What story on CNN? Am I missing something?
PeppI haven't seen it but have received several emails saying they did a piece on the Gosselins and mentioned GWoP as well as Julie's blog. I can't seem to find any information on the internet
The CNN segment is posted on You Tube and it is not Kate and Jon friendly. :)
I saw the CNN story. I went to GWoP and found a link to a youtube video.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q370dVhn2bcIt was mostly just a story reporting on the controversy but now that a big name like CNN has reported on it, others will probably catch on.It will be interesting to see how that plays out. One of the quotes from Brooke Anderson is "Peterson is calling for the show to be cancelled IF the children are being treated poorly."It's that "IF" that keeps discussions like these going. "If" they were being treated poorly, I wouldn't watch. It should be noted that The Pennsylvania Labor Department issued a statement to CNN saying that they've received no complaints about the family. Cue the letter writing....
Yes I have posted a link and I was aware that it is not Jon and Kate friendly but I welcome all discussion here. Please though, no anon posting. Pick a name and stay with it.
I think the concerns about the show are things that I've thought about and would definitely agree with canceling IF the children were being treated poorly. I think the discussions about it are well placed as it deals with issues that confront us in the present day. What I don't approve of is the fanatical aspect of many of the discussions. Absolute hatred or disdain for those who don't agree with you. I agree with Peterson's assessment of the show (the IF statement) and actually think the CNN story was well presented. I will say that Kate's K-mart plug on the Fox broadcast annoyed me but such is life. Not enough reason for me to tune out.
I think this needs to be looked into if only to quiet all the controversy. If the children are not being treated poorly, the show can continue. If they are being taken advantage of, then the show should end. Period. End of story.
I thought Paul Peterson made some good points, and he should know. I've read that his early stardom didn't do him any favors as far as coping with "real" life.TLC put out a statement that said the show allowed Kate to be a SAHM, but they didn't say anything about Jon, who certainly is an involved father. What he, chopped liver? :)
Why go on tv and say "If A is correct, then B should apply"? Why not find out if A is correct, and not just the speculation of a bunch of busybodies on the internet? One would think that he would be trying to work with officials to have some regulations put into place for these kids, rather than speculating and fanning the flames of a fire that he should be trying to put out. I am definately for anything that will improve the quality of life for these children. If they are being mistreated, there's no way I would support it. I just would like to have seen it handled differently. I guess you could say that maybe if more people knew that Paul Peterson had concerns, they wouldn't support the show, ratings would fall, and the show would be cancelled. However, I think it's safe to say that the posters on gwop, as much as they hate Kate, still watch the show, hence the recaps and discussion. Now, lets say that more people are directed to gwop because of this segment. The hate will start all over, and no one will stop watching the show. So what did he actually accomplish here?
I actually thought the CNN story would be much more ugly, from comments I read in other places. I say absolutely, look into the show. If it's a problem, then stop it. They showed no clips showing the children in distress, and quoted two blogs that are just blogs written by people with lots of time on their hands. It didn't convince me that the children were in danger. Even if the story had been about how the children are NOT exploited, showing me two blogs and some pictures are not going to convince me that they are just fine, either. I didn't feel that it was a particularly noteworthy clip, either way. I can't say that this news story "swayed" me one direction or another.That being said, I'm going to guess that somewhere out in blog land, a party is being thrown about now! ;)
You know, this annoys me. There have been SO many shows in the past which needed this kind of intervention-- think of the documentaries on kiddie pageants and the like. Yet suddenly Paul Peterson decides Jon & Kate are his ticket to get more fame and notoriety. I am not saying he doesn't care, but the fact that a #1 show on a big network is where he chose to get this kind of attention really tears his credibility in my book.I love that she said "IF the kids are being treated poorly." Hmmm... you mean.... there is no proof they are being mistreated?! Shock and awe! :)
The timing of this may work to J&K's advantage, with their book just coming out and being "plugged" on CNN.I think PP's heart is in the right place, but he needs to stop focusing on the Gosselins and talk about reality shows in general. He can't just call for the cancellation of J&K and make no mention of the Duggars, etc. All the reality shows that feature kids should be called into question, otherwise it just looks like he's picking on the Gs.And what will people who have never looked at the blogs think when they look up GWoP? I don't think all the horribly negative remarks about Kate, and people saying that Jon should take the kids and leave, will bring many more people to their side.I think it will turn as many off.
Lulubae said:"What I don't approve of is the fanatical aspect of many of the discussions. Absolute hatred or disdain for those who don't agree with you."I would just like to mention that there are some of us that have been working very very hard with Paul Petersen and others to bring to light the possible problems with children in reality tv and looking for ways to improve the situation. Jon and Kate claim there is no "book tour", but what I have seen televised this week that also includes requiring the children to be involved sure looks like a book tour to me. I believe the book has been mentioned in every interview. The children also seem to be required to spend hours promoting the show lately with magazine photo requirements and such. That did not look like anyone was enjoying the production and it certainly didn't look like the children were just living their lives as a documentary, the show has become their lives.I am not fanatical, I do not hate the Gosselins or any other family involved. I simply want to help create a tighter safety net for these children and try to make sure that someone would look out for them and make sure things are ok with them. I guess I am saddened to see all the different talk show spots this week showcasing the children in a rather objectifying manner, encroaching on the children's lives during a school week and seeing the sad faces on a few of them. I don't hate the Gosselins, I do dislike this situation.I guess it would be nice to not be pre-judged and to not be lumped in with people that blog about the same situation, but may have different objectives.As I read this blog, I try not to put everyone here in the same box :-)
A mind,You will not be pre-judged for your views. In fact, I think the majority of us agree with much of what you are saying.Some disagree with the methods in which it is being done so there may be discussion around that but, in all, I think most people want to ensure that these children have a safe and appropriate childhood. Thanks for your feedback, it is appreciated.
A mind of my own,I know how you feel. Just like we are all not fanatics over here.
lizziemae7 said... You know, this annoys me. There have been SO many shows in the past which needed this kind of intervention-- think of the documentaries on kiddie pageants and the like. Yet suddenly Paul Peterson decides Jon & Kate are his ticket to get more fame and notoriety. I am not saying he doesn't care, but the fact that a #1 show on a big network is where he chose to get this kind of attention really tears his credibility in my book.I don't like the kiddie pageants either, but they are a drop in the bucket of ratings. J&K is the highest rated TLC show, and let's face it, it does appear the kids support the parents. J&K wouldn't have a chance to make so much money if they didn't allow the viewing public in their house to see their HOM.There was one show that really got my goat. It was Jon getting a hair transplant. First, J&K left sick children for a vanity procedure, which wasn't even finished. He needs another transplant for the big white spot on his crown. I learned that hair transplants also require maintenance to the tune of about 3K a year. That would buy a lot of organic meat.I'll be watching what develops very carefully. I'm really on the fence now, and it's very uncomfortable. :(
What Paul did was irresponsbible. And what's worse, they cited two hate blogs. Disgusting reporting.
Jen said "What Paul did was irresponsbible. And what's worse, they cited two hate blogs. Disgusting reporting."This, to me, is very much the truth. I don't really have a problem with Paul Peterson or his message, more the company with which he associates. I have serious problems with the way GWoP and Julie have chosen to "spread their message," because I think both blogs are hateful. I think it takes a little credibility away. I hope people realize it but I'm not so sure they will.
Some might call me anti-Gosselin but I am not. I personally think the kids work to much and dont have a voice. Likeing Kate as a person is not my issue and I am not jealous of them. My son years ago was in acting/print ads. As soon as he wanted to stop we did. Was I a bit dissapointed yes but it was maybe 4 hours a month. When in the past I have stated what bothers me and given examples I have been told "dont watch it" Well how am I to get the facts or an opinion by not watching it. To me the same goes for Paul Peterson if he were to go on CNN and say some reality shows......People would go what reality shows, show us the proof. Its a now win circle. I have issues with other "reality shows" as well but the kids on them arent as young, dont do as many shows a year and seem to me (IMO) are more honest about it. I am glad some attention has been brought to the Gosselins and maybe the right people will look into and make sure the kids are ok and have protection, thats all I ever wanted.
Anne:I am not picking on you, but you said a few things that piqued my interest.1. You said you stopped when your son wanted to stop. The Gosselins have said their kids have wanted to continue when asked. So why do we believe what you say, but discredit what they say? (we general)2. The labor laws I found referred to the number of hours in a day. I couldn't find number of hours in a week, but many labor laws do not even limit the number of days, only the hours. If the kids were kept to that schedule--which we don't know if they are now or not, then what is the problem.Some kids just don't enjoy the process of acting. So it is not surprising that even 4 hours enough was too much for him. But there are kids of all ages who enjoy it and work more often. Depends on the family of course.Kids get tired even when they do things they like to do. My daughter enjoys soccer immensely. But she has her days where you couldn't tell b/c she is at her practice or a game and simply refuses to go on the field. But it isn't an accurate assessment of her desire.It would make sense that the Gosselin children get tired--and after a whirlwind of on set interviews they would be getting unhappy at times.Also someone mentioned isn't this a "book tour". No it isn't --a bunch of interviews in a short period does not a tour make. Book tours involve lenghty time periods where the author(s) would travel around the country from store to store or other location to personally pitch and sell/sign their book. (Tori Spelling did a "tour" for her book--and she "toured" around promoting the book.)I applaud advocacy for reality tv in general. All actors should be treated fairly of all ages.But really--does filming kids all day at Disneyland constitute an out of control work day? I don't believe so. Millions go to Disney every year of all ages. Some start their day at 8am and go until midnight. Even on their Disney day the Gosselins were afforded courtesies that prevented cameras filming the whole time (from a logical standpoint--why would a company film for several days but only show 1 day out of 5. Waste of money and makes no sense what so ever.)Perhaps it is the cameras shooting the children would have their workday limited to a certain number of hours.That would be a reasonable compromise. While we wish to safeguard the children, we want to preserve parental rights as well.
Laws need to be in place to afford any and every child on a reality show at the least a minimum of protection.I applaud Mr. Peterson for stepping up. This is not the first reality show he has gone after.TLC should welcome laws put in place. It is the right thing to do.
A mind of my own,I agree with many of your points. What I was alluding to is not to you personally but to people, on both sides of the fence that get so caught up in the fight that they forget what they are fighting for. I really do believe that no matter on which side you are in the argument (I find myself in the middle, so middle included!!) in the end we all want to see what's best for the children to be done. Whether that means continuing the program or not.
I think the thing that concerns me the most about the Gosselin children is the number of hours that they are actually "working" in front of the camera. Even though we constantly hear from Kate how this is their "life" is still has to be disrupting to have cameras in your home and in your face constantly, filming even the most mundance aspects of your lives. I know that my kids would get sick of it really quickly and would probably do the same thing that we see Mady do (telling the cameras to go away). The fact is, child actors are only allowed to work a certain number of hours, to PROTECT them, plus they get paid. The Gosselin children don't really get their own money, so who is protecting them? I'm just worried about the actual number of hours they are "working" and how it will affect them as they grow up. The other stuff I could care less about. I give Jon and Kate credit for NOT having to work outside of their home and being home with their children. I wish my husband could do that!
So why do we believe what you say, but discredit what they say? (we general)The viewers see Mady's and Cara's behavior. Some may say that that is in "their nature". IMO, I see kids who could clearly take a break from being so "exposed".My kids didn't hit as much. I am not saying at all, but once they could verbalize - they never hit. The Gosselin tups, concern me because they still hit. They hit each other on the head, which is just mean. There was one scene when Aaden was on the ground and Hannah tried stomping on his head with her foot (no provocation). I was horrified.I think taking a break - even a "season" break would do them some good. They have not gone on "hiatus" since the show has picked up.
Jon and Kate should just shut the door. I wouldn't trust the media to accurately portray me. If 20/20, Dateline, or the others are calling, I'd be thinking it was time to back out. I just wouldn't want the mess.I'm sure they're trying to make as much $s now as they can. They should be able to still continue paid speaking engagements. Kate is becoming quite the spokesmom. I'm sure there are other things she would be paid for endorsing. One of my questions is what type of future lifestyle are they trying to support? Lavish or economical? Taking there children with them on tours and engagements is commendable. On top of the show, it seems a lot for little ones. Again, we've been watching “the making of celebrities”.The children are not old enough to understand the affects the show is going to have on the rest of their lives. The younger ones know nothing else and cannot perceive that the world has access to their lives. That is a definitely a decision for adults who can consider all aspects. I also think it was unfair that the Duggars weren't mentioned. Why not? It was inspired by J&K, it should bear mentioning in their cause that there are other shows.On the book, it's so strange to see a tour where one of the authors has just evaporated.
To the last Anon poster,You made some great points but if you read the message above the comment box, we are not posting anon comments. Please re-post and pick a name so people can know who to respond to if they wish to.
Regarding the Duggars - They've been doing shows since they had only (ha ha) 14 kids. It's only recently that they've gone to a weekly format. I wonder how long TLC or Figure8 Films has been trying to sign them on as a episodic show before they finally agreed.
(in general not to anyone in particular)Maybe the reason I've been intrigued with Jon and Kate plus 8 because of all the controversy and all the blogs out there. Everything that I read so far around Jon and Kate is gossip and hearsay including what Julie writes. How do we know for sure Jon and Kate are not putting money aside for all the kids? How do we know they are not protecting the needs of their children? Sure, laws are a good thing and all children should be protected under the laws. How do we know when a law is put into place for children in Reality TV,the Gosselin's could already fit into the law and go by all the guidelines. Then what? So back to commenting how Kate invented lay-away. Sorry for the rant and I guess this has been bothering me for awhile. Just because you have money doesn't mean you can't cut coupons and pinch pennies. There are no laws saying once you become sucessful you can't save money by cutting the weekly coupons or being on a budget. Hey, what a family does without money and a family who has money to save during a hard economy is their own business. What happened to appreciate what you personally have? Maybe I grew up with different values but when is it right to tear someone down just because you can? Of course, I don't like some of the choices Jon and Kate have done but they choose to do this for their family. The taxpayers are not fippin' the bill for the Gosselin family like with how taxpayers are paying for the illegal immigrants in this country. I understand people have strong views but remember what's important and put your energy towards fixing the problem and finding a solution. If you want to be an advocate then fine but be one for every child not just the Gosselin Children.
I just wanted to clarify my earlier comment-- as I said I was annoyed that Paul Peterson used this as his spring board for the 'save the children' campaign when there are so many other shows and situations which warrant more intervention. I agree with what a mind... and erin said especially-- it isn't that I think PP is wrong- its that using the J & K arena to bring this to light damages his credibility.And I totally agree with indianprincess, which is why I wanted to post this :). Its not only about the Gosselin's-- there are so many kids with no parents, no trips, no exotic sandwiches for lunch that have apple slices on them (at least she tries to be creative... haha) that need this kind of voice more. (No offense to Kate and the people who did the brown bag campaign stuff- I'm all for thinking outside the box but the sandwich ideas were just...yeah)Advocacy and protection laws are wonderful- but many are forgetting those who need this voice more than the Gosselins in the midst of the drama.(Sorry this was so long-- like a few others, I guess I just had things I wanted to say!)
"Laws need to be in place to afford any and every child on a reality show at the least a minimum of protection.I applaud Mr. Peterson for stepping up. This is not the first reality show he has gone after.TLC should welcome laws put in place. It is the right thing to do."If you are referring to Kid Nation, that was an inherently different show.In the case of documentary style television, I think reality should be added, but I don't believe it should or can be prevented.You cannot legislate parenting.Even if this format was added to the legislation of PA or NC, the show could still be filmed and broadcast with very little change.Filming a child enjoying a day at Gymboree isn't really any different than a tv program.Why is Petersen not standing up for all child performers?
"The fact is, child actors are only allowed to work a certain number of hours, to PROTECT them, plus they get paid. The Gosselin children don't really get their own money, so who is protecting them? I'm just worried about the actual number of hours they are "working" and how it will affect them as they grow up."Utilzing logic as that is all we have to depend on until proof and evidence is provided:The children are slaves to their schedule--up at a certain time, meals at a certain time, naps at a certain time, bed at a certain time.The law (if they were included in it)--states 8 hours per day max, no more than 44 in a week.So save the marathon days like Sesame place--it would be near impossible for the children to be working longer than that.Even on the Good Housekeeping shoot day--they fell within those hours.Logically--it doesn't make sense that they would be outside of those hours. It is possible--but not logical.For them to be guaranteed coverage would be great.How it will affect them?No one knows. The laws are geared to protect them in the here and now. Children--in acting--should be permitted to enjoy a craft jus tlike maybe a child who enjoys soccer or gymnastics can enjoy their skill of choice.Now the G children are not "acting" or "performing" but let's be honest.They are clearly being filmed for entertainment purposes. Some children grow up and are fine with this--others are not. Those sick of the camera now--probably would have been sick of the home video camera.My kids beg beg beg beg for me to film them. I don't b/c I am too lazy and ashamed to say that our video camera now qualifies as antiquated. You cannot conclude that this will negatively impact the children. We don't ever know how kids will turn out.In the best of circumstances you can end up with a druggy for a child.In the worst of circumstances you could end up with a brain surgeon.How you rear your children is NO guarantee of how they will turn out. This is where Paul Petersen fails. And where GWOP fails.They assume bad things will happen and then if they do--they can point and say..."SEE, we told you so!!!!"Okay--fair enough, this could have caused or certainly not prevented the negative outcome.BUT--what about the families who aren't on camera or whose kids aren't famous. If being a working performer is the cause--why did their kids turn out that way?What about Jodie Foster?Neil Patrick Harris?The girl from the Santa Claus movie (the red head--she's an attorney now).They were protected from the same laws as Maureen McCormick but amazingly didn't suffer from Diff'rent Strokes syndrome.The Gosselin children need protecting to make sure their filming is fair just like the kids on Disney channel.But let's not kid ourselves that we can predict the future and these children are damned to a life of pimps and coke.
A mind of my own & poohbear - Just curious ...do you disavow the tactics or GwoP of allowing people to mock, criticize and demean the children or do you believe what Julie does and say that it is just humor or sarcasm or taken out of context?
"How do we know when a law is put into place for children in Reality TV,the Gosselin's could already fit into the law and go by all the guidelines"Okay--I like you--this is what I have been trying to say and you said it in so few words!
You know, this annoys me. There have been SO many shows in the past which needed this kind of intervention-- think of the documentaries on kiddie pageants and the like. Yet suddenly Paul Peterson decides Jon & Kate are his ticket to get more fame and notoriety. I am not saying he doesn't care, but the fact that a #1 show on a big network is where he chose to get this kind of attention really tears his credibility in my book.----In my heart of hearts, I do not believe PP's involvement is nothing but sincere and thoughtful care for kids in show biz.I hope a good and sound investigation ensues. Maybe the network will learn something, hopefully an advocate will be on set at all times for the kids, money is dividy up.Only good can come from this IMO.
A Mom-ynous said... You said the Gosselins have said their kids have wanted to continue when asked. I'm sure you're right that they probably did. Let's not forget though that 6 out of 8 of these kids do not remember a life without the cameras. When asked if they want their life to remain the same as usual or to be completely different, I would guess that most 4 year olds would choose the former. I also wonder if the kids were asked for their opinion in a group setting and a case of follow the leader ensued. I have a hard time imagining each of the 8 children having a quiet moment with both parents and being asked how they truly felt about the situation. Regardless, I think it is the parents' responsibility to make this type of decision. If I, as a parent, asked my kids what they wanted to do each time I had to make a decision that effected them, they would never go to the dentist, get their immunization shots or go to school on Fridays (their dad's day off from work). As far as I'm concerned, this is just irresponsible.
"So why do we believe what you say, but discredit what they say? (we general)The viewers see Mady's and Cara's behavior. Some may say that that is in "their nature". IMO, I see kids who could clearly take a break from being so "exposed"."Again--not to pick on you Ducttape, but...why should we believe YOU that you pulled your son out b/c he said so and not believe them.If they don't film J&K asking the kids and the kids responding..regardless of how the kids behave on camera, why take your word over theirs just b/c the show is edited to show--that behavior?A show can be edited in any manner of the producer/director's choosing.You're child may have been quite precocious on set and appear very happy. So to an outside observer--if they wanted to be critical if you were perhaps being filmed for a reality show...Couldn't they make it "appear" that you just didn't allow him to do it period?
Why is Petersen not standing up for all child performers?October 19, 2008 6:32 PM---Um, that is pretty much what he does already....
Regarding GWoP's publicity in this-they will get increased readers. Investigators may look into the blog.And if GWoP would have stayed its orignal course, it would have looked upon as something more than a hate site.The way they HATE the Gosselin's, literally can not stand Jon or Kate Gosselin is as frightening as racial hate. They speak of these PEOPLE as if they were the scum of the Earth.There wickedness will be noted.
Again--not to pick on you Ducttape, but...why should we believe YOU that you pulled your son out b/c he said so and not believe them.I don't have a son, so I have no idea what you are speaking of.
I completely agree about the baby pageants. Those are all about the mom's. Just watch how often the mom's cajole, beg, threaten to the point of the children crying. What about those children?I also agree about GWOP. I used to post there but not much any more. If you like J&K at all you are jumped on immediately. I see good and bad in their behavior, but not mean or unloving to their children. I think last week when Jon played the video he made of the kids and Kate was crying was absoluetely sincere. I also like the fact that you don't allow anonymous posts here. There are fully 50% of the posters at GWOP who post anonymously, so who's to say they aren't the same people posting over and over again. They sure all sound the same.
The hitting thing is cringe-worthy, but I'll just refer to A Mom-ynous's article and just note that every situation and child are different. And really they are 4-year-olds. Also, I was seven or 8 when I probably stopped with the hitting (my younger sister who was 4 or 5 at that time bit me back). It wasn't to say that my parents were bad because we continued to hit even after being told not to. There were a lot of things we were told not to do, but didn't follow ... just like any child. Our parents tried to stop us and guide us as best they could, but they could only monitor us for so much. My parents worked full-time, but they were still hands-on. They always found time to be there for us. And we had nannies, too, even though there was just the two of us. Even they couldn't prevent the fighting between us sibs. We weren't well-off, but where I was born, even stay at home mothers had the assistance of nannies. We did grow out of the hitting soon enough, and despite all that, my sis and I continue to be the best of friends, with some squabbles here and there. I attribute part our closeness to our parents' skills and the values they instilled in us.So, I think the Gosselin kids may hit each other, but I think they'll grow out of it. Children are just children. I'm not saying it's a good thing, but sometimes, one can only control so much. And from what I've watched, Jon and Kate do reprimand the children for the hitting. I don't think they let it go. It's just that they don't see it all the time. As for this CNN piece. It's not a very well-balanced one. It could have presented both sides of the story, but the piece is rather short, and maybe it just wanted to focus more on one side. The editing could have been better.The Duggars (they do have little children) should have also been mentioned. They're not as popular now, but the attention/interest in them is growing. I can't help but feel that the Gosselins are being used as an example because of their popularity. It's okay for Mr. Petersen to vocalize his thoughts. He's passionate about his cause, and he's to be commended for it. It's just a tad ironic that he is being vocal through the same medium that supposedly exploits these chidren. And like someone else pointed out, I think there could have been a better way to handle this. I think it would be ideal for him to spend a day or a week with the Gosselins before assuming that these kids are being overworked. Maybe then, he can have a better assessment. And in some ways, this interview encourages some of the extreme (and irrational) views. And I do fear it would only contribute to the "exploitation". Whether the intentions are positive or negative, attention on the Gosselins are heightened. I think many of us are concerned about the effect the show will have on these children either now or later in their lives, but I just really believe that we should just wish the best for them and if at all possible, refrain from making derogatory remarks that do nothing to help these kids. I truly believe that if they have a stable family, and their parents nurture their confidence and everything good about them, there is still a possibility that these kids will grow up to be upright, healthy-minded people.
Now on GWoP they are talking about how TLC has "admitted it is all about the money". Well, of course, why else do people do tv shows? Would it be okay if they didn't get paid? How stupid would that be?I know, they don't say they decided to do the show for the money. But, when they did the first special they couldn't have known it would turn into a series. The Dilleys and McCaugheys had shows about them but not a series. So, they were offered a series and decided it was right for them. Of course they make money from it, why else would they still do it? I don't get what the big deal is about "admitting" it is about money.
By the way, I appreciate this side for posting this story. It may take a negative stand on the show, but at least, everyone can have a sound discussion about it. I think everyone (from both sides) who has participated in this discussion so far has raised some valuable points.
I just would like to have seen it handled differently. Below is the link if you wanted to talk about the unfair, unbalanced view of the family. Or perhaps how irresponsible it is to showcase hate blogs. http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form5c.html?23
Paul Peterson has been advocating for child actors for years. He is not just now jumping on the bandwagon because of the Gosselins. Perhaps CNN got interested because of the Gosselins recent media blitz which clearly shows unhappy children wearing winter clothes in 93 degree weather, getting up at the crack of dawn for morning tv appearances, etc. And for the poster above, yes, kids get drug to Disney World every day but not all of their tantrums and melt-downs are filmed for America to see!
For what it's worth, I think one of the reasons that J&K is so popular, and I hope I don't make anyone mad saying this, but is because they are really good looking people. You know, people who are easy on the eyes are more fun to watch. I think Kate is very pretty, always has nice make up and pretty clothes, Jon looks good and the kids are adorable. And wherever their clothes come from, they are all so sweet. So, following this line of thinking, the blogs and forums that are out there have how many people on them? It is miniscule to the number who are watching. I just can't imagine any bloggers can make a dent in the viewing public. And especially after someone like PM, who I admit, duped me, I just fell for her hook, line and sinker. Once you do that, it opens your mind to who else out there could be doing or saying the same thing. Especially those people who say "I know them and I know this information", but then they tell you they won't tell you what it is. I have learned the hard way they are fakes. Everyone of them. Either you have something to tell, or you are lying. That was the beginning of the end for PM and I still thank the guys on this blog who did all the work to uncover the truth. As for Julie, I thought she was telling the truth until I reread her blog and she claimed those 6 babies were planned so that they could have this TV program. That's poppy-cock. I think the real truth is that J&K were in the right place at the right time for TLC to offer a new TV Reality program and they got it right. I still like the show. Obviously Peterson is not completely convinced they are doing anything wrong by his wording. Really, they are their children and have the right to raise them however they choose. I wouldn't want anyone telling me how to raise my children. And so what if they are getting rich in the deal, they weren't rich when they started out, but they've sacrificed some things to be able to have a lot of things that most folks don't have. I wish them good luck.
I've said before - I think Paul Petersen has the right intentions, but I also think he may be biased based on his own experiences. His experiences aren't necessarily the same as the Gosselin childrens', and I think that's something that gets lost when one insists that "he knows what he's talking about."I am wary of any legislation that is specifically intended against the Gosselins. I think laws creating guidelines for children on reality tv should be enacted to protect all children, not just the Gosselin children. I'm sure GWoP will get some hits based on the CNN mention, but I doubt much more will come of it. Anyway, if a person spends more than five minutes at that site, I think they are more likely to be put off by the posters than by anything the Gosselins do. It may be time to hide all the posts about how one "tup" is fat or how the kids aren't cute anymore. It makes the claims of child advocacy ring a bit false.
Since commenting on this story is basically rehashing the same-old same-old that we've been talking about since the start of this blog, I channeled my comments to CNN. I sent them this e-mail:Regarding your recent story on the TLC show, "Jon and Kate Plus 8." I felt the story was fine overall, but at the conclusion of the piece, you referenced two anti-Gosselin hate blogs. Perhaps you should have done your homework before giving unmonitored blogs any sort of encouragement to ramp up their already questionable behavior towards the family. The blog "Truth Breeds Hatred" is written by the sister of a disgruntled family member that didn't get paid for appearing on the show and is now posting private family information for complete strangers to read on the World Wide Web. Hardly a unbiased and credible situation. The other hate blog that you referenced, "Gosselins Without Pity," cyberstalks the Gosselins by driving by their home taking photos and posting them on their site, doing searches of Gosselin family members not appearing on the show and posting their private information online for the world to read, calling the parents and children names (akin to cyberbullying), bombarding news sources, magazines and Paul Peterson with emails and phone calls in an effort to get the show canceled, calling churches that the Gosselin's have speaking engagements with and bullying pastors who book Jon and Kate, into canceling, among other nefarious activities. "Gosselins Without Pity" has also been caught giving blog space and support to supposed neighbors of the Gosselins, to air their grievances about the family. Except these people are not vetted as credible sources and untrue stories appear and are repeated as fact. One "Gosselin neighbor" who claimed that Kate Gosselin verbally abused her child, was discovered to be a fraud living in California, soliciting her sob story about a sick child, not a neighbor of the family at all. It was suspected that some posters actually sent her money to help with that sick child (in exchange for keeping in her good graces and revealing more made up dirt on the Gosselins). It was finally confirmed by ISP address that she was not in Pennsylvania at all. These bloggers also post the whereabouts of the family online, so that anyone who reads the Internet knows when the parents are away from home and the house and children are vulnerable. They have absolutely no self-awareness of the security risks that they cause.Please be more careful next time and thoroughly vet those you give airtime to. Also, if Paul Peterson is concerned about the Gosselin's, then he also needs to mention the Duggar's and Roloff's, who also participate in the same type of family reality show. Of course, the "advocates" at "Gosselins Without Pity" have not mentioned those shows in their email crusades to Mr. Peterson, because their actual motive is not what's in best interest of the Gosselin children, but in bringing down and humiliating the parents.
Guinevere- I was thinking the same thing in regards to Mr. Peterson. I think he has the best intentions but I also think he may be "projecting" a bit. . . .I understand why Jon and Kate declined the CNN interview, but I kind of wish they hadn't. Sometimes declining comment makes you look as if you have something to hide. Also since CNN mentioned Julie's blog is anyone else surprised that they didn't also mention the source?
MCBGreat letter, great points. That was the problem that I had with this piece. Promoting a web site like GWoP, which in my opinion is the main reason the Penn Mommy fiasco existed and thrived. They are not advocates. There is a blog out there that compared our outing of Penn Mommy to a witch hunt. I found that to be pretty hilarious considering that is what that blog and GWoP does on a daily basis.(Yes I realize that people will say the witch is Kate)People have said, who really was damaged by this? Well the Gosselins for one. This fake said she reported them to DCFS more than once. That they were reported many times. But that is ok, because it is just Jon and Kate, right?GWoP promotes and condones this type of behavior. I am convinced that they could carry out their mission without this nonsense. Why don't they give it a try.
I agree about their mention of the blogs. They should have referred to them as fanatical and given those unaware a heads up. It was a such short clip with the main focus on PP. It'll be interesting to see what comes of it. Nina, I have been reading that also and it looks like there is a drama addict at work. It all twists and turns with no definitive answers, just like the blog that no longer exists.
To reply to a previous poster:Q:How do we know that Jon and Kate aren't putting money away for the kids?A: How do we know they ARE?? They've already said they have no college funds.To reply to another poster:"Taking kids to appearances is commendable."Not if the kids are missing SCHOOL to attend these appearances.
dotsicle,exactly though. nobody knows everything. maybe they have college funds aside or maybe they don't. who's really to say? i also tend to be in the middle (sometimes, i get irked by jon and kate and there are things i don't agree with and yet, i don't see the kids as an unhappy bunch), but i try to give them the benefit of the doubt because even with what julie or an "insider" says, we're still scratching the surface of the gosselin lives. i hope you will read a mom-nymous' article that was posted a few days ago. it raises some very good points.
also, who's to say they didn't set up a college fund now or last friday? they may have said they didn't have college funds for the children some episodes ago or some seasons ago, but that doesn't mean it's too late to set up funds now. i don't think that's anything to hold against the gosselins. as far as the kids going to appearances to miss school, personally, if i were in jon and kate's position i wouldn't bring them along, but that's my standard. i don't think they're necessarily bad for having the kids tag along to these tv appearances. it's a couple of absences. i don't think that'll set the children back.
dotsicle said... To reply to another poster:..."Taking kids to appearances is commendable."Not if the kids are missing SCHOOL to attend these appearances. ...This is one of the things with which I don't have a problem. I'm sure there work is caught up in other ways, tutors, etc. It's a common event for children in entertainment. IMO the school schedule is too restrictive and too long. Of course, there are old problems with the system and I'm a homeschooler now so I'm skewed somewhat. It's frustrating when you have opportunities that you can't take advantage of because the school schedule. My grown ones weren't homeschooled and of course, their education was a top priority, hence, the frustration.
damn, I keep writing there instead of their.
But if the children stayed behind at school, wouldn't then they also be criticized about leaving them and not being there to parent them continuously?I think they're in a no-win situation. They're dammed if they do and if they don't. Once again, I think the concerns are valid, but I really do think the issue is huge here on the blogospehere world. Not necessarily with the regular viewer.
Absolutely lulubae - K was dogged because of the size of her rear and now she is dogged because she works out.
"...do you disavow the tactics or GwoP of allowing people to mock, criticize and demean the children or do you believe what Julie does and say that it is just humor or sarcasm or taken out of context?"GWOP started with good intentions and has done some good work. Having said that I absolutely do not agree with people criticizing and demeaning the children. I also do not agree with focusing on attacking a person for their hair, tattoos, etc. I have no problem with Julie.
Nice letter morecowbell.
Well GWOP must be tickled pink they were mentioned on national TV! Hopefully they will try and clean their site up some before everyone in America finds out how crazy they are! But then again it would be better for J&K if everyone were to see how GWOP is nothing but a website filled with hatered for people they don't even know. Only hiding behind the mask that their truely concerned for the children!
Go morecowbell!!This is the first time I posted here. I've tried to post at GWOP but have never been able to get a comment through.I'm not a huge Gosselin hater or fan, but I am unexplicitly fascinated by both the rabid fan/hate side. What drives people to act like that? The rabid fan seems less harmless. I don't understand the hatred at all. Why would Jon/Kate take parenting advice from people who consistently insult and belittle them and their children? How can anyone take "advocacy" seriously with all the nastiness? Would the nastiness stop once the show is off the air - I highly doubt it!
poohbear - Thanks for the response.
I have no problem with Julie.October 20, 2008 9:42 AM----I would rethink that Poohbear...remember it was Julie who told us that PM was real! She exchanged emails with her and vouched for her. I would not trust Julie for anything except someone who NEEDS attention.
voice of reason:I'm sure that if the show did go off the air, those people would find someone else to hate on. In this case I think hatred will breed hatred. That's so sad. I hope they invest the same amount of energy in a positive way in their own personal lives as well though. And this is me giving *most* of them the benefit of the doubt.
I think anyone new checking into the sites CNN mentioned are going to see what happens when sharks smell blood. IMO the adrenalin rush is making them more vicious.
I thought CNN did a good job for what was probably produced as "weekend filler." (IMO if they believed the Gosselins really were in danger, they'd have run this during times of greater viewership.)It IS newsworthy to bring up concerns about the Gosselins, since they've got a new book coming out. The piece also met the basic standard for objectivity, as it included both sides (TLC's comment counts as having the other side speak, like it or not, as does the attempt to interview the Gosselins.)However, I don't think this is going to cause great sweeping changes, for the Gosselins in specific or showbiz kids in general. It'll serve to raise more awareness of this cable TV family, and thus raise viwership and book sales. That's not a bad thing; one could say the ends justifies the means.One more thing (speaking of Steve Jobs, heheh): When CNN said the Pennsylvania bureau hadn't received any "complaints," it wasn't talking about angry letters from people who only know the family from TV. It means official complaints such as what would be filed by a teacher, neighbor, relative, friend, etc. Just hating the family or hating what you see on TV isn't enough for the state government to act.
To the anonymous poster who posted in this thread about 10 minutes ago - I had to reject your post as we are not accepting posts that are anonymous. Please pick a name - any name! - and resubmit your comments. Thanks!
"GWOP Responds to TLC's Official Statement" is a recent section heading on that group's blog. I think "reacts" would be a more nearly suitable verb. For me, "responds" has an element of quid pro quo about it and would be appropriate only if GWOP posters were members of the Gosselin family or TLC staffers and were actively involved in the negotiations of the show. They're not, and to assume that they're major players in this whole drama seems to me smug and self-aggrandizing. I hope not to mirror GWOP's vitriol and vindictiveness, but I do want to call them out on their sense of self-importance. It's an unbecoming and ultimately counterproductive trait for people who style themselves as advocates for others.
I am fascinated by the pro/con Gosselin views. I don't hate the parents nor do I like them. The appeal of the show died for me when the parents' egos became more evident week after week. I hope this blog and others are around years from now when the Gosselin kids are older and we see or hear what they have become due to their celebrity at such a young age. If any of them are suffering emotionally, I hope they realized that there were some very well meaning people who tried to look out for their best interests.
Guinevere,I wrote to you a few minutes ago to apologize for having posted under the "Anonymous" label. Then, I proceeded to post under "Anonymous" again. (My excuse is that it's Monday.)At any rate, I'm glad that we'll all have names from now on; it'll make the discussions much easier to follow.Now, let's see if I can get it right this time!
No problem. I put through an anonymous comment earlier, accidently. My excuse is also that it is Monday.
I just have to comment on this one. I enjoy opinions on both "this" site and "that" site. But I have to say to many of you, isn't this the pot calling the kettle black? There is so much "hate" towards that site! Tons of people comment on the mean, vindictive people over there. How would you know unless you are over there yourself? You sound silly, jealous and petty. Why are there soooo many comments about that site if they are a bunch of people who need a life? I am happy for the other site, shedding some light on the Gosselin controversy. There are some serious concerns about this family and their fast and furious road to fame. Both sites can be insightful and thought provoking...IMO!!!
violet,The Kate hate is fascinating and ugly. I like to discuss it.
Violet,I know you posted just to get a reaction from all of us and to sit back and laugh. I am with Merryway, I think GWoP is a fascinating and ugly study of mankind at its worst.So is there a reason that we can't read that site?Silly, jealous and petty? Better than stupid.
violet, let's be fair here. that site has also lambasted this site, on many occasions. just last week, a site was created for the sole purpose of insulting this website. i'm not saying it was a person from the other site, but i'm just saying that this site receives its more than fair share of attacks. and in my opinion, the hatred that is being talked about here pertains to / is really a beef against the extreme hatred being directed at the gosselins by the other site. there have been many irrational hateful ones spewed from that site that those taint the ones that show genuine concern for the gosselin kids. i think for the most part, the beef raised against the other site is not one of the personal nature ... the stance here is challenging some of the things that have been used to attack the gosselins, such as kate's bum and other trivial matters.
Violet-I can't speak for everyone but for myself, I found "that" site first and was totally turned off by how very, very hateful it came across- not just toward Jon and Kate but towards the children as well, it seemed ridiculous. What does Kate's hair have to do with advocacy- which is what they claim. They seem more interested (IMO) in attacking them on a personal level than anyhing else. The reason (I think) you see "that" site referenced is bc many of us found it first and bc frequent posters from that site find their way over here, so in the flow of conversation it does come up. Not to mention the whole PM fiasco which lots of posters to this site and that site were privy to. "This" site is refreshing IMO bc our discussions don't include bashing Kate for the size of her tucus, and there are opinions on both sides of the fence here, with both of us being in the middle of the road (meaning we want filming times restricted for the kids but we don't consider J&K to be the devil's foot soldiers) again not trying to speak for everyone but I do think that's the general consensus. Forgive me ladies, but I will speak for most of us when I say that we are not jealous, petty, or silly in the way you are implying. I think this site has done an excellent job of being balanced and I'm glad that differing opinions from the majority do get posted as long as they aren't anonymous, profane, or too "attackish". Anyhoo- goodnight all!
OOPS I meant "with most of u being in the middle" not "both of us" lol I think it's obvious there are more than 2 readers!
I just have to comment on this one. I enjoy opinions on both "this" site and "that" site. But I have to say to many of you, isn't this the pot calling the kettle black? There is so much "hate" towards that site! Tons of people comment on the mean, vindictive people over there. How would you know unless you are over there yourself? You sound silly, jealous and petty. Why are there soooo many comments about that site if they are a bunch of people who need a life? Well, not to sound defensive, but I'm *really* not sure what I'd have to be jealous about in regards to GWoP or its posters. As for the other: I've said before, but for me it's all a matter of degrees. I haven't tried to ruin anyone's life just because they post at GWoP. There are plenty of posters there who are apparently actively trying to interfere with the Gosselins' lives and yes, hurt them. That is wrong. So, they criticize the Gosselins and we criticize them. If it's just criticism, I think it's fine. I don't see much "hate" directed towards GWoP. Dislike, yes, but hate is a much stronger word, and I just don't see it (or feel it). They piss me off sometimes, but that's about it. Most of the time I see them as more worthy of ridicule than anger.I think the point of this blog is just what Nina originally said it was: to bring balance to the discussion of J&K+8. On TWoP, they tended to shout down and insult anyone who disagreed with their hyperbolic comparisons and extreme statements. On GWoP, they wouldn't even bother to post opposing viewpoints. So that's why we talk about them here. The show is interesting enough, but I think the "backlash" has deeper sociological implication. If I had to give one reason why I bother to talk about the show or the Gosselins or GWoP, it would be that I'm disturbed to be reminded - again - of just how hard women are on other women, how judgmental and vicious they are about other womens' choices, particularly choices that pertain to parenting.I know that some people look at the back and forth between the two sites and just see it as blog warring or silly infighting over a stupid TV show. I'm not trying to say that my involvement is some high-minded endeavor - I always say, this is mostly entertainment for me - but I do see it as more than a petty squabble. Women have got to stop tearing each other down the way that the do at GWoP. To me, that's worth arguing against.
Women have got to stop tearing each other down the way that the do at GWoP. To me, that's worth arguing against.I find it curious that this site does say GWOP is "mean", "nasty" and "hateful" toward the Gosselins but the uses the same words against GWOP as a whole, its mods, etc. A lot of the posts over there are parodies and things are said in jest. Child Advocacy aside, levity it appears, is not all allowed. Even more so odd, the posters here that do frequent "Princess Marie Chantal find humor in the things that are said over there and don't find it al all mean, nasty or hateful. I guess as long as its directed at GWOP it's OK.
I beg to differ. But I believe those "parodies" that may have meant to be in jest are also meant to be insulting to those who disagree with the extreme nitpicking and hatred at that site. For me, my dislike for that site is derived from the irrational hatred directed at the Gosselins--overly captious comments, and even the children have been a target of some nasty remarks. I speak only for myself on this.
I'm a bit late posting on this topic so I guess I'll bring it back to the CNN video. I just didn't understand why they mentioned Julie's blog. That did not start off as an "advocacy" site. It was a site defending her sister. After GWOP claimed her as their Messiah she decided she would become an "advocate" too. She doesn't even have anything to add to the cause. All she does is put up Paul Peterson updates. I was so annoyed when they showed Truth Breeds Hatred. Can you tell?It does seem to me that the kids are doing an awful lot of public appearances lately and that concerns me but then again kids are quite resilient and adaptable.
IMO Paul Peterson is jumping on the bandwagon for his own benefit. My daughter is just as whiny and moody as Mady and their are no cameras in my home. My daughter has been whiny since she was born. Some kids are just like this. Has no one ever heard the term "spirited child"?I think the hating and bashing has really gotten out of control and I am glad there is this site to balance it all out.
"I hope this blog and others are around years from now when the Gosselin kids are older and we see or hear what they have become due to their celebrity at such a young age. If any of them are suffering emotionally, I hope they realized that there were some very well meaning people who tried to look out for their best interests."I find this sad and hypocritical.On one hand, the family shouldn't be on the air--b/c it isn't fair to the children.On the other--we want the scoop when they are old so that we can affirm that they turned out horrible. Whether they are a druggy or one became a doctor. Why do we say it isn't our business--but then say it is our business.You are not looking out for their best interests if you wish to have the privilege of observing the outcome.
"But I have to say to many of you, isn't this the pot calling the kettle black? There is so much "hate" towards that site!"Only when one is calling the kettle black is it the same.I maintain the same viewpoint on both sites.The drama seems to be fed by those who choose to name call on either side in reference to the other side.Everyone needs to look at the situation with an objective eye. The problem is...a great many are not.Now this is not calling the kettle black. This is a simple observation and I'd make the same observation on the other site if it was brought up in a thread in which I was a participant.(And I posted an article here in reference to something I read on the other site and stated my reasons later on for doing so. Just in case you decided to call that to my attention.)
"posts over there are parodies and things are said in jest."Are they going to be locked and filed away until the sextuplets are 18, so that when they find them on the internet they will be at an age where they might understand the humor at their expense?B/c making fun of someone to make a point--a real human someone who is a young child...isn't funny and really makes the comic appear to be...a word I won't type.I don't like real comedians who do that. From the ones that I have come across who do this, the joke sinks like the Titanic.
Are they going to be locked and filed away until the sextuplets are 18, so that when they find them on the internet they will be at an age where they might understand the humor at their expense?B/c making fun of someone to make a point--a real human someone who is a young child...isn't funny and really makes the comic appear to be...a word I won't type.I don't like real comedians who do that. From the ones that I have come across who do this, the joke sinks like the Titanic.IMO:People are entitled to their own opinions, right or wrong, whether or not you agree or not.If the children find the things that are posted about them on the internet, I would think if they were going to "blame" someone - the "blame" would fall on their parents, who exposed them to the world to begin with.
mtsmom,No Jon and Kate are not completely to blame. Each one of us are responsible for what we say, for what comes out of our mouths or for what our fingers type on the keyboard. We are responsible for our own actions. Just because these children and their parents are on TV, it doesn't mean they deserve every hateful tripe that is spouted by some people against them. It's irresponsible to make overly callous remarks. And in my opinion, it's irresponsible to fault the Gosselins for how we choose to express our views on them. We are not incapable of will power. We have a choice of whether or not we make these snide remarks against the G's and the kids, whether our opinion is pro or anti J & K. Let's not undermine what we are inherently capable of--of being good and understanding.
I forgot to add ... It's also up to each person whether or not he/she accepts what others are said about them. Just as people are responsible for their own words and actions, they're also responsible for how they feel and react to other people's words and actions.
"If the children find the things that are posted about them on the internet, I would think if they were going to "blame" someone - the "blame" would fall on their parents, who exposed them to the world to begin with."That is an interesting perspective.Blaming someone else for misbehavior.
That is an interesting perspective.Blaming someone else for misbehavior.If Jon and Kate had not chosen to expose their lives, would what people say about them be an issue?The last time I checked this is a free country, at the same time, the kids have an opportunity to read about how "inspirational" their parents are.
Quote:I just didn't understand why they mentioned Julie's blog. That did not start off as an "advocacy" site. It was a site defending her sister. After GWOP claimed her as their Messiah she decided she would become an "advocate" too.Julie followed the same path as GWoP: first venting, then justifying. Waving the 'advocacy' placard gives each site's griping a high moral 'sheen'.I'm actually picturing the book publisher being fairly comfortable/happy about the CNN piece. It was surface reporting, not investigative. There's a big difference between 'CNN' and the CNN Entertainment show. Fluff? Uh huh. Tabloid tv? Yup. So, 'controversy' gets mentioned, but not substantiated: it raises the profile of the relatively-obscure Gosselins, and potentially sells more copies of a book that is, content-wise, probably pretty mild.I'd say the Kate-factor combined with internet 'controversy' is a pretty good profit equation.
angelica, I totally agree. It really bugs me that some people think that the Gosselins' poor choices (assuming for the moment that we agree they've made poor choices) means that they (the Gosselins) are responsible for vicious comments that other individuals choose to post online. I see a faint but definite corollary with the old, "if you hadn't made me mad I wouldn't have hit you" argument.I find it curious that this site does say GWOP is "mean", "nasty" and "hateful" toward the Gosselins but the uses the same words against GWOP as a whole, its mods, etc.I am sure there are GWoP posters who aren't quite so ugly, but since I very rarely visit there, I really cannot be bothered to tag all my condemnations of them with the following disclaimer: "GWoP sucks except for the following posters: blah blah blah." Honestly, at a certain point I think people need to realize that they are judged by the company they keep, and you can't wade around in a cesspool and come out smelling like a rose.That said, when I say this or that about GWoP, "as a whole", I am not condemning every person who chooses to post there. Let's say, I am condemning the overarching attitude rather than any one individual. Also, while I do think the attitude at GWoP is "mean", "nasty" and "hateful", I would not bother to even discuss the goings-on there if it weren't for the stalking, the lying and the attempts to interfere with the Gosselins' lives. There are plenty of places on the web where people are mean, nasty and hateful and I don't bother myself with them. It's the escalation of the behavior that I've always felt merits opposition (I swear, I'm going to create a macro to make this point at some point; it comes up so often).A lot of the posts over there are parodies and things are said in jest. Child Advocacy aside, levity it appears, is not all allowed.Gosh, I've never been accused of not having a sense of humor, but I really haven't not found much levity at GWoP. Pray tell, where is the "humor" in repeatedly denigrating the appearance of a four-year-old? (A child who just happens to be perceived as the parents' "favorite", and thus apparently is not worthy of all the hyperbolic sturm und drang over cupcakes, etc.)Where is the humor in repeatedly comparing a mother to various murderers, to calling her a monster and a psychopath, and to joking about her being killed?Where is the humor in speculating about how little children will some day be teen parents and drug abusers?I guess my funny bone is broken. Or maybe this stuff isn't quite as funny as you think it is.Even more so odd, the posters here that do frequent "Princess Marie Chantal find humor in the things that are said over there and don't find it al all mean, nasty or hateful. I guess as long as its directed at GWOP it's OK.I'm not sure I get your point? The posts at Princess Marie Chantal make fun of GWoP. They aren't laughing with you; they are laughing at you.
I'm not sure I get your point? The posts at Princess Marie Chantal make fun of GWoP. They aren't laughing with you; they are laughing at you.Exactly - so mean is mean only when directed at the Gosselins - but it's okay when it's directed at GWOP.Thanks for not posting my last comment. Not fair and balanced enough?
“Who are we to judge someone else for their actions until we are in their shoes?”Oh, I’ll take that one.I can judge someone’s actions because I have a certain operating code. Some people use the 10 Commandments, say, or The Golden Rule, or ethics and morals.There all kinds of ways to decide for yourself if the consequences of an action are worthwhile. I bet you do it every day: Should I really have one more drink before dinner? Should I drink and drive?And, when you are a parent, you’re responsible for the health and well-being of your child. You, if you are a decent parent, commit to ensuring that child gets to adulthood healthy, mentally sound and prepared to manage their own life.So, you decide on every question as it comes: Should little Johnny set his own hours and face the consequences of sleeping past the start of school? No, you make the rules in your house.If I know a neighbor lets their kids run all over, smoke cigarettes and drink, I make a judgment then and there that my kids can’t go over to play, study or hang out.Did I just make a judgment on that person’s actions? You betcha! Because my set of morals and ethics says you don’t let kids act in ways that are harmful to themselves. Certainly not very young children who can’t make thoughtful decisions about things that might affect their entire life.So, yes, I get to sit back in the old La-Z-Boy and decide every week about the actions and the visible consequences on my TV screen. I don’t care if I’m watching Rock of Love or Jon & Kate; both shows are “reality” and both shows have uneducated, uncaring people grasping at fame and fortune, while displaying little or no visible talent or skills.Having eight rather cute children is not in and of itself so special and attention-worthy (no matter what Jon says about a curious public who wants to know about them so much that J&K felt almost obligated to do a TV show), that the very show justifies the exploitation of the children’s childhood. That somehow shopping for a free bed is so heady and the TV show must go on justifies ignoring the real pain and tears of a child ill and crying for his mother. Then, this child has to WALK as he is followed by a camera, not be carried by a loving parent, out to a vehicle and have a fecal impaction shown on TV and discussed in an interview.That a parent did not step up to stop filming, to protect that boy’s privacy tells me everything I need to know about that set of parents’ sense of responsibility. And the lack of caring as demonstrated at the time and in the interview is just the cherry on top of the sundae.Yeah, I’ll judge that. And I bet, if you really thought about it, you would, too. Any parent should have drawn back from the TV in shock to see a child treated that way, FOR ENTERTAINMENT and with the full consent of his parents. You tell me you’d do that to your children for the money and I will say all of this about you, because I use my decision-making ablities and critical thinking every day, in situation after situation. I would hope everyone does the same.How such a situation is condoned is beyond me. Someday, I think there will be eight more people who think the same thing.
OPEN EYES OR OPEN YOUR EYESI moderate most of the comments. Sorry, but I work over a 40 hour work week so sometimes I have to sleep. Guin is a moderator, so her comments are automatically posted. That is why you saw her comment appear last night and yours did not until this morning. She can only moderate through the dashboard and probably did not have it opened when she commented.Not a perfect system but it is the best I can do. I don't get paid enough for this job to stay up all night and wait for comments.:)
I'm not sure if the above post is even worth addressing. There's just so much about it that does not make sense, and it oozes with hypocrisy and cynicism. It's definitely over the top, not just long-winded ... where to begin ...There are degrees and extent of judgment. And I'm sorry, for me, sitting in a chair and watching the show is not enough to make a fully sensible and sound judgment of J & K's complete persona, of who they truly are. It simply would not be enough for any of the viewing public because of this fact: We do not know them personally. You can make that choice to judge them, but it does not mean it is right (ethically or morally). Making judgments are easy, but that does not mean our impressions of the family would be 100% correct. If our judgments always turned out to be 100% true even when we're just scratching the surface, then maybe we'd have less crimes on the streets. Maybe we'd have a thriving economy, a perfect society. Or maybe we'd be walking around distrusting each other. It's reprehensible that anyone would make an excuse and justification for why it would be alright to vilify every choice J & K make for their family. And I'm sorry, some people have judged and come to the conclusion that they are comparable to murderers, and logically speaking, does that even make sense?If you do not condone their actions, why continue sitting in that la-z-boy and watch the show? boycott it. I'm not saying you do this, but there are people who excessively decry the show, and yet persist to watch the show. That's just hyprocisy. Boycotting would be one way to not condone it. and guess what, i'm sure there is a child in your area who is living in a far worse situation than the Gosselin kids. Why not get up from that la-z-boy help that child in your neighborhood?
P.S. My comment was in response to Formet's.
It's reprehensible that anyone would make an excuse and justification for why it would be alright to vilify every choice J & K make for their family.But according to you....There are degrees and extent of judgment.
lancelotsbarber,Yes, there are degrees. I'm not really sure what you're trying to catch me on. Let me say this: justifiable degrees. Is is justifiable to say that J & K can be likened to murderers? Why would that be? Is it alright to conclude that they are COMPLETELY bad for EVERY CHOICE they make when we don't know them first hand?If you read what you quoted, I said EVERY choice. Because to me, it appears that SOME people have taken a free for all kind of attack on the Gosselins. I once saw topic on Kate's bra strap showing slightly from under her shirt, and somehow, the thread starter concluded Kate was an awful and wanton woman for that. I don't agree with some of the things the parents do, such as yelling at each other and to me, it's pretty lousy to show that in front of the children, but would that be enough to make a judgment that Jon and Kate are bad? Or because Kate made a mistake to give her girls corn rows ... would it be necessary to nitpick on that faux pas, when she herself admitted that was a mistake? My point with that statement you highlighted is that it's unnecessary to nitpick at every single thing they do, and then, come to the conclusion that they are the worst people on the planet. There's a limit to what we can judge, and most of it is really limited to what we see on television, and we've to remember, the show is edited.
Just to add ... I apologize for the disjointed posts, but because I'm unclear as to what you're driving at, let me say this. The part of my post that you highlighted is also a reference to some people's belief that the Gosselins are responsible for every nasty comment directed at them. Just because they are on television, some believe it is justifiable that they receive every degrading statement directed at them, and if the Gosselin kids come across those comments, they have their parents to blame. To me, as I've already stated above in one of my posts, that just doesn't sit well because it undermines our ability as human beings to make choices, especially wise ones. We are responsible for our own actions. We are responsible for what we utter and for how we react to J & K. J & K are not responsible for what we choose to type about them. At some point, we can make a choice of whether or not we need to type out a vitriol and risk having the children come across that in the future. I'd hate to expound on this again, but if you wish to, please read my post above regarding this.
When the "anti" people get on the freebies, etc. Here you cry "hater" - bottomline, just because they go on trips, free clothes, etc. whether or not you think they deserve it - some people here say "Life is not fair".So in turn, if the Gosselins choose to put how, when, where their children Poop, live, play (same difference) and some viwers say not so nice things - "Life is not fair".There are no degrees. If you (not literally) can call other people cat ladies, crazy, loners, etc. just because they don't agree with you, the Gosselins are fair game.I am not saying it's right, but their is "no degree". No amount of rationalizing, justifying, is going to change that.Mean is mean. No matter who it is directed to. So for all the crazy comments - ask Nina Bell or NMD (meaning they've had some share of it too) it's all in the game. Mother Theresa had a few haters, so what do you expect? The Gosselins give people a lot of material to work with.
tuckermax,Well, that's your opinion. To me there are degrees of hate and judgment. To me, I still fail to see why Jon and Kate deserve to be aligned with the likes of Susan Smith. Why should they deserve that kind of hatred, when the extent of what they've done is show their lives on TV? Because I disagree with your post, would it be right for me to judge you as a completely abominable person because I perceive you to be giving me a lot of to work with just based on your post, like being cynical or overly judgmental? Never mind that I don't know you. The way I see it, it's not that black and white as you put it, and that kind of thinking in my opinion is dismissive of what is truly good in us, of our ability to make choices and of our ability to be responsible for our actions. Yes, everyone has people who dislike/hate them, but again, as I said, we are responsible for the way we feel and react to those sentiments, just as we are responsible for how we voice our thoughts. We may have our primitive inclinations and foibles as human beings, but whether you like it or not, no matter how you put it, degrees do exist. You may persist the antithetical thought. That's fine. We don't have to see eye to eye.
degrees do existI see both sides, but consecutive posts on why Jon and Kate Gosselin deserve passes on their behavior?What you see is what you get. The proof is in the pudding. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, it is a duck.Your compassion is admirable - maybe more suited for saving the world, rather than the honor of Jon and Kate Gosselin. Mind you - they're adults too, and hopefully would have carefully thought out their decisions as well.
Well hope there is beer in hellI hear you quacking! No one here is trying to save the world or the Gosselins. I can direct you over to a site called GWoP if that is what you want to read.
hopetheresbeerinhel,I'm not discounting Jon and Kate's responsibility. I did mention the collective we in my posts. I'm not giving them a pass. I do feel SOME of you are giving a pass to the overly hateful words spouted against them. Again, I don't agree with some of Jon and Kate's choices (like yelling at each other in front of the children), but I just don't feel they warrant enough hate or have earned the label of worst parents on the planet. I'm just questioning why they deserve excessive hate. And nobody, in my opinion, has been able to answer why it would be alright to liken them to murderers or why it's necessary to nitpick on every little thing they do. And I must say the kind of hate invested by some people against them--some of those people who claim to be child advocates--would be put to better use by actively advocating other children who are in less fortunate situations than the Gosselin children. Just saying. As far as the consecutive posts ... it's an open forum. I have a lot of free time today, unfortunately. And funnily enough, I am amused by the challenges to my posts.
Sorry, meant to say the KIND OF TIME invested by SOME people in hating the Gosselins could be put to better use.Heaven knows my statements would be parsed.
Exactly - so mean is mean only when directed at the Gosselins - but it's okay when it's directed at GWOP.I don't have a problem with people being mean. I agree with Angelica about degrees, though. I think certain Gosselin haters are way OTT in their meanness, and go well beyond that with their stalking and interfering with the family's lives.Thanks for not posting my last comment. Not fair and balanced enough?If I'm on late at night, I usually do try to check the dashboard, figuring there may not be anyone else around to approve comments at that hour. If I forgot, I do apologize. I'm kind of a sucky mod, to be honest.
So much of the above reminds me of playground bullies or abusive personalities who repeatedly demean, harass and taunt others until someone or some people have had enough. It is so typical. When people finally rally and confront the abusive insensitive callous harassing behavior, suddenly these people develop a sudden burst of sensitivity. It is a ploy abusive people used to deflect attention away from their own bad conduct.
I just don't understand how the G's are any different than any other parent with children that act or model, etc. There are obvious differences in what is unique about them, but that is it.If this is Peterson's concern, good grief he would have to go after a large portion of the entertainment industry. Why focus on this family in particular? On another note...I have lurked here for a very long time and have never voiced my opinion on this family. To all the haters out there that say these children are mistreated and that their mother is cold and doesn't show affection...the best indicator of how these children are being treated is in their behavior towards one another. Children learn from their enviroment...and guess what I see? THEY LOVE EACH OTHER!! I can't remember the exact episode, but they were leaving Beth's house and one of the girls(I think it was Hannah) came back in to kiss and hug the others goodbye. I'm am sorry...but that is a learned behavior...very indicative that there is plenty of love and affection in their home.As for the way the kids hit and fight? My response is...welcome to life with children.Welcome to NORMAL. Period.I have five kids and my younger two girls are only a year apart. They are seven and eight and get this...they STILL pinch and hit and everything else you can think of. But they also LOVE each other.The proof is in the pudding...so they say.
I think Julie is the one or one of a group that tipped off CNN, that is why her blog was mentioned. I also think that GWoP lost all credibility in my book as being an "advocate" when they bash everything Kate does, however it seems Jon can do no wrong.
Post a Comment