Sale of Slumdog kids - True or not?

[Big Magilla]

OK, I added the sub-title "true or not?"

As Reza says, this sort of thing happens in that part of the world all the time. One can perhaps understand parents "selling" their children to people who will give them better lives, but what makes this so perplexing is that Rubina was supposedly given a trust fund by the film's producers that was supposed to provide her with a good education, adequate housing and social support.

The tape made available to media is silent, but the tape purportedly given to the police is in the Indian dialect that was spoken during the negotiations and according to the reporter leaves no question but that the father and uncle were haggling over the purchase price for the two girls.

[Sonic Youth]

The article does not tell the whole story.

On Larry King last night the reporter who broke the story and others allege that the the father approached him, that it wasn't a sting operation, that the father was selling both the nine year girl from the movie and his older daughter - hence the plural.

Yeah, but what you posted couldn't have been more at odds with the headline you went with. It's the most extreme example of burying the lede I've ever seen. (And capitalizing the word Slumdog does give impression that other cast members were sold, but that's picayune.)

I don't know. It's not possible that the reporter decided to fish for a story, even if it meant a little good ol' slander? This is "News of the World", after all. And the accused lives in a Mumbai slum. I don't think too many of them are slick enough to come out on top of a public credibility battle with a media professional.

[Reza]

Sad...but could well be true. Happens all the time in our part of the world. People are forced to do strange things due to extreme poverty.

[Big Magilla]

The article does not tell the whole story.

On Larry King last night the reporter who broke the story and others allege that the the father approached him, that it wasn't a sting operation, that the father was selling both the nine year girl from the movie and his older daughter - hence the plural.

[Sonic Youth]

MUMBAI, India – Indian police said Wednesday they have so far found no evidence that the father of a child star in the Oscar-winning film "Slumdog Millionaire" tried to sell the 9-year-old girl to an undercover reporter.

Aha! So, here we have a story of the police saying that at this point there is NO evidence that a child star was sold to a reporter. And even if there was an attempt to do so (no evidence of that, either), it hadn't been done yet, therefore no sale. And it was only one child anyway.

So, what's the subject headline? "Sale of Slumdog kids", and plural, too.

However, we do have an admission that the British press tried to exploit a child for a good story, but when the Brits commit misdeeds I guess it makes for a less eye-catching subject title.



Edited By Sonic Youth on 1240448975

[paperboy]

Somebody tell Madonna; problem solved.

[Big Magilla]

MUMBAI, India – Indian police said Wednesday they have so far found no evidence that the father of a child star in the Oscar-winning film "Slumdog Millionaire" tried to sell the 9-year-old girl to an undercover reporter.

Police opened an investigation following a complaint from Khurshid Begum, the estranged mother of "Slumdog Millionaire" star Rubina Ali, after News of the World reported the father planned to put her up for adoption. The British newspaper said the deal was allegedly offered to one of its reporters posing as a sheik from the Mideast.

But officers said so far they found nothing to back the claim of the British tabloid that the father, Rafiq Qureshi, offered to give up Ali for adoption in exchange for some $400,000.

"We have interrogated Rubina's father at length and have not found any evidence against him indicating that he was trying to sell Rubina," said senior police officer Nishar Tamboli.

However, he said the investigation was still going on.

Rahim Sheik, the police officer leading the probe, said television footage of the incident obtained by Mumbai police also did not incriminate Qureshi.

It was not immediately clear if police had access to footage beyond that posted on the Web site of the newspaper.

The newspaper — owned by News International Ltd., the main British subsidiary of News Corp., which also owns "Slumdog" distributor Fox Searchlight Pictures — said the father was demanding millions of rupees for the girl.

The newspaper quoted Qureshi as saying that Hollywood was to blame for forcing him to give her up for adoption.

"We've got nothing out of this film," Rafiq Qureshi was quoted as saying. "I have to consider what's best for me, my family and Rubina's future."

Qureshi has denied the report, saying he had been lured to a fancy Mumbai hotel by someone claiming they were moved by Rubina's story and wanted to help her.

The accusations further complicated the lives of the families of the slum-dwelling child stars, who have come under intense scrutiny since the movie skyrocketed to Oscar-winning fame and grossed more than $300 million worldwide.

Following the success of the rags-to-riches tale, some criticized the filmmakers for failing to share the wealth with Mumbai's millions of slum dwellers. Others accused them of exploiting two of the child stars, Rubina and Azharuddin Mohammed Ismail, 10, who grew up in a wretched Mumbai slum.

The filmmakers' initial efforts to help their families were thwarted by media attention, the changing demands of relatives and the film's runaway success. Sudden fame and relative fortune also complicated relations between the actors and their neighbors.

The filmmakers feared if they gave the families a lump sum, the money would be squandered or extorted. Instead, they set up a trust fund for the two children that was supposed to provide them with a good education, adequate housing and social support.

Last week they also announced a donation of $747,500 to a charity devoted to improving the lives of street children in Mumbai.