When I first discovered the Jon and Kate controversy in July, one of the first things that pulled me in was the accusation of Jon and Kate being ‘con artists.’ I saw numerous internet reports that stated, as a fact, that Jon and Kate collect astronomical speaking fees (to the tune of 25k) and, when not collecting fees of this caliber, they are preying on churchgoers who are still naively thinking that the Gosselns are struggling. The belief is that Jon and Kate create an illusion of financial hardship in order to lure people into donating to them. This ‘belief’ is added to an arsenal of accusations against the family, which further inspires the nay-sayers to pick up weapons and attack the family, guns blazing, in order to save the weak and feeble minded (or, to put it another way, anyone that isn’t one of them).
Being raised in a particular faith background, to say that this alarmed me would have been an understatement. If this were true, my perception of this family would surely change. I had to find out the truth. So, I found a schedule of speaking engagements and I registered to attend one that was within a reasonable driving distance.
I’ll admit to feeling nervous going into it. But, after experiencing one of these events first hand, I discovered that the ‘truth’ was so far from what is purported on the internet. In the rest of this post, I will outline what was spoken about and address some of the ‘untruths’ purported by the “Anti’s” as well as some interesting things that were discussed.
Untruth #1 Jon and Kate are at these events still claiming financial hardship
Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, Jon and Kate openly acknowledged how blessed they were. They noted that the first year with the tups, in particular, was very difficult. It was strenuous on their marriage, difficult for the twins and overall stressful. The second year for them was also difficult but seemed brighter. Again, there was an emphasis on being blessed and trusting God in hard times.
Untruth #2 People are pressured into giving love offerings to the family, again because of their financial situation.
At no point was it ever said that the Gosselins need a love offering for financial reasons. In fact, the pastor was pretty clear that the love offering was meant to “show appreciation” for the family’s willingness to come and speak. In other words, the love offering is the speaker’s fee.
At the event I attended, there were several hundred people there. When it was love offering time, I looked all around me to see who was giving. A good chunk of people just passed the bucket down the row. And, though it’s not polite to look at what others are giving, my curiosity got the best of me. I didn’t see large sums of money being thrown in. There is no mathematical way that the family pulled in even 10k. I’d be shocked if they made 5k. My best guess is 2k and even that could be high. This imaginary mad rush to shower the family with money is, well, imaginary.
***The stated definition that the church gave for the love offerings is in line with purpose of love offerings. They are, in fact, meant to be payment for speakers. Nothing more. For more info go to http://www.kncsb.org/legal/Love_Offerings.pdf,
Untruth #3 They sell pictures that they claim are going to the sextuplets college fund. They are also still stating at these events that the kids have no such funds.
The kernel of truth in this is that they do sell pictures for $20. I certainly didn’t pay for one, as I believe that 20 dollars for 1 photo of even my loved ones is a bit much. I’m not going to spend that for a picture of children I’ve never met.
The ‘untruth’ is that it is presented that the family claims that money from the photos goes to the kid’s college funds. There was not a single, solitary mention of college funds (and they certainly weren’t asking for donations to it).
And though there was a huge line afterwards to meet and greet J &K, many people just walked up, said hi and left. There were some that bought the pictures but the majority did not.
Now for some interesting things that were discussed:
- When asked what the hardest part of being on TV was , they alluded to ‘ugliness’ (hmmm) and also the violation of their privacy. They mentioned people driving by their homes, getting out of the car and stepping onto their lawns. They talked about the risks to the safety and well-being of their family. There was a strong security presence provided by the church at this event and the Gosselins clearly had their own security as well. I wonder why? (haha).
****As an aside, I know a person who is higher up in the ministry of this church. She mentioned that the pastor had received numerous threatening emails from various ‘individuals.’ There was a huge concern and I’m sure it wasn’t just for the Gosselins.
- They talked about their show being their job . They mentioned that they were fortunate enough to be able to stay home with their kids. And contrary to the belief that Jon is a lazy slob, he clearly struggles with staying home. Kate mentioned having a few projects in the works and Jon referred to himself as the “Manny (Man Nanny)” Kate said she has to remind him every day that “this is a blessing” but he mentioned becoming really frustrated with it. He does want to work. (I can see this getting twisted as I write it… “that shrew, she cut his male parts off and has stripped him of his pride”. Or…how about this…he loves her and he loves his kids so he’s making sacrifices)
- When asked about filming, they answered that the cameras are there 3-4 days per week but contrary to popular belief, they are not filming 24/7. A filming day could be 4 hours or 10. The kids are not involved in every bit of the filming. There are whole filming days of interviews with the parents. I know that there are still unanswered questions about filming but it goes to show that there are things not necessarily being presented by the other side.
- There was a point in the interview when Kate and Jon were talking about their first year with the tups and the tension in their marriage at the time. Kate admitted to taking things out on Jon that she shouldn’t have at the time and mentioned volunteers. Overall, however, they feel that this time in their lives made them stronger. Kate mentioned being anxious (not her words) about Jon leaving but he told her then he never would. Then, as they were discussing this (and it was really sweet, not Jon’s usual sarcastic tone) he looked into her face and said “I’ll never leave you.” I know, damage control, right? He’s really planning to move to Mexico with Jenny. *rolls eyes*
There are many other things I could write but I’ll refrain in the interest of saving space. Overall, Jon and Kate were Jon and Kate. They openly admitted on more than one occasion that they are *gasp* human and imperfect. It’s a shame that others have taken their humanity away from them, and feel that because they are public figures it’s ok to treat them any way they please.
134 comments:
Thanks so much for sharing what you heard and setting things straight. FUNNY these things were exactly almost to a T what was going thru my mind that the truth could be. I kind of felt these things were the way they were without having had to hear them said. I felt Jon was uneasy about being home now and this being thier job!!!!!!! I felt that they had to spend alot of time on this but I also felt that they did have some days off. I knew there was lots of stuff we did not see. WONDER why the others who read these things are too simple minded to see this themselves.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1124348/board/flat/117690056?d=117734929&p=1#117734929
here is another comment who had a similar experience to yours.
Thanks for providing some first-hand viewpoint.
Why, oh why, are some people so bent on stretching it truth, assuming the worst, being nasty? I just don't get it! It's not even politics!
Marmie I was about to leave the same site about another person who went to a speaking engagement. I am very glad to hear this. I have always been curious about what is said at the speaking engagements and I am glad to have found out.
Thank you...
NMD - was this the *Cornerstone engagement you attended? Did Jon and Kate appear there twice? or did August's appearance get rescheduled?
While there were reports that Jon still claimed that there are no college funds at the twins' convention in July, I am glad they are no longer doing so.
*If this was the Cornerstone Engagement, IMO I think the flack the pastor received was because it was posted on the Church's site to "be prepared to bring a love offering for the Gosselin's(sic)".
Thanks NMD -
A few questions that come to mind:
Did you pay to attend this engagement? If so, could you share the dollar amount?
Also, if there was a fee attached to this speaking engagement, was it a fundraiser for the actual church?
My take on love offerings is exactly as you have it spelled out. Nice PDF too. Thanks for that.
Is it possible that the only money J&K received for this event was the love offerings and any photos purchased?
Is it possible that the huge speaking engagement fees we've heard about are for events that are held in large arenas, convention centers, etc. where a church or non profit does not benefit?
Thanks again for clearing up some of the issues surrounding the G's.
Thanks for giving us your first hand experience. It's nice to read after being subjected to the lies, rumors and innuendo being posted "elsewhere."
It's also sad that a pastor has to put up with harassment from the "advocates." They have no shame, whatsoever.
I am sooooo glad that you shared this information!
Sadly, people will find something negative to say about it. (not here, of course) Something along the lines of "Too little, too late" or "Well, she's a fan so you can't belive everything she says."
I do think $20 for a picture is a bit steep, though.
Thanks for this report. I have been hoping they would appear near me so I could find this out for myself.
I don't understand the criticism about speaking engagements. (I assumed the reports of "begging" and huge amounts of money were untrue.) At least they are "earning" the money without directly involving the kids. If people want to see them why shouldn't they go for it?
Someone ( I think Bee, who I think has also posted at PM) gave a similar report at GWoP. At first people said it was "damage control", then eventually she was told she saw it "in her head".
Apparently the date of the engagement had changed from GWoP's "official" calendar.
Thanks for sharing. There are always two sides to every story.
(I can see this getting twisted as I write it… “that shrew, she cut his male parts off and has stripped him of his pride”. Or…how about this…he loves her and he loves his kids so he’s making sacrifices)
Oh you know it. They will put their own twisted spin on Jon not being able to work. It's so predictable. Just as I suspected, there is more to the story of Jon being unemployed. He may be working at home, who know? Maybe he wants more time at home to properly supervise his children being filmed. We don't know.
I have a feeling that J&K do receive their "love offerings" in addition to a regular speaking fee as arranged by their management company. Does anyone really think J&K are going to fly out of state and stay at a motel on their own dime? Don't think so. Still, I think some critics worry too much about how much money the Gosselins make, and not enough about how the lifestyle may be adversely affecting the kids.
im posting from my phone so i cant answer every question yet but wanted to answer moms. The event was totally free. You were under no obligation to give. At this particular event, 2 offerings were taken.One for the church to help defray the cost of the event (their church is small so they had to rent a separate venue to accomdate the people) and one was to go to Jon and Kate was their payment for being there. Hope this helps.
Thank you for sharing this. I've said before I'm not a huge fan of them as people, but do not see that as a reason to think they are vile and should be prosecuted or have their children remove or gosh knows what else people think. I think in the end they are just human beings doing the best that they can. And it just so happens that this day in age, reality tv is huge and many see it as an avenue to make some money, get ahead, whatever, while those who watch either want to live vicariously, learn about something, or escape their own "reality".
I think in the end EVERYONE, J&K and posters included, should focus on doing the best that they can with what they have. That doesn't mean anyone can do it perfect or better. It just means that there's very many different ways to do things.
Once again I appreciate the time you took to write this and commend those who are not quick to judge on the basis of 22 minutes of edited programming.
Thanks NMD -
Please post later, I would love your opinion on the other types of speaking engagements I mentioned earlier.
I don't think there is anything wrong with receiving a fee for the speaking engagements either. Tons of people do it - knowns and unknowns. Whether it's Bruce Jenner, Kris Carr (crazy sexy cancer), numerous journalists and tv personalities (local and nat'l), not to mention authors.
I think some slack could be given to the G's for using this route to subsidize part of their income. Plus, it's supply and demand, right? As long as there is a demand for them to speak, my guess is they will.
Completely OT - the daily puppy today is so adorable! I can almost smell the puppy breath! he he.
Hi NMD. I will echo what others have said and thank you for both taking the time to attend the event and write of your experience.
I'll admit to being a bit bipolar when it comes to the Gosselins. On one hand, some of the accusations are so ludicrous that they can be dismissed right out of hand, but others such as how they address their current financial situation in these talks, I wasn't sure what to think. I know their circumstances have changed very quickly, but I am glad to hear that they are not misrepresenting anything. It sets my mind at ease.
I appreciate the additional information regarding love offerings. Until I entered "Gosselin world", I had never heard of such things. It appears these are quite common within certain branches of Christian churches, however. I'll echo Mom's idea that it would appear speaking fees (of which I don't think any of us can reliably quote the exact figure they receive) *might* be applicable for larger venues and the love offerings - in lieu of speaking fees - are used to offset their traveling costs and yes, believe it or not, make some financial return, in the smaller church events. I do not doubt that the Gosselin's faith is very important to them and my sense is they view these talks as not solely a way to make money, but also as a way to connect and give back to their fans and fellow persons of faith.
I hope you will share a few more tidbits in the coming days, NMD. It is so refreshing to hear a first hand account from a person that does not have an agenda to take down the Gosselins.
Thank you for your description of the J&K speaking engagement. I have been wondering about how true the insinuations are, it is nice to hear a first hand account from an objective source.
[Nina - you can put this wherever. I was feeling a little lyrical this afternoon......]
The truth, their supposed pursuit
Exploitation, the horn they will toot
But when Guin, Anya and the minions
Begin to question their opinions
They are quickly given the boot!
the love offerings - in lieu of speaking fees - are used to offset their traveling costs
--------------------
I used to plan entertainment for conventions and private events, so I am familiar with the way most speakers, large and small, work. First of all, the speaker's fee generally never include airfare. There is just too much flucation in the cost of flying to make that profitable for the speaker. Second fee speakers charge is air, hotel, ground transportation, and per diem for food. Finally, and with speakers this isn't usually a great cost, is their rider which specifies the sound and lighting requirements the speaker have.
I can tell you there is absolutely no way Jon and Kate would agree to appear at an without a signed contract, with a guranteed payment listed on it. Most contracts call for 50% upfront in addition to everything else. The collection for the love offering is probably written in their contract, as well as stipulation that they will receive all the money, which would be on top of their agreed upon fee. They might have an agreement with the church that if the parisioners don't donate x amount, then the church will kick in the difference for the remainder of their fees. (I think someone on GWOP quoted their fee as $3,500 - not sure if that was for the both, my guess is just 1. Based on when the events were booked (last year), that is a reasonable amount to pay, and in line with what other speakers in the level would receive.)
The only possible exception would be if the event was in reasonable driving distance from their house, and they have a personal relationship with the church. Then they might do it for the love offering only. Or, if TLC filmed it, they might have paid for all expenses as part of the show.
Let's face it, Jon and Kate are not traveling to different churches to spread their view on Christanity. They are not doing missionary work. They are speaking in front of audiences to get paid. There is nothing wrong with that - some speakers make an excellent living at it. But to suggest that Jon and Kate are speaking at churches out of the goodness of their heart and what ever the love offering brings, well that is pretty naive thinking. Airfare alone is expensive, as well as the issue of traveling to some place and making arrangments for the kids. Jon and Kate are not going to pay for airfare out of their personal account, with the hope that maybe they might make their money back.
Nomoredrama will be on later this evening to address questions and some of these points. It is my understanding this church was close to their home.
Mom said...
The truth, their supposed pursuit
Exploitation, the horn they will toot
But when Guin, Anya and the minions
Begin to question their opinions
They are quickly given the boot!
Brilliant! I love this! I will proudly print a copy and put it right next to my computer.
Thanks. That made my Monday.
Nina -
If the event was close to their house, than this speaking engagement is an isolated event, and can no way be considered as SOP for other events they travel too.
I just assumed that the love offerings were over and above the travel expenses paid by the church. I wouldn't expect them to pay their own airfare, etc, and just hope to make it up in the offering. I never thought that the Gosselins were taking advantage of anyone. It seems to me that it was just another way to make them out to be some type of monsters who beg from the poor and needy.
I don't think most people are stupid enough to buy that crap anyway. I'd like to see some of the anti-gosselin folks give the members of these churches a little more credit.
Fanny - that cat pic is hilarious!
Anya -
Glad you liked it. I was going to add a note to you and Guin as I wasn't meaning to single you out, but then I thought - geez - they will 'get it!' It just fell off my tongue today, so I wrote it down. Happy Monday!
She looks pissed, right? I thought it fit the over all theme...lol
When life gives you lemons,
Put a lime on your head and hiss!
he he
Fanny -
I believe the issue is once the Gosselins financial situation improved (dramatically, as some might add), is it really appropriate for them to still ask for love offering? If they are doing it in lieu of a speaker's fee, sure, I don't have a problem with it. But in your opinion, how much money do they have to make before they eliminate the "love offerings". It has nothing to do with whether the church people give or not, some people think that just by askig for a love offering when they no longer need it come across as greedy.
Thanks for posting your experience at J&K's speaking engagement. It's nice to hear first-hand how it went, and it was also nice that some misconceptions were cleared up.
I feel really bad, though, that the pastor had to deal with rude emails.
Why, oh why, are some people so bent on stretching it truth, assuming the worst, being nasty?
Maybe it's because they live boring lives, and need to create drama? *shrugs* :)
This is OT, so feel free to move it to wherever...
I just went over to the new Duggar site and I have to say the hypocrisy there is astounding. Some of posters from gwop who have been most vocal about child exploitation in regards to the Gosselins appear to be giving the Duggars a free pass based on the fact that they appear to be nicer people. Huh?
The first few posts are mostly about how nice they are in comparison to J+K, and how they surely will never see Ma and Pa Duggar "abusing" their children or Ma smacking Pa around. One even says the Duggars are more real than the G's. Say what? I dunno about anyone else, but I've seen a special or two on them and find them to be...different. Not in a bad way really, I just don't relate much to them.
I've said it before just being snarky, but obviously I was right. It isn't about the kids. It's the hatred of Kate, and the fact that even after 8 kids she still looks nice(albiet with a little help) and gets ALL THAT FREE STUFF. I cannot wait until the Duggars start getting the endorsement deals.
It's funny when I said the same recap over at another site that shall remain nameless. They actually said I went to the speaking engagement in my head, since it was rescheduled and not on their list of speaking engagements!!! I am so glad that you recapped so nicely, I concur completely with the talk I had heard about a month ago.
Personally, I also find the Duggar a bit unusual. And while their show will definitely be a kinder version of J&K, I have to say that my opinion of them has gone down now that they have sold out for reality TV.
Anon, I think the love offerings are just paying for their time. Sure, it would be nice if they did it for free, but if the offerings are all they are getting for that time, it is really the congregation that decides what that time is worth to them. I highly doubt there is a sign on the plate that says "$20 minimum". I think it's a fair way to let those people decide for themselves what they want to give.
Nomoredrama says in her post that they didn't portray themselves as poor or needy. They didn't beg for money. As I said earlier, give the people that attend these speaking engagements some credit. I'm sure they watch the show. They are not all complete idiots. Had I ever attended myself and given to the offering, I would be a little offended at the accusations that I may have been duped into doing so.
Why do you think they don't receive a speaker's fee on top of the love offering?
Anonymous said...
"Why do you think they don't receive a speaker's fee on top of the love offering?"
Because according to NMD's post, the love offerings were the speaker's fees. Why do you think they do?
There is an easy way to settle this once for all. There has to be someone here who wants to have Jon and Kate speak at their church. It would be simple to send an inquiry to their website asking about availability, if they would be in your neighborhood anytime soon (a good way to save money on an event is to book an entertainer who is already going to be there because the 1st engagement has already paid for the airfare), and what their fee is. Please note that I am not asking anybody to harass the Gosselins or their manager/PR person. If you are seriously interested in having them speak at your church these are all acceptable questions and typical inquiries that the Gosselins receive on a regular basis.
However, I think (and this is just my assumation) you will find the following things.
1) Due to lack of time and resources, the Gosselins are no longer speaking at smaller churches. Given their current success, they can now focus their energies on higher paying gigs, and do less events for more money. This is the goal of all aspiring speakers, and I am no way inferring it is a bad thing to increase your speaking fees and taking advantage of your fleeting popularity.
2) Their fee is much higher than what you would expect. Given their popularity, 25K really isn't that much. However, to make the big bucks (50 - 100K), John and Kate need to expand their talk beyond Christanity, need to relate to audiences better, and have a clear message that relates to a wide variety of people so their agent call sell them to conventions, sales meetings, etc.
On GWOP, there is letter supposely sent from Kate's PR person to a church where Jon and Kate were scheduled to speak. Unfortunately, Jon and Kate had to cancel and that is the purpose of the letter. Notice it refers to the return of a deposit. As I mentioned before, it is typical to get 50% of the speaker's fee once a contract is signed to secure the event. Air fare arrangements are usually made anywhere from 3 months to 2 weeks before the event, so I doubt the deposit was made for transportation.
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 2:08 PM
Subject: Hi Judy/The Gosselins
Hi Judy,
I hope all is well with you.
I wanted to introduce myself as I work with Kate and Jon Gosselin.
I'm afraid that I have some disappointing news as Jon & Kate unfortunately are having to cut back on their upcoming speaking engagements and travel in order to spend more time with their children and we sincerely hope you can understand.
They are really so very sorry that they will not be able to make the trip. Of course, they will be happy to return your deposit if you can please email me the best address to send it to and we'll get that to you right away.
Again, we are so very sorry that they will be unable to attend as they were so looking forward to meeting you in person and also meeting your wonderful group!
Thank you for everything and if they might be in your area in the future, perhaps there will be a way to work out an appearance at a future time.
All best,
Julie May
Media Motion International
I think, based on my previous statements above, NMD's event was an isolated event, and definitely not typical of a standard Jon and Kate event. Nina said that NMD will clarify later, but I bet you will find that the event took place near their house, and they have some personal contact with the church. I will also bet that TLC filmed their talk for the TV show.
anon 2:27
I probably should not have spoken for nomoredrama because she was the one who actually attended. What I meant was that the venue was within driving distance and did not require flying. How far away it was, I am not sure.
Nina -
Please notice that before you even mentioned that you thought the venue was in driving distance I posted this -
The only possible exception would be if the event was in reasonable driving distance from their house, and they have a personal relationship with the church. Then they might do it for the love offering only. Or, if TLC filmed it, they might have paid for all expenses as part of the show.
I was really just restating my experience with booking speakers for events - I understand that you want NMD to speak for herself on this issue, since she was the one there.
I've seen the anti-gosselin posters go to great lengths to prove a point, so I tend to take anything that is posted by them or at gwop with a very small grain of salt.
If that email was supposed to be some sort of eye opener, I'm afraid most of us have already seen it. If that is true, and that's a very big IF, I personally could find something better to do with my 25k, but it isn't my money, so it isn't my place to say where it should or shouldn't be used.
Are you implying that anti-gosselins had incredible foresight to provide that letter (posted a couple months ago), include the part about returning the deposit, because somewhere down the line they knew I would use this letter to show that I think Jon and Kate get a speaking fee and a love offering and therefore help spread their anti-gosselin agenda?
I'm sorry the point got by you, but you asked me why I thought Jon and Kate got a speaker's fee ontop of the love offering. I provided you with a letter from Jon and Kate's PR person stating they are returning the deposit for an event they are cancelling.
Why are you reading more into it? You asked me a question, I answered. Also please note that I didn't say Jon and Kate received 25K for speaking engagements. What I said was, based on my experience booking entertainment for events, and the current popularity of Jon and Kate, it is possible that they can be paid that much. You would be surprised at how much people can get, and how many people you would never think of do corporate events.
"If that email was supposed to be some sort of eye opener, I'm afraid most of us have already seen it." Nice jumping to conclusions about my intent. How you twisted it around to be anymore than an answer to your question astounds me.
NMD,
Thank you very much for posting your experience!
What about the glaring contadictions in the stories of J&K? Do you just cast those aside and label them as inaccurate? Even the ones made straight from Kate? She has stated on numerous occasions that she cooks ALL DAY LONG. Now, according to their website, she is admitting to receiving Craft Services. Does that not contradict itself? Directly from Kate, no less.
Also, regarding an infirtility issue, Kate stated that it will happen when God wants it to. Refering to a woman conceiving. Did she follow her own advice? No. She did not. She went blindly against Gods will and had not one, but two sets of multiples unnaturally.
I am infertile myself, so I know the emotions that come along with that piece of baggage. I have, however, chosen to accept Gods will that I have been put on this earth to love children that others are either incapable of loving or simply choose not to. I am a foster parent and will adopt. I will not, however, try to bend gods will to fit my own ideas and schedule about my life.
Thank you for your time.
Anonymous 4:02 PM said...
"What about the glaring contadictions in the stories of J&K? Do you just cast those aside and label them as inaccurate? Even the ones made straight from Kate? She has stated on numerous occasions that she cooks ALL DAY LONG. Now, according to their website, she is admitting to receiving Craft Services. Does that not contradict itself? Directly from Kate, no less."
The way I read Kate is she is prone to exaggeration and sometimes takes on the martyr role. When Kate says something like "I cook all day" or "Leah threw up every day for two years straight", I take it with a huge grain of salt. I have known plenty of people like her in my life and while they may be unconciously trying to promote themselves in some way (hard worker, self-sacrifing mom, etc.), I don't think they are *trying* to be untruthful.
"I have, however, chosen to accept Gods will that I have been put on this earth to love children that others are either incapable of loving or simply choose not to. I am a foster parent and will adopt. I will not, however, try to bend gods will to fit my own ideas and schedule about my life."
I do think I understand why this would be a sore point for you. I respect your interpretation of what it means to obey God's will, but I guess my question is do all Christians view it this way? I can't really speak to this (several years of Catholic education, but I am not really a practicing Christian). Don't some Christians consider it 'ok' to pursue infertility treatments and still believe that they are obeying God's will? (I guess the justification would that God controls everything in the universe and whether one pursues infertility treatments or not, a woman will only get pregnant if it's in accordance with God's will?)
I am willing to be set straight by anyone who wants to chime in. Thanks.
This is slightly OT but at least a bit related to the subject of "speaking engagements":
There's a new blog called "I Met The Gosselins" at http://i-met-the-gosselins.blogspot.com/
Basically it seems this person collects and solicits first-person tales of people who've actually met Jon & Kate. She/he seems to make an effort to be objective/balanced/fair. True, the blog highlights some "negative" tales from GWOP and their ilk. But it also has some "positive" stories, including one that's traceable to a blog created back in 2006, long before the need for any Gosselin "damage control."
Two of the positive anecdotes detail meeting the couple at a church talk. Hence, my mention of it in this thread. :)
Would be interesting to hear everyone else's thoughts on this new blog. Especially since there have been discussions on why no "positive witnesses" (as opposed to "I was done wrong by them personally" narratives) have ever come forward. No, it's not relatives or purported friends. But then again, I'm not sure ALL those angry, embittered acquaintances/friends/relatives are who they say they are either :)
I'm pretty sure they were trying to prove the same point when the email was originally posted, that is what I was referring to.
Looks like you're pretty good at twisting words yourself, eh?
Anyway, about kate's cooking and her infertility, I don't see these as contradictions. Well, at least not the cooking. I think that things have changed since the show first started. I don't remember her ever saying she cooks all day, but maybe in the beginning she did. Don't know, wasn't there. I'm sure that cooking anything for that many people isn't a ten minute deal and I don't think because there is a craft service table on filming days that the woman never cooks. She seems to enjoy cooking, so I'd say she still does when she has time.
As for her infertility, maybe it is a little bit of a contradiction to say that you always put things in god's hands, then go to a fertility doc when God decides you shouldn't have kids. Maybe. I think it could also be said that, if it wasn't God's plan, she'd have never been pregnant no matter how many eggs were implanted. Who's to say that it wasn't God's plan all along for her to do what she did. I'll never understand the "christians" who bash kate for not following the teachings of the bible word for word. What about "Judge not lest ye be judged?" Seems a little hypocritical to me.
NMD, thanks so much for attending the speaking appearance and writing about it. It confirmed some of my suspicions about the nature of these events, and discredited some of the lies floating around out there. Of course, I can already see from the comments that it wasn't enough (I doubt anything will ever be enough) to quiet the carping of Gosselin-haters, but it's still nice to have a first hand account from a trusted source. Brava!
My guess would be that people on their side don't come forward because they just don't want to give stage to the haters. Sometimes by being defensive you just point the finger at yourself more.
IMHO anyways...
hbic8u,
Whew, can we still call you Fanny? I love your picture.
I think the most important thing we have to remember is that people change and life changes. I have had to experience something in the last year that no parent should have to experience and it has changed me. Statements I made a year ago do not necessarily hold true anymore.
Jon and Kate should be allowed to change their life according to what is happening with them now. They should not be held to some statement they made when their life was totally different.
Anon 4:02, I'm a Christian and I'm of the belief that God gave man the knowledge to invent fertility treatments. There's nothing in the Bible about it since it wasn't invented when the Bible was written, so it's open to what the individual believes about God's Will.
Saying Kate went against God's Will is opinion, not fact. No one can know what God's Will is for another individual. It's between them and God.
NMD, thanks from me also. Your account of the speaking engagement goes along with others I've read of past speaking engagements. I'm glad it was a positive experience.
Oh, and I don't discredit everything negative I read about them. I've seen enough negative on tv with my own eyes to know at least some of it is true. I just don't find a blog that uses child advocacy as an exuse to snark very credible.
If the posters are regulars at gwop, I pay them no mind. From what I've read of that blog, they will take anything posted to that site, as long as it supports their theories, and spread it around as fact.
I tend to believe more of what is said here because the ones who frequent this blog don't appear to be overly invested in either side of the debate, except to say that gwop is over the top. They don't feel the need to make up stories to have something to say. And as long as visitors can be objective, we don't really care which side you play on.
From what I've seen, even some of the regulars are getting tired of gwop and their faux "Save the Children" campaign. They are very transparent to anyone who is willing to see it.
I'm pretty sure they were trying to prove the same point when the email was originally posted, that is what I was referring to.
Looks like you're pretty good at twisting words yourself, eh?
I really have no clue what your point is, nad I have no idea what words I have twisted. Since you have no intentions of explaining your POV, I guess there is nothing more to say.
And just so you know - while I read several posts, the majority of my posts are in this blog only.
Up to this point, I felt comfortable in stating that it was possible to have a fair and balanced conversation here. However, I no longer feel that is the case. Gee, how did I guess that NMD's event was close to home without even knowing the facts? Oh yeah, as a Gosselin-hater it was just a lucky hunch that paid off instead of relying on my 10 years experience being an event planner, knowing how events work.
anon 6:14 pm
I am not sure what previous comment you are directing your last comment too. What is it that is upsetting you?
Ok, let me try again...
I was talking about the intent of the original posting of this email to gwop. I don't trust them, the email came from there, it means nothing to me.
I wasn't saying YOU are a regular poster there. My comment was about them and the fact that I saw it there first.
And when I mentioned the twisting of words, I was referring to this:
"Are you implying that anti-gosselins had incredible foresight to provide that letter (posted a couple months ago), include the part about returning the deposit, because somewhere down the line they knew I would use this letter
to show that I think Jon and Kate get a speaking fee and a love offering and therefore help spread their anti-gosselin agenda?"
I still don't see how you got that from my comment.
And yes, I may have been out of line here"
"If that email was supposed to be some sort of eye opener, I'm afraid most of us have already seen it."
I said what I felt based on your comment. If I took it the wrong way, I apologize.
Ok,
Im going to try to answer some of the questions.
First, yes, the event was at Cornerstone. No, there wasn't 2. According to my "source" who is actively involved in the church, they booked this thing 2 years ago and never expected that it would balloon the way it did.
I am not entirely sure about any contracts or set amounts that must be given. I am going to look into this with my source. To the person who suggested that you call the PR firm or whatever and ask how to set up a speaking engagement, I'm pretty sure that this has been tried by many a GWoPer. I'm also pretty sure they are onto this game and probably require that a lot of specifics about the venue and some sort of authentication before they quote you a price. I'm sure the PR firm knows what is going on in blogland. If it were that easy, don't you think there would be at least 10 emails floating around GWoP with this info?
Is it possible that the huge speaking engagement fees we've heard about are for events that are held in large arenas, convention centers, etc. where a church or non profit does not benefit?
I am not at all convinced that the 25k isn't the figment of someone's imagination. If you look at GWoP and how they arrived at this number, you will see that they "heard it from someone who heard it from someone." The provider of that info to GWoP is a person who is pretty questionable in terms of credibility. Someone came over here the other day and tried to argue this with me. I asked for proof that these 25k speaking engagements existed and asked them to point me to the venue where J & K were getting paid this. They could not. If they were getting paid 25k, then it would have to be at an arena that is huge. I still won't believe this number until I'm provided with actual proof and not conjecture. BTW, if they are paid 25k at a large event, they aren't going to be collecting a love offering too. A love offering is basically a speaker's fee. I've been to some of these large church events, they are not passing a bucket for the speaker. There are usually about 5 big names at LEAST. No way are people going to dig into their pockets five-ten times on top of paying a hefty admission price (usually get case as these larger venues are more expensive to rent out, hence higher ticket prices).
To the anon poster who sited that this event was an isolated event and does not count...I disagree. First of all, it was sited on GWoP of all places that another round of emails were being sent to a different church and the poster was told that the Gosselins only asked for Travel and Gas in addition to the love offering. Of course, if you're traveling to California verses traveling 1 1/2 hours (which is about how long J & K would have had to drive one way) they travel fee will be higher. As to whether or not a set amount is agreed upon, I don't know. I'm going to try to find out more specifics. I think if 3500 is agreed upon as purported, then its for both of them. There is no way that a church of this size would agree to pay 7k on top of gas and travel and the rental of a large venue (which probably cost at least a grand) without some guarantee that this event would not put them at a loss (I.E. They'd have to charge admission or an event like this would hurt them financially).
I believe the issue is once the Gosselins financial situation improved (dramatically, as some might add), is it really appropriate for them to still ask for love offering? If they are doing it in lieu of a speaker's fee, sure, I don't have a problem with it. But in your opinion, how much money do they have to make before they eliminate the "love offerings"
Love offerings are not given based on need. That is not their purpose. Their purpose is to show financial appreciation to someone who has come to speak to them. You could be Bill Gates and if you speak at a church (for the purpose of ministering) you will be given a love offering.
J&K may not be inspirational to some, but there are many christians who find their down-to-earth, lack of beating religion into your brains approach to Christianity refreshing. Many people grow up believing that you have to be "perfect" in essence. I think many Christians appreciate that Jon and Kate fight, argue and aren't perfect parents but at the end of the day, love one another and try to have a relationship with God.
****Ok...I tried to answer mostly everything. If I missed something, I am not ignoring it. Just ask me again.
I was referring to these two comments -
If the posters are regulars at gwop, I pay them no mind. From what I've read of that blog, they will take anything posted to that site, as long as it supports their theories, and spread it around as fact.
Of course, I can already see from the comments that it wasn't enough (I doubt anything will ever be enough) to quiet the carping of Gosselin-haters,
I believe the posters are implying that 1) I am regular poster at gwop, which I am not. If I would be considered a regular poster somewhere, it would be here. 2) that instead of using my experience planning events as a basis for my comments, I am relying solely going by reports on gwop to support my arguements, when I have repeatedly wrote that the opposite is true. 3) That I am twisting facts to support my arguement, which is again, untrue. Look, I don't know every thing, and certainly have never booked Jon and Kate for an event, but I have had a serious amount of experience planning events and things generally work a certain way, which is how I could have guessed that the event NMD attended was close to home. Finding that letter (which could have been made up on GWOP but really, if there were going to do that than how did they know about the deposit? Why wouldn't they go with the "love offering" for payment theory?) 4) Based on my experience, I have a different viewpoint than some of posters here, and because of I don't go along with the status quo I am a Gosselin-hater (this thought is promoted by one of your moderators, I might add).
It is one thing to challenge my ideas, it is another thing to label me as anti-gosselin, and Gosselin-hater because I don't agree with your interpretation of the facts. Fair and balanced conversation, indeed. Welcome to the GWOP club.
Anon-
I'm not sure about who is calling you what, and maybe this is an isolated chat between you and someone in particular, but it would be great if you could call yourself something so we can differentiate you from other anons. I for one, get confused when I see anon all the time. You begin to think it's the same person even though it could be twenty.
Don't go anywhere. Your opinions are yours. I planned events too, that's why I asked NMD those question earlier.
NMD -
Thank you so much for your post. I remember a long time ago when you wondered if this show (and now the speaking engagements) are just a creative way for this family to provide income.
Personally, I don't see a problem with the speaking engagements as their source of income. It sounds like it allows them to spend more time with their kids during the week with "work" on the weekends.
Sometimes I feel like I watch a different show then a lot of people. I've long heard them talk about how fortunate they are and that they couldn't go on these trips if it weren't for the show. I've not see them act as if they are "saving" for these trips. As a matter of fact, I see them saying that they know how fortunate they are.
Thanks again NMD.
kuromi said...
This is slightly OT but at least a bit related to the subject of "speaking engagements":
There's a new blog called "I Met The Gosselins" at http://i-met-the-gosselins.blogspot.com/
Basically it seems this person collects and solicits first-person tales of people who've actually met Jon & Kate. She/he seems to make an effort to be objective/balanced/fair. True, the blog highlights some "negative" tales from GWOP and their ilk. But it also has some "positive" stories, including one that's traceable to a blog created back in 2006, long before the need for any Gosselin "damage control."
Two of the positive anecdotes detail meeting the couple at a church talk. Hence, my mention of it in this thread. :)
Thanks, Kuromi. I appreciate the link. I liked the comments from Christine C. Kate actually sent a gracious follow-up email to thank Christine for the book? Wow. That doesn't sound the "Kate" I have been hearing about nonstop who yells at people in public spaces to get away from her, etc., ETC.
She sounds, well, almost, "human", if I do say so! :-)
That whole exchange between hbi and the anon poster(s) has got me confused! I'm not sure who is who and what is what and who is talking to who anymore! lol
Jenn said...
That whole exchange between hbi and the anon poster(s) has got me confused! I'm not sure who is who and what is what and who is talking to who anymore!
I second that. Most of us have been at work all day, it's Monday and our comprehension skills are not at their best!
Please, do us a favor, "click" the Name/URL button, invent any name - even if it's "ABC" and help us to follow what you are writing. You are taking the time to write it, so it's worth us understanding who YOU are. You are still completely anonymous.
Merci.
How about calling it "damage control"? It sounds like a nice story, but honestly, what kind of simple-minded individual would go around touting the "college fund" plea after all the internet rambling? Call me cynical, but I think Jon & Kate are smart enough people to realize that they need to start saying a different story.
You can't discount the fact that they once did ask for money for college funds. Now that they dont ask for it anymore, the previous askings are non-existent?
Moreover, the problem I have is their past hinting of financial struggles while receiving a lot of financial/moral support from their friends/family. It seems pretty shady to me. Yes, these are possible "speculations", but you guys cant honestly be so naive to 100% accept their presentation and behavior at these more recent speaking engagements.
I was referring to these two comments -
If the posters are regulars at gwop, I pay them no mind. From what I've read of that blog, they will take anything posted to that site, as long as it supports their theories, and spread it around as fact.
Of course, I can already see from the comments that it wasn't enough (I doubt anything will ever be enough) to quiet the carping of Gosselin-haters,
Okay, the second comment was mine, and was in response to several comments, chiefly this:
If the event was close to their house, than this speaking engagement is an isolated event, and can no way be considered as SOP for other events they travel too.
Which I took to mean, okay, NMD has attended this event and reported back and her report negates much of the criticisms that are leveled at the Gosselins in regards to their speaking engagements, but wait, this one doesn't count. Maybe you were referring just to the speaker fee v. love offerings issue; I don't know. But I don't think my original criticism about carping is wrong. There are several other comments I could cite, which may or may not be from you, since most of them are "anonymous" (and I will echo the request to come up with a handle - any handle - to make it easier for other posters to know who they are talking to).
I believe the issue is once the Gosselins financial situation improved (dramatically, as some might add), is it really appropriate for them to still ask for love offering? If they are doing it in lieu of a speaker's fee, sure, I don't have a problem with it. But in your opinion, how much money do they have to make before they eliminate the "love offerings". It has nothing to do with whether the church people give or not, some people think that just by askig for a love offering when they no longer need it come across as greedy.
I still believe that the love offerings are in lieu of speaker fees, and thus it's no more "greedy" for the Gosselins to ask for them than it would be for you to continue to draw a paycheck even if you didn't need the money to pay your bills. There are plenty of people out there earning money they don't need, and no one calls them greedy.
As an aside, I have been relieved to learn that the entire concept of "love offerings" is not some unique thing come up by the Gosselins. Honestly, there is something a little creepy about the phrase to me. I'm sure I'm just thinking of it the wrong way, but if I were asked to give a "love offering" to someone I didn't know, my reaction would be 1) I don't know you, so how can I love you?, and 2) if I did love you, I wouldn't show it by throwing money at you. But I guess it's just one of those church things heathens like me don't get. :-)
Okay people.... no one is forcing these church members to give! If PBS has a drive for dollars, it is up to me to decide if I want to give. Every person who has donated money to John and Kate has had a choice. It is up to every single person to research J&K if they are considering giving and to make up their own minds. If they are throwing money into a pot to make themselves feel good then others must get over it! Jon and Kate give us a look at their marriage and their family. Key word here is "their". They are not the marriage police requiring everyone to follow their lead as a couple and as parents. I have read these blogs and I can't get over the pre-occupation with their finances. If you want more money for yourself, go out and make it. As for Kate's mothering skills, my eighty three year old mother loves the show and she had three sets of twins along with three singles, I am one of the singles. My mother was also a nurse and she was VERY particular about cleanliness and messes, and that we were clean when we were out in public. Her attitude didn't scar me forever. Some of us took after her and some of us took after our Dad who is messy. I am VERY outspoken and my mother was more soft-spoken. All of us love our Mom and Dad even though they weren't "perfect" parents. My one brother's wife is a sociology professor and she is considering focusing on these blogs as a study for one of her classes on women's issues. If you truly care about children, take a look at the show Oprah had on Sept. 15th. Now there are children who clearly need your help if you are worried about children in America!
"Of course, I can already see from the comments that it wasn't enough (I doubt anything will ever be enough) to quiet the carping of Gosselin-haters, but it's still nice to have a first hand account from a trusted source. Brava!"
Because of NMD, I am convinced that at this particular speaking engagement, Jon and Kate did not mention there are no college funds or attempted to paint their financial situation as anything but rosy.
If this is a start that is great. I am still not convinced that the mention of non college funds or sympathetic nods toward their financial picture did not occur before.
IMO, I think Jon and Kate would have been prepped by their "media manager" not to discuss these topics because of controversy they arouse.
Saskatoonie wrote:
"My one brother's wife is a sociology professor and she is considering focusing on these blogs as a study for one of her classes on women's issues. "
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Some of the most heated discussions that I've ever witnessed and participated in have been with women about mothering, breatfeeding, working, staying at home, etc.
It makes me shake my head.
Since we are sort of talking about the Gosselin's finances, here is a clear time that Kate blatantly lied about them. When the Gosselin's did their one on one dates with the kids, Kate mentioned that they could only afford to do them once year. How is that possible? It's pretty obvious with the book coming out and renewing their show, they certainly can no longer be considered as struggling. On top of that, Jon and Kate paid NOTHING to go on those one on one days. If the businesses shown didn't do it for the free publicity to be on their show, then TLC paid for them. So how can they not afford to go on more one on one days with their kids?
Saskatoonie,
That is so interesting (about the sociology research). I would be fascinated by her findings (however positive or negative).
As to some of the others,
My IQ doesn't drop when J&K enter a room. I'm well aware of the fact that they have media managers/PR people. I'm also well aware that things are said in direct response to the internet backlash. Just because they are said in response to something doesn't mean they are not true. I have no reason to doubt that some days they are just filming interviews. I have no reason to doubt when J &K say the cameras are not in their home 24/7.
I doubt the questions were pre-approved by J&K's pr team. There were clearly some the the pastor came up with on the spot in response to their comments. While there may have been questions that they were told to stay away from, this is certainly not unique to J &K. I also think that if Q&A is SOP, they eliminated it because of the threats they were receiving from a heated group of Anti's. I think that was a smart move.
(Oh, and I forgot to say this in my other post, the pastor has absolutely no personal connection to J & K. The day of the service was the first time they laid eyes on one another.)
As far as asking for financial help, I've read other accounts of people going to speaking events months ago and they were not asking for help then. I'm trying to find the one I was reading before so I can post a link to it (I know I'll be asked to).
No one disputes the fact that they asked for help at one time. But there seems to be no proof that they help was asked for since the show became successful. The point of their message was something different. I'm not going to post exactly what was said because I know people will go NUTS. I can paraphrase by saying their message is they were struggling and scared out of their mind. That's when the relationship with God began to develop and they believe that not only did God take them through these times but he has blessed them. It wouldn't make sense for their not to be an inspirational message. Why would a church book a talk about how in 4 years, God has not provided for them?
And about the interviews for the the special days, etc. I don't know why they said this. It could have been something the network wanted them to say so that the family appears more relatable. It could have to do with Kate's preoccupation with appearing to be a "normal" family (She mentioned several times at the event that she wishes people would see her as just that). I don't think it was a plea for money or proof that they tell the world they are struggling financially.
Joan and Kate have made decisions for their family that reflect how the public views them. They chose to go to court to fight to extend their baby nurse, stating that they are NOT a normal family. They chose to put themselves on a reality TV show to better their lifestyle, giving up their family's privacy and putting their children on a first name basis with perfect strangers.
People don't see them as normal because of the choices Jon and Kate have made, and I wish Kate would see that point as well. They created this world, and now they have gotten all the benefits Kate wants to change the rules.
I understand that Kate wants to have a "normal" life, but she can't have it both ways.
Maybe the one in one day comment was referring to time. I don't remember if she specifically cited money as the reason.
And didn't they do all the one on ones within a month anyway? Maybe she meant if they had to pay for it themselves they couldn't afford it.
I think there are too many unknowns to say anything for sure.
I like to give people the benefit of the doubt before I assume I know what they mean with what they say, especially if its someone I have no way of talking to personally. I have been known to say I can't afford to do something like "I can't affort to smack someone I right now, cause I don't wanna go to jail". It doesn't mean I'm LITERALLY going to smack someone it just means I have to grin and bear something cause the alternative could be worse. So saying she couldn't "afford" to have one on ones doesn't necessarily have to mean in the financial aspect. Maybe it means logistically speaking its difficult to have the parents go out with one child and leave the other 7 behind.
So saying she couldn't "afford" to have one on ones doesn't necessarily have to mean in the financial aspect. Maybe it means logistically speaking its difficult to have the parents go out with one child and leave the other 7 behind.
In the context Kate put it, it did refer to the financial aspect. She didn't say she could afford the time to take the kids out, she said she couldn't afford to take the kids on more than one 1-on-1 date a year. As as for time, they have babysiters, paid for by TLC, and both parents are at home, so time's really not an issue either.
That's cool its your opinion. For me, the fact of the matter is that I don't know her, haven't spoken to her, and can only go by what is shown in 22 minutes of edited television and the perceptions others may have of her. The fact that she is a polarizing figure cements, to me anyways, that you cannot take everything she says or does at face value. You really can't do that with anyone really.
I have said it before and I will say it again. Jon and Kate, not my favorite people in the world. Are they the horrible monsters people make them out to be? I don't think so. Are they the best parents in the world? No one really can be. I take issue with the fact that so many can reach judgement on ANYONE be it celebrities, public figures, WHOMEVER, by hearsay or EDITED television. They are not perfect. But they are not monsters. Going by the 22 minutes of edited tv, their kids *seem* to love them. And so if one bases opinions on things that *seem* to be, you cannot deny those children love them.
I believe the issue is once the Gosselins financial situation improved (dramatically, as some might add), is it really appropriate for them to still ask for love offering? If they are doing it in lieu of a speaker's fee, sure, I don't have a problem with it. But in your opinion, how much money do they have to make before they eliminate the "love offerings". It has nothing to do with whether the church people give or not, some people think that just by askig for a love offering when they no longer need it come across as greedy.
I still believe that the love offerings are in lieu of speaker fees, and thus it's no more "greedy" for the Gosselins to ask for them than it would be for you to continue to draw a paycheck even if you didn't need the money to pay your bills. There are plenty of people out there earning money they don't need, and no one calls them greedy.
I'm just curious, did you even read what I wrote? Because in the part that you cut and pasted I stated -
is it really appropriate for them to still ask for love offering? If they are doing it in lieu of a speaker's fee, sure, I don't have a problem with it.
You stated -
I still believe that the love offerings are in lieu of speaker fees, and thus it's no more "greedy" for the Gosselins to ask for them than it would be for you to continue to draw a paycheck
WE ARE SAYING THE SAME THING! I NEVER implied that Jon and Kate shouldn't get paid for speaking at churchs.
Maybe if you read what I wrote, I haven't to "carp" about the same things over and over again to make sure my point got through. And other than talking about speaker's fees vs. "love offerings", show me where I challenged anything else NMD said? Oh guess what, you can't!
You and Fanny twisted my words around to fit your agenda, despite my efforts to clarify what I have said. Explain to me how that fits GDNNOP's stated intention "to allow balanced discussion of the show “Jon and Kate Plus Eight” and to discuss issues surrounding the show."
Anon 8:33
I tried to read over this thread and see what you were so upset about. It appears to be a healthy debate. I know you feel differently. I know you have expressed several times that GDNNOP does not meet up to your expectations of a fair and balanced discussion. What is it that you would like me to do?
I'm sorry that you think name calling is part of a healthy debate. If this blog really wants to provide a fair and balanced conversation, then maybe one of it's moderators should ask questions to clarify a statement before they label someone as a gosselin-hater. Hopefully by brining attention to how hbic8us and guinevere twisted my statements around, they (and other's reading this) will think twice before jumping to conclusions, and ask questions first. Maybe then you can achieve a fair and balanced conversation.
I am honestly mixed up here.
Anon,
Is your concern that by accepting the love offering it implies that they have more financial hardship than they actually do?
Do you think that they'd be better off (in terms of how they are perceived) charging a flat fee for speaking?
I'm trying to understand.
A anon post and all-
I'm hoping that is your new handle (formerly anon).
I think this is possibly the most confusing threads I've read here.
Can we start with a clean slate please? I'm asking this of all parties involved with this debate.
I for one know it is easy to take a post the wrong way as the prose may come across as being sarcastic, etc. And, I think everyone here gets used to it - I know I do.
Let's all try to be clear and concise with our questions and perhaps address the actual person we want to answer. Make sense?
I have to agree with anon above as several peeps were saying almost the same thing.
Hope this helps.
Just because they are on TV, doesn't give people the right to come up to their children. Just because they are on TV, doesn't give people the right to go on their property Just becuase they are on TV, doesn't give people a right to Jon and Kate's finances.
They were famous the moment those children were born. They found a way to stay home with their kids and support them. If that bothers people, then stop watching it. But in no way are they exploiting their children or abusing them.
I think it mostly comes down to jealousy. I hear it over and over on different blogs. Complaining about the freebies, the free vacations, etc. "I work hard and I don't get this or that". My family and I struggle financially, but I love this show and I don't care one bit they get paid for it. It's obvoius they all love each other and are doing this for their children's future.
I don't see what all the hullabaloo is about regarding the speaking engagements. Personally I would much rather see them making a living off that rather than the show.
Okay anon, I am posting this again just in case you missed it.
I said...
" HBIC8u said...
Ok, let me try again...
I was talking about the intent of the original posting of this email to gwop. I don't trust them, the email came from there, it means nothing to me.
I wasn't saying YOU are a regular poster there. My comment was about them and the fact that I saw it there first.
And when I mentioned the twisting of words, I was referring to this:
"Are you implying that anti-gosselins had incredible foresight to provide that letter (posted a couple months ago), include the part about returning the deposit, because somewhere down the line they knew I would use this letter
to show that I think Jon and Kate get a speaking fee and a love offering and therefore help spread their anti-gosselin agenda?"
I still don't see how you got that from my comment.
And yes, I may have been out of line here"
"If that email was supposed to be some sort of eye opener, I'm afraid most of us have already seen it."
I said what I felt based on your comment. If I took it the wrong way, I apologize."
I explained the first part of my comment, and apologized for the other. I dunno what you want from me.
I just wanted to say that I am the Anon that left the infertility comment. That is the only comment I have left thus far.
I would also like to thank everyone for not reacting badly to that post, it was just something that I felt I needed to say.
Sometimes people are only happy if you agree with them. Personally, this just appeared to be a discussion to me. I saw nothing out of hand. I am just a lurker but felt I needed to respond to this.
Oh, and for the record, I'm pretty sure, based on your most recent comments, that you are doing EXACTLY what you came here to do.
Sure, you were trying to be civil at first, but the comments from myself and Guin (which were taken out of context)where just the push you needed to say what you really came to say.
At first I thought maybe you really did feel like you were being attacked, but now that you have continued to rant AFTER I explained and apologized, I think maybe you took them the way you WANTED to, not the way they were written. You can say whatever you want about this blog not being fair and balanced, but if you come here looking for a fight, chances are you'll find one.
Hi Morgan and welcome. Thanks for giving yourself a name/handle.
Anyone who is interested in being on TV needs to take the good and the bad. People shouldn't be coming up to their house, knocking on their door. That is absolutely not acceptable. However, give me an example of 1 celebrity (even small ones on reality tv) who hasn't had that happened to them. It unfortunately comes with the territory of being on tv. Maybe they should have thought more about the negative aspects before agreeing to do the show.
Ok I deleted the last statement made because the only purpose it served was...... I guess none. Each party was able to communicate their thoughts and so we will move on. Let's try to stay on topic.
Anon 4:02, I'm a Christian and I'm of the belief that God gave man the knowledge to invent fertility treatments. There's nothing in the Bible about it since it wasn't invented when the Bible was written, so it's open to what the individual believes about God's Will.
---
And he gave those very same scienctists the sense to reduce a pregnacy when it threatens a woman's life.
And he gave those very same scienctists the sense to reduce a pregnacy when it threatens a woman's life.
Ok, I tried to hold back but this is ridiculous. Who are you to say that Kate should have aborted one of her children? It is their right to CHOOSE and they chose to keep ALL of the babies.
Is this really what it's about? She shouldn't get donations and freebies because she didn't have an abortion? Will you apply that logic to anyone who is low income? Should there be a minimum income requirement for getting pregnant?
You are on a slippery slope with that thinking whether you realize it or not.
Okay, I was going to respond to anon's comment
"And he gave those very same scienctists the sense to reduce a pregnacy when it threatens a woman's life."
I agee with nmd. I must have been out of it when abortion became the "responsible" way to deal with pregnancy.
The reason I hesitated to comment was because of a not so pleasant exchange between myself and another anonymous poster(actually, I'm not sure if the comment above was from the same anon, who could tell?), after which this blog and the mods were accused of being unfair.
I just want to say (and then I will drop this, I promise), that this blog is not moderated the way that others are. Both sides are allowed to post their opinion. I don't think it is fair to accuse the mods here or the blog itsself of being unbalanced because one poster disagreed with you in a tone that you didn't appreciate.
I think the comments about unfairness should be directed at the ones you feel are being unfair to you(I'm a big girl, I can take it), not the blog as a whole.
Anyway, it doesn't really matter to me what Jon and Kate get paid for the speaking engagements. I think it's a nice gig if you can get it.
I wasn't going to reply anymore on this topic because it done - I explained my POV and hbic8u explain hers. There really wasn't anywhere else to go from there except downhill, and I was letting it go. However, hbic8u, I am not going to let you infer that I wrote the comment about abortion.
Once someone (mom i think) pointed out that it was confusing with all the anon post, I have been posting under A ANON POST, so no, I didn't post that. However, I did say that I think this blog would be better served if people would ask questions instead of jumping to conclusions, and help with it's intent on having a fair and balanced discussion. I'm sorry if you - Hbicu8u - think that is too much to ask.
As for "coming here" to prove my point, I've been here for the past 2 months and have left comments on several threads and have never had a problem before. Point is, I've BEEN here.
One more point, I can go on all the blogs to spread how evil I think everyone here is, how wrong you all are, and how a few members don't believe in a fair and balanced conversation. Essentially, using my posts as a poster child to how unfair you all are - similar to what others on this board have done, particularly at PennMom's Blog. I'm not. I had a problem, I've explained my problem, and Nina was nice enough to ask how I wanted to resolve the situation. I told her, and then I dropped it. I wish others could do the same.
Oops, sorry, I didn't put a name on the post above. So just to let you know - it was written by a anon post.
a anon -
Your last post made me laugh. As I was reading the last two posts, I was thinking "is this a anon or anon?" LOL!
Glad you have a handle now! :-)
Thanks Mom!
I just don't see how we can *know* that J&K are "lying" about what they can afford or not afford, without access to their financial records. For all we know, they donate 99% of their income to charity (wait, don't bother to snort, I will do it for you...snort). We don't know what their disposable income is. Also, it's none of our business.
If this is a start that is great. I am still not convinced that the mention of non college funds or sympathetic nods toward their financial picture did not occur before.
This just seems unfair to me. If there were credible reports of it happening before, maybe I could see your point. But since all of the reports were of the "I heard somewhere..." variety, I take them all with a grain of salt (I've been having to lug that grain of salt with me EVERYWHERE lately!). It strikes me that I could say, "I'm glad to hear that Kate no longer clubs a baby seal to death on stage anymore. Step in the right direction, Kate!" I think NMD's report should be taken as strong evidence that previous reports of lying and begging were likely exaggerated and/or twisted, rather than as evidence that J&K have stopped this behavior that there is no proof they engaged in in the first place.
I'm just curious, did you even read what I wrote? Because in the part that you cut and pasted I stated -
is it really appropriate for them to still ask for love offering? If they are doing it in lieu of a speaker's fee, sure, I don't have a problem with it.
You stated -
I still believe that the love offerings are in lieu of speaker fees, and thus it's no more "greedy" for the Gosselins to ask for them than it would be for you to continue to draw a paycheck
WE ARE SAYING THE SAME THING! I NEVER implied that Jon and Kate shouldn't get paid for speaking at churchs.
Maybe if you read what I wrote, I haven't to "carp" about the same things over and over again to make sure my point got through. And other than talking about speaker's fees vs. "love offerings", show me where I challenged anything else NMD said? Oh guess what, you can't!
You and Fanny twisted my words around to fit your agenda, despite my efforts to clarify what I have said. Explain to me how that fits GDNNOP's stated intention "to allow balanced discussion of the show “Jon and Kate Plus Eight” and to discuss issues surrounding the show."
I don't have an agenda. I think they only give those to you when you join the Vast Pro-Gosselin/Freemasons Conspiracy; you get an agenda, a decoder ring and a membership card. :-)
I was responding to this:
I believe the issue is once the Gosselins financial situation improved (dramatically, as some might add), is it really appropriate for them to still ask for love offering? If they are doing it in lieu of a speaker's fee, sure, I don't have a problem with it. But in your opinion, how much money do they have to make before they eliminate the "love offerings". It has nothing to do with whether the church people give or not, some people think that just by askig for a love offering when they no longer need it come across as greedy.
You did say, "If they are doing it in lieu of a speaker's fee, sure, I don't have a problem with it", but you followed it up with the rest about them being greedy. It was late and maybe I was misunderstanding, but your next sentence seemed to contradict and negate your previous statement. But maybe I just read it wrong because I am going on the assumption that the love offerings are in lieu of speaker fees. What would the justification be for them otherwise, since by NMD's account the Gosselins are not mentioning need?
Morgandizzy said....
"I just wanted to say that I am the Anon that left the infertility comment. That is the only comment I have left thus far."
Welcome! I hope you will post again. Seems there are a range of opinions on the topic you introduced and I think it's healthy to get this out in the open and discuss something more substantial than Kate's hairdo or whether or they "bought" the stuffed animals at Sight and Sound.
Anonymous at 2:02 p.m. said... "And he gave those very same scienctists the sense to reduce a pregnacy when it threatens a woman's life."
I may be alone, but I am not 100% certain what Anon meant by this. Was this directed at Kate's decision to not reduce? It just doesn't seem very clearly stated. Maybe that's the point...
To my knowledge, Kate's life wasn't threatened. Ok, I understand the pregnancy had multiple risks and there were a bunch of unknowns, but it appears the doctors were most concerned about of the sextuplets surviving and/or the possibility of one or more serious birth defects. Thankfully, everthing turned out ok.
Jon and Kate were not in the position to reduce due to their religious beliefs. I really wouldn't presume to step in and make that decision (or even offer an opinion) for any couple facing a decision such as theirs.
I know part of your post mught be responding to to someone else, but just to be clear, I didn't ask the question about the college funds. I am responsible for everything else, though.
My comment about being greedy only applies if the Gosselin's are receiving a speaker's fee and a love offering, especially now that they are probably more well off then the people in the audience. This isn't a comment about the people who donate the money, but more of - how much money is enough for them? They need donations on top of the fee they may be receiving and the money they make selling pictures?
Since NMD's explaination of the intention of a love offering, I have a better understanding of what a love offering is. Just a question for NMD - if Bill Gates came to your church to speak, would there even be a love offering? I understand your point that it is a way to show your appreciation but I am curious, do all speakers, regardless of income, get a love offering?
And what I meant when I said that NMD's event was an isolated event was that because it was close to home, the fee they were getting might be lower then if they event was out of town, and they would probably accept the love offering as payment. (With the people I worked with, there was usually a in town fee that was cheaper because it is much less work to drive to event close to home. If they have to fly, it doesn't make a difference if it's 1 state away or 20, you still need to pack, arrange babysitting, have airport hassles, etc.) I was not disregarding anything else NMD said, or implying that Jon and Kate tailored their talk for this event.
Some years back, maybe 5? I don't really know, there was a family who had multiples and they received so many donations that they started a foundation to help other families of multiples. I know I have no right to tell Jon and Kate how to live their life but I would feel better if we saw some sort of effort of giving back. (Yes, I know they wrote a check to the Ronald McDonald house.) They don't even donate the free clothes they get, Kate sends them to a consignment store. (to be honest, out of all the stories I have heard about them, that's the one that bothers me the most.) There are mothers of multiple chapters all across the country. She can't find another struggling family who is currently in the situation they once were and donate the clothes to them?
And I know this is off topic, but don't you wonder why no one close to Jon and Kate, who actually knows them, is coming to their defense? I don't mean starting a blog like Julie did, or sharing private family information, but just posting somewhere saying - "I know Jon and Kate, and the people you are describing are not the people I know. They are not perfect, but good hearted people. They are loyal, giving and kind." If my friend was attacked the way Kate was, you better believe I would on every blog supporting them, and letting them know they are not alone.
I hope this better explains where I am coming from. It's hard for me to proof read in this little comment box, so I have noticed some unfinished thoughts that got by me. Guinevere, I appreciate you asking :-), and if you need clarification on anything, just let me know. I don't expect people to agree with what I say nor do I think that I will change their beliefs. I just hope people read my posts with an open mind.
I think of the love offering as a way for the congregants to show their appreciation. Especially, if J&K are speaking in a church that really embraces the pro-life stance, then I could see the pastor asking the congregants to put some money in a basket.
I'm not getting into the abortion debate about this, but I am saying that I can see how a church that embraces pro-life would look at Jon & Kate as being examples of people who chose life and would therefore want to support that.
a anon post -- thank you for clarifying your posts.
Hi A anon post.
Thank for taking the time to clarify your points. I for one often look at my own posts after they have been posted and think "was that clear enough"?
I think what I find refreshing on this board is that we *can* have substantial and spirited back and forth discussion with those who have opposing views. That's what makes it interesting to me.
And occasionally, our points will be misunderstood. I like to think that we are mature enough to come back - as you did - and clarify our points a bit when needed.
The trolls make themselves apparent pretty quickly and thankfully don't stick around for long because they are usually not getting much "bang for their buck." I hope those of us who remain who have a variety of opinions can continue to have dialogue.
Your next to last two paragraphs are worthy of further discussion. Perhaps we can pick those up tomorrow (eyelids are getting heavy for me).
Have a good night!
I saw Jon and Kate speak just six weeks ago and they undeniably claimed that their financial situation was "improving", but they "it could all be undone tomorrow." Before the basket was passed Jon and Kate went off stage to prepare for autograph signing and the mc told us to think about how we would like to send eight kids to college or feed eight for eighteen years. This gave me the impression that they were in need of assistance. I will give a nod to the mc being the speaker for the last part of that plea but still it was Jon who said they were improving but had no idea of tomarrow. Who here does? I put my $50 in the basket because they were portrayed as needy and we were told that all the picture money goes to a college account. I don't think Jon and Kate were liars about that. My daughter was the one who used google to find your blog. I think Jon and Kate were kind people who love their children. Really I don't know how I would afford eight kids.
A anon,
I was referring to these comments:
"Up to this point, I felt comfortable in stating that it was possible to have a fair and balanced conversation here. However, I no longer feel that is the case."
You've stated that you've been here for a while and never had any problem, but when I said something you didn't agree with, suddenly it's impossible to have a fair conversation here?
"It is one thing to challenge my ideas, it is another thing to label me as anti-gosselin, and Gosselin-hater because I don't agree with your interpretation of the facts. Fair and balanced conversation, indeed. Welcome to the GWOP club."
Again with the "fair and balanced".
My most recent comment was not just directed at you. The mods here get that A LOT, and it usually has nothing to do with them, they just post what comes through.
"However, I did say that I think this blog would be better served if people would ask questions instead of jumping to conclusions, and help with it's intent on having a fair and balanced discussion. I'm sorry if you - Hbicu8u - think that is too much to ask."
Does that also apply to you? The first comment I wrote about why I didn't trust the email, you immediately jumped to the conclusing that I was accusing you of being from gwop. I have explained twice on this thread that you misunderstood, but you didn't ask me to clarify...You did ask a question, but it was loaded and completely off base.
Hbic8u -
I think it's better if we agree to disagree, and just move on.
Linda -
i didn't mean to ignore your post. Did my post to Guinevere help explain my thoughts better? IF not, let me know and I will try again.
This just seems unfair to me. If there were credible reports of it happening before, maybe I could see your point.
Up until the official Gosselin website was updated (a month ago), under the FAQ there was still a statement saying there were no funds for college.
(Despite the Lt. Governor's Press Release to states otherwise)
NMD provided a very non-biased, credible post about what happened at THIS particular speaking engagement. This does not prove that all of the previous ones have been the same.
If Jon Gosselin in the same breath can mourn his Father and ask for "prayers" for his "financial" situation (twice), I think he and Kate are both capable of pulling the sympathy card. (Taken directly from the Gosselin Family Website archive.
I saw Jon and Kate speak just six weeks ago and they undeniably claimed that their financial situation was "improving", but they "it could all be undone tomorrow." Before the basket was passed Jon and Kate went off stage to prepare for autograph signing and the mc told us to think about how we would like to send eight kids to college or feed eight for eighteen years. This gave me the impression that they were in need of assistance. I will give a nod to the mc being the speaker for the last part of that plea but still it was Jon who said they were improving but had no idea of tomarrow. Who here does? I put my $50 in the basket because they were portrayed as needy and we were told that all the picture money goes to a college account. I don't think Jon and Kate were liars about that. My daughter was the one who used google to find your blog. I think Jon and Kate were kind people who love their children. Really I don't know how I would afford eight kids.
Craftylady's account of a previous speaking engagement. Are you going to call into question her "credibility"?
To be fair, NMD is realistically, no more credible than anyone else. Because we have grown to "know" and "trust" her, in our dealings here, then we can say she is credible.
My goodness, most of the people here are only willing to give the fact that Julie is Jodi's sister - not anything she's posted. "She doesn't "own" the truth".
If you want fair and balanced use the same ruler of judgement against EVERYTHING that is posted - regardless of the "side", who posted it, what not.
I am basing my opinion of what I have seen from the show, what I have read - both on ALL the boards, including the "official" Jon and Kate Gosselin board.
Regarding Craftylady's account, and ductapeovermouth's above comment: I believe Craftylady's account but I'm not really bothered by the fact that Jon and Kate said their financial position is improving but could be undone at any time. It is honest, right now they depend on the show and speaking engagements for their entire livelyhood. If the show ends and the speaking engagements dry up they could be very quickly back in their original position. People wonder about their financial position, they may have even been asked (either by the audience or beforehand the pastor or moderator said it was an area people were interested in) and that is the answer. They may have put themselves in that position--there isn't really any arguing about the fact that Jon and Kate no longer work at conventional jobs--but that is another discussion for another time.
And to their (little) credit, Jon and Kate did not make a plea for money in the speech--the moderator did, according to the account. I don't think either account is not credible, just that the speeches were different. And who is really able to say why, like I said it could have been that the moderator asked them to talk about their monetary situation. It also isn't unusual to modify what you say based on your audience, maybe it was an audience that has financial concerns (LMC, WC) and they wanted to hear something to tell them that Jon and Kate feel the same strains that they do. On the actual show it has been a while since we have heard that they can't afford to do this or that. Mostly we see what are clearly expensive trips that they express thanks and say they are "blessed" to receive. I don't see a financial struggle so much any more as a family struggling with other issues.
I think they probably do still feel financial strains, probably. Their situation may be precarious, it is an unstable economy at the moment, and they do have a LOT of kids to support. I'm sure that they are probably very aware of what they will have to provide in the future and how hard it could be to do again.
Sorry, this got long and I didn't mean it to, but I have one last point. Everyone is so quick to call them greedy, but I would point out that anyone who has had extremely lean times (especially to the point of being out of work, not knowing where the next meal is coming from, in danger of losing your house) when times are a little more flush you tend to grab on to whatever you can to the point of hording. I was raised in a very poor environment, my parents to this day can never make enough money and can never have enough "stuff." My brothers and I tend to be the same way. It is a security issue, when you have had nothing your instinct is to get as much as you can to make sure that never happens again. Just another perspective on the "greed" issue.
It also isn't unusual to modify what you say based on your audience, maybe it was an audience that has financial concerns (LMC, WC) and they wanted to hear something to tell them that Jon and Kate feel the same strains that they do.
I think Jon and Kate do a lot of "modifying" based on who they are speaking to. The South Carolina episode was on 2 or 3 episodes back, everything in that episode was a "rare" treat. The backyard camping trip they were shown buying gear and then some just to camp in their own yard. Saying it is all due to a "blessing" is disingenuous. IMO
Ductapeovermouth, you make some valid points. I don't know what the deal is with the college funds. Can I just say I don't care that much? I am sorry, I just don't. That said, for people who have doubts about the Gosselins sincerity, I do understand this is an area that arouses their suspicions.
I don't discount Craftlady's account, but let's be honest and admit that NMD does have more credibility with many readers here. 1) She posts regularly and moderates. 2) She wrote a few weeks back that had tickets to the event and was going to go and report back. 3) The account she provided was much more thorough and included details besides the money issue. Not that Craftlady is under any obligation to post more or give more details of the event. I appreciated what she shared and her post seemed fair.
My post would much longer except Erin really addressed all the issues I was going to touch on and exactly captured my feelings.
A anon a post -
Yes, you did clarify your posts. Thank you.
Anon. 2:17 said: "I think Jon and Kate do a lot of "modifying" based on who they are speaking to. The South Carolina episode was on 2 or 3 episodes back, everything in that episode was a "rare" treat. The backyard camping trip they were shown buying gear and then some just to camp in their own yard. Saying it is all due to a "blessing" is disingenuous. IMO"
I'm not entirely sure I understand the point. In my mind we d see the "rare treat" days, in that we don't see something that they do every day. I would say, however, that I find the constant "It is a rare treat" phrase (said over and over and over) kind of annoying. I'm more bothered by the use of the phrase than anything (pick a new way of phrasing it, Kate!). And I think it is nice that they point out how blessed they are to have these things, like the trips. As to knowing your audience, that was the first thing they said in speech class (and I think probably the only thing I remember from it).
I do not dispute that the family is well off and should have no financial problems whatsoever. They aren't struggling.
My "theory" if you will is that Kate is a highly anxious person (that's not a diagnosis, it's an opinion based on sooooo many things). The woman was literally scared to death that her husband would leave her after the 8 kids. I think for her, she could be sitting on 10 million dollars and still feel anxious about her financial situation.
And she is right, her financial situation is temporary. If they don't budget their money appropriately it could all come crashing down when the show ends. Is this likely? I doubt it. I don't see Kate and Jon as spendthrifts. More the opposite. But for the rest of her life, Kate's fears have the potential to crippel her. But I think to an extent she is beginning to recognize this.
Just my opinion...
A anon,
On that point, we agree.
----------------------------------
"Kate's fears have the potential to crippel her. But I think to an extent she is beginning to recognize this."
I agree. I know people like Kate. Most of them are very nice people, but are so overwhelmed and nervous all the time that they realize how they come off to other people. I do think that good feedback or CONSTRUCTIVE criticism is good for everyone.
I'm actually glad to see that she is becoming more and more aware of herself and is actually making an effort to do better. I guess the arguement could be made that she's just acting for the camera, but the truth is we'll never know.
"I think Jon and Kate do a lot of "modifying" based on who they are speaking to.
What I was referring to is the truth regarding their financial situation - among other things.
I do not dispute that the family is well off and should have no financial problems whatsoever. They aren't struggling.
Thank you. No else seems to realize this or some people don't seem to care. This show to me is all about relatability. I've never had six kids at once so I can't relate to that, but I actually was a Kate defender based on that. I watched the first special and saw Jon and Kate folding laundry on their bed and they seemed to be regular parents doing their best with their situation.
When the specials were replaced with the series and the frequency of new material became more and more evident, I started to change my stance.
What started the initial Huh? for me was the absence of Grandparents. IMO, six grandchildren would be something to celebrate within a family. I understand that there are estrangements within families - but both sides? The vague explanations "they don't know how to help us." and "my Mom works full time" are just red flags for me. What do the Kreiders and the Gosselins have in common? Jon and Kate. Jon has 2 brothers - he has never even mentioned them.
Next came the tummy tuck, the hair plugs, the teeth whitening. It just made me think how superficial the episodes were. Yes, every Mommy and Daddy needs pampering, but I wouldn't leave my sick children to do so and I wouldn't ask my plastic surgeon who was already giving me a free tummy tuck to give me a boob job too.
For me it's a lot of talk and no action. The "Family Mission Statement" - the importance of giving back because "we were ONCE the recipients of kindness." I have never seen that. No, they don't have to parade around on the show that they donate and what not. Even if they did, I would say it was FAKE - just like the check donation. I am not making a judgement. I don't watch the show with pen and paper in hand, but when the show is on late at night and I am doing things like folding my own laundry, I catch things that I didn't pay attention to before. Like, how "consignment" is on Kate's list of things to do, or Jon mentioning the items that were given to them being sold in a yard sale, paying it forward indeed. Jon and Kate can't even be kind to each other. You may say that's how you are to your spouse - but really to that extent? You can never say I'm sorry to your spouse - when you were wrong? That type of behavior reflects - where? The kids. They still fight, bite, scream, whine ane rarely ever say Please and Thank You without prompting.
Most families, can't afford for both parents not to work, or take trips or buy things without a budget. I don't begrudge the Gosselins their material things - I just have an issue with the route they took to get them. I don't think they are CPS candidates, but I would never trade my children's privacy for money.
What makes the Gosselin children different from a child that milks cows on his familiy's farm? Well, that child learns a trade and how he/she is important to the family business. There isn't a camera present filming how the child milks the cow - people in TV land won't be able to tell the child how he milked the cow incorrectly. What are the Gosselin children being taught from being on TV - probably to "ham" it up and make every action an over-reation because that's what makes ratings go up. For those of you who think, that the cameras just film them as they go along their daily lives, you are sadly mistaken. Production of ANY type of show just does not work this way.
IMO, I don't believe that Jon and Kate have been robbed of their "humanity" either. If nasty things have been said about them because of the show, if their privacy is gone - tough lumps. If you can accept gifts from strangers, you can accept the bad too. They go hand and hand when you expose your life on TV. I am not saying it is right, that's just how it is.
Personally, I think Jon and Kate have detractors, because they are just not likable people. The proof is in the pudding.
I admit I am arm chair quarterbacking. I like the kids, I think they're cute. As much as I would like to see them "grow up." I wish for the show to end - maybe an update show now and then - but not the episode heavy season we have been experiencing. Does anyone remember the episode where Kate supervises the blind installation? Because they are "editing" so fast, they can't keep up? Well - if there is so much editing going on, that must mean that there is a lot of footage to go over - certainly not what you would get from 3 or 4 hours of shooting 3 or 4 days a week. So which is it Kate? Things like that stick in my mind.
For something more recent - why did Kate say that Alexis chooses to sleep in the basement because she is like a bat and enjoys it. In the episode that followed - a re-run of the Utah trip, Jon says Alexis was placed in the basement because she wakes up her siblings, clearly not her choice. So which one is it Jon?
If I don't give Jon and Kate the benefit of the doubt, it's because they have given me a lot of evidence not to believe them at all. If they can lie about innocuous things - then what more?
I suppose the correct answer for all of is - stop watching. I think that choice may soon be coming. Not because I am fed up, but because, with this economy, my family has to make decisions about what is a "need" and what is a "want" and cable television is not ranking too high on the "need" category.
IMO
"What makes the Gosselin children different from a child that milks cows on his familiy's farm? Well, that child learns a trade and how he/she is important to the family business. There isn't a camera present filming how the child milks the cow - people in TV land won't be able to tell the child how he milked the cow incorrectly."
There are many differences between a “child that milks cows” and the Gosselin children.
The ones you mention don’t even come near the top of the list. First of all, a child that “milks a cow” does that in addition to many other back breaking chores. It is not a trade, it is a job. It brings money into the family business. Without the children, the business many times would not survive. Many small farmers have large families just for that reason. Children raised on farms can miss out on many opportunities. Most children choose not to stay on the family farm and there has been a mass exodus with many farms going under in the last 20 years.
I never had any doubt what I had to do and why I had to do it and it made me a better person. But it was extremely hard work. It appears because we put food on your table you are willing to sweep that exploitation under the carpet.
It appears because we put food on your table you are willing to sweep that exploitation under the carpet.
So do you think the Gosselin children are being "exploited" or not - if not is it because what they are doing is not "back breaking"?
I feel there is a degree of exploitation anytime children are making money to enhance the family's income.
What I don't agree on is the attack on this particular show more than the many other cases that are out there.
I believe the issue here with many people is the need to address this particular show because of the immense dislike for the parents. Not because they feel the children are being exploited.
I also believe there are better ways to address this than blogging about the parent's inadequacies.
I feel there is a degree of exploitation anytime children are making money to enhance the family's income.
If you are the same anon that posted about working on a farm, then I want to say, I was just curious about how you define exploitation. There are a lot of people who feel that the Gosselin children are not being exploited.
I brought up the cow milking example because other people have used that example in comparison to the Gosselin children.
Personally, I don't feel that the Gosselin children are being exploited in the "call CPS" category, but I do feel they are not just contributing to the family income, they are the main source. I think their filming hours should be regulated and the money being made from the show should be handled by someone who has no other vested interest in them other than as an advocate.
I think that's why Jon and Kate state that their are "no college funds." The Lt. Gov. of PA has set up accounts for them, but as strict as these types of accounts are, Jon and Kate do not have "access" to them. I do not think they are the best people to be handling their children's proceeds.
"Personally, I don't feel that the Gosselin children are being exploited in the "call CPS" category, but I do feel they are not just contributing to the family income, they are the main source. I think their filming hours should be regulated and the money being made from the show should be handled by someone who has no other vested interest in them other than as an advocate."
I am in complete agreement with you here. Where you lost me in your original post was the discussion about where Alexis sleeps and whether Jon and Kate are likable people.
Anon 8:11,
I think you accidentally submitted your comment twice so I deleted the second one.
Sevenstrangers,
I think you made some good points and your post is well written. I'm not going to comment on the absence of family members because, honestly, anything that any of us say is just conjecture and not based on any evidence.
I'm going to pick some talking points from your post. If I pick a part that you feel misrepresents what you said let me know (I've gotten my head bitten off more than once for this, LOL)
or me it's a lot of talk and no action. The "Family Mission Statement" - the importance of giving back because "we were ONCE the recipients of kindness." I have never seen that. No, they don't have to parade around on the show that they donate and what not. Even if they did, I would say it was FAKE -
I think this is a part of the problem. They are damned if they do and damned if they don't. If they give publicly, everyone says "DAMAGE CONTROL" if they give privately, the are accused of not giving. Do I think that Jon and Kate like to make money? If I had to guess, I'd say yes(as do many Americans). But have you ever sold anything at a yard sale that was a gift at one time? I know I have. I know people that do it on a large scale like J & K. Except they use ebay or craigslist. I tend to doubt that every piece of clothing goes into consignment. Most families give clothing away at some point. They either give it to good will or use it as a hand-me-down. To say that because Kate consigns means that she is not giving away clothing as well, I think that is a stretch. I saw a comment on GWoP from Julie when she was asked if Kate ever gave clothing to Jodi's kids. Julie said "what do you think." I THINK that Jodi and Kevin aren't hurting financially either and why would she give clothing to them? I THINK that Jodi is the type of person who is kind enough to think of others and probably wouldn't accept a donation if she didn't need it.
You can never say I'm sorry to your spouse - when you were wrong? That type of behavior reflects - where? The kids. They still fight, bite, scream, whine ane rarely ever say Please and Thank You without prompting.
I've heard Kate say many times that she's regretted this or that. I disagree that the kids are any more rude than other kids their age. I hear Mady and Cara say thank you. I don't think it is at all abnormal to still have to prompt children to say Thank-You and be polite even when you are 4. If you don't believe me, spend time at an elementary school. When I'd be concerned about parenting is if I'd NEVER hear the parents prompt the child to be polite.
Most families, can't afford for both parents not to work, or take trips or buy things without a budget. I don't begrudge the Gosselins their material things - I just have an issue with the route they took to get them. I don't think they are CPS candidates, but I would never trade my children's privacy for money.
I think that's fine and I'm sure you're not alone. Though I'm not sure we're in agreement that the parents are exploiting their children, I can certainly say that there are ways to make money that I don't agree with. Selling drugs,prostitution (especially of children and adolescents), employing immigrants for hundreds less than you'd employ a citizen, sweat shops, these are just a few examples of exploitation to me. I haven't bought a pair of Nike's in years. When I hear stories like these I am outraged. I just can't see (unless there is solid proof that the kids receive NO BENEFIT) how having a TV show is the same.
MO, I don't believe that Jon and Kate have been robbed of their "humanity" either. If nasty things have been said about them because of the show, if their privacy is gone - tough lumps. If you can accept gifts from strangers, you can accept the bad too.
When a person is degraded, privacy trampled on, compared to Osama Bin Laden (has happened on this blog), and basically looked on as not deserving of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness than they have been robbed of their humanity by their critics. We hold these truths to be self evident...and all of that. Innocent until proven guilty. Some Antis look at Kate Gosselin the way they do a murderer like Susan Smith. If that is not stripping someone of their humanity, I'm not sure what is.
Does anyone remember the episode where Kate supervises the blind installation? Because they are "editing" so fast, they can't keep up? Well - if there is so much editing going on, that must mean that there is a lot of footage to go over - certainly not what you would get from 3 or 4 hours of shooting 3 or 4 days a week. So which is it Kate? Things like that stick in my mind.
the quote was between 4 and 10. She may have said 3 and 10 but that's a big range. And yes, 10 hours of footage makes for a lot of editing into 22 minutes. She didn't say the cameras were only in her home 3-4 hours EVERY time they film, she said "some days." Their answer of the cameras being in their home 3-4 days per week as remained consistent over time.
If I don't give Jon and Kate the benefit of the doubt, it's because they have given me a lot of evidence not to believe them at all. If they can lie about innocuous things - then what more?
I think this is my overall problem. These things are innocuous. I don't really care if Kate said the kids don't watch TV and then 1 year later they knew who the characters were. I think some of these "proofs" are so silly. Who knows what has transpired between Utah and this summer. Maybe the parents gave Alexis the option of returning to her bedroom and she turned it down. Maybe she likes having her own space. I personally don't see the big deal of her sleeping in the finished basement. Maybe Alexis likes having some privacy. She's the only kid in the family who has their own space. Don't you think that might be somewhat appealing? So what started as a way to resolve a problem (Alexis getting up in the night) could have turned out to be something Alexis actually liked. What reason would they have to lie about something that silly? They aren't making her sleep in a dog cage.
Good post sevenstrangers - I agree with a lot of what you say.
I said before that I was an event planner, but my degree in PR/Marketing. I'll never forget what one of the professors told us - he recommended we turned in our writing assignments as clean as possible, because every time he found something wrong, it put him on alert that there could be more errors and he would start reading the paper more closely. (And based on some of my posts, just because I remember it doesn't mean I practice it :-)
I feel the same with Jon and Kate. The more shows they do, the more aware we are of their lives, which allows us to notice the inconsistencies, which leads us to question the things they say and do more and more. For me anyway, things on the show don't add up. Lack of Grandparent involvement, the disappearing people in their lives, the make a meal, clean a meal comment about how that is all she does all day long, the fact Kate does it all with only 15 hrs. of outside help, and the comment about not being able to afford to do the 1-on-1 days more than once a year. I don't know what is truth vs. truthiness on the show, which makes me question a lot of what they do and hard for me to take a face value.
Ok, NMD quid pro quo
I think this is a part of the problem. They are damned if they do and damned if they don't. If they give publicly, everyone says "DAMAGE CONTROL" if they give privately, the are accused of not giving.
I was not referring to recent episodes. Starting from the first special to the sporadic Season One, is it safe to say that Jon and Kate had "their guard" down the first few episodes? If in the first viewings, Jon and Kate really practiced what they preached, then I would be more inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. Yes, definitely if they "give" now it appears to be fake... why? They never did before - only when it was called into question about how "grateful" they appear to be.
I've heard Kate say many times that she's regretted this or that.
To the audience. I've never heard her say sorry to Jon. Their discussions always turn out that he's still in the wrong.
My kids are 9 and 5. One day a cashier asked my 5 year old "How are you?" and my daughter replied. "Fine. Thank you and how are you?". The cashier was so taken aback because 9 times out 10 when she poses this question to adults, she may get no response or just a nod or just a "Fine." "Fine - thank you." No one really ever seems to reciprocate. So she was very suprised that a child would do so. She complimented me on my parenting and I thanked her, but I had a discussion with my daughter in the car because that's just something I never thought I discussed with her. She told me "you never told me Mom, I just hear you say that when people ask."
Which is true, because being taught by nuns, once Sr. Rose, told me that she bases all her opinions about people on how they respond to that question. It's just automatic for me now. So kids at any age learn from example. (I am not saying my kids are angels!!!)
Though I'm not sure we're in agreement that the parents are exploiting their children,
I have an idea of what I think exploitation is, but I consulted the dictionary to see what the definition of exploitation is (I am sure one of many definitions)
(from dictionary.com)
1. use or utilization, esp. for profit: the exploitation of newly discovered oil fields.
2. selfish utilization: He got ahead through the exploitation of his friends.
3. the combined, often varied, use of public-relations and advertising techniques to promote a person, movie, product, etc.
So yes in my "mind's definition" and yes, yes, yes according to dictionary.com.
I don't see how Jon and Kate felt they HAD to do the show. Maybe a few specials, updates what have you. Jon worked in IT and Kate is a nurse. In California, both of the those positions make more than adeqate salaries - even for a family of 10. Plus PA has guaranteed health insurance for kids. To give up the privacy, the scrutiny that this has caused. I don't know about you, I don't watch the show for Jon and Kate - those kids are just so precious! So - to lay all of this on the kids, is taking advantage, exploiting what have you (to me).
These things are innocuous.
Which is all the reason to question why the "stories" change from week to week, makes me wonder what else? Kate looks at Jon a lot when they are on the couch, verbally she also says "right, Jon?". I, as a viewwer, get the impression, that she's making sure "they are on the same page a lot." I understand we don't know what has transpired between shows, but really.. things change that much?
The footage - I can safely say that in 30 hours of tape, you are lucky if if you have 15 minutes of usable footage. Usable footage meaning - no technical gaffes, etc also, material that will be able to put into a comprehensible "story". Like I said, if people think the family goes about their business, and they are just being filmed, it's not like that at all. I think Kate is toning down the amount of time.
BTW (regarding make a meal serve a meal)- craft services is nothing like the service Julie said her parents experienced so Kate explaining that the "personal chef" is really craft services is poppy cock.
JMO
LOL, Sevenstrangers, you do know this could go on forever, right?
I was not referring to recent episodes. Starting from the first special to the sporadic Season One, is it safe to say that Jon and Kate had "their guard" down the first few episodes? If in the first viewings, Jon and Kate really practiced what they preached, then I would be more inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.
When they filmed the early episodes and the specials, they certainly were not in the financial position that they are in now. Plus, in the beginning, the focus was mostly on how the heck these parents did what they were doing. Like I said so, also, has their financial status. You can't say definitively that they haven't given anything. Have you seen copies of their tax records? Are you with them at church when they are or aren't tithing? Do you have a catalog of all of the clothing the family has and where outgrown or otherwise discarded articles go to? It's actually more in line with the Christian faith to not announce when and where you are giving. I agree with you that their was pressure on them to give publicly. I just don't think that because there was pressure put on them and they responded by giving publicly that this means that this is the first time it ever occurred to them to make a donation to something. Like I said, they are damned.
Your five year old sounds awesome! You have a very insightful and precious little girl. But do you think if all kids, even with good parents, responded in the way your child had, the cashier would have been surprised. The surprise came out of the fact that kids don't speak like that normally. Your daughter sounds like a bright little girl. And I get your point about leading by example. I've heard Kate say thank-you too. A lot.
I have an idea of what I think exploitation is, but I consulted the dictionary to see what the definition of exploitation is (I am sure one of many definitions)
I've seen this definition of exploitation, as it has been used over and over again here by people trying to make the same point. That is very general definition. Am I exploiting the children that I work with because I make a profit off of helping them?
Unforunately, the definition you pulled is just one of MANY available on the word. For example, WordReference.com defines it as "an act that exploits or victimizes someone (treats them unfairly); "capitalistic exploitation of the working class"; "paying Blacks less and charging them more is a form of victimization"
Meriam Webster goes from the general to make productive use of : utilize (exploiting your talents) (exploit your opponent's weakness)
to specific to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage (exploiting migrant farm workers)
The point is twofold. 1. There is no general consensus on what the definition of exploitation is. 2. If you use a general definition, just about anything could be considered exploitation.
No one says Jon and Kate "HAD" to do the show. Jon and Kate CHOSE to do the show because they thought they were making a good decision for their family. With 8 kids, 8 infants, how possible do you think it was for Kate to continue working? Sure, she could have gone back to work full-time and the kids would be growing up in daycare. If she stayed home, Jon's IT salary was not going to cut it. So now they have the luxury of being able to 'work' from home. It's not a typical situation but they are not a typical family (otherwise this opportunity would have never presented). The kids are lucky in that sense. I don't agree that the parents are "laying" anything on them.
Which is all the reason to question why the "stories" change from week to week, makes me wonder what else? Kate looks at Jon a lot when they are on the couch, verbally she also says "right, Jon?". I, as a viewwer, get the impression, that she's making sure "they are on the same page a lot." I understand we don't know what has transpired between shows, but really.. things change that much?
I haven't seen a story change literally from week to week. Usually, if it changes, months elapse. And as for Kate looking to Jon...that's not abnormal for couples to do. Granted, it's somewhat annoying but next time you are at a party with couples step back and observe the dynamics. You will find some that do the same thing while others are more independent. It's not an indication that one is lying, though it may be an indication of insecurity.
The footage - I can safely say that in 30 hours of tape, you are lucky if if you have 15 minutes of usable footage. Usable footage meaning - no technical gaffes, etc also, material that will be able to put into a comprehensible "story". Like I said, if people think the family goes about their business, and they are just being filmed, it's not like that at all. I think Kate is toning down the amount of time.
I wondering what you are suggesting by your first statement. What are you suggesting? That the cameras really are in their home 24/7? That they go on the trips over and over and over until they "get it right." If that's true, then figure 8's impression of "getting it right" is somewhat weak. Now I know the next point that will be brought up is the Pittsburgh Zoo and someone hearing (I haven't heard this myself) one of the kids say "The zoo again." Which could indicate that they tried to go before and something happened. Or the kids have been to another zoo recently. Or the kids have been to the zoo in their lifetime and it wasn't their favorite but I digress.
Since the comment about craft services wasn't mine, I'm not going to respond to it. Im going to bed. Goodnight :-)
OMG, I just started to re-read my post and it is a proofreader's nightmare. My brain has gone to bed. If any of this is unclear, let me know.
You can't say definitively that they haven't given anything.
No, definitely, I understand that. I guess, my opinions are based on the "overall". I think they are somewhat "selfish". Let's just say, from what I have seen, heard & read (from the Gosselin official site), they just don't seem to follow their family mission - it's just not in their "nature" to be "giving", I just don't feel it. That's why when they do the things they do, I think it's "fake". It's in an effort to regain the "relatability" that they once had. In the last episode, when Jon said whatever he said to make Kate happy, there is a scene where Jon is leaving the living room and he just has this look of "contempt" on his face. It just didn't seem like a natural reaction to doing or saying something he knew would make his wife happy - just more like he was kind of "forced" or "had" to.
Am I exploiting the children that I work with because I make a profit off of helping them?
Of course not, the key word is helping them - you are helping children. I see the kids as the main bread winners (their roles are reversed IMO), I watch the show because of them. I don't want to speak for anyone else, but the appeal is mostly shouldered on the kids.
I haven't seen a story change literally from week to week.
Yes, I agree not literally, but too many inconsistencies for my taste. It makes me just question - what is really going on here. The Alexis thing - it didn't help that this week they touched on why she slept in basement - the stating of a preference and the reference to the dungeon and the bat - but right after there is a re-run that states the original story about the need to separate because of the disturbance of siblings. I know either way people are going to think what they want to think, but if they could have just said "it started out because she was disturbing the others but now... she likes it..." blah blah it may sound like overexplaining (well, not if it's the truth), but at least the viewer doesn't say "wait a minute.. I remember something else." So that - coupled with the reassurance thing - makes me think they can't keep their stories straight.
What are you suggesting?
I don't want to say that the cameras are there 24/7, but to have to do so much editing there has to be 5 times the footage. Anyway, it's not easy to cover that many people. The cameraman, the sound guy, etc. and I don't think it's one set of crew either - because they have to cover Kate, the kids and Jon - simultaneously - to catch reactions, etc. The do-overs are because sometimes, mikes (the ones they wear) aren't taped well and they don't catch enough or they catch too much, I don't think they expect the kids to re-act all of their behavior they miss - but they do have to film a lot to put together a comprehensible story. The episodes where they go places? Even worse - in public they have to get potential people that may get caught in the shots to sign releases. In the last episode, there was probably a sign or notice - disclaimer stating that there was filming going on and you basically have to agree to allow your image to be shot. While, I agree to an extent that Kate really doesn't like to "be bothered", I think the separation in theater had more to do with not having to have so many releases that needed to be signed for people that would potentially be in the shot because of their seating proximity.
I want to touch on the damage control. I don't think that if we or anyone else says this week, "I wish Kate would go back to her natural hair color" - that all of a sudden next week, she would be a brunette. But I do think that of course the producers have monitors that keep their finger on the pulse of everything that goes on and could potentially help/harm their show. It may give the detractors "ammunition" but for every person that blogs anywhere about how much they can't stand Kate, there are ten others that have just turned off their set. I think it was you that touched on the relatability. Right now, the "controversy" is helping. The things being said may not be nice, but in the producers' eyes, at least people are still talking.
sevenstrangers said..."Yes, I agree not literally, but too many inconsistencies for my taste. It makes me just question - what is really going on here. The Alexis thing - it didn't help that this week they touched on why she slept in basement - the stating of a preference and the reference to the dungeon and the bat - but right after there is a re-run that states the original story about the need to separate because of the disturbance of siblings. I know either way people are going to think what they want to think, but if they could have just said "it started out because she was disturbing the others but now... she likes it..." blah blah it may sound like overexplaining (well, not if it's the truth), but at least the viewer doesn't say "wait a minute.. I remember something else." So that - coupled with the reassurance thing - makes me think they can't keep their stories straight."
I see what you are saying, but I tend to think for those who are inclined to nitpick (and I am NOT referring to you), an overexplanation would just be one more thing to pick apart.
I am curious - what do you think is the *real* reason Alexis is in the basement? I guess I just can't imagine at this stage if she generally didn't want to be there that J&K would insist she sleep there.
On a side note, I am impressed with Alexis' spunk and indepedence. I have a teenager who is still sometimes afraid of the dark. I don't think she would want to sleep in the basement (even if it was nicely finished like the Gosselins).
I think they are somewhat "selfish". Let's just say, from what I have seen, heard & read (from the Gosselin official site), they just don't seem to follow their family mission - it's just not in their "nature" to be "giving"
Sure, I can see how you formed your opinion. Many (not all) of the sources of information on finances are not credible sources to me. Since we don't have proof of their finances, I tend to shy away from outright accusing them of never giving and/or being extremely greedy. But you are entitled to your opinion and I doubt I'll convince you otherwise.
Kate happy, there is a scene where Jon is leaving the living room and he just has this look of "contempt" on his face. It just didn't seem like a natural reaction to doing or saying something he knew would make his wife happy - just more like he was kind of "forced" or "had" to.
I already deleted this episode out of my DVR. Maybe I'll try to see it again to try to catch a glimpse of the look. However, I think Jon just always LOOKS that way. He's not a bright, cheery person. He doesn't smile all that much. I think that's just the faces he makes. I also think the same of Kate. She's not Suzy sunshine but I think she can appear to be warmer than Jon. He's so not touchy-feely.
As far as the saying one thing one week then something else the next, I agree with Anya. I do think an overt explanation like that would be torn apart. My grandmom always says "I can't win for losing." That should be J&K's motto.
I don't want to say that the cameras are there 24/7, but to have to do so much editing there has to be 5 times the footage.
I understand what you are saying about editing but I don't think the cameras are in the home every day. I don't think they go to the special places several times over the span of week. I think the 4 year olds would be in a state of perpetual frustration (and I'm not talking about a meltdown here and there) if they were forced to do scenes repeatedly. I'm positve that there is some "Why don't we try to do it this way" but Kate and Jon can say no and the kids are going to do things the way they want.
In addition to all of this, I think that Kate has a flair for hyperbole and her account of the amount of footage that needs to be edited is likely exaggerated as was the security guard's account on the sesame place episode that it was 115 degrees when they filmed.
She's not Suzy sunshine but I think she can appear to be warmer than Jon. He's so not touchy-feely.
That's funny because I feel the opposite, but based on the way Jon interacts with the kids. He seems more genuine, more natural and warmer.
I understand what you are saying about editing but I don't think the cameras are in the home every day.
I am basing my estimates on the amount of filming due to past experience. During my college days one of my internships was on a production team for one of the earlier Real World seasons. Granted, it has been about 14 years so maybe reality tv show filming has evolved. I think though, that to produce a standard length show (22 minutes) requires a lot of footage. Maybe the equivalent of a full time job?
Seven,
I agree with you about Jon interacting more. I think what I meant by warm was just in body language. Jon is somewhat stoic (though that may be the wrong word). I mean, I think he's a great dad and gets down and dirty with his kids but I see his demeanor as sarcastic (which I personally love). I didn't mean to say that Jon was cold. I don't think either of them are.
And really, in terms of filming and editing, that is not where my expertise lies. So I should say "I don't know" instead of arguing what it could be. I only know what she says and I don't disbelieve her but like I said in the original post, I think there are some unanswered questions about filming.
In response to Nancy, without supporting or condemning this couple....I used to work at a church and when we had guest speakers of any sort the church paid for airfare, hotel, car rental, lunches, etc. They were our guest and were treated as such. They also received a love offering that was optional for congregation members and sometimes they were paid from the church office directly.
Post a Comment