Friday, September 5, 2008

Paul Peterson's In-Depth Commentary

Paul Peterson has provided an in-depth commentary on the controversy surrounding Jon and Kate Gosselin.

http://www.minorcon.org/jon_kate2.html

In his writing and questioning, Paul Peterson has shown himself to be respectable, dignified and genuinely concerned. In fact, he is everything that is opposite of another controversial blog. If advocacy for the children had been the original intent of that blog, they have traveled so far off course and have lost their credibility.

It is refreshing to see an unbiased opinion in pursuit of what is right for these children, without attempting to drag their parents through the mud.

59 comments:

Linda said...

I agree 100% nomoredrama. I have always thought that the issue of child labor protections for the Gs kids should be explored, but I've always thought that the way that GwoP has attempted to raise awareness is in itself harmful to the kids.

I'm reading some of the old posts and comments from GwoP. They are just as filled with assumptions, rumor, innuendo, and half-truths as I remembered.

I need a shower.

Baby Mama said...

Im sorry, but in my opinion Mr. Peterson has jumped on the GWOP bandwagon and gone too far.

"Are there work permits, limited hours, due consideration for actual or potential harm, and protection of the minor's income? Is federally mandated education in place? A Court-Appointed advocate must be appointed; an advocate independent of the parents and the production company with the power to actively intervene, if necessary."

I know so many of us want to know that these children are not being exploited in any way. But they are truly just living their lives, but with cameras. To say that they need work permits when they are playing or taking a trip, to me is ridiculous. "Due consideration of harm", how do you think people are going to rip that comment apart. You are accusing this family of harming the children, and that's walking on a very thin line. And even if Kate wanted to home school her kids, that is her right. I personally believe that now the however many posts hes done has gotten way out of hand.

Anonymous said...

Something I possed elsewhere but worth posting here...

The problem is regardless of what Paul implies on his website, Jon & Kate+8 is a UNIQUE SITUATION...

It's evolved BEYOND the original documentary style into something of a hybrid of Documentary, Reality, and Slice of Life

But this isn't a case of "Ozzie & Harriet" where Ozzie, Harriet, David and Ricky were playing fictious characters sort of based on real life, on a soundstage with sets resembling their home - this is REAL LIFE.

J&K+8 show's 'real life' as it is for the family now - a life of a real family who just happens to have their life on TV and that life now includes the fact they make this show - plain and simple. It isn't work - its LIFE there's a big difference.

Yes, the questions and concerns should be addressed - but you can't fit this type of show into the 'rules and regulations' that scripted programming falls into. They need to be adapted to fit this situation.

Their home isn't a "workplace", it just happens to have cameras, they aren’t performers, they are real people living life.

It's new ground, and unfortunately, J&K+8 have become an easy target to address these issues. It's not the ONLY show that has these issues, just the best known.

KID NATION was one thing, this is totally different. I honestly don't believe AMC was responsible for killing KID NATION. I feel if CBS took the time to work the bugs out they could have found a way to make a second "cycle" of episodes addressing the concerns that AMC had.

I can only assume that Paul has called the appropriate PA State officials to present the concerns and have them look into this on an official and proper level.

Yes, I do agree these concerns should be addressed for not only the children's sake - but for Jon & Kate's as well - it will protect the family as a whole.

I don't really see TLC or FIGURE 8 "pulling the plug" , but to expect the show to fall under the same rigorous rules of "ordinary film production" a scripted show has isn't the answer is a joke.

There are solutions to allot of the issues raised - they can limit the number of hours in the day they can film the children, they can get a nanny who just happens to be accredited with the state in regards to education, child welfare and first aid, and so forth. The twins already go to school and the 'tops will be starting pre-k, so that will address education issues.

As for the monetary aspects and contractual protection of the children, that's a whole area that I think will be addressed by the state in a fair and equitable manor.

However, as I've said earlier in the post - New types of programming require new adaptations of existing rules to fit the requirements - as well as looking out for the concern, safety and well-being of the minors involved.

nomoredrama said...

There are solutions to allot of the issues raised - they can limit the number of hours in the day they can film the children, they can get a nanny who just happens to be accredited with the state in regards to education, child welfare and first aid, and so forth. The twins already go to school and the 'tops will be starting pre-k, so that will address education issues.

As for the monetary aspects and contractual protection> of the children, that's a whole area that I think will be addressed by the state in a fair and equitable manor.

See, I agree with this too. It's so hard to know what to think because, honestly, We DON'T know...does that make sense?

I think if there were more information then I could make an informed decision. I am not implying that I, just by being a viewer, am entitled to the info. I just think that someone is.

Thoughtful post, anon 11:49

Anonymous said...

But they are truly just living their lives, but with cameras. To say that they need work permits when they are playing or taking a trip, to me is ridiculous.

It may appear this way, but it is truly not. This is not big brother, where cameras are stationed in a room - like security cams filming whatever passes through.

Has anyone watched "Take Home Chef" ? Count how many people in yellow you see during the filming of this show. Usually it is just to cover Chef Curtis and his "choice". Now imagine how many bases the cameramen have to cover in the Gosselin house - 8 kids and two adults. I am no expert. but I do have experience in this field. The "outings" are anything but fun, in the sense of logistically planning a shoot of that nature. There are releases, clearances,etc. I would even say that there are "do overs" in dialogue. These kids are not trained actors, they are "regular" kids and to put them in a filming situation is anything but normal. As they grow older, they do will not know any different. Life in front of a camera is not reality. There aren't as many "do-overs"

Nina Bell said...

Baby Mama,

This post was something nomoredrama and I discussed before it was placed and something we both agreed on. This statement is more in support of the method that Paul Peterson is using than a criticism of how Jon and Kate are handling the lives of their children. I do not feel their children are exploited or abused. However, I do feel that the potential for harm is there for any family in this type of situation. I feel that having safeguards in place could only benefit children placed in this situation in the future.

Baby Mama said...

Nina, the reason why I love your site and read it frequently is because I believe and support everything you discuss regarding this family. As a mother sometimes I take offense to liberties people in general take to our right as parents. Meaning although privately I too feel potential for harm, publicly I feel that no one has the right to tell parents how to raise their kids. It is just IMO that there are some that might use this platform to support their own cause rather than truly caring about the welfare of these particular children. It was fine with the one statement, but now I feel again IMO that he is hurting the family rather than helping them. I'm sorry I seemed madder than usual. You guts are the best. ;)

Baby Mama said...

Holy smoke I NEED to clarify my original post!

"To say that they need work permits when they are playing or taking a trip, to me is ridiculous. "Due consideration of harm", how do you think people are going to rip that comment apart. HE IS accusing this family of harming the children, and that's walking on a very thin line. And even if Kate wanted to home school her kids, that is her right."

I MEANT TO SAY HE!! THAT WAS NOT INTENDED TO SAY YOU! No wonder why. I am soo sorry!

Mom said...

nomoredrama -

Thank you for "breaking" this news. I give you a "high five" for keeping yourself updated.

I don't have time to read it now as we're on our way to a kids bday party, but I'm anxious to read more later.

I did pop over somewhere else and nothing is mentioned about this. My guess is there will be a spin, or everyone will suddenly jump on the bandwagon about the kids welfare.

More later,

Nina Bell said...

baby mama,

No need to be sorry, I just don't want people to think that this blog is jumping on the GWoP bandwagon or support what they are doing. I just feel that Paul Peterson seems to be handling things in a more respectful way. Time will tell. I think some type of regulations setting up trust funds for these kids could only be a good thing. I also just watched Monday nights episode and felt the note on the door typical of a child her age. I listen to people make statements of how hard it must be for Mady to go to school after her friends witness her meltdowns on TV. I also think it must be extremely hard for her to go to school and listen to the kids talk about the comments made on GWoP and now this new blog.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone think that the only "solution" is to stop the show?

MBC said...

Stopping the show may be the only way to get the haters, psychos and cyberstalkers off their backs, but it also emboldens those nuts to do it again to someone else. It's a double edged sword.

I don't think Peterson has mentioned "stopping" the show, just putting safeguards in place. Yes, I think he may be a little overboard on some things (but what he is suggestion is standard operating procedure with all child "actors"), but if the GWoPPERS were hoping for some scathing indictment of the Gosselins, I don't think they got it. Oh, I'm sure they'll do damage control and spin that this is what they wanted all along, but we know it's not. He didn't call for the cancellation of the show. He didn't declare the children to be used, abused, or neglected, and he certainly didn't try and convict the parents in the phony Court of Righteous Indignation.

Nina Bell said...

anon 8:40 am

Could it be that this world of crazy that we are all participating in regarding this show is just a very small part of the population that watch the show? And maybe the solution is that we all should stop?

dotsicle said...

I don't know how many people on any blog want to stop the show, but personally I'd like to see it go to one or two specials a year and have the permanent stage lighting removed from the home. I'd also like to see some kind of children's advocate on site during filming; it couldn't hurt. It would be too bad to stop the show entirely.

Fanny said...

Baby mama, I agree with your post. While I do hope mr peterson is doing this for the right reasons, I do wonder why the j+k thing is mentioned on the homepage. I could understand a link to the message, but I don't see the need for the entire Welcome section to be a statement about the Gosselins.

I'm not sure why this show appeared to be completely off his radar until the gwoppers starting emailing him, and even then he didn't see a problem. Why does he see one now? My first thought was that he followed a link to gwop from an email and took offense to the things that we've discussed here, and maybe felt THAT was the danger. What makes me question that now is the fact that he seems to be feeding them. I dunno, maybe I'm just being cynical, but if it were me, this is something that, in light of all of the internet controversy, I would have discussed with the parents privately before posting it on an open blog.


And why is it (sorry for being windy), that everyone just assumes that J+K really think that they are harming the children by doing this show? I'm sure they've gotten emails about it, but there will always be people who disagree with the decisions of those on public display. In the same way that people who have certain opinions or voice them in a certain way here are assumed to be from gwop, where there is a clear mentality of hate, I would think that J+K see those emails as just more people hating on them, and overlooking legitimate points.

If a reputable person like Paul Peterson were to contact them (instead of posting his gripes on the internet)and explain his concern based on his ACTUAL EXPERIENCE, perhaps they would listen.

I do believe the gosselins love their children deeply so I tend to give them a little more credit when it comes to this subject.

Anonymous said...

Could it be that this world of crazy that we are all participating in regarding this show is just a very small part of the population that watch the show? And maybe the solution is that we all should stop?

Thank you. I think there are some people that don't think they are "guilty". GWoP/GDNNOP it doesn't matter what "side" you are on. Talking about it - just keeps the wheels in motion.

I think all the GWoP hard core "child advocates" don't realize that if you REALLY believe in that - the end result is no show.

I personally, if things don't change, as much I like watching (Alexis and her referring to herself in the third person this week - melted my heart), think the show should just stop.

Now, if "the professionals" - the Paul Petersons if you will (I am not saying he is the only Expert), but people who have no financial or otherwise contrary interests vested in this show were involved or appointed, making sure that the kids were "protected" (I am not saying from abuse - just saying to make sure that they were afforded the luxury our own kids have - the ability to just be "kids"), then maybe it could continue.

Slightly related topic - my Mother just recently passed away. She left some money (not enough to start living the high life or an amount that would make me compromise my integrity) to my nine year old.

For the insurance company to even cut a check, I had to prove I was her "legal guardian". You would think that a birth certificate would be sufficient, it was not. My husband and I are married - we didn't have joint custody or anything - yet "guardianship" is not automatic.

We would need to go to court, petition for "legal guardianship", be investigated - yes the whole socials services home visit, etc. basically to prove that we would do the "right" thing with this money.

My husband and I thought my daughter would get a check in her name and we would open an account, a trustee or whatever was necessary and she wouldn't be able to touch until she was 18. Wrong.

Inconvenient yes - but grateful that there are rules in place to protect children. Double Yes.

What did we end up doing? We let the insurance company keep the money in their own account that my daughter can get herself when she turns 18. It doesn't earn much interest, but it's something. Navigating all that paperwork was too much time and hassle. I was advised that I could hire a lawyer to make the process easier - to the tune of $7000. That's nearly 10% of what my daughter "inherited". Our only pro for getting the guardianship so the money to be released would have been to be able to invest in something higher yielding.

So anyway, my point is, the monies involved - should be set aside for the children. They are the ones earning it. I am not accusing Jon or Kate of not doing this, but just to be safe and if you have nothing to hide - be honest and open and appoint someone whose only job is protecting the kids financially. In my opinion, the whole "money issue" is vague college funds, no college funds, etc. by removing themselves, there is no conflict of interest.

Anonymous said...

I also want to clarify my earlier statement.

I don't necessarily think that the children are being exploited by their parents, but I support PPs method of raising awareness.

He does not personally take aim at the parents or degrade the children. He poses questions which are important to consider in the light of our culture's consumerism and how marketing is targeted to younger and younger children specifically.

Linda said...

Hi Guys -

I posted the above comment. Sorry for any confusion.

axiom said...

I read the new post on AMC. the following stood out to me:

1. "Jon & Kate + 8" is a commercial enterprise employing dozens of adults throughout the distribution and production chain. Raw footage is edited for entertainment value, which means content can be, and most certainly is, manipulated"

I agree with this sentiment.

2. "J&K+8" is not reality. The show is not a scientific study. Everyone knows, kids included, that cameras are present. There are sponsors and lucrative endorsements deals. A professional management firm handles hefty appearance fees, the impending DVD release, marketable books and publicity.

This is true. the children are not part of a scientific study. Reality TV is a social study at best and since its a relatively new format, the long term effects on participants still has not been determined or scientifically studied by qualified professionals (that i am aware of)..but, i'll digress for a moment and say that would certainly be an interesting case study to read. Not sure if you all have read about the Milgram experiment or the Stanford Prison experiment - BTW - im not comparing those experiments to the show at all....just really interesting case studies of how environments and situations affect people.

3. Are there work permits, limited hours, due consideration for actual or potential harm, and protection of the minor's income? Is federally mandated education in place? A Court-Appointed advocate must be appointed; an advocate independent of the parents and the production company with the power to actively intervene, if necessary

whats wrong with these provisions? they seem to be in the best interest of the children. as a former family paralegal, certain dissolutions where there are custody issues involved require a thirdparty for the children's best interest and thats for a private, non-televised divorce. i dont think suggesting and/or requesting the above is absurd or over the top. it ensures that childrens best interests, mentally, emotionally and financially are being secured and met. if theres nothing to hide, if they arent being exploited then it should be no big deal to comply with that. and complying doesnt mean making it public knowledge. those kind of matters are done with attorneys and parties involved and are kept confidential - its just that there are few in the loop that can ensure its being done for the kids.

3.Children own the money they earn and a portion of that income must be set-aside for the child's use upon reaching the age of majority.

Hell yeah! if it werent for the kids, there would be no show. alot of money is being made of the show, alone. lets set the inspirational talks aside because i would like to think im fair enough to say that when they have speaking engagements and they are speaking about parenting, then its their money. but the show, possible syndication, dvds - set up each child with an account, a trust for when they become adults and a college fund. and im sure after that, the parents will still be comfortable just from speaking engagements.

i dont believe that AMC or Mr. Peterson are hopping on the GWOP bandwagon. there have been no vicious, disrespectful comments and assumptions made about the parents. the statements made do not digress from their mission statement as an organization. and IMO, the reason they comment on the show in their welcome is from the amount of emails and traffice they have been getting lately because of the show.

Anonymous said...

Axiom, I totally agree with you. These children need fiscal and emotional support from a source outside of the show, period.

I have always thought that each child should command 10% of the gross revenues from each episode, to be placed in protected trust. The fact of the matter is that without the children there would be no show, whether you think reality television is "working" or not. The question is irrelevant. The FACT is that huge revenues are being made, and the children should be guaranteed a percentage of proceeds.

J&K should not be in control of said proceeds (except their percentage) NOT because they would be likely to spend it inappropriately, but because they need to distance themselves from that money for their own protection. Once the children reach the age of consent there WILL be questions about where that money went and was it spent/invested appropriately, questions that J&K are going to have to go to court to answer should the answers not be what the children want to hear. This inevitable consequence has happened again and again in the entertainment world, from "entertainment families" that we never would have expected it from.

I don't think the show should stop but I do think there should be safeguards in place to protect both the parents and children.

I debated whether to include this next thought, and have decided to do so because I feel that it is relevant to the question. J&K themselves are now referring to their family as the "cast" and their home as the "set". They are also referring to the show as their jobs, which is what many people have suspected for a long time and they themselves are now confirming. Now I don't think that this says anything about their character OR motivations, but I DO think it speaks a great deal as to what their financial obligations to the children are. If they are doing a "job" on a "set" with a "cast" (that includes their children), then the children are doing the same job!

So in truth it doesn't matter whether the show is a "reality" show or "scripted". What matters is the revenues being made as a result of this "job" that J&K have signed the whole family up for, the revenues that all are deserving a equal share of.

JMO!

Mom said...

Okay, I'm back. I re-read Mr. Peterson's statement a few times and read over everyone's comments here.

Personally, I think Anon 11:49's post was right on.

Kid actors study scripts, do not attend school and basically "work" most of the time. To categorize the G children in this same lump doesn't necessarily make the most sense to me.

Putting some safeguards in place? Yes, great idea. I don't think they will find anything wrong.

The bathtime and potty issues are over and done. Period.

Honestly, how much of the little ones have we seen as a whole this season? Not as much as we think. With everyone's special days and J & K's special days and J's hair day, the kids have been put into someone else's care and weren't being filmed as much. (Now, this does crack me up a little as the "haters" tend to complain about seeing J&K more, but then say they are bad parents for letting the kids be filmed. I still can't figure that one out.)

Overall, I think I'd like to see maybe 4-6 specials a year on the G's. They can keep everyone posted on the web and can do their speaking engagements, which, in my opinion, make sense if there are that few specials annually. Don't you think?

As far as the money goes. J & K both deserve a big chunk of what's being made. I don't think they are spending alot on themselves and I believe coming from where they came from, they are being smart about investing and making sure the kids are taken care of.

Going back to the quarterly special idea - honestly, some days I think they are running out of content. The little ones will go to preschool and there you have it.

BabyMama - Keep up the good work over on your site. I love the webisodes and good news you share all the time!

Nina - You are the definition of "fair & balanced." It's so nice to see you post and take time to answer other's concerns or questions. Thanks for doing such an awesome job.

Anonymous said...

If a reputable person like Paul Peterson were to contact them (instead of posting his gripes on the internet)and explain his concern based on his ACTUAL EXPERIENCE, perhaps they would listen.

I do believe the gosselins love their children deeply so I tend to give them a little more credit when it comes to this subject.


I disagree - Kate seems the type of person who answers to no one. She never apologizes for the things she says to Jon and never admits she may have been wrong.

I don't doubt they love their chidren but I don't give them credit. Their level of selfishness is apparent in all the episodes but most of all - tummy tuck, teeth whitening, & hair plugs.

The woman craves pampering, spa days, etc. I don't begrudge her an indulgence but how many times do we have to see episodes that include spa time?

JMO.

Anonymous said...

""J&K+8 show's 'real life' as it is for the family now - a life of a real family who just happens to have their life on TV and that life now includes the fact they make this show - plain and simple. It isn't work - its LIFE there's a big difference.""

But they themselves refer to it as work, and a job, on their website, under FAQ's.

""Their home isn't a "workplace", it just happens to have cameras, they aren’t performers, they are real people living life.""

They refer to their home as the "set" and the family as "cast" on the FAQ's, so I'm not sure what the difference is...

In the end, as I stated already, the question of reality show VS scripted program isn't even relevant. The fact is, they are making alot of money for doing it. The kids should have SOME sort of protection from a source that isn't involved with the show.

""As far as the money goes. J & K both deserve a big chunk of what's being made. I don't think they are spending alot on themselves and I believe coming from where they came from, they are being smart about investing and making sure the kids are taken care of.""

We can't and shouldn't assume that. The kids may think differently when they reach the age of consent, and if something isn't done to protect their interests, I guarantee we WILL see a court proceeding. They wouldn't be the first close, loving family that has gone through it and shocked the world.

""honestly, some days I think they are running out of content.""

It is *obvious* they are, the shows are becoming more and more contrived and scripted. Before it was day to day life, now it's trips, special days, holidays, vacations, and events, which make for good fun television but do NOT accurately represent the day to day life of a large family- another argument about this not being a reality show.

The kids AND J&K need to be represented and protected by a source outside the program. I can't for the life of me understand why ANYBODY would feel this was a bad idea, unless they have a personal interest that doesn't include the wellbeing of this family.

Fanny said...

"I don't doubt they love their chidren but I don't give them credit. Their level of selfishness is apparent in all the episodes but most of all - tummy tuck, teeth whitening, & hair plugs.

The woman craves pampering, spa days, etc. I don't begrudge her an indulgence but how many times do we have to see episodes that include spa time?"



I disagree. I'm a mom. I like going to the spa, having my teeth whitened, and lord knows if someone were to give me a free tummy tuck, I would take it. Does that make me a bad mother?

I don't have the mentality that "she had 8 kids so she should suffer". Is it that, or is the problem that these things have been given to her?

I think these things are good for Kate. It's easy to get so involved with being a mom and not do anything for yourself. She seems overwhelmed often anyway, so getting away(speaking engagements are still work)is probably doing her some good.


The same thing can be said for any other celebrity parent. Can you imagine how much time they spend getting tanned, and botoxed, and styled? How many hours they spend at the gym when they could be home in an apron baking cookies for their kids? I don't think that people choose to either do something for themselves or love their kids. That just isn't fair.

I've only seen her at the spa once, did I miss one?

Fanny said...

"The kids AND J&K need to be represented and protected by a source outside the program. I can't for the life of me understand why ANYBODY would feel this was a bad idea, unless they have a personal interest that doesn't include the wellbeing of this family."


I agree with you here, but how do we know this isn't already a priority?

Anonymous said...

Does that make me a bad mother?
Would leave your sick kids to do any of these things? Sorry - Kate is only able to do these things because of the show.

I've only seen her at the spa once, did I miss one?

Mother's Day & Utah - in the NC episode, Kate mentions that "the spa" is one of her favorite things, and they were spotted at the Spa at the Grand Wailea.

IMO "pleading eight" is not a good enough reason to excuse any of the behavior.

FIONA said...

I know so many of us want to know that these children are not being exploited in any way. But they are truly just living their lives, but with cameras.

.....

But that's not OK! Just because they are minors, is it OK for parent's to have them filmed in their home, on the pot, in the shower, having tantrums??? I just think it is so incredibly wrong!

FIONA said...

I do not feel their children are exploited or abused.

----
Nina Bell,

How can you possilby say that the Gosselin kids are not being expolited???? That statement blows me out of the water!

Nina Bell said...

Well make sure you land safely! Sorry, that is my opinion. I feel that there is the potential for that to be the case in any of these shows, not just this one. From what I have watched on TV land, I don't feel that is the case.

FIONA said...

As far as the money goes. J & K both deserve a big chunk of what's being made. I don't think they are spending alot on themselves and I believe coming from where they came from, they are being smart about investing and making sure the kids are taken care of

----WHY do J and K deserve more than 1/10 of the proceeds?

Can you explain why you think they are being smart about their money and investing??? Apparently they have never been too financially savvy in the past. Having children without the finaces to back them up and expecting the state to support you is ridiculous and a dead beat mentality.

And why do any specials on these kids??? Let them be.

Anonymous said...

Fiona,

Can you explain to me why you feel it is necessary to continue to har ass this family? Can people at GWoP possibly take a few notes and lessons from AMC and do things in a more respectful way. Why the stalking behavior?

FIONA said...

LOL!!!

Funny for sure....but if you don't think the Gosselin kids are being exploited, what would you consider exploitation to be???

Nina Bell said...

"Utilization of another person or group for selfish purposes".

I just don't have enough information to determine that based on this TV show. If I could spend a week or two with the family while filming, I could probably get a better grasp of it. Possibly viewing financial records to see if money is being set aside for the children would be helpful. But frankly none of that is my business. From what I see, these kids appear well taken care of and loved. I do not think this is an ideal situation and yes I would like to see regulations in place and feel if AMC can do this that would be great.

Anonymous said...

Fiona,
Is your idea of "advocating" kidnapping? I'm confused by your "Free the Gosselin Children" blog. They are not animals in a cage, they are children.

nomoredrama said...

Even though I'm totally for safeguards being put into place for the Gosselin children, I agree that we have no idea how monies are being allocated. How can you, Fiona, say that the Gosselins are not preserving their money? When do you ever see them spending it? Aren't you one of the ones who cries that they get freebies. How do you know that there aren't savings accounts? According to your group's thinking, they've always held on to an amount of savings that they had and accepted freebies. If this is true (and I have no evidence either way) then why would you assume that this would change?

P.S. Even a "negative" comment I read recently about them shopping a supermarket said that Kate was holding up the line because of her coupons. The evidence seems to point to them being thrifty.

Mom said...

Fiona,

I do believe IF you are talking "percentages," that J&K deserve more than 1/10th of the show's income. It is simply my opinion.

As far as potties and bathing goes, this is over and done with. Except in a few of the marathons where they have shown old episodes, this really isn't much of an issue anymore.

And, until someone can show me otherwise (but like others here have said, it's really not my biz), I have to believe the G's are saving their money. Since they are given freebies, what the heck are they spending their money on???? They do not have a lavish home - it is lovely, don't get me wrong - but it is not filled with lavish things. They don't look like they've stepped off Rodeo Drive or a NY runway.

I do believe they want what's best for their children. And, although their beliefs aren't the same as yours, it isn't reason enough for me to cry "abuse" or "exploitation."

Regardless, as I mentioned earlier, I'm all for putting some safeguards into place.

FIONA said...

Fiona,
Is your idea of "advocating" kidnapping? I'm confused by your "Free the Gosselin Children" blog. They are not animals in a cage, they are children.

September 7, 2008 11:03 AM

----
Nice being anonymous. You must be the one leaving such mean and hateful comments. I wrote my intentions and it has NOTHING to do with kidnapping. Why even say such a thing??? Did that give you some sort of satisfaction.


I can't post over here anymore than you can probably post on GWoP. But I tried. I won't be treated rudely.

Because I post on GWoP does not mean I beleive everything or approve of the site 100 per cent.

Nina Bell,
"Utilization of another person or group for selfish purposes".

I think the definition you provided is self-explantory. The parent's don't work, they use the fact that they have multiples for their own selfish needs. Everyone involved in the show is aiding to their explotation.

And to the other Anon poster, or perhaps the same one...I am not a stalker. I have written to PP one time my personal concerns. I don't know of anyone who is stalking the family as you so eloquently state.

Thanks for the mature posts back to me, ANON!

There is as much immaturity here if not more than on GWoP.

Mom said...

Dear dear Fiona,

It is evident just by the posts you have listed here that your comments, at times, contain a sarcastic tone.

Does anyone know "for a fact" that Jon does not work? Just curious. I haven't seen anything but speculation on that topic.

Also, who is being "judgmental" here: "Can you explain why you think they are being smart about their money and investing??? Apparently they have never been too financially savvy in the past. Having children without the finaces to back them up and expecting the state to support you is ridiculous and a dead beat mentality."

Referring to J&K as deadbeats? You are basing this on an article written in 2005. If my state offered nurse services for a year and I had premature sextuplets, you better believe I would take advantage of it. So this makes me a deadbeat? I don't think so.

I work in the media industry. If you believe everything you read, see and hear, then the joke's on you.

Let's be nice please. If an anon poster throws some venom your way, just ignore it. Where's the love?

:-)

Tyra said...

Quote:
'How can you possilby say that the Gosselin kids are not being expolited???? That statement blows me out of the water!'

I think if I went back over posts I've read here and elsewhere, I might be able to say the same about some of your opinions, so thanks for the ride, but wait, how does that kind of statement help a discussion?

Quote:
'And why do any specials on these kids??? Let them be.'

I give you credit for not being hypocritical about this aspect. I don't understand the viewpoint that says 'oh, yes, the show exploits the kids and sucks their souls', but let's have yearly updates on them, because 'hey, a little exploitation to satisfy my own curiosity is okay!!'

PepP said...

Fiona,
My post wasn't venomous, I was merely asking a question. I would love if you explained your blog more. Don't you think the title might give someone pause?

I have never posted on that site. Sorry.

PepP said...

And there is my screen name so I'm not anonymous anymore.

Anonymous said...

"Even though I'm totally for safeguards being put into place for the Gosselin children, I agree that we have no idea how monies are being allocated."

We don't know, but regardless of whether we know or not, someone else should be overseeing it for the protection of BOTH J&K AND the children. I guarantee there will be questions down the road. Do the Gosselins have a financial manager overseeing a fair portion for each child in trust? We don't know, and despite rampant speculation and questions, they aren't answering. Why? They were claiming just a couple of weeks ago that there were no college funds in any accounts in place. That concerns me.

From what I see, these kids appear well taken care of and loved.

I agree with you, but that is no indication of where all the money is going. Countless child stars have been well taken care of and loved and still not gotten a penny when they reach the age of majority. It isn't right.

Does anyone know "for a fact" that Jon does not work? Just curious. I haven't seen anything but speculation on that topic.

According to their own website, the show is now their job. Quote- "Furthermore, although this is the absolute hardest job (aside from raising 8 kids, that is) that Jon and I have ever had, it is also the most amazing blessing that we can be home with our children while working."

OK. It's pretty clear to me? Also, what employer can you think of who would be OK with almost weekly trips for speaking engagements, 3-4 days a week of production on the show, and trips for hairplugs/special days/vacations, ect ect ect. This is another area of rampant speculation and the Goselins seemed to have addressed the question on their new website ...in a delicate manner. It is obvious that he doesn't work outside the home, and IMO there is nothing wrong with the show being their "employer" that AS LONG as they are all getting representation outside the show for themselves and the kids.

If my state offered nurse services for a year and I had premature sextuplets, you better believe I would take advantage of it. So this makes me a deadbeat? I don't think so.

I don't have a problem with the state help. The tups happened, fair enough. Where most people have a problem is in the FACT that J&K *went to court* to try and get an EXTENSION on the nursing care AFTER the year was up. By that time the tups were ALL healthy and on track, why should the taxpayers have to foot the bill for more time, especially when J&K themselves acknowledge the legions of volunteer help that were coming and going constantly. Sorry, you don't need a state paid professional RN to help you change diapers and make bottles, when you have ample volunteer help. Not happening. They spent money to go to court over this, money that they claimed they were so short on. They lost.

As I've said before, I don't understand why anyone would be against representation for them unless they have a personal motivation for not wanting all the Gosselins protected.

Mom said...

Was something written about going to court?

Fanny said...

"As I've said before, I don't understand why anyone would be against representation for them unless they have a personal motivation for not wanting all the Gosselins protected."


I think most of us can agree that this would be a step in the right direction, just not necessarily one that the Gosselin's haven't already taken. The only things we really know (aside from what we actually see on tv) are really just speculation, and the people who would go to such lengths to expose their finances wouldn't(imo) be real forthcoming about them actually doing something good.


As for the nurse, I can see how it would be hard to go from day one having help with 8 children to having to do it alone. At that point, I would think that she really hadn't spent much time caring for them alone. I'm not sure that she was being greedy, I think she was scared that she couldn't handle it. I know I would be.


Also, while I do think the kids deserve their part of what they make, the money that will probably only be coming in for a little while longer, has to support 8 kids through age 18. I'm not sure that it's fair to say that each child should get 10 percent put back for them. I don't know how much they're making, but 10 percent of any conceivable amount isn't much and the show won't last forever. They have several more years of school supplies, fees, clothing, backpacks, shoes, "I need a new....mommy"s and "everyone has one of these, dad"s not to mention cars and insurance for 6 sixteen year olds(that's scary). There has to be enough to support them for a while and I doubt 20 percent is gonna do it.

Anonymous said...

There is something people don't understand about the state of PA. In PA, children of ALL incomes are eligible for medicaid (even if they have primary insurance company. It's a loophole, which entitles all children with any type of disability to be covered by medicaid as there are certain state wide programs (such as some early intervention, mental health services, etc.) that are only covered by medicaid. That means, even if you make 300,000 dollars a year and you already have insurance, you can get medical assistance for your child.

So, the G's getting a nurse off of tax payers dollars is pretty minor compared to all of the services they could have now, for free, regardless of their income. It doesn't make it right it just "is what it is"

Anonymous said...

So, the G's getting a nurse off of tax payers dollars is pretty minor compared to all of the services they could have now, for free, regardless of their income. It doesn't make it right it just "is what it is"

What could they claim as their "disability"?

Anonymous said...

I think she was scared that she couldn't handle it.

Wasn't Kate a Labor and Deliver nurse?

Anonymous said...

Not "their" disability. Their kids. I'm sure they could have made a case for a least one of them being developmentally delayed. There are many services that could be funded through Medicaid, like Occupational Therapy, Physical Therapy, Speech...etc.

Anonymous said...

Not "their" disability. Their kids. I'm sure they could have made a case for a least one of them being developmentally delayed. There are many services that could be funded through Medicaid, like Occupational Therapy, Physical Therapy, Speech...etc.

Yes - I know I meant the kids - imo, they "look" pretty healthy to me. Granted, I am sure they could "find" something to declare them developmentally delayed, but Kate has such an issue with stating her kids are "normal". You can't have it both ways.

Although, it is nice they and all the children of PA are eligible for this.

Anonymous said...

I agree that they look healthy too. I don't think they are developmentally delayed but if you say the things that get through this loophole you might be a little disturbed. You also might be disturbed to find people who live their lives on disability. I understand the frustration with the sense of entitlement but there are so many people out there that know how to work the system better than Kate did and would have gotten that nurse another year. I'm glad she didn't get it, I'm just saying. The Gosselins probably tried because it doesn't hurt to try. It's not like it went through an endless appeal process after the court case had been denied. Again, not excusing it, just putting into perspective.

And yes, I agree, it is nice that these services are available to all children.

Anonymous said...

I don't think they are developmentally delayed but if you say the things that get through this loophole you might be a little disturbed.

Could you please clarify your statement?

The way I am reading is you are saying I am disturbed for suggesting that Kate may claim her kids are developmentally disabled to receive the state benefit.

In a way you are correct (I just don't think I am disturbed), I was thinking of a follow-up to an article about the nurse. I think it began with the sentence "Kate Gosselin wants you to believe there is something wrong with her children."

The "studies" all point to the position that preemies and HOMs can be developmentally delayed compared to full term babies. I don't think she would have a hard time pleading her case - I just question this tactic (not just Kate, everyone as you said that milks the system).

I just find that so hypocritical, if Kate did, just because she has the thing about her kids being "normal" - I think it even bothers her that Aaden has glasses.

But of course, JMO.

Anonymous said...

"Could you please clarify your statement?

The way I am reading is you are saying I am disturbed for suggesting that Kate may claim her kids are developmentally disabled to receive the state benefit."
_____
No, no, I am not saying you are disturbed. That was supposed to read "I don't think they are developmentally delayed but if you SAW what the things that get through the loophole you might be a little disturbed. Meaning, you might be extremely bothered when you saw what people used as a "disability"

My typo made the whole post goofy.

The point of my original post, though, was to say that she could have truly worked the system for more than just a private nurse. Millions of taxpayer dollars are spent on people who do just that, and do it well. I was just saying, Kate chose not to play the system, she worked with what she had. Whether you agree with it or not, she took her unique situation and found a way to generate an income. Agree or disagree with the actions but, at the end of the day, the family is not on welfare, the old kids aren't even in public school. So, there are very few TAX PAYER dollars being spent on this family (I'm not talking about other freebies, etc).

Guinevere said...

How can you possilby say that the Gosselin kids are not being expolited???? That statement blows me out of the water!

Um, because people can have different opinions about things? No offense, but you must be living a pretty sheltered life not to realize that by now.

My feeling is that I am open to the idea of laws being drafted that protect kids on reality shows. I am uncomfortable with the emphasis that people place on the Gosselins; you do realize that such laws would not just apply to them, right? I think that while such concern for the Gosselin children is admirable, there is a potential can of worms inherent in the state involving itself too much with the way parents raise their children. Somehow I think some of those people who agitate for anti-Gosselin laws would not like to have the state looking over their own shoulders and micromanaging their parenting.

Fanny said...

"Anonymous said...
I think she was scared that she couldn't handle it.

Wasn't Kate a Labor and Deliver nurse?"


Yes, but being a nurse to someone elses kids with other nurses and being the mother of 8 are,imo, two totally different things. I've seen comments from teachers who say they have 24 kids during the day and it isn't as hard as Kate makes it out to be. I think HAVING 8 kids of your own is a lot different than teaching, or babysitting, or being a nurse. In these professions, the kids go home at the end of the day and it is the parent that takes care of most of their everyday needs.

Anonymous said...

Guinevere,

You are taking 2 different topics and intermingling them.

One topic is regulating children who work in reality shows, and having laws in place to limit the number of hours they can be filmed, where and what can be filmed etc...

The other topic, as I read it, it your concern of having big brother stepping in telling parent's how to parent in general. Please correct me if I am wrong.

While I do believe there are plenty of shity parents out there who should not be allowed access to their children, we already have in place ways to protect these kids thru investigations and home visits, mandatory parenting classes and that sort of thing. Surely you are not in favor of dismissing all of that. In fact, in my opinion, the states should be much tougher.

Is it your position that Jon and Kate do as they wish with the filming standards for their kids, simply because they are the parents??? I am aware that when we are discussing new laws and standards that would indeed affect the Gosselin kids directly it would also protect any new children entering into the reality industry. That is a GOOD thing. It is too bad that the Gosselin kids are the ones who have had to pay the price to instigate such policys.

As I said, I think you are talking about 2 very different issues here. No one, to my knowledge has even hinted about micromanaging parents who aren't in TV, your word not mine.

Have you considered that had Jon and Kate used good judgement, and perhaps been honest in their "needs", that maybe none of this would have come about?

Just my thoughts on your comments.

Anonymous said...

I think she was scared that she couldn't handle it.

Wasn't Kate a Labor and Deliver nurse?

September 7, 2008 8:24 PM

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I think you are right, and I think she is still truly scared. I don't think she has confidence in herself. It may stem form all the anxiety issures that I see very clearly. I will say that I think Kate has more than just "issues" she needs to deal with and get a handle on quckly. I see her in line for a breakdown.

Guinevere said...

You are taking 2 different topics and intermingling them.

One topic is regulating children who work in reality shows, and having laws in place to limit the number of hours they can be filmed, where and what can be filmed etc...

The other topic, as I read it, it your concern of having big brother stepping in telling parent's how to parent in general. Please correct me if I am wrong.


Yeah, but I don't see them as wholly separate topics. We've brought up the example of parents who have their kids work for them on a farm, or in a family business, etc. - should those things be regulated as well?

To be fair, I guess that the Jackie Coogan laws have been in effect for a while and no one has extrapolated those to cover children working in other situations. So maybe it's not the can of worms I initially saw it as. But I wonder if it should be. Having your kid work is having your kid work - I'm not sure that the scope of the work should change anything that much. If we're going to regulate kids in some industries, maybe we should be regulating kids in all industries.

And that's where I think you get to the point of government intrusion in parenting. I believe the Gosselins think that they are making the best choices for their family. I think most people believe that parents *should* be allowed to make those choices, barring obvious cases of abuse (and whether the Gosselin children are suffering abuse is obviously an issue that not everyone agrees on).

While I do believe there are plenty of shity parents out there who should not be allowed access to their children, we already have in place ways to protect these kids thru investigations and home visits, mandatory parenting classes and that sort of thing. Surely you are not in favor of dismissing all of that. In fact, in my opinion, the states should be much tougher.

Well, yes; in fact, it's problematic that these agencies are often so poorly run. Just in the past week or two locally, there was a case of a 15-year-old girl who died after apparent beatings and starvation by her aunt. She had a caseworker who visited her; she had schoolmates who were apparently aware of the abuse. Putting laws in place and setting up regulatory agencies are not cure-alls, and I think sometimes these things can even be detrimental, as they give individuals the false sense that someone else will take care of it if abuse occurs.

Again, I am not opposed to laws protecting children in reality tv. What I'm opposed to is people who pretend to care about such issues when what they really want is to punish a family they don't like.

Is it your position that Jon and Kate do as they wish with the filming standards for their kids, simply because they are the parents??? I am aware that when we are discussing new laws and standards that would indeed affect the Gosselin kids directly it would also protect any new children entering into the reality industry. That is a GOOD thing. It is too bad that the Gosselin kids are the ones who have had to pay the price to instigate such policys.

I feel some ambivalence on government involvement with parenting. Take the case earlier this year with the fundamentalist Mormon group that had all the kids taken away. Now, I absolutely have no problem with the government stepping in where children are being abused (e.g. underage girls being forced to marry older men). And I strongly disagree with the lifestyle these people lead. But I also don't believe that the government should intervene simply because the children are being indoctrinated into a way of life that many of us would find abhorrent.

How about parents who raise their kids to be white supremacists? Should those children be taken away, even if the parents do not violate any laws?

My point here is that just because we disapprove of someone's parenting choices, it does not necessarily follow that there should be laws enacted to prevent those choices, or agencies involved in overseeing the parenting. That is the can of worms I'm talking about.

As I said, I think you are talking about 2 very different issues here. No one, to my knowledge has even hinted about micromanaging parents who aren't in TV, your word not mine.

Okay, but why not? Why shouldn't the kid milking cows at 6 a.m. every day be regulated and subject to child labor laws? Why shouldn't any profit the parents earn from such labor be set aside for the child? What's the difference, and where do you draw the line?

Have you considered that had Jon and Kate used good judgement, and perhaps been honest in their "needs", that maybe none of this would have come about?

I don't understand the question. It's not a set-in-stone fact that J&K haven't used good judgment or been honest about their needs. People have different opinions on this. I believe that they are doing what they feel is best for their family, and though it wouldn't be my choice, I see no evidence that their choices have harmed their children. While I don't oppose laws in general to regulate children on reality TV, I don't feel that such laws need to be passed in order to "save" the Gosselin kids.

AgainAnonymous said...

Thank you, Guinevere, for stating these points so clearly!

I haven't been here long, but it's like you've read my mind on these issues. Soooo glad I've found this blog!

Guinevere said...

Thanks, againanonymous! It's great to have you here!