Really, I'm not. Envious sometimes, maybe (I'm only human). I'm one of those people who actually likes to see others be happy. If I'm watching a game show like "Deal or No Deal" and the contestant does not do well, I feel bad for them--even if they were greedy or screwed up. If a gossip mag reports about a celebrity breakup or divorce, I don't find pleasure in it--in fact, I rarely read those articles--I just see the headlines while I'm standing in line at the grocery checkout or hear the blurb on a TV promo.
I don't "hate" Jon and Kate Gosselin because they bought a large new home with acreage--it's HOW they bought the home that I have an issue with. Selling out your children's privacy so you can achieve a certain lifestyle is just not right, in my opinion. Receiving offerings from well-meaning churches is fine if you are totally honest about your situation--no half-truths or "lies of omission." Getting "free" things--appliances, furniture, trips, etc.--not a crime--if they are, in fact, donations. However, nothing in life is "free" --there is a trade off--and parents trading their children's private moments for more "stuff" is not OK with me. If it were a matter of survival--having to trade certain things like the right to privacy for necessities such as food, clothing, shelter and medical care--I would be less critical. However, that is clearly not the case with this family.
For those that say "no one is perfect"-- I say, DUH! Of course no one is perfect. We all make mistakes, errors in judgement, wrong choices, etc. We human beings sometimes act selfishly, misbehave, act cruelly or thoughtlessly. You live, hopefully, you learn.
In the end, I really do wish the best for the Gosselin family--yes, Jon and Kate included. What I mean by "the best" does not mean "the best" houses, cars, clothes, trips, etc. I wish them a loving home with parents and children that appreciate and respect one another. I hope they can have good relationships with friends and extended family. Heck--I wish that for everyone. Peace.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Friday, February 6, 2009
Reality TV and the "Culture of Mean"
If one looks at the majority of reality TV programming-- it would seem that "mean," "nasty," "obnoxious" sells. Apparently, the viewing public loves to watch people that they "hate." I wonder why this is-- has some PhD in Sociology or Psychology done a study/thesis about this phenomenon? When did this start?
Some possible candidates responsible for the popularity of meanness in reality TV story production:
Omorosa-- meant big ratings for The Apprentice-- people even loved seeing Donald Trump saying "You're fired!"
Puck on The Real Word -- big ratings for acting like a borderline nutcase
Richard Hatch-- season 1 Survivor winner--fat, naked, lazy, lying and manipulating man won the million
Simon Cowell-- 'nuf said
The Jerry Springer Show -- I cannot for the life of me understand why this show still is on the air
Don't even get me started on Bridezillas, My Super Sweet 16 and similar shows that glorify bratty behavior and conspicuous consumption--they make me want to send my first through the TV (and no, I don't watch these shows anymore--not good for my BP).
Some viewers have said that that they enjoy such programs because they are "real"--showing human behavior "warts and all." Well, the REAL real world has enough "realness" for me. It's out there for all to see and experience--don't need to watch a TV show for "realness." TV is an excellent medium for sharing information, educating, entertaining, discussion, debate, etc.--I'm not trashing the whole television industry.
It has been said that we are a nation of voyeurs--but why do we apparently like to watch the negative aspects of human nature so much? Does it make us feel better about our own shortcomings? Does watching others behave badly somehow justify our own bad behavior?
Is it Schadenfreude?--enjoyment over the foibles/misery/troubles of others?
I don't know--I wish someone would enlighten me.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Some interesting points about reality tv
Quote from Dr. Laura Schlesinger, "Reality TV is Child Abuse"
"The children in any and all of these family reality shows are being abused and I can’t understand why Child Protective Services does not see fit to act to protect these children from the juvenile and selfishly exploitive motivations of their parents who are using their children like circus animals, to entertain the base instincts of an audience.
I think we should consider as “abuse”: having a minor child’s personal home life exposed on television for entertainment purposes; having a minor child’s inherent right to privacy breached…by their own parents!; having a minor child’s normal behaviors and emotional responses to family and life stresses perverted by the needs of producers and parents for “good television” – children will, of course, be pressured to be entertaining - that immediately distorts normal dynamics; the minor child exposed publicly and on tape.
This will certainly come back to haunt them in the future as people will form opinions about them which are based on these contrived and “unreal” extraordinary circumstances. Their futures likely will be negatively impacted by this exposure and humiliation.
Bottom line, the minor child’s welfare is clearly not the top concern of their parents, who are exploiting the dependency, love and innocence of their own children for an opportunity to be “celebrities.”
Please don’t give me the argument that any money that might be earned from the television experience or interviews or appearances, book deals, or endorsements are for their college fund. That would mean that damage we do to children today is okay as long as there is some long term financial benefit.
It is not enough to argue that these children have their parents’ permission – parents cannot legally pimp their children, yet this is precisely what is going on here.
The privacy and dignity of these children have been stripped from them. They are hawked by cameras as their so-called parents push the envelope farther than any responsible, loving, protective parent should, in an attempt to gain ratings and increase celebrity status. These children are left to deal with disturbing private matters in a public forum with the sole purpose being entertainment.
Certainly, there can be no pretense at education or spiritual elevation. This is pure, unconscionable, abuse of parental power and influence. "
Note that this article was written in 2004, before the G's had a show. It was not written by a "jealous hater" of the Gosselins. Also, I am not a total follower or in agreement with everything that Dr. S says-- but I do feel she makes some very good points on this issue.
"The children in any and all of these family reality shows are being abused and I can’t understand why Child Protective Services does not see fit to act to protect these children from the juvenile and selfishly exploitive motivations of their parents who are using their children like circus animals, to entertain the base instincts of an audience.
I think we should consider as “abuse”: having a minor child’s personal home life exposed on television for entertainment purposes; having a minor child’s inherent right to privacy breached…by their own parents!; having a minor child’s normal behaviors and emotional responses to family and life stresses perverted by the needs of producers and parents for “good television” – children will, of course, be pressured to be entertaining - that immediately distorts normal dynamics; the minor child exposed publicly and on tape.
This will certainly come back to haunt them in the future as people will form opinions about them which are based on these contrived and “unreal” extraordinary circumstances. Their futures likely will be negatively impacted by this exposure and humiliation.
Bottom line, the minor child’s welfare is clearly not the top concern of their parents, who are exploiting the dependency, love and innocence of their own children for an opportunity to be “celebrities.”
Please don’t give me the argument that any money that might be earned from the television experience or interviews or appearances, book deals, or endorsements are for their college fund. That would mean that damage we do to children today is okay as long as there is some long term financial benefit.
It is not enough to argue that these children have their parents’ permission – parents cannot legally pimp their children, yet this is precisely what is going on here.
The privacy and dignity of these children have been stripped from them. They are hawked by cameras as their so-called parents push the envelope farther than any responsible, loving, protective parent should, in an attempt to gain ratings and increase celebrity status. These children are left to deal with disturbing private matters in a public forum with the sole purpose being entertainment.
Certainly, there can be no pretense at education or spiritual elevation. This is pure, unconscionable, abuse of parental power and influence. "
Note that this article was written in 2004, before the G's had a show. It was not written by a "jealous hater" of the Gosselins. Also, I am not a total follower or in agreement with everything that Dr. S says-- but I do feel she makes some very good points on this issue.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Jon and Kate's Infinite Playlist
Songs that should be played for the show promo:
"Money (That's What I Want)"-- The Beatles
"Little Miss Can't Be Wrong"-- Spin Doctors (dedicated especially for Kate-- "She holds the shotgun while you doh-si-doh")
"I Want it Now"-- sung by Veruca Salt in Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory
"Money" -- Pink Floyd
"Big Time" -- Peter Gabriel
"Movin' on Up" -- Theme from The Jeffersons
LOL- just snarking--couldn't help myself after their recent purchase of a 1.3 mil dollar home and a condo in Utah!
"Money (That's What I Want)"-- The Beatles
"Little Miss Can't Be Wrong"-- Spin Doctors (dedicated especially for Kate-- "She holds the shotgun while you doh-si-doh")
"I Want it Now"-- sung by Veruca Salt in Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory
"Money" -- Pink Floyd
"Big Time" -- Peter Gabriel
"Movin' on Up" -- Theme from The Jeffersons
LOL- just snarking--couldn't help myself after their recent purchase of a 1.3 mil dollar home and a condo in Utah!
Saturday, January 10, 2009
"God's Plan"
OK--I wasn't gonna go into the whole "God" thing in respect to the Gosselins--but the recent interview and book statements that Kate Gosselin has made has caused me to abandon my better judgement and address the issue.
First of all, I respect everybody's right to their beliefs. If your religion/belief system does not condone or promote harm to others, then more power to you.
But please, do not tell me it is somehow God's plan to steal your children's childhoods away from them for your own gain. Yes, the children indirectly benefit materially from the show. Is that a good enough reason to exploit them?
When God offers us choices or opportunities, does he always want us to choose the path that WE want? If we find a bag of money on the street with a bank logo on it, shouldn't we return it to the bank? Or, does one say, "God wants me to have this money. He knows how much I need it! Thank you, God"? Hmmm.
Why do bad things happen to good people? And conversely, why do good things happen to bad people? Why does it seem that bad behavior often is rewarded? Hmmm. I don't think God is that easy to figure out, after all.
First of all, I respect everybody's right to their beliefs. If your religion/belief system does not condone or promote harm to others, then more power to you.
But please, do not tell me it is somehow God's plan to steal your children's childhoods away from them for your own gain. Yes, the children indirectly benefit materially from the show. Is that a good enough reason to exploit them?
When God offers us choices or opportunities, does he always want us to choose the path that WE want? If we find a bag of money on the street with a bank logo on it, shouldn't we return it to the bank? Or, does one say, "God wants me to have this money. He knows how much I need it! Thank you, God"? Hmmm.
Why do bad things happen to good people? And conversely, why do good things happen to bad people? Why does it seem that bad behavior often is rewarded? Hmmm. I don't think God is that easy to figure out, after all.
Friday, January 9, 2009
More things...
More things--
Quick use of fertility treatments at a young age--always kinda wondered about that.
Kate was hospitalized for hyperstimulated ovaries (too many mature eggs about to be released), but then went ahead with the insemination anyway (it has been debated whether the insemination was done by a doctor or the "natural" way.)
If they were struggling financially (so they have stated) after the twins were born, why try for more children, knowing the risk of having multiples?
It just strikes me as extremely irresponsible to use fertility treatments in this way--the Gosselins were very young, newly married, and not financially stable, yet they decided to hurry the fertility process. Perhaps there was good medical reason for their hurry--I don't know.
However, after giving birth to a set of beautiful, healthy twins, Kate still wanted more. Ok--I get that the urge to have children is very strong in many people--and it is a very personal choice.
Some people have strong religious beliefs about procreation--I know. However, if one wants more children so badly, and feels that they are a blessing, why does Kate Gosselin frequently carp and complain when she has to fulfill her motherly duties? Why all the "woe is me" and "we went through hell?"
Many things about the Gosselins "inspirational" story don't add up to me. I'm not trying to judge their immortal souls-- I just wonder about seeming contradictions in what they say/write and in what they do.
Quick use of fertility treatments at a young age--always kinda wondered about that.
Kate was hospitalized for hyperstimulated ovaries (too many mature eggs about to be released), but then went ahead with the insemination anyway (it has been debated whether the insemination was done by a doctor or the "natural" way.)
If they were struggling financially (so they have stated) after the twins were born, why try for more children, knowing the risk of having multiples?
It just strikes me as extremely irresponsible to use fertility treatments in this way--the Gosselins were very young, newly married, and not financially stable, yet they decided to hurry the fertility process. Perhaps there was good medical reason for their hurry--I don't know.
However, after giving birth to a set of beautiful, healthy twins, Kate still wanted more. Ok--I get that the urge to have children is very strong in many people--and it is a very personal choice.
Some people have strong religious beliefs about procreation--I know. However, if one wants more children so badly, and feels that they are a blessing, why does Kate Gosselin frequently carp and complain when she has to fulfill her motherly duties? Why all the "woe is me" and "we went through hell?"
Many things about the Gosselins "inspirational" story don't add up to me. I'm not trying to judge their immortal souls-- I just wonder about seeming contradictions in what they say/write and in what they do.
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Why the Gosselins Bug Me Part 2
I had always wondered where the grandparents were on the show. I thought maybe they didn't want to be filmed, but that they were still part of their lives. Sooo, I did some looking around the internet. Boy, was I surprised to read the various stories about why no grandparents are on the show OR apparently involved in their everyday lives. Then I read about the studio lighting installed in the house. And then Kate saying "we never really had a break" from filming (3 days a week, year round?)--well, that got to me also. What kind of lives were these children leading? Why were the cameras allowed to film them on the potty, being bathed, getting dressed?
My inside gut said "This is just wrong. Not right. End of story." If you don't see anything wrong with it, then please, stop reading. My main discomfort/disgust with the show is the amount of episodes being filmed (WAAYY too many--although zero would be fine with me) and the situations and parental commentary filmed for millions of viewers to see in perpetuity.
The end (material wealth) does NOT justify the means, IMO.
Many people have in the present and have had in the past large families. They do/did not need reality TV shows to survive and thrive.
The Gosselins have been the recipients of many donations of time, labor, money, and goods before they even had a TV show. I do not begrudge them the help they recieved when the tups were born. The Commonwealth of PA even created a job just for Jon Gosselin. Kate could have gone back part-time as a nurse when the tups began nursery school. They already had a respectable house in a nice little neighborhood. They never were really poor -- not homeless, not starving. IMO, they did not "need" to do a reality show as their only means of survival. They were a nice, middle-class family with multiples.
But the TV show has changed all that. The wealth and "celebrity" have changed them--and not for the better.
My inside gut said "This is just wrong. Not right. End of story." If you don't see anything wrong with it, then please, stop reading. My main discomfort/disgust with the show is the amount of episodes being filmed (WAAYY too many--although zero would be fine with me) and the situations and parental commentary filmed for millions of viewers to see in perpetuity.
The end (material wealth) does NOT justify the means, IMO.
Many people have in the present and have had in the past large families. They do/did not need reality TV shows to survive and thrive.
The Gosselins have been the recipients of many donations of time, labor, money, and goods before they even had a TV show. I do not begrudge them the help they recieved when the tups were born. The Commonwealth of PA even created a job just for Jon Gosselin. Kate could have gone back part-time as a nurse when the tups began nursery school. They already had a respectable house in a nice little neighborhood. They never were really poor -- not homeless, not starving. IMO, they did not "need" to do a reality show as their only means of survival. They were a nice, middle-class family with multiples.
But the TV show has changed all that. The wealth and "celebrity" have changed them--and not for the better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)