I called Rep Thomas Murt's office this afternoon to follow up on our phone call of the week of the child labor hearings, hoping to hear that his office had heard from the PA Department of Labor & Industry regarding the issue of ensuring the Gosselins children are working only with adults who have been cleared for child abuse and criminal backgrounds.
The forms for doing these checks are easy to obtain and submit and their results are completely confidential. The individual being checked fills them out and sends them in, and after they have been filled out with information indicating that the individual either has or has not been convicted of child abuse or a felony in PA they are sent back to that individual who then gives them to their prospective employer, volunteer coordinator, or whoever they will potentially be working under. Having the info sent back to the person applying for the job or volunteer position rather than directly to the prospective employer makes this a confidential process because if someone's papers come back showing that they've been convicted of something, they can always call the prospective employer and say something like, "Gee whiz, I'm withdrawing my application because I got another job..."
These two sets of paperwork must be completed, returned and handed in prior to any direct contact with children, and any responsible Pennylvania employer knows it. You cannot work as a teacher, in a day care center, or at any agency serving children without them. I have been filling them out for years because I am on the board of directors of an agency that services children here in Berks County, and I don't even work directly with the kids the agency serves.
In the third week of April Representative Murt personally told me he'd been trying to get a response on this from Dept of L&I Secretary Sandi Vito for the previous week with no luck. He kept asking, and the Dept of L&I just kept not responding. It is now six weeks later and Rep Murt's office just told me they are still waiting for a response.
For the past several years the Gosselin children have been followed around by and sometimes been alone in bathrooms, bedrooms and the woods with cameramen and other adults such as caterers, bodyguards, drivers, and have spent prolonged periods of time alone with nannies, babysitters, etc. There is no evidence that any of these adults went through the legally-required background checks, although that evidence has been repeatedly requested by a Pennsylvania State representative. There is also, based on this clearly profound lack of responsibility taken in regards to the safety of these children, no reason to believe that clearances have been secured for any of the adults working with the Gosselin children now that filming has resumed.
Ms. Vito, please respond to the multiple requests for information you have received from representative Murt's office, and prove me wrong.
Friday, May 21, 2010
Poor Pitiful Jon
This is one of those little things I knew about from the beginning but didn't bother to write because it's just more minutae, but since a few people have asked here it is. It provides a good example of Jon intentionally manipulating the media.
There was lots of speculation about whether Jon would be able to see the six on their birthday. He even was videotaped sounding speculative in the Wyomissing Toys 'R' Us parking lot exclaiming "I want to see them on their birthday, but I don't know. I'm hoping that Kate lets me see them on their birthday."
Jon, get real. You knew you were going to see the kids on their sixth birthday because you and Kate agreed beforehand that you would see them. I heard about the ridiculous video when it came out and then later Kate's team made it public to counteract your moping. So why are you acting all sad and forlorn, as though the poor little kiddies might never get to see the loving gifts you bought them? Is making your relationship with Kate sound worse than it currently really is, or making it sound like mean old Kate might not let you see your sextuplets on their six birthday, really going to help anyone, especially the children? And now it's online, for them to see forever.
There was lots of speculation about whether Jon would be able to see the six on their birthday. He even was videotaped sounding speculative in the Wyomissing Toys 'R' Us parking lot exclaiming "I want to see them on their birthday, but I don't know. I'm hoping that Kate lets me see them on their birthday."
Jon, get real. You knew you were going to see the kids on their sixth birthday because you and Kate agreed beforehand that you would see them. I heard about the ridiculous video when it came out and then later Kate's team made it public to counteract your moping. So why are you acting all sad and forlorn, as though the poor little kiddies might never get to see the loving gifts you bought them? Is making your relationship with Kate sound worse than it currently really is, or making it sound like mean old Kate might not let you see your sextuplets on their six birthday, really going to help anyone, especially the children? And now it's online, for them to see forever.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Silent Five-Minute Rally, All Time Zones Invited
Persistent and well-traveled (on the Internet) and infuriating to some but adored by others commenter Irene has suggested that we each take five minutes to think about what it would be like to be the Gosselin children. I like the idea: Five minutes of walking around our homes while picturing cameras and mikes everywhere. The virtual rally takes place at 7PM tonight, Wednesday May 19, 2010, in your time zone, wherever you are. This can be a great opportunity for family dicussion so get your family to join you if you can. Then come back here and share what it was like for you.
If you are unable to join us at home, take a minute now to picture this life. Imagine cameras in your house, including in your bedroom and bathroom. Some of the cameras and mics are hand-held by cameramen and others are permanently installed. This means cameras can be controlled remotely from a vehicle that is parked in the driveway, and you never know when they will be on or off. Imagine being small, uneducated and unsure of yourself, and having one or more much bigger persons hovering over you while holding cameras, and them not responding if you talk to them because of the invisible wall they're not supposed to break while they're working.
What would that be like for you?
If you are unable to join us at home, take a minute now to picture this life. Imagine cameras in your house, including in your bedroom and bathroom. Some of the cameras and mics are hand-held by cameramen and others are permanently installed. This means cameras can be controlled remotely from a vehicle that is parked in the driveway, and you never know when they will be on or off. Imagine being small, uneducated and unsure of yourself, and having one or more much bigger persons hovering over you while holding cameras, and them not responding if you talk to them because of the invisible wall they're not supposed to break while they're working.
What would that be like for you?
Friday, May 14, 2010
Laws on Children in Entertainment in Our 50 States
Eagle-eyed reader Irene contributed this link which contrasts laws regarding children in entertainment in all fifty United States. It doesn't provide specifics but shows a good overview allowing us to contrast and compare.
PA is doing better than some states but there's a major flaw in our laws: They only pertain to children age 7 and up. Therefore, it's free-for-all for kids younger than that.
It's obvious that a lot of work has been done to institute good laws protecting children in entertainment in California. On the other hand, Rhode Island, you totally copped out on this one.
Tiny little bone tossed to the Gosselin children: You've lost most of your childhoods and you'll never get them back, but at least you don't live in Mississippi, New Hampshire or Utah.
Thanks Irene!
PA is doing better than some states but there's a major flaw in our laws: They only pertain to children age 7 and up. Therefore, it's free-for-all for kids younger than that.
It's obvious that a lot of work has been done to institute good laws protecting children in entertainment in California. On the other hand, Rhode Island, you totally copped out on this one.
Tiny little bone tossed to the Gosselin children: You've lost most of your childhoods and you'll never get them back, but at least you don't live in Mississippi, New Hampshire or Utah.
Thanks Irene!
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Protesting on Behalf of the Gosselin Children
UPDATE: For more info on boycotting Kate Plus 8 go to facebook account. "4-8 Please boycott Kate plus 8 on TLC" It can be found under groups.
* * * * * *below is today's original post * * * * * *
As some of you already know there might be a peaceful protest of TLC filming the Gosselin children in front of the Gosselin property in Wernersville on Saturday, May 28 at 12 PM.
This wouldn't be the first protest against the Gosselin children being exploited in entertainment, and so far the attempts at protests haven't made much of a dent. A year ago in May 2009 Kate Gosselin’s sister-in-law Julie exposed the unreality of ‘Jon & Kate Plus 8 and urged viewers not to watch. In August 2009 a man protested the show by standing outside the Gosselin home with a sign that read, "It's not Jon, It's not Kate, the only losers are the 8."
I'm torn on this one. Like many of you, I am dismayed at the prospect of further filming of the eight, and I was horrified to read that they will be away from home this summer, filming one of their mother's two new shows. I am all in favor of social activism, which has a long history of being an assertive, not aggressive or illegal, way to inform and protest, but I feel so badly for the children, especially Colin at this time, that I can't condone anything that might create more havoc at the house. Therefore, while I support the rights and motivations of anyone who decides to protest in front of the house, I will not be joining them.
I'd like to promote protesting in a way that could not potentially further damage the children. Betty White just hosted Saturday Night Live after a very effective petition was started on Facebook. A facebook petition is something I'd be happy to sign and promote here. I'd also be supportive of a protest at the TLC offices. But not in front of the house where the kids could either see it live or see pictures of it later on. I just think they've been through way too much already.
Meanwhile I'll keep protesting in my own quiet way, by not watching any shows with the Gosselin children in them and by continuing to provide education right here at my Small Town Gosselins blog.
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Gloria Allred on PA Child labor Laws
Following is an excerpt of Gloria Allred's testimony at the April 14, 2010 hearing on child labor laws hosted by Pennsylvania Rep. Murt. Although the hearings were not about the Gosselins in particular, they would no doubt have not taken place if the Gosselin children being filmed here had not brought attention to the topic. Therefore, the Gosselins various shows being filmed in PA has provided us with a valuable opportunity to examine and improve our laws regarding children being filmed in entertainment here.
As I read through this first portion of Gloria's testimony I thought of some examples where, throughout this entire "reality" TV experience, the Gosselin's children's needs have not been treated as a priority. Rather than state my observations now, I invite my readers to consider the Gosselin children as they read the statement below, and then comment on how you observe this relating to the Gosselins. Then I'll post another entry listing some of your observations and including my own.
These children on reality shows don’t have a voice, they don’t make contributions to political campaigns, they don’t run for elective office and s they have no political clout. So ordinarily they got nothing but lip service , if that, from elected officials. But, obviously you are elected officials who want action and who want deeds not just words, and for that I’m very appreciative. What I’d like to talk about today is to give a short overview of what federal law does or does not do in this area, and also to, perhaps, give some analysis of Representative Murt’s proposals that I know he has not distributed, but we’ve had a chance to look at some of them and analyze them, and I’d like to emphasize what I think is positive about them and what perhaps could be a little bit clarified or improved. And then finally, I’d like to make some comments about the investigative process, and not specifically what’s going on with Jon and Kate, but the investigative process in terms of the law. I’ll give you an example, from California, in reference to an investigation that took place on the Nadya Suleman and her eight, well actually fourteen children that she has and whether that process worked or not in reference to what would work here in Pennsylvania.* And I do want to commend Jodi and Kevin Kreider who just gave incredible testimony , just perfect, and Paul Petersen who is in the interest of full disclosure of my client, but who is absolutely the leader above all else on this issue in this nation and for that matter around the world.
To begin, federally, and this background is also provided by and has been provided to me by the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, I am a member of AFTRA and I’m also a member of SAG. In reference to what the issue is federally, the most pleasing federal law that regulates the employment conditions and prevents the abuse of child workers issues is the Fair Labor Standards Act, FLSA, child labor provisions under FLSA are designed to protect the educational opportunities abuse and prohibit their employment and jobs that are detrimental to their health and safety. The FLSA restricts the hours that youth under 16 years of age are allowed to work and with hazardous occupations too dangerous for young workers to perform. And here’s what’s most important: Children employed as actors or performers in motion pictures, theatrical productions, or on radio or television programs are specifically exempt from Fair Labor Standards Act coverage and the standards and protections provided under FLSA. So let’s talk now about how does the lack of coverage under the FLSA impact children. Without national coverage, children have no consistent protection. Though some states regulate the employment of minors in the entertainment industry, other states have no provisions regulating child labor in this industry whatsoever. Among the states that normally regulate the performances of children in the media industry, few have comprehensive protections for the education health , safety and financial security of children.
For years, children have necessarily been a part of the entertainment industry. It would be impossible to produce the Harry Potter films or television programs like Hanna Montana or the Suite Life of Zach and Cody without employing children as actors. And the proliferation of the so called reality programming has exacerbated the problem by utilizing children on television without any compensation or any other protection either as contestants or subjects of documentary style shows. Without the protections afforded under the FLSA, the welfare of children is put at risk. The recent hoax of the so-called balloon boy, reports that the Octomom was developing a reality TV show and the proliferation of shows like Kid Nation, Jon and Kate Plus 8, or just Kate Plus 8 illustrates that children are increasingly exploited in the media and often without fundamental protection. Federal child labor standards in the entertainment industry would ensure that the well-being of children is not bothered for the proverbial fifteen minutes of fame. As film and television production becomes decentralized, more children than ever are left without protection. States with major entertainment industry production centers like California and New York do have well developed laws and regulations as Paul Petersen had said, governing the performance of minors in the industry. But production is increasingly decentralized particularly if more states like Pennsylvania pass production incentive legislation, that’s tax incentive legislation, designed to lure film and television production to their state. Though union contracts in the industry contain provisions designed to provide the unique protections that children require, many programs are not produced under a union contract. Additionally, the performances of some children like contestants and participants in reality television may not be covered by a union contract because the children are not technically “employed”.
So what protections are needed? First of all in the area of wages. There is currently no minimum wage for children who appear on air. Children who appear in competition or documentary-styled reality programs may not receive any compensation at all. This is nationally.
Financial protections. There are only four states that have a Coogan law requiring establishment of a trust account to preserve and safeguard a portion of their earnings for adulthood.
Health, safety, and working conditions. Children need health and safety protection that is specific to their physical, mental, emotional and developmental needs.
Education. States like California require that teachers be provided for children while they are working on production. California also requires the presence of a parent or a guardian while a child performer works. Other states may have no provisions at all for onset education.
Hours of work. Children need additional rest when working, particularly if they are traveling or working at night. Associate regulation of hourly support is necessary.
Moral oversights. Children should not be placed in a moral situation that is inappropriate, be exposed to distressing scenes, be forced to become distressed in order to prompt a particular reaction or employed in any situation involving nudity, which goes to your concerns, Representative.
Representative Murt, I know, has drafted some proposed improvements or changes in Pennsylvania Child Labor Law and without going through all of them because I think that’s in the province of Representative Murt to present, I would like to comment that I think it’s very positive that he wants to define work in reality shows. His proposals for legislation will require that children who appear on reality television are working as performers and should be subject to the state’s (??) process for child performers.
Minimum wage recommendation by Representative Murt: The legislation which he proposes will recognize that children in reality television should be paid for their performances, or their participation, and that the work load and restrictions in place for children working in other types of television programming such as scripted entertainment programming should be in place for kids in reality television. I see that as a positive as well.
Moral oversight. Representative Murt’s proposed legislation has some provisions related to moral oversight. Meaning prohibitions on photographing children while changing clothes, or bathing, performances where alcohol is present. Additional protections would be helpful. I’ll make a few specific suggestions there.
Health and safety. Representative Murt is concerned with that. His legislation contains provisions related to health and safety, which are good. States should study to see whether (?) protection are necessary.
Now here are some areas that I believe could perhaps benefit from some clarification, Representative Murt, for improvement.
Age of children. The permitting process in Pennsylvania is such that appears that children under the age of seven are not permitted to work. If this is the case, the same restriction should exist for children in reality shows. It would eliminate ambiguity if the legislation were to contain a clearly-worded prohibition against the employment of children under the age of seven in reality shows.
Hours of work. They provide, in Representative Murt’s legislation, that children shall not work before five a.m. or after 11:30 p.m. It strikes me that that’s rather early and extremely late particularly for children as young as seven years of age. Similarly, permitting up to forty four hours of work per week as a proposed legislation and draft suggests, seems to be quite a lot, and I would lessen that.
Financial protection. Only four states, as I have mentioned, have a Coogan Law requiring establishment of a trust account to preserve and safeguard a portion of the children’s earnings for adulthood. Pennsylvania is not one of those states.
Education. States like California require that teachers be provided while they are working on production. By the way, the purpose of the teacher is merely to safeguard the workplace so the children are not endangered. California also requires the presence of a parent or guardian while a child performer works. It’s good that Representative Murt is asking the department to ensure that adequate educational instruction is provided. But the standards they have to meet needs to be defined in my opinion.
Moral oversight in Representative Murt’s proposed legislation. Children should not be placed in a moral situation that is inappropriate, be exposed to distressing scenes, be forced to become distressed in order to prompt a particular reaction. There’s a real risk that these sorts of things can be problems during the production of television reality shows.
[End of the excerpt of Allred's testimony]
*Due to the length of this post that example will be provided in a future blog entry.
As I read through this first portion of Gloria's testimony I thought of some examples where, throughout this entire "reality" TV experience, the Gosselin's children's needs have not been treated as a priority. Rather than state my observations now, I invite my readers to consider the Gosselin children as they read the statement below, and then comment on how you observe this relating to the Gosselins. Then I'll post another entry listing some of your observations and including my own.
* * * * * *
Good Morning. I’m attorney Gloria Allred, partner in the law firm of Allred, Laughlin, Goldberg in Los Angeles where I’ve been practicing law for almost 35 years. But most of all, I’m proud to be born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, graduate of Philadelphia High School for girls, a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania where I was given the honor of being a commencement speaker at the College of Arts and Sciences graduation on Franklin Field just a few years ago. And, also, I was a credentialed teacher at Benjamin Franklin School here in Philadelphia and some other schools as well in Philadelphia before I moved to California some years ago. So, thank you very much for holding this important hearing. Most of all, thank you to Representative Murt and to the other representatives who spent time here today listening very carefully. I’ve testified at numerous hearings on numerous subjects for many years and I have to say I’ve never seen elected officials so attentive and very thoughtful about the testimony that was being presented to them and really obviously looking for ways to resolve the important issues facing the children in Pennsylvania. So I thank you for that.These children on reality shows don’t have a voice, they don’t make contributions to political campaigns, they don’t run for elective office and s they have no political clout. So ordinarily they got nothing but lip service , if that, from elected officials. But, obviously you are elected officials who want action and who want deeds not just words, and for that I’m very appreciative. What I’d like to talk about today is to give a short overview of what federal law does or does not do in this area, and also to, perhaps, give some analysis of Representative Murt’s proposals that I know he has not distributed, but we’ve had a chance to look at some of them and analyze them, and I’d like to emphasize what I think is positive about them and what perhaps could be a little bit clarified or improved. And then finally, I’d like to make some comments about the investigative process, and not specifically what’s going on with Jon and Kate, but the investigative process in terms of the law. I’ll give you an example, from California, in reference to an investigation that took place on the Nadya Suleman and her eight, well actually fourteen children that she has and whether that process worked or not in reference to what would work here in Pennsylvania.* And I do want to commend Jodi and Kevin Kreider who just gave incredible testimony , just perfect, and Paul Petersen who is in the interest of full disclosure of my client, but who is absolutely the leader above all else on this issue in this nation and for that matter around the world.
To begin, federally, and this background is also provided by and has been provided to me by the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, I am a member of AFTRA and I’m also a member of SAG. In reference to what the issue is federally, the most pleasing federal law that regulates the employment conditions and prevents the abuse of child workers issues is the Fair Labor Standards Act, FLSA, child labor provisions under FLSA are designed to protect the educational opportunities abuse and prohibit their employment and jobs that are detrimental to their health and safety. The FLSA restricts the hours that youth under 16 years of age are allowed to work and with hazardous occupations too dangerous for young workers to perform. And here’s what’s most important: Children employed as actors or performers in motion pictures, theatrical productions, or on radio or television programs are specifically exempt from Fair Labor Standards Act coverage and the standards and protections provided under FLSA. So let’s talk now about how does the lack of coverage under the FLSA impact children. Without national coverage, children have no consistent protection. Though some states regulate the employment of minors in the entertainment industry, other states have no provisions regulating child labor in this industry whatsoever. Among the states that normally regulate the performances of children in the media industry, few have comprehensive protections for the education health , safety and financial security of children.
For years, children have necessarily been a part of the entertainment industry. It would be impossible to produce the Harry Potter films or television programs like Hanna Montana or the Suite Life of Zach and Cody without employing children as actors. And the proliferation of the so called reality programming has exacerbated the problem by utilizing children on television without any compensation or any other protection either as contestants or subjects of documentary style shows. Without the protections afforded under the FLSA, the welfare of children is put at risk. The recent hoax of the so-called balloon boy, reports that the Octomom was developing a reality TV show and the proliferation of shows like Kid Nation, Jon and Kate Plus 8, or just Kate Plus 8 illustrates that children are increasingly exploited in the media and often without fundamental protection. Federal child labor standards in the entertainment industry would ensure that the well-being of children is not bothered for the proverbial fifteen minutes of fame. As film and television production becomes decentralized, more children than ever are left without protection. States with major entertainment industry production centers like California and New York do have well developed laws and regulations as Paul Petersen had said, governing the performance of minors in the industry. But production is increasingly decentralized particularly if more states like Pennsylvania pass production incentive legislation, that’s tax incentive legislation, designed to lure film and television production to their state. Though union contracts in the industry contain provisions designed to provide the unique protections that children require, many programs are not produced under a union contract. Additionally, the performances of some children like contestants and participants in reality television may not be covered by a union contract because the children are not technically “employed”.
So what protections are needed? First of all in the area of wages. There is currently no minimum wage for children who appear on air. Children who appear in competition or documentary-styled reality programs may not receive any compensation at all. This is nationally.
Financial protections. There are only four states that have a Coogan law requiring establishment of a trust account to preserve and safeguard a portion of their earnings for adulthood.
Health, safety, and working conditions. Children need health and safety protection that is specific to their physical, mental, emotional and developmental needs.
Education. States like California require that teachers be provided for children while they are working on production. California also requires the presence of a parent or a guardian while a child performer works. Other states may have no provisions at all for onset education.
Hours of work. Children need additional rest when working, particularly if they are traveling or working at night. Associate regulation of hourly support is necessary.
Moral oversights. Children should not be placed in a moral situation that is inappropriate, be exposed to distressing scenes, be forced to become distressed in order to prompt a particular reaction or employed in any situation involving nudity, which goes to your concerns, Representative.
Representative Murt, I know, has drafted some proposed improvements or changes in Pennsylvania Child Labor Law and without going through all of them because I think that’s in the province of Representative Murt to present, I would like to comment that I think it’s very positive that he wants to define work in reality shows. His proposals for legislation will require that children who appear on reality television are working as performers and should be subject to the state’s (??) process for child performers.
Minimum wage recommendation by Representative Murt: The legislation which he proposes will recognize that children in reality television should be paid for their performances, or their participation, and that the work load and restrictions in place for children working in other types of television programming such as scripted entertainment programming should be in place for kids in reality television. I see that as a positive as well.
Moral oversight. Representative Murt’s proposed legislation has some provisions related to moral oversight. Meaning prohibitions on photographing children while changing clothes, or bathing, performances where alcohol is present. Additional protections would be helpful. I’ll make a few specific suggestions there.
Health and safety. Representative Murt is concerned with that. His legislation contains provisions related to health and safety, which are good. States should study to see whether (?) protection are necessary.
Now here are some areas that I believe could perhaps benefit from some clarification, Representative Murt, for improvement.
Age of children. The permitting process in Pennsylvania is such that appears that children under the age of seven are not permitted to work. If this is the case, the same restriction should exist for children in reality shows. It would eliminate ambiguity if the legislation were to contain a clearly-worded prohibition against the employment of children under the age of seven in reality shows.
Hours of work. They provide, in Representative Murt’s legislation, that children shall not work before five a.m. or after 11:30 p.m. It strikes me that that’s rather early and extremely late particularly for children as young as seven years of age. Similarly, permitting up to forty four hours of work per week as a proposed legislation and draft suggests, seems to be quite a lot, and I would lessen that.
Financial protection. Only four states, as I have mentioned, have a Coogan Law requiring establishment of a trust account to preserve and safeguard a portion of the children’s earnings for adulthood. Pennsylvania is not one of those states.
Education. States like California require that teachers be provided while they are working on production. By the way, the purpose of the teacher is merely to safeguard the workplace so the children are not endangered. California also requires the presence of a parent or guardian while a child performer works. It’s good that Representative Murt is asking the department to ensure that adequate educational instruction is provided. But the standards they have to meet needs to be defined in my opinion.
Moral oversight in Representative Murt’s proposed legislation. Children should not be placed in a moral situation that is inappropriate, be exposed to distressing scenes, be forced to become distressed in order to prompt a particular reaction. There’s a real risk that these sorts of things can be problems during the production of television reality shows.
[End of the excerpt of Allred's testimony]
*Due to the length of this post that example will be provided in a future blog entry.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Dear Anonymous
Dear anonymous, although I am not obligated to answer your "questions" I will provide some clarification. This may also provide background for newcomers who have noticed the baffling phenomenon of some commenters repeatedly coming here despite their obvious dislike of my blog. I am making this an entry of it's own so when this discussion has run its course we can move on with our own respective blogs, interests, views and lives.
I started this blog because I happened to post about living in the same town as the Gosselins on my other blog, and discovered people were interested in hearing more about it. I decided to call myself Werny Gal not to hide behind the name but because it was a good summation of what I was doing here. I signed my real name in comments and friends called me by my real name in comments. Eventually I learned there are fervant Kate fans who harass anyone they perceive as hating Kate. By the time I discovered this and removed old comments with my name in them, I had already been the target of harassment for some time without even knowing it. I usually stick to my own blog and mind my own business, but I am aware that there is ongoing discussion on a few Kate fanatiK blogs on topics such as how much I hate Kate, how I am abusing her children, and how I must be exposed because I am a hypocrite and therefore unqualified to work as a professional counselor. These discussions are infused with exagerations and outright lies about me, as they often are about other bloggers the Kate fanatiKs dislike or disaprove of and have similarly targetted. Along with the other bloggers whom the Kate fanatiKs dislike, I have been given an acronym, I have received threats such as "this time you've gone too far," I have been sent multiple nasty comments by the same few people using different names in attempts to make the fanatiKs look like a large contingency, personal information about me has been posted online, and I am the target of a flog. This negative energy is being expended by people who are anonymous and who would have much bigger and important battles to fight elsewhere if they didn't spend hours looking online for other bloggers to pick on, and by association they unfortunately reinforce the more negative aspects of Kate's reputation.
Since I started this blog I've become much more educated about the exploitation of children in the media. I've worked with many adults who were abused or exploited as children and also been involved in child advocacy for many years, but I never realized how the exploitation of children in entertainment was connected to child abuse. As a result in the past year I've gradually changed the focus of this blog. It started out as a silly lark but over time I've realized there are many caring people who are interested in learning about how the field of entertainment exploits children, and maybe even doing something about it. This entire experience has deepened my understanding of various levels of child abuse and my resolve to be part of the solution, as well as my appreciation for the many caring adults who want to help children.
In the beginning of my blogging here I made two short videos of interviews of fans standing in front of the Gosselin house, from my car window. (I've actually always found the phenomenon of the fans and paparazzi much more interesting than the Gosselins. I just never got what the big deal was.) I wanted to know what motivated some of them to drive hundreds of miles to stand there, and my readers enjoyed the videos. Less than a handful of other times I've taken a total of less than a dozen pictures out of my car window, usually of the papparazzi and most not published. One time when there was no danger to traffic I parked on the side of the road and spoke to a photographer at the fence for approximately two minutes and took four or five pictures of the same thing he was taking pictures of while Jon and the kids were posing. I do not regularly pass the Gosselin house and when I do pass it it's because my travels take me past it. I have never hung out at the Gosselin house. I have never hidden anything I've done and my family and friends know about this blog. I do regret taking pictures of the kids and after I did it I decided not do it again because it was unnecessary and yes, hypocritical. Despite that decision, what I did that one time may be distasteful to you or against your personal ethics, but it was not illegal. I respect the law, have testified for various judiciary committees on behalf of laws regarding children, am a loving mother and wife, and am a good citizen of my community.
I've always heard things about the Gosselins, most of which I've never told here because I felt it was too frivilous and sometimes too damaging or painful. I knew about several instances of Jon's bad behavior and heard the rumors about Kate and Steve way before they were in the media, and in one instance I tried through mutual connections to contact Jon to let him know that information about one of his indiscretions was going to come out in the media the next day so that he would have an opportunity to stop it, out of concern for what all the media craziness might be doing to the children. I never discussed any of these events until they were out in the mainstream media, and when I have discussed them it has always been out of concern for the children. When you read my snarkier entries, don't mistake my sense of humor for not caring. I have always fact-checked, the same way I do any time I hear a rumor about anyone, because I know how harmful gossip can be. If I've written anything here as being factual it is because I honestly believed it was, if not I've clearly stated so, and if it's my opnion I've stated that. When J&K+9 moved here there was lots of talk about them. Now there isn't so much talk anymore, and most folks wish they would just move away. However, people do still tell me things because of this blog. Most of it I don't bother to print here.
I have never sold advertising on my blog or in any other way made any money from anything related to the Gosselins. Al Walentis offered that I could read the first draft of his upcoming book and after reading it I offered him feedback on it as well as suggestions on some corrections I thought it needed which he could take or leave, but I am not in any way vested in Al's book. I excerpted three relatively benign passages on this blog because I thought they would be interesting to my readers, not to plug or promote the book. I plan to review it when it is released, and like most books I'll probably like some things about it and not like some others. I have a couple of friends whose books have been on the New York Times bestseller list and my friends can always count on me to be kind but honest.
I don't hate Kate or any of the Gosselins and I believe they both love their kids. I don't agree with some of Jon and Kate's parenting decisions, and I believe this entire experience has been damaging to them and the children, as well as other family members. IMO they made a mistake allowing TLC into their lives after the first special, and because they are still caught up in it they probably won't realize the repucussions of that professional alliance on their family for several years. We probably all agree that even without having become public figures their job as parents would've been very challenging, given their young ages at the time and the number of children they had. I don't know how anyone, especially the children, could go through what they have been through in the past year and a half and not be affected in long-term negative ways. It would have been traumatic even for adults with more maturity and more sophisticated coping skills than they have. It is surely overwhelming for the little ones.
My opinions and beliefs are my opinions and beliefs and in the long run they don't mean a hill of beans. That's why I'm Werny Gal instead of Anderson Cooper (hubba hubba.) I hope you enjoy this blog and find it educational and interesting. There's a word for people who continually subject themselves to suffering and that word is masochist. There are sites that do nothing but praise Kate, there are sites that IMO are unnecessarily nasty toward the Gosselins, and there are sites like mine that fit somewhere in the middle. In a country that allows freedom of expression and prohibits cyber harassment and cyberstalking, I suggest you find and stay at sites that most fit your needs and that you most enjoy.
Wishing you peace,
Werny Gal
I started this blog because I happened to post about living in the same town as the Gosselins on my other blog, and discovered people were interested in hearing more about it. I decided to call myself Werny Gal not to hide behind the name but because it was a good summation of what I was doing here. I signed my real name in comments and friends called me by my real name in comments. Eventually I learned there are fervant Kate fans who harass anyone they perceive as hating Kate. By the time I discovered this and removed old comments with my name in them, I had already been the target of harassment for some time without even knowing it. I usually stick to my own blog and mind my own business, but I am aware that there is ongoing discussion on a few Kate fanatiK blogs on topics such as how much I hate Kate, how I am abusing her children, and how I must be exposed because I am a hypocrite and therefore unqualified to work as a professional counselor. These discussions are infused with exagerations and outright lies about me, as they often are about other bloggers the Kate fanatiKs dislike or disaprove of and have similarly targetted. Along with the other bloggers whom the Kate fanatiKs dislike, I have been given an acronym, I have received threats such as "this time you've gone too far," I have been sent multiple nasty comments by the same few people using different names in attempts to make the fanatiKs look like a large contingency, personal information about me has been posted online, and I am the target of a flog. This negative energy is being expended by people who are anonymous and who would have much bigger and important battles to fight elsewhere if they didn't spend hours looking online for other bloggers to pick on, and by association they unfortunately reinforce the more negative aspects of Kate's reputation.
Since I started this blog I've become much more educated about the exploitation of children in the media. I've worked with many adults who were abused or exploited as children and also been involved in child advocacy for many years, but I never realized how the exploitation of children in entertainment was connected to child abuse. As a result in the past year I've gradually changed the focus of this blog. It started out as a silly lark but over time I've realized there are many caring people who are interested in learning about how the field of entertainment exploits children, and maybe even doing something about it. This entire experience has deepened my understanding of various levels of child abuse and my resolve to be part of the solution, as well as my appreciation for the many caring adults who want to help children.
In the beginning of my blogging here I made two short videos of interviews of fans standing in front of the Gosselin house, from my car window. (I've actually always found the phenomenon of the fans and paparazzi much more interesting than the Gosselins. I just never got what the big deal was.) I wanted to know what motivated some of them to drive hundreds of miles to stand there, and my readers enjoyed the videos. Less than a handful of other times I've taken a total of less than a dozen pictures out of my car window, usually of the papparazzi and most not published. One time when there was no danger to traffic I parked on the side of the road and spoke to a photographer at the fence for approximately two minutes and took four or five pictures of the same thing he was taking pictures of while Jon and the kids were posing. I do not regularly pass the Gosselin house and when I do pass it it's because my travels take me past it. I have never hung out at the Gosselin house. I have never hidden anything I've done and my family and friends know about this blog. I do regret taking pictures of the kids and after I did it I decided not do it again because it was unnecessary and yes, hypocritical. Despite that decision, what I did that one time may be distasteful to you or against your personal ethics, but it was not illegal. I respect the law, have testified for various judiciary committees on behalf of laws regarding children, am a loving mother and wife, and am a good citizen of my community.
I've always heard things about the Gosselins, most of which I've never told here because I felt it was too frivilous and sometimes too damaging or painful. I knew about several instances of Jon's bad behavior and heard the rumors about Kate and Steve way before they were in the media, and in one instance I tried through mutual connections to contact Jon to let him know that information about one of his indiscretions was going to come out in the media the next day so that he would have an opportunity to stop it, out of concern for what all the media craziness might be doing to the children. I never discussed any of these events until they were out in the mainstream media, and when I have discussed them it has always been out of concern for the children. When you read my snarkier entries, don't mistake my sense of humor for not caring. I have always fact-checked, the same way I do any time I hear a rumor about anyone, because I know how harmful gossip can be. If I've written anything here as being factual it is because I honestly believed it was, if not I've clearly stated so, and if it's my opnion I've stated that. When J&K+9 moved here there was lots of talk about them. Now there isn't so much talk anymore, and most folks wish they would just move away. However, people do still tell me things because of this blog. Most of it I don't bother to print here.
I have never sold advertising on my blog or in any other way made any money from anything related to the Gosselins. Al Walentis offered that I could read the first draft of his upcoming book and after reading it I offered him feedback on it as well as suggestions on some corrections I thought it needed which he could take or leave, but I am not in any way vested in Al's book. I excerpted three relatively benign passages on this blog because I thought they would be interesting to my readers, not to plug or promote the book. I plan to review it when it is released, and like most books I'll probably like some things about it and not like some others. I have a couple of friends whose books have been on the New York Times bestseller list and my friends can always count on me to be kind but honest.
I don't hate Kate or any of the Gosselins and I believe they both love their kids. I don't agree with some of Jon and Kate's parenting decisions, and I believe this entire experience has been damaging to them and the children, as well as other family members. IMO they made a mistake allowing TLC into their lives after the first special, and because they are still caught up in it they probably won't realize the repucussions of that professional alliance on their family for several years. We probably all agree that even without having become public figures their job as parents would've been very challenging, given their young ages at the time and the number of children they had. I don't know how anyone, especially the children, could go through what they have been through in the past year and a half and not be affected in long-term negative ways. It would have been traumatic even for adults with more maturity and more sophisticated coping skills than they have. It is surely overwhelming for the little ones.
My opinions and beliefs are my opinions and beliefs and in the long run they don't mean a hill of beans. That's why I'm Werny Gal instead of Anderson Cooper (hubba hubba.) I hope you enjoy this blog and find it educational and interesting. There's a word for people who continually subject themselves to suffering and that word is masochist. There are sites that do nothing but praise Kate, there are sites that IMO are unnecessarily nasty toward the Gosselins, and there are sites like mine that fit somewhere in the middle. In a country that allows freedom of expression and prohibits cyber harassment and cyberstalking, I suggest you find and stay at sites that most fit your needs and that you most enjoy.
Wishing you peace,
Werny Gal
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
