Now lets see if the other sites, who glorified the star and intouch articles, post a link to this article. That would only be fair, right?
Don't hold your breath, Jenn! They are too busy celebrating what they think is the victory of their smear campaign against the G's!I am so glad that someone finally posted an article like this! From the beginning I have thought that the photos floating around were innocent fan photos... It's a shame that some people harbor so much hatred for the Gosselins, that they would promote lies to hurt them.
Q~ I'm sure the people spreading the other stories fully believed that they were true. Most of society these days focus on the negative. It's sad and I don't think it's very healthy.
i'm sorry but i still think it's entirely inappropriate for a married 30 something year old man to be at a college party with strangers. what is he doing hanging out with 20 year old girls he doesn't know and playing beer pong? i've said before: i don't think he's having an affair but i do think this was a very poor choice for him. you cannot "market" yourself to the evangelical christian crowd and behave in that way. i am not holding him to any different standard than i would myself or my husband. what if kate were at a frat party drinking with some college boys? would that be acceptable? i call BS
I don't think it was a great choice for him to have gone to a frat house to party. But I don't think it was wrong for him to have gone to a bar to have some drinks with friends either. My husband had a guys night last night and went to a bar to hear a band play. Not a huge deal for us. But then we aren't on TV or anything. ;) I just think it isn't healthy for poeple to automatically assume the worse of people before knowing all the facts. In the case of the Gosselin's we'll never know 100% of the facts - so we'll always have opinions that are based on what little info we have. So far, I haven't seen this article posted anywhere else, including the sites where the rag mags articles were posted.
i don't have a problem with him going to a bar either, it's the party that is a problem with me. i can tell you that if my husband did, we would have a big problem.
I like that this article shows not only what really happened but has valid quotes from Laurie at TLC as well as people who really know what happened. Honestly, I was not surprised that the girls quoted in the article were unhappy-- if they are on the volleyball team then they may have scholarships and other guidelines which could be revoked due to their behavior. We had links to the other articles posted in the "Jon Responds" thread and I know most of the Star/In Touch/Perez Hilton articles pretty much take a grain of truth and make it work for what they want to talk about. Its so sad that people are excited that Jon is "getting taken down" or that Kate is "getting what she deserves." (No I didn't read that anywhere but I assume that is how some feel).themrs, I agree with you that it was bad for Jon to even put himself in the position of being with coeds at a frat party. When I was growing up my dad would take one of us kids with him to drive the babysitter how so that no one could question what was going on. That seems silly to me now, but I respect that he had enough integrity to be proactive in that kind of situation. Jon messed up by being there, and the situation snowballed out of control.Jenn, I completely agree with your statement that jumping to conclusions is not healthy. This goes both ways-- as I said in the other thread I am not going to assume Kate and Jon's marriage has no issues but I am also not going to jump to the conclusion others did that they are getting a divorce. Speculation can be fun, as long as its clarified that its someones opinion, and otherwise its best to just wait till facts are available(as in actual newspaper stories and interviews or quotes from people involved who can prove what they are saying).
I think some of Jon's actions were inappropriate also. It has nothing to do with his religious beliefs. If I were his wife, I would be upset with the frat house thing also.I agree with Quiltart that the photos are probably innocent fan photos.This article just provides a different take than some of the other ones that have been linked here in different comments.
Sorry-- I meant "home" not "how" above when I was talking about my dad driving the babysitter with one of us in the car. Can I chalk it up to the post-oral surgery achiness as swell as final project and exam work brain drain?? Please? :P
I agree with a lot of what themrs wrote.In my opinion the pictures we've seen were just fan pictures. The rumors explode because they were 'bar' fan pictures and then coupled with the story about the frat house party perfect innocence becomes vice in some minds, and it supplies the gossip magazines with fodder.And then the leap to "See, we told you that's why Jon & Kate seem so distant, are sitting apart..." or whatever the tie-in is to a particular rumor at that moment. And people take it as validation for their hatred or negative behavior.Is it right? No, but in my opinion this will continue on for as long as there is life on this planet. If not about this show, then another, if not about these people than others. Sadly, it is part of human nature.If anyone is reveling in these stories and pictures and looking at them as a sign of victory, I highly doubt that they are going to be open and show the other side of the coin. In my opinion they have no interest in playing fair.
I was just coming here to post this. Although this is nothing new to any of us. We knew it was all a crock.
Let's just agree that it is inappropriate for a person like Jon to be behaving in this manner, hanging around college kids in bars and at parties. The show portrays a wholesome and Christian family doing their best to raise 8 kids. He is hurting his image and his kids, for whom he has repeatedly said that he would do anything for them.
Having drinks with friends is one thing, I agree th frat house was a huge no-no. If it were my husband I would certainly have a word of prayer with him about it (p.s. thats what us southern girls call a tongue lashing), and I think Kate is a lot more "vocal" than I am, so I imagine it has been dealt with accordingly......A legitimate newspaper with actual comments from named sources is actually credible and worth discussing.
I love how people are quick to breathe a sigh of relief after reading this article and the statement on TLC... Thank goodness there's a logical reason, we knew it wasn't true! The fact of the matter is that Jon was at a college party, without his wife .. playing beer pong. Jon is a Christian public speaker, makes public appearances at churches, and has a book published by a Christian label. Not a wise choice, and it certainly doesn't help fuel the rumors of marital discord. While I know the bash bloggers have made it their life's work to bring down the JK8 empire, it sounds like (to me) that the Star followed a tip from someone at the party this time. It didn't start from one of those blogs. The fact of the matter is that Jon & Kate are now high profile personalities. They're going to be scrutinized, without the assistance of bloggers. And just because something is in The Star or In Touch, doesn't necessarily mean it's not a legitimate story. Remember the John Edwards mistress story? The National Enquirer broke that one.
I have no opinion because I don't know what "beer pong" is. Anyone care to enlighten me?Thanks.
I bet we all agree that John should NOT be at a college party. I don't even think he should be in a bar that caters to a college-aged crowd. Inappropriate. Hopefully, it's a mistake he won't repeat.The photos seemed to be, and still seem to be, posing with fans. Wasn't his statement regarding marital trouble though? Wasn't that the gist of the other articles? Regarding that topic, this article does seem more benign.I'd be furious with my husband if he did this (and it was a subject of gossip!) but I wouldn't divorce him for it. Still...badly done Jon.
I had to look up "beer pong", too, Jane.
Oh, in no way am I sticking up for Jon Gosselin.I think it was sheer stupidity on his part, he has his wife, his children, and his livelihood that he put on the line here. And it's not like he doesn't know there are a ton of people out there just waiting for him to fall on his face. Definitely he should have known better.The fact is, there are people out there waiting for these two to fail, so why help it along?But I also think like my previous comment, this could have been the most innocent situation and it would still be turned into something evil. People are like that.For myself, I will withhold judgment. Even if it turns out to be 'more of a sordid story', I will not judge the man. I have not led a perfect life.
I don't think there is anything scandalous about the pictures, and it doesn't seem like he did anything wrong exactly, but still not a good moment for Jon. He got married and started having kids pretty young and I think in some ways he still has a college-age mindset. Plus, girls that age are some of the show's biggest fans, so I can see how he would gravitate toward that kind of place to hang out.However, he knows what he does is going to be talked about. His livlihood is based on his image as a family man, so I would think hecould be a little more discreet.
Samantha NC...A legitimate newspaper with actual comments from named sources is actually credible and worth discussing. I agree. That's one of the reasons I paid a bit more attention to this story. The spokesperson from the college actually gave his name. He had the details and the timeline of what happened (granted he wasn't there so he is just passing on what he was told). I not naive enough to say for sure what happened or didn't happen. I agree with everyone that partying with kids 10+ years younger than he is was s-t-u-p-i-d. Is there more to the story? I don't know because nobody has stepped up other than people unwilling to give their names and the photographs don't confirm anything beyond the obvious (he was at a bar and had his picture taken with some fans). And from this scant evidence, some of the mini hate blogs and the gossip sites are talking *divorce*. Don't they realize this is quite a leap and doesn't give one much confidence in their ability to judge the evidence at hand fairly?The one thing I do agree with is I don't think this story got where it did because of the hate blogs. J&K have become well enough known (and known for certain things - being parents, Christians, etc.) that this type of story was bound to hit the tabloids once it started circulating on the internet.
Kikibee, your chocolate egg is tempting me! Must have chocolate!:-)
Cadbury eggs-my favorite harbinger of spring!Very bad for us, though (must get some at store tomorrow).
It's nice to see how a newspaper article *should* be written. Reporter Jess! should try reading this piece. Not because it exonerates Jon Gosselin (it doesn't, and that's not the point), but because it's full of facts, not sly insinuations and the reporter's personal feelings on the subject.I think on the face of it going to a bar and even to the frat party are fairly morally neutral activities. I mean, if Jon were hanging out at frat parties all the time, it would be one thing, but I could easily see how he could have just fallen into going along with some people he'd met (and if he'd already had a drink or two, maybe his judgment wasn't at its best). It's not like someone said, "we're going to a strip club, wanna come along?" and Jon said, "sure!". However, while I totally think it's stupid for everyone to make such a big deal of this, I do realize that his position as a wholesome "tv dad" means that Jon has to be a little more careful about his actions, to avoid the "appearance of impropriety". And in general, while as I say I think on the face of it going to frat party is morally neutral, and without, hopefully, sounding too censorious, I do think that 30-something-fathers should keep their distance from potentially beer-soaked co-eds in order to avoid what the nuns that once taught me might have called, "an occasion for sin."All in all, though, without further evidence, a tempest in a teapot, and it's nice to see a fair and balanced article about it, after all the tabloid trash.
"An occasion for sin" - I haven't heard that phrase in over thirty-seven years! (And that also brings back memories for me of the good Sisters both in my grade school and high school).
I don't think he should've been at the frat house, either, and the bar. Beer pong? What's he thinnking?Something as innocent as taking a picture with a fan was blown out of proportion, but he should've been smarter than to go to a bar, even if it is to unwind or have a beer with a few buddies. He has a responsibility to his family and to his tv contract. He learned the hard way that there are just some things a married man doesn't do, especially one who is on tv with his family.I do hope the rag magazines retract their story, too Jenn, but they will only do it if it's low on other stories. I actually thought the picture was photoshopped when I first saw it. It just looked a little off to me.
Keep in mind that Jon's younger brother is in his 20's still. He could have been there too since he was in the same town as him. There are always details people won't know and don't need to know.
Going to a frat party--does Duke Lacrosse team ring any bells. Why would he be so stupid? Take the whole morality issue off the table, learn from others misfortune. You don't put yourself in a situation with a bunch of drunken strangers. Chances are nothing will happen, but is it worth the risk? Use some common sense.
LOL, Ladies!Before it gets too far along in the discussion, I think the "frat party" Jon attended (and where there was "beer pong") was ACTUALLY reported to be a party given by two memebers of a college ladies volleyball team at their private home...not a fraternity house. Right????Not that there's a huge difference (college party with drinking), but I feel like the term "frat party" is taking on a life of its own. :)I was also glad to see an actual news piece, one that was more news and not speculation and biased writing. The two girls who hosted the party and were quoted in the Star sound pretty annoyed they were even mentioned as a source in that article.Look, anyone (Jon, PR people, college spokespeople, actual witnesses) coming back after a tabloid story and refuting wild accusations is goind to sound like they're downplaying a situation ("damage control"). How can they not, when the facts were so overblown in the first place?In essence, there are enough basic facts reported (and not refuted yet) to say Jon made several poor decisions and didn't take his family or his livelihood into account. When he made the statement along the lines of, "I guess I can't do what normal people do," (para.) I personally think that was the dicussion that had been had behind the scenes in the last few weeks...that nothing is "normal" anymore once you've attained a certain amount of public attention.Going to one or two bars in a month or so with friends or your brothers, posing for pictures with fans, is not a crime or anywhere near a scandal. If anything, it's more natural for Jon to pose with women he doesn't know (fans) than it would be for a husband who isn't famous. (The newspapers might not pick it up, but wouldn't our husbands/boyfriends catch hell if pictures surfaced of them on the internet posing with other women???) But somehow, because the door is opened, it becomes, "Jon's been in bars all over PA. Jon left with a woman who wasn't his wife." Bottom line, the door should not be opened. When you're a public figure, what *should* be normal isn't anymore, and Jon should have been cognizant of this fact and actively working to protect the feelings of his family and his public image. Poor judgement. Lack of forethought. Not the end of the world.
Something I find very interesting:My daughter (the one who didn't like this show and recently stopped watching it) and her friends (who rag on Jon & Kate all the time) are very outspoken on this topic and they are rising to the defense of Jon Gosselin! They say this is nobody's business what he does in his free time, and maybe he & Kate have some sort of agreement and even if they don't that's neither here nor there. They seem to be outraged for Jon at the unfairness of this all. Now, these are people that do not like Jon at all. Here I thought they'd have a field day with this rumor. People never cease to amaze me.
Marci--sorry I used the term frat party. I guess I use that term to describe a generic college drinking event. My point was that while this all appears to be much ado about nothing, it could have turned into much more. It gets hard to dispute wild rumors. If you don't put yourself in that position in the first place, it helps. Again, common sense is important. I've been pretty hard on Kate in the past, but if Jon doesn't have a lot of common sense, maybe she has to be the authoritative one.
Florida mom, that is a really good point-- we've talked in the past about the book "Multiple Blessings" and how a few of us noticed after reading it that Kate's dominating personality is definitely a big part of why the babies were so healthy at birth. Her abrasiveness does her no favors with adults, but you can tell she is decisive and has a strong sense of what she should be doing. Jon.... not so much. I think this makes them a good couple, since he knows he can be laid back and just relax since she picks up all the slack. At the same time as we can see here its evident that, when left to his own devices, Jon does not seem to have the same focus.If I were Kate I would be disappointed... not angry.
I must be one of the few people that think it's not a big deal that Jon went to a college party. The drinking, the girls, the house party wouldn't bother me. I guess I am thinking that if it were my husband, I would trust him to behave. My husband goes to Vegas (Sin City, is it?) every year with the guys. He assures me nothing happens. I believe him. As for having some sort of responsibility because he's a Christian celebrity, well, responsible to who? Their Christian fans? I was raised Christian and I don't think he did anything unChristian-like. I think the way he and Kate sometimes speak to each other is more unChristian than socializing in a college bar. As for the state of their marriage, well that's between Jon and Kate.
what i'm having trouble understanding is why this article is considered "real journalism" and the philly one is not. they are both reputable news sources. is it because one had a favorable view of the gosselins and one did not? i realize that many were turned off by the writer mentioning GWOP, but she also stated that she spent months researching the statements she found online. she quoted several named sources as well as unnamed, just as this author did. i find it interesting that when the philly article came out, there was much speculation about the anonymous sources and how that was not legit for reputable papers. yet in this article, there are also unnamed sources and they are taken at face value. i think a double standard exists here for the pro-gosselin folks just as much as the anti-gosselin folks. just my two cents...
themrs, the difference in my view is that the Altoona article had quotes from people who were named about the situation. I don't dispute anything in the Philly mag that had direct quotes attributed-- but the only thing that article had which was credible in that way was the info from a person who the Gosselin's cancelled on. The info from Jon's boss was not an actual quote- I have no doubt Jessica Remo talked to him but for some reason she saw no need to quote him directly.I draw issue with any article that does not have things that are directly quoted from sources that know what is going on. Thats just me, though- I don't know other peoples take. The Philly mag had just one direct quote from a named source and the rest could have been anyone who may have at some point been involved in the situation. We have no way of knowing. Its like the difference between someone posting on this site with an anonymous name verses posting with a google ID that has a personal blog or at least email address attached (or posting and email the moderators so we know for a fact who they are). I have WAY more faith that people with those reliable factors in place are who they claim to be, just like I have more faith that the Altoona article is more credible because of the attributed quotes and background info given.
I'll take a stab at answering your question, themrs. I apologize for the wordiness.I agree that Philadelphia Magazine is a reputable magazine. I have seen and read it. I like it. I don't agree that that the Philly Mag article is negative and this one is not. IMO, they are both negative, but they are covering different aspects of the Gosselins. The Altoona article is limited to Jon's bar visits, and it makes Jon look bad. He was at a bar that caters to a college crowd without his wife and at a private party hosted and attended by girls 10+ years younger. Beer pong with the volleyball team? Looks bad.I do think this article was fair, though. In 500 words, there was no snarking about the Gosselins. The majority of the article is direct quotes- several- from a named source. The unnamed source is at least identified as an employee at the bar who would not comment- and still there was a quote. The Philly Mag article has over six times as many words, but fewer direct quotes. It is sprinkled with obvious snark (ex: "Kate takes the stage (no Jon today, turns out), looking more like a 20-something headed for a date than the 33-year-old mom...") I bolded what I think is snarky. I also think these two articles are meant to be different. This is a straight-up news story. I don't believe the Philly Mag article is even suppose to be considered a news story. In other words, I don't think Jess herself would say they serve the same purpose. Hers is supposed to sway her readers. Her email asked for negative information. She asked for information from GWoP and at the Topix forums. She was looking for something to convince her readers that there was more to the story, but she had to ask for it. She spent weeks on a much longer piece and had fewer attributable direct quotes. In her article she says, "Because there is another story behind the 80-plus episodes of family vacations, potty training and amusement park escapades, and it’s not so warm and cuddly." emphasis mineReporters do not draw conclusions for the readers as Jess does here in straight news stories. I am not saying there is a problem with this sort of writing. Philadelphia often has these kinds of articles, and I've enjoyed many. But they are what they are. It is not straight news, as it has been touted at less-balanced sites.As for a double standard here, I wonder if you mean the blog as a whole or particular posters? IMO, the Altoona article contrasts not with Jess's piece at Philly Mag, but with the Star and other tabloid links found in the "Jon responds" thread. I think the Altoona article makes Jon look bad, but compared to the rumors about marital problems and divorce found in the tabloids, it's benign. And compared to the tabloids, the Altoona piece is a good new story. When posters mention 'reputable news source' (I think) they are contrasting the Altoona article with tabloids which deals wit the same content. For the shows' fans, this explanation, without unattributed whispers of divorce, is welcome news. There are fans here. I'd expect some happy responses. Again, please forgive the wordiness, themrs. I envy Nina and her skill at verbal economy!
LOL Saint!Yes, my response to themrs is that in no way do I think that the Altoona article shines a postive light on Jon Gosselin. In my main post, I stated it gives a little different perspective than other articles that were submitted to the blog via comments. I clearly stated that I thought some of Jon's actions were inappropriate and would not be happy with him if I were his wife.In my response regarding the Philly piece I stated it was a well written opinion piece and I thought there was some bias there.In the Altoona article, I can only see one unnamed source. The bartender that was quoted but not named. His statement was really benign and did not sway my opinion one way or the other.That is my response. I am only one person here. When I read the above comments, I saw a variety of responses.
Oh my, MommyZinger! You're probably one of the "cool moms" too! I trust my husband, but I still wouldn't like it. I also would be ticked off if my daughter were having a party that 30+ year-old TV celeb Jon Gosselin crashed. But he's safer to be around drunk than a bunch of 20-something single college guys! I don't want to think about my girl at a college party anymore. Ugh!
If I were Kate I would be disappointed... not angry.I'd be angry. I know it.He'd be guilty of nothing more than wild stupidity, but I'd still be angry.
I would be angry also Saint. Human nature. Even if his actions were innocent, he should have know better.
MommyZinger said...I must be one of the few people that think it's not a big deal that Jon went to a college party. The drinking, the girls, the house party wouldn't bother me. I see your point. I don't have *huge* moral issues with it - it does come down to the appearance more than anything for me. I do have to say, however, that the age difference (presumbly) between Jon and the college students is probably a bigger factor than anything for me. I know I am generalizing, but 22 year-olds are still kind of babies IMO. I don't see what he would have in common with these girls and vice versa. Laura made an excellent point, however. He could well have been hanging with his younger brother and just tagged along. There is still much to this story we don't know (and 'don't need to know' - good point, Laura). As for the state of their marriage, well that's between Jon and Kate. Amen.
ileen said...Something I find very interesting:My daughter (the one who didn't like this show and recently stopped watching it) and her friends (who rag on Jon & Kate all the time) are very outspoken on this topic and they are rising to the defense of Jon Gosselin! They say this is nobody's business what he does in his free time, and maybe he & Kate have some sort of agreement and even if they don't that's neither here nor there. They seem to be outraged for Jon at the unfairness of this all. Now, these are people that do not like Jon at all. Here I thought they'd have a field day with this rumor. People never cease to amaze me. Not sure if I can explain it either. Have you asked your daughter? Just curious.Two things come to mind. -I think it's fair to say that the majority of those who dislike the Gosselins have a much bigger problem with Kate than with Jon. I haven't read "The Star", but I did skim "In Touch" (which actually has some named sources, which surprised me). Overall, to the reader who doesn't have a handle on the hatred felt on the internet towards Kate, the article paints Jon as kind of a lout, i.e. Jon was out drinking while Kate was back home looking after the kids. -This story came so quickly on the heels of the Philadelphia Magazine article. I think there are some who consider the accusations made in that article to have more gravitas and are hoping it will be the jumping off point for more articles of its kind. To these folks, the Jon bar story could be seen as a distraction from the story they want told.
This article is fair and balanced -not explotitive.
Anya, I know this group that my daughter 'reviews' these Reality shows with does not like Kate at all, but many times when saying derogatory things it would be "they..." and not just "she...". I also think that this group for the most part were contained to their own private discussions, but when a new story about the show came out they would leave many comments on articles about the show (and the actions of Jon & Kate). A few knew very well about the hate sites and about Jodi's sister's site, but I don't think that had a big influence on their opinions (not the ones I spoke with anyway). It seemed in talking with them their opinions were more just about actions on the show. They don't really see exploitation as a problem (so child advocacy is not an issue with them), and they don't care if the show stays on or off. It was more just a means of criticizing Jon & Kate for whatever went on in a specific episode (mostly how horrible Kate treats Jon and the kids in their opinions, they think Kate is a mean mother), and they do this with many, many shows, not just Jon & Kate Plus 8. To me, it seems like this was just a past-time and apparently none of them had a vested interest either for or against.But, let me tell you, there was lots of negative talk against both Jon & Kate, so I was surprised to hear any of them stick up for Jon so vehemently, but then again most of them did that with Nadya Suleman too. I think a lot of the young ones (early twenties to early thirties) are very opinionated, yet in many ways try to remain fair. And because of their very vocal negative opinions I found it surprising that they would/could vocalize just as loudly the (in my opinion) opposite view. I mistakenly thought they would be happy to see Jon/Kate fail. I'll have to ask my daughter if they all would have felt the same if negative stories came out about Kate, I'm not sure but I think the reaction would be the same.My take is that they feel it's okay for people to have private and public discussions and to have opinions and judgments about actions on the show, but it's not okay to judge their actions off-screen.It still doesn't make sense to me, but I have to say, I do like that their opinions are not totally hate-filled as I previously thought.
Themrs.Hope you're feeling better! Anyhoo, for me the philly article wasnt credible or even worth reading bc Jess!!! went around looking for the "Scoop" on blogs. She had no quotes from named sources and she basically repeated the same things that have been said online for months- any of us could've written the same thing. She wrote it in a snarky/sarcastic tone- those types of articles belong in the gossip section in my opinion. Phillymag seems more geared towards entertainment than news. Newspapers will always be more reputable than websites or magazines that seem entertainment based, to me anyway. Neither was positive- however the newspaper did report truth based in facts rather than joyful speculation/rumors presented as fact that Jon Gosselin is steppin' out. The whole reason this blog feels more pro-g is bc yes there are more posters here than other popular g blogs that dont hate/loathe/despise Jon and Kate. Oh, and also- a lot of us are here bc our comments werent welcome elsehwere and bc it didnt take us long to find other places "skeezy". You know that you and others who dont like them have had a voice here, thats what make this site balanced- will you be disagreed with? Probably. See the previous statement for an explanation to that. I dont sing their praises but that doesnt mean I have to hate them and the very air that they breathe as some do. Anyway, I may have gotten off track, but I'm tired of being called unfair all over the blogosphere and needed to vent.
Not to nitpick, but I went to Juniata, and this has been bugging me...Juniata does not have any Greek organizations, so there is no way he attended a "frat party." The absence of fraternities and sororities is kind of a point of pride for Juniatians, so I had to speak up. But I think this is a good example of how rumors get out of hand--one person made a comment about Kate at a hypothetical frat party, and others ran with it. That being said, I still think it's bizarre and creepy that Jon would go to a college party. If I was a college-aged girl, and I saw a 30-something man who I knew was married with kids at a party I was hosting/attending, I would be creeped out, big time. Just my POV.
Saint said, Oh my, MommyZinger! You're probably one of the "cool moms" too! It's not so much about being cool. It's more about what my husband and I have agreed is inappropriate behavior. Whatever anyone else thinks about it, doesn't matter.Anya said, I see your point. I don't have *huge* moral issues with it - it does come down to the appearance more than anything for me.I've seen people say this a lot. "It just looks bad" I'm not sure why. Because of the age difference? To me, Jon is a "young" 30 year old. He snowboards, he rollerblades, he talks of his "peeps". He almost has more in common with a 20 year old than with Kate. Or is it because its disrespectful to Kate and the kids? Why would that be? Because some people would be mad if *their* husbands did it. We don't know the "openness" of their relationship. I've seen people on fan sites speak as if Jon and Kate's marriage is in trouble over or because of this. To me, that's an assumption. There is still much to this story we don't know (and 'don't need to know' - good point, Laura).Exactly.
I remember in college every so often some "older" person (back then, being in your 30s was "older" I suppose) would come to a party. It was creepy. But my guess is Jon was hanging out at a bar with his buddies and they had a few drinks and then maybe a fan at the bar suggested Jon go to this party because maybe there were some other fans there. Just an example of making a bad decision after a few drinks. I don't think Jon had any bad intentions when he attended the party. Maybe he thought he would just mingle with some fans? Yes, a bad decision; but I don't think there were any bad intentions at all. We all make mistakes. I grew up near Altoona and just think it's funny that the Altoona Mirror thinks Jon Gosselin at a bar is a big deal. The bishop of the diocese is probably the biggest celeb they have there, so Jon Gosselin must be very Hollywood. Not making fun of Altoona; I just think the situation is funny.
I agree with you Mommy Zinger. I would be angry at my husband in this type of situation. But that is just me and how I would feel. I have no idea how Kate feels. It could be a non issue with her.There is no right and wrong answers here. I do not assume their marriage is in trouble just like I did not assume that the puppies were gone because I read that on another blog.This is Jon and Kate's marriage and they will figure it out.
I realize that many were turned off by the writer mentioning GWOP, but she also stated that she spent months researching the statements she found online. she quoted several named sources as well as unnamed, just as this author did. Reporter Jess only named one source... i.e. the person whose event was cancelled after the G's hired a PR company...or identified a source, such as Jon's former employer. She did not name any of the 100's of other people she claimed to interview. If she spoke with Paul Petersen, who supposedly supports the cause of the advocates, why was he not mentioned? What really turned me off, was that the only places she advertised for people to come foward with info were the hate blogs... i.e. GWOP, Musings From the Moon and Topix... From what I understand, she did not request info from any positive blogs... IMHO, It's obvious that GWOP was directly involved with her article, as they conveniently cleaned up their site and made their new "rules" just in time for the visitors from the article to come calling.As far as I'm concerned this is not responsible journalism and this is why I think Reporter Jess' article was extremely one-sided and biased againt the Gosselins. I'm not saying they are perfect.. heaven knows that they aren't... but I think they were unfairly attacked in the article in Philadelphia Magazine.
I wonder if any of the house party guests who DON'T watch the Gosselins' show saw thirtysomething Jon sitting there and thought, "Crap, is that a narc?"
Kuromi said...I wonder if any of the house party guests who DON'T watch the Gosselins' show saw thirtysomething Jon sitting there and thought, "Crap, is that a narc?" Now, that made me smile. Thanks for the laugh on a Monday...!
Post a Comment