More hard hitting questions than I've seen in any other interviews, a little more hard on him than other interviewers have been. Kate laid back? It does seem hard to believe!
For some reason, I didn't like this interview with Jon. I don't have anything specific - just the tone. It rubbed me the wrong way.
Maybe its because he said he does the show because they get to travel and meet great people. That doesn't seem enough to sacrifice your privacy. I guess it would be hard for him to say that he does it for the money to support his family and spend a lot of time with them.
It sounds like Jon is sticking up for Kate. I guess he has no choice.
Jon says that they "lived off of nothing" when he lost his job and Kate was pregnant. I'm sure that Jon's father helped them out. Because how does a family of four live off of nothing?
Jon sounds like he has a lttle bit of an attitude in this interview.
Yeah, I kind of agree with both Samantha and VOR. I didn't mind the questions being a little more hard hitting, the tone just seemed a bit rough.
And Kate "laid back" - sorry, Jon, I am not gonna buy that one 100%! I think his larger point may be that she has made strides in that area and that's good.
I guess I am a bit curious what he is doing in Utah. Anyone know?
Anyway, good for him for getting a mini break from the typical routine....
Does anyone ever get to ask them more than 3 - 4 questions for their articles? They are always so short except for the 700 club interview. Set them up with Barbara Walters or someone and tell me all. Oh well,
I've read it a few times and he seems grumpy. It's nice to read that all the money “just goes to them anyway” in regards to the kids. I read the below as harsh. He also didn't answer the question about if he felt protective of Kate and wants me to believe she is laid back. I do believe he did not care for this reporter.
Shauna: You could very easily be in the same situation, but with no tv show and all and not all the perks. Jon: I could be nothing. I mean when the babies were born that's how it was. I lost my job, kate had no job because she was pregnant and we lived off of nothing.
Anya, I read on Baby Mama's site that they were there for a vacation.
I know that tone cab be misconstrued and intent can be lost in translation when in print but the interviewer did sound a bit sarcastic/judgemental. We know how much criticism is out there to begin with and Jon knows too. Right or wrong its only human to sound a bit defensive, I think.
I don't think it's Jon's most articulate interview either but I do like the hard hitting questions.
I find it interesting that they put in every "like" in his responses. I used to have to transcribe practice therapy sessions in grad school and we would have to transcribe every one of our "likes" and "uhs" or whatever filler but we didn't necessarily do that for the client because it is distracting.
I don't know if maybe I'm missing something but isn't that type of thing usually edited out in print? For example (just picking on him cuz he's the most popular person at the moment) I've never seen an interview with Barack Obama where his "uhhhs" where included. Caroline Kennedy, on the other hand, had an interview where she said "you know" after every 3 words, practically and that was included.
I wonder if this inclusion is selective, based on the interveiwee. I'm pretty sure if Sarah Palin interviewed like that, they would include all of her misspeakes, but what about Hillary Clinton?
I could definitely be wrong so if anyone who knows anything about journalism could help me understand if these responses are mostly included. If they aren't, then it makes me wonder about the intentions of the interviewer.
That's an interesting observation. I don't know either but I remember reading an article that extensively quoted Elizabeth Hasselbeck. All of the slight stutters and "ums" were included and it was very distracting. I wondered if that was standard procedure because I didn't remember noticing it in other interviews/articles.
The tone of the article was quite hostile so I thought maybe it was an editorial comment from the reporter which I thought would be really unfair. But I don't know for sure. Reporters/editors could certainly have a great deal of influence in how we perceive a person.
Jon just doesn't seem at his most articulate in the interview, IMO.
I was wondering where Jon has been quoted elsewhere as a comparision. I gathered he was the least vocal of the two from posts here. So my question is where is something else written to make the claim this was Jon at less than his "best" so to speak.
I have read some of Jons' posts from the TC website and I think this tone he takes in this article, is the same tone he took when he wrote there. He comes across kind of arrogant to me.
I think these questions might get harder for them and they really should answer some of them. If they have nothing to hide or feel uneasy about one question should be as easy as the other.
I read the article again and Jon does seem defensive. It's hard to tell what the dynamics between the interviewer and Jon were and he may have responded defensively to her questions.
Kate may be more laid back now than she was when Jon was working and she was home with the kids. That could make her seem laid back to him.
It's good to know that J&K are looking out for their children's future and saving money for them.
I thought the interviewer was clumsy. When she asked him about 'exploiting his children a little bit', that's an awkward way to phrase it. As if she came out with the word 'expoiting', then backpedaled it by adding 'a little bit'. Like, huh? If you want to ask him about it, just ask it: 'Some people feel you are exploiting your children by putting them on tv every week; what's your response to them?' If she had phrased it that way, it would have come across more objective and direct, to me.
i have to say this is one interview i would like to have seen on video. it would tell alot. i'd like to hear their tones and see the body language. one thing that always irks me is jon allowing people to believe he was fired from his job when kate was pregnant. didn't the head of that company come out and say that he was not fired for reasons of health benefits but that he just stopped showing up for work? i think i struggle with the perception that they were "victims" of circumstances beyond their control. i guess i don't see it that way. JMHO
didn't the head of that company come out and say that he was not fired for reasons of health benefits but that he just stopped showing up for work?
That is exactly what I heard. But Kate is still saying they lost their jobs do to the preganancy. She even says the employer let Jon go due to health insurance costs. Did either of them here about FLMA leave, short term long term disability.
themrs, when Jon decides to go to court about his dismissal, they discovered part of the reason he was fired *was* because of the health benefits situation. Granted that was not the whole story, but the fact that it came into play at all was a concern to me. I know this was talked about in Multiple Blessings, but work is busy now so I can't go find the passage :). I'll try to look it up later so we can have the facts straight with that.
I did notice a lot of the interview was bizarre in the lack of caps and punctuation-- no idea why, but it seemed more like an IM conversation than anything else.
Jon and Kate were in Utah doing a speaking engagement (as opposed to the reports some have that Jon got away for a fun weekend).
i think i struggle with the perception that they were "victims" of circumstances beyond their control. i guess i don't see it that way. JMHO
Thats exactly how I have felt. I would like to know the facts. It does make a difference, if he were fired for ins costs then I would have a more positive feel about them. If he quit going in and Kate tells a different story it appears to be deceptive to me.
I heard the actual interview...Jon was actually very nice and casual. He looked happy and relaxed.
I was also surprised when he said that Kate was laid back.
He has been here alone, skiing! Good for him and doing some "R and D" with some people. I emailed this to Nina, but the article had a misprint...it says he was here on "R and R"....I clearly heard him say R and D...after the interview they broke back to the news and her fellow anchor asked what Jon was up to. She said he wouldn't tell her but said that they would like to get a second home here and it had to do with the Olympics. Probably with real estate so low here, his R and D was a real estate tour and he things he can rent it out like other people did with their second homes during the 2002 Winter Games.
Fiona, That's so interesting since some of us had a totally different take. Thanks for all that info. I've heard things like this in regards to confessions. Funny how are conversations are read in print.
Fiona, thanks for your comments and the feedback based on actually seeing the interview. It makes sense that it would come across differently in print.
I'll wait to hear what Lizabeth has to say about the job loss. I read "Multiple Blessings" too, but I can't remember. That has always been kind of a murky area for me. I think I have heard so many different stories I am honestly confused! It would seem strange that Jon would just stop showing up to work at this point in time, however.
And, yes, FMLA doesn't kick in until one year of employment. Some states have more generous laws on the books, but I don't know about PA.
I just thought the tone came from sloppy editing, no caps etc.
Personally, I am glad to see some different questions being asked of the Gosselins. It gives me a better view of who they are and what their lives are like today. Aposed to the "old standby" questions that seem to have been in most of their interviews in the past.
Interesting that he would even mention having secrets! I think it is to keep us all guessing!! Stay tuned!
Lizabeth since you work specifically in a personnel position you know Jon's story has some holes in it.
First, most states Pa being one are work at will states meaning unless your employment is in contract form your employment can be ended by either party without reason or notice. Employees can say I quit, conversely employers can say we do not need you, with no reason sited. The claim an employer would say I cannot afford insurance seems like a far fetched idea. Why would he provide a reason like that, when he is not required to do so. Jon could not sue them period as they have the right to let him go for any reason.
NC however requires any employee wanting to take legal action, if they are claiming to be illegally terminated, to file a complaint with the Dept of Labor. Only if they give you a right to sue letter can you seek legal remedies against an employer. Then that case always goes to mediation prior to any court setting. Nothing goes straight to court unless mediation fails. Often times as was my case, which I won I was injured causing my dismissal, I was required to sign a confidentiality agreement. I was not allowed to discuss my case in specifics, it's findings or the amount of settlement I won.
Even if Jon was fired for "cause" he has a federal law that allows him to maintain his health insurance COBRA, if he was one of 20 employees. So the employer has to offer Jon insurance for up to 18 months past the qualifing event . Jon would have to pay the premiums in full without employer contribution but he would have insurance.
COBRA website quote
Qualifying Events for Employees:
Voluntary or involuntary termination of employment for reasons other than gross misconduct
OK found the passage in the book that mentions the work situation:
"At eighteen weeks, I could barely bend over, and the strain of caring for the girls and me was taking its toll on Jon. To add to our mounting pile of stress, Jon was called into the office of the plant where he worked, accused of 'stealing time' from the company, and given his pink slip. Six weeks previously, Jon had told his employers of the situation with the babies because, when the grace period for my insurance expired after I stopped working, the babies would be added to the health insurance plan provided through his company. The company was immediately concerned that their premiums would go through the roof. Although it was later intimated in a court hearing that the impending expenses of insurance for premature sextuplets was indeed a factor in Jon being fired, Jon still lost the hearing."
From Multiple Blessings, page 50
According to that, Jon was fired based on an excuse of stealing time which may or may not be valid. He did go to court and lost, even though they admitted the cost of insurance (whenever Kate's ran out after she stepped back from her job, since it stands to reason that she would not have insurance for doing under 20 hours a week as she did after the tups turned one or so) was a factor.
NC resident, I agree that the story seems to have some holes. At the same time, the one thing I have learned more than any other in working with people is that the truth is usually somewhere in the middle of two opposing stories :). The 'stealing time' reason is used a lot (in fact I was accused of this at a job a few years ago since I was so fast at the data entry work (which was not even my job, but I was able to help other departments when time allowed) that they assumed I was slacking off. I doubt we can really know the exact motives behind all of this, but from what I have read and seen it appears Jon had a tough time holding a job anyway which was compounded by the insurance situation.
Lizabeth unless I'm wrong both Jon and Kate were eligible for COBRA, insurance should not have been a concern, premiums maybe coverage not.
Unless I saw court papers I doubt Jon had a legal right to contest his firing. PA is a work at will state period. Again something does not add up there.
Of course they were eligible, but COBRA is pricey. I think they knew exactly what they were doing by having no income they would qualify for Medicaid for the babies..and food stamps etc...
Yes, the truth is in the middle, I agree. I would say they have been 50% dishonest with the public-or 50% honest, whichever way, they have made it all work for them.
Just like Jon saying the kids aren't working...he makes it sound like all they film is the kids going to the park.
Fiona, if Jon was fired by his employer, as she states, Kates claims they both lost their jobs because she was expecting is a lie. That story is the one churches are being told if I am correct. Jon was fired. She stopped worked due to health reasons.
I agree, Linda-- I tend to err on the side of giving people a fair shake instead of automatically calling them liars. I have not gotten that "This seems really wrong" feel from the situation surrounding Jon's termination when Kate was expecting. I do agree there are holes in the story but its also possible Jon regrets some of his past actions and would rather move forward instead of backward.
If Jon was fired he should have gotten unemployment benefits and kate should have been eligible for disability. I can totally see the "stealing time" since kate herself talked about calling him at work because the "kids" needed desperately to talk to him. (episode when she took them to Hershey) She seems to me to be very needful of his attention whether he was at work or at home.
I have not gotten that "This seems really wrong" feel from the situation surrounding Jon's termination when Kate was expecting.
So you are not going to try to say her cooments at the churches are correct are you. Pennsylvania is a work at will state, Jon does not have to be given a reason for being let go. He also has no legal recourse to go to court to sue if he is. I suspect Kate is refering either an unemployment hearing or the court case surrounding the nurse, not a case. She did use the word intimated.
If Jon was fired he should have gotten unemployment benefits and kate should have been eligible for disability.
In some states an employer can contest benefits if an employee was say fighting, stealing property. Maybe thats what this court case was about determining eligibility for UB.
NC resident, I have not personally been to one of their church speeches. I have heard second and third hand accounts (and fourth and fifth, etc) but cannot recall when they spoke about the employment situation. That is why I said that I hesitate to lean too far on one side or the other-- I do not know what happened and have not read or heard anything (except for the excerpt from the book) which directly addresses this situation. The truth is probably in the middle-- as you said, without seeing court documents or knowing the HR side of things from his old job we really can only speculate.
I have to admit, though, if I had twin 3 year olds and was pregnant with sextuplets and stuck on bedrest before my first trimester was over, I would probably be pretty needy of my husband as well. I agree she seemed more codependent than usual then, but at least in my mind its something that makes a small amount of sense.
I do not think that it is fair or accurate to definitively state that something is a lie.
Unless a poster is willing to give some background information to substantiate their assertion.
The opinions that are offered here -- even the ones that are favorable to the Gosselins -- are speculation.
I totally agree. The book states that Jon was ACCUSED of "stealing time" - not that he was guilty of it.
I don't know. The whole thing may be a gray area. But I can easily see that Jon may have missed a lot of work (the "not coming to work" quote from his ex-boss - did the ex-boss lie if the reason was instead falsifying timesheets?) due to the strain of the pregnancy.
People see what they want to see. It seems like there is conflicting information out there, but some people are determined to interpret the most damaging claims as fact anyway.
Thanks, NMD for pointing out all of the ums and stutters included in the interview transcript. That indeed contributed to my sense that Jon was inarticulate in the interview. It was unprofessional to transcribe it that way, and whoever did it either has an ax to grind or is incompetent, IMO.
Some of our local tv stations transcribe their stories word for word including um's, etc. I clicked the link to the actual interview and while I am no way a fan of neither Jon or Kate, the spoken word did not sound anything like the transcript. I disagree with his assertion that the kids are not working, that they would be going to the park anyway but that is my just my humble opinion.
I totally agree. The book states that Jon was ACCUSED of "stealing time" - not that he was guilty of it.
Guinevere the issue is honesty. Jon was fired correct, whatever reason.
He is Kates quote:
He lost his job before they were born, because of the pregnancy, and of course I lost my job because of the pregnancy, that goes without saying.
The part about why he was fired does not matter. We know he was not fired over Kate being pregnant. They can hire and fire at will. I suspect stealing time means playing on the computer, IMO
He lost his job before they were born, because of the pregnancy, and of course I lost my job because of the pregnancy, that goes without saying.
The part about why he was fired does not matter. We know he was not fired over Kate being pregnant.
No, we don't know that. According to Kate, it was intimated at the hearing that the pregnancy was a factor.
If Pennsylvania is at-will, then I would guess Jon would need some proof that the pregnancy was the reason for the firing; if he could not produce such proof, he would lose the case. But that doesn't mean it wasn't true.
I just don't see the point in acting like we KNOW things we don't. Do you want to speculate on what Jon was playing at on the computer? Surfing porn? Solitaire?
If Pennsylvania is at-will, then I would guess Jon would need some proof that the pregnancy was the reason for the firing; if he could not produce such proof, he would lose the case.
If you know what an at-will is you would know an employer needs no reason to fire an employee, or dismiss them. Since it is an at- will state he cannot contest his employment period, unless he is under contract. Do some research I have, in fact I was in the a similar situation myself.
Also, I love how you include crazy notions about porn which I never considered. If he was using the computer for personal use, phone calls, working on other projects while being paid, clocked in when not at work all could be considered "stealing time". Interesting way to debate isn't it, including crazy notions so the next person assumes it's what I said.
Your essentially anonymous assertion that he is lying is not enough for me to say agree definitively that he is lying.
He says that he was terminated because of her pregnancy and the likely increase to insurance premiums . She says that he was accused of stealing time.
You say that he is lying.
You say that if the company had 20 or more employees he would have been allowed to utilize COBRA benefits.
And yet, we do not know if the company for whom he worked had 20 employees.
So, in short, why should we believe you instead of him.
The truth is somewhere in the middle is really probably closer to reality.
==================
In fairness to you ncresident, I think that some of the disagreements that I have with you are over writing style.
Other posters may say, "I think there may be more to this."
You say, "He is lying."
One is said as a statement of opinion and the other is said as if it is a fact.
===================
And the state where I live is an at-will employment state too.
My sister's best friend recently lost her job. Her husband had in the year before had a major stroke which left him unable to work and on his wife's insurance.
Do you know what her boss said when she applied to put her husband on her insurance?
"Do you know how much this is going to jack up my rates?"
nomoredrama said: "I could definitely be wrong so if anyone who knows anything about journalism could help me understand if these responses are mostly included. If they aren't, then it makes me wonder about the intentions of the interviewer."
I was a journalist for almost 15 years, working mostly in newspapers, but also for magazines and online news sites. (I'm currently a blogger and copywriter, having left the Fourth Estate for the second time in my career.)
I can honestly say that every person I've interviewed uses thinking words like "um" and "like." It's human nature! It's also an indicator of being fluent in a language--so much so that as an ESL teacher, I taught a few lessons on how to insert English thinking words into one's speech.
Seasoned journalists learn over time that they do not have to use every single quote from the person they interview. Instead, it's a testament to the reporter's writing skill to be able to parphrase and add background information, and to use only the strong quotes--the few sentences in which the person is feeling so compelling or forceful, he/she doesn't use thinking words while uttering the comment.
There are exceptions, such as transcribing an audio or video interview (like the online sites for news channels do sometimes). Also, when an interview is written in Q&A format, it doesn't seem honest to edit out the "uhs" and the pedantic half-sentences most of us use in everyday conversation. Although, I think such editing happens more frequently these days.
To include a person's every usage of thinking words is at best an indication of a journalist's inexperience. At worse, it indicates possible malice on the part of the writer, by using a different standard for one subject than for another.
If you know what an at-will is you would know an employer needs no reason to fire an employee, or dismiss them. Since it is an at- will state he cannot contest his employment period, unless he is under contract. Do some research I have, in fact I was in the a similar situation myself.
My understanding of at-will (which apparently pales in comparison to yours) is that there are still SOME restrictions on firing an employee. Are you saying that Jon could have been fired for being Asian - that that would have been an acceptable reason, since PA is at-will? Perhaps in North Carolina, but that's certainly not the case in California.
Also, I love how you include crazy notions about porn which I never considered. If he was using the computer for personal use, phone calls, working on other projects while being paid, clocked in when not at work all could be considered "stealing time". Interesting way to debate isn't it, including crazy notions so the next person assumes it's what I said.
Well, you seem semi-clairvoyant on the subject of Jon's "firing", so how was I to know at what point your speculation would end? To me, stating that he was fired for "playing on the computer" with absolutely no evidence or particular reason to think so, is crazy as well.
Linda after this I'm done I promise. My problem with you is you never fully read what I say. You and others never fully read what I say and then go on to misquote me. You have done it more than once as if you cannot read or something. I never said HE LIED I said KATE LIED BY SAYING JON LOST HIS JOB BECAUSE SHE WAS PREGNANT. He was fired correct, for "stealing time" as Kate said?
Kate claims they both lost their jobs because she was expecting is a lie. That story is the one churches are being told if I am correct. My quote refers to Kate NOT JON. I then provided a newspaper clipping where she was quoted saying that.
I think you don't want to hear what I have to say and thats okay just don't misquote me. It's obvious you have your own opinion and I respect that. We differ.
BTW Kate was eligible for COBRA as well, due to a reduction in hours. I'm sure the hospital employed more than 20 right.
Are you saying that Jon could have been fired for being Asian Yes they could by saying we dont need you anymore. He would have the burden of proof, discrimination is not allowed, we are not discussing that though. We are discussing an employer that terminated Jon for "stealing time" then his wife saying they both lost jobs because she was pregnant. Is she being truthful?
Well, you seem semi-clairvoyant on the subject of Jon's "firing",
I thought when I included IMO that meant just that. Not that I'm a mind reader.
Are you saying that Jon could have been fired for being Asian - that that would have been an acceptable reason, since PA is at-will? Perhaps in North Carolina, but that's certainly not the case in California.
Im not sure whats NCresidents response will be but I can definitivley say no that would not be acceptable. Neither is the fact that someone can be fired for any reason with no consequences to the employer. I'm (As my name states) in NC as well and I have a family member in a serious age discrimination suit right now. I can tell you that the company is in HOT water.
Yes they could by saying we dont need you anymore. He would have the burden of proof, discrimination is not allowed, we are not discussing that though. We are discussing an employer that terminated Jon for "stealing time" then his wife saying they both lost jobs because she was pregnant. Is she being truthful?
So you admit that Jon may have been fired because Kate was pregnant, but because that would not (presumably) be a legal reason for the firing, the employer created another reason? Since according to Kate, there was evidence (mentioned at the hearing) that the firing was at least partly related to the pregnancy?
Guinevere said... "My understanding of at-will (which apparently pales in comparison to yours) is that there are still SOME restrictions on firing an employee. Are you saying that Jon could have been fired for being Asian - that that would have been an acceptable reason, since PA is at-will? Perhaps in North Carolina, but that's certainly not the case in California."
CA, PA, NC and the other 47 states all have to follow federal law. Specifically, Title VII:
"Title VII, the federal law that prohibits most workplace harassment and discrimination, covers all private employers, state and local governments, and educational institutions that employ 15 or more individuals. In addition to prohibiting discrimination against individuals because of race, color, national origin, religion, and sex, those protections have been extended to include barring against discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, sex stereotyping, and sexual harassment of employees. Currently, Title VII doesn't include discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, however there is a trend towards litigating sexual orientation cases based on guarantees under the statute.
Many states have employment discrimination and harassment laws as well and may include even more protected classes – such as marital status and sexual orientation – than Title VII covers." (Credit to HRHero.com).
Fiona, at-will is commonly misunderstood. At-will does NOT give the company a right to fire you for an illegal reason (see above). Of course, no company with a semi-competent HR department or attorney on board would ever admit to firing for an illegal reason. They will find other reasons. Time stealing anyone? I think I might be guilty of that myself today! :-)
"At eighteen weeks, I could barely bend over, and the strain of caring for the girls and me was taking its toll on Jon. To add to our mounting pile of stress, Jon was called into the office of the plant where he worked, accused of 'stealing time' from the company, and given his pink slip. **********************************
LOL! What part of this statement in the book don't you understand to mean that he WAS FIRED!!!! No offense but it seems a few of you have rose colored glasses on. So what if he was fired? Big deal, people get fired everyday, they just don't have to explain the reasons to millions of fans.
Neither is the fact that someone can be fired for any reason with no consequences to the employer.
I went through it Samantha, 7 years ago, and I can tell you in NC any labor disputes have to be reviewed by the NC Dept of Labor, first. After an investigation they can give you a right to sue letter, they are not very common according to my attorney. You cannot bring an unlawful termination suit against an employer here unless the DOL provides that letter. My employer term. me while I was on on WC. I fought and won.
nc resident said...Many companies do monitor employees actions (telephone) and computer usage.
Of course, that's true, however, in my experience, most of the monitoring is done *if* there are problems with the employee's performance and the company is going the progressive discipline or termination route.
Wow-- I am watching the interview now and amazed!! Jon talks about how the show has a lot of bickering between them and that he wishes they showed resolutions (since they always resolve problems). He also talks about the amount of time the shoot, the nanny, etc. It is REALLY informative! Thanks again for the link-- this is good stuff.
Since according to Kate, there was evidence (mentioned at the hearing) that the firing was at least partly related to the pregnancy?
What hearing first of all, am I to believe a court or mediator found Jon was fired in part to insurance reasons as Kate states and then allowed that termination to stand? If he was illegally terminated he would have recourse?
I'm aware of that. They've been given the right to sue already which is why I said they are "in" the suit.
Good luck to them those right to sue letters are not common. It is almost like a guilty sentence from the NCDOL. There is alot of terminations that go on without just cause.
Nina he said two dogs, and that we would see them lol. He did seem relaxed in this.
There are employers that throw out the "theft of time" to avoid paying unemployment benefits. This is a fact of life. And fighting in court is a huge expense and most of the time it is hard to win. Those who win have a strong case and a good attorney. As for the COBRA issue, it is expensive as hell. My husband carries insurance on us but I had it as well and when I left my job I was offered COBRA at $1175 a month. Yeah right. I don't blame them for taking state aid. They were smart to do that versus COBRA.
Now on to the interview. I love it!!!!!! Out of Jon's OWN mouth, still friends with Beth and Bob, still talks to his Mom everyday, etc etc.... It is sad that Kate does not have a relationship with her parents, but what I gathered from Jon is that her parents are like that with all the siblings. Correct me if I am wrong, but did anyone gather that they are NOT talking to Kevin and Jodi? I get that they are.... I don't blame their friends and family for not wanting to be filmed. There are alot of crazies out there good and bad.
Wow, a lot of content there. He claimed that none of Kate's siblings have anything to do with her parents. I remember reading Kate's sister's blog way back in the TWOP days when someone posted a link. She had some pictures of her kids picking mushrooms with her parents. Did anyone else see that blog? It was a long time ago and I only looked at it once. Do you think it might have been a hoax and it wasn't Kate's sister? It looked legimate but after PM's hoax, who knows?
He sure snuck the "two dogs" thing in there without elaborating.
I thought the second and third parts of the interview were the most amazing- a couple of things stood out:
Jon talks to his mom "like, 5 times a day"-- she got remarried after his dad passed away and does not want to be on camera. Instead she moved away but is still in contact with them.
He also talks about how they are still friends with Beth and Bob, but that some of the people who used to be on the show (like the Carson's and I would assume Jodi and Kevin) didn't realize how crazy it would be and decided not to be on camera anymore.
I love that his younger brother will be on the show soon!!
I also respect that Jon and Kate do not force people to be on the show if they do not want to-- they respect the privacy others want, even though it makes the haters and dissenters scream estrangement.
Oh, and he made an interesting point about how when the babies were little Kate was the one who had to shoulder a lot of the family stress. He was working at the time, and had an hour commute (if I recall correctly from the specials when the tups were one). She rose to the occasion, and he now is home more so they can relax and have a more balanced relationship.
Just a great, revealing interview-- which I thought was really refreshing!
I also respect that Jon and Kate do not force people to be on the show if they do not want to-- they respect the privacy others want, even though it makes the haters and dissenters scream estrangement.
Why didn't they say this at some point on the show. Wouldn't it have put to rest a lot of the questions viewers had about why Bob and Beth and all the others suddenly stopped showing up.
Wow, very interesting. I figured at least some people might have opted out of the show because of unwanted calls (and maybe visitors). You just know people were calling Bob's business asking for Jon, when he said he worked for him. I wish the interviewer had asked about Jodi/Julie. And I don't think he was lying about the people still being in their lives because he's not that good an actor.
I hope the "journalist" who has contacted GWoP to get information for a story on the Gosselins tries to talk to the Gs. She might get an actual story. If she, you know, exists at all.
I'm really struck after watching Jon's interview with something I've been sensing more and more about the Gosselins....that they have WAY more going on in their lives to be giving (if they ever did) any energy to, or have any interest in, what goes on in the blogging world.
Honestly....not to put a downer on any of our ongoing discussions, which I enjoy...but I REALLY am seeing it more than ever...
The Gosselins do not need our pity.
What I mean is, I think they're pretty comfortable in what their world is becoming. I think there may have been some insecurity at first, before they understood the business and before the show really took off this last year. But, for the most part, I hear in their voices an air of confidence.
I think they see many opportunities sprouting up for their futures beyond the show, and with that there appears to be coming to them a certain air of being comfortable in their own skin now. Where before they may have "defended" how they act or live their lives, i.e., the show, I'm seeing now more a sense that they are quite happy with their choices.
The interviewer asked what I think would be many questions viewers would have liked to ask, and Jon did not hesitate...even with the sticky "Where are all these people who used to be on the show?" or "Where are the grandparents?" questions. He made no excuses for anyone, and I didn't read any particular malice in his demeanor...kind of, it is what it is...like, wierd, but that's how they are (Kate's folks).
Also, was glad to hear a clear answer (that some posters in blogland have been demanding) about the fact that they are still involved with the people we don't seen on the show anymore and that being affiliated with the show was too much for many of them. Frankly, not a scenario too far off from what I'd guessed was the case all along, didn't really need confirmed, but am happy it was said.
That's my take on things of late. Don't know if anyone else sees what I'm seeing.
I really enjoyed these interviews. Jon appeared relaxed. I like his laid back kind of manner. He looked real nice with his grey cap, it brought out his eyes. After watching this interview, I like the family even more and look forward to future episodes. I think it's sad that Kate doesn't speak at all with her parents. Jon seems to have a great relationship with his family and I look forward to seeing his brother in the future as he mentioned. I'm glad he had fun skiing with his friend Cooper and Cara. Can't wait for next weeks episode.
Beyond the material pleasure the new house may bring the Gosselis, I'm also wondering if finally moving into their "home" has given them some grounding.
I think part of the frustration they expressed with the other house may have come out as fussing about space issues, but I honestly think they thought of that house as temporary and couldn't wait to be in a place where they could really nest. And now that they're there, it's like they were holding their breath and have how let go.
Um, Jon I am born and raised in California...not everyone is from somewhere else! Also, on the "pda" I thought that Kate said they were that couple that made everyone sick with their public displays of affection. I noticed Jon has a few new words in his vocabulary "it's crazy". I thought Kate had said there were 14 sets of sextuplets in the US....not that I care but I guess they don't either.
Actually -- "at will" employment means that your employer can terminate you for any reason -- except not for a bad reason like being part of a protected class.
Saint said... He may not seem articulate to some, but he strikes me as very "real," unpretentious, and not putting on an act or meeting some expectation.
I agree 100% and that's one of the reasons I trust what he says. I don't feel he is trying to put a spin on anything. The only exception would be their relationship with Kate's parents. I think there is much more to the story and Jon was well within his rights not to tell us everything, but I don't think it's accurate to say the grandparents wanted to "part-time grandparents." That wasn't the case when Kate was pregnant obviously. Kate's mom watched the girls and was very involved in making Kate's hospital stay comfortable (according to Kate in Multiple Blessings).
I am happy to hear that Jon continues contact with his side of the family and his explanation for why certain parties don't want to be on camera rings completely true. Why subject yourself to the scrutiny without substantial tangible reward?
Anyway, I hope we do get to see Jon's bro and I can't wait to see the TWO dogs. That fact alone is enough for me to give Kate credit for loosening up.
I pretty much agree with everyone's thoughts proceeding mine as well.
i just watched all the videos! it does give a very different feel than the print did. first, the things i liked... that jon acknowledged how much help they had when the babies were born and how appreciative and blessed they feel. secondly, the part where he said they hired people to handle the business because they realized it was taking too much time away from the kids. that seemed very genuine to me and i could see how easily that would happen. my husband and i have a hard enough time in our regular life not letting things get in the way of our kids (church responsibilities, work, etc)
now i'd like to play the devil's advocate if i may:) a few things that bothered me... he stated that they do have a daily "helper"/nanny. haven't they in the past stated that they did not have that and they do it all on their own? he said they don't include the kids in ads (other than ALL the talk shows they've been on) but we know they've done many print ads that required a photo shoot. we saw one that lasted two days. next, he said that none of kate's siblings have a relationship with the parents. according to kate's sister's blog, she has a relationship with them. lastly (and i'll admit this is somewhat petty:) the statement that the kids have never had fast food. didn't we see the kids with happy meals on one episode? i think the utah trip? ok, i'm done :)
Here are some of my thoughts as I watched these interview segments:
-Jon's eyes are really unique. Their color really makes them stand out, even though in this case they matched his hat and shirt.
-I totally understand what he was saying about Kate's family, and how "When you leave the nest, you leave the nest." I do know families like this that have little interaction with their children once they grow up. I did cringe when he was talking about how weird it was, which is so funny because this was one of my main questions about them. It made me cringe because I felt like he was almost saying too much, and that publicly saying they are weird can't help mend things, for sure. However, I am 100% positive that there is more to the story, because there always is. Jon is right to keep that private. (This also explains Kate's dogged determination to be a family forever, to make memories as a family, etc. Perhaps she is trying to make SURE this doesn't happen with her children as well.)
-I really admire what they do with their children's diet (and wish organic foods were as readily available here!), but when he said that the kids have never had fast food, I immediately flashed to the scene in Utah where Jon walks in with Happy Meals for all the kids!
-I wondered if the R and D he referred to was really research and development for something? It probably is a house of some sort, but who knows.
-Finally, I liked that he acknowledged that the show took over too much and that he and Kate realized they needed to consistently stay home. I'm sure their attackers will conveniently overlook that portion of what he said, but it does show that they realize they have made some mistakes in this process, but are working towards it.
Wouldn't it have put to rest a lot of the questions viewers had about why Bob and Beth and all the others suddenly stopped showing up.
It may be hard to believe but it would have for me. If this interview would have been done when the Jodi deal started. I did not know any Julie from the show.
I can't believe Beth and Bob are still apart of their lives. I had concluded their relationship was severed since Beth was never mentioned on the tour except for that one second on GMA.
In reference to Kate's mom. I really thought Kate might call her mom every now and then. If nothing else, to argue the way some families do. It appears to contradict Kate's comments in her book. Maybe Kate's dad was the catalyst for the split. My curiosity regarding family controversy went as far as Jodi/Kate. But it sounds like a big family mess of different point of views.
It was nice to hear what Jon has to say. There's been so many times on the couch that it's just all Kate talking. I liked getting his perspective and all the details he gave out.
Themrs, ...he stated that they do have a daily "helper"/nanny. haven't they in the past stated that they did not have that and they do it all on their own?
I think the "doing it on their own part" is in reference to all the volunteers in the beginning.
Excerpt from Scarfoot's review: Kate mentions her mothers and sisters frequently. It appears that Kate had a close relationship with her mother at least until Kate moved into the Ronald McDonald House. I don't recall her mentioning her mother again after that point in the narrative.
Why didn't they say this at some point on the show. Wouldn't it have put to rest a lot of the questions viewers had about why Bob and Beth and all the others suddenly stopped showing up.
My guess, and this is just a guess, is that because the blogging world is such a small percentage of the people that watch the show they might have opted out of this because it would just bring more attention to a problem that doesn't really exist in most people's minds.
now i'd like to play the devil's advocate if i may:) a few things that bothered me... he stated that they do have a daily "helper"/nanny. haven't they in the past stated that they did not have that and they do it all on their own? he said they don't include the kids in ads (other than ALL the talk shows they've been on) but we know they've done many print ads that required a photo shoot. we saw one that lasted two days. next, he said that none of kate's siblings have a relationship with the parents. according to kate's sister's blog, she has a relationship with them. lastly (and i'll admit this is somewhat petty:) the statement that the kids have never had fast food. didn't we see the kids with happy meals on one episode? i think the utah trip? ok, i'm done :)
Okay, I'll bite:
- the "nanny" (Jenny, I assume) has been seen on the show for a while now, so I don't think that J&K have claimed that they currently do it all on their own, since they allow videotaped evidence to the contrary. I think there was a time when maybe some of the volunteers had gone away, and before the show got going, that they were doing *a lot* on their own. But I feel like the statements they've made on the subject have been pretty open-ended and subject to interpretation.
Regarding the kids in ads, I think he's talking about commercial advertising, like for products, not things like the Good Housekeeping shoot. It made me think that as much as some people think that the kids are exploited, J&K probably could make a lot more money off of them bringing them to appearances and doing commercials and ads for various products with them. I think the fact that they don't is to their credit and shows that they do try to let the kids have a "normal life" (and yes, I know many will disagree and say that the taping of their daily lives is not "normal", but I think J&K do see it as different, and I kind of understand why).
Regarding the "none of the kids have a relationship with the parents", well, maybe it's changed since the sister blogged about it. I hate to use Julie as a source, but she seems to hate Kate, and even she claims the father is difficult and that all the kids are estranged from him. At the very least, it sounds like there are tensions between the parents and most of the children.
On the McDonald's, I don't know. I remember it being brought up at the time as an "aha! gotcha!" moment (that the kids were eating fast food), but I don't remember if they were shown eating it or if it was clear that he was bringing it specifically for the kids.
In any case, call me Pollyana, but it seems unlikely to me that Jon is actually deliberately lying about it. Maybe he just forgot. I do believe that the kids eat quite healthily. I think that's great and I think it's more important than the possibility that a McNugget once passed a sextuplet's lips.
Am I on the wrong blog??? Are we really going to nitpick this statement?
But it means that one of them is lying! Which is it, Jon and Kate - 13 or 14? Which one of you is lying???!!!
Oh, hell, let's just save time and say they are both lying. Off with their heads!
Beth is not involved in their lives anymore. Why is that so hard to believe and why do people keep speculating about it? She got screwed on the book deal and she publicy admitted SHE wrote the book. She wrote a best seller, yet does no publicity for it?
The one thing about Jon insurance made me wonder again. Kate says he was going to add her to his policy when hers ran out. He let his employees know that and 6 weeks later was terminated. Since Kate was already preganant many policies exclude "pre-existing" conditions. That meaning Kate might have been added but had no coverage for this condition. If this is the case the employer had no reason to fire him for that as it wasn't covered anyway.
I do not feel I am a yay sayer for sure. I do however realize and respect everyone has a right to an opinion. I really dislike being misquote which has happened more than once here, but such is life.
nc resident - I was ummmm "a little bit pregnant" when I got married and my husband did indeed add me to the policy without issue. They paid fully for my prenatal care and delivery.
Perhaps you are misquoted because -- and I will say this as gently as possible -- some of what you write is very hard to understand.
There were times when you quoted another person's statement up thread and you did not indicate that they were the other person's words. Because of that it sometimes appears like you disagree with some of your own words.
I find myself having to read your posts at least 3 times to understand them.
I'm not saying this to attack you, I'm offering a possible explanation.
Although I am not an insurance specialist or HR person, I can share something about pre-existing conditions.
I know on my H's insurance, pregnancy is excluded as a pre-existing condition and must be covered.
Someone who has more knowledge may want to add their two cents, but I think it's when you have lapsed insurance (typically more than 60 days) is when alot of the problems with coverage occurs.
I will write more later as I haven't had a few to sit and watch the interview.
Alright, this is my first post and I haven't taken the time to read through all 94 comments so if I am repeating what others have discussed previously, please forgive me.
In regards to Jon's comment about doing "R and D" while in Utah, I think perhaps that could stand for "Research and Development." Maybe it's business related, or in reference to his desire to "get a place up here," he is looking at real estate.
Secondly, I have to take issue with Jon's answers about Kate's parents' abscence. I can totally understand why they wouldn't want to be filmed after seeing how drastically it can change your life to play a part (albeit a small one) on this show. But I do belive the direct quote was that Kate's parents' philosophy was "once they leave the nest, they leave the nest." This is not a direct quote, just the gist of what he said. Yet all of us who read Multiple Blessings know how much Kate's parents helped them out through the pregnancy and in the few short weeks after the babies were born. She specifically talks about how much help her mom was in sanitizing her hospital room, visiting with her, and posting uplifting scriptures and messages around her room.
And correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Jon and Kate stay at there house atleast a few weeks after the birth and before they moved to Ronald McDonald house? I don't think these are the actions of parents who "aren't involved." Just an interesting point IMO.
Also, I am excited to see Jon's brother(s) make an appearance, and I am glad they are still willing to be a part of it even after they were bothered by all those crazed fans wanting to get close to the Gosselins! I mean really?! Having to change your phone number because you happen to have the same last name as the famous family? No wonder no other family members want to expose themselves to that kind of craziness!
That was the one thing that bothered me about the interview. Jon's comments about Kate's parents. I felt that he should only discuss their relationship and not extended family member's relationships.
I also agree with your assessment that their parents had been involved in their life up to a point.
I know on my H's insurance, pregnancy is excluded as a pre-existing condition and must be covered.
Mom some do cover it I agree, I hoped by saying many that meant there are some exceptions, I should have said some. JG when you married to many companies that is considered a qualifing event. Which means they have to add you because you got married without conditions. Each plan has qualifing events like marriage, birth, adoption. J&K were already married and she was going to switch from her plan to his. This could be considered a different situation for insurance.
Linda earlier you posted this:
In fairness to you ncresident, I think that some of the disagreements that I have with you are over writing style.
Other posters may say, "I think there may be more to this."
You say, "He is lying."
One is said as a statement of opinion and the other is said as if it is a fact.
If what I say is not clear or articulate enough I'll work on that. However I got the impression you do not like my tone. Sometimes however I get the impression some may feel I have insider information and I'm holding it back.
I think I understand the "once they leave the nest comment" I have/had a mother who discards people when they are no longer useful, they disagree with her, she disagrees with them, etc. I was out when I was 18, she has never seen my children. One of my brothers is also out - 2 kids, no grandmom. The remaining siblings tow the party line so to speak and are in her good graces. Maybe Kate's parents are like that. Our maybe just her father but to keep her marriage in tact, the mother goes along with him. Sorry to use a personal experience but that is how I understand this situation to be. I personally don't understand how a parent can be like that but I know that I work daily to not be like my mother. That could explain some of Kate's obsessiveness about her family unit.
Kate’s health insurance from her job will cover the cost of the hospital bills. A Hershey native, Kate has been in the prenatal care unit at the hospital since early March.
Part of the reason that I've wondered if you have insider information is because you've hinted at that in other threads.
I think that you wrote something to the effect that you are not ready to tell people why you have such a deep interest in this show given that you dislike J&K so much.
OK, my interpretation of the job loss is the following:
Jon starts missing work because of Kate's pregnancy. He is not there when he is supposed to be, and is therefore "stealing time". He is fired. This IS due to Kate's pregnancy, since that's why he was missing work.
Given this explanation, everyone can be telling the truth as they see it Why is it that someone has to be lying? People can and often do have different perspectives on the same event.
I understand that not all grandparents choose to be super involved. But I think considering the extraordinary circumstances of the family that they would "step up to the plate" so to speak, if not for Jon and Kate's sake but for their grandkids! I know that they kept Cara and Mady part of the time while Kate was in the hospital.
I guess I am not really taking issue with their lack on involvement so much as Jon's comments about them. For whatever reason Kate's parents aren't seen (Lord knows we have all speculated and researched it to death!) but I still don't feel that warrants Jon's somewhat disrespectful tone when answering the questions about them. I feel he could have given a much better response but then again, "we all know about him and vocab" :)
I find it interesting that people are so adamant about wanting him to comment on Jodie/Julie/Kevin. I think interviews like these and the types of questions they ask only solidify the fact that the only people that are aware of these situations are those connected to the internet and in turn, this represents only a small fraction of the people that watch this show.
I frequent a couple of popular tv message boards where they discuss this show and nobody even mentions other family members, especially not Jodie or Kevin.
As for the situations surrounding the pregnancy, birth, etc., that was more than 4 years ago. I'm not saying that if they did something wrong they shouldn't pay for it, but with the scrutiny they have been under by the public, and to an extent the state of Penn., if nothing has come up till now, chances are nothing will. Besides, what do people want? For J&K to go to jail? That's the tone that some of the criticism seems like. And if that were to happen, what would happen to those children?
I think it is exceedingly obvious that those children adore their parents and that they are well cared for and loved. Why do people insist on jeopardizing these childrens future by continuously nit-picking or villifying their parents?
I guess I am not really taking issue with their lack on involvement so much as Jon's comments about them. For whatever reason Kate's parents aren't seen (Lord knows we have all speculated and researched it to death!) but I still don't feel that warrants Jon's somewhat disrespectful tone when answering the questions about them. I feel he could have given a much better response but then again, "we all know about him and vocab" :)
I'm torn between agreeing with you that Jon said too much about the grandparents, and thinking, well, when they offered the one sentence, 'They are not involved in our daily lives,' it wasn't enough for a lot of people. I'll bet that if Kate had been sitting next to him in this interview, that would have been the response. And then people could say 'She's such a cold bitch.'
Thank you for your comment. Unfortunately the hatred you expressed with no facts is something that has no positive or relevant bearing on this conversation. Discussions of both the positive and negative side are appreciated, but when your words speak sarcastically of how intelligant [sic] Jon is and how he must be on the brink of an affair it is clear that a true discussion is far from your mind.
Part of the reason that I've wondered if you have insider information is because you've hinted at that in other threads.
I have no clue what other threads I posted such things as to elude to that. Much of what I have found is simply looking, and finding. Do a google search of Jon Gosselin fired. easy as that
Why do people insist on jeopardizing these childrens future by continuously nit-picking or villifying their parents?
I personally don't think they'll consider what I, or people on these blogs say of any importance. However when Jon tell us and them their grandparents don't want to be a part of their lives that just might.
'They are not involved in our daily lives,' it wasn't enough for a lot of people.
It wasn't for some because they went on later to say they (her family)did not understand the show being their life. Then Kate says Jon is the only one who understand her, and is there for her in a nutshell. My question is how difficult is it to understand Kate? Everyone here seems to have a handle on who she is, whether pro or con?
All in all, I liked hearing Jon speak alone. No, he is not a great speaker, sounds more like a highschooler, but he does seem at ease and real.
I have little doubt that had Kate been sitting next to him, he would not have come across that way.
Also, while I am glad he spoke about grandparents, Bob, but really not so much about Beth, I wonder if he said too much in Kate's standards. I can hear her saying, "Jon why did you say that"....
Being a Utah skier myself for over 14 years, and having a kid working at another resort and a hubby very involved at yet another, Jon doesn't know squat about the best skiing or riding in Utah. Certainly for boarders, The Canyons is not the best choice...
The Canyons is a posh resort for tourists. Locals don't ski there. The mountain is so broken up it is very difficult to navigate. Snow turns to rain alot and the skiing is not the best in Utah.
Leads to me think he got some passes for free and did his job in plugging the resort again.
What I would have given to be riding up the lift with him!
NOtAPerfectMom, I completely agree with what you wrote as your understanding of Jon's unemployment at the time Kate was acrrying the sextuplets.
I don't think Kate, Jon, or the employer have lied. I understood that the pregnancy was so difficult and Kate needed so much support, that Jon lost his job (or was fired) because Kate's and the employer's need for Jon conflicted.
Have you considered this explanation, NC Resident?
Wow-- I am excited for them that they are getting a condo in Utah (according to the article). Cara must be thrilled-- she seems like such a sweet girl, so to have the chance to do things she loves (like skiiing) more often is well deserved.
Honestly, I do not give a flying care what Jon and Kate do with their money. In the interview he mentioned that they have a corporation, so it stands to reason that there are funds set up for their kids' futures. With the success of the book ('Kate's' money if you want to call it that) as well as the endorsement deals and promotional opportunities it seems like they are carving a niche market out for themselves *WITHOUT* having their kids on TV. I love the show and really appreciate the positive changes we have seen in the past 6 months (which are probably shows taped in the past year lol) so if they are able to even phase out of the show and still keep this kind of momentum its all the better for them and the kids.
Perhaps they will rent out the condo when they are not there. That will be income for the Gosselins as well as help pay for the mortgage. I’m not defending the G’s. Just pointing out what they most likely are doing with it. It’s an investment
Received that info yesterday. It is all over the internet. I didn't think to post it because in my mind it was no big deal. Maybe Jon was not ready to reveal that yet. His right. He did mention that they would be returning to Utah for frequent visits so buying a condo could possibly be in their best financial interest.
So Jon and Kate should live in a cave for the rest of their lives and not enjoy their new found wealth because of other people's perceptions of how they accumulated their wealth?
Here is an example of why your posts are confusing
you posted the following:
Part of the reason that I've wondered if you have insider information is because you've hinted at that in other threads.
I have no clue what other threads I posted such things as to elude to that. Much of what I have found is simply looking, and finding. Do a google search of Jon Gosselin fired. easy as that
=============
Actually, the first part of that is a quote from me, but you do not indicate that.
As was mentioned earlier -- can you do the bold html tags or make some kind of dash line to indicate what are your words and what are someone else's?
==============
I think that the post was from last weekend when you and I were mixing it up a bit in which you suggested that you were not ready to share your reasons for your keen interest in them.
EaglesFan said... Beth is not involved in their lives anymore. Why is that so hard to believe and why do people keep speculating about it? She got screwed on the book deal and she publicy admitted SHE wrote the book. She wrote a best seller, yet does no publicity for it?
She's out of the picture. End of story.
January 14, 2009 4:01 AM _____________________________ Gee Eaglesfan, if you really knew the story, you'd put your name to it.
Also, Bob wouldn't be texting Jon all the time. Face it, you don't know the real story. Go back to the Hades board.
__________________ Nc--thanks for the laugh! Sometimes however I get the impression some may feel I have insider information and I'm holding it back. ___________________
This was a great interview. It should clear up anybody's thoughts on why you don't see people of past shows(which we all knew all along these people weren't "cut off by Kate").
Jenn, you're right. The condo is probably one of their many investments. Since they have business managers (and probably have had them for a while now), they are set. Good for them! It's great to see this family thriving.
Thanks for sharing that good news, NC Resident. I am happy for Jon and Kate. Fiona, your enthusiasm for Utah is great! I love the pro-Utah posts. And I bet there's stuff for Kate to do there, too? It can't be all skiing/riding?
I heard Jon mention wanting to get a house in Utah but I didn't take that to mean that they were getting a house. Did I miss something or are people just assuming by his comment that they ARE getting a condo?
Just a quick thanks to you ladies for not jumping on me for having an opinion. It's nice to come here, post something, and not have anyone immediatly tell me I'm wrong.
I think some people just like to bully others into sharing their opinion.
You'll have to update us on your coupon clipping, or I might think you were lying about that! Lol!
When I get as good as Kate at clipping them, then you and your significant other(s) can visit my beach house; the weeks on me LOL
Lizabeth if you do not see something morally amiss with people selling pictures to church folks to sponsor kids college, then spending THEIR money on two expensive homes I am totally lost. Why not buy the home use the investment income to fund college. Would you father allow them to do this at his church, I want to say I mean no disrespect to him or you at all. Just curious what he feels about this if he has a pastoral opinion.
Bee, there are two news pieces from Jon's trip to Utah, I believe.
*The video clip posted on this site *The news story in the Park Record. I think everyone commenting here knows what Jon said on the video. Here is what was said in the article about getting a place in Utah:
He will be purchasing a condo within The Canyons village to give his family a little home away from home in Utah.
Note, the words "he will be..." Not a done deal yet, folks. Also, I am not even clear if this reporter had a personal interview with Jon. For that reason, I am going with Jon's own words on this until I hear otherwise.
That said, it's very possible they are getting a condo and I think Jenn's explanation makes sense - they probably will rent it out. I view them as frugal enough not to just let it sit there for 10 months out of the year. Or maybe it's a time share. We don't yet have all the facts.
Nina said:Maybe Jon was not ready to reveal that yet. His right. I
If it is in the paper thats kinda silly to assume it was a secret isn't it?? They said the Discovery crew and Cara were with him so I doubt it was hush hush. Maybe next years episode is being filmed.
Exactly. I think some just want to bitch and moan and this gives them a great opportunity. Jon says he wants to be fit enough to keep up with the 15 year olds on the slopes and that automatically gets turned into something vile and nasty. How some people can live with themselves for posting such nonsense is beyond me. I can only imagine how they are IRL and I bet it isn't any different.
Saint said: Have you considered this explanation, NC Resident?
Actually I figured Kate has spun this story to maximize a sympathy factor, in her book and in print as well as speaking engagements. I am looking up some sourses but from what I read the firing notion was dispelled by Jons' co-workers and Jon asked that his comment regarding his firing be retracted from the papers. If that is the case why did Kate need to review this story in her book and in ointerviews, just let it rest. I wonder where Kates' mom was then and if Kate was eventually in the hospital why Jon was so much in demand. Did she expect him to quit stay with her and live on nothing??
NC Resident: Lizabeth if you do not see something morally amiss with people selling pictures to church folks to sponsor kids college, then spending THEIR money on two expensive homes I am totally lost. Why not buy the home use the investment income to fund college. Would you father allow them to do this at his church, I want to say I mean no disrespect to him or you at all. Just curious what he feels about this if he has a pastoral opinion.
My dad is an author as well as pastor and speaker (he is now on a plane to Hong Kong and Taiwan to speak at conferences overseas). Is it wrong for him to sell his books when he is at those conferences? I think that selling the kids pictures was not the best move the Gosselin's made but that does not make it morally reprehensible. Honestly, I wouldn't do that, but has anyone lately seen them do this in a church? I have not heard of a recent speaking engagement attendant saying they sold pictures. If so, then I do agree its not the best thing to do in general but who am I to tell them how to market themselves?
My dads personal opinion on all of this is that people need to choose the right path for themselves. He has made money from churches (since they took a love offering for him as every church I have been a part of does automatically when there is a guest speaker). Is that wrong? I mean, he spent the extra money he had from these speaking engagements on our Christmas presents (including the amazing laptop I received as well as my new camera, and the iPod Touches that two of my brothers got). Because of that, it stands to reason that my dad did exactly what some accuse Jon and Kate of doing-- spending money received from well meaning people for something that is not a total necessity. So then is it wrong? I honestly would like to know what you think-- he spoke at a church in the area for about 9 months as a fill in pastor while they have been searching for a new pastor, and this is money my dad received away from his 'real' job and writing. It is not money he expected or planned on, so it was used for 'extras.' That seems to me to be a logical and pretty smart way to go about doing things- what do you think?
I said: They are not involved in our daily lives,' it wasn't enough for a lot of people.
You replied: It wasn't for some because they went on later to say they (her family)did not understand the show being their life. Then Kate says Jon is the only one who understand her, and is there for her in a nutshell. My question is how difficult is it to understand Kate? Everyone here seems to have a handle on who she is, whether pro or con? --------
I don't know her, and don't claim to understand her. I'm just more offended by some of the unreasoned, illogical reasons that some viewers find to go after her, and a lot of the tactics used.
Family 'issues' are hard to explain; there's no such thing as an objective participant in family disagreements. It's a matter of emotions, and past history. How do you 'prove' that one party to a family estrangement is more wrong or more right than another? I don't understand where the viewers got the idea that they're entitled to the blow-by-blow on Kate's relationship with her parents: Since they're on a reality show, they owe us chapter and verse on every aspect of their lives? Or... it's one more thing that 'proves' that Kate is a shrew, a horrible mother, or whatever.
I think the case against Kate should be thrown out of internet kangaroo court because it's so tainted: by PennMommy, by Julie's bias, by the illogic that runs rampant on the subject. What is supposed to be the outcome of collecting 'proof' that Jon and Kate have a biased view of their family situation (well, duh)?
The statement 'Jon and Kate are exploiting their children by putting them on a reality tv show,' is not a statement of fact, it's an opinion. I'm not saying that no one has the right to hold that opinion; I just am offended when people try to 'prove' it to me with irrelevant, distorted 'facts' which are actually just more opinions. Collecting 'evidence' that Kate is rude to strangers, or disrespectful to her parents, or ::gasp:: mean to Aunt Jodi doesn't change the opinion above into solid gold fact.
Oh, and NC I do know you mainly meant the situation with the pictures, and how its ironic they talk about saving for college funds with that extra money then supposedly buy houses with 'their' money. I don't want you to think I misread that-- I just wanted to share in my post that I can see why Jon and Kate would do something like that with their money.
I also think the Utah condo is a phenomenal investment-- if they rent it out they could make serious money!
About the "leaving the next comment" first of all the interviewer took it way too far, she kept prying for more,and pushing the issue. I would have no doubt lost my patience with her. My father's father (notice I didnt say my grandfather)has never been more than a person we know bc he chose to float in and out at will, he chose not to be apart of our lives. He met my daughter for the first time 2 weeks ago- she is 5. He only met her then bc we ran into each other like strangers. I could see the regret in his eyes and I feel for him but its his own doing and no doubt Kate's parents will regret their decision one day.
I loved Jon's comment about how people will always let you down (eventually) despite their best efforts bc we're human. Ain't it the truth?
He's so open, it was a great interview- on his part anyway.
Tyra said...I think the case against Kate should be thrown out of internet kangaroo court because it's so tainted: by PennMommy, by Julie's bias, by the illogic that runs rampant on the subject.
LMAO at the "internet kangaroo court" reference!
I know I feel like I have fallen down a rabbit hole when I read some of the flights of imagination indulged in by those who want "the truth" to come out.
Next thing I know there will be a caterpillar smoking a hookah....
Tyra said...I think the case against Kate should be thrown out of internet kangaroo court because it's so tainted: by PennMommy, by Julie's bias, by the illogic that runs rampant on the subject.
LMAO at the "internet kangaroo court" reference!
I know I feel like I have fallen down a rabbit hole when I read some of the flights of imagination indulged in by those who want "the truth" to come out.
Next thing I know there will be a caterpillar smoking a hookah....
i hate to get in the middle of this discussion between ncresident and lizabeth but i think i'm following his way of thinking but it's not coming across clearly..(nc, feel free to correct me if i'm wrong!) lizabeth, your father's job is a pastor, writer, speaker, etc. so he gets paid for that in many different ways. it is his right to spend his income how he pleases. the difference is that his income is not "earned" by you and your siblings. i think this is the part that NC and others take issue with. J&K would not have all this disposable income if not for their adorable (and quite marketable) children. i'm guessing that when your father speaks in churches, he does not say that he can't afford to buy things for his children or that he can't afford to send them to college. that, IMO, is false advertising. so when J&K have speaking engagements and sell pics of their family for $20 (for college) and then purchase a million dollar home and a vacation home, that is upsetting to some. am i on the right track here, NC?
Tyra, Very few posts make me reconsider my opinions. Two of yours have. One was your point that Julie should not have shared info she had about the Gosselins from being their guest, even in defense of her sister. I just can't argue with that one.
The other is above on this thread, that even if one could "prove" that Kate is a shrew or greedy or whatever, that doesn't mean the show = exploitation. It's not that I thought it did. But I am reconsidering how important any of that is anyway?
I am probably not being clear, but thanks.
By the way, you are not one of my sisters are you? You write like my sisters.
themrs, that does make a lot of sense-- I can see more clearly now what you mean (and what I think ncresident means as well).
NC, sorry if I misread what you were speaking of. I was wondering why my dad and his position would have been brought in to the discussion but I guess I can see now why it might pertain.
As far as the question of what he would think if the Gosselins wanted to sell their kids pics at our church, he would feel as I already mentioned that it is their choice how they spend their money. If Jon and Kate choose to earmark funds from the picture sales for the kids college accounts then who am I, or my dad, or whomever to say anything about it? Just because it is not something I would do does not, in my mind, make it necessarily wrong.
If Jon and Kate choose to earmark funds from the picture sales for the kids college accounts then who am I, or my dad, or whomever to say anything about it? Just because it is not something I would do does not, in my mind, make it necessarily wrong.
I agree with this, Lizabeth. I have never understood why anyone, not just the Gosselins, sells pictures at functions. Who buys those things? What do they do with them? But, you go to concerts and other speaking events and they are selling pictures. Doesn't make sense to me. The other issue is, whether selling those pictures is right in your eyes or not, people are still buying them. I haven't seen evidence anywhere that the Gosselins are still crying "poor" which leads me to believe that people don't care how Jon and Kate use that money. I think that there are many people on the internet just convinced, and concerned that there are masses of people being duped by Jon and Kate. I just don't see that happening. I'm sure there are people who don't fully understand the situation, but my guess is that the majority of people know the Gosselins are doing OK financially, and don't care. It is obvious if you watch the show at all that money is no longer an issue. People like the Gosselins, and want to help them, out of kindness.
On a related note, Lizabeth your question about your father selling his books at speaking engagements really got me thinking about if that is right or wrong (since he was being paid to speak). However, if he's wrong, he is in very good company! Singers sell various items for profit after receiving a payment for their appearance. My hair dresser sells candles at the salon where she does my hair. Heck, what about all the Mary Kay/BeautiControl/Pampered Chef/etc etc etc that is being sold at my place of employment on the side? None of those sales are part of the employees salaried positions - they are making a profit at their place of employment, separate from their salary.
Then, this got me started on parents selling Girl Scout cookies, etc. for their child and I decided I better quit while I was ahead. I was opening Pandora's Box!
IMO, is false advertising. so when J&K have speaking engagements and sell pics of their family for $20 (for college) and then purchase a million dollar home and a vacation home, that is upsetting to some. am i on the right track here, NC?
Exactly if these people buy pictures to help pay for college while J&K make them feel it is needed thats not right.
Your dads books sales love offering income are what he earned he worked for hard I'm sure.
Exactly if these people buy pictures to help pay for college while J&K make them feel it is needed thats not right.
Well, I guess the question is then whether people were made to feel that it was needed, or whether it was a case of, "if you want to buy a picture, all that money goes straight into college funds".
I think selling pics is a bit tacky; I feel that way when athletes do it, too.
That said, the Gosselins have a right to buy as many homes as they want and I've not seen any credible evidence that they have claimed poverty anytime recently. I think people take the "picture money for college funds" business too literally, anyway. How many pic would they need to sell (at $20 a pop) to send six (or eight?) kids to college? Quite a few, I would imagine.
NC Resident, can I ask how you know they are still making people feel that love offerings are needed? I'm really curious about that. Have you been to one of their speaking engagements? What specifically is said?
Also, wealthy or not, sending eight children to college is a costly endeavor. There isn't any way of getting around that - college tuition is outrageous. So is it wrong to be worried about that and saving money for it while they are actively making money?
If I were already doing speaking engagements and knew that people would want to purchase items, is it wrong of me to sell those items and save that money for college tuition?
I have also noticed many comments on other boards about the Gosselins using love offerings to purchase a condo in Utah, and how outrageous that is. I think people forget that the Gosselins are making much more money doing other things than they are bringing in from love offerings (and no, I do not know this for fact. This is just my educated guess.).
Perhaps they will rent out the condo when they are not there. That will be income for the Gosselins as well as help pay for the mortgage. I’m not defending the G’s. Just pointing out what they most likely are doing with it. It’s an investment.
I totally agree, Jenn (and Theresa and Anya and anyone else who said something similar)-- I've been researching Occam's (or Ockham's) Razor for a grad school presentation (which is 21% of my grade... ugh!)... the simplest answer is usually the most logical and makes the most sense. Granted I knew that before the research, but it definitely comes into play often with the Gosselins! From what I have read I think the investment in a condo would be an excellent way to spend an extra lump sum (such as, say, the royalties from a best selling book?).
I have been on the side of supporting the Gosselins - I would peek at the GWOP blog from time to time, and usually thought that they were being unfair, however, little things are starting to bother me. There are just too many inconsistencies in their reasons for why family are not involved in their live. Jon says that his mother does not visit the kids because she can't afford to? And yet, it the Gosselins have just bought a very expensive condo and home...couldn't they afford to visit her? Also, it is known that she just lives a couple of hours away. Is she really that destitute that she cannot afford gas for a two hour drive? Also, the whole story with Kate's parents sounds fishy. The grandparents just decided to not be involved in any of their grandchildrens' lives? When asked why, Jon could not give a reason, and his body language was very awkward. He said they only wanted to be drop-in grandparents - what exactly does that mean? One final point: I have no problem with the Gosselins spending their money how they choose- they are obviously making money in different ways now, and not just the show (books). However, I know someone who was a talk recently, and she said the Gosselins are indeed still talking about their difficult times and then collecting love offerings and charging $20 for photos. I just feel that they need to admit that they no longer need these donations. If they are going to be giving interviews about condos in Utah (which can go for upwards of a million dollars) and buy a million dollar home, why not admit they are no longer struggling? Like I said, I have supported the Gosselins, I just wish they would be more upfront about their situation.
Jon says that his mother does not visit the kids because she can't afford to? And yet, it the Gosselins have just bought a very expensive condo and home...couldn't they afford to visit her? Also, it is known that she just lives a couple of hours away. Is she really that destitute that she cannot afford gas for a two hour drive?
I didnt hear him say that in the interview- did I miss something? I heard him say that she doesnt want to be on camera, doesnt want to be a part of filming bc she has seen the craziness its brought them and the friends that have been on the show. As I interpreted it, that doesnt mean she isnt in their life it just means it isnt on camera.
There are just too many inconsistencies in their reasons for why family are not involved in their live.
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
Human beings are by nature inconsistent, and their narratives are messy and full of things that perhaps don't make sense from the outside.
Jon says that his mother does not visit the kids because she can't afford to?
Unless I'm mistaken, the "can't afford to visit" quote was in reference to the (more distant) relations in Hawaii, not Jon's mother. He did not say that he doesn't see her, just that she does not want to be filmed.
Jon also said that he talks to her "five times a day" - which may be hyperbole (I think Kate may be having an influence on Jon there!), but unless you assume he's totally lying, would indicate that they are pretty darn close.
Also, the whole story with Kate's parents sounds fishy. The grandparents just decided to not be involved in any of their grandchildrens' lives? When asked why, Jon could not give a reason, and his body language was very awkward.
I think he's uncomfortable with the subject. Both Jon and Kate, when talking about the situation with her parents, seem uncomfortable and don't seem to really want to get into it. That's their right. I wish they would just learn to shut down those questions. A simple, "We don't have a relationship with them and prefer not to discuss it" would be better than the hemming and hawing, I think. But there's no reason to think that there is anything sinister there.
However, I know someone who was a talk recently, and she said the Gosselins are indeed still talking about their difficult times and then collecting love offerings and charging $20 for photos. I just feel that they need to admit that they no longer need these donations.
As has been explained many times, a love offering is not a donation; it is akin to a speaking fee. Someone with more familiarity can chime in, but that has been my understanding almost from the first time I heard the term.
So Jon and Kate talk about how they were once in dire financial straits. Jon talked about it in the video. He does not say that that is the case now. It's part of their story, the narrative of how they got to where they are today.
The photos are something they apparently sell. Again - tacky, IMO - but not the same as asking for a donation, or being dishonest about one's financial status.
It has really gotten to the point where I feel that anyone who believes that the Gosselins are CURRENTLY crying poor needs to offer some solid evidence, or I can only conclude that they are believing what they want to believe, contrary to all available evidence. You can't argue with someone determined to believe that black is white and up is down.
I did not see anywhere in the interview where Jon stated his mom could not afford to travel to see them. It was the relatives in Hawaii, his grandma, etc that could not afford to visit so it was nice for them to be able to go to Hawaii and see them (Jon's words). As far as love offerings go. Who cares??? Maybe it's just me, but as long as you are not giving them the money then it should not consume you. Personally, I would have to go to one of their speaking engagements and see for myself that they were crying destitution still. I take nothing on the internet as face value. Also, real estate is a good way for them to go. Buy low now and wait for the economy to rebound in a couple of years. And I am not attacking any one person on the love offerings issue, it just seems to consume people on blogs and there are so many other problems in life that "love offerings" shouldn't make the blood pressure go up.
I think this is kind of a lame observation, but while watching this interview it finally hit home with me how much their life has changed over the past four years.
They were a low/moderate income family with two children. Then, they were an even lower income family with 8 childrens. Now they are a high income family with 8 kids and known by sight by millions of people. That's a lot of change for a family and marriage to handle in a very short period of time. Having sextuplets is rare - having such a huge growth in income and recognition is rare too. And they have both.
I think a lot of people could not have handled that level of change. While I am not a Kate/Jon fan (or a fan of some of their decisions), it seems like overall they are making it work. I'm not sure that I could do it without my sanity and/or marriage falling apart. I'd like to think that I'd do what I have to do -- but there's no denying that it would be very hard to go through those life changes. Even positive events are very stressful. I guess I'm feeling surprisingly sympathetic and, yes, I admit having a tinge of admiration. I have never felt that way about them before.
I think it's clear that there is some sort of problem with Kate's parents. There was no problem with Jon's Dad. There might be with Jon's mother. There might not be with Jon's mother.
What are they supposed to say at this point? What if the truth is that they can't stand each other? Would it be disrespectful to say that about your parents? Would it be lying to say anything else? Maybe Jon's mother wants nothing to do with being on TV? What if she asked them to say very little, as little as possible?
They have hedged their answers, perhaps because the answers are a bit embarrassing. Maybe they don't want to appear petty or disrespectful? Give them a break. I am all for the Gosselins seeking privacy, in the midst of their fame. Who here has gone on record saying you think J&K should respect the kids' privacy more? So maybe they're starting with their relationships with their grandparents.
And as Tyra pointed out upthread, even if J&K DID turn out to be NOT speaking to ANY family or friends, and 100% at fault for it, that doesn't mean the show = exploitation.
Their relationship with their extended family is their business!
I think some people just won't be satisfied unless the couple came out and said: no one speaks to us because they hate us; we use everyone. Which, come on, is never gonna happen.
I bet even if their family and friends came out (Jon's mom, Beth) and said in an interview that the Gos are a lovely couple, and they choose to make themselves scarce on TV, detractors would insist they've been paid.
Some people are just ridiculous!
And this sentiment is coming from someone who is anti-Gos.
I do not understand what happened with Kate and her parents. There are stories, and pieces of information that may add up to some conclusions. My mom and I are close, very close. Guinevere said in another post people with close knit families might not understand why the Kreider family is so divided, being polite. I do not think this statement is fair either: no doubt Kate's parents will regret their decision one day. There is no evidence that her parents "decision" caused this division or want it to continue.
Again I cannot help to feel to some here everything Kate does it right. It is a misguided as everything she does is wrong.
tintin said: I bet even if their family and friends came out (Jon's mom, Beth) and said in an interview that the Gos are a lovely couple, and they choose to make themselves scarce on TV, detractors would insist they've been paid.
This point you made has had me wonder this many times. For as much negative press as they receive NOBODY has came forward to defend J&K. Not family, not close friends, Beth, Bob, not an old b/f or g/f, college friends, co-workers, neighbors. I have wondered why. If J&K are okay people why doesn't someone close to them see what's being said and put it to rest. All we hear is J&K either together or seperately answering the same questions.
In all of this debate that is what seems the strangest to me, silence.
I do not understand what happened with Kate and her parents. There are stories, and pieces of information that may add up to some conclusions. My mom and I are close, very close. Guinevere said in another post people with close knit families might not understand why the Kreider family is so divided, being polite. I do not think this statement is fair either: no doubt Kate's parents will regret their decision one day. There is no evidence that her parents "decision" caused this division or want it to continue.
Again I cannot help to feel to some here everything Kate does it right. It is a misguided as everything she does is wrong.
NC Resident, I think you have some valid points. I think that both sides of this issue are guilty of jumping to conclusions based on tiny bits of information that has been fed to us in one way or another. There are many conclusions being made about financial issues, what happens at speaking engagements, and family relationships with the Gosselins. None of us can possibly have a true picture without being a part of the issue.
As for the comment about close-knit families not understanding division amongst the Kreider family, I have similar experiences with my own relatives. It is an incredibly painful, frustrating experience to have relatives who do not wish to be a part of your life. I am so grateful to have a close, loving relationship with my parents but will always long for the relatives I will never have in my life.
I was really surprised at my own gut reaction when Jon shared information about Kate's relationship with her family. I just felt like it was too much information to share, and hope it does not cause any more issues with the family. There is no way to know what is happening with their family, and I really would rather not know. I would much rather hope they can find a happy medium that works for both sides of the family, without the public butting in.
Guinevere said in another post people with close knit families might not understand why the Kreider family is so divided, being polite. I do not think this statement is fair either: no doubt Kate's parents will regret their decision one day. There is no evidence that her parents "decision" caused this division or want it to continue.
Just to be clear, because of how you've juxtaposed these statements: I never said anything about Kate's parents regretting their decision, nor would I. I've consistently said that I don't know what the deal is, but that when there's a family estrangement there is usually blame to go around. I certainly have no idea of or thoughts on what Kate's parents might one day regret.
Again I cannot help to feel to some here everything Kate does it right. It is a misguided as everything she does is wrong.
You may feel that, but no one has said it. I think Gosselin defenders here are by and large perfectly willing to state when they see Kate doing something they don't like. I've certainly mentioned plenty of things.
I will say that I feel more compelled to defend because of all of the negativity. Not to defend stuff I don't believe is defensible, but just make more of my posts positive, since there are already so many posters out there who will say negative things about Kate all day long and wouldn't say a positive word if you put a gun to their heads.
So, whereas I might feel 85% positive and 15% negative about Kate (just to throw numbers out there), my posts are probably more 95% positive. There are plenty of people out there willing to post the negative stuff.
But that doesn't mean I think Kate's perfect, nor do I think my posts reflect any such belief. Nor do I think other posters here evince such a belief.
I think that most people in Jon and Kate's lives do not want to be part of the show and the drama that is associated with it. Honestly, I think the internet drama is such a small part of the whole thing that most people don't even know about it or care.
Also, off the top of my head I can only think of two people from the "inside" that have come forward with positive and negative statements about the Gosselins. Wasn't Nana Joan quoted in one of the magazine articles supporting the Gosselins? And Jodi's sister, Julie, is the only other person that has come forward with her somewhat "insider" information. And we all know what she has had to say!
I know that there have been posters that have claimed to live near the Gosselins and truthfully I don't believe them. They don't give any other details then what everyone has seen on the show, or their claims are so ridiculous and unbelievable.
I just really think people from both sides of the camp don't want to be in the spotlight.
Nc Res. You haven't personally addressed me here, but I just don't get where you're coming from. I have read your posts and almost responded several times. I always hesitate because it seems to lead to discussion regarding possible subversive actions of J&K or why didn't they do it a particular way. The latter really confuses me, because they live their own lives. You seem to think that J&K have planned every action and spoken word to hide something and always have a better way that things should have been done. You're not my ex-husband are you? :)
I'm not trying to shun or stop your posts, just wondering.
The quote was Samantha's not yours my mistake I didnt mean to imply you said that. Only the first sentence was what you have said earlier.
Nina said: To be honest with you, the more I read your posts, the more I like Jon and Kate.
Well then maybe they have some benefit. However since my posting here has been to find the truth and not to make you dislike anyone that really is an odd comment.
Hi Tintin. Well said! I don't think I have seen you posting before and I just want to say welcome and thanks for contributing.
I know, Saint is really good at succintly making points. There are a few other posters here that are good for that.
I agree that one can have issues with the Gosselins and still believe their relationships with their family members are their business. And for those who have concerns that they share too much - you should be happy this is an area where they show some discretion. There are other people involved here who do not choose to be on a t.v. show and I think their privacy should be respected.
Nina, I am on a similar path. The more I see people make fun of them and wish them bad luck the more it makes me just want to give them a freaking break. They are humans, faults and all. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
ncresident said: "This point you made has had me wonder this many times. For as much negative press as they receive NOBODY has came forward to defend J&K. Not family, not close friends, Beth, Bob, not an old b/f or g/f, college friends, co-workers, neighbors. I have wondered why. If J&K are okay people why doesn't someone close to them see what's being said and put it to rest. All we hear is J&K either together or seperately answering the same questions.
In all of this debate that is what seems the strangest to me, silence."
As to other friends not speaking, do some googleing. They have and were asked not to by Jon & Kate right after the show started. That speaks volumes to me. Their friends are loyal to them.
By the way, you are not one of my sisters are you?
Nope. That would be a good one, though! Thank you for the nice words, Saint. I admire the way you think and write, so I doubly appreciate it.
Next thing I know there will be a caterpillar smoking a hookah....
Heh. Didn't we pass one of those a while ago? I'm thinking the Red Queen (Off with her head!!)
I was really surprised at my own gut reaction when Jon shared information about Kate's relationship with her family. I just felt like it was too much information to share, and hope it does not cause any more issues with the family.
I had a similar reaction. He was being unguarded, and as famous as they've gotten in the last couple of years, Jon still needs some polishing in the art of the interview. Anybody remember Kevin Costner coaching Tim Robbins on that skill?
merryway said: You seem to think that J&K have planned every action and spoken word to hide something
I think alot of things they have done are questionable and were planned, yes I do. Their website requests just one. Personally I feel this way so you all know. This is my opinion only:
1.) Kate embarrassed her dad and his church after the home remodeling and donations fiasco. She told her sisters to choose sides. Clarissa as good as says this. Thus the estrangement and another church. To me evidence strongly points that way and Kate reveals a part of it in her book. 2.) After having so much given they needed to take things to consignment shops, they never said people stop we have enough. That crap about it being torn and stuff don't add up. Second hand shops usually dont take very damaged goods. Not to mention they never gave back as promised. They promised if they received donations they would give back. We saw a stroller one of a kind Jon said sold in the yard sale. aap told in another thread that they still accept gifts, just email them. You did catch they have a yard sale every year selling those donated things right? Last one went to charity. 3.) More than once Kate was not satisfied with what they were given and asked for more. TV interview after home remodeling we need a 15 pass. van lots of storage. Okay one coming right up Kate. Tummy tuck, excuse me how about my breasts. Buy a new bra Kate. Give her an inch she will add a cup size. 4.) Society owes her well she says they do. Not to mention stupid comments like I cannot care for six children. Well I thought you had tons of volunteers. 5.) Very little done for them in real life was ever revealed on their TV show. Free food $5000. worth from Giant Foods yet Kates says what, her cupboards were almost empty, hells bells they must have some big mice. Not to mention strollers, clothing, tons of things. Viewers outside of the internet world probably went man alive how do they do it all. 6.) Three seasons in and we finally learn the trips are advertising, well that and the GAP, Gymboree, Banana Republic Juicy Juice, Johnsons. And the trips increase even though Kates quoted in the Utah trip saying they don't expect to be doing this again. Also they have craft services on the days they shoot, 3-4 days a week it varies though on who is telling the story and how much heat is being applied on the child exploitation theory. With the PR firm on board it's as little as 1 day. 3 tops. 7.) As early as last season we are told they cannot afford one on one days. Even though those some of those items were donated as well, skates for Cara (Dicks Sporting Goods). As early as 6 months ago $20. bucks a pop for signed pictures, college fund donations. So question, if Jon says we cannot afford to take our kids out then is it safe to assume church members watching the show feel led to give because of what he says? Like they might be needy? 8.) Not one mention of her friend Beth in her book tour, not to mention Jon's name gets added somehow before it's finally published. Her best friend they spent every Sunday with, remember. Jon does not even credit her in his interview, nope he says my wife is a top selling author. Dang Jon, Beth said she wrote it, you lived it. That means Beth is a top selling author, right. Well you are in Utah maybe you can have two wives. 9.) 1 and 1/2 years spent writing a book how many weekends away from her kids? So they can read it in what, 3 hours. 10.) Not to mention her comments to the kids, Gods punishment for Collin on the airplane, walks him into a pillar, Jon take Collin. Joel you and Jon better stop breathing. She must be a dream I tell you. 11.) And her newest literary piece that she has out on her own, well the kids helped, Eight little faces, nope they are not using these kids, or exploiting them or using them for monetary gain. They never have them in ads. Well I quess magazine covers do not count right. 12.) Maybe the best story is Jon does this to meet people, in fact he loves meeting people. I heard they won't even speak to strangers, never look up while signing, maybe you just have to be the right person I quess.
You tell me any of those things mentioned above planned and deceptive, Yeah I'm done.
I just want to comment on the posts that keep mentioning that Kate's parents were involved so thus Jon's statements MUST be false.
I really think we are overlooking the family dynamic here. There are a ton of reasons families decide that they need to go their own separate ways and there is no time limit or restriction on that. Things happen, life happens and I don't think Jon is necessarily lying at this point but rather circumstances have it that the grandparents are not currently involved with their children/grand children. I'm sure there is a back story, as there is ALWAYS a back story, but we are never going to know that, so we should all let it go.
I liked watching Jon a lot in this interview and I think I honestly get the dynamic between the two. I think I totally get it because their dynamic reminds me of my boyfriend and I. We have a totally healthy relationship but from an outside perspective I'm sure we look like we don't belong together. He's a real laid-back guy and I can go into what he calls my "tortured artist" mode on a very regular basis, but it works for us. We are opposites and yet we create a nice balance for each other.
As for the article in the newspaper I wouldn't take it as fact. I don't know the circulation of that newspaper, but if it's a smaller circulation publication they are probably picking from other interviews and articles done and might not have had an exclusive. If that's the case well a journalist can spin a story any ole way they want. It's part of the craft.
ncresident, numbers 1 and 2 on your list made me see how some locals can have such resentment towards Kate. If her fallout from her father also meant that she no longer went to his church and had to more or less cutoff an entire group of people who supported her as a result I can see how that would be very upsetting to them. At this point after over 3 years it might be a good idea for them to let go of that resentment, but I certainly can see where it came from in the first place.
With regards to the donations and consignment/yard sale issue, I can also understand how tacky and actually immoral it is to continue to accept donations you don't need and then turn around and sell them. They may have done that before (there's really no proof either way), but I'm not so sure it's happening currently. There are a lot of old stories that get recycled over and over again and are assumed to be current. This might be one of them.
Again, I can understand how these 2 things in particular can be upsetting, most especially to those who were directly involved and donated their time and money. For all we know Jon and Kate might be trying to make amends for this. They have had to make a lot of adjustments in their lives and I suspect taking care of their own family has taken precedence over everything else.
You lost me with the rest of your list. That quote about society owing them is from 2005 and, honestly, I'm tired of hearing it as proof that Kate is an evil witch. She said something that sounded stupid and selfish. Haven't we all? I'm glad I don't get things I said 4 years ago thrown back in my face constantly. Four years can make a huge difference in maturity, especially when you're getting into your 30's like Kate is. I think just in the past year Kate finally has the time to start working on her flaws. That should be admired, not disregarded as 'damage control.' The past is the past. What are Jon and Kate doing that's so horrible right now??
NC Resident--I see Merryway nailed why you and I don't see eye to eye on a lot of things...merryway said: You seem to think that J&K have planned every action and spoken word to hide something
NC, I don't see or understand why you need to try to prove them in a lie,challenge what they've said in the past, compare it with present day,or have to point out inconsistencies in what they say or do or tell us what they should've done or said. Nor, do I see why you spend so much time trying to dredge up incidents of their past and insinuate or extrapolate on something or scatter them in a nonsensicle fashion. What do you get out of it? Do you and your family not progress and grow?
******** Scarfoot saidThere are many conclusions being made about financial issues, what happens at speaking engagements, and family relationships with the Gosselins. None of us can possibly have a true picture without being a part of the issue.
Right on Scarfoot! We're not in that family or privvy to their private homelife. Nor, are we privvy to their financial life nor should we be. ******
Giuinevere, you're post of January 14, 2009 8:35 PM...is exactly how I think, too.
It looks like you are "search for truth" on another blog.
Just curious, where did you get an idea like that.
Searching for the truth must be exhausting.
Nope alot of it is out there and it seems to be public information.
I think you have found your own truth.
Alot of people believe what they think is the truth, and maybe it is maybe it is not. Jim Bakker spoke of truth and went to federal prison. Jimmy Swaggert caught not once but twice with "ladies of the evening" His last comment regarding this to his flock was " God says it's none of your business". Both of them associated with the Assembly of God churches. Lastly Richard Roberts resignes amid allegations of wrong doing. Discernment is my right in looking at J&K.
My in-laws are probably a lot like Ks parents. A few years ago we travelled to see them and my husband's sister. She was as gracious and welcoming as could be. Sadly, it took 2 days before my husband's parents had enough time to see us. We tried to arrange lunch. We tried to offer to come to their place. They could not make the time. My husband took it very hard. Unfortunately, this year his parents behaved the same way with my husband's other sister who had not seen them in 4 years. It took them 3 days to see her. So I can perfectly understand the division. I also have great compassion for anyone in that position. I think that their position is that they've raised children and they're done. They are not very interested in attending grandchildrens' sporting events or activities because as they say, "Been there. Done that." If we were ever in the position of really needing them, I'm fairly confident that they would "not know how to help us." It would require a complete change in their personalities and approach to life. Over the years, I've come to an understanding about them so I am able to see good qualities in them. My husband is more hurt about it and still longs for a more nurturing adult child relationship as do his other siblings.
You forgot to include in your final question after your exhaustive list of opinions the words "are" or "are not"....as in, "You tell me any of those things mentioned above ______ planned and deceptive." So I guess we get to fill in the blank.
For the record, I'm in the "are not" column.
It must have felt good to get that all out of your system, but didn't you blow all your ammunition in one shot?
"Yeah, I'm done."
Now, if you keep commenting, would this be a deceptive statement?
This is an example of how it does appear that you may have inside information that you are not disclosing.
So much of your list you state as fact. The things that you suggest are public information seem like things that could easily be gathered from internet website, discussion boards, and blogs. I've learned to take everything revealed on the internet with a grain of salt.
Hannah said: "However, I know someone who was a talk recently, and she said the Gosselins are indeed still talking about their difficult times and then collecting love offerings and charging $20 for photos. I just feel that they need to admit that they no longer need these donations."
Yes, as recently as 4 months ago they WERE accepting "love offerings" and selling pictures at a church speaking gig. This is a family who has bought a $1.3 mil house and possibly a Utah condo. The family is obviously now wealthy and do not NEED to take money from ordinary people to keep their bills paid. Evidently, the kids are doing a good job of supporting the family. Such a good job, in fact, that according to Jon they are now only filmed 3 days a week. Good to learn that their working hours have been reduced with no apparent adverse effect on the family finances. /snark
People in many different entertainment fields take money from ordinary people every day. Are you saying that at these speaking engagements, the Gosselins are stating that they are poor and need this money in these speaking engagements in the past four months?
I have a friend who is an actor, famous at one time. Not so much anymore and wealthier than the Gosselins. He sells his pictures all of the time. To ordinary people. They do not care what his financial status is. They want to buy his pictures.
Maybe, just maybe, these people do not care what the Gosselins financial status is either.Maybe they just want to buy the picture.
I also want to give another take on Kate's statements at the hearing for extending the nurses care. Would it have been more palatable to have a mother saying something like . . . "The healthcare system offers couples a means of having high order multiples but they don't offer them a means of caring for them." In a way, she is right. Where I disagree with Kate is that it doesn't mean that taxpayers are obligated to pay for it. I can't blame her for trying, but I do think that she could have chosen her words more carefully.
The "love offerings" is their speaker's fee. Speakers get paid for speaking. The Gosselins stand to make much less money by taking love offerings than they do by charging a fee to speak. People give what they want or even not at all.
The $25,000 speakers fee has never been proven. It's a rumor. I remember when it was started by a troll on a board when they first starting speaking. Then it was repeated and repeated until it became a fact.
The Gosselins did go through hard times. That's their story. People want to hear about it as proven by attendance at their speaking engagements and their book on the best sellers list.
NC, Tracee did make contact with Beth. It's further down in the blog.
Big difference is does he sell them at churches? Are they pictures of just him or his kids Nina? This also is a family not a group of actors. If they are actors they have different criteria for work conditions right?
Would you like me to copy and paste?
It is your blog and your right if it is out there. Wonder if you would cut and paste your regular posters here that have posted as others on other threads. Just curious.
Sure if they were posting on my site and then going on another and making statements about myself, this blog and another regular without knowing any background. You have my email. I would have explained what was really going on. There is always another side to the story now isn't there. I have treated you with respect and received none in return.
Wow--all sorts of things are going on since last I checked! NC Resident and Nina Bell, not to disparage either of you, but it's interesting to see the tug/ pull. And it's not even really about J&K show anymore, I'm being upfront about feeling guilty reading to see who "wins."
The Jon interview I thought was quite enlightening and a good give/take between him and the interviewer. I can't wait to see the other parts. The questions really were what I've always wanted to ask and the answers made me feel more like, "Oh, it really is all OK."
Oh and one more thing. I didn't think it was too smart of him to plug the new Idaho place he was saying and slamming Park City at the same time. Isn't that the place where they received the first free trip to begin with? Be careful. When you start endorsing things, you have to watch what you do/say.
FYI, Jon was in Utah again for this interview...at the same place they went last year for the show, The Canyons...and that was the place he was complimenting...ski school, differnt kinds of skiiing. I believe he was comparing it to other ski sites in Utah....don't know where you got Idaho.
If you're going to quote me I would appreciate you at least putting it in the appropriate contextt. That statement was in response to Jon's claim that they wanted to be "drop-in" grandparents. I didn't just pull it out of midair. Thanks.
He was referring to Brighton Ski Resort which is here in SLC, not Idaho. It is the best area for boarders BTW...but what does he know!
Brighton is a locals resort, not a destination resort for celeb wannabes.
I don't think Park City Mountain Resort needs in advertising from the G's anyway. LOL! Celebs from all over the world go there and ski. You ALWAYS see someone in the lift line. The same with Deer Valley. It was actually a good fit for Jon at The Canyons!
I do not think this statement is fair either: no doubt Kate's parents will regret their decision one day. There is no evidence that her parents "decision" caused this division or want it to continue.
Samantha my point is very clear. You made an assumption that Kates parents made the choice based on Jons' quote am I correct. Have we heard Kates mother or father speak to this issue. You are assuming Jon is right based on what he said. It helps if you read it all, I know I'm not the king of prose but.
Cincimom my mom is freezing as well you bundle up and take care.
I just find it quite ironic the way you complain about others taking your posts apart and nitpicking what you say but yet you feel its fine to do it to me. A thousand pardons for not including "IMO" to my previous statement.
Totally off topic--NC Resident, we looked in Charlotte last August because I am so sick of the cloudy gray skies here in the winter. I love the geography of Cincinnati and having family around and I really do like snow. I just don't like short winter gray gloomy days. Charlotte didn't work out though, pretty city.
Wouldn't it be fun to know where everyone is posting from? Even if it's just the state? I didn't know Fiona was in the snowy Utah area. And after NinaBell's sweet post, it would be cool to know how people chose their online "handle."
I have only seen the 1st interview segment. I also stopped reading comments about 2/3 through. The back and forth re the firing, cobra, why didn't he say this on the show before, etc. was bringing up some really negative feelings for me. I thought about it, then chalked it up to other people's personalities and their own point of view.
All I want to say is that I enjoyed the interview I saw and will go back and see the rest. I like Jon. I think he comes off as a 30 something guy who got thrown into something big re a family and then the way to make money to get that family out of the line of possible poverty. I have never thought these people don't love their kids so when he says it's all for them, then I believe him. Should the kids live in the new house and the parents stay in the old one? I mean, what should J /K do? If they improve the standard of living for the kids than it follows that their own standard of living improves. I see no problem with this. I think the guy is ..well, a guy. He is not particularly articulate but not that different from many people, especially when put in front of a microphone having questions thrown at them. I also thought the tone of the interview was unfriendly and could be construed as some how confrontational. I thought he handled it well. Believe him on the demographics for this show. He is telling the truth.
As for the rest, I think Jon has the right to reveal what he wants to when he wants to and owes none of us an explanation. I believe he is doing what he thinks is right for his kids and their future. Whether we all agree on this is immaterial. We all have a point of view (which could change along the way, I might add) and some of us enjoy this family and others dislike the parents immensely. I think the guy is damned for doing the interview and damned for saying things then damned again for not saying enough. Back to work. I have my own bills to pay LOL!
OK..Quickly watched the other interviews. I watched Jon pretty closely when he was talking about Kate's parents. Someone said he was too open. I disagree. I think he looked a little perplexed about why they are the way they are. He said less than I expected after reading some of the comments. He really didn't say anything other than they are not a part of their lives, they want to be drop in grandparents (I don't know what that means either) and that they also do not have a major role in the lives of their other grandchildren.
Sadly, I know people who do not have contact with their parents other than at holidays and birthdays and their children don't see their grandparents at all. This is strange to me because I have a very close knit family. People have issues they cannot deal with or don't want to deal with. It doesn't seem as if it would be much different whether there was a tv show or not. Maybe something happened, but as a parent, a daughter and a sister I could never allow that to continue in my family. I would be the peacemaker and the one who kept trying to stay in touch. But what if they didn't want me to? I wouldn't be able to force them to change. As for Beth, I believe Jon. I also agree with others here who have said it doesn't seem like the blog world has any huge effect on how the Gosselins live their lives. And having said that, I had truly better move it and live my own or sit up all night working!
We are around Greensboro. We visted here in April almost 14 years ago and my kids had to get shorts out. Today the sky, although windy and cold, is clear as it is many days. We are about three hours from the beach, and about that from the mountains. The downside is as you've said, all my family is there, and I've wrestled with going back.
290 comments:
1 – 200 of 290 Newer› Newest»More hard hitting questions than I've seen in any other interviews, a little more hard on him than other interviewers have been. Kate laid back? It does seem hard to believe!
For some reason, I didn't like this interview with Jon. I don't have anything specific - just the tone. It rubbed me the wrong way.
Maybe its because he said he does the show because they get to travel and meet great people. That doesn't seem enough to sacrifice your privacy. I guess it would be hard for him to say that he does it for the money to support his family and spend a lot of time with them.
I am glad that they are thinking of the future and not presuming that this show will last forever.
Was Jon in Utah without Kate and the kids?
It sounds like Jon is sticking up for Kate. I guess he has no choice.
Jon says that they "lived off of nothing" when he lost his job and Kate was pregnant. I'm sure that Jon's father helped them out. Because how does a family of four live off of nothing?
Jon sounds like he has a lttle bit of an attitude in this interview.
Yeah, I kind of agree with both Samantha and VOR. I didn't mind the questions being a little more hard hitting, the tone just seemed a bit rough.
And Kate "laid back" - sorry, Jon, I am not gonna buy that one 100%! I think his larger point may be that she has made strides in that area and that's good.
I guess I am a bit curious what he is doing in Utah. Anyone know?
Anyway, good for him for getting a mini break from the typical routine....
Does anyone ever get to ask them more than 3 - 4 questions for their articles? They are always so short except for the 700 club interview. Set them up with Barbara Walters or someone and tell me all.
Oh well,
I've read it a few times and he seems grumpy. It's nice to read that all the money “just goes to them anyway” in regards to the kids.
I read the below as harsh. He also didn't answer the question about if he felt protective of Kate and wants me to believe she is laid back. I do believe he did not care for this reporter.
Shauna: You could very easily be in the same situation, but with no tv show and all and not all the perks.
Jon: I could be nothing. I mean when the babies were born that's how it was. I lost my job, kate had no job because she was pregnant and we lived off of nothing.
Anya, I read on Baby Mama's site that they were there for a vacation.
Jon just doesn't seem at his most articulate in the interview, IMO.
It sounds like Jon is sticking up for Kate. I guess he has no choice.
Why do you say that?
I know that tone cab be misconstrued and intent can be lost in translation when in print but the interviewer did sound a bit sarcastic/judgemental. We know how much criticism is out there to begin with and Jon knows too. Right or wrong its only human to sound a bit defensive, I think.
I don't think it's Jon's most articulate interview either but I do like the hard hitting questions.
I find it interesting that they put in every "like" in his responses. I used to have to transcribe practice therapy sessions in grad school and we would have to transcribe every one of our "likes" and "uhs" or whatever filler but we didn't necessarily do that for the client because it is distracting.
I don't know if maybe I'm missing something but isn't that type of thing usually edited out in print? For example (just picking on him cuz he's the most popular person at the moment) I've never seen an interview with Barack Obama where his "uhhhs" where included. Caroline Kennedy, on the other hand, had an interview where she said "you know" after every 3 words, practically and that was included.
I wonder if this inclusion is selective, based on the interveiwee. I'm pretty sure if Sarah Palin interviewed like that, they would include all of her misspeakes, but what about Hillary Clinton?
I could definitely be wrong so if anyone who knows anything about journalism could help me understand if these responses are mostly included. If they aren't, then it makes me wonder about the intentions of the interviewer.
nomoredrama,
That's an interesting observation. I don't know either but I remember reading an article that extensively quoted Elizabeth Hasselbeck. All of the slight stutters and "ums" were included and it was very distracting. I wondered if that was standard procedure because I didn't remember noticing it in other interviews/articles.
The tone of the article was quite hostile so I thought maybe it was an editorial comment from the reporter which I thought would be really unfair. But I don't know for sure. Reporters/editors could certainly have a great deal of influence in how we perceive a person.
Jon just doesn't seem at his most articulate in the interview, IMO.
I was wondering where Jon has been quoted elsewhere as a comparision. I gathered he was the least vocal of the two from posts here. So my question is where is something else written to make the claim this was Jon at less than his "best" so to speak.
I have read some of Jons' posts from the TC website and I think this tone he takes in this article, is the same tone he took when he wrote there. He comes across kind of arrogant to me.
I think these questions might get harder for them and they really should answer some of them. If they have nothing to hide or feel uneasy about one question should be as easy as the other.
I read the article again and Jon does seem defensive. It's hard to tell what the dynamics between the interviewer and Jon were and he may have responded defensively to her questions.
Kate may be more laid back now than she was when Jon was working and she was home with the kids. That could make her seem laid back to him.
It's good to know that J&K are looking out for their children's future and saving money for them.
I thought the interviewer was clumsy. When she asked him about 'exploiting his children a little bit', that's an awkward way to phrase it. As if she came out with the word 'expoiting', then backpedaled it by adding 'a little bit'. Like, huh? If you want to ask him about it, just ask it: 'Some people feel you are exploiting your children by putting them on tv every week; what's your response to them?' If she had phrased it that way, it would have come across more objective and direct, to me.
i have to say this is one interview i would like to have seen on video. it would tell alot. i'd like to hear their tones and see the body language. one thing that always irks me is jon allowing people to believe he was fired from his job when kate was pregnant. didn't the head of that company come out and say that he was not fired for reasons of health benefits but that he just stopped showing up for work? i think i struggle with the perception that they were "victims" of circumstances beyond their control. i guess i don't see it that way. JMHO
themrs--I never heard of the head of the company talking about why Jon was fired. Is there an article of link that you can provide?
didn't the head of that company come out and say that he was not fired for reasons of health benefits but that he just stopped showing up for work?
That is exactly what I heard. But Kate is still saying they lost their jobs do to the preganancy. She even says the employer let Jon go due to health insurance costs. Did either of them here about FLMA leave, short term long term disability.
themrs, when Jon decides to go to court about his dismissal, they discovered part of the reason he was fired *was* because of the health benefits situation. Granted that was not the whole story, but the fact that it came into play at all was a concern to me. I know this was talked about in Multiple Blessings, but work is busy now so I can't go find the passage :). I'll try to look it up later so we can have the facts straight with that.
I did notice a lot of the interview was bizarre in the lack of caps and punctuation-- no idea why, but it seemed more like an IM conversation than anything else.
Jon and Kate were in Utah doing a speaking engagement (as opposed to the reports some have that Jon got away for a fun weekend).
i think i struggle with the perception that they were "victims" of circumstances beyond their control. i guess i don't see it that way. JMHO
Thats exactly how I have felt. I would like to know the facts. It does make a difference, if he were fired for ins costs then I would have a more positive feel about them. If he quit going in and Kate tells a different story it appears to be deceptive to me.
I heard the actual interview...Jon was actually very nice and casual.
He looked happy and relaxed.
I was also surprised when he said that Kate was laid back.
He has been here alone, skiing! Good for him and doing some "R and D" with some people. I emailed this to Nina, but the article had a misprint...it says he was here on "R and R"....I clearly heard him say R and D...after the interview they broke back to the news and her fellow anchor asked what Jon was up to. She said he wouldn't tell her but said that they would like to get a second home here and it had to do with the Olympics. Probably with real estate so low here, his R and D was a real estate tour and he things he can rent it out like other people did with their second homes during the 2002 Winter Games.
nomoredrama-
Excessive likes, uhs, ers, and uhms are typically edited in print interviews.
Kate was not here Lizabeth...just Jonny Boy.
Honestly, he was very calm and gracious and likable during the interview.
When the question about exploiting the kids came up, he kindof laughed it off-he wasn't defensive or rude.
He laughed during the interview and was just ole Jon, inarticulate as ever.
I think this is a seris of a few interviews with him...the lead off was hearing Jon talk about hanging out with Moms all the time???
So hopefully I will catch it tonight as well. If I had DVR I would record it, but I don't.
You have to be employed I think 6 months to get FMLA and full time as well.
I just don't think Jon and Kate were prepared financially for fertility treatments and a new baby period, but that is old news.
Fiona, That's so interesting since some of us had a totally different take. Thanks for all that info. I've heard things like this in regards to confessions. Funny how are conversations are read in print.
Fiona, thanks for your comments and the feedback based on actually seeing the interview. It makes sense that it would come across differently in print.
I'll wait to hear what Lizabeth has to say about the job loss. I read "Multiple Blessings" too, but I can't remember. That has always been kind of a murky area for me. I think I have heard so many different stories I am honestly confused! It would seem strange that Jon would just stop showing up to work at this point in time, however.
And, yes, FMLA doesn't kick in until one year of employment. Some states have more generous laws on the books, but I don't know about PA.
Fiona,
Was this interview originally on TV?
I just thought the tone came from sloppy editing, no caps etc.
Personally, I am glad to see some different questions being asked of the Gosselins. It gives me a better view of who they are and what their lives are like today. Aposed to the "old standby" questions that seem to have been in most of their interviews in the past.
Interesting that he would even mention having secrets! I think it is to keep us all guessing!! Stay tuned!
Lizabeth since you work specifically in a personnel position you know Jon's story has some holes in it.
First, most states Pa being one are work at will states meaning unless your employment is in contract form your employment can be ended by either party without reason or notice. Employees can say I quit, conversely employers can say we do not need you, with no reason sited. The claim an employer would say I cannot afford insurance seems like a far fetched idea. Why would he provide a reason like that, when he is not required to do so. Jon could not sue them period as they have the right to let him go for any reason.
NC however requires any employee wanting to take legal action, if they are claiming to be illegally terminated, to file a complaint with the Dept of Labor. Only if they give you a right to sue letter can you seek legal remedies against an employer. Then that case always goes to mediation prior to any court setting. Nothing goes straight to court unless mediation fails. Often times as was my case, which I won I was injured causing my dismissal, I was required to sign a confidentiality agreement. I was not allowed to discuss my case in specifics, it's findings or the amount of settlement I won.
Even if Jon was fired for "cause" he has a federal law that allows him to maintain his health insurance COBRA, if he was one of 20 employees. So the employer has to offer Jon insurance for up to 18 months past the qualifing event . Jon would have to pay the premiums in full without employer contribution but he would have insurance.
COBRA website quote
Qualifying Events for Employees:
Voluntary or involuntary termination of employment for reasons other than gross misconduct
Reduction in the number of hours of employment
Bee,
Yes, it was on our local news station, last night at 5pm MST.
I think it is interesting how this typed interview rubbed so many the wrong way. It is just your own unique way of interpretting things...
OK found the passage in the book that mentions the work situation:
"At eighteen weeks, I could barely bend over, and the strain of caring for the girls and me was taking its toll on Jon. To add to our mounting pile of stress, Jon was called into the office of the plant where he worked, accused of 'stealing time' from the company, and given his pink slip. Six weeks previously, Jon had told his employers of the situation with the babies because, when the grace period for my insurance expired after I stopped working, the babies would be added to the health insurance plan provided through his company. The company was immediately concerned that their premiums would go through the roof. Although it was later intimated in a court hearing that the impending expenses of insurance for premature sextuplets was indeed a factor in Jon being fired, Jon still lost the hearing."
From Multiple Blessings, page 50
According to that, Jon was fired based on an excuse of stealing time which may or may not be valid. He did go to court and lost, even though they admitted the cost of insurance (whenever Kate's ran out after she stepped back from her job, since it stands to reason that she would not have insurance for doing under 20 hours a week as she did after the tups turned one or so) was a factor.
NC resident, I agree that the story seems to have some holes. At the same time, the one thing I have learned more than any other in working with people is that the truth is usually somewhere in the middle of two opposing stories :). The 'stealing time' reason is used a lot (in fact I was accused of this at a job a few years ago since I was so fast at the data entry work (which was not even my job, but I was able to help other departments when time allowed) that they assumed I was slacking off. I doubt we can really know the exact motives behind all of this, but from what I have read and seen it appears Jon had a tough time holding a job anyway which was compounded by the insurance situation.
Lizabeth unless I'm wrong both Jon and Kate were eligible for COBRA, insurance should not have been a concern, premiums maybe coverage not.
Unless I saw court papers I doubt Jon had a legal right to contest his firing. PA is a work at will state period. Again something does not add up there.
Fiona,
I know, it is so interesting to see how everyone's perceptions are different.
Lizabeth,
I agree that the "truth" always lies somewhere in the middle.
FYI-
The actual video interview has been posted on the link.
Enjoy.
NC,
Of course they were eligible, but COBRA is pricey. I think they knew exactly what they were doing by having no income they would qualify for Medicaid for the babies..and food stamps etc...
Yes, the truth is in the middle, I agree. I would say they have been 50% dishonest with the public-or 50% honest, whichever way, they have made it all work for them.
Just like Jon saying the kids aren't working...he makes it sound like all they film is the kids going to the park.
The kids are advertising, and that is working.
Fiona, if Jon was fired by his employer, as she states, Kates claims they both lost their jobs because she was expecting is a lie. That story is the one churches are being told if I am correct.
Jon was fired.
She stopped worked due to health reasons.
This is where I take issue.
I do not think that it is fair or accurate to definitively state that something is a lie.
Unless a poster is willing to give some background information to substantiate their assertion.
The opinions that are offered here -- even the ones that are favorable to the Gosselins -- are speculation.
I agree, Linda-- I tend to err on the side of giving people a fair shake instead of automatically calling them liars. I have not gotten that "This seems really wrong" feel from the situation surrounding Jon's termination when Kate was expecting. I do agree there are holes in the story but its also possible Jon regrets some of his past actions and would rather move forward instead of backward.
If Jon was fired he should have gotten unemployment benefits and kate should have been eligible for disability. I can totally see the "stealing time" since kate herself talked about calling him at work because the "kids" needed desperately to talk to him. (episode when she took them to Hershey) She seems to me to be very needful of his attention whether he was at work or at home.
Unless a poster is willing to give some background information to substantiate their assertion.
What else do you need????
Kate quotes from her book, her quotes from the churches.
Jon was fired stealing time, right?
Kate says they lost their jobs due to her pregnancy, right?
I have not gotten that "This seems really wrong" feel from the situation surrounding Jon's termination when Kate was expecting.
So you are not going to try to say her cooments at the churches are correct are you. Pennsylvania is a work at will state, Jon does not have to be given a reason for being let go. He also has no legal recourse to go to court to sue if he is. I suspect Kate is refering either an unemployment hearing or the court case surrounding the nurse, not a case. She did use the word intimated.
If Jon was fired he should have gotten unemployment benefits and kate should have been eligible for disability.
In some states an employer can contest benefits if an employee was say fighting, stealing property. Maybe thats what this court case was about determining eligibility for UB.
NC resident, I have not personally been to one of their church speeches. I have heard second and third hand accounts (and fourth and fifth, etc) but cannot recall when they spoke about the employment situation. That is why I said that I hesitate to lean too far on one side or the other-- I do not know what happened and have not read or heard anything (except for the excerpt from the book) which directly addresses this situation. The truth is probably in the middle-- as you said, without seeing court documents or knowing the HR side of things from his old job we really can only speculate.
I have to admit, though, if I had twin 3 year olds and was pregnant with sextuplets and stuck on bedrest before my first trimester was over, I would probably be pretty needy of my husband as well. I agree she seemed more codependent than usual then, but at least in my mind its something that makes a small amount of sense.
This is where I take issue.
I do not think that it is fair or accurate to definitively state that something is a lie.
Unless a poster is willing to give some background information to substantiate their assertion.
The opinions that are offered here -- even the ones that are favorable to the Gosselins -- are speculation.
I totally agree. The book states that Jon was ACCUSED of "stealing time" - not that he was guilty of it.
I don't know. The whole thing may be a gray area. But I can easily see that Jon may have missed a lot of work (the "not coming to work" quote from his ex-boss - did the ex-boss lie if the reason was instead falsifying timesheets?) due to the strain of the pregnancy.
People see what they want to see. It seems like there is conflicting information out there, but some people are determined to interpret the most damaging claims as fact anyway.
Thanks, NMD for pointing out all of the ums and stutters included in the interview transcript. That indeed contributed to my sense that Jon was inarticulate in the interview. It was unprofessional to transcribe it that way, and whoever did it either has an ax to grind or is incompetent, IMO.
Some of our local tv stations transcribe their stories word for word including um's, etc. I clicked the link to the actual interview and while I am no way a fan of neither Jon or Kate, the spoken word did not sound anything like the transcript. I disagree with his assertion that the kids are not working, that they would be going to the park anyway but that is my just my humble opinion.
I totally agree. The book states that Jon was ACCUSED of "stealing time" - not that he was guilty of it.
Guinevere the issue is honesty. Jon was fired correct, whatever reason.
He is Kates quote:
He lost his job before they were born, because of the pregnancy, and of course I lost my job because of the pregnancy, that goes without saying.
The part about why he was fired does not matter. We know he was not fired over Kate being pregnant. They can hire and fire at will. I suspect stealing time means playing on the computer, IMO
He lost his job before they were born, because of the pregnancy, and of course I lost my job because of the pregnancy, that goes without saying.
The part about why he was fired does not matter. We know he was not fired over Kate being pregnant.
No, we don't know that. According to Kate, it was intimated at the hearing that the pregnancy was a factor.
If Pennsylvania is at-will, then I would guess Jon would need some proof that the pregnancy was the reason for the firing; if he could not produce such proof, he would lose the case. But that doesn't mean it wasn't true.
I just don't see the point in acting like we KNOW things we don't. Do you want to speculate on what Jon was playing at on the computer? Surfing porn? Solitaire?
If Pennsylvania is at-will, then I would guess Jon would need some proof that the pregnancy was the reason for the firing; if he could not produce such proof, he would lose the case.
If you know what an at-will is you would know an employer needs no reason to fire an employee, or dismiss them. Since it is an at- will state he cannot contest his employment period, unless he is under contract. Do some research I have, in fact I was in the a similar situation myself.
Also, I love how you include crazy notions about porn which I never considered. If he was using the computer for personal use, phone calls, working on other projects while being paid, clocked in when not at work all could be considered "stealing time".
Interesting way to debate isn't it, including crazy notions so the next person assumes it's what I said.
ncresident -
What more do I need? A lot more.
Your essentially anonymous assertion that he is lying is not enough for me to say agree definitively that he is lying.
He says that he was terminated because of her pregnancy and the likely increase to insurance premiums . She says that he was accused of stealing time.
You say that he is lying.
You say that if the company had 20 or more employees he would have been allowed to utilize COBRA benefits.
And yet, we do not know if the company for whom he worked had 20 employees.
So, in short, why should we believe you instead of him.
The truth is somewhere in the middle is really probably closer to reality.
==================
In fairness to you ncresident, I think that some of the disagreements that I have with you are over writing style.
Other posters may say, "I think there may be more to this."
You say, "He is lying."
One is said as a statement of opinion and the other is said as if it is a fact.
===================
And the state where I live is an at-will employment state too.
My sister's best friend recently lost her job. Her husband had in the year before had a major stroke which left him unable to work and on his wife's insurance.
Do you know what her boss said when she applied to put her husband on her insurance?
"Do you know how much this is going to jack up my rates?"
Within a year, she was canned.
nomoredrama said:
"I could definitely be wrong so if anyone who knows anything about journalism could help me understand if these responses are mostly included. If they aren't, then it makes me wonder about the intentions of the interviewer."
I was a journalist for almost 15 years, working mostly in newspapers, but also for magazines and online news sites. (I'm currently a blogger and copywriter, having left the Fourth Estate for the second time in my career.)
I can honestly say that every person I've interviewed uses thinking words like "um" and "like." It's human nature! It's also an indicator of being fluent in a language--so much so that as an ESL teacher, I taught a few lessons on how to insert English thinking words into one's speech.
Seasoned journalists learn over time that they do not have to use every single quote from the person they interview. Instead, it's a testament to the reporter's writing skill to be able to parphrase and add background information, and to use only the strong quotes--the few sentences in which the person is feeling so compelling or forceful, he/she doesn't use thinking words while uttering the comment.
There are exceptions, such as transcribing an audio or video interview (like the online sites for news channels do sometimes). Also, when an interview is written in Q&A format, it doesn't seem honest to edit out the "uhs" and the pedantic half-sentences most of us use in everyday conversation. Although, I think such editing happens more frequently these days.
To include a person's every usage of thinking words is at best an indication of a journalist's inexperience. At worse, it indicates possible malice on the part of the writer, by using a different standard for one subject than for another.
If you know what an at-will is you would know an employer needs no reason to fire an employee, or dismiss them. Since it is an at- will state he cannot contest his employment period, unless he is under contract. Do some research I have, in fact I was in the a similar situation myself.
My understanding of at-will (which apparently pales in comparison to yours) is that there are still SOME restrictions on firing an employee. Are you saying that Jon could have been fired for being Asian - that that would have been an acceptable reason, since PA is at-will? Perhaps in North Carolina, but that's certainly not the case in California.
Also, I love how you include crazy notions about porn which I never considered. If he was using the computer for personal use, phone calls, working on other projects while being paid, clocked in when not at work all could be considered "stealing time".
Interesting way to debate isn't it, including crazy notions so the next person assumes it's what I said.
Well, you seem semi-clairvoyant on the subject of Jon's "firing", so how was I to know at what point your speculation would end? To me, stating that he was fired for "playing on the computer" with absolutely no evidence or particular reason to think so, is crazy as well.
Linda after this I'm done I promise. My problem with you is you never fully read what I say. You and others never fully read what I say and then go on to misquote me. You have done it more than once as if you cannot read or something. I never said HE LIED I said KATE LIED BY SAYING JON LOST HIS JOB BECAUSE SHE WAS PREGNANT. He was fired correct, for "stealing time" as Kate said?
Kate claims they both lost their jobs because she was expecting is a lie. That story is the one churches are being told if I am correct. My quote refers to Kate NOT JON. I then provided a newspaper clipping where she was quoted saying that.
I think you don't want to hear what I have to say and thats okay just don't misquote me. It's obvious you have your own opinion and I respect that. We differ.
BTW Kate was eligible for COBRA as well, due to a reduction in hours. I'm sure the hospital employed more than 20 right.
Are you saying that Jon could have been fired for being Asian Yes they could by saying we dont need you anymore. He would have the burden of proof, discrimination is not allowed, we are not discussing that though. We are discussing an employer that terminated Jon for "stealing time" then his wife saying they both lost jobs because she was pregnant. Is she being truthful?
Well, you seem semi-clairvoyant on the subject of Jon's "firing",
I thought when I included IMO that meant just that. Not that I'm a mind reader.
Are you saying that Jon could have been fired for being Asian - that that would have been an acceptable reason, since PA is at-will? Perhaps in North Carolina, but that's certainly not the case in California.
Im not sure whats NCresidents response will be but I can definitivley say no that would not be acceptable. Neither is the fact that someone can be fired for any reason with no consequences to the employer. I'm (As my name states) in NC as well and I have a family member in a serious age discrimination suit right now. I can tell you that the company is in HOT water.
I thought at will meant the employer need not have a reason to let you go.
Yes they could by saying we dont need you anymore. He would have the burden of proof, discrimination is not allowed, we are not discussing that though. We are discussing an employer that terminated Jon for "stealing time" then his wife saying they both lost jobs because she was pregnant. Is she being truthful?
So you admit that Jon may have been fired because Kate was pregnant, but because that would not (presumably) be a legal reason for the firing, the employer created another reason? Since according to Kate, there was evidence (mentioned at the hearing) that the firing was at least partly related to the pregnancy?
Guinevere said... "My understanding of at-will (which apparently pales in comparison to yours) is that there are still SOME restrictions on firing an employee. Are you saying that Jon could have been fired for being Asian - that that would have been an acceptable reason, since PA is at-will? Perhaps in North Carolina, but that's certainly not the case in California."
CA, PA, NC and the other 47 states all have to follow federal law. Specifically, Title VII:
"Title VII, the federal law that prohibits most workplace harassment and discrimination, covers all private employers, state and local governments, and educational institutions that employ 15 or more individuals.
In addition to prohibiting discrimination against individuals because of race, color, national origin, religion, and sex, those protections have been extended to include barring against discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, sex stereotyping, and sexual harassment of employees. Currently, Title VII doesn't include discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, however there is a trend towards litigating sexual orientation cases based on guarantees under the statute.
Many states have employment discrimination and harassment laws as well and may include even more protected classes – such as marital status and sexual orientation – than Title VII covers." (Credit to HRHero.com).
Fiona, at-will is commonly misunderstood. At-will does NOT give the company a right to fire you for an illegal reason (see above). Of course, no company with a semi-competent HR department or attorney on board would ever admit to firing for an illegal reason. They will find other reasons. Time stealing anyone? I think I might be guilty of that myself today! :-)
Part 2 to this interview is posted.
I read this one first, have not seen it on the news-it is pretty inarticulate when you haven't heard it....
They will find other reasons. Time stealing anyone? I think I might be guilty of that myself today! :-)
Many companies do monitor employees actions (telephone) and computer usage.
"At eighteen weeks, I could barely bend over, and the strain of caring for the girls and me was taking its toll on Jon. To add to our mounting pile of stress, Jon was called into the office of the plant where he worked, accused of 'stealing time' from the company, and given his pink slip.
**********************************
LOL! What part of this statement in the book don't you understand to mean that he WAS FIRED!!!!
No offense but it seems a few of you have rose colored glasses on. So what if he was fired? Big deal, people get fired everyday, they just don't have to explain the reasons to millions of fans.
Neither is the fact that someone can be fired for any reason with no consequences to the employer.
I went through it Samantha, 7 years ago, and I can tell you in NC any labor disputes have to be reviewed by the NC Dept of Labor, first. After an investigation they can give you a right to sue letter, they are not very common according to my attorney. You cannot bring an unlawful termination suit against an employer here unless the DOL provides that letter. My employer term. me while I was on on WC. I fought and won.
nc resident said...Many companies do monitor employees actions (telephone) and computer usage.
Of course, that's true, however, in my experience, most of the monitoring is done *if* there are problems with the employee's performance and the company is going the progressive discipline or termination route.
Wow-- I am watching the interview now and amazed!! Jon talks about how the show has a lot of bickering between them and that he wishes they showed resolutions (since they always resolve problems). He also talks about the amount of time the shoot, the nanny, etc. It is REALLY informative! Thanks again for the link-- this is good stuff.
Since according to Kate, there was evidence (mentioned at the hearing) that the firing was at least partly related to the pregnancy?
What hearing first of all, am I to believe a court or mediator found Jon was fired in part to insurance reasons as Kate states and then allowed that termination to stand? If he was illegally terminated he would have recourse?
After an investigation they can give you a right to sue letter, they are not very common according to my attorney.
I'm aware of that. They've been given the right to sue already which is why I said they are "in" the suit.
You must listen to the videos on the side bar of this article. I understand he talks about Beth and Bob, his mother and his brother.
Did I hear him correctly when he said they have 2 dogs?
I'm aware of that. They've been given the right to sue already which is why I said they are "in" the suit.
Good luck to them those right to sue letters are not common. It is almost like a guilty sentence from the NCDOL. There is alot of terminations that go on without just cause.
Nina he said two dogs, and that we would see them lol. He did seem relaxed in this.
OMG, Jon speaks and speaks and speaks. Incredible, but I have to go shop..real life calls. damn.
There are employers that throw out the "theft of time" to avoid paying unemployment benefits. This is a fact of life. And fighting in court is a huge expense and most of the time it is hard to win. Those who win have a strong case and a good attorney. As for the COBRA issue, it is expensive as hell. My husband carries insurance on us but I had it as well and when I left my job I was offered COBRA at $1175 a month. Yeah right. I don't blame them for taking state aid. They were smart to do that versus COBRA.
Now on to the interview. I love it!!!!!! Out of Jon's OWN mouth, still friends with Beth and Bob, still talks to his Mom everyday, etc etc.... It is sad that Kate does not have a relationship with her parents, but what I gathered from Jon is that her parents are like that with all the siblings. Correct me if I am wrong, but did anyone gather that they are NOT talking to Kevin and Jodi? I get that they are....
I don't blame their friends and family for not wanting to be filmed. There are alot of crazies out there good and bad.
Wow, a lot of content there. He claimed that none of Kate's siblings have anything to do with her parents. I remember reading Kate's sister's blog way back in the TWOP days when someone posted a link. She had some pictures of her kids picking mushrooms with her parents. Did anyone else see that blog? It was a long time ago and I only looked at it once. Do you think it might have been a hoax and it wasn't Kate's sister? It looked legimate but after PM's hoax, who knows?
He sure snuck the "two dogs" thing in there without elaborating.
I thought the second and third parts of the interview were the most amazing- a couple of things stood out:
Jon talks to his mom "like, 5 times a day"-- she got remarried after his dad passed away and does not want to be on camera. Instead she moved away but is still in contact with them.
He also talks about how they are still friends with Beth and Bob, but that some of the people who used to be on the show (like the Carson's and I would assume Jodi and Kevin) didn't realize how crazy it would be and decided not to be on camera anymore.
I love that his younger brother will be on the show soon!!
I also respect that Jon and Kate do not force people to be on the show if they do not want to-- they respect the privacy others want, even though it makes the haters and dissenters scream estrangement.
Oh, and he made an interesting point about how when the babies were little Kate was the one who had to shoulder a lot of the family stress. He was working at the time, and had an hour commute (if I recall correctly from the specials when the tups were one). She rose to the occasion, and he now is home more so they can relax and have a more balanced relationship.
Just a great, revealing interview-- which I thought was really refreshing!
I only had time for the first part, but I think it was a GREAT interview and, I might add, it's about time!
Jon should be in front of the camera more.
He may not seem articulate to some, but he strikes me as very "real," unpretentious, and not putting on an act or meeting some expectation.
Yes, TWO dogs for Jon!
I also respect that Jon and Kate do not force people to be on the show if they do not want to-- they respect the privacy others want, even though it makes the haters and dissenters scream estrangement.
Why didn't they say this at some point on the show. Wouldn't it have put to rest a lot of the questions viewers had about why Bob and Beth and all the others suddenly stopped showing up.
Wow, very interesting. I figured at least some people might have opted out of the show because of unwanted calls (and maybe visitors). You just know people were calling Bob's business asking for Jon, when he said he worked for him. I wish the interviewer had asked about Jodi/Julie. And I don't think he was lying about the people still being in their lives because he's not that good an actor.
I hope the "journalist" who has contacted GWoP to get information for a story on the Gosselins tries to talk to the Gs.
She might get an actual story. If she, you know, exists at all.
I'm really struck after watching Jon's interview with something I've been sensing more and more about the Gosselins....that they have WAY more going on in their lives to be giving (if they ever did) any energy to, or have any interest in, what goes on in the blogging world.
Honestly....not to put a downer on any of our ongoing discussions, which I enjoy...but I REALLY am seeing it more than ever...
The Gosselins do not need our pity.
What I mean is, I think they're pretty comfortable in what their world is becoming. I think there may have been some insecurity at first, before they understood the business and before the show really took off this last year. But, for the most part, I hear in their voices an air of confidence.
I think they see many opportunities sprouting up for their futures beyond the show, and with that there appears to be coming to them a certain air of being comfortable in their own skin now. Where before they may have "defended" how they act or live their lives, i.e., the show, I'm seeing now more a sense that they are quite happy with their choices.
The interviewer asked what I think would be many questions viewers would have liked to ask, and Jon did not hesitate...even with the sticky "Where are all these people who used to be on the show?" or "Where are the grandparents?" questions. He made no excuses for anyone, and I didn't read any particular malice in his demeanor...kind of, it is what it is...like, wierd, but that's how they are (Kate's folks).
Also, was glad to hear a clear answer (that some posters in blogland have been demanding) about the fact that they are still involved with the people we don't seen on the show anymore and that being affiliated with the show was too much for many of them. Frankly, not a scenario too far off from what I'd guessed was the case all along, didn't really need confirmed, but am happy it was said.
That's my take on things of late. Don't know if anyone else sees what I'm seeing.
I really enjoyed these interviews. Jon appeared relaxed. I like his laid back kind of manner. He looked real nice with his grey cap, it brought out his eyes. After watching this interview, I like the family even more and look forward to future episodes. I think it's sad that Kate doesn't speak at all with her parents. Jon seems to have a great relationship with his family and I look forward to seeing his brother in the future as he mentioned. I'm glad he had fun skiing with his friend Cooper and Cara. Can't wait for next weeks episode.
Also had another thought....
Beyond the material pleasure the new house may bring the Gosselis, I'm also wondering if finally moving into their "home" has given them some grounding.
I think part of the frustration they expressed with the other house may have come out as fussing about space issues, but I honestly think they thought of that house as temporary and couldn't wait to be in a place where they could really nest. And now that they're there, it's like they were holding their breath and have how let go.
"Gosselins"
"holding" their breath...
you know what I meant.
Sorry..."now"
Must be time for bed.
Um, Jon I am born and raised in California...not everyone is from somewhere else!
Also, on the "pda" I thought that Kate said they were that couple that made everyone sick with their public displays of affection.
I noticed Jon has a few new words in his vocabulary "it's crazy".
I thought Kate had said there were 14 sets of sextuplets in the US....not that I care but I guess they don't either.
Actually -- "at will" employment means that your employer can terminate you for any reason -- except not for a bad reason like being part of a protected class.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class
Saint said... He may not seem articulate to some, but he strikes me as very "real," unpretentious, and not putting on an act or meeting some expectation.
I agree 100% and that's one of the reasons I trust what he says. I don't feel he is trying to put a spin on anything. The only exception would be their relationship with Kate's parents. I think there is much more to the story and Jon was well within his rights not to tell us everything, but I don't think it's accurate to say the grandparents wanted to "part-time grandparents." That wasn't the case when Kate was pregnant obviously. Kate's mom watched the girls and was very involved in making Kate's hospital stay comfortable (according to Kate in Multiple Blessings).
I am happy to hear that Jon continues contact with his side of the family and his explanation for why certain parties don't want to be on camera rings completely true. Why subject yourself to the scrutiny without substantial tangible reward?
Anyway, I hope we do get to see Jon's bro and I can't wait to see the TWO dogs. That fact alone is enough for me to give Kate credit for loosening up.
I pretty much agree with everyone's thoughts proceeding mine as well.
i just watched all the videos! it does give a very different feel than the print did. first, the things i liked... that jon acknowledged how much help they had when the babies were born and how appreciative and blessed they feel. secondly, the part where he said they hired people to handle the business because they realized it was taking too much time away from the kids. that seemed very genuine to me and i could see how easily that would happen. my husband and i have a hard enough time in our regular life not letting things get in the way of our kids (church responsibilities, work, etc)
now i'd like to play the devil's advocate if i may:) a few things that bothered me... he stated that they do have a daily "helper"/nanny. haven't they in the past stated that they did not have that and they do it all on their own?
he said they don't include the kids in ads (other than ALL the talk shows they've been on) but we know they've done many print ads that required a photo shoot. we saw one that lasted two days.
next, he said that none of kate's siblings have a relationship with the parents. according to kate's sister's blog, she has a relationship with them.
lastly (and i'll admit this is somewhat petty:) the statement that the kids have never had fast food. didn't we see the kids with happy meals on one episode? i think the utah trip?
ok, i'm done :)
Here are some of my thoughts as I watched these interview segments:
-Jon's eyes are really unique. Their color really makes them stand out, even though in this case they matched his hat and shirt.
-I totally understand what he was saying about Kate's family, and how "When you leave the nest, you leave the nest." I do know families like this that have little interaction with their children once they grow up. I did cringe when he was talking about how weird it was, which is so funny because this was one of my main questions about them. It made me cringe because I felt like he was almost saying too much, and that publicly saying they are weird can't help mend things, for sure. However, I am 100% positive that there is more to the story, because there always is. Jon is right to keep that private. (This also explains Kate's dogged determination to be a family forever, to make memories as a family, etc. Perhaps she is trying to make SURE this doesn't happen with her children as well.)
-I really admire what they do with their children's diet (and wish organic foods were as readily available here!), but when he said that the kids have never had fast food, I immediately flashed to the scene in Utah where Jon walks in with Happy Meals for all the kids!
-I wondered if the R and D he referred to was really research and development for something? It probably is a house of some sort, but who knows.
-Finally, I liked that he acknowledged that the show took over too much and that he and Kate realized they needed to consistently stay home. I'm sure their attackers will conveniently overlook that portion of what he said, but it does show that they realize they have made some mistakes in this process, but are working towards it.
Wouldn't it have put to rest a lot of the questions viewers had about why Bob and Beth and all the others suddenly stopped showing up.
It may be hard to believe but it would have for me. If this interview would have been done when the Jodi deal started. I did not know any Julie from the show.
I've watched the video series and actually I'm quite pissed.
The assumptions that have been made about this family are absolutely "horrendously horendous."
My prediction:
Beth is still part of her life, but actually completing her Bachelor of Arts degree.
Linda this is another link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At_will_employment
the statement that the kids have never had fast food. didn't we see the kids with happy meals on one episode? i think the utah trip?
ok, i'm done :)
Well, Jon doesn't lie normally.... I mean at all.
I can't believe Beth and Bob are still apart of their lives. I had concluded their relationship was severed since Beth was never mentioned on the tour except for that one second on GMA.
In reference to Kate's mom. I really thought Kate might call her mom every now and then. If nothing else, to argue the way some families do. It appears to contradict Kate's comments in her book. Maybe Kate's dad was the catalyst for the split. My curiosity regarding family controversy went as far as Jodi/Kate. But it sounds like a big family mess of different point of views.
It was nice to hear what Jon has to say. There's been so many times on the couch that it's just all Kate talking. I liked getting his perspective and all the details he gave out.
Themrs,
...he stated that they do have a daily "helper"/nanny. haven't they in the past stated that they did not have that and they do it all on their own?
I think the "doing it on their own part" is in reference to all the volunteers in the beginning.
Excerpt from Scarfoot's review:
Kate mentions her mothers and sisters frequently. It appears that Kate had a close relationship with her mother at least until Kate moved into the Ronald McDonald House. I don't recall her mentioning her mother again after that point in the narrative.
I thought Kate had said there were 14 sets of sextuplets in the US....not that I care but I guess they don't either.
Am I on the wrong blog??? Are we really going to nitpick this statement?
Jon sounds like he has a lttle bit of an attitude in this interview.
I could understand if Jon had a big bit of an attitude in this interview if he is aware of all of the blogging gossip.
Rain 88,
I love you avatar. How sweet.
Why didn't they say this at some point on the show. Wouldn't it have put to rest a lot of the questions viewers had about why Bob and Beth and all the others suddenly stopped showing up.
My guess, and this is just a guess, is that because the blogging world is such a small percentage of the people that watch the show they might have opted out of this because it would just bring more attention to a problem that doesn't really exist in most people's minds.
now i'd like to play the devil's advocate if i may:) a few things that bothered me... he stated that they do have a daily "helper"/nanny. haven't they in the past stated that they did not have that and they do it all on their own?
he said they don't include the kids in ads (other than ALL the talk shows they've been on) but we know they've done many print ads that required a photo shoot. we saw one that lasted two days.
next, he said that none of kate's siblings have a relationship with the parents. according to kate's sister's blog, she has a relationship with them.
lastly (and i'll admit this is somewhat petty:) the statement that the kids have never had fast food. didn't we see the kids with happy meals on one episode? i think the utah trip?
ok, i'm done :)
Okay, I'll bite:
- the "nanny" (Jenny, I assume) has been seen on the show for a while now, so I don't think that J&K have claimed that they currently do it all on their own, since they allow videotaped evidence to the contrary. I think there was a time when maybe some of the volunteers had gone away, and before the show got going, that they were doing *a lot* on their own. But I feel like the statements they've made on the subject have been pretty open-ended and subject to interpretation.
Regarding the kids in ads, I think he's talking about commercial advertising, like for products, not things like the Good Housekeeping shoot. It made me think that as much as some people think that the kids are exploited, J&K probably could make a lot more money off of them bringing them to appearances and doing commercials and ads for various products with them. I think the fact that they don't is to their credit and shows that they do try to let the kids have a "normal life" (and yes, I know many will disagree and say that the taping of their daily lives is not "normal", but I think J&K do see it as different, and I kind of understand why).
Regarding the "none of the kids have a relationship with the parents", well, maybe it's changed since the sister blogged about it. I hate to use Julie as a source, but she seems to hate Kate, and even she claims the father is difficult and that all the kids are estranged from him. At the very least, it sounds like there are tensions between the parents and most of the children.
On the McDonald's, I don't know. I remember it being brought up at the time as an "aha! gotcha!" moment (that the kids were eating fast food), but I don't remember if they were shown eating it or if it was clear that he was bringing it specifically for the kids.
In any case, call me Pollyana, but it seems unlikely to me that Jon is actually deliberately lying about it. Maybe he just forgot. I do believe that the kids eat quite healthily. I think that's great and I think it's more important than the possibility that a McNugget once passed a sextuplet's lips.
Am I on the wrong blog??? Are we really going to nitpick this statement?
But it means that one of them is lying! Which is it, Jon and Kate - 13 or 14? Which one of you is lying???!!!
Oh, hell, let's just save time and say they are both lying. Off with their heads!
Beth is not involved in their lives anymore. Why is that so hard to believe and why do people keep speculating about it? She got screwed on the book deal and she publicy admitted SHE wrote the book. She wrote a best seller, yet does no publicity for it?
She's out of the picture. End of story.
Really Eaglesfan?
Why should we believe you?
I could post under another name and say the opposite.
Oh, hell, let's just save time and say they are both lying. Off with their heads!
Or off with the heads of the nay sayers.
NC resident,
Do you consider yourself a naysayer?
The one thing about Jon insurance made me wonder again. Kate says he was going to add her to his policy when hers ran out. He let his employees know that and 6 weeks later was terminated. Since Kate was already preganant many policies exclude "pre-existing" conditions. That meaning Kate might have been added but had no coverage for this condition. If this is the case the employer had no reason to fire him for that as it wasn't covered anyway.
I do not feel I am a yay sayer for sure. I do however realize and respect everyone has a right to an opinion. I really dislike being misquote which has happened more than once here, but such is life.
nc resident - I was ummmm "a little bit pregnant" when I got married and my husband did indeed add me to the policy without issue. They paid fully for my prenatal care and delivery.
ncresident -
Perhaps you are misquoted because -- and I will say this as gently as possible -- some of what you write is very hard to understand.
There were times when you quoted another person's statement up thread and you did not indicate that they were the other person's words. Because of that it sometimes appears like you disagree with some of your own words.
I find myself having to read your posts at least 3 times to understand them.
I'm not saying this to attack you, I'm offering a possible explanation.
NC res -
Although I am not an insurance specialist or HR person, I can share something about pre-existing conditions.
I know on my H's insurance, pregnancy is excluded as a pre-existing condition and must be covered.
Someone who has more knowledge may want to add their two cents, but I think it's when you have lapsed insurance (typically more than 60 days) is when alot of the problems with coverage occurs.
I will write more later as I haven't had a few to sit and watch the interview.
Alright, this is my first post and I haven't taken the time to read through all 94 comments so if I am repeating what others have discussed previously, please forgive me.
In regards to Jon's comment about doing "R and D" while in Utah, I think perhaps that could stand for "Research and Development." Maybe it's business related, or in reference to his desire to "get a place up here," he is looking at real estate.
Secondly, I have to take issue with Jon's answers about Kate's parents' abscence. I can totally understand why they wouldn't want to be filmed after seeing how drastically it can change your life to play a part (albeit a small one) on this show. But I do belive the direct quote was that Kate's parents' philosophy was "once they leave the nest, they leave the nest." This is not a direct quote, just the gist of what he said. Yet all of us who read Multiple Blessings know how much Kate's parents helped them out through the pregnancy and in the few short weeks after the babies were born. She specifically talks about how much help her mom was in sanitizing her hospital room, visiting with her, and posting uplifting scriptures and messages around her room.
And correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Jon and Kate stay at there house atleast a few weeks after the birth and before they moved to Ronald McDonald house? I don't think these are the actions of parents who "aren't involved." Just an interesting point IMO.
Also, I am excited to see Jon's brother(s) make an appearance, and I am glad they are still willing to be a part of it even after they were bothered by all those crazed fans wanting to get close to the Gosselins! I mean really?! Having to change your phone number because you happen to have the same last name as the famous family? No wonder no other family members want to expose themselves to that kind of craziness!
Morgan
That was the one thing that bothered me about the interview. Jon's comments about Kate's parents. I felt that he should only discuss their relationship and not extended family member's relationships.
I also agree with your assessment that their parents had been involved in their life up to a point.
I know on my H's insurance, pregnancy is excluded as a pre-existing condition and must be covered.
Mom some do cover it I agree, I hoped by saying many that meant there are some exceptions, I should have said some. JG when you married to many companies that is considered a qualifing event. Which means they have to add you because you got married without conditions. Each plan has qualifing events like marriage, birth, adoption. J&K were already married and she was going to switch from her plan to his. This could be considered a different situation for insurance.
Linda earlier you posted this:
In fairness to you ncresident, I think that some of the disagreements that I have with you are over writing style.
Other posters may say, "I think there may be more to this."
You say, "He is lying."
One is said as a statement of opinion and the other is said as if it is a fact.
If what I say is not clear or articulate enough I'll work on that. However I got the impression you do not like my tone. Sometimes however I get the impression some may feel I have insider information and I'm holding it back.
I think I understand the "once they leave the nest comment" I have/had a mother who discards people when they are no longer useful, they disagree with her, she disagrees with them, etc. I was out when I was 18, she has never seen my children. One of my brothers is also out - 2 kids, no grandmom. The remaining siblings tow the party line so to speak and are in her good graces. Maybe Kate's parents are like that. Our maybe just her father but to keep her marriage in tact, the mother goes along with him. Sorry to use a personal experience but that is how I understand this situation to be. I personally don't understand how a parent can be like that but I know that I work daily to not be like my mother. That could explain some of Kate's obsessiveness about her family unit.
Here is a link I found:
http://readingeagle.com/article.aspx?id=82894
Kate’s health insurance from her job will cover the cost of the hospital bills.
A Hershey native, Kate has been in the prenatal care unit at the hospital since early March.
Part of the reason that I've wondered if you have insider information is because you've hinted at that in other threads.
I think that you wrote something to the effect that you are not ready to tell people why you have such a deep interest in this show given that you dislike J&K so much.
Jon said he was in Utah alone- that Kate was at home with the kids. So they weren't there as a family. He said he was there doing R&D.
OK, my interpretation of the job loss is the following:
Jon starts missing work because of Kate's pregnancy. He is not there when he is supposed to be, and is therefore "stealing time". He is fired. This IS due to Kate's pregnancy, since that's why he was missing work.
Given this explanation, everyone can be telling the truth as they see it Why is it that someone has to be lying? People can and often do have different perspectives on the same event.
I understand that not all grandparents choose to be super involved. But I think considering the extraordinary circumstances of the family that they would "step up to the plate" so to speak, if not for Jon and Kate's sake but for their grandkids! I know that they kept Cara and Mady part of the time while Kate was in the hospital.
I guess I am not really taking issue with their lack on involvement so much as Jon's comments about them. For whatever reason Kate's parents aren't seen (Lord knows we have all speculated and researched it to death!) but I still don't feel that warrants Jon's somewhat disrespectful tone when answering the questions about them. I feel he could have given a much better response but then again, "we all know about him and vocab" :)
I find it interesting that people are so adamant about wanting him to comment on Jodie/Julie/Kevin. I think interviews like these and the types of questions they ask only solidify the fact that the only people that are aware of these situations are those connected to the internet and in turn, this represents only a small fraction of the people that watch this show.
I frequent a couple of popular tv message boards where they discuss this show and nobody even mentions other family members, especially not Jodie or Kevin.
As for the situations surrounding the pregnancy, birth, etc., that was more than 4 years ago. I'm not saying that if they did something wrong they shouldn't pay for it, but with the scrutiny they have been under by the public, and to an extent the state of Penn., if nothing has come up till now, chances are nothing will. Besides, what do people want? For J&K to go to jail? That's the tone that some of the criticism seems like. And if that were to happen, what would happen to those children?
I think it is exceedingly obvious that those children adore their parents and that they are well cared for and loved. Why do people insist on jeopardizing these childrens future by continuously nit-picking or villifying their parents?
I guess I am not really taking issue with their lack on involvement so much as Jon's comments about them. For whatever reason Kate's parents aren't seen (Lord knows we have all speculated and researched it to death!) but I still don't feel that warrants Jon's somewhat disrespectful tone when answering the questions about them. I feel he could have given a much better response but then again, "we all know about him and vocab" :)
I'm torn between agreeing with you that Jon said too much about the grandparents, and thinking, well, when they offered the one sentence, 'They are not involved in our daily lives,' it wasn't enough for a lot of people. I'll bet that if Kate had been sitting next to him in this interview, that would have been the response. And then people could say 'She's such a cold bitch.'
Mina,
Thank you for your comment. Unfortunately the hatred you expressed with no facts is something that has no positive or relevant bearing on this conversation. Discussions of both the positive and negative side are appreciated, but when your words speak sarcastically of how intelligant [sic] Jon is and how he must be on the brink of an affair it is clear that a true discussion is far from your mind.
Thanks anyway, though :).
Part of the reason that I've wondered if you have insider information is because you've hinted at that in other threads.
I have no clue what other threads I posted such things as to elude to that. Much of what I have found is simply looking, and finding. Do a google search of Jon Gosselin fired. easy as that
Why do people insist on jeopardizing these childrens future by continuously nit-picking or villifying their parents?
I personally don't think they'll consider what I, or people on these blogs say of any importance. However when Jon tell us and them their grandparents don't want to be a part of their lives that just might.
'They are not involved in our daily lives,' it wasn't enough for a lot of people.
It wasn't for some because they went on later to say they (her family)did not understand the show being their life. Then Kate says Jon is the only one who understand her, and is there for her in a nutshell. My question is how difficult is it to understand Kate? Everyone here seems to have a handle on who she is, whether pro or con?
All in all, I liked hearing Jon speak alone. No, he is not a great speaker, sounds more like a highschooler, but he does seem at ease and real.
I have little doubt that had Kate been sitting next to him, he would not have come across that way.
Also, while I am glad he spoke about grandparents, Bob, but really not so much about Beth, I wonder if he said too much in Kate's standards. I can hear her saying, "Jon why did you say that"....
Being a Utah skier myself for over 14 years, and having a kid working at another resort and a hubby very involved at yet another, Jon doesn't know squat about the best skiing or riding in Utah. Certainly for boarders, The Canyons is not the best choice...
The Canyons is a posh resort for tourists. Locals don't ski there. The mountain is so broken up it is very difficult to navigate. Snow turns to rain alot and the skiing is not the best in Utah.
Leads to me think he got some passes for free and did his job in plugging the resort again.
What I would have given to be riding up the lift with him!
Here is why he was there Fiona hehe
http://www.parkrecord.com/sports/ci_11445037
Guess I am gonna clip coupons for sure now LOL
NOtAPerfectMom,
I completely agree with what you wrote as your understanding of Jon's unemployment at the time Kate was acrrying the sextuplets.
I don't think Kate, Jon, or the employer have lied. I understood that the pregnancy was so difficult and Kate needed so much support, that Jon lost his job (or was fired) because Kate's and the employer's need for Jon conflicted.
Have you considered this explanation, NC Resident?
Wow-- I am excited for them that they are getting a condo in Utah (according to the article). Cara must be thrilled-- she seems like such a sweet girl, so to have the chance to do things she loves (like skiiing) more often is well deserved.
Honestly, I do not give a flying care what Jon and Kate do with their money. In the interview he mentioned that they have a corporation, so it stands to reason that there are funds set up for their kids' futures. With the success of the book ('Kate's' money if you want to call it that) as well as the endorsement deals and promotional opportunities it seems like they are carving a niche market out for themselves *WITHOUT* having their kids on TV. I love the show and really appreciate the positive changes we have seen in the past 6 months (which are probably shows taped in the past year lol) so if they are able to even phase out of the show and still keep this kind of momentum its all the better for them and the kids.
Perhaps they will rent out the condo when they are not there. That will be income for the Gosselins as well as help pay for the mortgage. I’m not defending the G’s. Just pointing out what they most likely are doing with it. It’s an investment
Sometimes however I get the impression some may feel I have insider information and I'm holding it back.
Hmm. I can honestly say that the idea that you have any particular knowledge or information about the show or the Gosselins has never occurred to me.
Excellant sleuthing NC!
I thought that was why he was here.
Cool that he and Cara can come and ski/ride. Really wish Mady would give it another chance...Kate for that matter.
Nc Resident,
Received that info yesterday. It is all over the internet. I didn't think to post it because in my mind it was no big deal. Maybe Jon was not ready to reveal that yet. His right. He did mention that they would be returning to Utah for frequent visits so buying a condo could possibly be in their best financial interest.
So Jon and Kate should live in a cave for the rest of their lives and not enjoy their new found wealth because of other people's perceptions of how they accumulated their wealth?
ncresident:
Here is an example of why your posts are confusing
you posted the following:
Part of the reason that I've wondered if you have insider information is because you've hinted at that in other threads.
I have no clue what other threads I posted such things as to elude to that. Much of what I have found is simply looking, and finding. Do a google search of Jon Gosselin fired. easy as that
=============
Actually, the first part of that is a quote from me, but you do not indicate that.
As was mentioned earlier -- can you do the bold html tags or make some kind of dash line to indicate what are your words and what are someone else's?
==============
I think that the post was from last weekend when you and I were mixing it up a bit in which you suggested that you were not ready to share your reasons for your keen interest in them.
EaglesFan said...
Beth is not involved in their lives anymore. Why is that so hard to believe and why do people keep speculating about it? She got screwed on the book deal and she publicy admitted SHE wrote the book. She wrote a best seller, yet does no publicity for it?
She's out of the picture. End of story.
January 14, 2009 4:01 AM
_____________________________
Gee Eaglesfan, if you really knew the story, you'd put your name to it.
Also, Bob wouldn't be texting Jon all the time. Face it, you don't know the real story. Go back to the Hades board.
__________________
Nc--thanks for the laugh! Sometimes however I get the impression some may feel I have insider information and I'm holding it back.
___________________
This was a great interview. It should clear up anybody's thoughts on why you don't see people of past shows(which we all knew all along these people weren't "cut off by Kate").
Jenn, you're right. The condo is probably one of their many investments. Since they have business managers (and probably have had them for a while now), they are set. Good for them! It's great to see this family thriving.
Thanks for sharing that good news, NC Resident. I am happy for Jon and Kate.
Fiona, your enthusiasm for Utah is great! I love the pro-Utah posts. And I bet there's stuff for Kate to do there, too? It can't be all skiing/riding?
NC Resident,
You'll have to update us on your coupon clipping, or I might think you were lying about that! Lol!
I heard Jon mention wanting to get a house in Utah but I didn't take that to mean that they were getting a house. Did I miss something or are people just assuming by his comment that they ARE getting a condo?
Just a quick thanks to you ladies for not jumping on me for having an opinion. It's nice to come here, post something, and not have anyone immediatly tell me I'm wrong.
I think some people just like to bully others into sharing their opinion.
Utah is a great state to live in. I am very proud to be a resident. Clean healthy living, good people, fantastic climate.
You'll have to update us on your coupon clipping, or I might think you were lying about that! Lol!
When I get as good as Kate at clipping them, then you and your significant other(s) can visit my beach house; the weeks on me LOL
Lizabeth if you do not see something morally amiss with people selling pictures to church folks to sponsor kids college, then spending THEIR money on two expensive homes I am totally lost. Why not buy the home use the investment income to fund college. Would you father allow them to do this at his church, I want to say I mean no disrespect to him or you at all. Just curious what he feels about this if he has a pastoral opinion.
Bee, there are two news pieces from Jon's trip to Utah, I believe.
*The video clip posted on this site
*The news story in the Park Record. I think everyone commenting here knows what Jon said on the video. Here is what was said in the article about getting a place in Utah:
He will be purchasing a condo within The Canyons village to give his family a little home away from home in Utah.
Note, the words "he will be..." Not a done deal yet, folks. Also, I am not even clear if this reporter had a personal interview with Jon. For that reason, I am going with Jon's own words on this until I hear otherwise.
That said, it's very possible they are getting a condo and I think Jenn's explanation makes sense - they probably will rent it out. I view them as frugal enough not to just let it sit there for 10 months out of the year. Or maybe it's a time share. We don't yet have all the facts.
Nina said:Maybe Jon was not ready to reveal that yet. His right. I
If it is in the paper thats kinda silly to assume it was a secret isn't it?? They said the Discovery crew and Cara were with him so I doubt it was hush hush. Maybe next years episode is being filmed.
Exactly. I think some just want to bitch and moan and this gives them a great opportunity. Jon says he wants to be fit enough to keep up with the 15 year olds on the slopes and that automatically gets turned into something vile and nasty. How some people can live with themselves for posting such nonsense is beyond me. I can only imagine how they are IRL and I bet it isn't any different.
Saint said:
Have you considered this explanation, NC Resident?
Actually I figured Kate has spun this story to maximize a sympathy factor, in her book and in print as well as speaking engagements. I am looking up some sourses but from what I read the firing notion was dispelled by Jons' co-workers and Jon asked that his comment regarding his firing be retracted from the papers. If that is the case why did Kate need to review this story in her book and in ointerviews, just let it rest. I wonder where Kates' mom was then and if Kate was eventually in the hospital why Jon was so much in demand. Did she expect him to quit stay with her and live on nothing??
NC Resident:
Lizabeth if you do not see something morally amiss with people selling pictures to church folks to sponsor kids college, then spending THEIR money on two expensive homes I am totally lost. Why not buy the home use the investment income to fund college. Would you father allow them to do this at his church, I want to say I mean no disrespect to him or you at all. Just curious what he feels about this if he has a pastoral opinion.
My dad is an author as well as pastor and speaker (he is now on a plane to Hong Kong and Taiwan to speak at conferences overseas). Is it wrong for him to sell his books when he is at those conferences? I think that selling the kids pictures was not the best move the Gosselin's made but that does not make it morally reprehensible. Honestly, I wouldn't do that, but has anyone lately seen them do this in a church? I have not heard of a recent speaking engagement attendant saying they sold pictures. If so, then I do agree its not the best thing to do in general but who am I to tell them how to market themselves?
My dads personal opinion on all of this is that people need to choose the right path for themselves. He has made money from churches (since they took a love offering for him as every church I have been a part of does automatically when there is a guest speaker). Is that wrong? I mean, he spent the extra money he had from these speaking engagements on our Christmas presents (including the amazing laptop I received as well as my new camera, and the iPod Touches that two of my brothers got). Because of that, it stands to reason that my dad did exactly what some accuse Jon and Kate of doing-- spending money received from well meaning people for something that is not a total necessity. So then is it wrong? I honestly would like to know what you think-- he spoke at a church in the area for about 9 months as a fill in pastor while they have been searching for a new pastor, and this is money my dad received away from his 'real' job and writing. It is not money he expected or planned on, so it was used for 'extras.' That seems to me to be a logical and pretty smart way to go about doing things- what do you think?
NOtAPerfectMom,
I completely agree with what you wrote as your understanding of Jon's unemployment at the time Kate was acrrying the sextuplets.
Saint, thanks for agreeing with me! It does feel good to know that someone else sees it the way that I do.
I said:
They are not involved in our daily lives,' it wasn't enough for a lot of people.
You replied:
It wasn't for some because they went on later to say they (her family)did not understand the show being their life. Then Kate says Jon is the only one who understand her, and is there for her in a nutshell. My question is how difficult is it to understand Kate? Everyone here seems to have a handle on who she is, whether pro or con?
--------
I don't know her, and don't claim to understand her. I'm just more offended by some of the unreasoned, illogical reasons that some viewers find to go after her, and a lot of the tactics used.
Family 'issues' are hard to explain; there's no such thing as an objective participant in family disagreements. It's a matter of emotions, and past history. How do you 'prove' that one party to a family estrangement is more wrong or more right than another? I don't understand where the viewers got the idea that they're entitled to the blow-by-blow on Kate's relationship with her parents: Since they're on a reality show, they owe us chapter and verse on every aspect of their lives? Or... it's one more thing that 'proves' that Kate is a shrew, a horrible mother, or whatever.
I think the case against Kate should be thrown out of internet kangaroo court because it's so tainted: by PennMommy, by Julie's bias, by the illogic that runs rampant on the subject. What is supposed to be the outcome of collecting 'proof' that Jon and Kate have a biased view of their family situation (well, duh)?
The statement 'Jon and Kate are exploiting their children by putting them on a reality tv show,' is not a statement of fact, it's an opinion. I'm not saying that no one has the right to hold that opinion; I just am offended when people try to 'prove' it to me with irrelevant, distorted 'facts' which are actually just more opinions. Collecting 'evidence' that Kate is rude to strangers, or disrespectful to her parents, or ::gasp:: mean to Aunt Jodi doesn't change the opinion above into solid gold fact.
Oh, and NC I do know you mainly meant the situation with the pictures, and how its ironic they talk about saving for college funds with that extra money then supposedly buy houses with 'their' money. I don't want you to think I misread that-- I just wanted to share in my post that I can see why Jon and Kate would do something like that with their money.
I also think the Utah condo is a phenomenal investment-- if they rent it out they could make serious money!
About the "leaving the next comment" first of all the interviewer took it way too far, she kept prying for more,and pushing the issue. I would have no doubt lost my patience with her. My father's father (notice I didnt say my grandfather)has never been more than a person we know bc he chose to float in and out at will, he chose not to be apart of our lives. He met my daughter for the first time 2 weeks ago- she is 5. He only met her then bc we ran into each other like strangers. I could see the regret in his eyes and I feel for him but its his own doing and no doubt Kate's parents will regret their decision one day.
I loved Jon's comment about how people will always let you down (eventually) despite their best efforts bc we're human. Ain't it the truth?
He's so open, it was a great interview- on his part anyway.
Tyra said...I think the case against Kate should be thrown out of internet kangaroo court because it's so tainted: by PennMommy, by Julie's bias, by the illogic that runs rampant on the subject.
LMAO at the "internet kangaroo court" reference!
I know I feel like I have fallen down a rabbit hole when I read some of the flights of imagination indulged in by those who want "the truth" to come out.
Next thing I know there will be a caterpillar smoking a hookah....
Tyra said...I think the case against Kate should be thrown out of internet kangaroo court because it's so tainted: by PennMommy, by Julie's bias, by the illogic that runs rampant on the subject.
LMAO at the "internet kangaroo court" reference!
I know I feel like I have fallen down a rabbit hole when I read some of the flights of imagination indulged in by those who want "the truth" to come out.
Next thing I know there will be a caterpillar smoking a hookah....
i hate to get in the middle of this discussion between ncresident and lizabeth but i think i'm following his way of thinking but it's not coming across clearly..(nc, feel free to correct me if i'm wrong!) lizabeth, your father's job is a pastor, writer, speaker, etc. so he gets paid for that in many different ways. it is his right to spend his income how he pleases. the difference is that his income is not "earned" by you and your siblings. i think this is the part that NC and others take issue with. J&K would not have all this disposable income if not for their adorable (and quite marketable) children. i'm guessing that when your father speaks in churches, he does not say that he can't afford to buy things for his children or that he can't afford to send them to college. that, IMO, is false advertising. so when J&K have speaking engagements and sell pics of their family for $20 (for college) and then purchase a million dollar home and a vacation home, that is upsetting to some. am i on the right track here, NC?
ncresident:
We don't factually know that they don't deposit the money from pictures into a college fund for the kids.
Would I do it? Probably not, but given that they are the most cute kids on the planet I've toyed with the idea of them modeling.
Except for the fact that my youngest son often wipes his mouth with his sleeve which just smears the food across his face. Not an "it-look."
(wink wink)
Tyra,
Very few posts make me reconsider my opinions. Two of yours have.
One was your point that Julie should not have shared info she had about the Gosselins from being their guest, even in defense of her sister. I just can't argue with that one.
The other is above on this thread, that even if one could "prove" that Kate is a shrew or greedy or whatever, that doesn't mean the show = exploitation. It's not that I thought it did. But I am reconsidering how important any of that is anyway?
I am probably not being clear, but thanks.
By the way, you are not one of my sisters are you? You write like my sisters.
themrs, that does make a lot of sense-- I can see more clearly now what you mean (and what I think ncresident means as well).
NC, sorry if I misread what you were speaking of. I was wondering why my dad and his position would have been brought in to the discussion but I guess I can see now why it might pertain.
As far as the question of what he would think if the Gosselins wanted to sell their kids pics at our church, he would feel as I already mentioned that it is their choice how they spend their money. If Jon and Kate choose to earmark funds from the picture sales for the kids college accounts then who am I, or my dad, or whomever to say anything about it? Just because it is not something I would do does not, in my mind, make it necessarily wrong.
If Jon and Kate choose to earmark funds from the picture sales for the kids college accounts then who am I, or my dad, or whomever to say anything about it? Just because it is not something I would do does not, in my mind, make it necessarily wrong.
I agree with this, Lizabeth. I have never understood why anyone, not just the Gosselins, sells pictures at functions. Who buys those things? What do they do with them? But, you go to concerts and other speaking events and they are selling pictures. Doesn't make sense to me. The other issue is, whether selling those pictures is right in your eyes or not, people are still buying them. I haven't seen evidence anywhere that the Gosselins are still crying "poor" which leads me to believe that people don't care how Jon and Kate use that money. I think that there are many people on the internet just convinced, and concerned that there are masses of people being duped by Jon and Kate. I just don't see that happening. I'm sure there are people who don't fully understand the situation, but my guess is that the majority of people know the Gosselins are doing OK financially, and don't care. It is obvious if you watch the show at all that money is no longer an issue. People like the Gosselins, and want to help them, out of kindness.
On a related note, Lizabeth your question about your father selling his books at speaking engagements really got me thinking about if that is right or wrong (since he was being paid to speak). However, if he's wrong, he is in very good company! Singers sell various items for profit after receiving a payment for their appearance. My hair dresser sells candles at the salon where she does my hair. Heck, what about all the Mary Kay/BeautiControl/Pampered Chef/etc etc etc that is being sold at my place of employment on the side? None of those sales are part of the employees salaried positions - they are making a profit at their place of employment, separate from their salary.
Then, this got me started on parents selling Girl Scout cookies, etc. for their child and I decided I better quit while I was ahead. I was opening Pandora's Box!
IMO, is false advertising. so when J&K have speaking engagements and sell pics of their family for $20 (for college) and then purchase a million dollar home and a vacation home, that is upsetting to some. am i on the right track here, NC?
Exactly if these people buy pictures to help pay for college while J&K make them feel it is needed thats not right.
Your dads books sales love offering income are what he earned he worked for hard I'm sure.
Exactly if these people buy pictures to help pay for college while J&K make them feel it is needed thats not right.
Well, I guess the question is then whether people were made to feel that it was needed, or whether it was a case of, "if you want to buy a picture, all that money goes straight into college funds".
I think selling pics is a bit tacky; I feel that way when athletes do it, too.
That said, the Gosselins have a right to buy as many homes as they want and I've not seen any credible evidence that they have claimed poverty anytime recently. I think people take the "picture money for college funds" business too literally, anyway. How many pic would they need to sell (at $20 a pop) to send six (or eight?) kids to college? Quite a few, I would imagine.
NC Resident, can I ask how you know they are still making people feel that love offerings are needed? I'm really curious about that. Have you been to one of their speaking engagements? What specifically is said?
Also, wealthy or not, sending eight children to college is a costly endeavor. There isn't any way of getting around that - college tuition is outrageous. So is it wrong to be worried about that and saving money for it while they are actively making money?
If I were already doing speaking engagements and knew that people would want to purchase items, is it wrong of me to sell those items and save that money for college tuition?
I have also noticed many comments on other boards about the Gosselins using love offerings to purchase a condo in Utah, and how outrageous that is. I think people forget that the Gosselins are making much more money doing other things than they are bringing in from love offerings (and no, I do not know this for fact. This is just my educated guess.).
Jenn said...
Perhaps they will rent out the condo when they are not there. That will be income for the Gosselins as well as help pay for the mortgage. I’m not defending the G’s. Just pointing out what they most likely are doing with it. It’s an investment.
I totally agree, Jenn (and Theresa and Anya and anyone else who said something similar)-- I've been researching Occam's (or Ockham's) Razor for a grad school presentation (which is 21% of my grade... ugh!)... the simplest answer is usually the most logical and makes the most sense. Granted I knew that before the research, but it definitely comes into play often with the Gosselins! From what I have read I think the investment in a condo would be an excellent way to spend an extra lump sum (such as, say, the royalties from a best selling book?).
I have been on the side of supporting the Gosselins - I would peek at the GWOP blog from time to time, and usually thought that they were being unfair, however, little things are starting to bother me. There are just too many inconsistencies in their reasons for why family are not involved in their live. Jon says that his mother does not visit the kids because she can't afford to? And yet, it the Gosselins have just bought a very expensive condo and home...couldn't they afford to visit her? Also, it is known that she just lives a couple of hours away. Is she really that destitute that she cannot afford gas for a two hour drive? Also, the whole story with Kate's parents sounds fishy. The grandparents just decided to not be involved in any of their grandchildrens' lives? When asked why, Jon could not give a reason, and his body language was very awkward. He said they only wanted to be drop-in grandparents - what exactly does that mean? One final point: I have no problem with the Gosselins spending their money how they choose- they are obviously making money in different ways now, and not just the show (books). However, I know someone who was a talk recently, and she said the Gosselins are indeed still talking about their difficult times and then collecting love offerings and charging $20 for photos. I just feel that they need to admit that they no longer need these donations. If they are going to be giving interviews about condos in Utah (which can go for upwards of a million dollars) and buy a million dollar home, why not admit they are no longer struggling? Like I said, I have supported the Gosselins, I just wish they would be more upfront about their situation.
Jon says that his mother does not visit the kids because she can't afford to? And yet, it the Gosselins have just bought a very expensive condo and home...couldn't they afford to visit her? Also, it is known that she just lives a couple of hours away. Is she really that destitute that she cannot afford gas for a two hour drive?
I didnt hear him say that in the interview- did I miss something? I heard him say that she doesnt want to be on camera, doesnt want to be a part of filming bc she has seen the craziness its brought them and the friends that have been on the show. As I interpreted it, that doesnt mean she isnt in their life it just means it isnt on camera.
There are just too many inconsistencies in their reasons for why family are not involved in their live.
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
Human beings are by nature inconsistent, and their narratives are messy and full of things that perhaps don't make sense from the outside.
Jon says that his mother does not visit the kids because she can't afford to?
Unless I'm mistaken, the "can't afford to visit" quote was in reference to the (more distant) relations in Hawaii, not Jon's mother. He did not say that he doesn't see her, just that she does not want to be filmed.
Jon also said that he talks to her "five times a day" - which may be hyperbole (I think Kate may be having an influence on Jon there!), but unless you assume he's totally lying, would indicate that they are pretty darn close.
Also, the whole story with Kate's parents sounds fishy. The grandparents just decided to not be involved in any of their grandchildrens' lives? When asked why, Jon could not give a reason, and his body language was very awkward.
I think he's uncomfortable with the subject. Both Jon and Kate, when talking about the situation with her parents, seem uncomfortable and don't seem to really want to get into it. That's their right. I wish they would just learn to shut down those questions. A simple, "We don't have a relationship with them and prefer not to discuss it" would be better than the hemming and hawing, I think. But there's no reason to think that there is anything sinister there.
However, I know someone who was a talk recently, and she said the Gosselins are indeed still talking about their difficult times and then collecting love offerings and charging $20 for photos. I just feel that they need to admit that they no longer need these donations.
As has been explained many times, a love offering is not a donation; it is akin to a speaking fee. Someone with more familiarity can chime in, but that has been my understanding almost from the first time I heard the term.
So Jon and Kate talk about how they were once in dire financial straits. Jon talked about it in the video. He does not say that that is the case now. It's part of their story, the narrative of how they got to where they are today.
The photos are something they apparently sell. Again - tacky, IMO - but not the same as asking for a donation, or being dishonest about one's financial status.
It has really gotten to the point where I feel that anyone who believes that the Gosselins are CURRENTLY crying poor needs to offer some solid evidence, or I can only conclude that they are believing what they want to believe, contrary to all available evidence. You can't argue with someone determined to believe that black is white and up is down.
I did not see anywhere in the interview where Jon stated his mom could not afford to travel to see them. It was the relatives in Hawaii, his grandma, etc that could not afford to visit so it was nice for them to be able to go to Hawaii and see them (Jon's words).
As far as love offerings go. Who cares??? Maybe it's just me, but as long as you are not giving them the money then it should not consume you. Personally, I would have to go to one of their speaking engagements and see for myself that they were crying destitution still. I take nothing on the internet as face value. Also, real estate is a good way for them to go. Buy low now and wait for the economy to rebound in a couple of years.
And I am not attacking any one person on the love offerings issue, it just seems to consume people on blogs and there are so many other problems in life that "love offerings" shouldn't make the blood pressure go up.
I think this is kind of a lame observation, but while watching this interview it finally hit home with me how much their life has changed over the past four years.
They were a low/moderate income family with two children. Then, they were an even lower income family with 8 childrens. Now they are a high income family with 8 kids and known by sight by millions of people. That's a lot of change for a family and marriage to handle in a very short period of time. Having sextuplets is rare - having such a huge growth in income and recognition is rare too. And they have both.
I think a lot of people could not have handled that level of change. While I am not a Kate/Jon fan (or a fan of some of their decisions), it seems like overall they are making it work. I'm not sure that I could do it without my sanity and/or marriage falling apart. I'd like to think that I'd do what I have to do -- but there's no denying that it would be very hard to go through those life changes. Even positive events are very stressful. I guess I'm feeling surprisingly sympathetic and, yes, I admit having a tinge of admiration. I have never felt that way about them before.
Can I comment on the family stuff?
I think it's clear that there is some sort of problem with Kate's parents. There was no problem with Jon's Dad. There might be with Jon's mother. There might not be with Jon's mother.
What are they supposed to say at this point? What if the truth is that they can't stand each other? Would it be disrespectful to say that about your parents? Would it be lying to say anything else? Maybe Jon's mother wants nothing to do with being on TV? What if she asked them to say very little, as little as possible?
They have hedged their answers, perhaps because the answers are a bit embarrassing. Maybe they don't want to appear petty or disrespectful? Give them a break. I am all for the Gosselins seeking privacy, in the midst of their fame. Who here has gone on record saying you think J&K should respect the kids' privacy more? So maybe they're starting with their relationships with their grandparents.
And as Tyra pointed out upthread, even if J&K DID turn out to be NOT speaking to ANY family or friends, and 100% at fault for it, that doesn't mean the show = exploitation.
Wow, Saint couldn't have stated it any clearer.
Their relationship with their extended family is their business!
I think some people just won't be satisfied unless the couple came out and said: no one speaks to us because they hate us; we use everyone. Which, come on, is never gonna happen.
I bet even if their family and friends came out (Jon's mom, Beth) and said in an interview that the Gos are a lovely couple, and they choose to make themselves scarce on TV, detractors would insist they've been paid.
Some people are just ridiculous!
And this sentiment is coming from someone who is anti-Gos.
I do not understand what happened with Kate and her parents. There are stories, and pieces of information that may add up to some conclusions. My mom and I are close, very close. Guinevere said in another post people with close knit families might not understand why the Kreider family is so divided, being polite. I do not think this statement is fair either: no doubt Kate's parents will regret their decision one day. There is no evidence that her parents "decision" caused this division or want it to continue.
Again I cannot help to feel to some here everything Kate does it right. It is a misguided as everything she does is wrong.
tintin said: I bet even if their family and friends came out (Jon's mom, Beth) and said in an interview that the Gos are a lovely couple, and they choose to make themselves scarce on TV, detractors would insist they've been paid.
This point you made has had me wonder this many times. For as much negative press as they receive NOBODY has came forward to defend J&K. Not family, not close friends, Beth, Bob, not an old b/f or g/f, college friends, co-workers, neighbors. I have wondered why. If J&K are okay people why doesn't someone close to them see what's being said and put it to rest. All we hear is J&K either together or seperately answering the same questions.
In all of this debate that is what seems the strangest to me, silence.
I do not understand what happened with Kate and her parents. There are stories, and pieces of information that may add up to some conclusions. My mom and I are close, very close. Guinevere said in another post people with close knit families might not understand why the Kreider family is so divided, being polite. I do not think this statement is fair either: no doubt Kate's parents will regret their decision one day. There is no evidence that her parents "decision" caused this division or want it to continue.
Again I cannot help to feel to some here everything Kate does it right. It is a misguided as everything she does is wrong.
NC Resident, I think you have some valid points. I think that both sides of this issue are guilty of jumping to conclusions based on tiny bits of information that has been fed to us in one way or another. There are many conclusions being made about financial issues, what happens at speaking engagements, and family relationships with the Gosselins. None of us can possibly have a true picture without being a part of the issue.
As for the comment about close-knit families not understanding division amongst the Kreider family, I have similar experiences with my own relatives. It is an incredibly painful, frustrating experience to have relatives who do not wish to be a part of your life. I am so grateful to have a close, loving relationship with my parents but will always long for the relatives I will never have in my life.
I was really surprised at my own gut reaction when Jon shared information about Kate's relationship with her family. I just felt like it was too much information to share, and hope it does not cause any more issues with the family. There is no way to know what is happening with their family, and I really would rather not know. I would much rather hope they can find a happy medium that works for both sides of the family, without the public butting in.
Guinevere said in another post people with close knit families might not understand why the Kreider family is so divided, being polite. I do not think this statement is fair either: no doubt Kate's parents will regret their decision one day. There is no evidence that her parents "decision" caused this division or want it to continue.
Just to be clear, because of how you've juxtaposed these statements: I never said anything about Kate's parents regretting their decision, nor would I. I've consistently said that I don't know what the deal is, but that when there's a family estrangement there is usually blame to go around. I certainly have no idea of or thoughts on what Kate's parents might one day regret.
Again I cannot help to feel to some here everything Kate does it right. It is a misguided as everything she does is wrong.
You may feel that, but no one has said it. I think Gosselin defenders here are by and large perfectly willing to state when they see Kate doing something they don't like. I've certainly mentioned plenty of things.
I will say that I feel more compelled to defend because of all of the negativity. Not to defend stuff I don't believe is defensible, but just make more of my posts positive, since there are already so many posters out there who will say negative things about Kate all day long and wouldn't say a positive word if you put a gun to their heads.
So, whereas I might feel 85% positive and 15% negative about Kate (just to throw numbers out there), my posts are probably more 95% positive. There are plenty of people out there willing to post the negative stuff.
But that doesn't mean I think Kate's perfect, nor do I think my posts reflect any such belief. Nor do I think other posters here evince such a belief.
Nc resident,
I think that most people in Jon and Kate's lives do not want to be part of the show and the drama that is associated with it. Honestly, I think the internet drama is such a small part of the whole thing that most people don't even know about it or care.
Also, off the top of my head I can only think of two people from the "inside" that have come forward with positive and negative statements about the Gosselins. Wasn't Nana Joan quoted in one of the magazine articles supporting the Gosselins? And Jodi's sister, Julie, is the only other person that has come forward with her somewhat "insider" information. And we all know what she has had to say!
I know that there have been posters that have claimed to live near the Gosselins and truthfully I don't believe them. They don't give any other details then what everyone has seen on the show, or their claims are so ridiculous and unbelievable.
I just really think people from both sides of the camp don't want to be in the spotlight.
NC Resident
To be honest with you, the more I read your posts, the more I like Jon and Kate.
Nc Res. You haven't personally addressed me here, but I just don't get where you're coming from. I have read your posts and almost responded several times. I always hesitate because it seems to lead to discussion regarding possible subversive actions of J&K or why didn't they do it a particular way. The latter really confuses me, because they live their own lives. You seem to think that J&K have planned every action and spoken word to hide something and always have a better way that things should have been done. You're not my ex-husband are you? :)
I'm not trying to shun or stop your posts, just wondering.
The quote was Samantha's not yours my mistake I didnt mean to imply you said that. Only the first sentence was what you have said earlier.
Nina said: To be honest with you, the more I read your posts, the more I like Jon and Kate.
Well then maybe they have some benefit. However since my posting here has been to find the truth and not to make you dislike anyone that really is an odd comment.
Hi Tintin. Well said! I don't think I have seen you posting before and I just want to say welcome and thanks for contributing.
I know, Saint is really good at succintly making points. There are a few other posters here that are good for that.
I agree that one can have issues with the Gosselins and still believe their relationships with their family members are their business. And for those who have concerns that they share too much - you should be happy this is an area where they show some discretion. There are other people involved here who do not choose to be on a t.v. show and I think their privacy should be respected.
Anyway, I hope to see more posts from you!
:-)
Nina,
I am on a similar path. The more I see people make fun of them and wish them bad luck the more it makes me just want to give them a freaking break. They are humans, faults and all. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
ncresident said: "This point you made has had me wonder this many times. For as much negative press as they receive NOBODY has came forward to defend J&K. Not family, not close friends, Beth, Bob, not an old b/f or g/f, college friends, co-workers, neighbors. I have wondered why. If J&K are okay people why doesn't someone close to them see what's being said and put it to rest. All we hear is J&K either together or seperately answering the same questions.
In all of this debate that is what seems the strangest to me, silence."
Beth did speak. Here is the link:
http://www.blogfabulous.com/kate-gosselin-times-person-of-the-year/
As to other friends not speaking, do some googleing. They have and were asked not to by Jon & Kate right after the show started. That speaks volumes to me. Their friends are loyal to them.
By the way, you are not one of my sisters are you?
Nope. That would be a good one, though! Thank you for the nice words, Saint. I admire the way you think and write, so I doubly appreciate it.
Next thing I know there will be a caterpillar smoking a hookah....
Heh. Didn't we pass one of those a while ago? I'm thinking the Red Queen (Off with her head!!)
I was really surprised at my own gut reaction when Jon shared information about Kate's relationship with her family. I just felt like it was too much information to share, and hope it does not cause any more issues with the family.
I had a similar reaction. He was being unguarded, and as famous as they've gotten in the last couple of years, Jon still needs some polishing in the art of the interview. Anybody remember Kevin Costner coaching Tim Robbins on that skill?
merryway said: You seem to think that J&K have planned every action and spoken word to hide something
I think alot of things they have done are questionable and were planned, yes I do. Their website requests just one. Personally I feel this way so you all know. This is my opinion only:
1.) Kate embarrassed her dad and his church after the home remodeling and donations fiasco. She told her sisters to choose sides. Clarissa as good as says this. Thus the estrangement and another church. To me evidence strongly points that way and Kate reveals a part of it in her book.
2.) After having so much given they needed to take things to consignment shops, they never said people stop we have enough. That crap about it being torn and stuff don't add up. Second hand shops usually dont take very damaged goods. Not to mention they never gave back as promised. They promised if they received donations they would give back. We saw a stroller one of a kind Jon said sold in the yard sale. aap told in another thread that they still accept gifts, just email them. You did catch they have a yard sale every year selling those donated things right? Last one went to charity.
3.) More than once Kate was not satisfied with what they were given and asked for more. TV interview after home remodeling we need a 15 pass. van lots of storage. Okay one coming right up Kate. Tummy tuck, excuse me how about my breasts. Buy a new bra Kate. Give her an inch she will add a cup size.
4.) Society owes her well she says they do. Not to mention stupid comments like I cannot care for six children. Well I thought you had tons of volunteers.
5.) Very little done for them in real life was ever revealed on their TV show. Free food $5000. worth from Giant Foods yet Kates says what, her cupboards were almost empty, hells bells they must have some big mice. Not to mention strollers, clothing, tons of things. Viewers outside of the internet world probably went man alive how do they do it all.
6.) Three seasons in and we finally learn the trips are advertising, well that and the GAP, Gymboree, Banana Republic Juicy Juice, Johnsons. And the trips increase even though Kates quoted in the Utah trip saying they don't expect to be doing this again. Also they have craft services on the days they shoot, 3-4 days a week it varies though on who is telling the story and how much heat is being applied on the child exploitation theory. With the PR firm on board it's as little as 1 day. 3 tops.
7.) As early as last season we are told they cannot afford one on one days. Even though those some of those items were donated as well, skates for Cara (Dicks Sporting Goods). As early as 6 months ago $20. bucks a pop for signed pictures, college fund donations. So question, if Jon says we cannot afford to take our kids out then is it safe to assume church members watching the show feel led to give because of what he says? Like they might be needy?
8.) Not one mention of her friend Beth in her book tour, not to mention Jon's name gets added somehow before it's finally published. Her best friend they spent every Sunday with, remember. Jon does not even credit her in his interview, nope he says my wife is a top selling author. Dang Jon, Beth said she wrote it, you lived it. That means Beth is a top selling author, right. Well you are in Utah maybe you can have two wives.
9.) 1 and 1/2 years spent writing a book how many weekends away from her kids? So they can read it in what, 3 hours.
10.) Not to mention her comments to the kids, Gods punishment for Collin on the airplane, walks him into a pillar, Jon take Collin. Joel you and Jon better stop breathing. She must be a dream I tell you.
11.) And her newest literary piece that she has out on her own, well the kids helped, Eight little faces, nope they are not using these kids, or exploiting them or using them for monetary gain. They never have them in ads. Well I quess magazine covers do not count right.
12.) Maybe the best story is Jon does this to meet people, in fact he loves meeting people. I heard they won't even speak to strangers, never look up while signing, maybe you just have to be the right person I quess.
You tell me any of those things mentioned above planned and deceptive, Yeah I'm done.
Daisy said: Beth did speak. Here is the link:
1.) That email was in 11/07.
2.) Tracee the blog owner attempted to contact "Beth" as she requested and was unsucessful.
Was that really Beth?
I just want to comment on the posts that keep mentioning that Kate's parents were involved so thus Jon's statements MUST be false.
I really think we are overlooking the family dynamic here. There are a ton of reasons families decide that they need to go their own separate ways and there is no time limit or restriction on that. Things happen, life happens and I don't think Jon is necessarily lying at this point but rather circumstances have it that the grandparents are not currently involved with their children/grand children. I'm sure there is a back story, as there is ALWAYS a back story, but we are never going to know that, so we should all let it go.
I liked watching Jon a lot in this interview and I think I honestly get the dynamic between the two. I think I totally get it because their dynamic reminds me of my boyfriend and I. We have a totally healthy relationship but from an outside perspective I'm sure we look like we don't belong together. He's a real laid-back guy and I can go into what he calls my "tortured artist" mode on a very regular basis, but it works for us. We are opposites and yet we create a nice balance for each other.
As for the article in the newspaper I wouldn't take it as fact. I don't know the circulation of that newspaper, but if it's a smaller circulation publication they are probably picking from other interviews and articles done and might not have had an exclusive. If that's the case well a journalist can spin a story any ole way they want. It's part of the craft.
NC Resident
It looks like you are "search for truth" on another blog.
Searching for the truth must be exhausting.
I think you have found your own truth.
ncresident, numbers 1 and 2 on your list made me see how some locals can have such resentment towards Kate. If her fallout from her father also meant that she no longer went to his church and had to more or less cutoff an entire group of people who supported her as a result I can see how that would be very upsetting to them. At this point after over 3 years it might be a good idea for them to let go of that resentment, but I certainly can see where it came from in the first place.
With regards to the donations and consignment/yard sale issue, I can also understand how tacky and actually immoral it is to continue to accept donations you don't need and then turn around and sell them. They may have done that before (there's really no proof either way), but I'm not so sure it's happening currently. There are a lot of old stories that get recycled over and over again and are assumed to be current. This might be one of them.
Again, I can understand how these 2 things in particular can be upsetting, most especially to those who were directly involved and donated their time and money. For all we know Jon and Kate might be trying to make amends for this. They have had to make a lot of adjustments in their lives and I suspect taking care of their own family has taken precedence over everything else.
You lost me with the rest of your list. That quote about society owing them is from 2005 and, honestly, I'm tired of hearing it as proof that Kate is an evil witch. She said something that sounded stupid and selfish. Haven't we all? I'm glad I don't get things I said 4 years ago thrown back in my face constantly. Four years can make a huge difference in maturity, especially when you're getting into your 30's like Kate is. I think just in the past year Kate finally has the time to start working on her flaws. That should be admired, not disregarded as 'damage control.' The past is the past. What are Jon and Kate doing that's so horrible right now??
NC Resident--I see Merryway nailed why you and I don't see eye to eye on a lot of things...merryway said: You seem to think that J&K have planned every action and spoken word to hide something
NC, I don't see or understand why you need to try to prove them in a lie,challenge what they've said in the past, compare it with present day,or have to point out inconsistencies in what they say or do or tell us what they should've done or said. Nor, do I see why you spend so much time trying to dredge up incidents of their past and insinuate or extrapolate on something or scatter them in a nonsensicle fashion. What do you get out of it? Do you and your family not progress and grow?
********
Scarfoot saidThere are many conclusions being made about financial issues, what happens at speaking engagements, and family relationships with the Gosselins. None of us can possibly have a true picture without being a part of the issue.
Right on Scarfoot! We're not in that family or privvy to their private homelife. Nor, are we privvy to their financial life nor should we be.
******
Giuinevere, you're post of January 14, 2009 8:35 PM...is exactly how I think, too.
It looks like you are "search for truth" on another blog.
Just curious, where did you get an idea like that.
Searching for the truth must be exhausting.
Nope alot of it is out there and it seems to be public information.
I think you have found your own truth.
Alot of people believe what they think is the truth, and maybe it is maybe it is not. Jim Bakker spoke of truth and went to federal prison. Jimmy Swaggert caught not once but twice with "ladies of the evening" His last comment regarding this to his flock was " God says it's none of your business". Both of them associated with the Assembly of God churches. Lastly Richard Roberts resignes amid allegations of wrong doing. Discernment is my right in looking at J&K.
My in-laws are probably a lot like Ks parents.
A few years ago we travelled to see them and my husband's sister. She was as gracious and welcoming as could be. Sadly, it took 2 days before my husband's parents had enough time to see us. We tried to arrange lunch. We tried to offer to come to their place. They could not make the time. My husband took it very hard. Unfortunately, this year his parents behaved the same way with my husband's other sister who had not seen them in 4 years. It took them 3 days to see her. So I can perfectly understand the division. I also have great compassion for anyone in that position. I think that their position is that they've raised children and they're done. They are not very interested in attending grandchildrens' sporting events or activities because as they say, "Been there. Done that." If we were ever in the position of really needing them, I'm fairly confident that they would "not know how to help us." It would require a complete change in their personalities and approach to life. Over the years, I've come to an understanding about them so I am able to see good qualities in them. My husband is more hurt about it and still longs for a more nurturing adult child relationship as do his other siblings.
NC Res,
You forgot to include in your final question after your exhaustive list of opinions the words "are" or "are not"....as in, "You tell me any of those things mentioned above ______ planned and deceptive." So I guess we get to fill in the blank.
For the record, I'm in the "are not" column.
It must have felt good to get that all out of your system, but didn't you blow all your ammunition in one shot?
"Yeah, I'm done."
Now, if you keep commenting, would this be a deceptive statement?
ncresident:
This is an example of how it does appear that you may have inside information that you are not disclosing.
So much of your list you state as fact. The things that you suggest are public information seem like things that could easily be gathered from internet website, discussion boards, and blogs. I've learned to take everything revealed on the internet with a grain of salt.
Hannah said:
"However, I know someone who was a talk recently, and she said the Gosselins are indeed still talking about their difficult times and then collecting love offerings and charging $20 for photos. I just feel that they need to admit that they no longer need these donations."
Yes, as recently as 4 months ago they WERE accepting "love offerings" and selling pictures at a church speaking gig. This is a family who has bought a $1.3 mil house and possibly a Utah condo. The family is obviously now wealthy and do not NEED to take money from ordinary people to keep their bills paid.
Evidently, the kids are doing a good job of supporting the family. Such a good job, in fact, that according to Jon they are now only filmed 3 days a week. Good to learn that their working hours have been reduced with no apparent adverse effect on the family finances.
/snark
Nancy
People in many different entertainment fields take money from ordinary people every day. Are you saying that at these speaking engagements, the Gosselins are stating that they are poor and need this money in these speaking engagements in the past four months?
I have a friend who is an actor, famous at one time. Not so much anymore and wealthier than the Gosselins. He sells his pictures all of the time. To ordinary people. They do not care what his financial status is. They want to buy his pictures.
Maybe, just maybe, these people do not care what the Gosselins financial status is either.Maybe they just want to buy the picture.
I also want to give another take on Kate's statements at the hearing for extending the nurses care. Would it have been more palatable to have a mother saying something like . . . "The healthcare system offers couples a means of having high order multiples but they don't offer them a means of caring for them." In a way, she is right. Where I disagree with Kate is that it doesn't mean that taxpayers are obligated to pay for it. I can't blame her for trying, but I do think that she could have chosen her words more carefully.
It looks like you are "search for truth" on another blog.
Are you serious? Exact same talking points and exact same words used.
Would you like me to copy and paste?
Nancy,
The "love offerings" is their speaker's fee. Speakers get paid for speaking. The Gosselins stand to make much less money by taking love offerings than they do by charging a fee to speak. People give what they want or even not at all.
The $25,000 speakers fee has never been proven. It's a rumor. I remember when it was started by a troll on a board when they first starting speaking. Then it was repeated and repeated until it became a fact.
The Gosselins did go through hard times. That's their story. People want to hear about it as proven by attendance at their speaking engagements and their book on the best sellers list.
NC, Tracee did make contact with Beth. It's further down in the blog.
He sells his pictures all of the time.
Big difference is does he sell them at churches? Are they pictures of just him or his kids Nina? This also is a family not a group of actors. If they are actors they have different criteria for work conditions right?
Would you like me to copy and paste?
It is your blog and your right if it is out there. Wonder if you would cut and paste your regular posters here that have posted as others on other threads. Just curious.
Sure if they were posting on my site and then going on another and making statements about myself, this blog and another regular without knowing any background. You have my email. I would have explained what was really going on. There is always another side to the story now isn't there. I have treated you with respect and received none in return.
I have my answer.
NC Resident
And yes he sells them to churches, why are they exempt?
Yes his children have been in many of the pictures.
He does not sell them with a group of actors.
Many B list actors do this. It is their bread and butter.
Wow--all sorts of things are going on since last I checked! NC Resident and Nina Bell, not to disparage either of you, but it's interesting to see the tug/ pull. And it's not even really about J&K show anymore, I'm being upfront about feeling guilty reading to see who "wins."
The Jon interview I thought was quite enlightening and a good give/take between him and the interviewer. I can't wait to see the other parts. The questions really were what I've always wanted to ask and the answers made me feel more like, "Oh, it really is all OK."
I feel better about watching the show now.
Oh and one more thing. I didn't think it was too smart of him to plug the new Idaho place he was saying and slamming Park City at the same time. Isn't that the place where they received the first free trip to begin with? Be careful. When you start endorsing things, you have to watch what you do/say.
CincyMom,
FYI, Jon was in Utah again for this interview...at the same place they went last year for the show, The Canyons...and that was the place he was complimenting...ski school, differnt kinds of skiiing. I believe he was comparing it to other ski sites in Utah....don't know where you got Idaho.
Thanks Marci--you're right. I don't know why I got confused and don't have time to rewatch now.
5 degrees here in old Cincinnati! Maybe I had brainfreeze!
NCresident:
If you're going to quote me I would appreciate you at least putting it in the appropriate contextt. That statement was in response to Jon's claim that they wanted to be "drop-in" grandparents. I didn't just pull it out of midair. Thanks.
CincyMom,
No problem. Hope you thaw out soon!
He was referring to Brighton Ski Resort which is here in SLC, not Idaho. It is the best area for boarders BTW...but what does he know!
Brighton is a locals resort, not a destination resort for celeb wannabes.
I don't think Park City Mountain Resort needs in advertising from the G's anyway. LOL! Celebs from all over the world go there and ski. You ALWAYS see someone in the lift line. The same with Deer Valley. It was actually a good fit for Jon at The Canyons!
I do not think this statement is fair either: no doubt Kate's parents will regret their decision one day. There is no evidence that her parents "decision" caused this division or want it to continue.
Samantha my point is very clear. You made an assumption that Kates parents made the choice based on Jons' quote am I correct. Have we heard Kates mother or father speak to this issue. You are assuming Jon is right based on what he said. It helps if you read it all, I know I'm not the king of prose but.
Cincimom my mom is freezing as well you bundle up and take care.
oops btw your welcome
I just find it quite ironic the way you complain about others taking your posts apart and nitpicking what you say but yet you feel its fine to do it to me.
A thousand pardons for not including "IMO" to my previous statement.
Totally off topic--NC Resident, we looked in Charlotte last August because I am so sick of the cloudy gray skies here in the winter. I love the geography of Cincinnati and having family around and I really do like snow. I just don't like short winter gray gloomy days.
Charlotte didn't work out though, pretty city.
Wouldn't it be fun to know where everyone is posting from? Even if it's just the state? I didn't know Fiona was in the snowy Utah area.
And after NinaBell's sweet post, it would be cool to know how people chose their online "handle."
I have only seen the 1st interview segment. I also stopped reading comments about 2/3 through. The back and forth re the firing, cobra, why didn't he say this on the show before, etc. was bringing up some really negative feelings for me. I thought about it, then chalked it up to other people's personalities and their own point of view.
All I want to say is that I enjoyed the interview I saw and will go back and see the rest. I like Jon. I think he comes off as a 30 something guy who got thrown into something big re a family and then the way to make money to get that family out of the line of possible poverty. I have never thought these people don't love their kids so when he says it's all for them, then I believe him. Should the kids live in the new house and the parents stay in the old one?
I mean, what should J /K do? If they improve the standard of living for the kids than it follows that their own standard of living improves. I see no problem with this. I think the guy is ..well, a guy. He is not particularly articulate but not that different from many people, especially when put in front of a microphone having questions thrown at them. I also thought the tone of the interview was unfriendly and could be construed as some how confrontational. I thought he handled it well. Believe him on the demographics for this show. He is telling the truth.
As for the rest, I think Jon has the right to reveal what he wants to when he wants to and owes none of us an explanation. I believe he is doing what he thinks is right for his kids and their future. Whether we all agree on this is immaterial. We all have a point of view (which could change along the way, I might add) and some of us enjoy this family and others dislike the parents immensely. I think the guy is damned for doing the interview and damned for saying things then damned again for not saying enough. Back to work. I have my own bills to pay LOL!
OK..Quickly watched the other interviews. I watched Jon pretty closely when he was talking about Kate's parents. Someone said he was too open. I disagree. I think he looked a little perplexed about why they are the way they are. He said less than I expected after reading some of the comments. He really didn't say anything other than they are not a part of their lives, they want to be drop in grandparents (I don't know what that means either) and that they also do not have a major role in the lives of their other grandchildren.
Sadly, I know people who do not have contact with their parents other than at holidays and birthdays and their children don't see their grandparents at all. This is strange to me because I have a very close knit family. People have issues they cannot deal with or don't want to deal with. It doesn't seem as if it would be much different whether there was a tv show or not. Maybe something happened, but as a parent, a daughter and a sister I could never allow that to continue in my family. I would be the peacemaker and the one who kept trying to stay in touch. But what if they didn't want me to? I wouldn't be able to force them to change. As for Beth, I believe Jon. I also agree with others here who have said it doesn't seem like the blog world has any huge effect on how the Gosselins live their lives. And having said that, I had truly better move it and live my own or sit up all night working!
Stay warm, everyone!
Charlotte didn't work out though, pretty city.
We are around Greensboro. We visted here in April almost 14 years ago and my kids had to get shorts out. Today the sky, although windy and cold, is clear as it is many days. We are about three hours from the beach, and about that from the mountains. The downside is as you've said, all my family is there, and I've wrestled with going back.
Post a Comment