The Real Jon Gosselin Fake Fan Site

I've mentioned a friend who worked as a reporter for one of the tabloids last year. He is one of the sources I get my information from, and as you know if you are a regular reader, I try to be as accurate as I can. He is a respected journalist who worked on our local newspaper for thirty years, and the book he's working on is based on notes he took during his tabloid work.

You may recall that that my journalist friend told me about a tabloid photographer creating a fake fan site in order to ingratiate himself with Jon (it worked.) The fake fan site was thought to be lost, but today my friend found it and sent me a link to it. For your viewing pleasure, here it is. Personally I find it pretty darned hilarious. Hope you enjoy it.

It's A Living

You may have read that there was a skirmish between the paps at the Gosselin house Sunday. It started over a parking space. Other than on the side of the road, which is usually not allowed, parking can be found in one of two areas. One area is about a half mile away on a connecting country road, where there is a little turnaround area with a small triangle of grass in the middle. That is the preferred area, because the other one's at Blue Marsh over a mile away around several bends down the winding country road in the other direction. One photographer has been spending more time that the others at Casa Gosselin, and he's been using the preferred space for quite some time. So much time that he's begun to feel entitled to it. So he got testy when he went to park the other day and found that some other paps had taken the parking space he now feels entitled to, and some nasty words were exchanged. According to my source the annoyed photographer is a little hotheaded so the verbal exchange wasn't that big of a surprise.

Some of my readers have asked about the paparazzi - what it's like for them, how much they make, what their relationship to J&K has been. Today I broke bread with my friend who worked for a tabloid last year and asked him some questions about all that, and here's what I learned. (NOTE: Paparazzi are usually either photographers or reporters, but are usually not both. This is because they are either professional photographers, or they are professional journalists. Whenever possible, below, I differentiate which one they are. If I use the word "paps, " then either I don't know which one it was, or it doesn't matter for the purposes of that sentence. People usually picture just photographers below the house at the fence, but there are sometimes reporters there as well. You can usually tell which is which because the photographers have very good expensive equipment while reporters have either crappy or no cameras, or sometimes they have binoculars. They all have the newest hand-held devices which allow them the virtually get images and stories to their respective employers or buyers.)

Kate has, except for one occasion, refused to even acknowledge the paps, either at her home or when she's out doing her errands. On the other hand, Jon's contact and relationships with various reporters and photographers have developed steadily since when he was still on the show with Kate. At first he just came down to the fence and signed pictures for fans, but he gradually began answering questions and engaging in actual conversations. After Jon began responding to the paps, one of the photographers went online and made a fake Jon fan site and told Jon about it to get in good with him. (That fan site was online briefly and then faded into oblivion, and my source believes Jon never knew it was fake.) Then Jon gradually started inviting paps out for drinks. A mutual understanding was established: Jon would provide photo opportunities and sound bites for the paps, and in exchange the paps would leave him alone when he went out to the bars at night so he wouldn't be photographed drunk or behaving badly. For example, he'd tell them when and where he was going to get his car washed so they could be there if they wanted pictures, and then later he could go out and party without worrying about photo evidence which might tarnish his TLC-appropriate image.

Occasionally Jon would befriend one of the paps and they'd go out to eat or party together, and then he'd switch favorties and move on to another. Boundaries became blurred as the same group of people were around each other for hours at a time at the property or wherever the action was, some of them photographers, some of them reporters, some of them bodyguards and some of them Jon. Money started changing hands when guards could be seen being handed cash for tipping off the paps about where Jon or Kate were going or even about things happening in the house. Jon also started cashing in on all the money being made outside of his TLC work, especially after the show ended and he no longer had that income. He started leaking things to the paps, and then he hired one of the tabloid photographers to be his bodyguard. Then this photographer who was also Jon's bodyguard was able to take pictures of Jon no one else could get, and he and Jon split the money they got for the pictures.

After the Deanna Hummel pictures were released TLC barred Jon from talking to anyone for 45 days. In the beginning of the 45 day press ban, Jon signed autographs at the front fence but would say "No comment," or apologetically state that he was not allowed to talk with anyone anymore. Then after a while the TLC ban was gradually forgotten and he started talking again. Ever since the tabloid shit hit the fan last year Jon has leaked a lot of stories and sometimes tried to manipulate the press by planting things. My friend told me that Jon probably leaked the ridiculous recent story about his having a rich older girlfriend from Washington D.C., which hasn't panned out to be true.

Kate has never walked down to the gate to talk to fans or photographers. She has, one time that I know of, walked down to the gate to put out the trash. This appeared very staged due to the casual yet trendy matchy-matchy outfit and nice makeup and hair, and the fact that she could see there were lots of paps out front at the time so obviously they were going to take her picture and ask her questions. She usually has the house help or nannies take the trash down. When she has the gate opened to drive in or out, she does not make eye contact or acknowledge the paps or fans, just like she does not acknowledge them at Target, Starbucks or anywhere else.

TLC currently pays Jon $5,000 a month with the provision that he is not allowed to do any other work. TLC has a one-way option of continuing this contract once it runs out. (In other words, it's their decision whether or not to continue with it, and Jon has to go along with that decision.) As most of you probably know, Jon seems to be getting along better with Kate and TLC within the past couple of days, and it now looks like he's flip-flopped and is supporting the kids doing more television, so he may be getting lined up to be in Kate's new shows or to somehow otherwise increase his income from TLC.

How much can the photographers make if they get a good image? The picture of Deanna Hummel in the car with Jon that started the whole sordid shitstorm went for $18,000 to US Magazine. The photographer who got that shot was offered $24,000 by the National Enquirer but he decided to take less so he could have a glossy magazine cover in his portfolio rather than the legendarily tacky Enquirer. The highest price ever for a Gosselin image went to the photographer who went into the trees to the side of the house where he wasn't supposed to be and took the picture of Kate swatting one of the girl's behinds. That image fetched $72,000. On the other end of the spectrum, the Stephanie Santoro picture, when she was caught on film doing the early morning walk of shame out of Jon's garage apartment, only went for $10,000, as the price for images went progressively down with each of Jon's indescretions and she was numero quartro.

Kate has never had a relationship with the reporters or the photographers, but she doesn't have to because she has TLC packaging and promoting her. My friend has spoken to her and tried to engage her in conversations several times, and the only time my friend knows of that she actually responded to a reporter or photographer was on Monday 4/26/10, at the Giant where she grocery shops. That interview can be seen here.

Has Kate manipulated the press? It's possible she has, but if so, not nearly so much as Jon. The press can manipulate too. For example, People Magazine likes to make itself sound credible by saying they don't pay for interviews. Sure they don't, but what they don't tell you is that if you're in the magazine, especially on the cover, they will pay you for the photos. Therefore Jon and Kate have probably made the standard People magazine "photo" fee of $30,000 each time they've been on the cover.

Gosselins To Take Parenting Class

Jon and Kate have to both take parenting classes which are mandatory for parents involved in custody disputes in Berks County, PA. The three hour class is called "Children In The Middle." Fortunately, Jon and Kate are allowed to take the class separately. Now wouldn't it be nice if they had to take a class called "Children In Reality TV?"

Smile Smile Smile

Remember the hoopla when one of the parents was caught on film slapping the behind of one of the little ones? Is spanking illegal? No. Is it attractive? No, and although it is not how most of us treat our children, in this case it probably doesn't legally qualify as abuse. Is it in line with the pristine picture painted on TV? Absolutely not, and imagine being the little ones and having to smile smile smile for the cameras:
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Kate spanked the kids all the time for little things. When they didn’t listen to her the first time, she snapped out and tanned their behinds. Jon would tell her to stop, but that would lead to them fighting in front of the kids, and Jon didn’t want that so he let her go. The source said Kate would get angry when the kids wouldn’t pick up their toys, and she never gave them a second chance. She once kicked a Lego building the boys made into a thousand pieces because they didn’t put it away the first time she ordered them. Then Kate made the tots clean up the mess she made, all the time yelling at them to put their damned toys away.

The kids were afraid of mommy. All she had to do was look at them with that expression, and they grew petrified because they knew what she’d do to them -- completely different from the loving parent you saw on TLC. Kate always screamed at them and that’s one of the reasons Jon said they split up. Jon painted himself as the fun parent and Kate as the meanie. Jon let the kids make a mess while Kate demanded everything stay neat and tidy. She would get mad at them just for taking out their toys to play.

All this was very self-serving, of course, and we wondered just how calculated this report was. But then one of Kate’s former neighbors from Wyomissing said Kate always did holler at the kids, even when they were infants. She would run the house like a military base, expecting the kids to jump whenever she barked orders. “I saw Kate spank the kids many times,” the neighbor said. “She believed in old-school discipline. If she said something and they didn’t listen, they’d get spanked. It got to the point that the kids would cower when she yelled at them because they didn’t know if they were going to get hit or not.”
* * * * * * * * * * *
(end of excerpt)
The reason I am printing this piece is to demonstrate the failings of reality TV when the parents have less than excellent parenting skills. I will use the Roloffs as a contrasting example. They aren't a perfect family, but they clearly love each other, and the kids know they always have a soft place to fall - on their parents. They also have areas of privacy in their home, and the kids are old enough to understand what's happening with the filming. Most of all, viewers get the feeling that if the family started to disintegrate in front of the cameras, the cameras would be removed by the family's adults.

A large part of parenting is understanding developmental stages and appreciating the child's experience and capabilities based on their ages and levels of growth. Yelling at infants and expecting toddlers to do everything perfectly the very first time displays a basic lack of understanding of children, and becoming frustrated to this degree shows a lack of maturity on the part of the parent. (This is not the parent's fault. Something was missing in their own parenting and they are doing the best they know how, given the limited skills they were given. This does not excuse it. It just explains it.)*

Anyone can be on a reality TV show, and with today's economy, lots of people want to be. Wouldn't it be great if families had to undergo counseling or have some sort of psychological screening in order to qualify to participate, as well as guidance throughout the entire process?

This is the third and last excerpt of my source's book-in-progress that I am going to print here. I hope you found my choices interesting and enlightening, and I look forward to your comments.

*Many of us were brought up with less than adequate parenting, only to become loving, non-abusive parents ourselves. Sometimes this happens naturally, and other times parents need help to become better parents. We have to admit we need to change in order for change to begin. Even the worst parents can become great parents with the help of a good therapist, as long as deep down inside they truly love their children. I believe these parents love their children.

Happy Thanksgiving?

Here is the second installment on some of the material my friend, who worked for a tabloid for a few months last year, shared with me. As I said before, I am choosing to share some of the tamer material, out of respect for the kids. This entry covers events that took place during Thanksgiving 2009. I think it shows an interesting picture of daily life at Casa Gosselin, after the breakup and while Jon was living in the garage apartment. It also shows the mythical supermom Kate vs. the real Kate.
* * * * * * * * *

The day before the holiday a woman drove a black Volvo SUV through the gate and onto the Gosselin property. She made five trips, alone and in the rain, carrying a total of 16 white plastic bags of Giant groceries into the house.

A nanny source said,"wants to look like a supermom who does it all – taking care of eight kids and the house and having a career but the fact is that she barely does anything. She’s got so many people working for her and doing everything but nobody reports that. She’s had a woman here for two days working on preparing food for her and two people watching the kids and someone else cleaning the house. Kate spent most of the day locked in her office talking on the phone."

The only activity at Heffner RoadThanksgiving day was a visit by three Mennonite women who stopped by to leave a gift for Kate. One woman, from Kentucky, was visiting family in Lancaster County. She asked if Jon was here and the pap told her no. She said, "That’s OK, I didn’t want to see him anyway. I brought a gift for Kate."

That gift was three painted wood blocks. One word was embossed on each: Faith, Family, Friends. The Mennonite seemed put off by the fact Kate didn’t answer the buzzer or send Steve down to the gate to tote up her gift. After three attempts at leaving a message, she left the bag inside the gate and they left. Nobody came down for the bag by 8 p.m. Along with the painted blocks, the woman left a card that read, "A basket of wishes … and a bushel of love! Happy Thanksgiving from my family to yours."

A handwritten note said:
"Dear Kate –
I made this gift not knowing who to give it to. Then it came to me – you!
We all need these 3 in our life.
Friends – during times of trouble in one's life this is a test of who your real / true friends are.
Family – is next. Unfortunately, some have betrayed you. We can’t choose our family. We are born into one.
Faith – is at the top. Our friends will leave us, our family will disappoint us, but one thing for sure, God will never leave us or forsake us.
Kate, Happy Thanksgiving. May the Lord be with you. Take care & God Bless!"
[name removed by Werny Gal]

We arrived at the Gosselin house at sunrise Friday to confirm suspicions of Steve Neild and his wife sleeping over. Sure enough, they were still at the house. The lights were on in Jon’s apartment above the garage and you could see people milling about up in those quarters.

We texted Jon to let him know he had trespassers in his apartment, and he texted back, "Interesting." He phoned back a minute later, pissed. He said nobody’s supposed to go in there, ever, except him. "I have to have the locks changed now," he said, "I have a lot of valuable shit up there."

Jon said he was going to call Kate immediately and bitch her out for invading his private apartment. He said Kate had called him earlier and asked when he was stopping by to see the kids, but he now realized what she really called for was to make sure she had Steve out of the house before Jon got there. Otherwise, there could be a nasty encounter.
* * * * * * * * * * *
[end of report by Werny Gal's source]

Clarification of Laws Regarding Children in Entertainment in PA

Kate Plus Eight is reportedly set to premiere this summer and the children may also be involved in the filming of Twist of Kate. This brings up two separate issues which come under the auspices of two different departments in the Commonwealth of PA. Since there has been some confusion about the differences between these two as shown in some of my blog comments, I'm going to take a moment and clarify them here.

The first issue is that the law states that permits need to be secured for all children under the age of 16 working in the Comonwealth of Pennsylvania. This comes under the auspices of the Department of Labor and Industry. In the case of the Gosselins and future filming, the child labor permits that will allow the children to continue filming have reportedly been secured, so those legal requirements have been met.

The second issue is making sure that all adults in Pennsylvania whose work brings them into contact with the children have been cleared for child abuse and criminal backgrounds. This comes under the auspices of the Department of Welfare, not the Dept of Labor. It is imperative that only those whose background checks have been confirmed and then updated regularly (because they do expire) be allowed to work with any children in Pennsylvania, the Gosselin children included. It is unclear whether or not those clearances have been secured, and I will continue checking with Rep Murt and keep you updated on this issue.

PA requires that only 15% of the total earnings is required to be set aside for children who are working in the entertainment industry. Therefore if the Gosselin family gets $75,000 per episode, Kate could get 85% or $63,750, and the kids could get a minimum of 15% or $11,250.* If that 15% is divided up between eight children, each child would earn only $1406 per episode. After taxes and social security $1400 is about $1000, and that doesn't include other expenses like health insurance. Is that really fair, considering the invasion of privacy and the emotional consequences of doing a reality show?

This is assuming that Kate keeps her 85% and gives the kids their minimum of 15%. Some parents, especially in California where child labor laws have become more enlightened and adult caregivers have learned from their past mistakes (thanks to the good work of A Minor Consideration) set aside more than the minimum 15% required. That way when the kids grow up they have a nice nest egg for college so they can make a living as an adult when the acting career goes down the tubes (which it usually does when the kids grow up and aren't so cute or special anymore.) What kind of financial future do you think Jon and Kate have planned for their children? Do you think, based on their lifestyles, values and priorities as evidenced by their past behaviors, they have put away the required 15%, a higher percentage, or no percentage at all?

* I am assuming 15% for the kids as an entity. Clearly the law was not set up for families with eight kids. Two or three kids could each get 15%, but it just doesn't work with eight. Clarifications or corrections are welcome.

Eight Legally Cleared for Filming Kate + Eight

This article from TMZ online, posted early this morning, claims the Gosselin kids have been cleared for working on Kate + Eight. Apparently Kate, who holds herself up as a model parent, still hasn't educated herself about the harms to children of being used in entertainment industry. And whatever happened to Jon's insistence that the kids not be filmed anymore? Was that a sincere desire to do what was best for his children, or was it just sour grapes because he bad-behaviored himself out of the entertainment industry?

The PA Dept of Labor & Industry still hasn't answered the question of whether all TLC employees, caterers, and all others involved in filming the series J&K+8 were cleared for child abuse and criminal backgrounds before being given access - sometimes alone in isolated places including bathrooms, bedrooms, or in the woods - to the Gosselin children.

The disaster continues to unfold.

Greetings From Ghettoville, Pennsylvania

One of my most fervent commenters, "anonymous," pointed out that it is hypocritical of me to express concern about what the children might read on the Internet, while simultaneously writing things that might be upsetting to them to read. In this case it would be nice if you could blame the messenger, but you can't because the kids apparently witness this mentality all the time.

Yup, Ghettoville is the name Kate calls this little Pennsylvania town that originally welcomed her with open arms. As a neighbor told my friend, “They always say they live in Wernersville, but they never even drive through town. Kate never comes near us. She always goes the other way, down State Hill Road. That’s more high society, I guess. She calls Wernersville ‘Ghettoville.’ She thinks she’s better than the rest of us.”

If you've read my blog long enough you know that our quiet little town of Wernersville is no Ghettoville. Werny is about four blocks long and our main street, Penn Avenue (or Route 422W,) is lined with old row homes, with a smattering of locally owned businesses mixed in for good measure. We have a couple of pizza shops, one gas station/convenience store, a small bakery, an ice cream shop, a bike shop, and a really great gift shop. The post office, police station and public library are set back about a block off Penn Avenue. Our population is under 2,500. It's not a ritzy place but there are lots of nice people here, like the neighbors who took freshly baked goods to Casa Gosselin when they first moved in, and were screamed at by Kate to get off her property and not tell anyone where she lived, or she would sue them.

The word "Ghettoville" strikes me as not only racist but elitist. Elitist, just because Werny isn't all matchy-matchy and perfect, like a brand new Barbie doll with new fake blonde hair and fake white teeth.
It struck me as rather odd that a Caucasian woman who was married and had children with someone who is half Korean would make a racist comment, but then I read further and found this bon mot: A source revealed that Jon hired the main nanny, but Kate also likes her a lot because “she’s Asian and she works 24/7 and she knows how to do hair and nails. Kate loves having Asians working for her. That’s why she frequents Planet Nails. It’s owned by Asians and she thinks they don’t get involved in other people’s business and they won’t gossip to reporters about her.”

Just love those Christian family values.

Well, gotta go y'all. Gonna go hang with my homies now. Down in the 'hood.

It's Going To Be A Bumpy Ride

As my faithful readers know, a local friend who is a veteran news reporter was hired to gather fodder for a major tabloid/entertainment magazine/rag last summer, during the height of the hoopla, not to mention traffic snarls, on a certain country road in Wernersville, PA. I've always enjoyed listening to his tales of not only what he learned while he tailed Jon and Kate, but also about what it was like working for the tabloids. It's been a learning experience for me for sure, and I wasn't even the temporary paparazzi.

I haven't always written everything I know. In fact, I've often chosen not to share certain things because I didn't want to cause potential pain or instigate drama where it didn't already exist, at least in the public eye. I knew about several things way before they became public, but I kept them to myself until they came out, for the same reason, such as Kate and the bodyguard and some of Jon's wee johnnie roamings like with Stephanie, for example. We all have to remember that what we say is going into the vast permanent unknown that is The Internet, where eight little ones, swept up in this embarrassing and shameful saga with no choice of their own, will have access to it, maybe for forever. So I try to keep it real, minimally dramatic, and productive, when possible. (Okay, okay, so nobody's perfect, right?)

It turns out that my friend was keeping notes, a chronological journal, in fact, of his Summer of Gosselining. He shared it with me a couple of days ago, and what an addictive tome it is. I am impressed with his dedication to the subject and the breadth of his information gathered, and also frankly overwhelmed with details. With his permission, in my next couple of posts I'm going to share with you some of what I've learned.

So buckle that seat belt and stayed tuned. I will be posting later tonight.

So Much For Quality Time With The Kids

So much for spending quality time with the kids. Actions speak louder than words, and saying the kids are a priority doesn't mean a pile of dogpooh if it's only words. Kate zoomed out again soon after returning home, suitcase in hand. Once again the kids are left with the nannies instead of having a normal home life with their natural parents. Meanwhile Jon supposedly fired his attorney, is selling his Beemer and has a cougar in Washington, D.C. What does any of this have to do with parenting?

It appears Representative Murt's hearings on the PA child labor laws were not a moment too soon. Legal changes won't help the Gosselin kids with their problems at home, but at least someone somewhere out there is paying attention and trying to inject some sanity and health into this situation. Who's making sure these kids' needs are met?

Using the need of money to pay for college educations is a transparent and poor excuse for not being parents to your children. Many families have eight or even more kids and they aren't all over the country trying to hook up television or Hollywood deals. Some parents even adopt mentally or physically disadvantaged kids, adding to their own large broods, because they love children and want to help them so much. There's no reason an IT guy and a nurse who worked at a great hospital couldn't provide their kids with not only the basic physical care, but also the time with their parents and individual attention growing kids need (not to mention privacy in public and in their own home.) Kids are not a meal ticket or a vehicle with which to draw attention to yourselves, make money or create a career in entertainment. Kids are people, little dependent people, with emotional and psychological needs, and they need parents more than they need matchy-matchy outfits and the other superficial trappings these two parents seem hellbent on procuring.

Let's Enjoy The Sound of Crickets...

A reader asked me if the dogs are back. I did hear they were back, about a week ago. Otherwise all is quiet. Today when I passed the house I once again searched for the hoards of paps Kate described as being outside her door every day when she was on DWTS, and there was not a soul in sight. No paps, no fans, no nothing. Now Kate is off DWTS and the paps will no doubt lay off until she or Jon do something new to draw attention to themselves. The only "sign" suggesting that anyone even vaguely resembling anything like a star might be anywhere near the vicinity of Wernersville was this weatherworn momento, laying forlorn in the grass in front of Casa Gosselin.

Update on PA Child Labor Laws

This morning I received a personal phone call from PA Representative Tom Murt in response to an email I sent him requesting information on whether or not TLC employees were checked for child abuse clearances and criminal backgrounds prior to being allowed to work with the Gosselin children, as required by the Commonwealth of PA of anyone working with children. He told me he's asked for this information every day for the past week and that if he doesn't get it today he's going to personally call Sandi Vito, Pennsylvania's Secretary of the Department of Labor and Industry for the answer.

See the last couple of entries if you are not familiar with last week's work of Rep. Murt in which he held hearings to tighten up child labor laws regarding children used in entertainment in the Commonwealth of PA, in particular "reality television." He told me he's been amazed at the responses via email including one from France which stated "We would never exploit our children the way you do in your country."

Representative Murt talked briefly with me about 1997's PA's film tax credit which was created to encourage filmmakers and television production to bring their work to PA. Along with the influx of film crews and production companies comes added responsibilty of Pa to ensure that the State's children who are involved in such productions are safe and protected. Murt told me he is currently drafting legislation based on last week's hearings, which he hopes to unveil on May 20, 2010.

Interestingly, he's also planning on updating legislation on an unrelated issue regarding child abuse, and I happen to have testified at the first hearings regarding that exact issue when it was originally proposed as legislation approximately twenty years ago. I'm going to make myself available to him in case he would like me to testify at the upcoming hearings proposing updates to that legislation. Twenty years ago I testified as a former victim of child abuse. Now I could be testifying as a therapist who works with adults who were abused the way I was as a child. Isn't it great the way life comes around sometimes?

Were TLC Employees Cleared As Legally Required by PA?

I was chilled by the testimony of the Kreiders at Rep Murt's child labor law hearings yesterday, detailing occasions when the Gosselin children were left alone with cameramen and other adults related to the production of J&K+8, in the woods, in the childrens' bedrooms and bathrooms, and other places in the normal course of daily filming.

Have all the adults who've worked with the Gosselin children gone through the legal clearances that are required when working with children in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania? These include the PA and federal criminal records and child abuse clearances that are required of all teachers, child care workers, and anyone whose work normally and regularly brings them into contact with children. I am a volunteer at a local agency that assists children in Berks County and even though I rarely actually come in contact with the children served by that agency, mine are regularly updated as required by law.

So much of yesterday's testimonies revealed the lack of privacy in the children's lives. All children should be given information that helps them stay safe regarding their personal boundaries, what is acceptable treatment toward them and what is not, and what to do & who to tell if anything inappropriate happens or if they feel uncomfortable or violated in any way.

The sexual abuse of children is epidemic in this country. How much higher is it in an industry that is primarily concerned with creating images and selling air space rather than the safety and well-being of the children?

Good News For The Gosselin Kids, We Hope

Jon is moving into a large apartment in Reading, the hub of Berks County in which Wernersville is located, according to this report. Now let's hope he can get that original custody agreement revised. Since Kate now owns the home and has primary custody, what's to keep her from moving the kids out of the home they love and into a whole new state and lifestyle, not to mention more cameras and media attention?

Rebecca Gullan, PhD ~ PA Child Labor Laws Testimony

Here is Rebecca Gullan's testimony. It does not include the discussion testimony which takes place after the written/spoken testimony. (Paul Petersen's testimony may be seen in my last entry.)

* * * * *

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.

* * * * *

Paul Petersen/A Minor Consideration's Testimony

At several readers' request, I am happy to provide Paul Petersen of A Minor Consideration's testimonoy at the hearings on child labor laws in PA yesterday:

* * * * * * *

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

The Identified Patient

In his testimony at Rep. Murt's hearings on child labor laws in PA, Kevin Kreider spoke of one particular child of eight who has gained a reputation for being difficult. In the field of psychology, counselors sometimes find there's one family member in particular who is treated as the crazy, annoying, or bratty one but who upon further examination is actually the healthiest member of the family. When we see this phenomenon, the scapegoated family member is called the Identified Patient.

In therapy, the identified patient is the one who protests, fights, argues and disagrees because they are unwilling to be phony or play the game. They're the therapy client who finally tells on that wacky uncle who everyone jokes is just a little bit off but who everyone really knows deep inside has been molesting the family's children for three generations. Or they're the one who gets sober and goes to AA and now the rest of the family calls them a dud and a party pooper because they're just no fun to be with anymore. Sometimes the family insists that this crazy family member get help, although usually the IP seeks counseling on their own because they can no longer tolerate the family denial. They may be the least popular family member, but from a mental health perspective they're the healthiest because they've got the integrity, mental health and courage to expose the family problems and try to get help.

Imagine that you are a child under ten on a "reality" TV show. You know you're doing something important for the family because it makes money for everyone you love the most (and you've heard so many times about how important money is) but you absolutely hate it. You have to go to boring places and keep your hair and clothes neat and perfect and pretend to be happy and having a good time when you'd rather be anywhere else. Strangers have taken over your home so that there is rarely a quiet family meal or other beloved private family time together. Cameras are permanently installed everywhere in your home including in your bedroom and your bathroom, so that even when there's no cameraman with you, the cameras may be being controlled remotely from outside the house. You're a petite girl, and adults who are new to you and are usually men are allowed to follow you alone into the woods behind your house, the little slanted playhouse you were told was just yours to play in, or any room in your home, with a camera, and tape everything you do. And through it all you must smile, smile, smile.

Imagine the burden living this way would put on even the most mature, stable and self-confident of adults. Then imagine how it would feel to be immature, confused, and wanting to be loved more than anything else in the world, which is what childhood is like.

So my message to you, Little One, is this: You keep yelling and screaming and doing whatever you have to do to let it be known that you want and need your own thoughts and feelings and privacy and family. You are not crazy, annoying or bratty, and there are people who care and understand.

The purpose of this entry is not to blame, shame or point the finger at anyone. We're all a product, to at least some little degree, of where we came from. Most times in these situations no one has intentionally set out to hurt anyone else. But it is what it is. And because it is, we need better child labor laws to protect children.

Today's Hearing on PA Child Labor Laws

ADDED NOTE: Here's the link to watch the tape of the hearings online.


(original post)
15 Minutes has provided a good synopsis of Jodie Kreider's testimony at today's House Republican Policy Committee's hearings on Pennsylvania’s child labor laws as they relate to film and television production, which was streamed live today. I was only able to see Paul Petersen's testimony live and it was very informative as well as heartrending. I've received copies of his testimony as well as that of the Kreiders and the child psychologist R. Gullen and I'll be reviewing them this evening. Attorney Gloria Allred also testified but she did not provide a written copy of her testimony so I was unable to secure that. I've spoken with Representative Murt's office and there may be a way to access the hearings online for those of us who weren't able to watch the live feed. If that happens I'll let you know here. Meanwhile it's reassuring to know that some of our PA lawmakers are taking a look at this important issue.

Kate House-Hunting in Hollywood?

Reader itsaboutthekids has sent this link stating Kate is now looking at homes in the Los Angeles area. Can placing the children in a cage and charging money to see them be far behind?

Advocating For The Gosselin Eight

Anonymous (probably my most verbose commenter!) has provided a link about a hearing coming up Wed 4/14/10 in Horsham PA. The hearing is being held to consider the affect of reality TV shows like "Jon & Kate Plus 8" on child actors. Since PA has lax laws concerning the rights of child actors, this is wonderful news for all children in Pennsylvania who are involved in the entertainment industry as actors or participants in reality TV. Anything that draws attention to this issue is a step in the right direction.

Testifying will be the wonderful Paul Petersen of A Minor Consideration, fantastically ass-kicking attorney Gloria Allred, and Kevin and Jodi Krieder, the estranged brother and sister-in-law of Kate Gosselin who were once the Gosselin childrens' loving caregivers. The Gosselin eight and the children of PA could not have better advocates.

Comment Moderation Is Now On

Comment moderation is now on. It may take a while for your comments to show up because I have to okay each one as it comes to me in email, and I'm gardening and doing things other than being on the computer today. Non-flamers, non-insulters and non-porn site linkers, I appreciate your patience.

Two Reasons 2 Not Watch TLC

TLC has announced more details about Kate's new show, Kate Plus 8, features Kate and the children and is described as a series of eight specials, debuting in June.* Kate's second show, Twist of Kate, in which fan letters to Kate are used to profile women facing personal challenges, will be shown in twelve episodes starting in late summer.

The implication with Twist of Kate is that American women are inspired by our good ole' everyday normal mom Kate. Our small town Kate's a regular gal just like the rest of us. Kind of like Jenny from the 'hood, only Kate is much more of a diva than Jennifer Lopez.

Suggested episode: Kate goes to the home of Martha Stewart and demonstrates how to bitch-slap domestic workers into submission. (This episode spawns a TLC special comprised solely of outtakes showing the two women rolling around in the chicken coop while tearing each other's bottle blonde hair out, after Martha has the audacity to try to show Kate how to open an oven door.)

TLC will also be airing Sarah Palin's Alaska. Perhaps TLC could get Kate and Sarah together for a hunting episode in which Sarah stalks moose while Kate hunts for that perfect man.

*Could airing this show as a series of specials rather than as a regular show be a way of getting around Jon's insistance that they not film the children?

What A Way To Make A Living

There were four Gosselin watchers at the Gosselin house this afternoon, no doubt because of Jon's announcement yesterday. This is unusual nowadays.

One of them was a photographer who I've spoken with before. (I mentioned previously that he had lunch with DWTS instructor Tony who he described as a real gentleman.) He sits in his little blue beach chair outside the property fence and waits for something to happen. He said the kids had a fun water gun fight on the front yard yesterday, so those pictures will no doubt be in the magazines any day now. I asked him if there was any truth to the rumor that Jon is living in an apartment over a bar in this area, and he said No. If Jon was, he would know about it.

The police are again allowing people to park on the side of the road very close to the front of the house, and have been for some time. Last summer, at the height of Jon's poor relationship choices, the traffic was so bad that you'd get a ticket if you slowed down to a full stop in front of the house, and the papparazi had to park at least a half mile away in either direction and then walk to the front of the house to avoid being ticketed. Lack of drama/news means the traffic isn't a problem, and there is often no one in front of the house. That's good news for this lone holdout because it means he's got no competition. While the other pros are off chasing Brangelina or this week's other poor tabloid victims, he sits and waits.

How Kate Can Win DWTS

Kate got a reprieve on tonight's DWTS, coming in third instead of being voted off. She's been pretty stiff on the first three episodes, so maybe it would help if they chose a dance that comes more naturally to her. (Move your curser to start the video at 30 seconds to see the guy in the red shirt.) Imagine how much easier this would make Tony's job.

You're welcome, Tony.

Oh, That Obnoxious Papparazi!

On DWTS tonight Kate said the Lady Gaga song Papparazi speaks to her because there are papparazi waiting for her outside her door every day. I don't know what door she's talking about but I live in Wernersville and hoards of papparazi outside her door hasn't been the case for some time. And what little paps do show up from time to time would go away if she would stop going on TV and talking about how awful it is to be in the press all the time. It's been said before and no doubt will be again: Stop feeding the sharks and they'll stop circling.

I also love how she talked about having to wear a happy mask because of the events of the past year. Obviously the past year has been hard on everyone in the family, but get a clue! The events of the past year were not the problem, they were the symptom. A family that pretends to be happy so the show can go on in order to make more money, while the parents have not actually been in a relationship for some time, has to be psychological hell on not only the adults but the kids. The healthiest thing that happened to this family in the past year was Jon coming out about the marriage and show being a sham and him pulling the kids out of the big phony mess. He had the kahoonies to tell the truth no matter how unpopular it made him.

One last note about Kate's hair and makeup on tonight's DWTS. Remember that old movie Whatever Happened To Baby Jane? Well, tonight we found our answer. . .