I don't know if this has already been discussed but does anyone here have a facebook account. Do you find it disturbingly addicting? I should probably give it up for lent or something! It is a good way to stay in touch with family members and I have found some people I went to high school with on there.
Mrs Ref I am addicted to Facebook as well :). I have my privacy settings jacked up since I have so many personal pictures on my site (and some of those pics and videos are restricted to only some of my friends-- some of the others here can vouch for that!!). I really like that you can determine just how much of your info is available for people both in searching and in general.I have friends that have given Facebook up for Lent but agreed they missed out on a lot of their friends lives because of it!! My parents are on all the time now as well so its fun to have everyone in my family leaving each other messages (such as today when we were commenting on each others wall with quotes from last nights episode of "Chuck").
I'm addicted to Facebook as well. It's so easy from the blackberry. I may need a facebook intervention!
I'm love facebook. The best part about it is flair. Ok, maybe not the best but LOVE it. My profile is private too but I could never have it any different, even if I wasn't involved in a blog. The last thing I want is clients finding me online.
I noticed tonight that Jennifer Stocks is no longer credited at the end of new shows. This is probably old news that I'm way behind on, but was it a coincidence for tonight's show, or did she leave production a while back? Just curious. Thanks!
I didn't know she was gone but, honestly, I could not work with Kate that closely. I don't know how she lasted as long as she did.Sorry I know that's not going to be a popular comment :-)
I just saw this and it made me deliriously happy. There is going to be an Arrested Development Movie. I loved that show and I put it right up there with my all time fav St. Elsewhere. I'm sure this movie is going to be excellent. I loved the quirks and inside jokes on the show. I'm so glad it's not over yet.http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2009/02/23/exclusive-ron-howard-on-arrested-development-film-its-going-ahead/
I am addicted to facebook and I love playing the games to save the planet application. I also have my profile set to private and my friends list because strangers don't need to know who my friends are. I have come into some crazy stalkers from the J&K fan group. I have a lot of birth family I am in contact with which is cool to have contact with a zillion new cousins. Jenn, I too sometimes need a facebook intervention...help!!! lol
Merrway,Great news! I loved Arrested Development too. I wish they'd bring it back on TV. A friend told me there is a sporcle.com quiz about the Gosselins. I checked it out, and of course got all their names right. My kids and I spent an hour and a half there taking trivia quizzes. I am ashamed to say they recalled all but three of The Simpsons characters. If only they could get graded on that quiz!What is "flair" in FB lingo? I am not a FB devotee.
My kids are trying to get me on Facebook, but I said 'baby steps' is what I need with the computer. My daughter at one time set up a My Space for me years ago but I've never been on there in my life so I have no idea what it's like, she said she put some old pictures on there, and I know my nieces and nephews did the same thing to my sister-in-law and she had pictures of herself from the 70's up on hers (oh, the hairstyles)! My daughter told me to set up a blog, sort of a diary, so I did that, but she wants it more of a journal that she can keep, so I said I can do that with pen and paper!On another subject, I'm trying not to judge Nadya Suleman, but she just keeps making it harder. I saw a clip of an interview she did with her mother, and she just seemed so ungrateful and had such a sense of entitlement with her mother. Now, granted, I'm sort of in the same position as the mother (on a much, much smaller scale), so of course it's natural I'd side with her, but I don't think that's the whole of it.My mother used to have a million sayings (some old, some she made up herself) and one was - When someone shows you who they are, believe them, the first time. And I know all I have to go on is what I see on TV, and there's lots of editing involved, but you would think with the amount of air time she's had I'd get at least mixed feelings about her. I do feel sorry for her in the way that she just seems so pathetic, but I feel more sorry for her Mom and so much more sorry for those children. I'm just feeling so negative towards Nadya lately.Did anyone see her Dad on Oprah yesterday? I missed it.Also, at the end of the clip I saw, Nadya was saying something about having to accept outside help even though she's a control freak and didn't want it, and she rolled her eyes and made a face. What was that all about?
Not sure if this will be posted. Perhaps I cant see beyond another website that speaks of the Gosselins and NEVER is willing to post a msg if it appears neutral or in favor. I have been trying to ask for months why it seems OK to bash an entire family, call the Mother names, make up names of the children, call out one specific child if she even blinks wrong, then say they are doing it in the name of HELPING THESE KIDS. Are you kidding me? You are adding to the problems! If you hate this family so much, change the channel. Why do you spend hours upon hours online commenting about how much you hate them?? These are the same ppl ruining the lives of these children as well. I am not pro or against the Gosselins. They had an opportunity and took it. Instead, why cant all these ppl who do nothing but write companies saying to stop promoting the Gosselins, focus on children really being hurt! How about children pushed into ponography, or children in shelters who are abused, etc?? FOCUS ON KIDS WHO NEED IT. Urgh... OK done. Again, I hope this is posted. I just cant stand watching grown adults sit back and this its OK to bash these children online and think they are HELPING them.
Deborah, I am sure you will find that a majority of us on this site feel as you do-- the Gosselins were given an opportunity and they took it, nothing more and nothing less. Jon and Kate are human, and have done things I do not agree with and would not do. That does not mean I hate them at all, or that I think they should have CPS calls on them or that their house should be stalked or that their kids should be called names. So, like other people in my life who are *gasp* human!, I give them the benefit of the doubt and hope that their choices will be for the best in the long run.As for the Facebook discussion, I agree with you, nomoredrama about keeping things private in case clients found you. I know I have nothing that offensive on my page, and am careful what is posted (I even deleted a comment a friends boyfriend left last night because it was rude and inappropriate, especially considering that I have some teenagers that I babysat on my page) but I would rather err on the side of caution anyway.
I have a fb account MrsRef and I've used it for almost a year now- in the beginning I was slightly addicted bc it was awesome to catch up with people I hadnt seen in ages, now I'm effectivley caught up and I stay in touch with lots of old friends.
Wish I could get into Myspace or Facebook, but I'm incredibly private about info on the internet. If family or friends want info or pictures, I send it to them directly. I do enjoy looking at accounts my friends or family have set up and it makes it easy to keep up with their lives.Is it just me? I still enjoy getting a letter (even an email) somebody took the time to write to me, and I enjoy writing them as well. I still have all the letters my husband wrote me before we were married. There's no way a stack of emails or text messages would hold the same sentiment for me. Somehow I think high-tech romance is losing out.Or how about a phone call? I love gabbing for hours with an old friend.Blogging here is about the most "modern" form of communication I enjoy.
marci, a big Amen to the letter writing and phone calls! I'm in full agreement there.
Ummmm...if my husband, who I know very well to be a temperate man says, "I could just shoot you," over a coupon, I am not going to be as freaked out as if a "psychic" who says in the post she's livid at a complete stranger and couples it with "I certainly cannot wait to find out your full name, and trust me, with all of the bloggers that Musings has, it should not take us long. The internet is a wonderful thing." This woman is NOT someone the breeder knows.Can you appreciate the difference?It may be "just an expression" but with her history of posting personal information about people and this threat (which I supposed could be ust a little threat,) she is not clear. I don't think she has a temperate disposition. I think she's NUT, and I am not the only one.
Alright ladies--how about Tamra, Vicki and Gretchen last night on RHoOC? Wowzers! I really think T and V showed quite an ugly side, regardless of what Gretchen may/ may not have done. And they were outright MEAN to Lynne yet again.Top Chef finale, here we come! I hope Proj. Runway makes it to Lifetime after all the lawsuit stuff. All I have left is Lost, The Office and Survivor (and tortured with Rock of Love)
Marci & Eileen -I LOVE snail mail! I love to buy notecards, stickers, stamps and other stationery items. I remember when I was a child how cool it was to receive a package in the mail. As an adult, I feel the same way. Several family and friends sent my little one cards (with stickers enclosed) for my little one for Valentine's Day. It was so fun seeing the bright red and pink envelopes in our mailbox.I try to send "just because" type notes out at least once a month. I just got turned on to FB. I don't have alot of time to spend on it, but I do find it fascinating to be re-connected with some friends and classmates from elementary and high school years.I especially like it when they say "You look exactly the same!" Ha ha!
Ummmm...if my husband, who I know very well to be a temperate man says, "I could just shoot you," over a coupon, I am not going to be as freaked out as if a "psychic" who says in the post she's livid at a complete stranger and couples it with "I certainly cannot wait to find out your full name, and trust me, with all of the bloggers that Musings has, it should not take us long. The internet is a wonderful thing." This woman is NOT someone the breeder knows.Can you appreciate the difference?It may be "just an expression" but with her history of posting personal information about people and this threat (which I supposed could be ust a little threat,) she is not clear. I don't think she has a temperate disposition. I think she's NUT, and I am not the only one.Sorry for bolding the entire comment but it just so perfectly expressed my sentiments EXACTLY. This is exactly what I meant in my last comment under the puppy post. Again, rationale escapes some people. Apparently so does common sense.
Mom & Eileen,I'm glad I'm not the only one left who loves getting letters!Saint said...It may be "just an expression" but with her history of posting personal information about people and this threat (which I supposed could be ust a little threat,) she is not clear. I don't think she has a temperate disposition.Saint and Sam,I agree with your take on this "threat". It just seems such an over-the-top response to a family getting puppies, I'm really left scratching my head. And the reaction is to perceived and imagined abuses and wrongs done to these dogs, nothing factual at all, so the emotionally violent reaction and revenge tactics are even more disturbing....and disturbed, quite frankly.
I agree with your take on this "threat". It just seems such an over-the-top response to a family getting puppies, I'm really left scratching my head. And the reaction is to perceived and imagined abuses and wrongs done to these dogs, nothing factual at all, so the emotionally violent reaction and revenge tactics are even more disturbing....and disturbed, quite frankly.I'm definitely with you on this one... Her over the top responses to EVERYTHING Gosselin are very upsetting to me... We are talking about real people with real children and real lives... If people wonder why they now travel with security, IMHO the notices on this one particular blog are reason enough. She seems to have seen a "light" that even those at the major hate site haven't seen and I, for one, think this is a dangerous misuse of blogging... I've been wanting to vent about this for a long time and am glad to have found a venue where I can do this.
There's been criticism about the Gosselins choosing this particular breed of dog. I understand that German Shepherds are good family pets and also excellent guard dogs. It's ironic that the Gosselins have been criticized for choosing that breed on a blog that posts "just an expression" of violence against the breeder.
Quiltart said... She seems to have seen a "light" that even those at the major hate site haven't seen and I, for one, think this is a dangerous misuse of bloggingYeah, she seems to have picked up the baton in the "wackjob" relay and run with it.Business seems to pick up when the language on these blogs becomes more inflammatory...a sick cycle with the nutjobs feeding each other and encouraging each other to go to more and more drastic measures to "get to" their imagined antagonists (preachers, dog breeders, sponsors, the Gosselins, TLC). It's downright scary. If I were the Gosselins, the people who ensured my security would be among my favorites too.
NMD, I totally agree with you on that issue!!!!!!I have a My Space account that I have not been on for 2 months. My husband had me close my Facebook account due to security issues with them. I too miss letters. When I mail out cards, I still write a letter and slip it in my cards I send out.
"Jess"'s article is up on GWoP.Is Philadelphia magazine a major publication? I guess if you live in Philly it is. Just skimmed it, looks like same old stuff.
If I was Jeff (the dog breeder ex cop) and got contacted by the crazy Gosselin haters I would so kindly ask for the appropriate information address, phone numbers etc and then have some mental faculty staff members show up at their home with papers. Some people strive on negitivity so talking smack about the Gosselin's I can understand to a certain degree but contacting people associated with someone you hate to berate them and give them a piece of your mind is going on the side of crazy. So yes, go harass an ex-cop and see how far that gets you. And I thought these Gosselin Haters were educated and smart and they call us sheeples.
Kikibee, I felt the same way. If anyone wants the link you can email me and I'll pass it on for now. There were a few things I didn't know in the article but nothing too extraordinary. Honestly, the article was far more kind than I expected after seeing the sites she posted her information on (all of which are very hateful towards Jon and Kate)!! Its disappointing that someone who appears to want to be a respected journalist (though this was her first "real" piece in the Philly magazine) is allying herself with a site like GWoP-- I do not think she realizes how her associations will destroy her credibility... (and before trolls jump on me I would say the same thing if "jess" had wanted to post her info here-- no real journalist will turn to some blog online where people discuss a TV show to get a scoop. She should have gone directly to people involved with the show instead of skirting around online and posting her gmail address on message boards hither, thither and yon.)
jdmac said...I noticed tonight that Jennifer Stocks is no longer credited at the end of new shows. This is probably old news that I'm way behind on, but was it a coincidence for tonight's show, or did she leave production a while back? Just curious. Thanks!NMD said...I didn't know she was gone but, honestly, I could not work with Kate that closely. I don't know how she lasted as long as she did.Sorry I know that's not going to be a popular comment :-)LOL, NMD! I think plenty of us here like Kate, but are glad we only get her in small, measured doses!About Jen Stocks, I forgot to mention it, but in the last week or so I noticed her name as producer for one of the new TLC series...can't remember which one. Just like we've seen the J&K cameramen on different shows (the Duggars) and new crew in the latest J&K Q&A episode, I think these people get reassigned eventually. My guess is Jen and the original crew for the Gosselins may be the most experienced in starting off a new show, and so are assigned to a new show/show subjects to get things rolling. And since the Gosselins are pretty experienced in, and activiely participating in, production, Figure 8 has put in different people to keep things going.
Dr. Liz said...no real journalist will turn to some blog online where people discuss a TV show to get a scoop. She should have gone directly to people involved with the show instead of skirting around online and posting her gmail address on message boards hither, thither and yon.Okay, I was intrigued to read this piece that was supposed to create some media tsunami that would be the Gosselins' downfall. As expected, there's no "there" there. All she did was quote old news (didn't actually get a quote from Jon's old employer, just the unemployment board's ruling, i.e., public record), hate/snark blogs, Jodi and Julie, one apparently "pissed" event coordinator, and "old friends" who obviously didn't want to be identified who "were wondering" (about Jodi and Beth?) and "were warning" the Gosselins (final anonymous quote in the article). Sorry, but with the only thing "new" in this article coming from anonymous sources, how is this article more of a reliable source of information than anything else on the internet?Frankly, it just came across as one, long-winded GWOP blog post, like so many before it. Yawn.
Yeah, Dr. L.,it looks like people weren't exactly jumping at the chance to expose the Gs.What gets me (and I've heard this before) is Jon supposedly saying he'd never have to work again. And this is before the tups were even born. If people think he said that and was serious, they are giving him (and Kate) a lot more credit for smarts/savvy than I would ever give them. Either that, or they had a crystal ball.There was no precedent for their show and the life they have. The most they could have hoped for was a supply of diapers and formula and maybe a new house, which they might not have been able to afford to keep. Look at the McCaugheys and Dilleys. They aren't ,and weren't, living on easy street. And the G's certainly didn't have the first or only sextuplets. I think they have taken full advantage of the opportunities that have come to them, but there is no way they could have planned all this.
To clarify on my last comment, I am not indicating that Jess is not a real journalist. I just feel that having an anonymous gmail address and posting that info on Topix boards, message boards, random blogs, and obvious hate sites was a very poor way to go about getting information. I have no idea what other sources Jess had or what her credentials are, but at face value (if you google the email address she posted everywhere) it comes across as being a bad way to keep journalistic integrity. Just my opinion, but I draw issue with how her methods of research were presented, not anything that she said.
No, Liz, I think you're right. The author wasn't doing much more than repeating what's been written on blogs or by anonymous posters. Hardly hard-hitting journalism.And, Kikibee, you hit the nail on the head about Jon's supposed declaration before the tups were born that he'd never have to work again. Once more, this wasn't a direct quote from Jon, or even by any named source, only repeated anonymous hearsay. And THIS is the information the hysterics are, once again, up in arms about.Don't they get tired of getting upset about the same things ad nauseum?
Marci, Proverbs 26:11- Like a dog that returns to its vomit Is a fool who repeats his folly.I think thats a natural part of life-- people will make the information they have conform to what they want to believe. Because of that I would much rather err on the side of giving people the benefit of the doubt (like Jon and Kate, and even some of the posters at GWoP who honestly care about the kids and really do want to make a difference). Personally, I feel much better knowing I post on a site where bashing the children is not allowed, where posters are able to respectfully share opinions, and the people see things at face value instead of reading into every little background noise (as well as pausing the DVR to read calendars or kids school papers). Just my opinion of course!
The comment about Jon stating he would never have to work again actually did come from a source - Jon's former employer. Here is that portion of the article:"None of this comes as a surprise to David Rothermel. Owner of a custom cabinetry business in Lancaster County, he was Jon’s boss (and a friend of Jon’s parents) during Kate’s second pregnancy. He’s the guy singled out during Jon and Kate’s speaking engagements as the man who “did not want to insure [Jon] … they let him go.” However, Rothermel says — and supporting documents prove — that Jon Gosselin was fired for other reasons. The state unemployment office ruled that Jon improperly did a side job on company time; furthermore, Rothermel claims that before the babies were even born, Jon was on the phone and the Internet soliciting freebies, boasting openly that he was never going to have to work again."This was the only credible, new, and interesting source (IMO anyway) in the entire article. The rest is spliced together garbage gathered up from various blogs, including Julie's blog, which doesn't even have the blog entries referenced in the article anymore. How is possible to site Julie's blog as a source? This can't be considered acceptable journalism.
Just some random comments (love this!)~I like Jon and Kate, but both do get on my nerves at times. However, I can't imagine wishing them any ill will, or joining a hate campaign just because of jealousy. I read at GwP site once (saw it mentioned here) and whoa. Scary stuff. Does that make me a sheeple? *heh*I watch the Roloff's, too, and even though I adore that family, Amy can really annoy me at times. I know she loves those kids with all her heart, but I don't agree with how she treats Matt, and encourages the kids to treat him. That said, I admire Matt and Amy so much for what they have overcome in life, and they've accomplished much more than most average-sized people I know! Last Monday's show had me teary-eyed (focusing on Amy and Molly). That was awesome. Someone mentioned the Orange County housewives. I don't get Bravo anymore (*&^% cable company!), but saw a clip of it on a gossip site. Wow! Tamra is a witch! Once again, jealousy rears it's ugly head and she goes after the other attractive blonde in the show. I love Jeana, she's so down-to-earth and beautiful.And can I add: thanks for this site, I really enjoy coming here!
Here's the Philadelphia Magazine article for those who haven't seen it yet: http://www.phillymag.com/articles/jon_and_kate_gosselin/Like most here, I wished there were more attributed statements of fact (besides the Ohio speaker-booker who got screwed over, and Jon's former boss). Gossip sites should never be used as "sources"--the writer should have tried to talk to Jodi and Beth instead of rewriting what gossipers claim. (Maybe she did, but if they refused to talk further or comment, the writer would have said so!)Since this is a local publication, I'm wondering once again if the strongest vitriol against the Gosselins doesn't remain a local issue. It seems like there was local resentment against the family from the get-go, for what might have been valid or invalid reasons. If this was the case, then no wonder the magazine ran the story the way it is: Local gossip for local readers of a local rag.At least this person wrote her negative first-person account with the Gosselins under her real (or at least professional) name: http://www.kellydinardo.com/blog/comment1.cfm?ID=48I think all that any of us want is substantiated claims, or at least claims made by people who stand by their statements by signing their real names to them.
ok, i'm gonna go out on a limb and say what i really think.... if you disagree please do so nicely because i am so hormonal and "morning sickness-ey" i may lose it if someone provokes me :)i thought this article was spot on. i don't think it sounded like she was supporting her info by GWOP, i think she researched each point. as far as jon losing his job- this is a credible source (his former boss) essentially disputing the story that J&K have said since the beginning. to me, that says they lied. that story always sounded fishy to me anyway. her comments about the good housekeeping shoot were right on too. those kids were miserable. to try and tell me that they're not working while you have them in full winter clothes in 93 degree weather for two days is absurd. just call a spade a spade. they're working. they were working when they were all over the talk shows the last few weeks talking about the octuplet mom. they were working all the times they've been on talk shows, radio shows, etc.
ok, i'm gonna go out on a limb and say what i really think.... if you disagree please do so nicely because i am so hormonal and "morning sickness-ey" i may lose it if someone provokes me :)Aw, I'm sorry! I've never had morning sickness but I hate being nauseated more than just about anything. You poor thing. I do know a thing or two about being hormonal, though. :-)I hope you never feel like you're "going out on a limb" by saying what you really think here - I've never found you to be anything but fair and respectful. I appreciate so much "anti-Gosselin" POVs that aren't trollish, because I have to reject so many that are!i thought this article was spot on. i don't think it sounded like she was supporting her info by GWOP, i think she researched each point. as far as jon losing his job- this is a credible source (his former boss) essentially disputing the story that J&K have said since the beginning. to me, that says they lied. that story always sounded fishy to me anyway. See, but to me, it just becomes a he said/he said thing, then. There is no reason for me to believe the boss over Jon (or to believe Jon over the boss). I just don't know the truth of it, so I don't understand taking the boss's word as fact and Jon's as a lie. I think the boss has some reason to dislike Jon at this point, with the allegations of unfair firing.her comments about the good housekeeping shoot were right on too. those kids were miserable. to try and tell me that they're not working while you have them in full winter clothes in 93 degree weather for two days is absurd. just call a spade a spade. they're working.This is a good point and I think if the author of the piece had stuck to these sorts of substantive complaints, rather than rumor and innuendo, it would've been a stronger article. This goes back to what I think is a fair and credible argument against the show: is it right to put the kids in situations like that - photo shoots in winter sweaters in the heat - in exchange for what the show brings them? THAT is what I feel is worth talking about - not Kate's hair or how she talks to Jon or what happened to Jodi. My only argument (it's not even an argument, rather just a point) is that I feel sometimes when the haters do seize on something credible - like the photo shoot - it gets blown out of proportion and magnified. Again, I feel there's a discussion to be had about it. But I don't feel that it was THE WORST TORTURE EVER OMG! Is it worse than the physical pain a young gymnast may experience when pursuing a chance at the Olympics? (I know the situations aren't exactly analogous; I'm just throwing that out there as an example of comparisons worthy of discussion, and a reminder that the Gosselins are not the only parents in the history of the world to cause their children discomfort or unhappiness.)I think it's worth discussing, but I also believe in keeping it (and other examples of the negative side of doing the show) in perspective.What gets me (and I've heard this before) is Jon supposedly saying he'd never have to work again. And this is before the tups were even born. If people think he said that and was serious, they are giving him (and Kate) a lot more credit for smarts/savvy than I would ever give them. Either that, or they had a crystal ball.There was no precedent for their show and the life they have.I think this is an excellent point. I hadn't really thought of it that way. Jon's supposed quote raised my bullshit meter, because who says stuff like that? It just doesn't make sense, and it doesn't fit in with Jon's personality as I've seen it.
Guinevere and the Mrs.--I agreed too with many of your thoughts. As a reporter, myself, all I can say is when you give someone multiple opportunities to be interviewed and they choose not too, then often the reader does just get that one point of view and remembers it. It's hard to remind yourself to consider the other side.It's funny--I was going to suggest for a topic--should Jon and Kate have responded????
Kuromi: Philadelphia Magazine is actually a well-respected publication in the Philadelphia - New Jersey - New York - Delaware market. It is not a local rag as you referred to it. I don't think the article actually gave any new information except for the name of Jon's old employer. I'm on the fence as to whether he is a credible source. He is the owner of a well-respected company and could be subject to a liable suit if he is not being truthful. I think the truth may be found somewhere in the middle.
guin- i agree it is a "he said/she said" situation. i was thinking about why i tend to believe the employer. i think it's because i've heard jon and kate give several varying accounts of why he lost his job, which makes me wonder which is the truth. but i really don't know the whole truth and most likely never will.as far as the GH shoot and other examples, i think these are the things that really bother me about the show. i certainly do not think they are being abused ( i worked in social work for too long to think that's abuse!) i do, however, feel that they are being taken advantage of. that is simply my opinion. i don't care what kind of house they buy or if they have a new fridge or a puppy, but i do think the kids have a right to privacy that is not always respected. i also think it would be in their best interest to have a social worker on set to look out for their best interests (maybe there already is, who knows?)all of that being said, i know in my heart that there is an element of my feelings about the show that relate directly to how i feel about kate. i'd like to say i'm unbiased but i know i'm not. when i ask myself why the duggars don't bother me as much, i know the answer is because michelle doesn't arouse the same feelings in me that kate does. i have to be honest with myself about that:)
Mariel and TheMrs,I don't take issue with Jon's former boss disputing the reasons the Gosselins have given for Jon losing that job. My issue with the information about what the boss says about how Jon lost his job, or that he was bragging about never having to work again, was that the author names the boss, but has no -- absolutely none -- direct quotes from him. She did back up his claim that Jon was fired for "other reasons" with the umemployment board's finding, public record. That's fine. But the claims that Jon was bragging at work about never having to work again before the tups were even born just sounds like so much sour grapes. Maybe Jon said it. If I was the boss and was so "wronged" by Jon and Kate's ascertion that I was a horrible person who would fire someone because they would hike up my insurance costs, AND I had witnessed, first-hand Jon gleefully anticipating future riches, I would certainly let this author quote me. The ticked off event coordinator made statements that were directly quoted in the article. She didn't pull any punches. The old boss was said to have "stated" or "claimed" what she attributed to him. THAT, in my opinion, is just supposedly repeating what this guy said, but without getting approval to quote him directly. If she got him to comment "on the record", where are the quotes?I'm not a journalist, so I don't know what the guidelines are when you're quoting someone...when you're "on the record" and when "off the record" statements can be used.Except for the event coordinator, the only "new" quotes were from unnamed sources.
What gets me (and I've heard this before) is Jon supposedly saying he'd never have to work again. And this is before the tups were even born. If people think he said that and was serious, they are giving him (and Kate) a lot more credit for smarts/savvy than I would ever give them. Either that, or they had a crystal ball.There was no precedent for their show and the life they have. This quote does not hit home with me, either... Especially since the first special wasn't shown until the babies were about 16 mo old. There is no way they could have fortold the future regarding the condition the babies would be in at birth... IMHO, there were just too many variables in limbo for Jon to have made a comment like this before the tups were even born. .. but consider the sources that Jessica ran to for her info... JMO, of course.
TheMrs said...all of that being said, i know in my heart that there is an element of my feelings about the show that relate directly to how i feel about kate. i'd like to say i'm unbiased but i know i'm not. when i ask myself why the duggars don't bother me as much, i know the answer is because michelle doesn't arouse the same feelings in me that kate does. i have to be honest with myself about that:)Thank you for being so honest! I think a lot of the bs points (and the arguments that follow) posters try to make about the show that detract from true concern about the Gosselin children could be avoided if more people could see beyond their dislike for Kate and Jon....or at least acknowledge it and put it in its place. :)
themrs, I second what Guin said about your thoughts always being welcome here! I've always respected how you come across and the way you disagree without poking at people and making things personal. Also, I hope you feel better soon!MrsRef, the truth is definitely somewhere in the middle. I think many times we get bogged down with the different answers to questions (i.e. why Jon was fired) and in the end the reality is a mix of all things. I was looking at the comments on this article and shocked at how some people choose to come across. Its unfortunate that name calling is the first thing that happens so many places during a disagreement. At least for me and my life I'd rather have the chance to think things through without having people call me a sheeple (wtf kind of retort is that?!) or saying I am just jealous (which, while possibly true at the deepest level, is also not a great first response).
He is the owner of a well-respected company and could be subject to a liable suit if he is not being truthful. I think the truth may be found somewhere in the middle.i was thinking about why i tend to believe the employer. i think it's because i've heard jon and kate give several varying accounts of why he lost his job, which makes me wonder which is the truth. but i really don't know the whole truth and most likely never will.I agree about the truth probably being somewhere in the middle. If I had to guess (and THIS is only a guess), Jon was fired both for the reasons he has stated and the reasons the employer has stated. The employer didn't want the insurance hit; Jon wasn't that great of an employee, anyway. He was maybe missing work already because of Kate's difficult pregnancy; he may have done non-work related stuff on work time (none of us have EVER done that, right? :-). Maybe, at this point, both sides have conveniently forgotten the parts of the story that don't support their views of themselves as in the right. That's human nature. It's all very "Rashomon"-like at this point, I think.as far as the GH shoot and other examples, i think these are the things that really bother me about the show. i certainly do not think they are being abused ( i worked in social work for too long to think that's abuse!) i do, however, feel that they are being taken advantage of. that is simply my opinion. i don't care what kind of house they buy or if they have a new fridge or a puppy, but i do think the kids have a right to privacy that is not always respected.I agree. I don't think the Gosselins value their children's privacy - I think they've chosen to put other things ahead of it. If you like them, as I do, you may say that this is their right as parents, and that the things they are putting ahead of privacy are still FOR the kids, even if it's not necessarily what you or I would do. If you don't like them, they are lazy no-goodniks sponging off of their kids.i also think it would be in their best interest to have a social worker on set to look out for their best interests (maybe there already is, who knows?)I hope there is - I think that would be a good thing.all of that being said, i know in my heart that there is an element of my feelings about the show that relate directly to how i feel about kate. i'd like to say i'm unbiased but i know i'm not. when i ask myself why the duggars don't bother me as much, i know the answer is because michelle doesn't arouse the same feelings in me that kate does. i have to be honest with myself about that:)Yeah, that's just human nature. We make excuses for those we like and we don't cut slack to those we don't like. At least you're aware of it! That's half the battle. I'm aware that I cut Kate slack, but I try not to defend her blindly.
Just a thought...I wonder if that new list of posting rules that GWOP put up a few weeks ago were in anticipationof people looking at their site after this article was published and trying to make themselves appear more credible?
There really wasn't any new information in this article and I question some of her sources or lack of sources. (Julie and the info about Aunt Jodi and Beth)I also think that the truth about Jon's boss is somewhere in the middle, but something we aren't privy too. Everything else has been hashed and rehashed. The article gives it the GwoP spin. IMO
Marci, you bring up an interesting point about the lack of direct quotes RE the former boss.One tenant of good writing in journalism is that you only use quotes that are striking, or shocking, or heartwarming, etc. Otherwise, you paraphrase. This ensures that your article isn't bogged down with dull quotes all over the place, when their meaning can be conveyed much more succinctly in an indirect quote. Also, it's handy for when the person speaking isn't being very articulate. No one wants to read the "uhs," "ums," "likes," and partial phrases that most people utter naturally. Note that the oft-repeated claim that Kate said "society was responsible for raising her children" (I think it was Themrs who pointed me to the news article) was actually a paraphrase. There were no quote marks around it; rather, the writer was relating that "Kate told me this." It seems most people accept that Kate indeed made this claim at one time, though people are divided about her mindset at that moment and what her mindset might be today during more stable times for the family.At the same time, this quotes rule for journalists should not be expected to be understood by laypeople. And Marci's concern makes me re-think the wisdom of the guideline; it can be unclear if the person next to the comment actually said it, or implied it in a document, or is only rumored to be thinking it.Oh, and in the second page of the article, there IS an attributed quote from Jody Someone of the Ohio Something for Children, in which she expresses her anger at having a Gosselin speaking engagement she'd booked cancelled by the new PR person. Which brings the number of new, direct, attributed quotes about the Gosselins to ... one.As for Cincymom wondering, "Should they have responded?" It's likely that the Gosselins want to wait until they have the opportunity for an article that THEY (or their PR folks) pitch, with a publication that's national, rather than regional. They probably had an inkling of where the Philly mag was going, and wanted to wait to speak out on their own terms.
” Ground zero for such discussions is Gosselins Without Pity, a site that’s taken on an almost religious zeal in its mission to expose the underbelly of TV’s happiest family. The brickbats are surprisingly well-written and thought-out, and even for the newly initiated, the arguments are hard to refute. The site has surpassed two million page views; posts are made almost daily, with most generating hundreds of comments I took exception to this part of the article. It mentions nothing about the hatred, mob mentality or rumors they start and state as fact. Just what is it that GWOP are trying to expose? That the Gosselins have made money and changed as time goes on? That they're not perfect parents and have fights with friends or family. Doesn't that stuff happen to everyone. That the kids' privacy factor is obvious, so what is the big secret? The writer notes nothing about the rumors of personal chef, secret help, etc. from the mention of Julie's blog. IMO any journalist who references GWOP should also reference the crazy conspiracy theory of Kate's intentional impregnation of HOMs they toss out to vilify Kate.Other than that I pretty much feel like the others that it was nothing new.I liked reading everyone else's opinion. themrs, I always like your posts. I was kind of wondering when you were due? But you don't have to tell.
A few points:1. The magazine is reputable, IMO. My sisters get it and bring the "Best of the Shore" issue with them during vacations to the NJ shore. I like it. 2. I am a bit disappointed about the whole "Aunt Jodi" part. There is nothing new. Julie's blog is the reference, and strangely this part was inaccurate. The article is wrong about Jodi's video being up. Julie's version of Jodi's story isn't even up anymore. It hasn't been up in months. Why did she write that it was? It looks sloppy. I wish she would have talked to Kevin and Jodi. I would have liked more insight there, myself.3. There are a lot of negative asides and snarky comments within the article that make me think that she is biased, biased, biased. Why write it that way? It detracts from her credibility. 4. I think GWoP will be happy. "Critics claim" this and that all over the article. With the exception of the Ohio lady and the former employer, are these critics identified? Who are the neighbors and family members who complained? I think "Magazine Reporter Jess" read a lot of opinion emailed from the Topix boards and GWoP.
I'm not sure why I felt the need to do this, but I read some of the comments after the Philly Mag article. I just can't get over the hatred people have for this family. Their desire to bring Kate down boggles my mind.This is my being slightly mean, but I can't help but wonder if the extreme haters are those women who you avoid at your kid's school because you know if you look at them the wrong way that they're going to start talking behind your back and badmouthing you. The consistent need to walk on eggshells around them. You know the type, right? I've always felt these women were very lonely and sad and never understood their need for drama or why they are so incredibly sensitive. Almost as if they're out looking for a fight. I just don't think a "normal" person has it in them to want to completely destroy a family they don't know. If the Internet existed when I was a kid and my mom went online to post incredibly nasty things about people she didn't know, I'm not sure how I'd absorb that.
I have never heard Kate and Jon speak in person. I haven't heard the story of Jon losing his job on the show. The only place I have seen the Gosselin's explanation is in Multiple Blessings. The story there is consistent with what this employer said about Jon being fired. He was more specific, but Kate (or Beth) writes that Jon was "fired" for "stealing time" from the company. It doesn't seem to be a lie. Kate (or Beth) writes that the employer did not deny the insurance concerns in arbitration, but that the Gosselins still lost. I do not see the inconsistency. There must be another story out there.
I joined the Gosselin blogging world in September. I think it was going full steam for months at that point. There are stories out there that Jess, the magazine reporter, did not confirm. Remember Kate's hit and run, the organic chef, the screaming at the neighbor for offering the twins an ice cream cone, Jon mocking the lady at the twins school who had cancer? Why wouldn't Jess have confirmed the correct amount for a speaking fee or an episode? What did happen with Beth anyway? What did Paul Peterson have to say after October, you know, when Jess just called and spoke to him recently? The article was 6 page clicks. Where's all the dirt?
And how could a journalist reference Julie and GWOP as a reliable source without mentioning how the posts go up and down? Especially partaking or being taken in by the deceit of PM. There's certainly enough fact out there to balance it out by showing how they supported a fake former volunteer of J&K.Oh, how I mistrust the media.
Merryway, once again, ITA. If Jess The Reporter thought GWoP and Julie's old blog posts were good sources, I wonder why she didn't interview Penn Mommy?
Merrway, are you also watching American Idol and drinking tea? I swear you are reading my mind, just writing better.
I am watching American Idol and drinking chocolate milk :). Nick/Norman was very entertaining...
Quiltart said... Just a thought...I wonder if that new list of posting rules that GWOP put up a few weeks ago were in anticipationof people looking at their site after this article was published and trying to make themselves appear more credible?I was wondering the exact same thing. Didn't it say a week ago something like "Try not to make fun of the kids" or some crap like that? Like it wasn't something that would get your comment rejected, more like just a request. Advocates. What a load of crap.
St., that is so funny, our posts must be colliding midstream. No, I don't want American Idol, but I am drinking tea and was watching Coach. I was watching the bears circle the plexi glass cage with a man inside, but it was like the fourth time I have watched it. Forget hiding in your cars people. They come right in.That Little Miss Perfect is on WE, a version of Toddler & Tiaras, I've got that on now. Has anyone seen this show?It's just irresponsible to legitimize a hate group. I'm surprised she's not more concerned about not being slanted. I have no idea of the history of the writer, perhaps I should go see what else she has written and compare. Is this her first?
Fanny,GWoP also cleaned up their Q&A recently, too. They had their brooms out within the last week. I was reading through the comments at the article and someone has posted stuff that used to be there but is gone.
I'm sure some interesting articles could be written about different aspects of the Gosselin story, but Jess didn't write one. I can't think of anyone I dislike enough ( well,Hitler or Ted Bundy)that I would think a GWoP-like site about them was in any way fair or balanced or well thought out. Any page you look at is full of posters harping endlessly on stupid little details and calling the whole family (not) clever nicknames. Sure, it's fun for the haters to get together to do that,but it doesn't make them credible.
Fanny said...I was wondering the exact same thing. Didn't it say a week ago something like "Try not to make fun of the kids" or some crap like that? Like it wasn't something that would get your comment rejected, more like just a request.Advocates. What a load of crap. Fanny, I've been stewing about this all afternoon as the GWOPPERS are patting each other on their virtual backs... That new list of posting rules was so transparent. They also pruned their old messages... probably to get rid of the terrible things they had said about some of the kids...
Quiltart and Fanny, I have noticed the same thing. The thing is that so many people think having an anonymous screenname or deleting comments is the way to cover your tracks. Sorry, but its not. There are cache's of this info available through a few quick google searches. Posts from Julie's blog were deleted yet still in google's cache. No matter what people do or how much they think they can hide from the claims they have made, its impossible to get away from things you've said.I think overall its disappointing both that people do not support their statements with their real names and email addresses... there are a few bloggers who I really disagree with but I at least give them credit for owning their opinions and putting their name by them (instead of a different persons name or pseudonym). If you have an opinion that is awesome- lets hear it with your real name and real location attached. At least in my eyes credibility is sliced in half when someone chooses some random screenname and even lower when they appear to be trolls or sock puppets by the way they post (and then repost what they have written and the responses).
(by the random screenname comment I meant to say that was for people who constantly pick different names like "wowjustwow" or "KON IS LIARS!!" or "TLC sucks")
The article was okay. Nothing really I haven't read before and because this writer was mentioned on GWOP, I was already predisposed to take the article with a grain of salt. I would put more credibilty toward an article that didn't use a hate blog and a jealous sister (julie) as its references. I'm addicted to Facebook! And Lost tonight was awesome.
Guinevere, is that an Ash Wednesday avatar or do I just have ashes on my mind because it's Ash Wednesday?I never really got into this whole fan/non-fan debate, but I did just now read the article and it definitely seems like this writer is someone who watches the show and at one time liked it and now holds a very different opinion, so of course it's going to be written with that bias. The thing that struck me was reading the comments, a lot of comments were from what seemed like the computer fans fighting with the computer people that hate Jon and Kate (and it seemed like a lot of inside jokes and put-downs back and forth), but some were from people that were not involved with that at all. I don't know how popular this magazine is, but it will put this controversy more into the limelight and not just in the computer world. If you don't go on the computer you don't know that this is going on. I had no idea until looking up articles about Nadya Suleman, and then I came across articles on multiples in general, and then articles on the show and I found out then that people had such strong opinions about the show. A few comments on this particular article were talking about laws being enacted to protect children on reality shows, which I agree would be a good thing, but I'm not sure that was the point of the article. I really didn't get the point of the article, except that it was 'exposing' the Gosselin's, but other than the ex-boss I don't know what was really exposed as far as naming names. And if you say that was already in their book that's not such a big deal either. It seemed like maybe a lot of rumors that you all had already heard, but I hadn't. I wonder now if this will be as big of a story off-line as it is on-line (if that's even the right terminology).I'm going to see if any of my family mentions it to me. So far nothing.
I haven't had a chance to check on what Jess may have previously written. I have been reading some of the comments of the article. Is anyone else laughing at the crazy that comes out of the woodwork to support her? I wonder how her GWOP pedestal will be viewed by those not familiar with the blogworld.
You know the more I think about this writer legitimizing GWOP, the more it irks me. Remember all that pedophile stuff they wrote before speculating on the cameraman and everything else. It made my skin crawl. I was wondering if someone has pointed out how irresponsible those blogs are with printing personal names and addresses and going on the attack.
Eileen, I agree with your comment that "I don't know how popular this magazine is, but it will put this controversy more into the limelight and not just in the computer world" As I said earlier, I have no clue who Jess talked to and why certain people had direct quotes (like the woman from Ohio who Jon and Kate canceled on) verses others that were not directly quoted (i.e. Jon's old boss who apparently alluded to the assertion that Jon did steal company time). At least for me, I need proof. I still think that even if Jess had quoted us here at GDNNOP or at Baby Mama's site, as well as positive quotes that I *know* she was sent (since I sent her info on my experience at the book signing) that it would not be a well documented piece of journalism. Like Samantha said awhile back, "your imagination does not count as a reliable source. Neither do blogs (yes, I am speaking of us as well) or message boards or comment sections from Topix or cafemom.Until the time that I see an article like what Jess wrote full of quotes directly from Jodi, Kevin, Kate's parents Jon's old coworkers or boss, etc, I would still rather stay away from any sites or articles that claim to advocate out of one side of their mouths while complaining that Kate's hair sucks out of the other.
I don't understand how this writer could have used GWOP as a credible source. Did she bother reading through the sarcasm that makes up practically each post. That there's no balanced view there, only ones of hate? Did she bother looking through the many loony comments? I am just thoroughly shocked. Maybe she stumble upon one (well-hidden) well-balanced article, with well thought-out comments, without anonymous vitriol coming from who know well. As soon as I read the line that wrote "The brickbats are surprisingly well-written and thought-out". That lost me.
I just hope the focus stays on the kids. It would be ideal if someone objective would be appointed to keep anything that's positive for the kids connected with the show, and anything that may be affecting them negatively gets discarded. I don't think anyone from TLC is going to do that, in my opinion they most likely only care about ratings and sponsors. And if this show is the family livelihood, well, you can see how maybe Jon & Kate too might not look at things from the kids point of view, they might be looking at it more from 'this is our job' point of view and not realizing that it's crossing the line of 'this is our family'. I'm sure there's a better way to explain what I'm trying to say, but mostly, I just hope the kids are looked out for, because if it's just a matter of getting rid of the show altogether, well, that may or may not be the best thing for the children.And I agree, Dr. Lizabeth, we don't really know what's going on, and any story would be more believable if there were quotes from familiar names, if people would go on the record with facts.
I think Jess did a great fluff piece and with any article I would rather read facts and sources than to believe gossip and heresay unless that's what your article is going to be the online blogworld of Jon and Kate expecially from a blog with childish rules for posting. I think Laurie Goldberg - Senior VP of Communications for TLC hit the nail on the head when she labelled Jessica "unethical". If you're going to write an article get real facts from people who are involved with the gosselin's daily life and not from online blogs where we all (gwop, here, etc) don't know the honest truth as Julie puts it. I would have liked to have read updated information from the people she mentioned in the article like Paul Peterson(sp), Julie and Jodie etc and what they have to say today then what they said months ago. I think it's fair if you're going to do an article to get hard core facts from legitimate sources is all I'm saying.
Ah, the infamous Jess aritcle. Amazing what is considered journalism. I saw it as a GWOP post that made it into a magazine.No supported facts. Nothing new, just their version of the truth, which we know is extrapolations. This time it just made it onto another medium.
Lost was SUPER FREAKING GREAT tonight! Did anyone watch the repeat of last weeks episode with the pop-up info? It alluded to Ben killing Penny and also when Ben calls Jack to go pick up Locke's body, Ben is calling from a payphone at a marina. Okay, I'm obsessed with Lost. I may need an intervention from Lost and from Facebook. I think all the writer did was recap everything gwop has already written. Where was the fireworks and secrets and juicy info? None found and I'm bored with it. The comments on the article are hilarious and I did notice this site mentioned quite a few times...lol
Eileen said...I just hope the focus stays on the kids. It would be ideal if someone objective would be appointed to keep anything that's positive for the kids connected with the show, and anything that may be affecting them negatively gets discarded. I don't think anyone from TLC is going to do that, in my opinion they most likely only care about ratings and sponsors. I agree, Eileen and unfortunately articles like the one written by Jess@Gmail! don't do much to further this cause. It's a shame that the focus of her article was almost entirely on on extraneous issues. Saint has patiently laid out the facts of the Jon's unemployment case and yet some don't want to hear it. At this point, you know what, I don't really care. It was 5 years ago, get over it. The bitter comments about Kate's appearance or suggesting Jenny the babysitter is hiding deep dark secrets doesn't do much to add to the credibility of this story.I guess at the end of the day, this is what "fame" is about. The Gosselins are experiencing it on a smaller scale than Britney or Rhianna, but the same rules apply. Some love you no matter what, but there are lots of bitter people who want to take you down a notch and pat themselves on the back as they do it...
Yes, Eileen, my avatar is in honor of Ash Wednesday. I love the whole Lenten season and the ritual of the ashes, so I changed it on a whim.Lost was awesome tonight!I think one of the problems with the article is that it wasn't clearly a journalistic piece (and if it was, I think it was pretty poor), and it wasn't clearly an opinion piece. It read to me as propaganda, and not very convincing propaganda, at that.
I think Laurie Goldberg - Senior VP of Communications for TLC hit the nail on the head when she labelled Jessica "unethical".Where was this posted? I must have missed it....
I just heard on the news this morning that a lot of people are giving up Facebook and My Space, and things like their Blackberry for Lent! I was just telling my husband that a poster on this site said the same thing about Facebook. I know my husband hates me being on the computer so much lately, it really is addicting.I don't think I can give it up, but I will try not to do it when he's around. I should tell him I'll give it up if he gives up sitting on the couch and watching TV all night!
merryway- i see the dr this morning so i'll have a due date then:) i'll post about the appt on my blog later today! thanks for asking
We got a semi-anonymous comment from someone last night calling me personally out for the statement I made that people need to back up their comments with real names and real email addresses. I found it amusing that some troll thought it necessary to call me of all people out since everyone here knows my first name, my real email address, and even the state I live in. Unfortunately for her (or him?) we deleted the comment.If trolls and people from other sites want to attack me personally, spread my nephew's picture, mock my educational status, or even smear the fact that I am a pastors kid I can do nothing to stop them. Just remember you have to look at yourself in the mirror and know how you've treated others... karma really is a bitch.
Oh, and themrs- I hope all goes well at your appointment! Can't wait to find out more from your blog :).Also, is the week flying by for anyone else? I cannot believe its Thursday... for some reason this week is just rushing past me. Probably because I am busy with work and a big school project but still.
Good morning all -I have read the article twice now. The magazine is legit and popular. Their circulation is 180,000 per month - pretty high for a city mag. The majority of their circ is through subscribers and then they have some distribution via hotels (approx 10,000 mo), realtors, airports, etc. Philadelphia Magazine has been around since the seventies and is ABC audited (audit bureau of circulations) which adds to their credibility.With that said - with the exception of J's former employer's statement, nothing was really new. I was amazed at what WASN'T there. No mention of Kate's family. No mention of church donations being refused. And, with the exception of the part that mentions Paul Peterson and the Good Housekeeping shoot, there was nothing substantial addressing the exploitation claims.I thought it was well written. It was very biased. I realize that J&K refused to be interviewed, but I can't say I blame them considering someone with a "gmail" email account had been posting to mostly hate sites looking for scoop since late December.The writer's deadline would have been around late January/early February at the latest. Curious to know if Jessica's editor knows about her using a gmail account and the way she went about getting information for this piece.Considering their reader demographics (actual hard copy magazine readers) is about 50/50 male/female ratio with average age of 48, I would suspect the online version will be more popular as far as readers go. Guess we'll have to wait and see what happens.
Quiltart: I think Laurie Goldberg - Senior VP of Communications for TLC hit the nail on the head when she labelled Jessica "unethical".This was written on Gwop conplaining about this woman saying Jessica is unethical.
My sister-in-law says that she read that Jessica Remo is one of the Assistant Managing Editors for Philadelphia Magazine.I had never heard of the magazine before this, but my sister-in-law and her husband have (they live in New Jersey), and my husband says he's heard of it. I emailed my sister and she said she also knows this magazine (she lives in Pennsylvania). I'm going to look and see if it's on newsstands by me.
Quiltart,I missed seeing this: Laurie Goldberg - Senior VP of Communications for TLC calling Jessica unethical. Was that on the TLC website? I was wondering when they would respond to that article.
Dr. Lizabeth said... Oh, and themrs- I hope all goes well at your appointment! Can't wait to find out more from your blog :).Also, is the week flying by for anyone else? I cannot believe its Thursday... for some reason this week is just rushing past me. TheMrs. - ditto what the doctor said.And, no, unfortunately the week is not flying by for me. More like painfully crawling....Sigh.
Mom, thanks for the additional information re: Philly Magazine. I pretty much agree with everything you have to say.I was speaking to someone last night re: this article and issues I had about the way the reporter (Jess!!!) went about gathering her sources and writing an article that was very slanted, yet not labeled an opinion piece. My friend suggested this piece is really an outgrowth of Gonzo journalism. Google it and you will see many of the elements present in this story. Even though Hunter S. Thompson popularized the style back when I was still in diapers, I have never really cared for it whether the Gosselins are the subject or not. The subjective nature and lack of due dilligence with fact-checking bothers me. But, I do *get* that the Gosselins aren't the first and won't be the last to be subjected to this. It's here to stay with other new-fangled forms of journalism.
Thanks Kuromi and Anya for the info on "newer" forms of journalism.I had thought if a writer were paraphrasing someone, they had to indicate they were doing so somehow...putting (para.) afterwards, or parentheses when then use clarifying words within a quote...the latter of which was done by the Jess author in this article.I can see how easily people are reading what they want into what Jon's old boss *might have* said...I say "might have," because he was ONLY paraphrased. I've read over and over in the last 24 hours things like, "Can't you sheeple get it through your thick heads? He was quoted!!!" They obviously don't understand the meaning behind those silly quotation marks, or they wouldn't be so adamant about it.And let's just put aside the more reasoned argument...as has been said here many times...that there's two sides to this story, so the truth is probably somewhere in the middle of the Gosselins' account and the former boss'.Oh, well. Fluff can be fun too. There's plenty of positive fluff out there, why not a little negative to keep the reflux sufferers happy?
I guess I shouldn't type while I watch Lost because I indeed became lost. Can't tell who is good or bad (Whidmore or Linus).
Anya, very interesting about Gonzo Journalism. I did think it was a well thought out piece of work that lacked substance for people outside of the Gosselin Blogworld who will google Julie's blog and find nothing other than Jodie wanting her to move on. Jessica's article does stir up drama and maybe that's her point. I don't think the article will impact anything other than Gosselin blog people complaining and pointing fingers at each other and just fuels the fire and something else to talk about in the moment. By the way.....Lost was great last night :)
Just noticed a typo.....hence me re-posting this:Hey Anya - thanks for that! It reminded me of an editorial and that's what this style is similar to. You learn something new every day.I just talked to my co-worker (and longtime journalist) about this. He said Hunter Thompson was considered a bit looney. There is a movie where Johnny Depp plays him called Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. Apparently he (Thompson) committed suicide a few years ago. Interesting.
I took a peek at that article today. Oh my my. The blog warring has begun. I couldn't even keep reading. Whenever an article like this comes out, the hijacking of our screen names begins. Love it! I read one at one point that said I was the mother of twins. Awesome!
Mom said...I just talked to my co-worker (and longtime journalist) about this. He said Hunter Thompson was considered a bit looney. There is a movie where Johnny Depp plays him called Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. Apparently he (Thompson) committed suicide a few years ago. Interesting. Yeah, I have heard the same things over the years. That and he was pretty much always "on" something. You would think it would be hard to write in that state? Just to clarify, I am *not* accusing Jess!!! (sorry, I just feel the need to put !!! everytime I type her name), of that. I'll just say I think her youth shows through in this piece.Indianprincess and Marci, good points. It's funny how it's all too easy to lose perspective, isn't it?
I find at least in my market, that the news is really dumbed down. All of the local media outlets have changed their webpages to almost gossip sites. Our NBC affiliate has more stories about the academy awards and what celebs are divorcing, etc. than actual news stories, at least online. Our local newspaper prints things two or three days after they happen and even then, do a poor job of reporting and/or fact checking.
I found this site after reading the article and then searching Gosselin info. People here will explain away everything wont they? I have read the majority of recent posts and comments and I have to say GWOP is not a hate blog, just as this isn't meant to be a blog hating on GWOP. The article was well written and factual. Julie is not a jealous relative, she was hurt and manipulated by Kate. Im glad that the truth is finally being exposed. If the Gosselin's had nothing to hide why would they be so worried about "unethical" reporters?
Eileen: When I googled "Jessica Remo," I too found a professional listings site that said she was the assistant managing editor at Philly Mag--but only for 2007-2008. Jessica is not listed either in either the magazine's masthead or its "editorial bios" page. She might now be a freelancer, but I don't think she's got a titled position there anymore.Ugh, I just realize how stalkerish the preceding sounds! In my defense, I just wanted to check this writer's credentials since, as many here have said, it seems unprofessional for her to use gossip sites as sources rather than try to interview the actual people, like Beth and Jodi.I did the same due diligence with Kelly DiNardo, who recently blogged negatively about an interview she'd had with Jon and Kate. Kelly seems legit; her website was plugged on MediaBistro, an organization for journalists and professional writers, and I also saw interviews news sites did with her promoting her book. At first I thought it was weird that she'd blog about the Gosselin interview without telling readers where it would be published (writers and publications always self-promote), but now I'm thinking the piece was scrapped and so blogging was a way she could salvage the time/energy spent. Since she is standing 100% by her writing, by publishing under her own name, I have no problem with her post.
the comments section of the article is turning into a train wreck. HOLY COW. people are pretty loony out there.
Thanks, Kuromi, I'll pass that on.And, Jenn, I agree one hundred percent with you.I don't even want to read anymore of it.
When I googled Jessica Remo I got an article about Demi Moore admiring Jessica's puppy!
I guess I shouldn't type while I watch Lost because I indeed became lost. Can't tell who is good or bad (Whidmore or Linus).I think they are both evil!I found this site after reading the article and then searching Gosselin info. People here will explain away everything wont they? Can you elaborate or give some examples? Just because people have different opinions it doesn't mean anyone is explaining everything away.I have read the majority of recent posts and comments and I have to say GWOP is not a hate blog, just as this isn't meant to be a blog hating on GWOP.I disagree. When the majority of the opinions posted are hateful, I think it's fair to call it a hate blog. Last time I checked, the majority of the opinions posted were definitely hateful.The article was well written and factual.The article was fine from a copy-editing standpoint. I'm just not sure I can call something so full of snideness and innuedo "well-written". It...had facts in it, yes. It also had a lot of opinion and insinuations. It's hardly an example of well-researched, in-depth journalistic excellence. Julie is not a jealous relative, she was hurt and manipulated by Kate.Julie's not a relative at all. She's a relative of an in-law. And Kate has never done anything to her. Whether Julie is jealous of Kate or not is not something we have any way of knowing. I think based on her behavior, some could argue that Julie is jealous of Kate, but I wouldn't say we have conclusive evidence of that. Im glad that the truth is finally being exposed.What does that even MEAN at this point? I have been hearing that same phrase for at least the past eight months. Paul Petersen, Julie's blog, Jodi's video, "Penn Mommy" - all have been heralded as the long-awaited exposure of the TRUTH! How many times can a truth be exposed, anyway?IMO, there is no great "truth" about the Gosselins. Just different opinions, some more worthy than others (again, IMO, of course). If the Gosselin's had nothing to hide why would they be so worried about "unethical" reporters?With all due respect, are you serious? People have had their lives ruined by unethical reporters. The Gosselins have an understandable interest in protecting their marketability, since it appears that they plan to parlay the show into something different, presumably something that doesn't involve the participation of the children. I'm not saying that Reporter Jess!! (I'm going to have to steal that from Anya) shouldn't write about the Gosselins, or even that the article she wrote rises to the level of "unethical" (I'd have to give that some thought). But I have no problem understanding why the Gosselins would have concerns about unethical reporters.
Just read the article said:Julie is not a jealous relative, she was hurt and manipulated by Kate.I don't have the impression that Julie is jealous, either. My impression is that she thinks Jodi was hurt and manipulated by Kate (not Julie.) I feel bad about Jodi and Julie when I consider them. Jodi is a family member, as are her husband and children, and I hope for a reconciliation there. Julie loves her sister, no doubt. She really messed up by associating with Penn Mommy and GwoP and posters who mock the children. I am glad she seems to be gone from GWoP. I think if she feels the need to speak she should avoid GWoP as her forum and maybe post at her own site instead.There are some people who are clearly just jealous of Kate. Others can't stand her personality and would like to see her fail or go away. Some, I believe, really do have legitimate questions about the wisdom of a weekly show about real-life children. Unfortunately, there are so many over-the-top criticisms of the parents, that the reasoned arguments against the show are almost completely drowned out. Like most posters I've come across here, I think safeguards for all kids working in photo shoots and reality TV should be in place. I wish the article had taken a more even-toned approach on behalf of the kids. Instead, Jess The Reporter was snarky and biased.
Its obvious that many here are viewing Jon and Kate with "blinders". Im not saying everything J&K do is wrong but unlike many here I don't think everything J&K do is right. Bottom line is they are exploiting their children for their own financial gain. They are hurting family member, friends and THEIR OWN CHILDREN. I think that Jessica did a great job on her article and its shedding some light on the lies behind J&K.
Its obvious that many here are viewing Jon and Kate with "blinders". What blinders are you speaking of?I think that Jessica did a great job on her article and its shedding some light on the lies behind J&K. For me, she did do a good job writing her article but most of what she said in it has been talked about for months. What lies behind Jon and Kate are you refering to here?
The article was a well written opinion piece. The writer was definitely bias but that of course is her right.My blinders are off right now and and I can see just as clearly as you do, Just Read The Article. I also see Jon and Kate's faults and we have talked about them here for the past 6 months. But I also see the positive which apparently your blinders are blocking you from seeing. Like Saint said, question the wisdom behind filming a weekly show, I am all ears. Question the wisdom behind Kate's hairstyle and you have lost me.Can you explain to me your specific first hand knowledge of what family members have been hurt and how?
Just Read The Article said... Its obvious that many here are viewing Jon and Kate with "blinders". Im not saying everything J&K do is wrong but unlike many here I don't think everything J&K do is right. Bottom line is they are exploiting their children for their own financial gain. They are hurting family member, friends and THEIR OWN CHILDREN. I think that Jessica did a great job on her article and its shedding some light on the lies behind J&K.February 26, 2009 5:32 PMThat is your blindsided opinion. I'm not saying everything J&K does is right...or should I say I may not agree with everything they do... but it is their decisions on raising their own family. They know what is right for their own family.The only lies are those that your faction dredges up and feeds itself into a frenzy. It is quite comical to see what you people will project as the truth, only to find out in the latest episode you're totally wrong.Jessica did not do a great job on her article. It was mediocre at best.
The problem I have with people saying its their family is Jon and Kate are not making the best decisions for their children. No I see the positive, there's not much but I do see what little there is. You don't think Aunt Jodi misses the kids? You don't think the kids wonder what happened? I realize that what Jessica wrote has been talked about at numerous blogs but I think its great that a different group of people is being subjected to J&K's lies.
Just Read The Article said... The problem I have with people saying its their family is Jon and Kate are not making the best decisions for their children. No I see the positive, there's not much but I do see what little there is. You don't think Aunt Jodi misses the kids? You don't think the kids wonder what happened? I realize that what Jessica wrote has been talked about at numerous blogs but I think its great that a different group of people is being subjected to J&K's lies.February 26, 2009 6:20 PM____________________________And you know that Aunt Jodi doesn't see the kids because??? Oh, that's right, you're not in the Gosselin family, so why would you assume that the families do not interact with each other anymore? Just because you read something on the blogosphere or an ill-attempt at an article, don't assume it's true and then try to convince others of it.If you do have facts about the families not interacting, then post them. We'd all would like to see that. But, in the meantime, your opinions are not fact, they are opinions.
Even if the families do still see each other (I hope they do) how often can it be? They are constantly away on vacations or filming.
Julie is not a jealous relative, she was hurt and manipulated by Kate. Sniff. Oh, poor Julie. I feel so sorry for her. Except not. Any criticism she gets, she has coming. First off, she's NOT a relative. Her SISTER is by marriage. But, she decided to unleash all her pent up hostility towards Kate on a public blog and align herself with people that hate Jon and Kate and who actively set out to destroy them. She told perfect strangers all the family secrets her sister told her in confidence. She posted them where any sicko or pedophile around the world could read them. She basked in the adulation of the "advocates" who befriended and used her for information. If anyone manipulated Julie, it was her "friends" at GWoP.
Im wondering how anybody can think that filming a child 2-3 days a week (Jon and Kate have both said that is how often they film) can be healthy? Even if they didn't film anything private and inappropriate (which they have) how can hot studio lighting and all that goes with filming be healthy for children? They were babies when they were first regularly filmed. They can't go out in public, they are constantly harassed and they have no privacy. Regardless of liking the show, J&K, or the kids how can you honestly think what is going on is healthy and in their best interest? Yes they have all the money and "things" a child could possible want but they don't have normal lives. Yes they have been on amazing vacations but they have no real life.
JustReadTheArticle said...Even if the families do still see each other (I hope they do) how often can it be? They are constantly away on vacations or filming.Okay....first, why is this any of your concern? I mean, really. Why? Do you care how often I see my sisters or my son sees his cousins?Im wondering how anybody can think that filming a child 2-3 days a week (Jon and Kate have both said that is how often they film) can be healthy? Even if they didn't film anything private and inappropriate (which they have) how can hot studio lighting and all that goes with filming be healthy for children? They were babies when they were first regularly filmed. They can't go out in public, they are constantly harassed and they have no privacy. Regardless of liking the show, J&K, or the kids how can you honestly think what is going on is healthy and in their best interest? Yes they have all the money and "things" a child could possible want but they don't have normal lives. Yes they have been on amazing vacations but they have no real life.I think the point is, you're welcome to think it's not healthy...for YOUR kids. You get to have that opinion and make these choices for YOUR children.Why are the Gosselins not allowed that basic, human right as a parent?As mentioned by others here, why is there all this concern for posters here not agreeing with you? If you think children should be protected on reality tv shows regardless of the state they're being filmed in, get involved. Write your legislators. But really...it's been a long day of nuts coming out of the woodwork saying nothing but the same old crap we've heard for months. People just don't seem to get they're arguing with the WRONG people when they just argue with posters with differing opinions.If you don't like it, DO SOMETHING PRODUCTIVE. CREATE LAWS. Apparently you're just as happy in your ignorance as you claim "everyone here" is in theirs, so, go in peace.
Im glad that the truth is finally being exposed. I don't get the scam/lies/ and whatever the big secret truth is about J&K. I've often read, Kate stated such and such, but on their show it's such and such, so it's a lie. I think someone here referred to it as a “gotcha” moment. It's so stupid as if they're trying to hide their own tv show so people don't find “the truth”.J&K go to churches and speak, sometimes love offerings are taken as is customary. The churchgoers are not held at gun-point to give, it is voluntary. People who attend church often have tvs, computers and live in the real world where they watch the news and hear about current events...go figure. Jon and a past employer had a conflict and he was fired/quit. One side says something, the other something else. Oh, that never happens.Jodi isn't on the show because she was going to get paid, apparently there was a fight. Is this the big truth? How often do families fight and have grudges irl? How many seasons ago is this? TLC has never addressed it, Aunt Jodi and some others just evaporated. If I wanted to know the truth, I would write to TLC and ask them directly. If they're going to show us some people continuously in the show, I would like to know why it suddenly stops. I think a viewer is entitled to an explanation of the some of the changes in the show. Write TLC and ask them, they edit the show. If you don't like their answer, quit watching.What's the truth and the big secret? I just see that tossed around all the time and I don't get beyond the absurdity of Kate's master plan to have HOMs, maybe that's the big truth? Was it the organic chef? I guess I'll stayed tune to find out. Even if the families do still see each other (I hope they do) how often can it be? They are constantly away on vacations or filming. always and never. Was that in the article? Can you tell me what they're doing right now? Im wondering how anybody can think that filming a child 2-3 days a week (Jon and Kate have both said that is how often they film) can be healthy? I have concerns, but Kate doesn't tell me how to raise my children and I don't tell her how to raise hers.
Just Read The Article, in your last comment you sound almost desperate for the Gosselin children, and I think that's commendable. And I think if you can keep all the rumors out of your comments and all the hysteria, you won't find a lot of arguments here. I don't think there is anyone that wouldn't support some kind of regulations of all children on reality shows, and if that's what you are in favor of I am in complete agreement with you. I think a lot of problems arise when people look at how they would raise their own children in comparison to how Jon and Kate are raising their family. I know I do that in my own private life (which is wrong for me to impose my standards on another family), and because Jon & Kate are on TV many, many people judge their idea of good parenting against their own. I feel it's natural to do that, but it's not right. And who's standards should they use as a guideline? Mine which might be very different from yours? Theirs which is obviously very different from both of ours?That is why I would be in favor of some kind of regulations, just like they have for child actors.You sound like a very caring, although excitable person. Not that feeling children are being exploited shouldn't arouse excitable feelings, even feelings of outrage. But if the 'speechifying' could be toned down a little and calmer heads prevailed, I think so much more could be accomplished. That's just my opinion anyway.
I knew I would forget to add this.Anya, I love your avatar!
I am absolutely disgusted by the comments on that article today. What one person did to another was just beyond sick and twisted. I feel dirty for even having read it.Why would anyone want to hurt a stranger like that?
Jenn, NMD and others, I am also sickened by the comments. They need to shut it down before it gets even worse. I hope they do. I might write an email myself about Jess' reference to GWOP. I don't really have the time, I get disgusted with a lot of the media anyway. They can see the results for themselves in the comments.
Just Read the Article, I can see your points but as Eileen pointed out it would best to clarify what parts of your statements are facts that Jon and Kate said verses things you believe or assume. We have talked over and over here (read the archives if you want to see) about how there need to be laws protecting both the children and the money earned from this show. That is something I daresay everyone agrees with. At the same time when a writer or commenter chooses to lace their opinions, speculations, and ideas then pass them off as fact I tend to stay away. Of course we want people to discuss and speculate-- as long as they are clear that its their personal take on a situation, not the gospel truth. I have seen comments turn into huge rumors (i.e. Kate having a broken leg, etc) far too often and feel that is a negative way to help the kids and make real changes in the laws guarding children on TV.I read somewhere the other day that the basic ideals many people who blog about the Gosselins hold are similar-- most of us agree that the kids need to be protected, trusts set up for money, futures secured, and laws in place so that other families who may choose the path of reality TV can have a more worn in path to travel. This is new territory, so all of those things are worthy of discussion and have a lot of merit. As a few of us here have mentioned, though, there is a whole lot of crazy running around everywhere and that demeans and undermines the goals in place.Nomoredrama, I totally agree with you. Having had my own personal info thrown out there and dragged through the mud by others I know a taste of what that person feels... I would not wish that on anyone and am really disappointed that people feel that behavior is appropriate. I mentioned that in my earlier post- karma really is a bitch and I hope people start taking a deeper look at their words and how they affect others.
Im not saying everything J&K do is wrong but unlike many here I don't think everything J&K do is right.I don't believe anyone here thinks that, and I doubt you do either. If you can't make your point without exaggerating or misrepresenting the opposition, maybe that says something about the righteousness of your beliefs.The problem I have with people saying its their family is Jon and Kate are not making the best decisions for their children.Maybe they are and maybe they aren't. IMO, they are making what THEY FEEL are the best decisions for their family, which is really all any parent can do. I don't feel that the Duggars are making the best decisions for their children, in a number of respects. Does that mean that I hate the Duggars, think they should have their children taken away, etc.? No. I haven't watched their show much but I have watched enough to believe in their basic sincerity, and to believe that the way they are raising their children falls within the bounds of normal (though it's not right smack in the middle of average/normal, to be sure). I don't believe that STRANGERS have the right to intervene unless true abuse is occurring. I don't see that with the Gosselins, the Duggars, even with those folks on Toddlers and Tiaras, many of whom I have even more of an issue with.You don't think Aunt Jodi misses the kids? You don't think the kids wonder what happened?That's neither here nor there. Maybe she does and maybe she doesn't. Maybe she sees them; we don't know. Maybe Jon and Kate miss Benjie and Elisa, et al. Maybe if Jodi misses the kids she shouldn't have trashed their mother to her blabbermouth sister, who spread it all over the internet. I like Jodi fine, but I don't believe that she is blameless in this, and I don't see that her right to have contact with kids that are not hers supercedes J&K's rights as parents (and again, that's even assuming they don't see each other).Im wondering how anybody can think that filming a child 2-3 days a week (Jon and Kate have both said that is how often they film) can be healthy?...Regardless of liking the show, J&K, or the kids how can you honestly think what is going on is healthy and in their best interest?Because people can see the same thing and have different opinions on it? (It was only when I got on the internet that I realized that there are people who just. don't. get. that. Literally, they cannot conceive of different POVs. It's very strange to me.) I could explain the reasons that I think it's okay, or at least okay enough that I don't feel I have the right to decide that it's not okay, but what would be the point? I don't think you want to understand opposing viewpoints. You want us to "Just Read the Article" - I'd like you to just read other comments in this thread and try to understand that things are not as black and white as you want to portray them.
I can't believe the comments over there either. I haven't read them all. I have a problem with people writing really nasty stuff about the Gosselins. I also have a problem with people writing nasty stuff about other posters, even posters who have mocked me. I didn't think comments about the personal life details of one particularly annoying blogger should have been up at the psychic blog a few months ago, and now the PhillyMag thread is hosting the same kind of stuff? There are people threatening to expose real life names/addresses of other posters at other boards. The only good that has come out of this article in the blog world is that the hunt for information on the breeder may get put aside. So now I know what unmodderated comments look like. I'm done.
Well, Just Read The Article, I agree and disagree with you. I think there are legitimate concerns with filming children weekly, and making a show about their life, however normal or quirky it is. I think Jodi probably misses the kids if she doesn't see them, and I bet they'd be really happy to see her again. I wish I knew more to make us all put that speculation aside.GWoP is a hate blog. I haven't read the most recent threads, but I've read enough of past ones to come to that conclusion.Everyone at GDNNOP does not agree. I have noticed similarieties among posters here:Most sign into blogger. There is an understanding here that it is a more trustworthy way to comment because identities can't be stolen. Most like and use avatars. We make use of the punctuation keys on the keyboard. Most use html codes or separate paragraphs, because it's a style that makes comments easier to read. Most commenters try to find some common ground. I don't read a lot of swearing or threats. No one posts others' personal pictures or information. The Gosselins are respected as people and private citizens first by just about everyone, including those of us who think Kate could use another glass of wine with her dinner. We try not to exaggerate the "dire" condition of being one of the richest kids in Berks county.There are more...but I have to go to work!
The comments over at the Philly story are out of control. I feel very bad for the woman who owns a blog and was called out. She didn't deserve that and I don't know what is driving people to do these type of things.I know someone is posting as me and I can assure you that I have not posted one comment over there. I am pretty sure who it is and am pretty confident it is not anyone from GWoP. A lot of hijacking of names as usual and always someone that has a bone to pick with someone else that they think has done them wrong. In fact, I believe the same person that posted using my screen name posted using another blog owners real name.
Wow. I guess I've been living in a cave. I had NO idea that there were blogs about blogs about blogs regarding the Gosselins. If I EVER start a blog to b*tch just because someone didn't agree with me on another blog, then I know it's time to seriously re-evaluate my life. I have to say I have just read some of the trashiest things I've ever come across in my life. I don't understand what it is about the Gosselins that brings out so much emotion. Clearly, as I sit here writing a post, it brings out emotions in me, too. But I don't know why. I could take or leave the Gosselins really. The show is funny, but it's getting old (in my opinion). I like Kate. I might be in the minority there, but I appreciate her sense of humor and sarcasm and I like that she and Jon don't attempt to make it seem like their marriage is perfect. I think marriage is hard and takes work, and they represent that. But I'm certainly not "passionate" about the show. I'm fairly new to the world of Internet blogging -- are there many other topics being blogged about that bring out this much hatred?
It's immaturity at its best and criminal at its worst.I feel bad for these women's kids, as they are picking up on that kind of behavior. Sad, really.
It's awful. I feel bad for anyone who is treated that way online. I think part of the reason I tend to defend the Gs is because of the irrational posts online about them - I'm NOT talking about the derogatory "hair" comments either.Nina - I'm a lurker, I'll admit it - LOL! I've noticed the same thing.
Toto my situation is very similar to yours, I had no idea until recently this world existed. I did know from the election that there were a lot of political sites with lots of passionate opinions, but I didn't realize there was so much more out there. Recently I've also seen so much passion about the Suleman family and their situation. And to tell you the truth, I've been weighing my opinion in on that subject here and there. But there's so much hate about that too so I've kind of soured on reading a lot about it. I really don't like to post that much on a lot of sites because of what has been said about 'stealing' names and identities.And I don't like 'fighting' with other people about different subjects. It really gets very personal and nasty at times.I come to this site everyday even though I'm not a big fan of Jon & Kate, in fact, I don't even watch the show anymore. But I do like this site.Both my daughters watched the show, one a big fan, one a hater, (I find it odd that in one family we have a lover, a hater, and an 'I-don't really-care-all-that-much') and the daughter that hates it just told me this morning that her and her friends decided they will no longer be watching and discussing that particular show anymore (they do watch a lot of other reality shows and will continue to do that). I'm new to this site too but so far I find most of the posters on this site to be fair, and from what I've read here their passion lies in being factual. I also find these posters to be very supportive of each other and it's refreshing.
It looks like the folks on the Princess Boards are getting plenty of flak on the article's comments. Unfortunately for those misguided individuals, it just gives the Princess people more snark material--not the intended effect, I'm sure. ;)I think the lesson to be learned from all of the vitirol is to be very careful of what information one puts out there on the internet. There are a lot of mean people out there who will use one's information negatively.
GLO I noticed that too. The thing that so many people do not realize is that people on other sites steal screennames from the Princess posters as well as from us. I haven't been over to the article site since the day it was published... as I was just telling Nina, I cannot stomach all of the hatred. I guess some people feel their comments will be more respected if they steal a screenname, threaten other posters, publish personal info, or appear to be well known. None of these are true-- anyone who has no clue about the Jon and Kate blog world would be disgusted to read the things written on that site which I saw the day it was published. As I can see from the comments here and things I have been emailed, it has gotten far, far worse. I really hope that people on both sides of this debate see the complete fruitlessness of this behavior-- how does completely reaming someone on a public message board for the personal information they have chosen to share do anything but make you look like an insensitive jerk?
Hello Ladies- I just wanted to let everyone know that the comments posted under my name at the phillymag site aren't from me, I can't imagine what juvenile poster loves hijacking my name so often or how I've angered them enough to go after me repeatedly -but I ain't losin' any sleep over it either :)
Saint: I do understand different POV. That is why I asked how people can think its OK. I wanted to know what makes all the Gosselin supporters think that what they are doing to their children is OK. I think your inability to answer that question speaks volumes. Guinerve: IMO the Gosselin children are being abused. They are not being allowed the right to be children. They see their parents yelling, they see their mother constantly picking a favorite, they see their older siblings lash out, its their responsibility to decide to continue the show! Jon and Kate are not giving their children a chance to be children. Eileen: No I don't feel that I am judging Jon and Kate's parenting against my own. I am judging it on the fact that their children have been filmed for 4+ years under stressful conditions and inappropriate conditions. merryway: But Kate does tell others how to raise children. She gives numerous "talks" about raising children. Jon and Kate may be good people, IMO they aren't though. I think Kate is rude, obnoxious, and just plain mean. I like the kids they are cute and its sad that they act out for attention. And yes, that is not JMO, if you have seen recent episodes you will realize that Mady IS acting out for attention. It bothers me that so many idolize Kate, and Im not talking about how she looks because for me that is neither here nor there, Im talking about her attitude and behavior. She is not setting a good example for her children.Sorry for the length but there was a lot of response from my comments I feel I had to respond to.
Just Read The Article, you'll get no argument from me. You have formed your opinion from what you've observed. As for me as an outside observer I have no idea if the filming is having a negative impact on the kids, so I can't draw an absolute conclusion. I don't know for sure if the choices their parents have made for the family regarding the show have a negative effect on them now or if it will in the future.To be honest, I would like to know what effect the choice Jon and Kate made in making the family be the family business (and that does seem like the case, I haven't heard that they do any work outside of a connection to the show anymore, other than promoting the book about the family, and doing talks about the family, but that's all still connected to the family as a business in my opinion ) I would like to know what effect that has on the family, especially the kids, pro and/or con.And we don't know what goes on behind the scenes, Kate could be a very loving, caring, doting mother, or she could be a horrible mother that belittles her kids every chance she gets. We just don't know for sure. And in my opinion, if it's that she's a horrible mother, that's what will have the most negative effect on those kids and not that fact that there is a TV show about them. In my opinion an unkind mother would have a negative impact whether a show about them existed or not. But the fact remains that you are right, there is a show and the children are being filmed, and they may have no say in the matter, and I think there should be regulations in place to safeguard all children in the public eye. I think that would put a lot of people at ease about all shows like this.
Just Read the Article,Your concern about the kids being filmed is certainly a valid opinion. Many people have concerns about that.But there seems to be this all or nothing attitude. Because some of the fine folks on this blog have spoken out against the extremists on the other blog, they are all labeled as sheeple, kate-lovers, whatever...when that is not the case at all. What many of us are against is the constant harassment and illogical hate directed toward the family. We feel that these extremist types are harming the kids. We can't argue point by point on all the details of the Gosselins' personal lives and family relationships because we are not involved in them nor are we entitled to be. The people that think they ARE entitled to every tidbit of information are either arrogant or delusional in my opinion.If people are concerned about the kids, then they should be working on changing laws, because having your kids filmed for TV is not illegal and the Gosselins are not the only ones doing it by a long shot. They could be using all the energy they are putting into harassing the Gosselins and the people that appear on their show for something far more productive. Their claims of "doing it for the kids" have no credibility. The tone of all this hysteria going on seems to be aimed at taking down Kate not advocating for those kids. I honestly cannot see how someone could not see GWOP as a hate blog. I'm truly confused about that.On your own posts you listed your own perceived failings of Kate and Jon as parents and attached the label "abuse" to it. Arguing, favoritism, kids acting out, rudeness, obnoxious etc...I think abuse is kind of extreme though.I am curious how any of that would change if they were not on the show? Kate will still be Kate and still be the kind of parent that she is. Are you suggesting the kids should be taken away from her because of all the parenting faults she has and that she and Jon are not "good people" because otherwise I don't see the connection. Maybe that's my issue with some of the anti-Gosselin positions. They claim to be advocating for these kids but spend so much snarking on the parents about stuff that doesn't have anything to do with the subject. Michelle Duggar and Amy Roloff don't get anywhere near the same treatment and they are doing the exact same thing. They are just not as controversial as Kate.
Just read the article, I am going to respond to your abuse allegation, and nothing more. A child "seeing their parents yell" "seeing their mother constantly pick a favorite" "watching their siblings lash out" -none of that is abuse. It's not neglect, it's not poor parenting. Every family has parents who yell sometimes, siblings who act out, and yes, some parents do have favorites. You may not like it, but it is not abuse.I don't speak out alot on this blog, but like themrs. I'm pregnant and hormonal :) and I felt I had to say something. I'm really uncomfortable with calling J & K abusers.
Bridget, if I haven't told you yet- congratulations!!Jace, I could not agree more with every point you made.
Bridget: Its your opinion that its not abuse. However, I feel its MENTAL abuse. jace: No, not once have I said, or will ever say that Kate's children should be taken away from her. I think that if they hadn't had the show she would be a much kinder, nicer person. If you watch the first hour specials she is completely different. I think that money has changed her, and not for the better. If the show were to stop I think Kate could make her way back to that kinder, nicer, gentler person she once was. The difference between Michelle and Amy, IMO, is that they are not allowing their children to be filmed during private things. Not once have I seen a Duggar or Rollof going to the bath room or getting dressed, just to name a few.
The one thing I have noticed these past couple of years is how isolated the kids are. Maybe I am wrong but at least the producers of the Roloffs show them interacting w/friends, family, neighbors, etc. The kids have friends over and they seem to be enjoying every minute w/their friends. The Roloffs have kept their friends and family close even w/the glare of cameras. I don't see that w/the tups. They only have each other and I think that is where the whining and tantrums come from. Even in one episode when the tups went to sunday school they weren't interacting w/the other 3 year olds. They had Sunday school alone. The tups will always have each other but they also need outside friends also. Kate has isolated them and now they have all that land they will be isolated even more. K&J have isolated themselves more also, which doesn't help the kids either. With their celebrity status now they will be more isolated than ever. I only hope that amends can be made with grandparents, aunts and uncles, friends of J&K. They are going to need support when all this fame comes to an end. Regarding the Duggars and Roloffs not going to the bathroom in one episode of the Roloffs, someone plugged the toilet and Zach was trying to get it to not overflow w/plunger, it overflowed...gross. But having 2 boys I know that feeling...
Just Read The Article said... Bridget: Its your opinion that its not abuse. However, I feel its MENTAL abuse. jace: No, not once have I said, or will ever say that Kate's children should be taken away from her. I think that if they hadn't had the show she would be a much kinder, nicer person. If you watch the first hour specials she is completely different. I think that money has changed her, and not for the better. If the show were to stop I think Kate could make her way back to that kinder, nicer, gentler person she once was. The difference between Michelle and Amy, IMO, is that they are not allowing their children to be filmed during private things. Not once have I seen a Duggar or Rollof going to the bath room or getting dressed, just to name a few.February 27, 2009 8:28 AM___________________________Just Read the Article...I realize you may or may not have just started reading this blog, but a main point that we all know is that the show is obviously edited. We don't know a lot of what goes on behind the scenes and a lot of the editing is made to focus on "hot" points...like Kate being mad. I think this may have influenced your take on Kate not being a nice person. You don't have to like her. But, remember, you made your opinion on what you see on edited TV. You don't know her. And, neither do we.What she appeared earlier on in the show (earlier years)is going to be different because people grow and do change. Especially, with their environment. It's normal to change. But, you saying she was nicer, is just your opinion. I know a few people who met her and they said she was extremely nice. I read the same thing on the blogs of people who've met her. How can you positively say that she could be "nicer"? See, that's your opinion.Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but your opinion, to me...in my opinion...is based on unfair assumptions. This is why I have a problem with anti-Gosselin people. They are with blinders and don't form their basis on fact, just what they see on TV.I think if we go back thru the forums here, that we can see your opinion/position (it may not be from you), but like thinking, and how we all embraced the idea, but have intelligent conversation in talking through and seeing that all we see, is not all that makes up this family. I respect your opinion and even passion, but I think you're going down the path of a witchhunt, or could be if you don't open your blinders a bit.
Theresa: I am not viewing Kate with blinders. If you take one second to watch her in interviews or the show you would realize that she is not as nice as she once was. She has become very superficial. I am not anti- Gosselin. I am anti the constant filming of children. I am basing my opinion on fact. What we see of Kate and her family is fact. That is how they behave. Every time that a Gosslin child acts out it is direct correlation to their family life.
Just Read The Article said... Theresa: I am not viewing Kate with blinders. If you take one second to watch her in interviews or the show you would realize that she is not as nice as she once was. She has become very superficial. I am not anti- Gosselin. I am anti the constant filming of children. I am basing my opinion on fact. What we see of Kate and her family is fact. That is how they behave. Every time that a Gosslin child acts out it is direct correlation to their family life.February 27, 2009 9:20 AMOkay, so you're not anti-Gosselin, but you do seem to be anti-Kate. I don't see her as not being nicer in the interview couch, I see her as being tired. My point, is you can't make assumptions and pass them off as fact. Your assumptions are just that as are mine. Saying Kate is superficial is again, your opinion.You are not basing your opinion total fact. You're basing it on 22 minutes of edited tv. There is a difference Just Read he Article.A couple of questions for you: 1) why all the armchair pyshiatry regarding the children? Once again, assumptions and extrapolations do not constitute fact. What you see on tv is edited and not true fact regarding family dynamics and growth. There is a lot we don't know about this family. Even though they do have cameras, it is not constant. It is two or three days a week. There are parameters. (if you go through this blog, we talk about this, too). I do feel like I am repeating myself, so sorry to all the other ladies here for sounding like a broken record.And, 2)Let me preface this by saying I know I know you'll say "but my kids are't consantly filmed", IF there were cameras on your kids, you may indeed find these same "acting out" issues. It's not fair to do armchair psychiatry regarding any family.
Theresa: My opinions are based on the same things yours are. It doesn't take a genius to realize that Kate has changed, and not for the better. In response to your first question I don't feel like I am doing any armchair psychiatry on the Gosselin children. That is your opinion. They are filmed two or three days a week, and they are in some sort of a school program; when do they get to just be kids? Second question: Yes my children act out but it would take a lot more than two or three days worth of filming to piece together a whole half hour of constant bad behavior. And its not just because I don't have 8 kids, I have 4 and also watch relatives children. None of which act like Kate's, they are not perfect and they certainly have their bad days but the Gosselin children are week after week lashing out.
Just Read The Article said... Theresa: My opinions are based on the same things yours are. It doesn't take a genius to realize that Kate has changed, and not for the better.It doesn't take a genius to realize this is still once again, your opinon. I never said she didn't change. I merely am pointing out to you that you can't make the assumption she changed for the worse and make it a fact. I merely am pointing out that you may think she's not changed for the better and that is only your opinion. It doesn't take a genius to realize that, although, you seem to be having a hard time grasping that.In response to your first question I don't feel like I am doing any armchair psychiatry on the Gosselin children. That is your opinion. They are filmed two or three days a week, and they are in some sort of a school program; when do they get to just be kids??Well, I never said specifically you were doing the armchair psychiatry. But, you stated that they "week after week lash out". Reads to me like you're doing a bit of armchair pychiatry. That is your assumption. We don't see all their private moments. You are focusing way too much on what is seen and extrapolating on that as true reality. They indeed have down time. Their private time should be just that. Second question: Yes my children act out but it would take a lot more than two or three days worth of filming to piece together a whole half hour of constant bad behavior. And its not just because I don't have 8 kids, I have 4 and also watch relatives children. None of which act like Kate's, they are not perfect and they certainly have their bad days but the Gosselin children are week after week lashing out.February 27, 2009 11:09 AMOnce again Just Read the article, what you view as "week after week of the G kids acting out", is editing and it is your opinion. I am just stating that I don't see it that way(the G kids acting out week after week). Why are you assuming that the G children have constant bad behavior? That is my point. You only see one thing/or an edited portion of one thing and assume and then state that they have constant bad behavior. That's not fair to the G kids to be labeled like that, is it?Look Just Read the Article, we definitely have a difference of opinion. I am just for true facts (something that can be backed up with notated sources and quotes), rather than an opinon that has been extrapolated on a 22 minute show. I wish you well. I am not here for arguing, I just truly enjoy the company of the people here. Let's just agree to disagree and perhaps be more sensitive to how we say something, or project it.
Call me crazy, but the behavior of the Gosselin children does not seem to be out-of-bounds to me. I do not see them "lashing out," but behaving the way close-in-age siblings do, which is with bickering, hitting, yelling, etc. Is this acceptable behavior? Absolutely not, but it is normal. The knock-down, drag-out fights my brother, sister and I would get into growing up make the Gosselin's squabbles seem quite tame in comparison. Let's not get hysterical over behavior that is well within normal ranges, folks. As far as when the Gosselin kids "get to just be kids"--it seems to me they are pretty much every episode. They were "just kids" on Monday's episode at the dog breeder's home, running around playing and jumping on the trampoline. Plus, we do not know what goes on in their lives on the days they are not filmed. Perhaps they get together with friends and relatives, who may not want to be filmed due to vitirol and harrassment those associated with the Gosselins receive, and "just be kids." Lord knows Mr. Trim, the dog breeder, as well as employees of various churches J&K have had speaking engagements have had to deal with anti-Gosseline rhetoric and harrassment, unless of course those individuals who have bragged on GWOP about the numerous letters, phone calls, and e-mails they have sent were not being truthful.
Theresa: I am not viewing Kate with blinders. If you take one second to watch her in interviews or the show you would realize that she is not as nice as she once was. She has become very superficial. I am not anti- Gosselin. I am anti the constant filming of children. I am basing my opinion on fact. What we see of Kate and her family is fact. That is how they behave. Every time that a Gosslin child acts out it is direct correlation to their family life. This is assumption not fact. Opinions and interpretation are not necessarily facts. We see highly edited material not enough to make sweeping pronouncements.You said, "I am not anti- Gosselin. I am anti the constant filming of children."But that's not the argument you are making. Because that would be about all children on any TV show or movie. You are making the argument that because you see Kate as bad or mean or whatever therefore the Gosselin kids should not be on TV. So if someone is as nice and has as much depth as you think they should, then it is OK for there kids? Just wondering.So much the anti-Gosselin stuff is based on Kate's personality that it is hard to find any objectivity in the argument. If it is bad for the G's then it is certainly bad for the Roloffs, Duggars, the Super Nanny kids, what about Dakota Fanning, Miley Cyrus etc...I will admit to being a skeptic about people's motives who harp about Kate. Because whether she is the worst mother ever is not the issue even if it were true. But that's what the hate blogs are all about.The issue is boarder and gets lost in all the imaginative interpretations of Kate's every action or reaction.
Plus, we do not know what goes on in their lives on the days they are not filmed. Perhaps they get together with friends and relatives, who may not want to be filmed due to vitirol and harrassment those associated with the Gosselins receive, and "just be kids." Yes, exactly. We have no business knowing what they do on their down days. And it is unfair to make assumptions on what we do not know and call it truth.
GLO said... Call me crazy, but the behavior of the Gosselin children does not seem to be out-of-bounds to me. I do not see them "lashing out," but behaving the way close-in-age siblings do, which is with bickering, hitting, yelling, etc. Is this acceptable behavior? Absolutely not, but it is normal. Me too. I think they're just normal kids, how they deal with all this in the future, we just don't know. I think it helps a lot that J&K have their childrens best interest at heart, no matter what they get wrong or right. Even with the editing, the kids just seem normal to me. Maddy is a handful, Hannah is needy/clingy. This isn't unusual or rare. They're just being kids. When I first started watching around a year ago and thought it was a real doc, I did think they were isolated. But there's so much we don't see and know about.Glo, are there girlscout cookies on the darkside? We're on our last box.
Elementary children have a hard time grasping the difference between fact and opinion. Looks like some grown-ups do too. LOL
Holy Moses! I can not believe that the long awaited article was just repeated GWOP gossip. How can Jessica call herself a reporter with a straight face? The comment section is off the hook crrrazzzzyyyy. GWOP has shown its lunacy yet again. How can any of them read that not see how they come off is beyond me. Wow. I'm almost speechless.
Jess has a q&a about writing her article: http://blogs.phillymag.com/news/2009/02/27/jon-and-kate-behind-the-philadelphia-magazine-story/ It's interesting!!
Apologies in advance for a post that even by my standards, is RIDICULOUSLY long. In my defense, I had a lot to say.That is why I asked how people can think its OK. I wanted to know what makes all the Gosselin supporters think that what they are doing to their children is OK. I think your inability to answer that question speaks volumes.This has been answered before, but I'll try again: I feel that there are a range of behaviors that constitute acceptable child-rearing (or "OK" in other words). Many behaviors in that range would not be ones that I'd choose, but I don't feel they rise to the level of unacceptable or not OK. For me, it becomes a matter of it being up to the parents, in such cases.How would you like it if everyone had a say in how you raised your children? I'm not clear, I guess, on what not OK means to you - you say that it doesn't mean the kids should be taken away, so I guess you're just talking about public condemnation? To elaborate a bit on the OK-ness: I don't know what effect having the show will have on the kids. I think there are definite negatives to it, but I also think there are positives. I have said many times, I think some people dismiss the stress and other negatives of financial struggle, and it's pretty certain that without the show the Gosselins would probably be struggling financially, working long hours outside the home and not getting to see their kids much. I feel that those of us who consider the financial aspect as a positive are dismissed as being money-grubbing or superficial. I don't think that's fair. Yes, poor families can be happy and wealthy families can be unhappy. But correlation does not equal causation in this case. Being poor is HARD and, as I said, stressful. Being wealthy is no proof against unhappiness, and it does make SOME things easier. I don't take lightly the Gosselins' wish to give their kids an easier life. I don't see it as entirely selfish as some of the haters do. I believe that they are sincere when they say they are doing it for the kids. Even something that *is* superficial - like the nice trips - I can't entirely say that they are worthless. I think having different life experiences and getting to go places you wouldn't otherwise be able to go are valuable and life-enriching things. By themselves, they wouldn't be worth the lack of privacy in my mind, but again, I wouldn't dismiss them totally as one of the genuine benefits of the show.(To clarify, are we just talking about the fact that they do the show? Or does Kate not being "nice" fall under not-OK for you? This is a sincere question - I think one of the main problems we have in discussing the show and the Gosselins is that "the show is exploitative" gets conflated with "Kate's a bitch" and "the kids should be taken away" gets conflated with "I don't approve of the way the Gosselins are raising their children". I think we all misunderstand each other a lot on the subject, for some reason.)IMO the Gosselin children are being abused. They are not being allowed the right to be children.I'm not sure what that means. What does "the right to be children" mean to you? They play, they do stuff with the family, they go to school. They are nurtured and taught. To me, that's what it means to be a child. In my mind, a child working 12 hours a day in a factory in India for enough money to eat one meal a day is being denied the right to be a child. Even that is a very first-world concept, I guess, but that's the way that my mind works. They see their parents yelling, they see their mother constantly picking a favorite, they see their older siblings lash out, its their responsibility to decide to continue the show! Jon and Kate are not giving their children a chance to be children.Okay, I feel like we're possibly getting into the communication problem I mentioned above - do you think seeing your parents yelling is being denied your right to be a child? So that issue has nothing to do with the show, right? As others have said, I don't agree that seeing your parents yelling means you're being denied your right to be a child. I think there is an ideal way to raise a child, and I guess that would include never yelling front of him or her, but I think every parent in history has fallen short of the ideal - if not in this way, in some other. I guess I don't understand if you're saying that in not being perfect, the Gosselins are taking away their childrens' rights to be children?(As an aside, I wonder if it really would be a good thing to be a perfect parent. Would your child then be shocked the first time someone yelled at him? Maybe we need to build up immunity to imperfection the way we do to germs.)I think that your charge about "picking a favorite" is totally unfair and without merit. It's something they haters say that I think has been made up out of whole cloth, and it annoys me.As with imperfect parents, kids sometimes have imperfect siblings. Again, I'm not sure that this has anything to do with the show. I don't believe in making too much of any of the kids' "issues" at this point. I think the seriousness of the "lashing out" is exaggerated. Kids have different personalities and if you have 8 you are likely to have one or more dramatic, "difficult" ones.And as for asking the kids if the show should continue: I think haters have pooh-poohed the possibility that this even happens. On the surface, I think it's a positive thing - to let the kids have a say. But I also think it's problematic - parents should be making decisions for kids who are as young as the Gosselin kids. It's not a democracy. So ideally, I would hope that Jon and Kate listen to their kids' feedback and that the kids don't feel pressured to respond one way or another. None of us knows what goes on behind close doors, though.I am judging it on the fact that their children have been filmed for 4+ years under stressful conditions and inappropriate conditions.Maybe, maybe not. I don't know that the conditions have been stressful, nor that they have been more stressful than being poor and never having your parents around would be. I'm not saying "yay for kids being on TV!" - I'm saying I DON'T KNOW. I don't think anyone else does, either, though people sure act like they do. But Kate does tell others how to raise children. She gives numerous "talks" about raising children.I've never been to one of her talks, but my understanding is that she talks about how SHE does things, and the things she's gone through. If she is giving advice, then I think it's to an audience that wants it. There's nothing wrong with that, IMO. Jon and Kate may be good people, IMO they aren't though. I think Kate is rude, obnoxious, and just plain mean.People have to be a lot more flawed than Kate for me to say point blank that they aren't good people. IMO, Kate is flawed, as am I, as are you. Is she more flawed than you or I? Again, maybe, maybe not. I see how the haters behave online - how vicious they are about Kate and about the children - and I find it hard to believe that they are truly better people than Kate Gosselin. They sure don't act like it. Does that mean they "aren't good people"? I would not say that. I would say they have a lot of flaws and a lot of misdirected anger.I do agree that Kate is often rude. She can be obnoxious, though I see obnoxiousness as more of a process, with a sender and receiver - ergo, if Kate doesn't bother me, she's not obnoxious. I think she can be mean (I think most people can be mean!), but I think many or most of the examples of her meanness that are posted online are simply Kate being sarcastic and people not getting her sense of humor, or people simply making stuff up. (For the latter, for instance: in the episode where Collin goes to the train museum and Kate and Collin are talking before about whether he'll get to ride the trains, there was a poster who insisted that Kate was awful to Collin when she told him that she didn't think he'd get to actually ride a trains. This is an exception to my assertion that different people can see the same thing differently - I don't believe any REASONABLE person could watch that clip and perceive Kate as being mean.OTOH - gumgate? Yes, absolutely, Kate was being mean there.)I like the kids they are cute and its sad that they act out for attention. And yes, that is not JMO, if you have seen recent episodes you will realize that Mady IS acting out for attention.It is just your opinion. Seriously, of course it is. You don't know Mady, and you don't know what goes through her mind. How in the world can you claim to know why she acts a particular way?I think the haters completely dismiss the possibility that Mady would be the exact same child if she wasn't on TV. I'm not saying she would be - again I'm saying that I DON'T KNOW. But I don't know how anyone else can know. There are kids that are not on TV that are as difficult as Mady (standard disclaimer: I don't think Mady's behavior is *that* bad, I think she's a smart, sensitive child and have every hope and belief that she's grow into a fine adult). There are kids that are not on TV that are much worse than Mady. Isolating being on TV as the only factor in Mady's behavior without any evidence to prove it just doesn't make sense to me.It bothers me that so many idolize Kate, and Im not talking about how she looks because for me that is neither here nor there, Im talking about her attitude and behavior.Except they don't. Really, really, really. Who on this blog have you seen act like they idolize Kate? I think on the internet in general, there are a few people who really, really like her and think she's great, but here and other places where the show and the controversy around it are discussed, I would say that idolizers are well-nigh nonexistent.She is not setting a good example for her children.Sometimes she does and sometimes she doesn't. Like most parents.I am not viewing Kate with blinders. If you take one second to watch her in interviews or the show you would realize that she is not as nice as she once was. She has become very superficial.I think this is a superficial judgment. I think the truth is probably that as Kate has become more comfortable with the cameras, she's let her true self out more, and her true self is sarcastic and bitchy. IMO, "nice" is something that people act, not something they are. I feel like in a sense you're judging her for not fitting your view of how a woman should be - humble, submissive. I may be reading you wrong, but I note that Jon is almost NEVER characterized as "nice" or "not nice". Why? Because "niceness" is seen as a trait that is valued in women and not in men. That is sexist, IMO.In any case, I don't know what that has to do with your supposed larger issues of concern for the children.I am not anti- Gosselin. I am anti the constant filming of children. I am basing my opinion on fact. What we see of Kate and her family is fact.I think it's fine and reasonable to be anti the constant filming of the children. I completely understand people having those concerns. I wish that the people who had those concerns would at least understand or address the idea that I and others have that the alternative would also be problematic. Then I feel like we could have a real dialogue on the subject.You are basing your opinion on fact in that you are presumably basing it on what you see, but you have a bias. I have a bias. We all have biases. I don't agree that "every time that a Gosslin child acts out it is direct correlation to their family life"; I don't even know how you can assert this. We all know that the show is edited. It stands to reason that it is edited to create a storyline and feature the more interesting moments in the Gosselins' week. Not only do I think they feature the "bad parts" out of proportion, I would guess that they capture the cute kid moments out of proportion, too. That just makes sense to me.If my math is correct, if the Gosselin family sleeps 8 hours a night, they are awake 6720 minutes a week. If you divide a 22 minute show by those 6720 minutes, you are seeing .00327% of the Gosselins' weekly life. If you were to divide that further by the 10 members of the Gosselin family (okay, not entirely fair, since some get featured more than others and they are usually shown with one or more together), you are getting a glimpse of a little over 3/1000ths of a percent of, say, Alexis Gosselin's life. (Anyone is free to correct my math, which is probably totally wrong. But I'm quite sure that the amount of time any one Gosselin is shown on TV each week represents a grain of sand in comparison to the beach of their life. So I stand by my assertion that it's not fair to claim that what we see is a direct correlation to "reality".) The one thing I have noticed these past couple of years is how isolated the kids are. Maybe I am wrong but at least the producers of the Roloffs show them interacting w/friends, family, neighbors, etc. The kids have friends over and they seem to be enjoying every minute w/their friends. The Roloffs have kept their friends and family close even w/the glare of cameras. I don't see that w/the tups. They only have each other and I think that is where the whining and tantrums come from.Really? I don't necessarily think so. It's just a guess, but I would think that being one of sextuplets might make one a little clannish, especially at the young age that these kids are at. Since we don't see the kids at school, we don't really know how much they are developing outside relationships, though there have been references to friends for the twins. Not seeing other people on camera may be a decision based on the privacy wishes of the people that the Gosselins interact with, as well. With the way that Mr. Trim and the dog breeder have been harrassed, I would probably not want to appear on camera with the Gosselins, either. I'm not denied that the family may be somewhat insular; some families are, more than others. I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing unless it's excessive.Kate has isolated them and now they have all that land they will be isolated even more.Can I ask what you're basing this on - saying that "Kate has isolated them"? Again, I don't necessarily agree that they are isolated, but if I did, I wouldn't blame one parent only; not without evidence or a reason, anyway.I only hope that amends can be made with grandparents, aunts and uncles, friends of J&K. They are going to need support when all this fame comes to an end.I hope the Gosselins make the right decisions about what family and friends they want to have in their lives. I feel that is there decision, and not one I know enough about to judge. There are situations where it's better not to have relatives in one's life; some relatives are toxic. I just don't know the truth of their private relationships, so I can't say for sure what the right thing for J&K to do is. They deserve as much autonomy as any of us doing in making those decisions, though.I think that if they hadn't had the show she would be a much kinder, nicer person. If you watch the first hour specials she is completely different. I think that money has changed her, and not for the better.You have the right to your opinion of course, but it's pure speculation, IMO. I've already stated above what I see as the likely reasons for the differences between "old Kate" and "new Kate". I think the show is stressful; I think working endless hours outside the home in order to scrape together money to pay the bills would be stressful too. If the show were to stop I think Kate could make her way back to that kinder, nicer, gentler person she once was.It may be that you are being totally sincere here, but comments like these always strike a nerve with me. They seem condescending and presumptuous. What right do total strangers have to tell someone how they should be? We have the right to say we don't like someone or the way they act, but to assume that we know what is best for a person we don't know at all is really overstepping boundaries and makes me feel that people should be worrying about making their own damn selves better people rather than total strangers on TV. The difference between Michelle and Amy, IMO, is that they are not allowing their children to be filmed during private things. Not once have I seen a Duggar or Rollof going to the bath room or getting dressed, just to name a few.I don't watch LPBW, and having only just started watching the Duggar show. In the past show, Michelle allowed the world to see the first moments of her new daughter's life, something that many would consider private. Someone referred to as Grandpa Duggar (JimBob's father?) was shown on camera several times, even though he appears to be mentally compromised, unable to communicate, unable to give consent and quite frail. I was a little surprised that they showed him because it did seem like an invasion of privacy and a possible infringement on this man's dignity, at least as much as any Gosselin "potty shot" ever was.
Indianprincess, thanks for the link!A few things stood out to me with Jess' Q & A on how the article was done. First, she says after corresponding with Laurie Goldberg at TLC that "In an e-mailed response, Laurie accused me of having “an agenda” and said “we prefer to work with ethical journalists.” That does not sit well with me at all-- it appears that something happened between someone who is at the top of a company like TLC and a journalist to make that executive feel her methods were not appropriate.As I have said before, there is nothing that sensational about her article, and I really would have liked more direct attributed quotes. Yes she appeared to talk to Jon's old boss but felt the need to paraphrase his words. There are others mentioned but I had no idea from the article that she corresponded with Julie Brown, much less had an actual conversation with her.This part also does not sit well with me: The reason I turned to Gosselins Without Pity as one avenue for my reporting is simply because it is the most trafficked blog on all things Gosselin. To not mention or contact them would have been neglectful on my part. But I did not take their word for fact, and I of course read other blogs, with both positive and negative angles. The battle that’s being waged between the different fans of different blogs in the magazine’s web comment section right now has a lot of history. I expected the heat from some of these diehard fans.First, the fact that GWoP has that many *page views* does not mean it has that many unique visitors-- not by a long shot. She was definitely right to expect some heat from people who are fans, but that is not at all what is happening in the comments. A lot of us here have talked about how we don't necessarily consider ourselves fans of the show- we watch it but if it wasn't there the world would not cease to exist. I think the biggest issue with the comments section is that people see it as a way to sock puppet themselves endlessly and say every possible thing they can to get attention or some kind of response. To have that unmoderated when she knew going into this that there would be controversy seems really foolish especially with the massive amount of slander going on in there.I am glad she openly admits that not all of the speculation is true. From the article there was nothing new that we did not know about or already discuss. Jon was fired for reasons we had no way of knowing, thus we chose not to jump to conclusions. Jon and Kate both have cancelled events for reasons we could not know, thus we chose to not jump to conclusions. See the trend? If there is no clear cut answer then why make the assumption that the worst is occurring? The fact that Jess interviewed so many people from the show and does not have direct quotes and more information makes me wonder what those conversations consisted of... that does not mean I will think the worst and assume the kids are abused, but it also does not mean I will sit here delusional about the potential for the show to harm the kids.In the end there has to be some semblance of balance here- a lot of us want the same things but are just saying it differently. As I have said before, if there is no way of knowing the facts then I would rather err on the side of what good could come then automatically crying there is abuse. Those are serious allegations with life long consequences- who would want to condemn a family they do not know for something they cannot confirm?
indianprincess, thanks for the link. I continue to find Reporter Jess!! quite aggravating. A quote from her article:"Then I tried Kate’s book publisher, Zondervan, where I spoke to Karen Campbell, who does PR for the book, and she directed me to Laurie Goldberg at TLC. I tried to set something up with Laurie over e-mail for several weeks, but to no avail. Finally, she said I could e-mail her a list of questions and she’d see what she could do. I told her I would not because it’s not good journalism — we wanted direct access to Jon and Kate because we didn’t want a publicist answering for them through e-mail."I'm not a journalist, but I do know that many reporters do not like to have their questions vetted ahead of time. I understand why, though I'm not sure I'd say that it's a question of "good journalism". Her use of the phrase is really ironic, though, considering how much of the rest of her piece, even in my layperson's eyes, qualifies as "not good journalism". She then claims that it would have been irresponsible not to contact GWOP. Okay, fair enough. Was it responsible not to contact any pro-Gosselin blog that I'm aware of? If she did read any blogs that were pro (or at least not anti-) she did not include any of their arguments in her piece. She really loses me here: "The battle that’s being waged between the different fans of different blogs in the magazine’s web comment section right now has a lot of history. I expected the heat from some of these diehard fans."Does "diehard fans" refer to fans of the Gosselins or of the blogs? Because when I dipped a toe into the cesspool that was the comments section yesterday, I saw plenty of bad behavior coming from every direction. I feel she's implying above (though it may just be poor writing in her part) that the comments section are a war zone because of the pro-Gosselin fans. If so, that further reveals her prejudice. A prejudice that is evident throughout both articles - in the second she mentions Jon and Kate appearing separately or canceling appearances. While I'm sure that this is disappointing to some fans, it seems to me that the former, at least, is an example of good parenting - they seem to have made a commitment to have one parent home with the kids as much as possible. For Reporter Jess!! to twist that around into something negative betrays a prejudice against the Gosselins.As for canceling appearances, it's evidence to me that the Gosselins are perhaps flaky and venues shouldn't book them as speakers. I don't think it's a great thing to be flaky, but I don't consider it a monstrous moral failing, either. It's one that in a just world has its own negative results - the Gosselins will get less bookings and make less income. They will either become more responsible or decide they don't care. Whatev.Then Reporter Jess!! finishes up by stating that no one else has tackled this story because it was just so much WORK. I guess no one has the work ethic of RJ!! - at least not since Woodward and Bernstein.Okay, I know I'm being snarky, but setting aside as much as possible my different view of the Gosselins, RJ!! just strikes me as very young, unpolished and unprofessional. The magazine may be reputable, but I think that says more about the current state of journalism than it does about RJ!!'s credentials or creditability.
I never thought Jess's only source was GWOP. ” Ground zero for such discussions is Gosselins Without Pity, a site that’s taken on an almost religious zeal in its mission to expose the underbelly of TV’s happiest family. The brickbats are surprisingly well-written and thought-out, and even for the newly initiated, the arguments are hard to refute. The site has surpassed two million page views; posts are made almost daily, with most generating hundreds of comment I would never trust anything written by someone with this viewpoint. I have a low opinion of Jess's opinion.
And another thing (I was thinking a bit about this last night)...is it considered "good journalism" to have so many anonymous quotes? A quick review of the article shows that there are two attributed direct quotes from people who have actually had dealings with the Gosselins (from someone who the Gosselins canceled a speaking engagement with, and from Jon's ex-employer). There are three quotes from unidentified sources; one is a "neighbor" who discusses the TLC-installed lighting in the Gosselin home, and then these two:One is worried because she claims Beth and Jodi often "were the ones on set taking that role [of looking out for the children’s well-being], telling the film crew, ‘Okay, they need lunch’ and ‘You’ll get your shot later.’”and“As their friend, as somebody who loves the kids, I was always the one saying [to Jon and Kate], ‘Okay, be careful.’ Because they’re not just a commodity, they’re people,” says one of the kids’ former babysitters. “And someday will come and … you know? Nothing comes free. Everything, everything, has a price. And because I love them, I don’t want them to pay a price that’s too dear.”Now, these three quotes may come from one person or two or three - I kind of suspect that the last two quotes are the same person, but who knows? We weren't told who they were? Why not? I understand unattributed sources in cases of criminal activity or where naming the source could result in harm coming to them. Obviously, that's not the case here. Maybe actual journalists can weigh in here: is this common practice? I've only ever seen unattributed sources in tabloids. My understanding was that a reputable reporter from a reputable publication would only use on-the-record quotes unless there was a compelling reason not to. I really don't understand why these people would not be identified and why the reporter used them if they would not be identified. J&K aren't the Mafia; no one is going to get knee-capped. Maybe they'll get some hate mail like Mr. Dog Breeder has no doubt gotten from the haters. I doubt it, since I have never seen the groundswell of crazed Gosselin fans that the haters claim exist. But even if they do, that's the price you may pay for standing up. I just find it hard to believe that this is considered acceptable and "good journalism" these days.
It was bad enough that she used GWOP as her primary source, but if she spoke or corresponded with all the people she mentions, why are none of them quoted or paraphrased in the article?.... And using Julie as a credible source? I think not...
And using Julie as a credible source? I think not...Didn't Julie claim that Jodi wanted to move on with her life and that's why she removed everything from the blog? Seems odd that Jodi would then okay Julie participating in a hatchet piece. There is no way that Jodi can claim to not know what GWOP is like and the idea that she is okay with associating her name with that site is beyond repugnant. "Sweet Aunt Jodi" my ass.
Hi Guin! I can offer you a "real journalist" point of view on anonymous sources.The only times I personally used them were when I wrote about drug addiction, alcoholism, being homosexual in a conservative community, rape, and child/spouse abuse. Obviously, people sharing their struggles with these kinds of problems would not want their lives ruined because of social stigma and/or extreme predjudice. But sharing their stories would ostensibly help readers going through the same thing, and so editors usually decide the good outweighs the bad.Often you'll see law enforcement and/or court sources that are unnamed, usually because of the criminal and/or sensitive nature of the case being reported on. Cops and courts reporters spend time getting to know sources, and so because of these longterm and/or intimate relationships, editors sometimes allow these sources to be anonymous when necessary. I once had an anonymous source call me about a legal issue that could've resulted in thousands of overturned criminal cases. I didn't use the anonymous source though; I used the information to track down the facts myself, and then wrote my story.In a situation when there's an anonymous source that a reporter suddenly comes across, and this source will break a major story (government corruption, criminal goings-on, stuff like that), then of course the publication uses that source. However, the source is not actually anonymous to the reporter's editor; he/she will want to know who it is in order to make sure the source is reliable. Even Woodward & Bernstein had to tell a superior the real identity of Deep Throat!Finally, you talked about anonymous sources in celebrity gossip media. Those sources tend to be paid, which is an even bigger ethical no-no, so anon sources there don't even worry me :)P.S. Reliability as well identity is important. Does anyone remember the Tupac/Diddy shooting "expose" the Los Angeles Times ran last year? Turned out the story was based on faked FBI documents that fooled a seasoned reporter. I think he got the docs from a guy who was in jail for fraud, and who was constantly telling tall tales about being friends with big players in the hiphop world.
Jerseygirl said "Didn't Julie claim that Jodi wanted to move on with her life and that's why she removed everything from the blog?That is what her blog says now- Jodi wanted to move on. Based on that, the fact that Jessica did not quote Julie, and how vague the connection with Truth Breeds Hatred was in the article the only thing I can surmise is that Julie and Jodi really do want to move on and did not want to be involved. For all we know, Jodi and Kate have reconciled and its water under the bridge. We do not know, so why assume the worst when its a non issue. Jodi will not apparently be shown on the TV show, told Julie to mind her own beeswax, and thats that.Kuromi, your post about anonymous quotes is really intriguing. I am no journalist but everything you said makes total sense and helps me understand why some would feel it best to stay unnamed.Anya, thanks for your help with my avatar!! I owe you one :).
Thanks, Kuromi, for the insight. It confirmed my impressions. I don't doubt that the sources were checked out by an editor and are real people (though as I mentioned, I have my doubts about whether they are three separate people). I simply don't understand why they won't identify themselves and why the reporter used them under those circumstances. I do think sources that go on the record are seen as more credible - the unnamed sources adds to the shoddy and shady feel of the piece, for me at least.P.S. to JerseyGirl - I love your avatar!
Just Read the article said...Saint: I do understand different POV. That is why I asked how people can think its OK. I wanted to know what makes all the Gosselin supporters think that what they are doing to their children is OK. I think your inability to answer that question speaks volumes. (1) I didn't address POV. You are confused.(2)Inability to answer your question? What are you talking about? I am actually unable to understand your question. What do you mean by "what they are doing to their kids?" Remember, I am not psychic...I can't read your mind.
I can't remember who all that reads here watches "The Office" but I just saw this link and had to share it...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOCsXFKrxJwEven if you have no idea what the show is about, I think you'll appreciate the editing. All of the scenes shown happen throughout the series, so its really funny how people put the whole thing together!
My opinion of the Jessica the Reporter keeps going down. She didn't just mention GWOP, she cited it like it was credible or something. That shoots her own credibility right there. If you lie down with dogs...I am suprised that her editor thought it was an objective piece of journalism. It seemed biased and speculative from the first sentence, very tabloidy and full of innuendo. Maybe I'm missing something but even Wikipedia has stricter guidelines for their posted information than what we got here. I have to say that I don't blame Jon and Kate for not talking to this chick. If a reporter was hanging out in the blogosphere asking for people to send in dirt on me, I wouldn't want to talk to her either.
In the Q&A article (link from Indianprincess) Reporter Jess mentioned a battle in the comments thread that has history. If she really has read everything out there, she must know about Penn Mommy, the house reveal, the pix of Jon, even the photoshopped pix mocking this site and moderators. Did she contact this blog at all? If BabyMama is reading tonight...same question? Did she get back to anybody here? I know Liza Beth got a thank you for her email the day the article came out. Anybody else? She's implying that she's lurked and read the sites. I just figured she skimmed over GWoP and saw some "cleaned up" version. Only a GWopper could read over there and think that's a well-written site.
No she did not contact this blog or post her email through on a comment.
My opinion of the Jessica the Reporter keeps going down. She didn't just mention GWOP, she cited it like it was credible or something. That shoots her own credibility right there. If you lie down with dogs...I am suprised that her editor thought it was an objective piece of journalism. It seemed biased and speculative from the first sentence, very tabloidy and full of innuendo. Maybe I'm missing something but even Wikipedia has stricter guidelines for their posted information than what we got here. Seriously. I'm almost tempted to dig around and see if there is an ombudsman listed for the Philly magazine, and maybe contact him. What's stopping me is that I'm not actually a crazed Kate idolizer desperate to right every perceived wrong against her. Also, I'm kind of lazy.
Based on that, the fact that Jessica did not quote Julie, and how vague the connection with Truth Breeds Hatred was in the article the only thing I can surmise is that Julie and Jodi really do want to move on and did not want to be involved.Jessica claimed that she did speak with Julie for the article. I have a sneaky suspicion that Julie didn't clam up. LOL
Did she contact this blog at all?Quite frankly, I do not care one way or the other if she contacted this blog. I personally would have had no factual information to give her. I am being very honest when I say I could care less if this blog was mentioned in that article. I never expected it to be. This is just a blog. For our entertainment purposes. Now I understand that Liz and Nomoredrama both attended Gosselin events and both emailed her to let her know that. I believe they were not contacted until yesterday after the article came out. Maybe they have already addressed this, I am not sure.
I think that Jon and Kate were too immature to handle the fame and celebrity that comes w/ reality T.V. The Duggars and Roloffs were stable enough in their relationshios that they could handle the pressure. This season Jon and Kate are just puppets with the new TLC producers and the publlic relations firm they are contracually obligated too. This inevitably hurts their children. The twins and tups are not happy anymore being in the limelight. They use to behave excellent on the talk show circuit but this past year they just could not handle the pressure, (i.e. fighting, Mady acting up, Cara just looking miserable). J & K need to take a deep breath and think about what is happening to them and their children. My worry is the media blitz that is coming soon with Kate's Little Faces book and cookbook. The kids inevitalby do not want to be on the talk show circuit and I am concerned as to what the oncoming public relation blitz will do to them. This family needs a break and needs a break soon.
Im going to stop frequenting this blog because no matter what I say I always get the same response: We have no right to judge, we see only 22 minutes, Kate is nice, blah blah blah. I completely understand that you have the right to our opinions but there is no need to attack me for mine. I thought this would be a place where we could have a civilized conversation abut J&K and the show but I guess I was wrong. You accuse me of having "blinders" on when you are doing the exact same thing, only on the other side of the spectrum.
If there's one thing this site has taught me it's not to judge others. I am not going to question Jessica Remo's motives for writing that article. I have no idea what was behind her thought process.I'm going to give her the same benefit of the doubt that I try to give to Jon & Kate Gosselin and that I try to give Nadya Suleman.My daughter showed me a lot of hateful comments that have been posted about Jessica and I don't see how that's fair either, especially the fact that she was open to input from Jon & Kate themselves.We can speculate that she got mad because she felt they blew her off and so she did a hack job (something my daughter mentioned) but we don't know that for sure, it could have made her biased but there's no concrete proof of that, so for now I'm going to hold off on weighing in any more opinions either way. I don't have all the facts.
Just Read The Article, I'm sorry if you think I was attacking you in any way. I didn't think I did, and I certainly didn't mean to. Please accept my apology. You are certainly entitled to your opinion.I don't agree with every opinion here and I have never felt attacked. I'm sorry you didn't have a similar experience.
Just Read This Article,You were the first person on this post to accuse anyone of having blinders on. I remembered it and just went back and reread all of the posts. Look at your entry on 02/26/09 at 5:32 pm. It was all you.
Just Read the ArticleGood luck to you and hope you find a place to post where your opinions are shared by others. I don't believe you really came here for a discussion.
I liked the article from Jess. My question is:At speaking engagements, will Jon or Kate or both still stand by the reason Jon was fired or by what Jon's old boss confirmed?
Casey-Really, what is the point of them addressing this info in the article. IT willl go one of two ways: 1) They admit the boss' side is correct. They are then called liars. 2) They stay by their story. They are then called liars. It doesn't really seem to matter to some people what they say or do, I think.
Dr. H,It would be nice to know what the TRUTH really is regarding Jon getting fired. Then perhaps everyone would give it a rest. There are two side to every story and then there's the truth.
Well, how do you know what the truth is? Both sides gave a story. Basically, you have to pick one, the other or neither to believe. If they deny what the boss said, nothing will have changed. I just don't see why it's an issue, or more to the point, what, exactly, people want them to say. (Also, I am still reading the comments at the Philly Mag article and it is still crazy.)
Dr. H,I don't see why it's an issue either, but some people do. I personally don't care why Jon got fired, but some enquiring minds want to know. It's sad that the Gosselins personal life is so well known.
One thing that I have never understood about the K&J hater crowd is how they keep saying that one day the TRUTH will come out and everyone will realize how awful they are. What is this TRUTH? I mean, if you are watching the show, you are certainly aware of the fact that K&G invite cameras into their home, they have a big new house and take some expensive trips. They are unapologetic about the fact that they sometimes bicker and say unkind things to each other.Kate does not appear to tone down her personality or parenting style for the show, they openly talk about the fact that both J&K occasionally travel for appearances, that K's parents are not a big presence in their lives, etc.I just don't get what this TRUTH is!
According to one poster "it is sad that the Gosselins personal life is so well known". Why is this sad or even wrong? They invited the world into their home and into their personal lives. There are things that I wouldn't want the public to know about my life, but then I don't have a TV crew in my home 3 to 4 days a week. This is not a "pro" or "con" statemnent regarding Jon and Kate. It is just my opinion, but I beleive celebrity (and yes, they are celebrities now) comes with a price and that price is the loss of privacy. I'm not saying it is right or wrong that is just the way it is and if you don't want the scrutiny then you should get out of the public eye. I believe this is what would be best for Jon and Kate and their 8 wonderful children.
Forgive me if this went through already, but as I posted, our electricity flickered and went out for a few minutes.I don't think it should be an all or nothing situation. This is not a pro or con Gosselin statement, either. It's just my opinion on our basic human rights.It doesn't have to be a total loss of privacy. Everyone, celebrities or anyone in the public eye, is entitled to the right of privacy, as are those of us who don't have cameras in our homes. We are all human beings and all deserve this right. Sure, they chose the cameras, but they also don't have cameras on them 24/7. They have parameters they put in place. And, it doesn't mean that they should be without the right to privacy just because of their choice.This is the same for Jon's job loss in the earlier years. They made their story public. They addressed it in their book. To some, they aren't satisfied and want to know every last detail. Why? It's none of our business. We should not be entitled to that information. They've moved on, and these nebby people should do just that, too. Just accept it, it's nobody's business but the Gosselins, and move on.
Liza Beth said...I can't remember who all that reads here watches "The Office" but I just saw this link and had to share it...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOCsXFKrxJw That was great. They did a wonderful job editing. Kelly singing is priceless!
Post a Comment