Taboo Busting ABC Touts Sister-Brother Love

Photo of Scott Whitlock.

Good Morning America” on Tuesday continued the morning show drive of busting taboos by touting the romantic relationship between a half-brother and sister. GMA reporter Nick Watt informed viewers of the Scottish couple Danielle Heaney and Nick Cameron, now charged with incest, and rather neutrally explained, “Danielle and Nick are in love. But their love is taboo. They're half-brother and sister.” [audio available here]

At no time during the segment did Watt talk to anyone who might have expressed the argument that having a physical relationship between half-siblings could be a bad idea. After explaining how Danielle and Nick had the same mother, but lived apart as children, Watt simply observed “And one day they hope to move to France, where their love is legal.” Instead, Watt just dug for private details, such as this query to Heaney: “So, something made you kiss him?” Co-host Robin Roberts labeled the relationship "forbidden love." The network morning shows clearly enjoy promoting any type of relationship that can be seen as edgy, daring or somehow outside of the norm. And these segments are almost always delivered with a complete lack of judgment.

Story Continues Below Ad ↓
In March and April of 2008, “Good Morning America” featured three pieces on a transgendered man who is having a baby. The reports, all positive, gushed about the “man the world has been waiting to meet.”

On Marc 21, 2006, to promote the then-new HBO series on polygamy, “Big Love,” NBC's “Today” show highlighted the practice of having multiple wives and even labeled it the “the next civil rights battle.” Viewers of these programs may find it odd that the same networks which eagerly condemn the actions of Republican Mark Foley are so quick to gush over polygamy and the love between (half) brothers and sisters.

A transcript of the May 6 segment, which aired at 8:09am, follows:

ROBIN ROBERTS: And now, forbidden love. A young couple has been ordered by a court to refrain from intimacy after their love for each other was deemed illegal. The couple says their love is true and innocent, despite the fact that they are half-brother and sister. They're going public, hoping it will spark research into something most of us cannot begin to comprehend. Our Nick Watt has more from London. Nick?

NICK WATT: Good morning, Robin. Well, we're just back from Scotland which is where Danielle and Nick live. And they told us about their own desperate attempts to control their emotions and, also, the attempts by police to break that bond. They were sentenced to nine months probation and banned from having any contact whatsoever. But now, they're back together. Danielle and Nick are in love. But their love is taboo. They're half brother and sister.

NICK: I think it would be lovely to grow old together.

DANIELLE: Definitely.

WATT: There is a name for this. Genetic sexual attraction. In Scotland, as in the U.S., it's illegal. Nick and Danielle have been charged with incest.

NICK: There's been times before the actual court case came up, I actually said look, we've got to sort of try and stop this and we never could.

WATT: Now the courts allow them to live together but not sleep together.

NICK: There's a consistent and necessary need to be close, physically, to one another, actually physically feel each other close.

WATT: If they give in to temptation, they'll be sent to jail. Because Danielle and Nick share the same mother but they grew up apart.

NICK: I've been fostered from about the age of one year-old and I've been in foster care all my life.

DANIELLE: Well, I grew up with mom alone, 'till I was 15, well, 16, when I got married.

WATT: Then, two years ago, a family reunion.

NICK: I think the first time I saw Danielle, I found her very attractive. But, I also sort of thoughts in my head (sic), saying, wait a minute. This is your sister you're talking about.

WATT: At the time, Danielle was married.

DANIELLE: I said I can grow to love Nick very easily.

WATT: You said that to your husband?

DANIELLE: Yeah. And funnily enough, he said, “hopefully just as a brother.” And I said, “of course.”

NICK: There was quite a lot of time we would just sort of stop and just look into each other's eyes. And I think both of us just wanted to kiss each other at that point. But, of course, we decided against it. And then one day I just decided, oh, the heck with it and I just kissed her.

DANIELLE: I only realized I was actually falling in love with Nick after I kissed him. Before that, I didn't realize --
WATT: So, something made you kiss him?

DANIELLE: Because -- look at him, he's gorgeous.

WATT: We asked a psychotherapist, how could this happen?

JOE SOLL (Author, “Adoption Healing”): When you see someone for the first time who you're related to, there's this intense attraction, emotional attraction that gets turned into sexuality sometimes.

WATT: Very soon their relationship became physical.

NICK: Her mother walked in on us and, of course, wasn't too happy. Basically in shock. I mean, I can understand the reaction, but --

WATT: Do you think that your mother will eventually come to terms with this?

NICK: I personally don't.

WATT: It was their mother who called the police.

NICK: And at the time, when this was all going on, I was actually just thinking, well, it's just sort of reliving a childhood that we never actually had together.

WATT: But siblings share intimacy without sharing a bed. Why can't they?

NICK: Any sort of sexual thing is a natural bonding process. So, therefore, I mean, it's a question I don't really know the answer to. Because, it's one I asked myself as well. This need to be together could be the feel of being apart again because you haven't grown up together.

WATT: Another theory, the social taboo just isn't there.

SOLL: If one doesn't grow up with one's brother or sister, then one doesn't have the built-in taboo that people have when they do grow up together.

WATT: This, this sort of felt right?

DANIELLE: Felt really right. I still feel as though I've fond my soul mate and I'm not letting him go for anything.

WATT: And one day, they hope to move to France, where their love is legal. And of course, I had to ask, do they want kids? Well, Danielle can no longer have children. So, that's one very difficult decision this troubled couple will not have to make. Robin?

ROBERTS: All right, Nick. Thank you so much. And we want to know what you think. So, we invite you to go to our website at ABCNews.com and share your thoughts.

—Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Incest in Scotland? No problem.

Incest in West Virginia?  George Bush's fault.

YW... Gotta' be. "Never

YW...

Gotta' be.

"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill

I read the entire article.

I read the entire article. Nowhere does it mention West Virginia or George Bush. Where's that coming from?

Mandrake

Nowhere. That was a joke made by Yahoowatcher.

I know, but I'm not going to

I know, but I'm not going to shutup till I see some penguins...no wait I think sarc sent me some :)

Ah heck mandrake...no

Ah heck mandrake...no matter where this is at...I just felt like agreeing with YW since I really do not care about this at all...to me there are a lot more important things going on in this country other than this matter...but that's just me...and no matter what Bush gets blamed for anything and everything...just some humor.

Btw...No offense S. Whitlock...I enjoy your blog posts... 

"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill

Scott is correct.

I was just being a smart a**.  I'll stop having fun now and try to start behaving like a Democrat.

YahooWatcher

Yeah, I assumed you were kidding. Just wanted to be clear. It was a great line, by the way!

→ Yahoo

I thought your comment was totally in keeping with Democrat behavior.

♣ a seal

PLEASE don't say "busting"

Can we all agree, this fad of saying "bust" instead of "break" or "burst" has jumped, or bursted, the shark? And that "busting" is just as tiresome as "jumped the shark"? And that your poor old gray-haired 6th-grade teacher would be ashamed of you?

 

OK then.

This is what happens when

This is what happens when there is no basic foundation of morality, no right and wrong. Everything comes down to what is "legal."

Now that "gay" relationships are legal, it is taboo to criticize them....it's legal, after all, so shut up. Is incest going to be the next frontier?

All I can say is eww. What

All I can say is eww. What is wrong with this picture?

→ It's a tie

What was it Darrel Royal said about a tie?

♣ a seal

Ew...

Not only is this gross, if they were going to cover this at all ABC really needed to put on someone with a halfway decent background in genetics to explain why it's a very bad idea from a scientific standpoint if these misguided people happen to ever have kids. Admittedly, it's been on my mind anyway with the Texas polygamy story considering both everyone's looks and the odds, but...Yuk..
JMR

The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.

Should be happy

 rather neutrally explained

Isn't this exactly what you want of reporters?  Total neutrality and objectivity?

At no time during the segment did Watt talk to anyone who might have expressed the argument that having a physical relationship between half-siblings could be a bad idea.

This would have only been neccessary had the reporter presented an opinion that this was a good idea.  Which he did not.  He presented the simple facts of their situation and - to borrow a phrase - let the viewers decided.

You even point out the simplicity of his reporting.

 Watt simply observed

 

"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-George W. Bush, October 11, 2000

Curator

Of course neutrality is a good thing when both sides of an issue are displayed. That's not what happened in this case. Here, being neutral is taking a side. By not having anyone arguing against incest, pointing out the genetic problems involved, Watt is acting as though there is no debate. He's taking a side. So, I have to disagree with your assessment that he's just presented the facts.

Really...

It's obvious they left out a moral aspect, which they're free to do if they want (it seems odd in a taboo case like this) but there's a scientific aspect to this story, too, and it seems ABC totally fell down on that aspect of the job.
JMR

The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.

sarc...there's only a taboo

sarc...there's only a taboo in the unenlightened US....they are going to go to France where it's legal...see how easy?

No morality, no right or wrong...just legal and illegal.

Well, I hope

They don't have kids. My main concern is that they left out the science.
JMR

The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.

They're going public,

They're going public, hoping it will spark research into something most of us cannot begin to comprehend.

Just like homosexuality. Research it, do studies, say it's a private matter, nobody's business, lobby first for tolerance, then complete acceptance, then legality.

Glen Beck once did a long, long narrative on his radio show, talking about his long-time best friend, a girl, they did everything together, she was his rock, his anchor, his support. When his mother died ..he found himself growing closer and closer to her, and one day, he argued all the options of maybe losing the friendship etc, but one day couldn't resist and he said (paraphrasing) "I leaned over and kissed.....my sister." Then he went on to the horror story of when theri relatives and friends found out...a real soap opera, embellishing every detail, as he likes to do.

The next hour he admitted it had been a made-up tale. He said he had done it to prove how easy it was to get people to go along with something they normally wouldn't go along with, if you did it right, and made it personal, and about love, not sex. And he said he was amazed at the number of sympathetic phone calls he had received...no one called and said "that's wrong." or "that's really sick."

This story definitely had a sympathetic lean. No balance at all, other than mentioning that it was illegal.

 

I Can Understand

Mr. Whitlock,

I understand your point of view.  And, its a gray area.

 Watt is acting as though there is no debate

While I see where you're coming from here, I don't agree.

This story wouldn't be a story if there wasn't debate/outrage/disgust already in existence to the practice.

And this report is laid out as a "They said, they said" type of story.

Its simply telling the straightforward facts of their situation, without judgement.

Now, if you're appauled by incest (which any rational person is), you wonder why there's no one saying how bad it is.

I think it's OK to assume the average viewer is already aware of the negative consequences of incest - volutnary or not.

Again, I see where you're coming from.  But, if outrage wasn't already assumed, I don't think the story would have ever been done.

Could have they had someone to talk about the negatives to make it more rounded?  Maybe.  But, does this story stand on its own as a 'facts of what these two are doing and thats it'.  I believe so.

"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-George W. Bush, October 11, 2000

Maybe? No, DEFINITELY.

"Could have they had someone to talk about the negatives to make it more rounded? Maybe."

Maybe? No, DEFINITELY. Especially since the news is full of the polygamy sect and the charges of incest that are being investigated. Why did they leave out any reference to other illegal incestuous relationships and the consequences of those types of relationships? I’ll tell you why, because they are biased in favor of this couple.

Is this story biased? Yes, definitely, in favor of the couple. How can any show be considered unbiased when they only report about an illegal relationship and it’s effects on the perpetrators of such an illegal relationship but has no references as to just what consequences that relationship may cause to others, like any children that may result from an illegal incestuous relationship?

Again, I see your point

  no references as to just what consequences that relationship may cause to others, like any children that may result from an illegal incestuous relationship?

I think there are examples of the consequences of their actions.

 They were sentenced to nine months probation and banned from having any contact whatsoever.

If they give in to temptation, they'll be sent to jail

As far as consequences to unborn children... IMO that is commonly known information that doesn't need to be spoonfed to the public.  I know you disagree and I respect that.

  They were sentenced to nine months probation and banned from having any contact whatsoever.

I’ll tell you why, because they are biased in favor of this couple.

Again, I disagree. 

The reporter isn't trying to convince anyone of anything.  He's simply telling the facts of what this couple is doing, the penalties they've suffered as a result... and what could happen in the future should they continue.

Even Mr. Whitlock says the reporter was completely neutral in his reporting.  The reporter is simply telling their story. 

Mr. Whitlock does go on to say that in being neutral this reporter did pick a side... though, I'm not sure that makes sense.  A reporter's job is to be neutral and I don't think he should be criticized for that.

Criticizing a reporter for staying neutral in a story in which you think he shouldn't is kind of like criticizing the constitution for allowing free speech to everyone - including hate groups. 

We can't pick and choose which stories we want reporters to be neutral about anymore than we can pick and choose to whom free speech is afforded.

Again, I understand you don't think the reporter here was neutral... that was more in response to Mr. Whitlock's comment.

"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-George W. Bush, October 11, 2000

Well...

"WATT: And one day, they hope to move to France, where their love is legal. And of course, I had to ask, do they want kids? Well, Danielle can no longer have children. So, that's one very difficult decision this troubled couple will not have to make."

I look at it this way, she cannot have children. Therefore they are not adding to the gene pool, where if they did, I would suggest someone dumping in some bleach. But there is never going to be a child from this relationship, so why does it matter to anyone else on what they do in their home behind closed doors?
And I would like to know just how the court order is supposed to be enforced. Do they have someone stationed at their house making sure they don't jump in the bed together. Just because I don't agree with their choices on sexual partners, sometimes you just can't help who you fall in love with.

Say what?

"As far as consequences to unborn children... IMO that is commonly known
information that doesn't need to be spoonfed to the public.
"

Say what? Are you actually claiming that it’s appropriate that this interview with an incestuous couple includes references to their physical relationships, but the couple should not be questioned about the possibility that this physical relationship may actually lead to children? Is that what your telling me? That it’s ok to only focus on the negative consequences this couple is experiencing and that we should just ignore the negative consequences that incest causes to others? Just how is THAT unbiased, or can even be considered objective journalism?

It's obvious that you're rather biased towards the media and that you'll use any excuse you can to defend the appalling lack of journalist standards that is demonstrated by this sloppy, one-sided interview.

She can't have children,

She can't have children, and actually if they did the child would be genetically fine. Now if said offspring had a child with it's sibling, that's where the genetic problems would come into play.

It's simply biology people, it takes a few generations of the family tree going straight up before problems occur.

There are good reasons why

There are good reasons why certain things are not and should not be done. But, in this age of hubris, we're going to have to learn these lessons all over again, because we won't listen to the wisdom of those who came before us.

The media just keeps opening

The media just keeps opening that door wider and wider...

In March and April of

In March and April of 2008, “Good Morning America” featured three pieces on a transgendered man who is having a baby.

Err, no. She's a woman, pretending to be a man. Men can't have babies. Only women have the equipment to give birth, carry and deliver a baby.

Clue: Uterus, womb and estrogen.

The woman is also taking huge amounts of testosterone, which is of course, having an effect on her baby. AS well as allowing her to grow a crappy beard.

She needs mental help. And calling her a man isn't helping.

Vote 4 change. Vote 4 anything. See Jack & Mr Shy's first campaign ad for the ONLY viable 3rd party candidate.

Is there nothing that they

Is there nothing that they won't try to sell us as just a "different" life-style choice that's "right for me" but not everybody?? This is what they consider a "human interest" story????????

Does anyone care what all the testosterone is doing to the baby? What kind of moron gets pregnant and insists on turning herself into a man at the same time?

This is just beyond belief.

 

mb -- anyone who buys into

mb -- anyone who buys into this crap is as delusional as the woman.

These people have a mental condition. Nothing more.

Vote 4 change. Vote 4 anything. See Jack & Mr Shy's first campaign ad for the ONLY viable 3rd party candidate.

Jack, I immediately

Jack,

I immediately thought of this - as only the Pythons could say it:

Loretta: I want to have babies.

Reg: You want to have babies?!

Loretta: It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.

Reg: But... you can't have babies.

Loretta: Don't you oppress me!

Reg: I'm not oppressing you, Stan, you haven't got a womb! Where's the fetus gonna gestate? You gonna keep it in a box?

Judith: Here! I-I've got an idea. Suppose that you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb — which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans' — but that he can have the right to have babies.

Francis: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister, sorry.

Liberal: a power worshipper without power. George Orwell

LOL. brilliant! "An armed

LOL. brilliant!

"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." --Robert A. Heinlein, "Beyond This Horizon", 1942

Hey! You're stealing my thunder!

Actually, the rest of the conversation , esp. the last line, has something to say about the whole liberal mindset. Permit me to finish this....

"What's the point?"

"Huh?"

"What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies when he can't have babies?"

"It's symbolic of our struggle against oppression!"

(sotto voce) "It's symbolic of his struggle against reality!"

Also, don't forget the very beginning of this banter (reminds me of the "man" that's going to have a baby!)

"I want to be a woman- it's every man's right to be a woman if he wants to be. From now on, I want you all to call me 'Loretta'".

"Why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?"

"I want to have babies."

Great point, Tim. It does

Great point, Tim.

It does illustrate the liberal mindset. And what makes it so funny on-screen is that it is absolutely true! That's exactly how they look at things...it's a struggle against made up or perceived "oppressions" and if they can't actually change conditions to suit their ideology, the activism becomes a "symbolic battle" or a "moral victory" thus making themselves "saints" of the revolution.

Just because there is no choice available to you doesn't automatically mean you're being oppressed. It is also very curious that these same people that want all of this "freedom" to do whatever they choose to do are the same people that are fighting so hard to give the government more and more control over our education, lives, money, and property. I guess that's why the term "useful idiots" came into being.

"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." --Robert A. Heinlein, "Beyond This Horizon", 1942

Jack: It is my

Jack:

It is my understanding that the transgender pregnant woman stopped taking testosterone in order to return her sex-hormonal mix back to that of a woman's and then got pregnant.  The exogenous testosterone would be metabolized well before the fetus would be exposed to excess amounts and create issues such as a viralized female baby.

All the rest I agree with you.  This was a bizarre story made stranger with the media/Oprah zoo.  A few years ago this story would have been relegated to a rag like The National Enquirer.  Unfortunately, the MSM has dummied themselves down towards rag status and now regularly engage in BS.

RRAM Tough! 

Then why are they touting

Then why are they touting this story on GMA???

You're right, strat. Years ago this would have been in the Enquirer, and no one would believe it. Now they think it's a mainstream news topic.

This is why I do NOT watch any of the morning shows!

Personally, I think the

Personally, I think the story belongs on Jerry Springer. 

"Abstain from McCain"

MB: GMA has been swirling

MB:

GMA has been swirling towards the bottom of the bowl on its way to the lowest common denominator entertainment show.

GMA was the show that brought on Jane Fonda (vomit) who casually (and purposefully in my opinion) blurted out the infamous C-word and there was a hardly a reaction from Merideth Vierra. 

One month earlier, Diane Keaton said the F-word (in what appeared to be her usual speaking pattern) which did get a reaction from Dianne Sawyer.

Then there is the unrestrained political endorsements of Democrats by GMA that occurs on a daily basis. 

Oh, and the obnoxious constant drumbeat of AGW propaganda in an appearant mandate from the brass, though so lovingly deployed by the show personalities.

Yep.  GMA has a lot to be proud of... if your into tabloid journalism.

RRAM Tough! 

Yikes!

Yikes!

Robin Roberts

.........will be the commencement speaker at Miami University, Oxford , Ohio this Sunday. As an employee , that maintains the beautiful grounds of this institution, this really saddens me.

  I can tell you exactly

  I can tell you exactly how this report would have been written in a wildly negative tone.... if these two would have been close relatives of a prominate Republican.