knowledge and compassion. Every case isn't racism but obviously it does exist.

Welp, this doesn't help his case...."7 Year Old “Hoodrat” Car Thief Beats Up Grandmother in Wal-Mart"

http://www.wpbf.com/news/south-florida/Palm-Beach-County-News/Woman-Says-Joyriding-Grandson-7-Beat-Her-Up/-/8815578/9217092/-/97ni85/-/index.html

Seems like "curiosity" and "enjoying doing bad things/desire to be a hood-rat" are pretty different motivations...

Seriously, I'm not trying to be argumentative with you here, but is it in anyway possible that you may simply be predisposed to see the white kid in a better light than you see the black kid?

Nobody ever said "curiosity". The white kid said he ran "because he wanted to". He knew it was wrong just like the black kid did and he didn't give a shit. Here's the black kid standing up for his desire to be a hoodrat and there's the white kid hidin' in big daddy's pocket. And you're gonna reward the white kid and destroy the black kid.

Seriously, I'm not trying to be argumentative with you here, but is it in anyway possible that you may simply be predisposed to see the white kid in a better light than you see the black kid?

how can you know anything unless you personally know the two kids?

We do have mind readers on this site, CoF.

You must take that into account.

Nobody ever said "curiosity". The white kid said he ran "because he wanted to". He knew it was wrong just like the black kid did and he didn't give a shit. Here's the black kid standing up for his desire to be a hoodrat and there's the white kid hidin' in big daddy's pocket. And you're gonna reward the white kid and destroy the black kid.

Seriously, I'm not trying to be argumentative with you here, but is it in anyway possible that you may simply be predisposed to see the white kid in a better light than you see the black kid?

Well, I guess we should applaud the kid's honesty, then. After reading the story about the kid attacking his grandmother, yes, I absolutely see the other kid in a better light. I smell some "racial" implication in your "non-argumentative" response to my post...

I did this when I was 14-15 and knew my dad had done the same when he was young, but I also was functional and aware of how to drive a car....as a 7 year old, not a chance cause I would even consider doing this given the crack I would get for being an idiot...

I did this at 18 months, and I have an article from an August 1975 newspaper to prove it. We lived in Hoffman Estates, and it was a car with the old handle shifters that do not require a brake to change gears. Went through the garage and across Higgins Road. I was "rescued" by a lawyer. The car was only running on idle speed.

It's been said here that makes one a bad parent. I disagree with that. Sometimes you need to lay hands on em.