Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Jodi & Kevin Kreider Fumble Again, Watch You Ask, Kate Answers, Kate At The Womens Confrence

Hello Gosselin fans! Low and behold less than 48 hours after the "not so private" meeting with Jon, Jodi and Kevin are back at the only place that will pay them..the CBS Morning Show..This time they invite media hound Gloria Allred, who smiled so big we thought the screen would crack.. To say they did this for the early publicity is a gross understatement. To say anything will come of this interview is laughable..Except perhaps, increase exposure for the Kreider family..Because now that the mortgage is paid off, they need the household bills paid as well! Since last nights episode was an hour long, theres a lot of video to put here, so I needed to make this it's own post..Let me know what you thought of the show!

Watch CBS News Videos Online

You Ask, Kate Answers!



Entertainment Tonight Footage of Kate Speaking At The Women's Confrence:
ETOnline.com (Thanks Schmecky!)

On the night that Kate Gosselin appeared on a pre-taped TLC special answering fan questions, the mom of eight was in California participating with other authors in Night at the Village, a function connected with the Maria Shriver-hosted Women's Conference, where she revealed how she's coping now during her messy divorce. .

"I wake up every day, get out of bed, do what I do because of my kids," she said on the panel. "There's many more lessons I've learned, many more things I've been through, more unexpected things, but I think at the end of it all, perseverance, determination and tenacity is definitely what will get me there." Meanwhile, Shriver and Valerie Bertinelli commented on Kate's situation.

"Love your children more than you hate your ex," Valerie said, giving her advice. "She seems to be following it. Her ex does not seem to be following it as much. I think she's doing the best she can, which is all anyone can ask of ourselves," Maria added.

The event, in Long Beach, California, brought together 10,000 attendees in a 160,000 square foot "women's village," where there were book signings and stations touching on topics including cooking and food, health and wellness, live music and dancing, and even shopping.

Proceeds from Night at the Village benefit The Women's Conference's WE programs. The main event of the conference takes place Tuesday.

91 comments:

  1. Jon, what a complete fool you are allowing those people into your home. Did Jodi and Kevin need a new addition to their home and need a quick infusion of CBS $$$ (Public record in PA on how they used the last money to pay off a second mortgage)?

    And to all those skeptics who said, "Oh it doesn't matter....it's just so wonderful for the Kreiders and the Gosselin children to reconnect" did it make you want to vomit into your morning cereal to see how the Gosselin children were used again? And those wonderful close-up photos on CBS this morning of the snarky reunion- again photos credited to INF. I guess it is just fine to sell out the kids to paparazzi photos but not to TLC? The only difference is those pap photos put the $$ in Jon's pocket.

    Kate and attorney Momjian - get on the horn and get a restraining order preventing the Kreiders from getting closer than 50 feet of your children and your property!

    IF, and that's a BIG IF, back-stabbing Kevin and sneaky Jodi had taken their previous CBS $$ and started a foundation or a legal process to prevent reality TV, they might be believable. BUT, they didn't; they put the $$ from ROL and CBS into their own pockets. Don't you feel just dirty from knowing how Kate's brother used her children?

    I didn't think Jon could sink any lower. But to connive with these "relatives" is way below the belt.

    I hope TLC calls Jon on every single lie he's told. I hope that the Kreiders get supoenaed by TLC for lying about being offered a contract.

    I have to go take another shower. I feel dirty from just listening to the Kreiders and knowing that Jon only had them over then because he knew Kate was on the west coast. Just like his lying outside court saying "Kate should of been here." Heck, he wouldn't have even had to be there if he'd actually paid the money last Friday instead of lying about it. The whole thing was a media ploy on Jon's part and I think it's blowing up in his face, again.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Jodi, where are your children? Did they miss school for New York? Did you have a sitter and who is it? Who is paid for the trip? Did you stay in a high end hotel? Did you and Kevin go out to eat and who paid? Don't you think your top color was a little BOLD and low cut? Were you trying to frame your cleveage with that scarf? And last but not least...OMG who wears open toe sandals on a tv interview? (did you get a pedicure?)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Even though nothing new was revealed, I thought it was a great show last night. I'm hoping that she continues on successfully with her TV career, wherever or whatever it becomes. I'd love to hear her in an animated voice-over, I know she'd do great for that. A movie? With some coaching, I think she'd do fine; especially comedy (thinking back at the Jay Leno skit).

    ReplyDelete
  4. OMG... As far as I'm concerned, the Kreiders' visit was a publicity stunt in order to launch a new career for Jodi and Kevin. Those two vultures, have figured out a new way to exploit Kate and her 8 children. They sicken me.

    ReplyDelete
  5. When I saw them introduce Kevin and Jodi I was annoyed. I was thinking it was going to be about their reunion with Jon and the children. I was like Oh please, are they kidding me?

    Then I saw Gloria Allred there and I was glad because I realized it was about trying to get laws that protect ALL children on reality television shows. I think that's a good thing regardless of who is behind the message. Was there an ulterior motive? Maybe? But what would it be? Money? I don't think that's the motivating factor here. Does the Early Show pay their guests? Not that I think it matters. Would it seem more honorable if Jodi and Kevin didn't make money from it, of course, but I personally don't think it's enough to question their motives.

    Obviously the host asked about the reunion with the kids but I think Jodi and Kevin answered well enough without going into details to make it about that. I really do hope that Jodi and Kevin don't talk about anything regarding the show or question the children. I would hope they wouldn't talk bad about Kate in front of them. I don't think they would.

    I also hope Kate doesn't make the children feel they have to take sides. They should be allowed to have their cousins in their lives.

    ReplyDelete
  6. OMG!! HA so they finally get what they want and see the kids again and the first thing they do is go on CBS Morning show and sell the story?? And people say this was genuine?? I am beyond angry. It is absolutly OUTRAGES!! I was kinda happy for the kids but now, now no way. To have and aunt and uncle who sell you away to the highest bidder is beyond digusting. And Gloria Allred?? well enough said, we all know how she LOVES the attention and I had to laugh when she said Kevin and Jodi can now use the Gosselin kids to get the word out. Yeah its ok as long as they can use the kids to make money, pfft. Absolutly sick. I just feel so bad for Kate, and I even wonder how Jon feels that the first thing they did was go on the show and sell the visit. I remember what he said about it before.Just proves this was nothing but a puplicty stunt.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I don't understand why you would scoff at Jodie/Kevin/Gloria for their efforts in trying to protect children?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Well they are trying to protect the children huh? Then why is little Benny snapped in the photo by Jon's pap buddy? I had to laugh when Jodi said parents are trying to get on TV. Then, what are you doing Aunt Jodi? Your on TV. Keep digging your hole. Sooner or later someone will throw on the dirt.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Baby Mama, from etonline.com:

    The network also announced the rest of the November lineup. "Kate: Her Story" airs Monday, Nov. 2 on TLC.

    11/9: Jon & Kate Plus Eight: Top Moments

    11/16: Jon & Kate Plus Eight: Gymnastics and Baseball
    Jon & Kate Plus Eight: Never Before Seen

    11/23: Jon & Kate Plus Eight: It's a Crazy Life, But it's Our Life

    ReplyDelete
  10. KatherineDenise~ You didn't miss anything with the commercial. It was a 20 sec. blurb about next week. You can watch it here on part 5 of the episode, it just talked about next week Kate will be interviewed by an NBC correspondent about "her side"...

    SchmeckyGirl~ Thank you so much for telling me about the new lineup. I can only do the right side of my blog on my home computer, not my laptop. So as soon as I can get to it I will update the new lineup. I am so happy there are more episodes to see! I knew there was tons of footage left!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Linda, I love your comment! I am in total agreement.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Jodi & Kevin mentioned that the kids didn't skip a beat since the last time they saw them. Sounds to me as though the children are doing quite fine and don't need anybody to advocate on their behalf because they have a mom who is doing exactly that!!!!. So why hire Gloria Allred (yes, her huge smile reminded me of the Grinch BEFORE his heart grew...ugh) to be advocates for children's rights? Gloria even slipped initially and used the term "child actors"....which they are NOT. I am actually confused as to exactly what Jodi and Kevin's motives are now that they are contradicting themselves as well.

    So now they've hired the female version of Jon's scum-bag-slimy lawyer to do who know's what? I'm with you, Linda, shower time (that gave me a huge laugh).

    Last night's show was a bit of a disappointment for me. I suppose I was looking for some new information or insights. Next week looks interesting and I guess we will see some previews of it before Monday.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I'm still not sure what the Kreiders and their attorney are trying to protect reality show children from... What's the problem!!???
    from not being directly paid? Being famous? Being in front of the camera too much or too long, if so, how is that harmful since they're not actually working as in "acting"?

    They're claiming it's harmful to the kids but no one is providing any substantial evidence nor solid scientific basis for it. It's all very, very speculative. How (in what way) is it harmful? What risks are there and why? Do they suffer any more than other child celebrities and if so, why and how? I would like specifics, not just a bunch of spins, hype and hysteria.

    What's harmful now to their ability to function somewhat normally are the paps following them around all because of Jon's stupidity.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Baby Mama, you're welcome.

    Regarding next week's episode I find it strange that it's an NBC interview but it will be aired on TLC. Why isn't it being aired on an NBC show? That means TLC will control what we see and what is edited out. Maybe both networks will be airing footage? Either way I hope it's interesting. I'm not even sure what her "story" is about... I just hope it's more enlightening that last night's episode.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I refuse to watch Jodi & Kevin anywhere at any time. I can almost hear the remark: "Mom doesn't want us to see you, but your Daddy let us." From the very beginning Kate had family issues. Not all families are created equal. Kevin's actions speak louder than words. He just fortifies Kate's earlier decisions to separate herself from negative people - family or not.
    I was intrigued by Kate's saying that Alexis said she doesn't like when her classmates say they watch the show. As much as I like seeing the kids on TV, maybe it's time to move on.
    I certainly support Kate (and the kids) so I will watch anything Kate does. She could certainly carry her own program whatever the format. She is young, attractive, articulate. She rocks! TLC is making the most of her talents and I, for one, enjoy it.
    Here's my latest question: How would Jon pay Paparazzi (sp?) for photos if they are just hanging outside the fence with telephoto lenses? Don't they just take the pix and then get paid by whatever publication uses them?

    ReplyDelete
  16. lucysmom said...
    I'm still not sure what the Kreiders and their attorney are trying to protect reality show children from... What's the problem!!???
    from not being directly paid? Being famous? Being in front of the camera too much or too long, if so, how is that harmful since they're not actually working as in "acting"?

    They're claiming it's harmful to the kids but no one is providing any substantial evidence nor solid scientific basis for it. It's all very, very speculative. How (in what way) is it harmful? What risks are there and why? Do they suffer any more than other child celebrities and if so, why and how? I would like specifics, not just a bunch of spins, hype and hysteria.

    What's harmful now to their ability to function somewhat normally are the paps following them around all because of Jon's stupidity.
    ------------------------------------------------

    She's not their attorney. She is an attorney though. She represents people against discrimination and fights for civil rights. She is also an advocate for children and laws protecting them.

    I made a comment regarding your questions earlier but don't see it posted but some of it was:

    I would hope that every parent, Jon and Kate included, would be thrilled that there are laws out there to protect their children. Who knows, maybe if there were laws in place the Gosselin kids would have been paid very well individually, in addition to the money the parents were paid in their contracts.

    I think it's great that there will be a third party looking after the best interests of the children, both financially and emotionally, even physically (Kid Nation comes to mind). And I LOVE that it will be a Federal Law so that every state has to abide by the laws. No more filming shows in states to purposely avoid those laws. Awesome.

    As for the people that say the show isn't harming the children, I think that's yet to be determined. They do seem happy for the most part but we really don't know what they are dealing with behind closed doors. Kate herself said a few times at least that they are dealing with issues.

    She even mentioned on the show last night that one of the tups came home and said she didn't like the kids in school telling her they watch her on tv. So it is affecting them in some ways now.

    And even if they are indeed happy and healthy NOW who knows what effect it will have on them in the long run when they are older and look back at some of the footage of themselves or how their parents treated each other and even them at times. Or knowing they continued to film during marital problems and their divorce.

    And then knowing that the whole world was watching and knew things about them and their family they didn't even know because they were too young to understand.

    Then they have to deal with being "famous" or even worse "infamous" when they are older and just want to live normal lives. I can't imagine how many times they will hear "Aren't you one of those kids that was on tv when you were younger?" Imagine having to answer that question every time you meet someone in college or during your career, especially a client. I wouldn't be surprised if some of them change their names for anonymity. I hope not. I wish those kids happy and healthy lives forever.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Truly disgusting. I can't believe the interviewer didn't ask about the contradiction of allowing the paps to photograph the reunion for publicity but not TLC, who the kid's know and love as family. Kevin and Jodi were there to further their own cause - how to stay in the spotlight. That they are the ones truly exploiting their neices and nephews is unbelievable! Kate needs more control over what goes on when she's not there.

    On a happier note, I loved last night's episode. Kate was great. Yeah, it was a rehash of things said previously but hey, at least Kate is consistent. She doesn't say one thing and then say something entirely different the next day. I'd watch her in anything and if she ever comes to Sacramento, CA, believe that I would pay money to go see her. Rock on, Kate! Good job keeping your focus on your kids!!

    ReplyDelete
  18. Dee, I love your post. It made me laugh out loud. (My kids even looked at me and asked me what was so funny)!!
    I missed the Krieder's on the Early Show this morning so thanks for posting it. Kevin said it best himself when he was asked if the kids seemed different and he said that hadn't skipped a beat. It seems to me like they are kids that are well adjusted and NOT harmed by this experience.

    ReplyDelete
  19. SchmeckyGirl,
    Are you advocating that there should be federal laws preventing reality shows from filming children at all to avoid "possibly" embarrassing them in their later years?

    I understand fair monetary compensation, but to mandate a policy based purely unsubstantiated speculation seems pretty draconian to me.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Baby Mama, great poll! It shows how many people read your blog! Did you post the results of the last poll? I didn't get to see the final result. Oh well.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I guess that wasn't the last Jon and Kate plus 8 last night! Radar online says that the last episode will air November 26 Yay!!God, Jodi and Kevin are such idiots, they just want to seem important. Those kids are FINE!!They wouldn't be able to afford a normal life without the show!And this has nothing to do with this but Kevin seems gay,lol.

    ReplyDelete
  22. First, if you were unsure whether the long term effects of something could harm your child, would you RISK it? If one of the tups already expressed displeasure that one of her schoolmates was watching her on tv, that is a wake-up call.

    Second, everyone surely is in favor of protecting the welfare of 'reality tv' children! There are laws protecting child actors, ALL children deserve the same protection. Does anyone disagree? This is BIGGER than the Gosselins, and I'm glad someone is in the position to DO IT.

    It's ridiculous how everyone who doesn't agree with Kate gets the same treatment: Jon, Jodi, Kevin, Gloria Allred, and anyone who thinks the kids deserve some privacy, are all jealous and exploiting the kids for money. Kate however, who wants her kids on tv for millions of viewers, and millions of dollars, is forgiven.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Baby Mama,
    Thanks again for posting everything! It’s so great to be able to keep up even when my schedule doesn’t permit watching these shows when they are first broadcast.
    I too liked last night’s show!
    A few people have mentioned that, I think it was Alexis (?), who said she didn’t like the other children at school saying they watch her show. That did make me wonder. Although I do think they look to be perfectly happy and well-adjusted, I also think that they don’t understand just how watched they are and how much people know about them. This may never really be a problem for any of them, but it then again, it might. In my opinion, Kate is a good parent, so I’m hoping she will take comments and worries like that very seriously and continue to make wise decisions in the rearing of her children.
    Oh and Schmecky, I think it was under the last post that you wondered why people think Kate struggles since she has so much help. Wow, all I can say is that I don’t think all the money or hired help in the world can make one’s life free of struggles. I certainly wouldn’t want to deal with what is on Kate’s plate. Just going through a divorce alone is enough strife for one person and she has much more to deal with. I submit that she is not only busy but also has more than a fair share of struggle.

    ReplyDelete
  24. allibrootob said...
    I am actually confused as to exactly what Jodi and Kevin's motives are now that they are contradicting themselves as well.

    So now they've hired the female version of Jon's scum-bag-slimy lawyer to do who know's what? I'm with you, Linda, shower time (that gave me a huge laugh).
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    LOL This is so very true, Jons lawyer and her together UGHHH

    But back to a serious note, your right I too am confused as to thier motives other than money. Only thing I got out of it was the talk and pictures about the visit. I dont think even they knew what they were saying with there fumbling of words.

    And back to lucymoms great post, And I am just putting myself in Kates shoes, I would be darned if anyone comes to my house and tells me whats best for my children. Any fit parent knows whats best for the own children, and Kate is more than a fit parent. Jon?? yeah great parent with a 22 yr old g/f without even being divorced yet from there mother. I do not in any way see how playing in front of a camera is harmful to a child, they have said many many times if someone does not want to be filmed they are not. Trips and money aside. I think the best benifit children get in this situation is Mommy can be home raising healthy children while providing them as well. But now she has to leave them day after day to provide for them. If my children could chose I bet I know what they would chose. And everyone that says its harmful for the children, how would you respond someone coming in your home and telling you what they think is best for your children??

    ReplyDelete
  25. Questions:
    1. Since the show is officially ending at end of November, can we expect the GWOPers to shut down their blog? Or, will they re-name it when they find new people to hate?

    2. Has anybody thought of any TV jobs for Jon? His latest court house steps interview said, "No matter what anybody says, Lohan, or anybody, no more reality shows for me." It was a little bit like the infamous "No matter what anybody says, I did not cheat on Kate" speech. Yeah. Duh. I did think of one. With his sideburns growing ever longer and the partying and smoking, and the fact that he like Vegas, maybe he could be an Elvis impersonator.

    3. Are their other jobs he could do? (I'm serious here.) Violating a morals clause and then not honoring a signed contract is going to make it really hard to get a TV contract doing anything that isn't sleazy or cheesy. He liked the milkshake gig so maybe he could get a franchise.

    Except for Saturday's backyard ride on the lawn tractor for the up-close shots, he usually rides near the fence in front (Monday's photo was by the fence - Saturday photos were in back yard.) Maybe a lawn service? Not too many lawns in NYC so perhaps back closer to his children?

    ReplyDelete
  26. I have a feeling that Jon called up the krieders and said if you guys come I can make money on the photos that will be sold. (so that he can pu the money back into the accounts) and you guys will make money from interviews. What do you guys bet??? Do any of you REALLY believe that the krieders were there to reconnect with the kids? they only went to reconnect them to their bank accounts. The Krieders don't want the children safe. If they did they would be working their butts off to pass those laws and stop leading the paps and news stations to the kids.
    Kate would not let the kids get run by tlc. The kids live their lives they eat when they want to they sleep when they want they play when they want it is just filmed. Also they briefly mentioned the other reality shows also. But do any of you really think that the dugger parents would let any harm come to their children...??? The duggers seem a little protective the kids get homeschooled and they have church at home. The parents would not let any kind of crap happen to the kids.
    Also did you notice how the news lady would ask kevin a question and the ATTENTION WHORE (jodi) kept cutting in. She WANTS to be famous she does not give a crap about the gosselin kids. Its really sad that they are such greedy power hungry backstabbing relatives and with this happening now I would not let them anywhere near my family.
    I wish that the krieders where in it for the kids. to protect all children from stress of reality tv or whatever but they aren't... they are only in it for the money. But one day when they realize they are alone and they don't have family and their kids don't have cousins they will realize that they made the wrong move.

    ReplyDelete
  27. This is my first time postings here but I've been reading this blog for a long time.

    Linda, I believe there is a long standing between all network morning shows (Today, GMA and Early Show) that they do not pay for guest appearances. They only pay airfare and accommodations. The Kreiders were probably paid for their RadarOnline interview but definitely not this one.

    I agree with SchemckyGirl, there really needs to be laws in place for children in reality shows. Just look at some of those parents on Toddlers & Tiaras and even the Balloon Boy incident. Theres a lot of parents that we go to any length for fame. Most of the kids on Toddlers & Tiaras love doing it, doesn't mean that dressing up in skimpy outfits and putting on all that make up is good for them.

    The episode last night was alright, it'll interesting about next weeks episode. It probably won't be shown on NBC since I doubt it takes over from Heroes or Trauma. I wonder if it will be just an NBC interview shown on TLC or will it actually be more questions like this week. I know they say any publicity is good publicity but I think America is getting too much of the Gosselins. I.E. "Gosselin Free" Life & Style Magazine

    ReplyDelete
  28. Jodi and Kevin just sink lower and lower..... I think that they have finally reached the scum level! I knew that there was something going on. The couple who try to rip Jon and Kate and their show to shreds, do not just come over and start hugging-it-up out of the blue. I still think that it was good for the kids to see their Aunt, Uncle and cousins, but if being on the morning show is why Jodi and Kevin came over there than I would take it back. For people who are trying to "protect" the kids from exploitation, they sure do a lot of exploiting themselves.

    Thanks, Shmecky for the new epsiode listings! I was worried that this was the end! I don't want it to stop yet!!!

    I'm excited for next week! Kate's side will be interesting to hear! I think that it will be more telling because it is not an actual episode of J&K+8. (Right?) Can't wait!

    I for one, really enjoyed last nights episode! Even if Kate did see the questions before hand, I don't think it sounded memorized and PR approved. (Like Jon was on LKL!!) I literally laughed out loud during the comment about Joel and a girl getting sucked in by his smile, only to find out what he's really like. And then the, "Oh wait, we've been through that before." moment... it was too funny! I also laughed when she said that she has an "Eight Is Too Much Wig" herself. That is definitely a popular costume this year, I actually know a lot of couples who are being Jon and Kate. I found it ironic that Kate's name was no where to be found on the package it came in! (I guess no one would question who's hairstyle it was!) My heart twisted a little when she spoke about Alexis not liking when people talk about the show. Poor thing! I guess I forget that they are old enough now to understand that they're different, and kids their age actually watch them on TV! All together though, I really liked it! And I didn't mind the older footage because I felt like it was a flashback to the "good old days". (I hate using those words..... it wasn't that long ago when things were great for the Gosselins!) :o(

    ReplyDelete
  29. On a different note, I loved last night's show. Kate was poised and articulate and not afraid to poke fun at herself. We got an opportunity to hear her state much of what's been rumor.

    There are substantial accounts for children's education and they bought the house for the children.

    I was prompted here to go through public records again. Unless the trust is changed, the house was purchased in the name of the estate lawyer as trustee. Makes me wonder about Jon's sign blocking TLC. (If it is in actuality owned by the trust, then technically neither Jon nor Kate own it; is that right?) Subtracting the mortgage price from the purchase $$, they paid $400,000 as a down payment, almost 40%, calling for pay off by 2018. Way to go Kate for being frugal and having that kind of down payment; planning ahead to have it paid off by the time Mady and Cara enter college.

    I think the snippets we were shown of the meeting with the trust attorney also showed Kate's forward thinking about the accounts for each of the children. They have to use the money for higher education, or wait until they are 30 to get the money. (That would mean Jon, that you couldn't tap the kids for money until you are about 60. It safeguards the money for education.)

    That also made me think of all the other snippets that are on "the cutting room floor" of the production company shooting for TLC. That could be some very interesting footage there.

    Aunt Jodi and Uncle Kevin - Have you made any savings plans for your own children's future? We know you paid off the second mortgage on your home but that money really should have gone into a trust for the Gosselin children and not into your pockets. Did you sell the Saturday photos to ROL, etc. or did Jon get it, or was it a split? If you received money from the Saturday shoot, since Benjy was included, were those $$ put into a trust for Benjy?

    Jodi & Kevin: Did you ever consider that what you do contradicts what you say? The TLC crew has had thorough background checks. The paparazzi don't. You haven't seen Jon for almost a year so you couldn't have known anything about the person shooting those up-close photos. I'm hoping that the pap "friend" Jon uses to do photos/bodyguard work has had a background check. I'm hoping that other than being a paparazzi he does have a clean background with no drugs or worse. I'm not casting doubt on the guy but it is a frightening thought. I'd run the background check because I think your children are pretty precious cargo but I have not yet figured out the guy's last name.

    Imagine Kate's anxiety. Every time it is Jon's custody time we have questionable people on the scene. I wouldn't want Michael Lohan, as a convicted felon, within a mile of my kids. I wouldn't want a barmaid as a babysitter. I wouldn't want people (especially relatives!!) who operated or contributed to hate blogs within a mile of my kids. And I don't think I could ever forgive them, much less trust them.

    Am I being melodramatic? Perhaps. But, even as a relative nobody, I do background checks on every adult that is going to be in our employ, much less home with our kids. Schools, pre-schools and daycare centers, by law in most states, require background checks on all employees, even down to the janitorial staff. Why would you allow somebody that you know relatively little about to come and stay with your children when you are going to be away? How much, Jon, do you really know about your pap friend/bodyguard? How much do you know about your new-found friends? How much do you even know about your attorney? And I'm talking about legal violations - we won't even get into the issue of morals and ethics.

    Please stay strong Kate and keep looking to the future. You've increased your knowledge in new areas. You've planned and cared about what happens down the road.

    Sorry, Baby Mama, I really needed to vent. Feel free to edit the length as you see fit.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I understand laws regulating payments and compensation in the entertainment industry. However, I do not understand how child "advocates" and critics claiming that filming children on reality shows is harmful can advocate federal laws banning any reality shows from filming children based purely on unsustantiated speculation that they might just "embarass" them in their later years. Seems rather draconian to me. We shouldn't be spending precious taxpayer resources to create and enforce laws based purely on speculations.

    And I also do not jump up and down for joy at the thought of even more child protection laws when it is the parents who should be able to make decisions and hold the ultimate responsibility for their children's welfare.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I know I frustrate some of you here and it's not my intention. I guess I have that "devil's advocate" in me. I just always think there are two sides to every story, and then there's the truth. I like this blog because I enjoy hearing both sides (there aren't any that I know of that allow that) however, I feel that none of us are privy to what is really going on and we can only go buy what each person involved says or admits or denies, and what other "sources" or the media says. Then there is the occasional and rare footage that proves one side or the other.

    I am not totally on Jon's side or Kevin and Jodi's. I don't know without a reasonable doubt what the truth is. What I DO know is that if there is any chance the children appearing on television can do any damage to them now or in the future I'm happy that it is changing for them. And hopefully for any future children whose parents want them shown on reality television.

    ReplyDelete
  32. To clarify about the trusts. The trusts are meant for if something happens to Jon or Kate. The kids are named beneficiaries in the trust and would receive a portion of the estate. Jon and Kate may also be named co-trustees in this trust so they would both own the property, which is probably the case.

    Linda, I don't know if you saw the original episode with all the financial planning discussion ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDlo_Qi0NzY at 7:15) but the 30 year rule is part of the will. It has nothing to do with the education funds at all, but with any money Jon and Kate have if something happens to both of them. The lawyer was the one which suggested it, and I believe they only disagreed on the 30 year old part. I believe Jon had an objection if they did not want to go to college, they would not have any money to start another career or family early in life.

    The state of Pennsylvania had setup trust funds for each child when they were born. I'm not sure if these are the same ones Kate is talking about but there is no way either one can touch them except the child. You or I could actually put money in them if we wanted to.

    I don't know what is the obsession with the paparazzi pictures from the weekend. I'm sure we all have seen the pictures of the kids playing around the house when both Jon and Kate are there. The pictures of Jodi and Kevin look like there are from the fence, just like all the other ones we have seen. So I doubt anyone would pay for those especially since they could get them for free. The close-ups of the children were not appropriate at all, and seemed very hypocritical. I find it weird though, how do the sextuplets know the difference between the paparazzi taking pictures and the TLC crews filming and taking stills of them.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I don't necessarily see it as problematic to have generalized laws to protect children on TV. Reality is an entirely new genre of TV...I don't believe they are actually actors. Nonetheless, there is no harm done in establishing laws and guidelines.

    What I DO have trouble with is a parent who clearly has her children's best interests at heart, does not need her own "FAMILY" going on national TV and talking in circles about child labor laws. Theirs is a targeted attack and is despicable.

    The speculation about long term effects of being on TV is just that (in my opinion): Speculation. We could speculate about a million variables in childrens lives that could be equally as harmful (speculatively speaking that is)....separation, divorce, single parenting, low income, high income, watching TV, playing video games, and ohhh, the list could go on. So, yes, being a child on a reality tv show could have long term negative impact.

    But let's speculate on the long term Positive impact it could have on them as well. Self esteem, comfortable in new situations, enough money to complete college, memories to watch for a lifetime, etc, etc..... My point is that I think it can be looked at from two perspectives.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Thank you Linda! Totally agree. I'd like to add to that by saying (again) that the kids are not actors, they are not scripted, they are not forced to work. They live their normal lives with cameras around; there are places the cameras do not go, such as their bedrooms and their schools. I say this, going back to the whole compensation/trust fund thing. If Kate really wanted to be a b*tch, she could blow all that money on herself (i.e. Jon's example) but she DID set up college funds for the kids. I don't know what people want, these kids to be handed $10,000 checks per episode as their paycheck? Obviously, that would never happen bc they are children! They should earn an allowance, by helping around the house. So I don't really know what some people's point is with the compensation thing. They're bring compensated, they have college funds, they have a home, they have clothes, food, toys, constant supervision...

    Also, with Alexis' comment, I think Kate helped her handle it well, and I think that at this point in time, doing the show is fine. I can totally see how when they get older- pre-teen to teenage years- that they wouldn't want to do it anymore. And guess what? They don't have to if they don't want to. TLC already said regardless of the kids being filmed or not, they will doing something with just Kate. I think Kate has a future career ahead of her, and she can do it without the children if she wants to, but let's face it- we probably won't see those types of opportunities until it is finalized that the kids cannot be filmed, no if's, and's, or but's; bc that's what people want right now. But yes, I do feel that they will get to an age where they do not want to be filmed. Mady & Cara may get there soon, or in the next few years, who knows.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Thank you Babymama for putting the Krieder interview up, it knocked my socks off. Nothing Jon does surprises me anymore, and I don't know why I was so naive, but I wasn't expecting the Kreiders to hop right on national tv after getting a chance to see their precious nieces and nephews.
    While I believe that safeguards for children on reality shows, would be a good thing, I do not in any way believe that the Gosselin children are being exploited or that there should be any kind of a ban on filming them. I do believe that having a third, more experienced voice and set of eyes and ears can help parents negotiate better for their childrens' behalf and can give parents some invaluable advice for helping them. I believe that if a third party had been involved in this case, it could have helped Kate cover her bases and prove in court if need be that continuing filming would not harm the kids. If Kate needs to make changes, they could help her with that. However, families like the Heenes need safegards, those children could be in real danger.
    Linda, and Lucymom, and others I agree with you 100% about the paparazzi being far more harmful to the kids than any filming done by TLC and yet not Jon, nor Mr Heller, nor the Krieders have said one word about it. I think immediate action needs to be made to regulate that. Paparazzi should keep their distance and never be making derogatory remarks in front of children or filming things. It is one thing if they are at the edge of a parking lot unobtrusively getting a shot of them walking out of a starbucks with their parents, but filming them being disciplined or in emotional situations like losing their dogs, having them have to trip over strangers wtih cameras in a parking lot while trying to get on a school bus, hearing them anshout out derogatory remarks to their parents are all examples of things that should stop and the media outlets who are publishing this should be held liable.

    ReplyDelete
  36. BIG SURPRISE that Jodi & Kevin are right back on tv as soon as they see the kids !!!!!!!
    The show is ending & they still jump at the chance to talk about it. I think they are paid for their appearances.
    Jodi & her stupid scarf, ughh & Kevin tripping over his words when he said the kids acted as if they hadnt skipped a beat. Well, what does that tell you?? That they are fine, umm yes.
    And notice, they claim to be such child advocates but they willingly let THEIR OWN CHILD BENNY be photographed outside of the house when they went to see the kids!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  37. My only thought on the whole Alexis thing is she doesn't like being the center of attention. I was the same way when I was a kid. She's used to being part of a group. Any kind of praise I would get when I was little I would respond a similar way.

    ReplyDelete
  38. lucysmom said...
    SchmeckyGirl,
    Are you advocating that there should be federal laws preventing reality shows from filming children at all to avoid "possibly" embarrassing them in their later years?

    I understand fair monetary compensation, but to mandate a policy based purely unsubstantiated speculation seems pretty draconian to me.
    ------------------------------------------------

    In a sense, yes I am. Children don't have the capacity to make the decision of what they want to be filmed doing in their personal lives. If an adult wants to be filmed going to the bathroom they have that choice. In fact, most reality shows draw the line at filming people going to the bathroom, but it doesn't apply to children. That's just one example. Children aren't given the choice of what gets edited out and make makes the cut.

    Besides the fact that there are plenty of experts in the field that feel it is damaging to the children to have such a loss of privacy. I agree.

    I also think that once those children get to the age that they realize their friends are going to see every move they make on the show they may no longer feel they can act naturally and be themselves.

    And then yes, there is the issue of fair monetary compensation as well.

    ReplyDelete
  39. SchmeckyGirl said...

    NJMOM said...
    I just do not understand why people cannot understand, that just because they are in a reality show, does not mean that WE are entitled to know the details or extent of their marital problems. They are entitled to some privacy.
    -------------------------------------------------

    Then it's not "reality" it's fake. It was not a reality show about baking cakes or building motorcycles. It was a reality show about a happily married couple raising their family together.

    Pretending to be happily married when you are not is a farce when the basis of the show is your marriage and your family as far as I am concerned. That's not "reality".

    They said it all the time their life is the show and the show is their life. But it wasn't. Who knows how long they would have kept up the "act" on their show if the media hadn't caught on. I'm sorry but I feel duped. I thought I knew this family and thought it was a true representation of who they were. I didn't and it wasn't.

    **********************************************

    The show was a reality show about two parents raising 8 kids. It seems as if they were happy at some point. We also saw the friction, isn't that why people hate Kate so much. They never portrayed themselves as perfect or lovey dovey and the show was snippets of their lives. Sorry, just because they are on a reality show does not mean that we are entitled to know the specifics of their marital problems. Just like we are not entitled to know about a lot of other things that they wish to remain private. It's their right. Maybe they would have worked things out if Jon could have behaved like a married mature husband and father. I know many marriages, unfortunately that don't make it, and sometimes I am surpised, sometimes I am not. Some people try to work out there problems in private. As far as I am concerned they don't owe us anything. Sorry you feel duped.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Dee said...
    Jodi, ...... Don't you think your top color was a little BOLD and low cut? Were you trying to frame your cleveage with that scarf? And last but not least...OMG who wears open toe sandals on a tv interview? (did you get a pedicure?)

    October 27, 2009 10:58 AM
    Commenting on Jodi's top color, cleavage and open toes shoes...Kate does/has done all 3. Let's be fair here. She's done it in a balloon and on a dude ranch!

    I do not see how anyone can say that laws protecting children in ANY kind of commercial filmed endeavor are wrong or unnecessary. Making that type of statement just amazes me.

    Whatever Kevin and Jodi's motives are, all children who work in film of this type will benefit.

    Neither Jon or Kate are great anymore in my eyes.

    ReplyDelete
  41. cherier1 said...
    Dee said...
    Jodi, ...... Don't you think your top color was a little BOLD and low cut? Were you trying to frame your cleveage with that scarf? And last but not least...OMG who wears open toe sandals on a tv interview? (did you get a pedicure?)

    October 27, 2009 10:58 AM
    Commenting on Jodi's top color, cleavage and open toes shoes...Kate does/has done all 3. Let's be fair here. She's done it in a balloon and on a dude ranch!

    I do not see how anyone can say that laws protecting children in ANY kind of commercial filmed endeavor are wrong or unnecessary. Making that type of statement just amazes me.

    Whatever Kevin and Jodi's motives are, all children who work in film of this type will benefit.

    Neither Jon or Kate are great anymore in my eyes.
    -------------------------------------------------

    Thank you! I thought Dee was being sarcastic. She wasn't!??!?

    I agree with you 100%.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Dee was obviously being sarcastic... exaggerating, based on all of the Kate haters say.

    ReplyDelete
  43. lucysmom said:

    And I also do not jump up and down for joy at the thought of even more child protection laws when it is the parents who should be able to make decisions and hold the ultimate responsibility for their children's welfare.
    ================================================

    Yeah, what is the world coming to when they try to create laws to protect innocent children... The nerve.

    I had to read that comment three times to make sure I read it right. Those laws wouldn't take rights away from the average parent. It would only protect the children of parents that want to put them on television. I can't believe there are actually people arguing against laws made to protect children.

    Thankfully laws change with the times. Imagine if no new laws were made to protect children from the internet since it is relatively new.

    You can't always depend on a parent to be proactive about certain safeguards for their children. You can't always depend on a parent to do right by their children. I wish you could.

    I think the "balloon boy" throwing up on television because of the predicament he was put in speaks volumes. Toddlers and Tiaras... Disgusting. Kid Nation... Horrible. The parents probably had no idea how bad that one would be, but proper child protection laws would have prevented that fiasco.

    ReplyDelete
  44. REMINDER!!!

    Kate Gosselin will be on Ellen tomorrow (Wednesday).

    ReplyDelete
  45. It was fine when Jodi was being film with her kids but as soon as Kate stopped it she turned cause she was seeing dollars signs. Same with Jon...I don't even have words for him..

    ReplyDelete
  46. Set in the Cleft said...
    Dee was obviously being sarcastic... exaggerating, based on all of the Kate haters say.
    ----------------------------------------------
    LOL! I thought so! I just think that the sarcasm may have been lost to some because no one hear speaks about Kate like that. I thought she was being sarcastic, but I didn't really "get" the sarcasm myself. Now I get it.

    Besides, I didn't see any cleavage on Jodi, she had that scarf covering herself for the most part.

    ReplyDelete
  47. SchmeckyGirl said...
    lucysmom said:

    And I also do not jump up and down for joy at the thought of even more child protection laws when it is the parents who should be able to make decisions and hold the ultimate responsibility for their children's welfare.
    ================================================

    Yeah, what is the world coming to when they try to create laws to protect innocent children... The nerve.

    I had to read that comment three times to make sure I read it right. Those laws wouldn't take rights away from the average parent. It would only protect the children of parents that want to put them on television. I can't believe there are actually people arguing against laws made to protect children.
    __________________________

    SchmeckyGirl,
    Again, you misinterpreted my statement. I was not against all legal protections of children. Yes, there are SOME necessary protection laws, but I think we can get too carried away with too many unncessary laws. I was lamenting the fact that many find it necessary that the government needs to be the Legal Nanny instead of the parents.

    Parents have the God-given right and obligation to make decisions based on what they feel is beneficial (or harmful) to their children, not the government or other third parties.

    ReplyDelete
  48. .... Now if there are circumstances where the parents have no control whatsoever,... such as the paparazzi's, then yes, a third party protection should be in place.

    ReplyDelete
  49. SchmeckyGirl said...

    You can't always depend on a parent to be proactive about certain safeguards for their children. You can't always depend on a parent to do right by their children. I wish you could.
    ______________________-

    My whole point is... So where do you draw the line between how much and when the government should be the parent? How much should we allow the government to take control of our lives? It can get ridiculous and crazy. For example, the government now requires that anyone having garage sale can be fined big buck for selling a recalled or unsafe product. The list goes on and on.

    ReplyDelete
  50. "Neither Jon or Kate are great anymore in my eyes."

    To me it is not a matter of greatness. They are both human and imperfect. I respect Kate more than I respect Jon because I value strength, drive and ambition in people. Jon seems to have none of those traits.

    As for child protection laws, it all depends on the actual laws. In genernal, child protection laws are a good thing. The devil is in the detail. There are a lot of hard questions to be asked and answered before any new laws are drafted let alone passed.

    And these questions get at the fundamental issue of basic freedoms to parent as we see fit and who gets to decide what is best for kids. Do we trust government enough to know better than parents what is best? Do we trust the masses to know what is best for kids? When we take away parental rights in one area does it become a slippery slope for other areas?

    There are many controversial issues surrounding the raising of children- appearing on reality TV is just the most recent. Remember Elian Gonzalez - that was the issue of whether parents can decide to raise their child in a Communist country. There have been homeschooling controversies - should parents be allowed to decide how to educate their children even if the masses think the choice they are making is bad? Should all child pageants be outlawed because the parents on Tiaras and Toddlers because it seems that some parents are doing damage to their kids whether they are filmed or not? If pageants are outlawed, what about competitive sports where kids are pushed by parents (there have been issues surrounding highly competitive gymnastics). Also what makes children in reality TV different from child models and child singers?

    Jodi, Kevin, and Gloria can latch onto all the soundbites they want. I will support or oppose laws when I see them written and see who and what they cover.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Thank you Melissa and Set in the Cleft. Cherier1 the Jodi post was sarcastic, those questions are the same ones that have been asked of Kate.

    ReplyDelete
  52. SchmeckyGirl - In the "old" days, news shows indeed did not pay people to appear. The ethic was "we are reporting news not creating news." Unfortunately that is not always the case today because of ratings wars and advertising dollars generated. So, for news shows, when it's somebody sure to generate controversy, they do pay but it's disguised as "compensation for expenses and potentially lost wages for the time it took for someone to appear instead if working at the regular or normal job."

    It's like in the "old" days, reputable print and broadcast venues didn't run anything without a second source confirming it. If you couldn't find a second source you couldn't run it. No matter how great the story seemed, the first thing an edtor asked was "Did you get a second source?" Unfortunately, that isn't the case today. They hedge it by saying, "according to so and so" or "the XYZ station said that ..." and they run with it. Particularly when you get closer and closer to "sweeps month" which is November. Advertising rates are set for the next 6-8 months based on the number of viewers during this critical period. Thus, you can expect all kinds of garbage in the next few weeks. Media jobs depend on it.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Why hasn't anyone stepped up to introduce anti-papparazi legislation? THAT is harmful to everyone. Strangers lurking outside your property and following you wherever you go? That sounds more illegal than a familiar crew taping your every day life. Gloria Allred needs to bounce over to that cause. The show is NOT harmful. It is a wonderful show and the children will see it and look back with fond memories of all the experiences they had. What they will not look back fondly upon are the news stories, tabloid articles, and pap photos of their daddy and mommy.
    Having their aunt and uncle speak badly about their parents to "news" organizations is equally, if not more harmful. It is devastating to have a family member or in-law badmouth you to others (unfortunately I have this situation with some of my in-laws). If my in-laws went on national television to talk &^*% about me, you bet I would not see them or let me kids see them! Hello???!!
    This just makes me so mad. I am glad that I can come on the site and see other comments or like-minded people here. Thank you!!!

    ReplyDelete
  54. Sadly, protections need to be in place because some parents will use their children for financial gain. That is just a fact.

    Dee - apologies if you were writing in jest.

    When I used the word 'great' it was simply as a play on words. I respect neither parent. I think Kate can no longer see the forest for the trees.Strength, drive and ambition at what cost and for whom?

    ReplyDelete
  55. "Parents have the God-given right and obligation to make decisions based on what they feel is beneficial (or harmful) to their children, not the government or other third parties."

    Agreed. And protections are for the children of parents who make choices based on their own dysfunction or greed. What could possibly be wrong with that? In a perfect world it would not be needed. This is hardly a perfect world.

    ReplyDelete
  56. "You can't always depend on a parent to be proactive about certain safeguards for their children. You can't always depend on a parent to do right by their children. I wish you could. "

    "I think the "balloon boy" ....Toddlers and Tiaras... Disgusting. Kid Nation... Horrible. ...... but proper child protection laws would have prevented that fiasco."

    Good examples by Schmecky.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Lucy - I agree that parents should be ablt to make these decisions responsibly for their children. "Should" being the operative word here. We all know there are parents who won't behave responsibly.

    ReplyDelete
  58. TO ALL THE COMMENTS AGAINST CHILD ADVOCATE LAWS:
    It is a perfect time for advocates to start a campaign for some laws or restraints to be put on TV shows with children. Since this is a new realm we are talking about. The national attention that the Gosselins are getting is in not only this Country, but world wide. So alot of people will know about.
    Not to put J&K in a bad light, lets use the balloon family as a perfect example of exploiting children. I feel they should be charged with something, but that's another story.
    Advocate laws could be helpful in cases when parents are not responsible.
    1. Income locked in a trust.
    2. Could evolve in laws against the p-people, and that's agood thing.
    3. Invasion of privacy for kids. I feel Mady and Cara are already at the point of not wanting to be filmed.
    TLC is breaking ground with all these families, and getting around the laws by saying they are documentry films. Well each state should be advised to take a look at whats going on with these families. Maybe there will be future legislation about these type of shows.

    On another note, alot of posters here keep saying Kate put the money in a trust. Lets give credit to both J&K, because they made that decision along time ago. It pertains to the house and accounts that were started before they even renewed their vows.

    I agree with Schmecky Girl about hearing both sides of the story, and I don't think Kate is going to tell us anything new.
    OPPS! gOTTA GO TAPE eLLEM.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Schmeckygirl said...
    It would only protect the children of parents that want to put them on television. I can't believe there are actually people arguing against laws made to protect children.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    What exactly are you protecting them from other than taking away parenting rights?? And we are talking about the Gosselin children here, you dont know them personally so only what you see on TV. Do you see anything harmful?? Do you see them unhappy?? Kevin and Jodi said it themselves, they havent skipped a beat. I am curious as to what laws you would want to see put in place??

    And PAR brings up a very good point, well then what about the 14 yrs in gymnastics. My girls watched the World Championship on Sat. on TV. Are you going to take thier rights away too because they are being filmed as well??

    ReplyDelete
  60. lucysmom said...
    Parents have the God-given right and obligation to make decisions based on what they feel is beneficial (or harmful) to their children, not the government or other third parties
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    THANK YOU!!! AMEN

    ReplyDelete
  61. SchmeckyGirl and others - I too think regulations for filming children in reality shows should be passed. However, I may differ in what should be made law.

    IMO, those laws should be written in "broad strokes" and not "minutiae". i.e.
    1. Where children cannot be filmed (e.g. bedroom, bathroom)
    2. How long per session and number of sessions per day filming can take place (e.g. Sessions not longer than 2 hours, not more than 2 sessions per day, and not more than 2 sessions per week.)
    3. How compensation is protected (e.g. At least 50% of income generated, must be put into a trust for the child until the child reaches the age of majority. However, before the age of majority, income can be used for higher education [college or trade school] or in the case of paying for care of the minor as the result of serious injury, catastrophic or permanent illness, or other extraordinary sickness. e.g. "Mermaid Girl" needed the money generated to be used for immediate care.

    The other 50% of that child's portion could be used for every day or ordinary expenses: food; clothing; shelter; lower education; routine medical/visual/dental care; participation in enrichment activities such sports, dance, music, etc.)
    4. A guardian ad litem or other neutral legal official should be appointed to annually review protection of the compensation.
    5. All members of production company and crew must have clean background checks, i.e. no felony or child endangerment convictions. This is routine with most production companies.

    Care must be exercised though. What about a parent who videos something their child is doing and submits it to a show such as "America's Funniest Home Videos?" Would that also come under the guidelines of reality TV? I can think of a number of other examples.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Very good point KatherineDenise!

    ReplyDelete
  63. All this talk about different laws protecting children... we are discussing one law in particular regarding children being exploited on television.

    Child actors have protections, so should children on reality tv shows. Hopefully against paparazzi harassing children too. Why are so many offended by that? Besides the fact that it's not always against the parent, it's against the television network that is making money off the children. They are the ones that control what is or isn't done or shown on the show. You have to take the laws on a case by case basis. You can't start ranting about other laws that may be put in place. We aren't discussing other laws.

    There are child car safety seat laws, seat belt laws, helmet laws... all these were set up for the protection of children. Are they bad? No. Are they necessary? Apparently so. Apparently some parents will only take safety precautions for their children if there is threat of a helfty fine or imprisonment. I see children riding bikes or atv's without helmets and it pisses me off. I knew someone that never had her children in car seats even though it was the law until the law was enforced by ticketing, etc.

    Parent's rights? So Britney Spears wants to drive around with her infant son on her lap behind the wheel. Should she have that right as a parent?

    As for cheerleaders and competitive sports I guess those bridges would have to be crossed when we come to them. I do think that laws that protect children against excessive practice in high temperatures and for more than a certain amount of hours a day are good. Some coaches push kids too far past what their bodies can handle. Laws against that are a good thing.

    As for pageants, where young children are dressed up like 25-year-olds with full makeup, fake teeth, false hair, sexy outfits, sexy dance moves, etc... I'm all for banning that crap. It's just plain disgusting, filmed on television or not. You don't teach a child self esteem by teaching them they have to have perfect teeth and hair and full makeup on to be pretty. Child pageants where children look like children are another thing.

    As for child models, there are laws where suggestive poses are not allowed. What about nude child modeling? Should there be laws against that? Or are we to rely on mothers like Brooke Shields' who thought having her 12-year-old daughter photographed and filmed nude was no big deal?

    Selling recalled baby and children's products? I think it's great that it's illegal. I can't imagine anyone wanting to defend selling a faulty crib to an unsuspecting buyer. All those hefty fines are for companies and consignment stores. Garage sales? I would hope people would make sure they weren't selling a product that was recalled. Is the five bucks you'd make off an unsafe car seat worth the risk? Check to see if it's recalled online before you sell it. It's not hard. You'd have to have an ongoing garage sale business for that to be so inconvenient. If that's the case then you pretty much are running a business anyway.

    I'd like an example of an existing law that protects children that is considered a bad law.

    ReplyDelete
  64. I think the paparazzi are a much graver concern than a reality production crew. We don't know who in the heck these paps are! What they do is wrong - whether it's the Gosselin children or Angelina/Brad children.

    Do you know what the qualifications are? None except a camera. Go to INF's web site where anybody can sign up and they encourage you to do it to "make extra money."

    At their homes, I want paparazzi barred from photographing children any closer than a distance of 500 feet or no closer than the curb or edge of the road. It can be frightening for an adult to have somebody jump out with a camera at night and have flashes in your face. Imagine how terrifying it would be for a child to have strangers run after them or jump out with a camera!

    It is altogether different to have a legitimate production company making photographs with specific guidelines and the paparazzi!

    I'd hope Jon has another epiphany about not allowing or encouraging paps to photograph his children, but I think this unlikely to happen.

    Actions speak louder than words. I’ve written my elected officials. I encourage you to do the same.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Everyone keeps referring to Jodi and Kevin saying "the kids didn't miss a beat". I honestly took that to mean in their relationship with Kevin and Jodi. Right afterwards she said she hadn't seen them in a year and it was like they were never apart.

    ReplyDelete
  66. KatherineDenise said...
    lucysmom said...
    Parents have the God-given right and obligation to make decisions based on what they feel is beneficial (or harmful) to their children, not the government or other third parties
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    THANK YOU!!! AMEN
    -----------------------------------------------

    So does that apply to Jon too?

    ReplyDelete
  67. KatherineDenise said...
    And we are talking about the Gosselin children here, you dont know them personally so only what you see on TV. Do you see anything harmful?? Do you see them unhappy??
    ------------------------------------------------

    Yes, I've seen them unhappy at times. I've seen them happy too. Kate herself said the children aren't happy at times. So did Jon.

    I've seen Mady unhappy about being filmed more than a few times. I've seen her not wanting to be filmed and letting the cameraman know it. I've seen the children unhappy many times on the show, for various reasons. Some unknown.

    I've seen the children unhappy in pics taken by the paps too. I saw Colin unhappy and sad in a few pics. Could be he just got a time-out, but we don't know. I saw Cara unhappy leaving a salon with her mother. Could be a valid reason, but she was unhappy. I saw Mady unhappy at the bus stop. Again, could be a valid reason, but she was unhappy.

    Of course we could argue that they are unhappy because the paps are there, but we don't know that's the reason. We could argue that they are unhappy just about normal things that most children are unhappy about. My kids aren't always happy. It's normal. But you asked so I answered.

    Also, the show is edited. At this point in time I don't see TLC showing footage of the children being unhappy they are filmed. That would be shooting themselves in the foot. But it IS POSSIBLE they are unhappy much more than we see. We don't know.

    So to answer your question, I have seen them unhappy.

    ReplyDelete
  68. I have one question for you all -- What about the Duggars, Table for 12, Little People Big World? Everyone is screaming that there should be protection laws because of the Gosselins. But what about other reality TV families? No is saying the Duggar or Rolof kids are being irrevocablly damaged or exploited. Why the double standard? What about the Little Couple when they have a child? Should we take away their rights too because they've chosen to share their lives with us?

    Not once could could Kevin and Jodi state that they had seen evidence that the Gosselin kids were showing harmful effects. They even dodged the question when it came up. Ya notice that there was no photos of the kids hugging or interacting with Kevin and Jodi. No tearful or joyful reunion. Don't ya think that's curious?

    ReplyDelete
  69. Baby Mama, will there be a new post for Kate on the Ellen Show? It hasn't aired yet in EST and although I've read some news articles about it online I want to wait until I see it for myself, so I'll give you until 4pm EST to create one! ;)

    ReplyDelete
  70. Regarding the NBC interview with Kate, I wonder if NBC did the interview and decided against airing it on NBC for some reason and allowed TLC to air it instead.

    ReplyDelete
  71. I know this new reality show isn't true, but the article was funny nonetheless... I think we all need a good laugh about this situation from time to time...

    The gossip apocalypse has arrived: Jon Gosselin and Nadya Suleman will be going on a date.

    The "Jon & Kate Plus 8" star has reportedly agreed to appear in a cheesy new reality show in which he'll date Octomom Nadya Suleman, former "Cheaters" producer Bobby Goldstein told In Touch Weekly.

    "I heard that Nadya has an insatiable desire to spend time with Jon and to put their families together," Goldstein said. "And I had the idea that this could be a very entertaining fiasco."

    Though reps for both parties deny that any show is in the works, Goldstein says he will produce the pilot, called "Jon – Kate = Jon Octomom," with a former producer of "The Jerry Springer Show."

    According to a press release, cameras will follow Gosselin "as he contemplates what hooking up with Octomom could really be like. He's totally creeped out by the idea that if they got married, they'd have 22 kids."

    To increase the creep factor, the plotline for the 33-year-old single mom reveals that she will be so obsessed with the octodad, "she's already talking openly about the two of them getting married."

    The press release continues, "It's so bad that when they finally meet, Octomom's brood may start calling Jon ‘Daddy.' If this doesn't make Jon lose it, then Octomom modeling her bikini body for him will."

    The odd couple's scheduled rendezvous comes after Suleman embarrassingly admitted that she thought Gosselin is "hot."

    "I kind of have a crush on Jon Gosselin," she gushed to RadarOnline.com.

    While it's no surprise Suleman is gung-ho to film the potential reality TV disaster, Gosselin's decision to jump on board is rather surprising.

    Not only is he in the midst of a heated court battle with his estranged wife, Kate, 32, he is still involved in a relationship with 23-year-old Hailey Glassman.

    Regardless of personal issues, Goldstein believes the father of eight's quest for fame trumps everything else. "I think that he wants to remain in the limelight," he told In Touch. "Notoriety is a component that some humans place a lot of value on."

    He added, "It will be like watching a train wreck. You know you shouldn't look, but you can't turn your head away."

    ReplyDelete
  72. lucysmom said...
    Parents have the God-given right and obligation to make decisions based on what they feel is beneficial (or harmful) to their children, not the government or other third parties
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Parents have the right with in reason. They cannot give a 9 year old alcohol. Look at the case in Minnesota, parents do not always have the right to deny life-saving medical treatment for children.

    God-given right and laws are two complete different things. In some states Child Services can take your Kids away for having them play outside unsupervised all the time.

    The laws would be meant for reality show children, not athletes. We are only seeing a fraction of what goes on in an athletes lives. People have seen every aspect of the Gosselin's lives, from their family vacations to the kids naked in the bath.

    I dont think its fair to say there should be no laws because the effects of reality television are speculation. Do you really need to see the worst case scenario to act? Does a child need to be injured? Or become a drug addict 10 years from now?

    Having other kids talk about the show at school shouldn't be a life lesson for a 5 year old. Kids should allowed to be kids and shouldn't have every one of their actions on tape to be scrutinized by the world and their peers at school.

    Look at some of the cases of child actors now a days. Gary Coleman, Macaulay Culkin, Lindsay Lohan and Jamie Lynn Spears. And these are just actors/actresses where there are regulations.

    ReplyDelete
  73. I stand corrected. I should have given both J& K credit for the trusts.

    I guess at the time I posted, I was thinking back to the Good Housekeeping article from two years ago when Kate said "My first priority was getting money set aside for college education." I guess when the Q&A snippet was used it triggered the memory of the printed article and I should have credited/referenced that.

    I'm truly glad that those $$ are in trust accounts. I believe there are separate trust accounts for education, I mean separate from the accounts set up by the state of PA, and separate from their wills. Hopefully also invested in pre-paid 529 college plans as well as just bank trust accounts. I do know that they consulted the trust and estate planning attorney.

    I'm also glad that the trusts have to be used for college or waiting until age 30. It's more of a motivator to go to college or trade school. We've had several friends whose kids opted not to go to college and got their trust accounts at age 21 and the money was blown through in a flash.

    ReplyDelete
  74. KaterineDenise,
    DO you oppose the Jackie Coogan law?

    ReplyDelete
  75. Anybody seen this?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/28/jon-gosselins-girlfriend-_0_n_337406.html

    ReplyDelete
  76. Hailey is going to be on the insider tonight and tomorrow! It sounds like her Nd Jon are having trouble:)

    ReplyDelete
  77. From People.com: -Hailey Speaks out-

    Jon Gosselin has more relationship drama on his hands.

    Hailey Glassman says her reality star boyfriend is emotionally abusive – and she's sick of it. "He'll call me and take his anger out on me," Glassman, 22, says in a two-part interview scheduled to air on The Insider beginning Thursday. "He has 'mantrums.' I shouldn't have to put up with being emotionally abused. I cry and say, 'Why are you so mean to me?' "

    But she may not get a straight answer. "Sometimes he has trouble with the truth," she says, "and he will dance and dance around his lies. He's like Jekyll and Hyde. But I still love him."

    Ever since she started dating Gosselin, Glassman says her life has changed – and not necessarily for the better. "I met Jon in a bubble," she says. "I'd never seen the show. I had no idea." After their trip to France in July, she says she's faced harsh criticism. "People judge me before they meet me. I get threats everyday. I get called a home wrecker and a fat whore. People will stare or point. It gets worse everyday."

    She admits their relationship is "not normal," but Glassman says she can't imagine leaving Gosselin. "I don't want to leave him all alone," she says. "At the end of the day, I love him but I dislike him at times. When I love someone I would never hurt them."

    ReplyDelete
  78. Holy Crap! Hailey Glassman is going to be on The Insider Thursday and Friday. AND! She did an interview with OK Magazine! Is OK reliable? NOT GOOD FOR JON!!! If she really said all that I totally believe her. Not sure why she's with him though... that part I don't get. Although after that interview she may not be with him anyway. Yikes!

    ReplyDelete
  79. WOW WOW WOW Bombshell, Hailey on The Insider. Breaking down in tears and claming Jon abuses her?? My OH My I do feel bad for her if this is true. Much much to come from this. I think this will be Jon scraping the bottom of the barrel.

    ReplyDelete
  80. I just reread the Hailey interview. I don't get it. Why be with him and go out and bash him like that? I know he's said he apologized to her for stuff and wants to start over and he loves her. If she accepted his apology and wants to be with him why would she go public like that? Something does not add up, but I don't know what! She's still with him and loves him but she throws him under the bus?

    If Jon is truly abusive towards her and lies to her (still) and hasn't changed since all this happened why is she with him?

    Yes, I think he slept with Kate Major and maybe Stephanie and he admitted it to Hailey, but she's still with him. Either she forgave him or she didn't.

    Now Jon is doing the Rev. Shmuley thing. It "seems" he's trying to improve himself since all his horrible mistakes this past year. So if that's true then that's a good thing. If it's just all an act then the truth will come out.

    The Hailey thing just threw me for a loop. This is getting even uglier and more interesting every day.

    I can't wait to hear Jon's statement...

    ReplyDelete
  81. Jen Santos said...
    I have one question for you all -- What about the Duggars, Table for 12, Little People Big World? Everyone is screaming that there should be protection laws because of the Gosselins. But what about other reality TV families? No is saying the Duggar or Rolof kids are being irrevocablly damaged or exploited. Why the double standard? What about the Little Couple when they have a child? Should we take away their rights too because they've chosen to share their lives with us?
    ------------------------------------------------

    I don't watch those shows so I can't give specifics on what could be wrong with them but generally, yes, there should be laws protecting ALL children on reality shows. I don't think anyone on here was thinkging the Gosselin children only.

    The Duggars? I don't watch the show but I did see maybe one episode a few years ago. Personally I think anyone that raises that many children and relies on their other children to care for the brothers and sisters is wrong. What about their childhood? I understand chores and learning responsibility but you had the children, you take care of them.

    I also think the show should not be the main source of income for the families. Especially if they are using the children's fair share of the income to support the family. I think, but don't know for sure, that the parents of the other reality shows all have other means of income. They work and support their own family. The children are not a major source of their income. Big difference in my opinion.

    My real opinion is that young children should not be on reality shows at all. Once they are past the infancy stage (with no diaperless or naked in bath shots) and heading into the toddler/preschool stage I think they should not be a major part of the show. Seeing them in passing or annual updates is okay in my eyes but their lives should not be entertainment. Once they are old enough to understand what it means then they can be on the show. Not sure what age that is. 13? 15? I'd say 16 and older is definitely old enough.

    Since I doubt that will be the case anyway, I really feel they should have a guardian to make sure their privacy and emotional well-being is not being compromised. They should make sure they are paid for being on the show and that money is put in a trust for them... not just a college fund. They should be paid for their appearance just like any adult and have access to that money once they are out of college or the age of 25 if they don't go to college. 30 is fine too if they can access the money earlier if they have economic hardship.

    ReplyDelete
  82. I think that the Gosselin kids are most referenced currently in relation to laws to protect children on reality TV very simply because they are the most popular right now. The laws under discussion would be for ALL kids on reality TV: Duggars, Roloffs, Table for 12.

    I can't see how or why anyone would argue AGAINST such regulation. How is it harmful? Yes, parents can and do have a God given right to parent their kids as they choose. Parents also have a RESPONSIBILITY to do what is in that child's best interest.

    Kate is a good parent. Jon, while he certainly has his moments, is also a good parent. I believe they think they are doing what is best for their kids. If that is truly the case, how would this proposed law be detrimental???

    I don't think anyone is saying NO KIDS on reality TV. Some may be saying that now, but that is in the context of there currently being no protective regs in place.

    It would be like saying no kids on TV or in movies, period. That didn't happen. What happened was reasonable laws were enacted to help protect the kids best interest.

    Parents still have plenty of leeway to screw up their kids - look at Lindsay Lohan. I just can't see the downside. A good law would regulate working hours, consecutive days, ensure education/tutoring, financial security.

    The Gosselins say that those are all things currently in place - so this would not effect them - AT ALL. Kids can do reality TV if it's done properly, just like kids can do sitcoms, soap operas, whatever.

    Additional safeguards in place isn't harmful to anyone, except those parents who truly need that safeguard. The ones who serve underage kids alcohol, who don't use carseats, who leave small children alone while they are out carousing; are the laws that protect those kids infringing on their parental God given rights? Yes, maybe they are, but then, those parents are not living up to their God given parental responsibility.

    How can anyone be against this? How?

    ReplyDelete
  83. I'm ready to move on to another subject but before I do... This is my final word on child protection laws--Just to clear the air and re-clarify my views in regards to that and then I am DONE with this topic!:

    1) I already approve expanding the reach of the existing Coogan law and child labor laws in the entertainment field to include reality shows, but any new provisions must take into account the differences between the nature of a truly scripted and documentary show; You can't lump them in the same boat.

    2) It's apparent that we all here in this forum differ in our political philosophy; that is, the role and reach of government; namely in regards to parental and individual rights:

    Most laws to protect children PHYSICALLY are necessary - like seat belt and medical laws. Those are all good things. But it just isn't always prudent or necessary to keep passing laws to protect children from every possible harm-- only the most highly probable. For example: We don't have laws to force parents to have their children vaccinated against the Swine Flu or any other disease. That's the parent's choice.

    We already have very good and necessary laws against blatant physical child abuse (including neglect). However, there are too many gray areas surrounding the parameters which define child abuse (like spanking, what constitutes verbal, psychological & emotional abuse) because long term effects and consequences are too difficult to prove yet and/or remain too controversial for laws to be passed.

    No, this isn't a perfect world and never will be. We all take risks. We all risk raising children in a very uncertain world. Some of you ask "why wait until the worst case scenario happens?" Why? First, because that's life. Life is hard and full of risks. Secondly, we live in a free society that values choice and the freedom to take risks even if it means that our children have to take risks as well. And the reality is that precious social resources are not always available to attempt to limit those risks.

    'Nuff said. I'm tired.

    ReplyDelete
  84. MosbiusDesign and Schmecky:

    I was going to post but you both already said it all and so perfectly.

    As for the Hailey interview: could this trainwreck get any worse? THOSE POOR KIDS.

    ReplyDelete
  85. So far from what I've seen and read, from what Jon and Hailey have said and acted with each other, it appears that they've just been using each other to cover up their neediness and insecurities.

    The fact that their relationship started (allegedly) as soon as the separation announcement on the show and then went full speed ahead reveals their naivette about both of themselves and each other. Jon was in too much of a rush to speed into his newfound freedom that his brain never caught up to his ... well, you get the picture.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Denise said...
    KaterineDenise,
    DO you oppose the Jackie Coogan law?
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    No I do not. I think there is a difference between reality children and child actors. Child actor have long hours and have to remember lines where as the Gosselin children just live thier lives with a camera around 2 - 3 days a week for a few hours. Now The Coogan Law is more about the money issue?? which I totally agree with and do believe Kate has said many times a trust has been set up for the childrens future.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Linda - good post of examples of what advocate laws might and should be. Everyone here should read it twice so they understand what is being stated.
    Most states have no guidelines at all pertaining to reality shows. That's why the Gosselins are being used as an examples?? It is not to say the children are abused. To protect the children against stations like TLC and others that might take advantage of the whole family. Which I think is what happened to the Gosselins. They definately got into it more for the money and fame, and got caried away by all the big offers from the network. One free trip or thing after another it just has never stopped, and I think there shouldbe more then $80K put away for 8 children. Thats where advocate guidlines are needed.
    PA divorce laws are that all liquid marital assets are to be divided 50 - 50. No matter what! I just hope that the kids have it in a trust so neither one of them can touch it. Kate was very careful of her words on Monday night. Saying it was put away in a safe place. Butt she was careful not to use the word trust. Did anyone else notice that besides me??? The trust for the kids was set up back when they made out their wills, and who knows if they added to it??

    ReplyDelete
  88. I watched the Ellen interview on Youtube, Kate is great. She says the show was taken from them too soon.
    A lot of peopele bring up a really great point that it is a superfine line when it comes to government interference in family life. We see all the time cases where a child is removed from the home with good intentions sometimes to a place far more dangerous and abusive than the family home, when no abuse has actually occurred because of misinformationa and overreaction and we also see other cases where someone should have stepped in, but the family's privacy prevailed and disasterous consequences ensued. I would like to see any third party involvement serve as an education and support source for the parents not a substitute for them. It shows how great care needs to be made with any legislation involving the family.
    I also feel kind of bad for Hailey and hope she surrounds herself with people that can give her some good advice and help her see past the hormones and crushes. She is too young and sheltered and out of her league with this. She has her whole life ahead of her and she could ruin it. Maybe if she walks away, it might be that wake up call to Jon that he needs to grow up and work on himself instead of being a victim all of the time. He probably won't but we can hope. Maybe also some of those Kate haters that insist that Kate spent the whole marriage picking on poor little ole Jon can realize that Jon played a big part in the relationship too. To me, Kate seems so much less stressed than she used to be with him.

    ReplyDelete
  89. MosbiusDesigns- I don't know if you picked this name out of the blue, but I imagine you did not. So, I decided to look you up. If you are who I think you are, you make your money off of watching then giving reviews about television shows. So isn't that a bit hypocritical that you feel the need to advocate for childrens laws? Don't get me wrong I believe there should be something in place to protect children. But, along the lines of what LINDA said. Parents, unless proven by a court of law to be unfit, have the ultimate say of what their children do, eat, wear,and go. Its not up to any of us to determine the well being the Gosselin Children.

    I have a blind son, with a very rare condition called Reiger's Syndrome. There are 8 known cases in the United States. My son is uninsurable(health and life), can not get a job( He is 19 now), will never drive a car, and probably never be married or have children. All doctors told us to put him in a home because he would be severly retarded, that he would never live to be a teenager, he would never go to school and so on. But guess what, I am his parent. Everyday he went to public school, I forced the school to accommadate him. He was in special ed all through school and eventually he received his diploma. Do you have any idea how that made him and us feel. VICTORIOUS!!!! So do you see why I say the parents have the choice, not the general public.

    We have tried to get SSI for him and medicaid. We have been to court on several occasions to try and get him help. We lost everything we had at one point to get his surgerys done. LSU hospital offered to do the surgery for free, but my sweet baby was going to be used as a test subject. No thank you. We paid for it in more ways than you know. So, maybe you should use your talents to advocate for something that truely has a value. Until you have walked a day in my shoes, don't ever think you know what is best for someone else's child.

    Just to clarify, if TLC ever offered that to me, you can bet I would do it and every cent would go to care for our son after we are gone.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Jodi and Keven are just too transparent. The air balloon boy lied better.

    CBS: Are the kids well adjusted?
    Jodi & Kevin: "Uh, it's like they didn't skip a beat. I mean, we didn't skip a beat. We had so much fun when we all got together."
    -way to cover up when you poked a hole in your whole argument by admitting the kids are perfectly fine!

    CBS: Is the timing of Jon not wanting the kids to be on tv anymore suspicious?
    Jodi and Kevin: "That doesn't really matter."
    -way to not answer at all!

    Thanks for posting the video, BabyMama. I love a good laugh!

    ReplyDelete