DIVORCE and Reality TV: 22 families and counting
22 Families Affected By The Reality TV Divorce Curse
There have been seven divorces that have occurred on The Real Housewives franchise in the five years since its premiere. The most recent casualty of this “divorce curse,” Vicki Gunvalson, blames reality TV for her marital troubles telling CNN recently, “We didn’t have 90 percent of the problems that we have now and I truly believe it is the show.” But can a television show really be at fault, or does it merely shine a spotlight on the cracks that were already present in the foundation of a marriage? Whatever the case, divorce and reality TV have gone hand-in-hand since the very first show in the genre in 1973, when PBS’ An American Family, which featured the breakup of the Loud family.
Bill & Pat Loud
It’s ironic that something as intellectually highbrow as PBS and expensive reels of 16mm film birthed what’s considered by many to be the dregs of our beer-bottle culture: Reality TV. Producer Craig Gilbert’s vision of conducting an anthropological “experiment” is something that’s still debated when discussing the genre today. With the invasion of cameras into people’s lives, are we seeing the worst of humanity or are we seeing how things really are? When the Louds were first approached about the project, they were made to believe that they were chosen because they were the “perfect” American family, which seemed to set the reasoning behind agreeing to being filmed for all reality TV families to come—an inflated sense of self and conceit in their own camera-readiness. But when filming commenced for the Louds, a mirror was held up to their lives without even seeing a single frame of their show. Perhaps it was the meddling of producers or the pointed questions they asked that helped illuminate the problems that the Louds realized they could no longer pretend did not exist. In the middle of the project, Pat filed for divorce and the drama that Gilbert had been hoping to capture on film became, well, a reality. The Louds blamed much of their problems on the series and its editing after the fact (perhaps the only people in history who could rightfully say that they didn’t know what they were signing up for with such a project). The behind-the-scenes story of the Louds’ experience with the project was dramatized for the recent HBO film Cinema Verite, at the end of which the audience learned that Pat and Bill have reconciled and at 84 and 90, respectively, are once again a couple.
Jessica Simpson & Nick Lachey
Perhaps because of the cautionary tale that the Louds provided in the early ’70s, reality TV took a break from families for a while to focus on partying twentysomethings (The Real World) and competition-based series (Survivor, Big Brother), but eventually returned its focus on the institution of marriage with MTV’s Newlyweds: Nick and Jessica in 2003. Unlike the Louds, who were vilified, Simpson and Lachey were celebrated way more than they had been in their original careers as pop singers. But after three years of marriage, the couple announced they were divorcing in 2005, just months after the last episode of their show had aired. Simpson doesn’t blame reality TV for their breakup, telling Vanity Fair, “In all honesty, I believe it did not affect our marriage because we enjoyed watching those episodes.” Lachey, however, sees it differently, telling David Letterman, “It was just so invasive that it became a problem.”
Carmen Electra & Dave Navarro
Riding on the coattails of Newlyweds success, MTV aired ‘Til Death Do Us Part: Carmen and Dave, a one-season reality show about the famous couple’s preparations for their wedding. Although they broke up less than three years after they were married, the couple agreed on one thing—reality TV was not to blame. Navarro didn’t even consider the show very realistic “because you’re not gonna be real with an eight-man crew in your house,” adding that “It’s the most realistic portrayal of…life with eight guys with cameras around.”
Shanna Moakler & Travis Barker
Desperate for more married couples, MTV recruited Blink 182 drummer Travis Barker and former beauty queen Shanna Moakler. The two seasons of their show Meet the Barkers chronicled their wedding and the birth of their second child. Barker filed for divorce just months after the final episode of their show had aired. But even though Meet the Barkers was no longer on the air, their relationship was still very much a show. Moakler infamously hosted a divorce party, featuring a tiered cake with a murdered, mohawked groom. The couple were then very publicly off-again-on-again for a few years until they finally divorced for good in 2008.
Whitney Houston & Bobby Brown
When America’s sweetheart first married R&B’s bad boy many thought it would never work. But oddly, it did—for the 14 years before they decided to open up their lives to Bravo cameras for Being Bobby Brown in 2005. In just 11 short episodes, viewers were given a very rare look into the private lives of the famous couple, and most were shocked at what they saw. Rumors had swirled about Houston’s drug addiction for years, particularly after her infamous 2002 interview with Diane Sawyer, but the reality show highlighted the couple’s loving, yet erratic behavior. Just months after the series finale, Houston checked herself into rehab and reportedly stayed separated from Brown until she had a divorce fast-tracked one year later.
Linda Thompson & David Foster
Years before they were ever on The Hills, Brody Jenner and Spencer Pratt starred in the Fox reality show The Princes of Malibu, which followed the lives of Jenner and his brother as the spoiled sons of former beauty queen Linda Thompson. The premise of the show was that Thompson’s babying of her sons caused tension in her marriage to songwriter David Foster. That tension must have been very real because Thompson filed for divorce the same month that the show premiered, causing Fox to cancel the series after airing only two episodes.
Kathy Griffin & Matt Moline
Griffin and Moline’s marriage seemed strong on My Life on the D List, but evidently, there were problems bubbling beneath the surface that caused the couple to break up after the first season of her reality show. However, they reconciled briefly and Moline was filmed for the show’s second season, but the couple divorced in May 2006, several months before Moline’s last episode aired.
Danny & Gretchen Bonaduce
If there was ever a reality show “train wreck” it was VH1’s Breaking Bonaduce. During filming, Danny fell off the wagon and began openly drinking and taking steroids. He and his wife Gretchen allowed cameras to film their couples counseling. The first episode of the second season shows Danny traveling to Mexico to promote the show, where he sees for the first time an episode featuring Gretchen getting a lap dance from a male stripper and he subsequently loses his temper. Gretchen then kicked him out of the house. The couple divorced a year later.
Linda & Hulk Hogan
The Hogans had something very rare among entertainment-industry families—a solid marriage that spanned nearly a quarter of a century. They opened up their lives for the VH1 show Hogan Knows Best in 2005 and in just two short years their 17-year-old son Nick was indicted as an adult on four criminal charges and sentenced to eight months in jail, a story surfaced in The National Enquirer in which a woman claimed to have had an affair with Hulk while he was filming his show, and Linda filed for divorce (just one month after the final episode of Hulk Knows Best aired). Hulk found out about the filing when a local newspaper called him for a comment.
Missy & Bam Margera
In 2007, Bam Margera threw caution to the wind and featured the planning and ceremony of his marriage to Missy Rothstein on Bam’s Unholy Union, despite MTV’s dismal track record with the relationships of the couples featured on its reality TV programming. In 2009, Bam was hospitalized after a four day drinking binge, which he said was sparked by his marital problems. In 2010, Bam told Howard Stern that, although they are not officially divorced, he and Missy live in separate cities and she is aware of his various girlfriends.
Jenni Pulos & Chris Elwood
Bravo’s Flipping Out is about decorator/house-flipper Jeff Lewis and his staff, who must put up with Lewis’ demanding personality due to his OCD. Two of his assistants—Pulos and Elwood—were married before they began working for Lewis. During the show’s second season, Lewis fired Elwood after a surveillance video revealed that he was shirking his responsibilities and not doing his job properly. Pulos divorced Elwood shortly after, citing the tape as “a factor in their breakup.”
Katie Price & Peter Andre
The marriage of glamor model Katie Price (aka Jordan) and pop singer Peter Andre was a match made in reality TV heaven when they met while filming I’m a Celebrity…Get Me Out of Here! in 2004. Audiences watched live as the couple fell in love. It was only natural for them that they continue their relationship on television, where they had a kid, got married, and had another kid while filming several one-off reality specials and eventually a series titled Katie & Peter. After three and a half years of marriage, the couple divorced, and while their breakup was not chronicled for television, the aftermath of it was with Price’s new show What Katie Did Next.
Kate & Jon Gosselin
The breakup of the Gosselins’ marriage dominated tabloid covers for a solid year, beginning in April 2009 when it was first reported that Jon was having an affair with a local woman. Perhaps the public was so consumed by the story because, unlike most reality TV couples, Jon and Kate were not famous before their show Jon & Kate Plus 8, a relatively mundane family show which featured the Gosselins raising their children—a set of twins and a set of sextuplets. The Gosselins’ brand, success, and entire reason for being (on television) was because of their family. Watching Jon’s misbehavior—the Ed Hardy shirts, the cigarettes, the late nights, the young women, the bikini parties in Vegas, the purchase of a two-seater car when he has eight children—play out in real-life was fascinating and completely antithetical to what TLC purported him to be. Jon blamed the media for “exploiting” his children in some kind of weird power play to get more money to appear on the reality show. Ultimately, he was kicked off the show and it was renamed Kate Plus 8. For her part, Kate never blamed reality television for any of their problems, but rather Jon, for being a selfish person.
Susie & Corey Feldman
Susie and Corey were married (by officiant MC Hammer) on the season finale of The Surreal Life in 2002. The returned to reality TV in 2007 for The Two Coreys, an A&E show which was originally intended to be a light-hearted account of Corey Haim moving in with the Feldmans, but spiraled into something completely different by the show’s second season, with Haim’s drug problem overt and out of control. Many scenes showed Haim lashing out at Susie Feldman. Corey Feldman refused to continue the project unless Haim got sober. (Sadly, Haim died of a drug overdose in March 2010.) In October 2009, Susie filed for divorce.
Jeana & Matt Keough
The Keoughs have the unfortunate privilege of being the first breakup in The Real Housewives franchise after they legally separated during the third season of The O.C. version of the show. Matt, a former major league baseball player, never liked the cameras and didn’t participate very much on the show. In interview segments, Jeana shared that Matt had a bad head injury that affected this personality, and later admitted that he struggled with alcoholism. In the summer of 2009, Matt was arrested for DUI and was later sentenced to eight months in jail. After the Keoughs’ money problems became public knowledge through the show, Jeana pulled out of the series.
The Count & Countess de Lesseps
The next Housewives couple to split were the de Lesseps, from the New York City cast, which came as a shock to viewers as there were no signs of marital problems. In fact, the Count was barely featured on the show due to the amount he had to travel for work. It turns out that the couple had been living separately for years—he in Europe and she in New York—and that he had been carrying on with an Ethiopian princess, for whom he eventually left his wife.
Tamra & Simon Barney
Although theirs was the third divorce to occur in The Real Housewives universe, the demise of Tamra and Simon’s marriage was the first to actually play out fully on the show. We watched as they suffered from financial trouble, forcing them into a short sale of their home. We watched as Simon became more controlling. We saw Tamra attempt a last-ditch effort to save their relationship by unwisely having his name tattooed on her finger. Eventually, Simon filed for divorce and (along with his children) no longer participates on the show. However, the couple’s drama is still very much playing out in the public eye, as they release statements and contact the press about their alleged bad behavior.
Cat & Charles Ommanney
As part of the ill-fated D.C. cast of The Real Housewives (the first in the franchise to not be picked up for a second season) Cat’s husband had a very impressive job as the award-winning White House photographer for Newsweek. Admittedly, Charles’ job involves a lot of political skill, so it impacted his career negatively when his new wife signed on to a tawdry reality show. Before the first episode even aired, the couple split; Cat’s involvement with the show and association with the Salahis, the infamous White House crashers, negatively impacted Charles’ career. In an interview with The New York Times, Charles blamed the show for the dissolution of his marriage saying, “In a way, I was naïve and foolish to sign off on doing this. But, at the end of the day, it was innocent. I wanted happiness for someone I was in love with. I put all my reservations aside and said: ‘Go for it. Do it if it makes you happy.’ Then I regretted it. I lost touch with everyone, and mix that with my marriage falling apart and the show taking over, it was very sad.”
NeNe & Gregg Leakes
Much of season three of The Real Housewives of Atlanta focused on NeNe’s marital problems that were evidently sparked by her husband’s finances. The split seemed final, though, later in the season when NeNe learned that Gregg had given a radio interview in which he blamed his financial troubles on the amount of money that he had to spend to make NeNe appear wealthy in order to secure her a position on the show. She filed for divorce in June 2010, yet told Essence in December that she and Gregg were still legally together and living under the same roof, but hinted at the fact that they would, in fact, divorce, leading many to believe she was saving the drama for season four of the show.
Camille & Kelsey Grammer
It’s odd to think that Kelsey Grammer, a successful actor, would need or want to be involved with a reality show—particularly one that would expose his marriage, which had reportedly been sexless for many years. It’s also odd that while the show was filming, he would move to a different city and embark on an affair with a younger woman, for whom he eventually left his wife and married. But according to Camille, Kelsey had already emotionally checked out of the marriage, and pushed her into getting involved with The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills as a distraction, saying, “He thought it would be good for me to do something that was separate from us being a couple.”
Vicki & Donn Gunvalson
As the last remaining original cast member of the original incarnation of The Real Housewives, Vicki Gunvalson shocked viewers after she filed for divorce in October 2010. The news came after season five of her show, which showed Vicki and Donn’s relationship healthier than ever after the renewed their wedding vows for their 15th anniversary. Vicki blames the show for her marital problems.
Jennifer & Eric Williams
The problems that plagued the marriage of Jennifer and (former NBA player) Eric Williams—namely Eric’s infidelity and a possible love child—were broadcast on the first two seasons of VH1’s Basketball Wives. After endless talks between the couple of saving their marriage, Jennifer confirmed to Life & Style in February that she was filing for divorce, the drama of which can be expected to play out on the third season of the show, premiering later this month.
Leah Messer & Corey Simms
Messer and Simms have had a crazy two years. They became pregnant with twins after only dating for about six weeks, tried to make it work, but then broke up shortly after the birth of their daughters (one of whom is a special-needs child), all of which was chronicled on their episode of 16 & Pregnant. They reunited on Teen Mom 2, and got married in a camo-themed wedding on the season finale. However, just six months after getting married (and only three weeks after the wedding episode aired on MTV) Messer filed for divorce, making them the youngest reality show couple to break up, as well as being the shortest-lived reality show marriage.
Tina Fey: Bossypants. A Review from TheGirlFromTheGhetto
Bossypants by Tina Fey
Tina Fey is fabulous. This has to be said, because I’ve been a fan of hers for a long, long time. How could anyone not like her? She’s funny, talented, an enthusiastic performer, nerdy as hell and looks like a real woman should look. When I found out she was writing a book I was over the moon with happiness, so when I was sent a review copy of Bossypants, I was praying that her book would deliver as I suspected it to, despite picking that awful front cover.
While I enjoyed this book and laughed my butt off repeatedly while reading it, I wish Fey would have opened up more to her readers during certain stories. For instance, she brought up her face slashing as a young child, but wouldn’t tell the story and only said, “I only bring it up to explain why I’m not going to talk about it.” She brushed it off saying she didn’t want to be asked about it in the news media repeatedly on her book tour, but I feel that was a big cop-out. While I understand why she doesn’t talk about it on a regular basis, I thought to myself if a celebrity is writing a book about themself, shouldn’t they include all of their stories, and not just the filtered stories? CLICK HERE FOR MORE REVIEW
“Grey’s Anatomy” May 13th Episode: Recap (spoilers)
First scene is Bailey with a hot, shirtless man. It’s obvious they are about to “do it” which is what Bailey needs.
Teddy enters Sloan’s apartment, walks in, undresses, and sees another woman in the bed as he comes out of the shower, shirtless, of course.
In the elevator, Bailey is singing a song and Mark and Derek ask why. She’s just happy (after sex glow) and giddy and doesn’t say anything. Then the guy (I’ll look up his name, McHotCoco?) gets on the elevator and he’s singing the same happy sex song. hmmmm? Subtle.
Demi Lovato is playing Hayley, a schizophrenic girl who’s parents are about to commit her. She grabs a sharp implement to kill herself and Alex Karev is calm and talks her down with his charm and cuteness.
She keeps insisting she’s not crazy and she gives Alex the sharp tool.
She’s tied to the bed. “Page Shephard,” says Karev.
Shep wants to run some tests. They want to find out what is really wrong but the parents, especially the father, are just convinced she’s schizophrenic.
They finally agree to run more tests.
Sloan with Amber, a driving-while-texting victim. They will remove the burned area and regraph her skin and hair. The entire side of her face is burned.
Old couple reunite while their gurneys are passing in the hall. Marion Ross, was his wife’s best friend and supposed to be the maid of honor. They were in-love but both married other people. They were each other’s first.
They were each in their respective exam rooms telling the doctors of their love story gone bad. He wanted to call off the wedding. She left across the country and he married his wife and she married someone else. They both never stopped loving or thinking of each other. Both of them reminisced with sweet love in their voices.
The other doctors put them together but Yang says he has a bad heart. “A happy patient is a healthy patient.”
“You’re okay with this?” barks Christina?
“How Romantic” — says the doctor in charge.
Checking Hayley’s brain. All clear. Alex is saying “I know crazy, I grew up 
with crazy . . . ” They all decide to advocate for the patient and continue tests. She’s crying as she comes out of the MRI. I think she’s crying because she’s relieved that someone, Karev, is listening to her cries for help and not just announcing her “crazy” and needing to be committed.
Lexie asks Alex “are we dating? . . . what are we? I”m over Mark.”
He kisses her and says, “We’re a thing . . . we see each other . . . whatever.” it was cute and she looked happy when he walked away. She’s actually a very pretty woman and I think she looks good as a blond.
In surgery the Chief is commenting on Owen and Teddy’s surgery “shorthand.” Remembers having it with with a former colleague. Christina immediately knows that Chief is talking about Ellis, Meredith’s mother.
Alex and Mer talking about the girl they were testing and Mer says that Alex is becoming a real doctor. Sort of like saying ‘you’re growing up.’. Christina sits at another table because she’s mad at Mer for giving her doubts about moving in with Owen.
Alex suggests they ask “Lexopedia” if she has a mysterious diagnosis that she possibly read about a long time ago. Mer says, “She’s not a book.” and Lexie sheepishly says, “I kinda am.”
Lexie remembers some article, June ‘o4, green cover. Wow. Alex will check it out and he leave the sisters alone. Lexie tells Mer that she thinks it’s gross that Mark is with Teddy. Mer says, “you’re with Alex.”
Then Christine, with emotion, comments on the conversation that Owen and Dr. Weber had in the operating room.
“Owen is Ellis, Teddy is Dr Weber, I’m Thatcher?” and she’s very upset. Mer, speechless for once, says, “I don’t know . . .”
“Forget it” spouts Christina as she storms away.
More tests for Hayley. Big eyes. Mom is complaining that these test are torture but she cooperates. Alex has her hold her nose and blow. This is a very specialized test. Her eyes start convulsing back and forth. She cries “no” and rips off the apparatus on her head.
“What did you just do???” said an angry parent.
“I diagnosed her,” says confident, happy Dr. Karev.
Bailey sees her man flirting. Flirting hard. Giggling, touching. She looks PISSED off and walks away without speaking to him. “Miranda? Miranda?:? Shit. I didn’t know she had a first name or I thought her first name was Bailey.
Amber, the car crash victim has to have 3 fingers amputated. This has to be done before her hair graphs. Bailey says she could cry. Amber’s annoying friend says, “NO, we stay positive.” Bailey, “she can be positive tomorrow,.” The girl breaks down crying and is grateful for the freedom of being able to feel sorry for herself and weep.
Back to the other patient, Derek and Alex explain the condition to the parents. It’s an ear thing that’s very difficult to diagnose. She’s not schizophrenic and this can be corrected with surgery.
Miranda and Sloan are alone and she starts grilling him. “Is one woman ever enough for some men?” She’s thinking of her guy but he’s thinking of himself and says:.
“Teddy and I were never exclusive. Were you and your guy exclusive?
“We’re not talking about me” and she leaves the room.
The old couple are now in the same room. He asks her to live with him. She says they barely know each other. He wants her to think about it before surgery (not sure who’s surgery).
Marion Ross, Emmy winner and icon, “I got over you . . . Henry” She explains the joy of her family and her life with her husband, children and grandchildren. “I got over you. I’m sorry.”
Everybody, especially Callie, is heartbroken.
Surgery on the car crash victim. Sloan wants to do the hair restoration while she’s anesthetized. They decide to go for it.
Christine has a sad look and walks up to Mer, hesitates and says, “do you think your mom ever got over the chief? Do you think she still loved him after all those years”
“She loved him till the day she died.”
“What were you trying to tell me about Teddy and Owen? Tell me what you know.”
Mer says something stupid that reminded me of Kelly from RHONY, “There is you and me, and me and Derek, and I’m telling you because of you and me but I can’t say more because of me and Derek.” yeah, whatever.
Christina says, “I need there to be a me and Own>” Ohe, I hear you sister. I’d like there to be a me and Owen too.”
Mer finds Derek and exclaims, “I hate your job.”
“I love you,” responds her post-it note husband.
“Do you think he loves her? Teddy?”
“You can’t tell Christina.”
“I know, that’s why I hate your job.”
“Wanna hug?”
Surgery and Lexie is being sarcastic to Callie about Mark sleeping around. Callie wants the old couple to be together. She wants to “believe” Good luck with that. I do too.
The girl is complaining about the scar. Her delusional friend says, “you’ll be doing shampoo commercials in no time.”
The friend states “we’re alive, it’s better than the alternative.”
Amber starts telling her friend that she can’t drive because of her fear after the accident.. She’s begging her best friend and she want to be REAL for once, !
The friend loses it talking about romantic comedies. They laugh together. Mer watches & thinks about Christine.
Mer goes to Owen and says something I can only describe as ‘ripping him a new one.’ She basically told him to make up his mind and decide if he will be ‘that guy’ for Christina.” She was brutal. I liked it.
Mark and Teddy. “I should have knocked, it’s over.” Don’t know if she meant the incident or the relationship.
Callie wants Mark to go to Lexie. “She’s with Karev” he whines.
Callie thinks they are the love of each other lives and wants Mark to go to her now. They hug. They sleep together when she’s not gay.
Owen explains to Christine about wanting the hospital to hire someone else in stead of Teddy. He’s trying to’get better” and doesn’t understand how he feels.
They are fighting. “I don’t know what I feel for Teddy.” It’s all related with his ptsd and it’s confusing. She’s crying and Owen is yelling that he shouldn’t have to explain himself to her or Meredeth. Teddy was eavesdropping. She was there to notify Owen about the old man patient.
The old man crashed. He wakes up and they tell him they need to insert pacemaker.
Marion Ross says she’s moving across the country to be with him and she never forgot him. What a great actress.
“how long do you need me to wait before I propose?” he says.
Christina stomps out, Owen chases, “Christina?” . . .
“Don’t.
Hayley is waking up. She feels “good.” “I’m Good.” I’M GOOD” mommy hugs her, everybody is happy. On FOX this story could have been an entire episode of “House.”
Bailey at the elevator and guy wants to talk to her. “I get it , you want to see other people” she spouts at the man she recently had sex with.
He explains that he’s nice to Liz cuz she’s such a bitch. He says he flirts with her because if he’s nice it benefits his schedule and who he might work with. It’s just “his way” and he really doesn’t give it his “good flirting.”
He tells her that the Good flirting is for Miranda because HE Means it. She starts the singlemomswhine . . . “I don’t have time for games.”
“I’m not playing games, I’m in this for real.” Yeah, whatever. They are in the elevator together and they hold hands.
Lexie was right about the diagnoses and Alex want them to celebrate at the bar. He walks off for a minute and Mark walks up and tells Lexie he’s still in love with her. He asks for another chance. “I’m in love with you.”
“Karev, he’s, . . .I I have a boyfriend . . .”
“Oh well, I’m saying you could have a husband.” He walks away ansd Karev puts his arm around her, “you ready?” he slaps her ass and they walk off with their arms around each other.
Callie on elevator with her ex, Arizona. They broke-up because Callie wants kids and Arizona absolutely does not want children. Awkward. Hot lesbian kissing.
That’s what elevators are for.
and Arizona she walks off . . . no words spoken.
Der & Mer in bed and Christine storms in. Der leaves and Christine gets in the bed. “Well, I’m not moving in with Owen.” Mer shows her “her room” in the new house they were building in the woods.
They cuddle.
Chelsea Handler: 3 books on the NYTimes Best Seller list & a Sex tape?
Chelsea Handler has 3 books on the NYTimes best seller list and Radaronline tried to blackmail her for 1 million dollars. Are these things related? Probably not, but it sure does get me thinking about Chelsea, this situation, blackmail, RadarOnline and the scum that is the tabloid media.
The tape, which was made nearly a decade ago after Chelsea moved to Los Angeles starts out with Chelsea turning on the camera in what appears to be her apartment. During the first part of the tape, Chelsea is fully clothed in her work uniform. She begins by introducing herself by name before going into a stand-up routine before suddenly cutting to Chelsea and her male partner engaging in an explicit sex act.
He indicated that Chelsea would address it on her E! show Wednesday night, and she did. Chelsea, looking very agitated, said she made the tape when she was 23, and added, “I would like to say to RadarOnline.com, thanks for ruining my surprise Christmas gift to my staff, and number two, it was made as a joke. I put it on an audition tape for a comedy club, because I’m a comedienne, and I’ve been showing it at birthday parties for (expletive) years!”
Hmmm? Agitated? well, RadarOnline, how would you feel if somebody tried to blackmail YOU? She handled this ala David Letterman and faced it head-on. She’s not acting embarrassed or humiliated. She’s owning it, after all, it’s HER tape, not RadarOnline’s tape. They are maggots.
RadarOnline.com confirmed that the tape was sent out to Hollywood agents as a demo tape when Chelsea was looking to secure work. If it was an attempt to get noticed, it worked!
“Chelsea gave this demo tape to a bunch of talent agents and managers hoping to book some gigs,” the source continues. “It was taken so long ago and distributed on old VHS tapes, that I’m sure most people just threw them out because her stand-up was so bad and they didn’t realize she would make it big one day. It’s highly possible that many of the recipients of the tape didn’t even watch past the first couple of minutes and missed the sex tape part altogether.”
What’s the matter, RadarOnline (aka National Enquirer)? Not enough cheating men, drug overdoses, suicides, divorces, bikini shots, deadbeat dads, egotistical mothers or exploited children to write about? Oh, because she has a successful TV show, 3 best-sellers and probably wouldn’t date you in High School?
Chelsea Handler wrote 3 books. Chelsea, Chelsea Bang Bang (click here for review) was recently released and has been #3 on the NYTimes be
st seller list. The other two books,, My Horizontal Life and Are you There Vodka, it’s Me, Chelsea are now re-released in paperback and both of those books are on the paperback best 
selling list. I know many people don’t like Chelsea and don’t think she’s funny. Personally, I think the “comedians of Chelsea Lately” are funnier than she is but I like her and I “get” her humor and attitude.
Testimony in HEARING (not a court case but a fact-finding mission)
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.
Adolescence (>10)
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.
Conan O’Brien Update from Dallas Comedy Examiner
Conan O’Brien is currently shaping up for his “Legally Prohibited From Being Funny on Television Tour”, while also trying to smooth out the wrinkles in a proposed deal to host a new talkshow on FOX starting in January. Dude’s busy, but– according to sources from “Team Coco”– that’s not why he’s taken himself out of the running to host this year’s Tony Awards on CBS. Is this just another restriction outlined in his “gag order” from NBC, or did Conan just not have time to host the Tony’s? We’ve got the details below, my gentle Examiner readers…CLICK to continue . . .
Book Review: Chelsea Chelsea Bang Bang
TheGirlFromTheGhetto (NerdGirlBlogger) wrote this great review:
Chelsea Chelsea Bang Bang by Chelsea Handler was absolutely fabulous. Hysterical. Pee in your pants funny. Entertaining as hell. My god, I haven’t laughed that hard in all of 2010! The #1 New York Times bestselling author of Are You There, Vodka? It’s Me, Chelsea will soon be on the top of that list again with her latest book that comes out today. I’ve been a fan of Ms. Handler’s long before she got her television show, Chelsea Lately. I first heard of Chelsea Handler back in CONTINUED
The Tonight Show With Conan O’Brien — Two Weeks Later
by Jason English – February 6, 2010 – 11:44 PM
It’s been two weeks since Conan’s final Tonight Show. On the off chance you’re wondering what’s become of that big empty studio, former Tonight Show blogger Aaron Bleyaert took some depressing photos on Friday and posted them on his site—here and here.
The place is crying out for Ransom Riggs to give it the Strange Geographies treatment.
[Via TVTattle]
Sometimes Unemployment is not Society’s fault
43 Things Actually Said in Job Interview
Posted Jul 17th 2009 2:30PM (???)
by Rachel Zupek, CareerBuilder.com writer
“I’m not wanted in this state.”
“How many young women work here?”
“I didn’t steal it; I just borrowed it.”
“You touch somebody and they call it sexual harassment!”
“I’ve never heard such a stupid question.”
Believe it or not, the above statements weren’t overhead in bars or random conversations — they were said in job interviews.
Maybe you were nervous, you thought the employer would appreciate your honesty, or maybe you just have no boundaries. Whatever the reason, you can be certain that you shouldn’t tell an interviewer that it’s probably best if they don’t do a background check on you. (And yes, the hiring manager remembered you said that.)
We asked hiring managers to share the craziest things they’ve heard from applicants in an interview. Some are laugh-out-loud hysterical, others are jaw dropping — the majority are both. To be sure, they will relieve anyone who has ever said something unfortunate at a job interview — and simply amuse the rest of you.
Hiring managers shared these 43 memorable interview responses:
Why did you leave your last job?
1. “I have a problem with authority.” – Carrie Rocha, COO of HousingLink
Tell us about a problem you had with a co-worker and how you resolved it
2. “The resolution was we were both fired.”- Jason Shindler, CEO, Curvine Web Solutions
What kind of computer software have you used?
3. “Computers? Are those the black boxes that sit on the floor next to the desks? My boss has one of those. He uses it. I don’t have one. He just gives me my schedule and I follow it.” – Greg Szymanski, director of human resources, Geonerco Management, Inc
What are your hobbies and interests?
4. [He said] ‘Well, as you can see, I’m a young, virile man and I’m single — if you ladies know what I’m saying.’ Then he looked at one of the fair-haired board members and said, ‘I particularly like blondes.‘” – Petri R.J. Darby, president, darbyDarnit Public Relations
Why should we hire you?
5. “I would be a great asset to the events team because I party all the time.” – Bill McGowan, founder, Clarity Media Group
Do you have any questions?
6. “Cross dressing isn’t a problem is it?” – Barry Maher, Barry Maher & Associates
7. “If you were a fruit, what fruit would you be?” – Megan Garnett, Articulate Leadership Team, Articulate Communications Inc.
8. “What do you want me to do if I cannot walk to work if it’s raining? Can you pick me up?” – Christine Pechstein, career coach
9. “I was a Chamber of Commerce Executive once hiring a secretary. [The candidate asked] ‘What does a Chamber of Commerce do?'” – Mary Kurek, Mary Kurek, Inc. Visibility Consulting
10. “Can we wrap this up fairly quickly? I have someplace I have to go.” – Bruce Campbell, vice president of marketing, Clare Computer Solutions
11. “What is your company’s policy on Monday absences?” – Campbell
12. “If this doesn’t work out can I call you to go out sometime?” – Christine Bolzan, founder of Graduate Career Coaching
13. “How big do the bonuses really get once you make associate? I hear it’s some serious cash.” – Bolzan
14. “[The candidate asked,] ‘Can my dad call you to talk about the job and the training program? He is really upset I’m not going to medical school and wants someone to explain the Wall Street path to him.‘ The dad did call. Then that dad’s friends called and I ended up doing a conference call with a group of concerned parents … long story.” – Bolzan
15. “If I get an offer, how long do I have before I have to take the drug test?” – Bolzan
16. “When you do background checks on candidates, do things like public drunkenness arrests come up?” – Bolzan
17. “Can I get a tour of the breast pumping room? I heard you have a great one here and while I don’t plan on having children for at least 10 or 12 years, I will definitely breast feed and would want to use that room.”- Bolzan
18. “So, how much do they pay you for doing these interviews?” – Jodi R.R. Smith, Mannersmith Etiquette Consulting
Why are you leaving your current job?
19. “Because I (expletive) my pants every time I enter the building.” – Abbe Mortimore, Human Resources Manager, True Textiles, Inc.
20. “I was fired from my last job because they were forcing me to attend anger management classes.” – Smith
Why are you looking for a job?
21. “Cigarettes are getting more expensive, so I need another job.” – Pechstein
22. “My parents told me I need to get a job so that is why I’m here.” – McGowan
Why do you want to work for us?
23. “Just for the benefits.” – Jennifer Juergens, JJ Communications
24. “My old boss didn’t like me, so one day, I just left and never came back. And here I am!” – Matt Cowall, communications manager, Appia Communications
25. “I saw the job posted on Twitter and thought, why not?” – Rebecca Gertsmark Oren, Communications Director at The Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity
What are your assets? (as in strengths)
26. “Well, I do own a bike.” – Pam Venné, principal, The Venné Group
What are your weaknesses?
27. “I get angry easily and I went to jail for domestic violence. But I won’t get mad at you.” – Pechstein
28. “I had a job candidate tell me that she often oversleeps and has trouble getting out of bed in the morning.” – Linda Yaffe, certified executive coach
29. “I am an alcoholic and do not deserve this job.” – Deb Bailey, owner, Power Women Magazine & Radio Show
30. “I’m really not a big learner. You know … some people love learning and are always picking up new things, but that’s just not me. I’d much rather work at a place where the job is pretty stagnant and doesn’t change a lot.” – Michaele Charles, Voice Communications
When have you demonstrated leadership skills?
31. “Well my best example would be in the world of online video gaming. I pretty much run the show; it takes a lot to do that.” – Rachel Croce
Is there anything else I should know about you?
32. “You should probably know I mud wrestle on the weekends.” – Venne
When can you start?
33. “I need to check with my mom on that one.” – Bolzan
Use three adjectives to describe yourself
34. “I hate questions like this.” – Katrina Meistering, manager of outreach, National Fatherhood Initiative
Tell of a time you made a mistake and how you dealt with it
35. “I stole some equipment from my old job, and I had to pay for its replacement.” – Meistering
Have you submitted your two weeks’ notice to your current employer?
36. “What is two weeks’ notice? I’ve never quit a job before, I’ve always been fired.” – Meistering
Random responses
37. “One guy [said] ‘it would probably be best’ if I didn’t run a background check on him. Of course, I did, and learned all about his long, sordid past of law-breaking. Our client actually offered him a job as a staff accountant, but quickly retracted the offer when I had to tell them all about his recent arrest for a meth lab in his basement.” – Charles
38. “[A] guy said he did not have a mailing address, as he was living in a gypsy camp at the airport.” – Sandra L. Flippo, SPHR
39. “I went into the lobby to pick up a candidate. As he stood up, his trousers fell to the floor! [He said] ‘Oh, my gosh — they told me I needed a suit for the interview. I’ve got no money — so I borrowed this thing. It’s too big!‘” – Beth Ross, executive and career coach
40. “Wow — I’m not used to wearing dress shoes! My feet are killing me. Can I show you these bloody blisters?” – Bolzan
41. “May I have a cup of coffee? I think I may still be a little drunk from last night.” – Smith
42. (During a telephone call to schedule the interview) “Can we meet next month? I am currently incarcerated.” – Smith
43. “[A candidate] was asked whether he could advocate impartially on behalf of the various universities he would be representing since he had attended one of them. He responded, ‘Well, I don’t like to poop where I eat, but I thought my education sucked, so I certainly wouldn’t put that school above the others.'” – Darby
WHY DO SOME PEOPLE EAT ROTTEN FRUIT?
my Snark 