Linda Mintle, Ph.D. is a licensed marriage and family therapist, author of 16 books, a national expert on family issues and the psychology of food and weight. She’s an assistant professor in the department of pediatrics at Eastern Virginia Medical School, a national speaker, writer, and news contributor.
For weeks, American reality TV star Kate Gosselin left her 1.2 million dollar home in Wernersville, Penn., to fly to Los Angeles to rehearse and perform on Dancing with the Stars. She even built a rehearsal space in her basement to practice in between shows. People.com reports that she enjoyed getting advice from former Playboy bunny Pamela Anderson on how to be a single mom. And according to Kate, her children were all for mommy leaving them each week.
Who are we kidding? Show me a single mom with eight children whose priority is to get her body back into shape (Kate’s stated goal) by leaving her children for weeks at time. How do plastic surgeries and makeovers help her children?
“My heart is always in my kitchen, baking and cooking for my kids, and I’ll always be there.”
Really? Can we stop the charade? Dancing with the Stars is much more exciting than being home with eight children baking cookies. I get that, but do not use your children as an excuse to live the high life and hob-nob with the stars. And Kate, it is possible to dictate a contract stating you will do the show if you can have your children with you!
Kate has been bitten by the celebrity bug. She has tasted fame and wealth, and loves the camera. She knows that celebrity is her ticket to making money. Just admit it and we can all move on. Stop pretending to be an everyday mom sacrificing for the children. We are not so naïve as to think that her appearances on Dancing with the Stars have nothing to do with her upcoming book release and new TV show.
Look, I understand the pull of stardom, but let’s consider the impact all of this on the kids. Their lives are on constant display. It’s hard enough for children to go through a divorce without adding absence and celebrity drama to their lives. And what mother thinks that six-year-olds can make decisions about whether or not she should go to Hollywood?
My advice to Kate (and I know she isn’t asking) is be a mom. Stop the madness and get some perspective. Make an appointment with a marital therapist and try to end the contention with Jon that continues to get played out in the press. Create a routine for those kids. Help them adjust to all the changes. Stop asking the multiples what you should do and find another source for parenting advice (not Pamela Anderson). The children need a mom and a dad who are physically, emotionally, and spiritually present, and who can guide them through everything that has happened to them so far. It is not too late to pull back and give them a more normal life, but it will require some tough choices. And hey, now you can bake cookies with kids!
. . . . . . . . . . . .
Check out Dr. Linda Mintle’s book, I Married You, Not Your Family (Siloam Press, 2008). For more articles on marriage and family, www.drlindahelps.com.
According to certain sites, Ellen Ross from Pennsylvania has been dating Jon Gosselin. Their FACEBOOK communication was copied. Of course, neither of these accounts can now be found,
Hi “Breaking Bad” fans. I’m sorry I missed recapping last week. I’d just flown in from San Diego and my arms were tired.
Last week Gus tried to persuade Walt to cook again. He took him to an underground lab, actually a super lab. Walt still refused but Gus talked to him, as if Gus were the Devil, and told Walt that “a man will provide . . .” It was a great scene and Gustav sent chills up my spine with his calm evil. I once thought Tuco was a bad-ass but Gustav is so subtle . . . and so convincing.
Cop driving. Call to check on lady who’s daughter hadn’t heard from her. He pulls up to the “hut” (looks like Patrick Swayze) and knocks on the door. No answer so he’s looking in the windows.He sees mens clothes hanging, doubles (twins!) Knocks again. Hears buzzing and walks out to back-hutt, and he finds the old lady’s bodied covered in bugs.
Pulls out his gun and plays policeman, calls for backup. Yells to the building and one of the twins comes out in an undershirt with a grenade in his hand (I see that, don’t think the cop does( other twin is sneaking up behind cop, he bites grenade, guess it’s an apple. Other twin chops cop with an ax.
Walt looking at artwork and his phone rings. Skylar about the divorce papers she found in the crib. She’s short and bitchy and wants to talk about Walt Jr. She’s such a bitch. Walt is being calm and says Walt Jr saw it coming. She asks about his divorce demands. He wants to pay for things with his drug money, she says no, it will make them accessories. He asks “how do you think I’ve been paying for thing for the past few months.”
Walt buys or rents an apartment.
Back at Taco place. Gus being boss and the twins slide into the restaurant. Gus looks pissed. He’s the Devil, after all.
Jesse with his druggie pals . He’s showing the meth and they are praising him for doing it with H. His friends snort some, he says he could watch, he could cook. The guy is screaming from the pain of the great meth (whatever that means).
“someone took my brain out and boiled it. Amtrax.” okayyyy.
Jesse wants to do business. He thinks he’s the next big cooker. He’s promising his friends they will sell it “safe and smart” and they won’t get “greedy, like before.” Of course, the druggies will do this.Badger and Skinny. Jesse starts giving orders. Meth heads are seen by Hank. Hank is watching Jesse’s house.
Walt waking to music and making a sandwich, still wearing his wedding ring. Happy music and Walt is getting dressed after making his lunch and putting it in a bag. “Sun, shine on me today” is the song . . . .
Walt and Walt Jr in the car discussing the divorce. Dad is trying to convince his son that he will see him and admits to feeling guilty. Walt Jr. somehow thinks he should have had a say in his parents marriage and that’s why he’s pissed. Ok.
Gus with the twins. in the food place. Man is pissed off. Worker asks if they should call the police but Gus says they aren’t doing anything wrong. Being creepy isn’t a crime.
Walt somewhere industrial. Can’t describe. He’s going down to the superlab. Someone greets him. “Mr. White, I presume?” Lab assistant ready to show his resume and credentials. He also has this big contraption that makes “something” and he starts telling Walt about his recipe. This guy is a genius chemist like Walt and they start talking about the weights and measures of certain components. Walt is impressed. It is the Best Coffee he’s ever tasted! Ha. We were all fooled.
Happy jazz Piano music (Charlie Brown-ish) and two men in yellow working side by side making stacks and stacks and pounds and pounds of the devil’s drug. More chemistry talk. Walt just had a wonderful time and he and the assistant start opening up to each other.
They agree on the “magic” of the chemistry and the assistant recites a long poem and declares himself a nerd.
Hank watching Jesse’s place and it looks like he hasn’t been out of his car in days. Marie calls, “are you EVER coming home?” He’s waiting for the Pinkman dude to lead him to a lab. Marie suggests that Hank ask Walt!
“hey buddy hey, how ya doin. Hate to bother ya, at a dead end. . . . gotta know, I’d never put you on the spot or make you feel uncomfortable . . . . Jesse Pinkman dealt you weed . . . I so do not care about that. as . . . .Did Pinkman ever have an RV??:
Walt leans forward. “Why?”
Hank explains that he thinks it was used as a rolling-lab. Walt is silent. Commercial.
Jesse answers Walt’s call. Walt hangs up. Walt calls Saul and starts explaining the DEA problem. Walt is worried because it has his fingerprints all over it. Saul wants Walt to “get to it before the feds do.” It’s RV SIZE. I’m not David Copperfield.
“Did you not plan for this contingency. Starship Enterprise had a self destruct button, just saying.”
Badger talking crap while someone is working on an RV. Walt drives up and is pissed off. Walt is trying to explain that the DEA is looking for the RV and that they need to destroy it. Walt is asking Badger’s cousin, the lot owner, for help. He’ knows a guy . . .
“What about Jesse?”
“What about him.”
Badger calls Jesse. Jesse runs out of the house and Hank is following. Who’s dumber, Badger, Jesse or Walt for not telling Jesse he’s being watched.
Lady at Taco Place asks the twins if they are leaving. They just stare into space. Another woman tries and Gus says is, “it’s okay.” They speak in Spanish. The twins were on the same side of the booth and they didn’t buy food. Nothing suspicious at all.
Walt pays a guy to destroy the RV. EVERYBODY knows this character actor but, of course, I don’t know his name, just recognize his voice. Walt is checking out the RV for, whatever, and finds a pack of Funyuns and gets emotional. He’s looking around the place as if it’s home.
Jesse busts in the RV and starts yelling that it’s his RV too and he should have a say in what they do with it. He brought Hank. Walt is freaking out like a rat in a box. “You led him right to us.” Commercial.
Hank gets out of his vehicle and slowly looks at the RV. He rattles a window. Jesse and Walt are like caged animals. My heart is pounding. Hank tries the door, windows. Yells that Jesse should come out, not resist arrest. Hank starts breaking into the RV with a tire iron. Lot owner says “gotta warrant.” and tells Hank he needs a warrant. Lot guy is talking about “probable cause” and saying that it is his private residence. Claims Hank is “fishing” and Hank shows the bullet holes.
Walt whispers to Jesse,Jesse yells what he says. Cyrano de breaking bad.
:”This is my own private domicile, I will not be harassed . . . . BITCH”
Hank laughs and says he’ll get the warrant. Tough guy calls in for a warrant.
Walt and Jesse still in the RV Jesse wants to “escape” and is starting to panic. “they will shoot me in the head.” He’s begging Walt (daddy) to tell him what to do. Walt calls someone and says, “We need your help”
Hank still by the RV waiting for backup. A woman calls and claims that Marie has been in an accident and Hank drives away. It was Saul’s secretary. “You have to start paying me more.”
Hank drives off. Jesse and Walt get out of the RV. Hank is running into the hospital yelling at the nurses, going door to door, and his phone rings, it’s Marie, “I’m just checking in, should I cook dinner.” . . . .
Hank realizes he’s been punk’d.
Nice Spanish music while the RV is being crushed, destroyed, demolished, and made unrecognizable. Walt and Jesse watch.
Gus in the middle of no where.
This guy scares the hell out of me.
He meets with the twins and they still want to kill Walt. He tells them that Walt didn’t kill Tuco, the DEA agent did. Twin says that they are not allowed to kill DEA agent. Gustav gives them permission. “May his death satisfy you.”
I congratulate you fans for having such love for these kids that they will, once again, work and sacrifice their childhoods for YOUR entertainment.
Kate Gosselin’s 8 Kids — Cleared for Spin-off
Originally posted Apr 25th 2010 1:00 AM PDT by TMZ Staff
Kate Gosselin‘s new TLC show “Kate Plus 8” is all systems go — because the local Department of Labor says the kiddies have been cleared to continue their careers as reality TV stars.
A rep for the Pennsylvania Dept. of Labor and Industry tells TMZ the correct paperwork for the show was submitted and approved … and said, “The proper steps have been taken and the kids are permitted for ‘Kate Plus 8.'”
But according to the rep, nothing has been submitted for Kate’s other TLC spin-off “Twist of Kate” — which could mean the kiddies may not be joining Kate on that one.
That’s probably a good thing … because 5-year-olds shouldn’t have to work two jobs.
Earlier today, the internet was buzzing with the news that Comedy Central had edited– or, as more than a few people happened to point out, censored– last night’s episode of South Park. The episode was the show’s 201st, and featured the image of the Prophet Muhammad in addition to some very unflattering jokes directed at Gingers and Tom Cruise. The network had never censored an episode of Trey Parker and Matt Stone’s show before, so it was quite shocking that they would have caved to threats issued by a Muslim fundamentalist website that didn’t take kindly to the image of Muhammad in a bear suit. Now, the creators of the show have issued a statement. Will the show go on? Are they angry? CLICK HERE for COMEDY EXAMINER.
Ex-Beauty Queen Sues Disney/ABC for “Wife Swap” Episode: Claims show “maximize [Guastaferro’s] public embarrassment.”
Teen beauty queen portrayed as spoiled brat on ‘Wife Swap’ files $100M lawsuit
BY Jose Martinez
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
A teen beauty portrayed as a beast on ABC’s “Wife Swap” filed a $100 million lawsuit against the network, charging the reality show is a sham.
Alicia Guastaferro, 18, says she has panic attacks and suicidal tendencies because of her 2008 appearance, in which she memorably berated her mom and sniffed, “I do feel sorry for people that are not gorgeous people.”
The show, which dispatched her mother to another family, made Guastaferro the object of ridicule among her western New York peers and forced her to transfer schools, the suit claims.
In a clip from her episode, Guastaferro was introduced as the “princess of pageantry” as pictures flashed of her in a tiara and pageant gowns.
“If you don’t have the best clothes, the best hair and makeup and the best tan, you’re not gonna win the pageant,” she haughtily said in a trophy-filled room.
The suit says producers ordered Guastaferro to “act a little more spoiled” and staged scenes, including one in which her dad spray-tans her legs. They allegedly even manufactured scenes to make her look bratty, highlighting how her mom supposedly does her homework and keeps a Christmas tree year-round to give her daily presents.
“[Guastaferro] does not receive a present every day,” the suit says.
The blond beauty also objected to a scene in which she snorted at a breakfast delivered by her mother, Karen. “That was not your best cereal,” the teen growls.
Guastaferro claims she has gotten death threats and been assaulted, and went from the honor roll to being a special-ed student after the show aired.
The suit says her mother agreed to be on “Wife Swap” for $20,000, but ABC and Disney never obtained the teen’s consent. A Walt Disney representative could not be reached, and Guastaferro’s lawyer did not return calls.
JODI: First of all my husband and I would like to thank you for this opportunity to discuss with you the need for guidelines and protection for children involved in reality
TV shows. Specifically, we are requesting that this new media format is included into the existing laws that are followed by scripted TV formats. My name is Jodi Kreider and my husband Kevin and I are sitting before you today as both advocates and voices for the children involved in reality TV. We have prepared a brief statement for you designed to outline the issue and provide the critical observations that support our request for immediate action to protect these children. We will also present you some possible solutions for this serious issue. The bottom line is the current laws designed to protect children involved in television production are outdated. They need to be revised to include the new reality format to insure that every child is protected. These children deserve the same legal protection and ethical safeguards provided to children involved in scripted television.
My husband and I are here as first person witnesses to the serious concerns raised and damages resulting from the lack of protection for the children involved in reality TV. My husbands’ sister is Kate Gosselin. Kate, along with her husband Jon, [Jodi chokes up here] and their eight beautiful children, were the stars of TLC’s reality show Jon and Kate Plus 8 for five seasons. What started out as a simple documentary to capture what it was like for a young couple to have one set of twins and one set of sextuplets turned into TLC’s highest rated weekly show. It is very important to make clear that we are not here because of Jon and Kate’s decision to be filmed. We are here because of what we saw, and what we did not see. We saw many concerning safety issues and did not see any safeguards in place to protect these children’s rights.
My husband Kevin and I along with our four children lived right around the corner in the same development as Jon and Kate. We spent a great deal of time enjoying everyday activities and special occasions at each other’s house. Because of our family’s close involvement we were included in some of the first few shows. My husband enjoyed helping Jon with small projects in the garage and I was filmed sometimes when I was looking after the children. My husband will now describe a few of our concerns with actual illustrations.
KEVIN: Our direct involvement with Jon and Kate Plus 8 has provided my wife and I with first-hand observations that will support our view that reality TV needs to follow the same guidelines as scripted TV. I will briefly address eight important concerning issues.
The first, the format was planned and formal. Jon and Kate signed a complicated contract without a lawyer to represent them. Once the contracts are signed the producer sits down with Jon and Kate and develops show content for each episode.
Secondly, the extensive professional filming schedule. Large professional camera lighting equipment was permanently installed in the kitchen, living room, dining areas, all around the house. Their daily routine revolved around the needs of a designed episode, rather than having a crew just follow around their normal routine. A crew included a video camera operator, audio operator, and producer, would follow the children around for and average of two to three days to get enough footage for a half hour episode. What started as a simple 2-hour documentary ended with Jon and Kate producing over a hundred episodes in two years. Just two years.
Thirdly, privacy rights concerns. Video cameras were installed in the children’s bedrooms. These cameras operated continuously in an effort to capture unscripted moments, positive and negative, to provide TV production company with enough clips to fill a half hour episode. The children’s potty training with skin exposed was filmed by camera crews in the children’s bathroom often without a parent present. These scenes were uploaded onto the internet and burned onto the season’s DVDs. The children’s potty training videos still remain to be highly viewed on the internet.
Fourth, the potential psychological damage. One very vivid example comes to mind. The children were told it was Christmas morning. It was so the camera crew could get the genuine reaction of the children. It wasn’t until after, until later, they were told it was not Christmas morning, they just did it for the show. Can you imagine how confused eight little kids were that morning? One child in particular had many outbursts captured on the show. Now media, general public and children at school have labeled her as the difficult or bad one.
Fifth, the lack of adult supervision. The children were often left alone with one or more production crew member without a parent present. These areas include bathroom, bedroom, basement, backyard, only to name a few.
Next, is increased professional demands. The children would voice their dislike for going on studio promotional events to promote the upcoming season or special event. The children would also consider the sit down interview times a chore or something to accomplish so they could resume their playtime. Remember, this is said to be an unscripted reality show. Extra security is hired to protect the children from the media frenzy at their last promotional event in New York City.
Next, lack of financial security. In scripted TV the law states that every child involved in the filming receives financial compensation. This includes an amount that is to be put in an irrevocable trust fund. In reality TV those laws do not exist. There are no rules to provide and protect a child’s financial security. Remember, these shows are created because of these children, and they are the only participants not receiving compensation.
Lastly, elevated personal security risks. TLC provided Kate with a bodyguard due to her high-profile and concern for a large number of unknown people who have voiced their unkind and some disturbing comments about her treatment to her husband that was shown on the TV show. There are many disturbing, disturbing and threatening comments that are posted on newspaper blogs and social media formats against Jon, Kate and their children. There have also been many psychologists who have voiced their concerns, stating, “the act of providing such personal details and images of the children foster inappropriate and misleading ideas to some of the mentally unstable citizens. I’ll now pass it back over to my wife Jodi for some final remarks.
JODI: From my husband’s comments I’m confident you’ll now realize that there is very little reality involved in the production of a reality TV show. The only real thing are the issues and concerns for the non professionals who are involved. We are simply asking that the existing law for scripted TV include reality TV as soon as possible. This is an urgent issue. with production costs much lower, fewer filming restrictions and potential for high profit, the reality TV production companies are now seeking new large families, multiple sets of babies, families in conflict, to contact them for possible future filming. During Jon and Kate’s separation, Jon refused to allow his children to be filmed by reality TV, expressing a new insight from both disturbing comments from people toward his family members and concerning behavior some of his children were exhibiting.
TLC has now announced a new TV show with Kate and her children after she finishes Dancing With the Stars. Our goal is to have the law revised so that not only [Jodi chokes up again] our nieces and nephews will be protected, but for all children who are now or who will be involved in reality TV.
There are some people who view reality TV as an easy way to get fame and fortune. During these tough economic times we are hearing more and more troubling stories about desperate parents doing desperate things. You may have remembered the recent balloon boy story in the news. It wasn’t long ago where parents instructed their young son to be involved in a fabricated story about his son possibly in a runaway homemade balloon. This sparked national media attention and involved a major emergency response. They later admitted they pulled this stunt in the hopes to be contacted by the reality TV production company they had reached out to earlier. It is very important to note that the emergency responders and the public were put at risk responding to this unusual event.
Our suggested solutions to this problem. Number one: Because children are unable to provide informed consent about a decision that has potential to inflict serious harm to their personal development, they should not be allowed to be involved in any reality TV programming.
Secondly, for the children that are currently involved in reality TV production, they should be required to become a member of the Screen Actors Guild, a labor organization whose mission is to negotiate the best possible wages and working conditions for professional actors, even young ones. The Screen Actors Guild represents its members through negotiation and enforcement of collective bargaining agreements that establish equitable levels of compensation, benefits and working conditions for the performers, the collection of compensation for exploitation of their recorded performances and protection against unauthorized use. They are provided with guidance to protect their privacy and personal information as well as health and safety issues. Most importantly, the Screen Actors Guild are on set to protect all members especially working children. It is their job to insure that all SAG rules including work hours and safety rules are being followed. When children are on set, the SAG represented is keeping an eye out for the following. Number one, Are the children being asked to work overtime? Or beyond their permitted work hours? Are they getting adequate rest times? Are they being tutored in a safe and effective manner? Have them been asked to do hazardous work? Are they permitting the parents to be in sight and sound of the children at all times? Have they been provided with an appropriate dressing room area?
In closing, reality TV is a powerful media format with the potential for serious personal harm for adults and especially children. There are already harmful personal, private and embarrassing moments that the children cannot defend, delete or erase after they are uploaded on the internet for anyone to watch at the click of a button. Children need to be protected from potential danger. Reality TV has the potential to cause real danger, period. These children deserve the same protections for those involved in scripted TV because they are, after all, only children. With your support the children will be given a voice and provided their right to legal protection in regards to the reality TV industry. Thank you.
REP. MURT: First of all I want to thank you for testifying today Kevin and Jodi, and I hope the committee understands that I requested them to come here, they did not seek me out, I sought them out, so we could learn as much as we possibly could about this concept of reality TV.
PAUL PETERSON: Good morning. My name is Paul Petersen and I have been growing up and growing old with most of you here today. Grandparents may remember me for my brief stay with the original Mouseketeers. Your parents may have watched me on “The Donna Reed Show.” Today’s generation…the consumers of so much of what passes for popular entertainment…may know me because of my advocacy on behalf of the children in Entertainment for the past twenty years through my foundation, A Minor Consideration. That is what brings me here today.
The use and abuse of children in our media is no longer a “Hollywood Problem.” The life-long troubles of former child stars has become a cliché’ with which we are all too familiar. But, the production of commercial entertainment has spread not just throughout this country, but throughout the world…and spread so rapidly that our laws and rules and regulations have not kept pace with the special needs of children exposed to the voracious appetite of our modern media. Complicating this issue of the exploitation of children in entertainment is the incredible development of delivery platforms we now take for granted…the Internet with its staggering social networking sites and unregulated content…downloadable music and films, the traditional platforms of the printed Press, broadcast news and, of course, television. An outside observer will note that many of these delivery systems are actually owned by a just a few very large global conglomerates who routinely use the profits of one division to drive traffic to yet another wholly-owned subsidiary.
So, what is the true status of children working in Entertainment? What is the State’s interest in their labors? What are the risks and perils? There are so many myths surrounding the most visible children in the world that it’s time to look at the facts. Let’s look behind the curtain.
· First, children are the “property” of their parents. They are, literally, owned by the people who bring them into this world. In Common Law the wording is straightforward: “Parents of a working child are entitled to its custody, income and services.”
· Children in Entertainment are exempt from Federal Child Labor Law…and have been since 1938 with the passage of the Fair Labor Standards Act. If an individual State does not pass laws governing kids in entertainment, there are no laws to protect this class.
· A Minor is assumed, in Law, to be incapable of Informed Consent, and contracts entered into on their behalf are unenforceable unless approved by a Court.
· The Parent…not the child…is expected to provide for food, clothing, education and shelter. Children who must work for these basic necessities are always at risk.
· PA’s Third Circuit Court in 1985 noted that “the common law rule that minors…may disaffirm their contracts has as its basis the public policy concern that minors should not be bound by mistakes resulting from their immaturity or the overbearance of unscrupulous adults.”
Of all we hear about Child Labor we continue to believe that parents will always do what is best for their off-spring and that actual paying work is a rarity when it comes to children. The Federal Dept. of Labor, however, tells us that 5.5 million children are even now at work in America, most of that number involved in Agriculture…and just like young performers, the kids picking our crops are exempt from federal child labor laws. Today, as I speak, 250 million children are in the world’s work force…most of them underpaid, working to have enough to eat, and easy prey for the so-called adults who are in control of their destiny.
I want to thank Rep Thomas Murt for undertaking this task of examining Pennsylvania’s laws regarding not just children in Entertainment, but the hidden world of working kids. This subject is much larger than most people suspect, and has consequences that stretch far into the future because we are affecting our children’s perceptions of the world they will inherit. We have become far too careless with our kids…with the quality of their education…their broadcast images…and their need for spiritual nourishment and right to privacy.
Nothing in life can compare to the bond between parent and child, and each of us must be mindful of the risks inherent in what some call ‘meddling’ in other people’s business. We must also keep in mind that the rules for children are different…especially when work and money are involved. I have not come to Pennsylvania to point fingers. The events that have played out in the Gosselin family over the past five years have, frankly, defied description, but from my perspective as a person who literally grew up on television I keep coming back to the one unassailable truth…these children, through no fault of their own, are engaged in a commercial enterprise that takes place in their home…a home in which every participating adult is compensated…yet their status has not been determined in Law or in the collective mind of our culture.
The excuses for this absence of common sense reasoning are many. The children are merely participants. Being on camera is easy and not work at all. “Jon and Kate + 8” is just a reality show and the kids aren’t actually performers.
Permit me to gently point out that in the mind of a child these are distinctions without a difference. Children are not Meerkats. They are decidedly not the same as a pride of lions being filmed by a naturalist on an African plain. They are aware…and if you’ll just close your eyes and remember when Dad took out the movie camera to film you playing in the back yard and the way you mugged for the camera…you’ll know to a certainty that even a two year old toddler knows when a camera is present.
Cameras and microphones alter behaviors. The presence of a working film crew alters the dynamics within a home. When money is thrown into an altered reality things can become extremely complicated. For the developing child who finds themselves in the voracious maw of the media there is literally no concept of the life-long consequences they will have to live with for the next sixty, seventy of eighty years of their lives.
Let me blunt about this: There is no Delete button on the internet. Once your identity becomes public there is no going back. Images can be manipulated, and even the most innocent activity can be changed to suit the mind of the consumer of popular entertainment. It is a dangerous world out there, my friends, and all of us need to be constantly reminded that the consequences of fundamentally and publicly altering the life of a growing child will have consequences. Each of us is directly connected to every day or our lives.
I repeat, the rules are different for children. We do not hand an eight year old the keys to the car. Children have bedtimes and rules. Kids are not equipped to deal with things like taxes and salaries, publicity shoots and travel arrangements…and they do not ordinarily have to deal with autograph seekers and fans.
We have long acknowledged the special status of professional children who are paid to deliver a performance…in fact we have come to believe that an entire set of special rules are always in place to guard their welfare and income. Some of the things we believe are that children in the world of entertainment always have a parent or guardian close at hand, that a studio teacher will be provided to ensure that child’s education, that their working hours will be strictly limited and a portion of their income will be set aside for their use when they become an adult.
It’s just not true. I have already mentioned that there is no Federal standard for kids in Entertainment. If an individual State doesn’t pass its own child labor laws for Entertainment there are no laws governing the work place. Today there are still nineteen states, many of them competing for production dollars, which have not gotten around to passing meaningful child labor laws specific to entertainment. Pennsylvania, thankfully, is not one of those States. There are, in fact, laws on the books to protect children in the entertainment industry. The question is, why in the case of the Gosselin Family have they not been enforced?
Special work permits are required by this State for all children under the age of Seven. Provisions for contract approval and even the definition of what constitutes the Employee-Employer relationship are on the books. It’s just too easy to excuse the working reality of television production by believing in the term “Reality Show.” These mislabeled productions are anything but reality. There are writers, producers, publicists and paid production crews. There are hand-crafted stories to tell and do-overs and 2nd takes.
And always…always…there is big money on the table. It is all too easy to forget about the special needs of the children involved in these entertainment products…and I’ll remind everyone that this is nothing new. The Dionne Quintuplets were exposed to this kind of public consumption seventy years ago. The Loud Family was ripped apart by participating in the PBS production of “The American Family.” Even under the best of circumstances the consequences of early fame can have devastating…lethal consequences.
I am painfully aware that the use of juveniles in so-called reality shows is a genie that has long since escaped the bottle. That fact should not prevent us from asking the hard questions or preparing ourselves to intervene when children are put up for sale by even the most well-meaning parent. Here are my concerns:
· What is the share of each child’s participation in these commercial productions?
· Who owns the money these children earn?
· What are the work rules when your home is the studio?
· What independent authority is present to halt production when the welfare of children becomes the issue?
· Is it in the State’s interest to insure that an independent advocate is assigned to protect the separate interests of the working child?
The good news is that we do not have to re-invent the wheel here today. Well tested models already exist. The better news is that with today’s hearing we have collectively recognized the potential for harm that always exist in an unregulated work place that utilizes Minors.
And finally, it is my fondest hope that we send a clear message to all of America’s children that no matter how unique your circumstances may be there will always be people who are prepared to help you prepare for your future with laws, counsel and loving advice. It is our solemn obligation to raise the next generation…to share with them what we know, the lessons we’ve learned, and the rewards of playing by the rules.
As those of you who are parents, grandparents, teachers or coaches know, physical, cognitive, social and emotional capabilities are rapidly changing from the point of birth into adulthood. As such, developmental needs also change as children age. To this point, I will be framing my discussion around the basic developmental tasks at different ages and then connect these tasks with the “realities,” if you will, of reality television.
Infancy and Early Childhood (birth – 3)
In the first few years of life, small children are learning to explore and interact with the world around them. Critical to this task are the social relationships children form with their primary caretakers. Specifically, children develop early attachment to their parents that allow them to safely and comfortably explore their world. Securely attached children are those who have learned that their primary caregiver will be there consistently; a securely attached child can trust that even when mom leaves the room or is out of sight, she will reliably be there to respond to his needs. Children whose caregivers are unreliable, inconsistent or abusive develop early problems with attachment that relate to a number of negative long-term outcomes. As such, stable and reliable care is critical to the development of strong emotional bonds that can form the basis for future success.
In addition to forming emotional bonds with their caretakers, small children also learn how to communicate and regulate their emotions through referencing their caretakers. For example, a child who is trying to understand how to act in a situation that is new or ambiguous will look to those around her to learn how she should respond. Indeed, this is why experienced parents know not to scream, “Oh no!” and look panicked when a child falls down!
Finally, young children are beginning to learn how to control their own behavior. Over time, parental expectations are internalized and even when the primary caregivers are not around children will follow the rules established in the home. Critical to this learning is the interaction between parent and child. Just as with attachment and emotional development, rule-based learning requires consistent parental feedback and ongoing, mutual interactions between parent and child.
Given the developmental need for consistent and reliable parent-child interaction during the early years, how might taking part in reality television shows relate to child development?
First, one often hears parents of children in reality television shows indicating that the purpose of their participation is to support the family in a way that allows the parents to stay home with the children vs. working outside of the home. Parents might also feel that the show provides opportunities for children to explore the world in a way that the family would not have been able to afford before, such as family vacations and other child-friendly activities. Indeed, this might be a very real and notable benefit of such a lifestyle.
On the other hand, the quality and format of the increases in “family time” must also be considered. For example, a parent’s ability to form a stable attachment with his child might be challenged by the realities of a family life made public. Increased demands from the general public, the need to travel for the show, and the general disruption in everyday activities related to the television show can interfere with the caregivers’ ability to provide consistent, reliable and responsive care. Of course this is a concern of any family with parents that might travel for work or otherwise have a career that is outside of typical work parameters. However, the all-encompassing nature of reality television and the constant public demands of celebrity families can blur the line between work and home and make these concerns more acute and pervasive for families featured in reality television.
Further blurring this line is the presence of cameras, microphones, and production people into the family home. This necessity of reality television has the potential to create an atmosphere that challenges the child’s need for consistency both in terms of parents’ time as well as routine, rules and expectations. Although reality television show families are depicted as going about “life as usual,” those who make decisions related to production (e.g., taping schedules, number of cameras, rules regarding when cameras will be turned on/off) must recognize that these factors also become aspects of the children’s daily lives and can interfere greatly with the normal routine and expectations of a household, particularly if not closely regulated.
On a related note, the role of the individuals behind the camera can be confusing to children and provide them with inconsistent feedback on their own behavior as well as their general schema of appropriate social interactions. For example: Do cameramen laugh with children when something is funny? Correct incorrect grammar? Pick them up when they fall? One must also take care to determine how inappropriate behaviors that might make “better television” are encouraged or discouraged by either parents or the individuals involved in producing the show.
School Age (4-10)
Children enter another rapid stage of growth when they start school. Significant changes in physical, cognitive, social, and emotional development during this time are strongly impacted by children’s relationships with their parents and peers. Self-esteem and efficacy across domains also take on new importance, as children expand their experience, knowledge and relationships in the world outside of their immediate family.
Peers take on heightened importance during the school-age years. Children begin to have real friends (vs. mere playmates) and interactions with peers can influence all aspects of development. Through both friendships and conflict with peers, children learn leadership, communication, cooperation, and problem-solving skills. They learn how to read social situations and develop a repertoire of appropriate responses. Although adults are critical during this period, children’s own negotiations of group and relationship issues (from deciding who gets to go first to choosing how to respond when a classmate says: “you’re not my friend anymore!”) facilitate the development of information processing skills and behavioral repertoires that form the basis for future relationships.
One cannot discuss peer influence without highlighting the increase in aggression and bullying that occurs during middle-childhood and continues into the teenage years. Indeed, most children are involved at some time in some type of physical, verbal, or social aggression, with a portion of these children experiencing these things to an extreme degree. Advances in modern technology have also brought concerns about bullying and aggression to a whole new level, as children can now communicate immediately and even anonymously with hundreds if not thousands of other youth at a time. Subsequent surges in rumor-spreading, name-calling, insults, and other aspects of cyber-bullying have led to grave concerns about the mental health of children who are the victims of these activities, including a number of suicides that have been directly linked to these behaviors.
Outside of social networking, the setting where most children experience intensive socialization experiences is school. As we all know, schools are not simply for “reading, writing and arithmetic,” but actually serve as a major formative experience in life. In addition to social development, school is a setting where children begin to develop a sense of themselves as valuable and valued contributors with a range of competencies. It is critical that parents support this development by establishing a home environment that promotes the importance of learning, and continually engaging their child in discussion about school life.
Given the developmental need for self-efficacy, friendship and affiliation, and social and emotional processing skills during the school-age years, how might taking part in reality television shows relate to development during this life stage?
Unlike situations with child actors and performers who often receive their schooling from and on-set tutor, children in reality television shows spend much of their time at the family home (which is now also the “workplace”) and continue to attend their local school. However, this might not be true in the case where children travel to take part in reality shows centered on competitions, take trips relate to the television show during the academic year, or are removed from public school due to social problems or concerns about safety, stemming from the increasingly public nature of their lives.
In general, it is critical that children maintain a consistent routine that minimizes any disruption in school attendance and related activities. Even if a child is maintaining their academic achievement, if they are not experiencing the other social-emotional benefits of the school-setting (such as learning to interact with peers, participating in a range of activities, developing a sense of their relative strengths and achievements) then their developmental needs can be compromised. If this cannot be met through traditional schooling, care must be taken to meet these varied needs elsewhere, for example through enrolling students in community clubs or sports teams.
In addition to ensuring that the range of physical, cognitive, and social experiences typically provided in the school setting are met, school should continue to serve as a major factor in the lives of children in television. Although children on reality shows might be distracted by the myriad of people and activities in their household and related to the show in general, it is critical that they have established study times, clear bedtimes on school nights, and encouragement and emphasis on the value and importance of school.
Normative social development might also be compromised for children on reality television shows due to the lack of privacy related to family life. Home for children should serve as a “safe haven” where children can process their experiences in the outside world, enjoy one-on-one time with parents and siblings, and rest and rejuvenate for the next day. While children on reality television shows might be able to achieve this, it would seem that this could only be done through a strong commitment to have the cameras around only for limited and structured time periods, with sufficient time for the family to interact in private and for children to do homework, bathe and sleep without disruption. In other words, a clear delineation should be made between “house as home” and “house as workplace.”
Ironically, as the lives of reality show participants become more public, they might actually become or feel more isolated. Thus, as family outings to the grocery store become an event featured on the evening entertainment news and personal conversations with friends and family members end up on the covers of magazines, these families can find themselves increasingly isolated from friends, family, and even the ordinary activities of daily living. Thus, just when children are exploring the outside world and learning how to form new relationships, they can be bombarded with experiences that betray their trust and stymie their growth as individuals in society.
A final issue related to this lack of privacy is that of cyberspace. We live in an increasingly public world where blogs, celebrity gossip sites and other electronic venues for commentary, speculation, and judgment are prolific. Even mainstream online news publications often have a section after each article where readers can anonymously post their opinions and views of the story and the people in it. Thus, not only are children in the public eye subject to the same pressures and situations of their non-public peers, they are also subject to the constant commentary and views of a society where sharing your opinions is the norm and where strangers might feel justified in sharing their views on issues related to family members or the family’s choice to be in the public eye. The public might also view the family as distant, unreal, and even immune to their scrutiny, thus increasing their willingness to say whatever is on their minds, regardless of the impact on the family. This problem can become even more profound during the adolescent years, which I will discuss now.
Mere mention of the term “teenager” can conjure up images of youth and families in turmoil. Thus, dramatic physical, cognitive, and social changes can lead to an increase in high-risk behavior, mental health problems, and family conflict. First, the onset of sexual maturation puts adolescents at a critical stage of life physically. Physical changes combined with a peak in the importance of peer judgment and acceptance can then set the stage for distress over personal attributes, such as body image, which can lead to the development of eating disorders or steroid use.
Cognitively, the part of the brain related to higher-order thinking and planning is continuing to develop during adolescence. Consequently, teenagers who desire or are given greater responsibility and independence are not yet fully equipped to make optimal decisions on their own. As such, it is critical that adults help adolescents think through life choices and experiences, while not stripping them of their autonomy.
Finally, adolescence is considered a critical time for identity development where youth must develop a sense of themselves both as individuals and in relation to others, as well as a larger understanding of their “place in the world.” While most youth remain connected to the values and beliefs of their parents throughout adolescence, the striving for independence and the increase in peer influence requires a delicate balancing act on the part of both parents and teens.
Given the many changes that take place during adolescence and the developmental need to form a sense of oneself, one’s relationships with others and one’s place in the world, how might taking part in reality television shows relate to adolescent developmental needs?
When considering the roles, rules, and responsibilities related to children in reality television, we often put teenagers in a category more in line with adults. Thus, we tend to place decision-making authority in the hands of the teen and parental involvement becomes less paramount. This is parallel to other aspects of life, my own field included, where circumstances can allow for teens to make decisions about their own medical care, for example. Although parents are often involved, it is generally believed that teenagers are more advanced than younger children in terms of their abilities, rights, and responsibilities. However, the developmental needs and capabilities of adolescence highlights the need to carefully consider this approach.
First, our knowledge of cognitive development tells us that adolescents make better decisions in collaboration with adults than they do on their own. This might be particularly relevant in the case of reality television, where a teenager might be enamored by the idea of being in the public eye, while not having the foresight to recognize the potential long-term consequences. For example, the increased public scrutiny discussed earlier can be even more pronounced and more devastating during the teenage years. Thus, not only do these teens live with the pressure and judgment of their friends and classmates, but they also receive judgment and commentary from complete strangers across the nation, or even the world. In such an environment, important areas of vulnerability during adolescence—such as self-esteem and body image—can be exponentially magnified.
Even if teens on television are able to escape negative attention from the public, they might be impacted in other ways by the reality that fame brings them and their family. Increased narcissism (“Everybody cares about me and what I’m doing.”; already a common characteristic of adolescence), difficulty with trust (“Is she my friend because I’m on TV or because she really likes me?”), and a confused sense of one’s place in the world (“Who am I outside of this show and what do I do when the show ends?”) might each be outcomes for adolescents living in the public eye.
In conclusion, it is clear that the cognitive, social and emotional needs across the different phases of childhood require that we as adults take great care in establishing an environment that helps promote positive development and prevent negative outcomes in all children. In terms of reality television, specifically, children do not have the experience or skills to deal with the additional decisions and repercussions of living in the public eye that we as adults do (or should). Further, the nature of television—to entertain—is such that the families that are chosen to appear in reality television programs are often from high risk groups to begin with, e.g., families with children who are exhibiting significant behavior problems, homes with a parent who is a celebrity prior to the show, or families with a large number of children. Thus, it is imperative that we build protective factors – including mechanisms to promote close family relationships, positive peer interactions, and a strong education – into the structure of these children’s lives, so as to minimize risk and optimize positive development.
Although one might not say conclusively that children should or should not participate in reality shows or television in general, if these shows are to take place, great care should be taken to produce them in such a way that puts the developmental needs of children and adolescents first.