Sunday, November 2, 2008

National Enquirer Promotes Jon & Kate Plus 8

The National Enquirer selected Jon & Kate Plus 8 as one of it's Best Bets On TV for next week. Click on this article to enlarge.


34 comments:

Anya said...

Dear National Enquirer:

Et tu, Brute?

Sincerely,

GWoP

Nina Bell said...

Len Feldman must not have gotten the memo.

Guinevere said...

One week they claim that the Gosselins are exploiting their children; the next they are promoting their show. I guess you really CAN'T trust the National Enquirer.

Julie needs to get Len Feldman on the Batphone, stat, and inform him that "exploited" is not actually spelled a-d-o-r-a-b-l-e.

cali-mom said...

You girls are so funny! I love it.. lol :)

calebsmom said...

I don't trust the National Enquirer. Their next issue will probably have something mean to say about the Gosselin family.

gimmeabreak said...

guinevere said...
Julie needs to get Len Feldman on the Batphone, stat, and inform him that "exploited" is not actually spelled a-d-o-r-a-b-l-e.
___________________________________
Seriously, what is this thing you all have with Julie? It seems every thread has bashing of her?

indianprincess said...

I guess Len didn't get Julie's memo of exploitation :) You gals rock!

MoreCowbell said...

Et tu, Brute?

BWAH!

Julie needs to get Len Feldman on the Batphone, stat, and inform him that "exploited" is not actually spelled a-d-o-r-a-b-l-e.

All kinds of awesome! Is it me, or should GWoP feel like they've been swatted on the nose with a rolled up tabloid? Hee!

I can just see a certain "advocate" foaming at the mouth.

"I spent ALL THAT time e-mailing and BUGGING them to do a HIT piece, GAVE THEM Julie's contact information, and they go an ENDORCE KON a couple months later?"

Please note: liberal use of CAPS key and that stupid abbreviation "Kon" when referring to J&K. But, I did manage to leave out the 30 f-bombs and references to female dogs that usually lace her unstable tirades.

Guinevere said...

Seriously, what is this thing you all have with Julie? It seems every thread has bashing of her?

Oh, well, my "thing" is that I don't like her. For reasons well documented at this point. But on the plus side, I haven't wished lice and head-shaving on her, haven't compared her to various murderers, haven't called her fat and haven't joked about the possibility of her untimely demise.

The only reason I brought her up in this thread is that I think it's reasonable to assume that she was behind the original NE story; the story was the Julie/GWoP line practically verbatim, and I don't think the braintrust behind GWoP has the necessary, uh, legitimacy to get the NE's attention. I think they needed a putative "insider", and Miss Julie is most likely suspect.

GottaLoveTheIrony said...

Now thats funny! Gotta love the National Enquirer. Im doing a GWOP today and writing to Mike Walker and Les Feldman to let them know how much I enjoyed this particular piece.

I agree with the comments about Julie being the original "source" for the NE article. She denied it if I recall correctly, but I haven't found her to be the most honest of people. Id bet money she also is the source of the house info. I hope Kate watches her back if she has attempted to make amends with Jodi, who knows what lengths Julie would go to in order to sabotage that.

Jamie said...

Im going to take a wild guess and say GWOP will not acknowledge this.

LoriNJ1970 said...

Guinever said..I think they needed a putative "insider", and Miss Julie is most likely suspect.


I don't think the NE really worries about having an insider for their info. Anyone could have emailed or called them and given those sites as reference.

Julie has made some really poor choices but I think it's a huge leap to assume she was in contact with the NE. She may have been but it's just as likely she was not.

These has been a really nice site letting both sides put forth their opinions. I would hate to see it slide into the GWOP relm with baseless accusations. Afterall GWOP didn't start out as hateful as it now has become. JMO

nomoredrama said...

I, personally, don't think she's the source of any new info. If Kate and Jodi are not speaking then how would she know where they were moving. She never had any true inside information.

As to Julie and why she isn't particularly liked from my standpoint...Because she supported a website that stalks, harasses and jeopardizes the safety of of her sister's nieces and nephews. She was shown (and knew about before, obviously) disgusting comments made about the children and her response was less than sympathetic.

She got off on snarking about Kate which, to me, shows that she's bitter and after revenge. Then,when she ran out of inside info (because she had none) all of the sudden she was a child advocate. A child advocate who thinks comparing a 4 year-old to a person with D.I.D. or predicting that he/she will become a serial killer is funny and those who are offended by it should lighten up.

So, I lost all respect for her (the little I had). It's one thing to create a blog where you air your family's dirty laundry (and yes, that is my opinion of what was done. Her sister can defend herself, she's not disabled). I could buy the logic initially (she wanted to get the truth out). Ok, fine...but her continued, unabashed participation in the gossip mill showed that she had other intentions.

So Julie gets "no pity" from me, sorry. Besides we don't "deserve her respect" (from what she said before to Guin) so there you have it. A mutual dislike.

LoriNJ1970 said...

nomoredrama said...
I, personally, don't think she's the source of any new info. If Kate and Jodi are not speaking then how would she know where they were moving. She never had any true inside information.

As to Julie and why she isn't particularly liked from my standpoint...Because she supported a website that stalks, harasses and jeopardizes the safety of of her sister's nieces and nephews. She was shown (and knew about before, obviously) disgusting comments made about the children and her response was less than sympathetic.


Trust me I'm no fan of Julie or GWOP. I started reading GWOP and for the reasons you stated above I stopped. They obviously do not care about those kids at all.

But...just because someone doesn't like Julie shouldn't make it OK to make an accusation which is based on nothing but speculation of what MIGHT be. That's what GWOP does to Kate. Personally I think this site is better than that.

Nina Bell said...

lorinj1970

I see your point and can understand it. I don't believe Julie gets a pass when discussing a statement she has made or a new post on her blog or her support of Penn Mommy.

However, you are right, she should not be accused of things that are just speculation.

ChinaMomof4 said...

Hey, why isn't this posted on GWoP? They usually jump on any NE story about the Gosselins. Oh right, they only print negative stuff.

Mary said...

This story should be no surprise to anyone. The Gosselins have been in the forefront lately and far be it from the high and mighty (gag) NE not to jump on the bandwagon and put something in their rag that will sell more papers. Media Attention = Story =revenue. NE is not on any "side". They just want to sell their smarmy paper. Wow. gwop must be in a funk! NE and this story and a bigger house for the Gosselins? Bad day. Very, very bad day for those folks.

kimberely said...

Wow, the Enquirer is hypocritical. One article bashes the show and another one promotes the show.

Imagine that.

I wonder how Paul Petersen feels to have aligned himself with that rag.

Anya - your response made me literally laugh out loud.

Roy said...

"However, you are right, she should not be accused of things that are just speculation"

When GWoP posts something that is obviously purely speculative, this blog cries foul loud and clear. Why are you allowing posts to go through that malign someone without any evidence at all?

Nina Bell said...

Well roy,

As explained on another post, there are no rules here. This is for entertainment purposes. This is a private blog. Julie has made herself a public figure. If your sole purpose of posting here is to anoy me and malign this blog, maybe I shouldn't put your posts through. What do you think?

Nina Bell said...

By the way Roy,

I have put plenty of posts through by gwoppers that speculate about jon and kate.

Why a different standard for Julie?

erin said...

Mary said: "This story should be no surprise to anyone. The Gosselins have been in the forefront lately and far be it from the high and mighty (gag) NE not to jump on the bandwagon and put something in their rag that will sell more papers. Media Attention = Story =revenue. NE is not on any "side". They just want to sell their smarmy paper. Wow. gwop must be in a funk! NE and this story and a bigger house for the Gosselins? Bad day. Very, very bad day for those folks."

I think GWoP likely does not care and will ignore this. GWoP is notorious for withholding any news adverse to their cause. This will be like PennMommy all over again.

roy said...

"Why a different standard for Julie?"

Actually, Nina, if you read back on my posts here, you'd see I don't really support or condemn the Gosselins.
I'm asking a question about the methods used to disseminate information.
The fact that this is an entertainment blog hasn't escaped me, but it seems to have slipped by some readers.

spanglish said...

Eh, this item doesn't make NE any more credible about the Gosselins than their previous stories about them. It's still a rag.

Anya said...

Nina Bell said...
lorinj1970

"I see your point and can understand it. I don't believe Julie gets a pass when discussing a statement she has made or a new post on her blog or her support of Penn Mommy.

However, you are right, she should not be accused of things that are just speculation."


I can kind of see both sides on this one. On one hand, if we didn't speculate about *some* things, we wouldn't necessarily have a lot to talk about. :-) On the other, I think the integrity of this blog does rest on its posters and we need to be mindful about what we throw out there.

In this case, I don't think it is by any means a "stretch" to speculate that Julie might have at least provided information to NE, if she was contacted by them. And it's also not (in my mind) that big a deal if she did. I judge her on all the conduct I have witnessed to date by her and if I had proof positive that she was solely behind the NE article, it's not like my opinion would be further lowered. She's already done enough in the wide open for me to make a determination about her character. And no - I don't hate her. I just think she has flaws she should seriously think about addressing because if this is her MO, I doubt this is the first or last run-in she will have with family or, in this case, extended family members.

GottaLoveTheIrony said...

I think you might be missing the point. GWOP claimed that because the NE was right about John Edwards, they had credibility. Turns out the NEs rear end doesnt even know what its head is doing. Its really pretty funny.


-------------
spanglish wrote:
Eh, this item doesn't make NE any more credible about the Gosselins than their previous stories about them. It's still a rag.

Tyra said...

Quote:

When GWoP posts something that is obviously purely speculative, this blog cries foul loud and clear. Why are you allowing posts to go through that malign someone without any evidence at all?

The info in the Enquirer was virtually identical with the info that Julie provided on her blog and to GWoP. Does it make a difference whether the Enquirer got a phone call direct from Julie, or just copied and pasted her blog onto a word document? There's no maligning. Julie wanted to 'expose' the Gosselins, and she did. Who cares what her methods were? Why is Julie's blog 'noble' and 'brave' and the right thing to do, but if someone wonders if she made a phone call to the Enquirer with the same info, Julie's being maligned?

LoriNJ1970 said...

Anya..
I can kind of see both sides on this one. On one hand, if we didn't speculate about *some* things, we wouldn't necessarily have a lot to talk about. :-) On the other, I think the integrity of this blog does rest on its posters and we need to be mindful about what we throw out there.


You make a good point. Unless we all move in with the Gosselins the majority of what we're going to talk about is speculation. I'm sorry if I came across as wagging my finger.

Anya said...

LoriNJ1970 said...
You make a good point. Unless we all move in with the Gosselins the majority of what we're going to talk about is speculation. I'm sorry if I came across as wagging my finger.


Oh puleez! I don't think anyone thought that. :-)

Seriously, I strive to be open minded, but like some other posters around here, Julie is someone (based on our cyber introduction) that I don't care for. It's good to have folks who are little more open minded on the subject challenge assumptions and make us think if what we are writing is really "fair" and doesn't veer too far into conjecture-land.

I never want to be one of those fanatics (hmm, who could I be thinking of?) who is not capable of rational thought when it comes to a particular person. I am sure Julie has some good qualities in her....

Move in with the Gosselins? Well, there seems to be a LOT of room in the new home! I'll bunk with Alexis!

spanglish said...

"I think you might be missing the point. GWOP claimed that because the NE was right about John Edwards, they had credibility. Turns out the NEs rear end doesnt even know what its head is doing. Its really pretty funny."

The point, as I see it, is the National Enquirer is not a credible source for either the negative Gosselin stories, or the current item. GWOP's opinion of NE's credibility is irrelevant.

JustMe said...

Sorry i forget to not post anon...

No mention of this over at gwop. Weird because usually they would be all over them being in there...

Guinevere said...

But...just because someone doesn't like Julie shouldn't make it OK to make an accusation which is based on nothing but speculation of what MIGHT be. That's what GWOP does to Kate. Personally I think this site is better than that.

I hope I was clear that it was just my opinion. I based it on the idea that the NE probably gets a lot of crazies calling them up with "dirt" on various celebrities, and I would think having a source that has a tangential relationship to the Gosselins would give the story the legitimacy it needed to be worthy of publishing.

I think the NE is fairly careful about risking lawsuits these days. That doesn't mean that everything they write is true, but I don't put them in the Weekly World News, "Big Foot and Elvis to run for president and VP in next election" category.

I guess I also did not think I was speculating on something that was so out there or beyond what Julie is known to have done. It's not like I made the leap from "Julie writes things about Kate on her blog" to "Julie likes to skin puppies and make coats out of their fur". I went from "Julie writes things about Kate on her blog" to "hey, maybe Julie was the source for the NE article that repeated the exact same things that Julie has written about Kate on her blog." But for the record, no, I certainly don't know for sure that she was the source.

Saint said...

Guin,
Is it possible the NE's source for the first Gosselin article was Julie's blog? That would also explain why the article was the same information as the blog. Maybe they rehashed it and called it a "source."

Guinevere said...

Saint, I'm sure that's possible. I think someone would have still had to point them in the NE's direction, but that could have been anyone.

My original point - that I don't think contacting the NE is that different or out of line with what Julie is known to have done, so I don't see myself as "accusing" her of anything - still stands.