my Snark

Pop Culture . . . whatever

Things that are just “frosting my pumpkin!”

My BFF used that phrase once and I never forgot it. A few thing have been bugging the hell out of me and I just want to vent about them:

(no particular order)

  • Subway’s new breakfast commercial. I think there should be a law that says you cannot use the universal alarm-clock beeps on TV. It’s THE MOST annoying sound and those of us that need to hear that sound 5, sometimes 6 days a week, really don’t need to hear that sound while we are supposedly relaxing. I am boycotting Subway. That’s my silent protest. Togo’s is much better anyway.
  • The sexualization of young girls. A dance to Beyonce’s “Single Ladies” is performed by 7 year old girls. I’ll preface this by saying the girls are very talented and obviously put a lot of work and practice into this performance. The parents of these girls should be arrested for child pornography. The girls are scantily clad with bikini tops and booty shorts, and they are gyrating and moving like strippers. I’m not linking the video here for obvious reasons. Turn on the TV. They continually show it in order to discuss it. Yeah, that makes sense. I don’t even want to begin on Miley Cyrus and her pimp, I mean daddy, Billy Ray. Joe Simpson, Joe Jackson, Dina Lohan, Michael Lohan, Jon and Kate, Duggars, Jenners (Kendall and Kylie), pageant moms, and any parent who uses their children for financial gain. It seems child labor laws don’t keep up with the lack of ethics of companies and parents.
  • Awkwardness. There is somebody I’ve known my entire life. I love this person and we have many things in common. However, when we talk on the phone (few times per year) it’s awkward, uncomfortable and we have to think of topics to discuss. TV shows, assholes, work, etc. but it’s not the easy banter I have with say, Jen, who’ve I’ve only known about about  10 months. I just don’t get it and I want that tension to be gone.
  • Facebook. Yes, I’m on it but I hate it. It’s wonderful and has increased my social life. I’ve reconnected with dear friends that Ilove, family members that I’m closer to now than ever before and teachers that are no longer “Mr.” but now are known by their first names. However, it’s the “dating” aspect that gets dicey. Oh, I won’t get into it but lets just say I have a very strong love/hate relationship with facebook.
  • Puberty. ’nuff said.
  • This NEWSWEEK writer crap about “gay men can’t play straight men.” Yeah, well Rock Hudson proved otherwise. If gay men can’t play straight, the theater wouldn’t exist. Does one have to be a drug addict to play one? How about a prostitute or murderer? The main point is that gay men have been playing straight men in blockbuster hit movies for decades. If they play straight in real life, doing it in the movies is a piece of cake.
  • Annoying co-worker. Oh boy, do I have a good one. This person checks my work (it’s not his job) and attempts to boss me around. He’s impatient, rude, lazy and filthy. He comes in with stinky food, sings annoyingly to songs not on the radio and cannot put simple papers (with holes punched) into an open binder.
  • Cancer and Aids. I have a few people in my life, whom I love dearly, and these people are living with these awful diseases. We can put men on the moon, grow ears on mice, clone sheep, allow old farts to have 3 hour erections and miracles happen in operating rooms and research labs every single day. Why these two awful killers can’t be eradicated from society is baffling to me.
  • AMC showing “Breaking Bad” coming attractions DURING the initial broadcasting of an episode. They do this about 40 minutes into the program and it reveals spoilers that hadn’t been tied-up yet.Get it together AMC, this is the best show on TV and the viewers are loyal and obsessed.
  • Not having a dog. It annoys me that I don’t have a dog.

May 16, 2010 Posted by | Advertising, Breaking Bad, Child Exploitation, Child Labor, Dating, Dick Van Dyke, Employment | , | Comments Off on Things that are just “frosting my pumpkin!”

Kate, Start Parenting! — From CBN.com

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.

Kate, Start Parenting!

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.

April 29, 2010 Posted by | Attention WHORE of the YEAR, Books, Gosselin, Gossip, Greed, Reality TV | , , | Comments Off on Kate, Start Parenting! — From CBN.com

Gosselin Children cleared to work on “Kate plus 8″

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.

Read more: http://www.tmz.com/2010/04/23/kate-plus-8-kate-gosselin-spinoff-show-tlc-department-of-labor/#ixzz0m7MpN7MK

April 25, 2010 Posted by | Attention WHORE of the YEAR, Books, Child Exploitation, Child Labor, Gosselin, Gossip, Greed, Reality TV, TLC | , , | Comments Off on Gosselin Children cleared to work on “Kate plus 8″

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 revise
d 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.

* * * * * *
End of Petersen’s written testimony. This does not include the question-and-answer part of the testimony, which can be found here:
http://media2.pahousegop.com/Generator.asp?videoname=315465582.wmv
——————————————————————————
REBECCA GULLAN, PhD: Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to speak with you about the involvement of children in reality television shows. I am a Licensed Psychologist in the state of Pennsylvania with my masters and doctoral degrees in Clinical Psychology and a specialization in children and families. I am currently an Assistant Professor of Psychology in the Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences at Gwynedd-Mercy College. Prior to my current position, I was a research fellow at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, with a grant from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to design an intervention to promote positive identity development in high-risk youth. I am here today to speak about the developmental needs of children, with the hope that understanding these needs will inform decision-making as it relates to children’s participation in television, and reality shows, in particular.

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.

————————–
SPECIAL THANKS to http://smalltowngosselins.blogspot.com/ and http://gosselindivorce.blogspot.com/ for their up-to-date information and wonderful comments.
EXTRA SPECIAL THANKS to Jodi and Kevin Kreider who are risking ridicule and public humiliation because they care about children. You are heroes and you have my support as well as many others.
SHEEPLE aka Pro-Abuse Advocates: What is wrong with protection for children? Will your entertainment be stifled if you are unable to see naked children, tantrums and parents insulting their kids? Yes, you enjoyed 5 seasons of watching these kids be humiliated, embarrassed, abused, neglected and treated like “possessions.” Do you really need more? Do you really believe that you have a RIGHT to watch these 8 innocent exploited faces grow up? YOU, Pro-Abuse advocates are just as guilty as TLC and Jon & Kate. It disgusts me that you continue to support this vile woman and overlook the fact that 8 kids are being raised by nannies. You should all be ashamed of YOUR part in child exploitation.

April 15, 2010 Posted by | Child Labor, Couples, Gosselin, Gossip, Greed, Law and Order, Paul Peterson, Politics, Reality TV, Workplace | , , , , | Comments Off on Testimony in HEARING (not a court case but a fact-finding mission)

Protected: Finally!! Children in Reality TV need protection . . . .

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

April 12, 2010 Posted by | Child Exploitation, Child Labor, Gloria Allred, Paul Peterson, Reality TV | , , | Comments Off on Protected: Finally!! Children in Reality TV need protection . . . .

Octomom and Kate Gosselin to Co-Host “the View” — What is the criteria?

Have a litter of children and YOU TOO could be a TV star! What does this say to young girls? Forget about college, just abuse fertility drugs or find a unethical fertility doctor, play with science and see how many lives you can create, and then proceed to ruin, while you get your 15 minutes of fame, tabloids and “nice things.”

Octomom learned from Kate Gosselin. Kate Gosselin saw the McCaulhey’s get freebies for all their babies and knew she could do that too. I understand helping out a family with diapers, formula, and even “juicy juice” but vacations, plastic surgery, million dollar homes and TV appearances are all on the sweat and tears of 21 children.

None of these 21 children live with 2 parents. NONE of these 21 children could possibly be getting the love and attention they need from their mothers. 14 of these children don’t have a father and their mother is busy at the gym and out on dates.

“The View” has lost all credibility. Barbara Walters was one time a respected journalist. Now she’s a shill. She’s putting people on her show hoping to discover another “Hasselbeck” but she’s just making a fool of herself and her show.

I won’t watch Kate. I won’t watch Nadya. I haven’t watched “the View” in months. I miss Rosie O’Donnell and I think Sherry gets dumber by the day. I actually sort of like Elizabeth now, but that is only because I see how much more poised and capable she is in front of a camera compared to the clown uteruses that are trying to steal her job.

February 20, 2010 Posted by | Advertising, Attention WHORE of the YEAR, Elisabeth Hasselbeck, Gosselin, Gossip, Greed, Reality TV | , , | Comments Off on Octomom and Kate Gosselin to Co-Host “the View” — What is the criteria?

Paul Peterson: A warning to other TLC families

The Bad Made Worse (posted December 8th 2009)

The Learning Channel’s announcement that “Jon & Kate + 8” would be replaced by yet another family living under the lights and cameras of reality programming gone mad…this one called “Table for Twelve” with sextuplets and two sets of twins…should surprise no one. In the absence of shame all conduct is excusable.

Jon Gosselin’s counter-suit against TLC should serve as a warning to the Hayes Family of New Jersey. Jon and Kate sold their family for a song and didn’t even know that child labor laws applied, something TLC conveniently neglected to tell them. Naiveté’ and ignorance of child labor laws will most certainly be exploited by major broadcast companies. It’s in their interest to keep you in the dark when they profit from the unpaid labor of twelve children. Here’s a tip: There most certainly ARE child labor laws in New Jersey specific to Entertainment…just like in Pennsylvania…and pretending that the children are just “participants” will not prevent the Piper from asking to be paid.

You owe it to your children to become informed about the world you are entering, Mr. and Mrs. Hayes. The Industry is not obligated to educate you. In fact, it is in the Industry’s economic interest to keep you in the dark as long as possible.

A Minor Consideration and its allies are not going to go away. The moral imperative is to do what is right for the children…now, before the trouble starts…because the Day of Reckoning will be brutal when the children reach the Age of Majority. If the contracts signed on behalf of Minors have not been reviewed by competent legal council acting solely on behalf of the minors, and these contracts are not subject to Court Approval, all of these reality show Minors will have the Common Law right to assert Disaffirmance and sue for recovery.

Children are not amusements.


February 18, 2010 Posted by | Gosselin, Gossip, Greed, Paul Peterson | , , | Comments Off on Paul Peterson: A warning to other TLC families

4 year old gets “Mock Waterboarded” for incorrectly reciting her ABC’s

I heard this on the radio while driving to work. I’m sick to my stomach.

Man charged with mock ‘waterboarding’ 4-year-old for not reciting her ABC’s

A Washington state soldier is accused of holding his 4-year-old daughter’s head under the water in the kitchen sink mock “waterboard-style” because she would not recite the alphabet,The News-Tribune reports.

The Tacoma newspaper says Thurston County authorities filed a charge of second-degree assault of child against Joshua Ryan Tabor, 27, from the Joint Base Lewis-McChord.

According to court records, police in Yelm responded to a disturbance after Tabor’s girlfriend reported that Tabor “was irate, intoxicated and walking around the neighborhood with his Kevlar helmet threatening to break windows.”

The girlfriend told Yelm police that Tabor beats his 4-year-old daughter, who had locked herself in a closet, the newspaper says.

The News-Tribune said Tabor, according to court records, told a Yelm police officer that he and his girlfriend had “held (his daughter) down on the counter and submerged her head into the water three or four times until the water came around her forehead and jawline.”

He said that she was face-up during the ordeal, which she was forced to undergo for  “refusing to say her letters.”

Tabor also  told police, the documents show,  that he used this form of “punishment” because the girl is afraid of water.

The News-Tribune said police investigation found that Tabor has had “serious anger issues in the past” and “has taken anger management classes.”

(Posted by Doug Stanglin)

February 10, 2010 Posted by | Uncategorized | | Comments Off on 4 year old gets “Mock Waterboarded” for incorrectly reciting her ABC’s

Bill Hayes: The Man Behind Figure 8 Productions

Antonio Vargas as "Huggy Bear" on the original "Starsky and Hutch"

Figure 8 Prods. president behind ‘Jon and Kate Plus 8’

Bill Hayes thinks of himself as “the anti-producer producer.” The Figure 8 Prods. prexy doesn’t believe in meddling with his subjects. His m.o.: “Let the subjects speak for themselves and focus on people who can be really emotionally honest so they draw the audience into their story.”That perspective has guided Hayes through such reality shows as the wildly popular “Jon and Kate Plus 8,” in which he let the Gosselins — parents and kids alike — express themselves without a narrator.

“It’s a story people want to follow because they don’t know what’s going to happen next,” Hayes says from his North Carolina home. “Kate is obviously very charismatic and relatable, but what’s really disarming is that she’s willing to be so honest about her problems. And the kids are always saying and doing things you don’t expect.”

Hayes is also responsible for bringing cameras into the homes of other large families, exec producing “Table for 12” and “18 Kids and Counting” for TLC, as well as special-interest skeins such as “Little Parents, Big Pregnancy,” about little people longing to be parents, and “Joined for Life,” about conjoined twins.

“Family struggle is a good story because people love to see other people overcome their challenges,” says Hayes.

Impact: Exec produces several reality shows featuring families with multiple kids, including the wildly popular “Jon & Kate Plus 8.”

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118012177.html?categoryid=3834&cs=1&nid=2562———————————————————————————–

Family Man

Meet the producer behind Jon and Kate, Table for 12, and 18 Kids and Counting.

By Jamin Brophy-Warren

Posted Friday, Nov. 27, 2009, at 7:39 AM ET

Jon and Kate Plus 8.

Jon and Kate Plus 8In the summer of 2005, television producer Bill Hayes was sitting at his desk in Carrboro, N.C., when his partner and production manager Deanie Wilcher told him about a potential lead. Hayes and his company, Figure 8 Films, had been looking for large families to serve as documentary subjects, and the family Wilcher had found fit the bill: twin daughters and a set of sextuplets. Hayes picked up the phone and called the young Pennsylvania couple, who were excited about television and liked the idea of creating a visual memento for their eight children.

The special eventually aired on Discovery Health under the inconspicuous title Surviving Sextuplets and Twins. Eileen O’Neill, then-president of Discovery Health and herself a twin, pushed for the show to become a regular series. After a few episodes had aired, corporate cousin TLC poached the show, and a much larger audience was soon introduced to Jon and Kate Gosselin.

The Gosselins eventually soured on television, or perhaps it’s the other way around. When Jon’s indiscretions became public in the spring, viewers divided into rival camps, and the couple split on national television this summer. The divorce episode was one of TLC’s highest-rated programs ever, pulling in more than 10 million viewers. Since then, the process of returning Jon and Kate to the air this fall has gone from messy to absurd. Jon was pulled from the show’s title, Kate accused Jon of stealing from her bank account, and TLC was dragged into the tabloid imbroglio. The network sued Jon for breach of contract after he blocked filming of the new season. Earlier this week, the show aired its final episode, bringing a perhaps welcome end to the series.

In the middle of the drama—if not on camera or in the gossip pages—was Bill Hayes, whose company was tasked with cobbling together the footage that was shot before filming was halted. To Hayes and Figure 8, the drama surrounding Jon and Kate has mostly been a distraction. The extramarital comings and goings have never been a big part of the show, which sets Jon and Kate apart from programming in VH1’s “Celebreality” lineup, where infidelities and betrayals have been front-and-center from the beginning. Jon and Kate, the series, was about a big family trying to make their lives work. Hayes and his team worked to ensure that the show had a narrow focus. It was meant to be about the quotidian challenges of changing diapers—lots of them.

//

Unlike ambulance-chasing production companies that amplify the antics of their attention-seeking subjects, Hayes tries to avoid spectacle and decided to avoid, largely, the seductive drama of the Gosselin divorce. That said, his interest in the surreal aspects of human life is not exactly marked with journalistic detachment. He told me, for instance, that a Brazilian faith healer he met several years ago lowered his cholesterol through “invisible surgery.” Hayes was first introduced to a large, eccentric family in high school. Located in the hills of North Carolina, the school was populated by the descendants of brothers Eng and Chang Bunker, a set of conjoined Thai twins who moved to the region in the early 19th century and produced more than 20 children. The descendants populate the Tar Heel landscape and, every year, hold a family reunion, which Hayes has attended.

After graduating from Duke, Hayes dreamed of making documentaries while he worked at sundry pursuits. A former bartender, farmer, and assistant press secretary for a U.S. Senate candidate, Hayes got his start in production by making a promotional video for a mall that was looking for publicity. The project landed him a job at a local production company.

In 1987, he launched Advanced Medical Education (which much later would become Figure 8), and produced videos for doctors who wanted to learn about new medical techniques. He spent hours documenting surgical procedures and, after seeing a show about surgery on the Learning Channel (as it was once wistfully called), he talked with a young producer named Mike Quattrone about producing his own operating-room series. The Operation aired in 1993 and was a success—it would remain on the air for six years. Hayes fashioned the show like a 30-minute drama with a simple style that would characterize his later work. You’d follow the patient from intake to recovery with copious interviews of doctors and patients along the way.

The shift to documenting strange human behavior was “a gentle evolution,” Hayes says and, perhaps, a natural one given his curiosity about the workings of the human body. He produced shows like Mysteries of Cold Water Survival and Super Obese. But his first special on the Gosselins was occasioned by a new popular interest in big families and marked a shift in focus for Figure 8. Though Jon and Kate is no more, Hayes still has two more big-family series to occupy his time: Table for 12 and 18 Kids and Counting, the latter starring America’s favorite Web-site-tending mega-family, the Duggars.

With series of this nature, there’s a natural tendency to wonder whether the audience is entertained or merely gawking. Even docudrama filmmakers with the best intentions wed their fates to the unstable lives of the subjects they film. Hayes’ situation is also the problem of the smaller cable network: tying your credibility and brand identity to the instability of men like Jon Gosselin. Jon and Kate is the most popular program that Hayes has ever developed, but that popularity has come with costs. During our first conversation, Hayes lapsed into regret. The dissolution of the Gosselin family upsets him.

The bigger problem, however, might be a business one. The Jon and Kate affair may have exhausted the public’s patience for large family shows. Ratings for Table for 12 have been modest, and ratings for the last iteration of Jon and Kate fell back to earth as well: This week’s finale drew about 4 millions viewers, a significant decline from the divorce episode. You could argue that these dips are proof that the public’s interest in Jon and Kate—and perhaps for all of Hayes’ work—may be winding down.

But a better explanation might be that without the Gosselin divorce to enliven the show, the audience simply lost interest. In the final episode, the paparazzi were merely a backdrop. Mostly, it was clips of the family visiting the fire department and milking cows. Of course, Hayes says that’s all Figure 8 was trying to do in the first place: to paint a portrait of a big family trying to get to the dentist.

Documentary filmmakers often face a difficult choice: They can either turn their work into sensationalist pap or suffer the attention-starved fate of the talented but unappreciated auteurs hoping for a shot at nontheatrical release on HBO. Hayes has had the rare distinction of watching his company’s work enjoy widespread popularity without the content of his products changing all that much. Had there been no divorce, no paparazzi, no “Team John” and “Team Kate,” Figure 8 would still be camped out in the Gosselin home, cameras in hand, following those eight precocious children from room to room, grade to grade. “It’s sad, because we were in the middle of our stride,” Hayes says. “There were still so many stories to tell.”

http://www.slate.com/id/2236659/pagenum/all/

———————————————————————————–

Here are some links to this assholes exploitation victims. Funny, I was trying to find a picture of Mr. Hayes but I could only find his “subjects.” I wonder what he looks like? I wonder what his children are having tantrums about? I wonder if his wife sleeps with him? Who is this Bill Hayes and why does exploitation of others not make him a freaking PIMP? Thanks to Irene at Z on TV for finding the information on this parasite.

http://www.figure8films.tv/site/shows/jackies_story.html

http://www.figure8films.tv/site/shows/jfl.html

http://www.figure8films.tv/site/shows/no_arms_needed.html

December 13, 2009 Posted by | Advertising, Gosselin, Gossip, Greed, Reality TV | , , | Comments Off on Bill Hayes: The Man Behind Figure 8 Productions

Vanity Fair Article: The Unreal Rise of Jon and Kate Gosselin

Tabloid Spiral

covers

The Unreal Rise of Jon and Kate Gosselin

How did two average parents from rural Pennsylvania with an outsize brood rise to such dizzying heights of stardom and tabloid infamy? The author peers behind the curtain of the biggest celebrity story of the year.

By Nancy Jo Sales
WEB EXCLUSIVE October 19, 2009

‘Nobu, Nobu, I want Nobu!” Kate Gosselin wants to go to Nobu. She’s got a night away from her eight kids—also her co-stars on the hit reality series Jon & Kate Plus Eight—and a reporter is offering to take her out on the town. “I want sushi!” Kate says, leaning back in an armchair in her suite at the Essex House hotel overlooking Central Park, checking her BlackBerry, popping gum.

But Laurie Goldberg, senior vice president of communications at the Learning Channel, which airs Jon & Kate, doesn’t think Nobu’s such a great idea. Kate cried on the Today show this morning, answering questions about why she’s still wearing her wedding ring (“for them,” she said of her children, sniffling), and this afternoon she told People, “I am so emotionally spent” (from her husband’s behavior, which has included philandering with the daughter of the plastic surgeon who gave Kate her tummy tuck), and so it might not look good for her to be out enjoying herself at a hot spot.

“You’re like a prisoner,” Kate says of her newfound fame, annoyed.

Kate, who in the first season of Jon & Kate, two years ago, appeared on-screen as a dowdy, sweatpants-wearing mama hen, is now looking very much the celebrity—from her tanned, trained body to her curiously asymmetrical blond hairdo, now so iconic as to be the model for a popular Halloween wig.

Her phone rings. “Oh, it’s Kelly”—Ripa, of Live with Regis and Kelly—Kate says, holding up a French-manicured finger, signaling for us all to be silent. She’s going on the show tomorrow morning. She and Kelly gab. “Hiya!”

It’s early August, and Kate, who is 34, has come to New York to do battle—media battle. She and her estranged husband, Jon, are churning around at the center of a multi-media tsunami focused on their split and impending divorce. They are the subject of gossipy talk-show talk—a frequent “Hot Topic” on The View—and the target of thousands of disapproving blogs (GosselinsWithoutPity being the most insane).

Click here to continue:

October 24, 2009 Posted by | Couples, Gosselin, Gossip, Greed | , | Comments Off on Vanity Fair Article: The Unreal Rise of Jon and Kate Gosselin