By Anya
Rep. Thomas P. Murt (R-Montgomery/Philadelphia) who last month introduced legislation to address perceived deficiencies in Pennsylvania’s laws regarding the participation of minors in television and motion picture productions is continuing his efforts by calling into question the special permits issued to the Gosselin sextuplets to appear in “Kate Plus 8.”
Murt issued a press release today announcing that he has asked Attorney General Tom Corbett to investigate whether the permits were properly issued.
“As I read the law, permits for children under age 7 are available for performing in a movie, but permits are not available for children under age 7 to participate in a television show,” Murt said. “I have asked the attorney general to examine the law and clarify whether the permit process provides for such performances.”
I guess I am not sure what to think about all this. It is strange how this little loophole wasn’t discovered before, but of course, the permits were just issued for the first time, to my knowledge, for the re-tooled “Kate Plus 8.”
Wouldn’t Murt be better served to focus his energy on gaining passage of his child labor legislation? I’m not sure what this recent move does other than demonstrate that “Kate Plus 8″ is indeed his foremost focus and not all productions in PA involving children. If so, why would he be doing this? Publicity certainly comes to mind. Anyone who associates with Gloria Allred is not looking to stay out of the limelight.
Do you think this is a serious blow to the show? I haven’t seen a response from TLC yet, but I am willing to bet they will have a different interpretation of the law to share.
It appears Murt is doing what he can to make the state of PA an unfriendly place for “Kate Plus 8″ to film, but there are, of course, 49 other states out there and I don’t think TLC or Kate plan to cave.
What do you think?
Loading ...
Comments
55 Responses to Murt Targets ‘Kate Plus 8′ Permits
Can we say grasping at straws?
What is the difference between filming for TV or the movies? It is a difference with no distinction.
Murt has said in the past he isn’t targeting the Gosselins.
Right. Sure.
He’s also misreading the Commonwealth Attorneys Act which states on the issue of legal advice (ever since the Attorney General became an elective position in PA, the Office of General Counsel is the official legal advisor to the governor and agencies/departments under the Office of the Governor except for agencies exempted under the Act). What the Commonwealth Attorneys Act says about legal advice is:
>>71 P.S. § 732-204
Purdon’s Pennsylvania Statutes and Consolidated Statutes Currentness
Title 71 P.S. State Government
I. The Administrative Codes and Related Provisions
Chapter 2A. Commonwealth Attorneys Act (Refs & Annos)
Chapter 2. . Office of Attorney General
§ 732-204. Legal advice and civil matters
(a) Legal advice.–
(1) Upon the request of the Governor or the head of any Commonwealth agency, the Attorney General shall furnish legal advice concerning any matter or issue arising in connection with the exercise of the official powers or the performance of the official duties of the Governor or agency. The Governor may request the advice of the Attorney General concerning the constitutionality of legislation presented to him for approval in order to aid him in the exercise of his approval and veto powers and the advice, if given, shall not be binding upon the Governor. In all other cases the advice when received shall be followed and, when followed, the recipient shall not in any way be liable for doing so, upon his official bond or otherwise.
(2) If the Governor or the head of any Commonwealth agency disagrees with the legal advice rendered by the Attorney General, the Governor or the head of the Commonwealth agency may seek a declaratory judgment in the Commonwealth Court pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. Ch. 75 Subch. C (relating to declaratory judgments). The legal advice of the Attorney General shall be binding until the Commonwealth Court issues a final order on the petition requesting the declaratory judgment.
(3) It shall be the duty of the Attorney General to uphold and defend the constitutionality of all statutes so as to prevent their suspension or abrogation in the absence of a controlling decision by a court of competent jurisdiction.
(4) Before the Attorney General shall render any opinion interpreting any appropriation act, or any act authorizing the expenditure of money, he shall notify the Departments of the Auditor General, the State Treasury and the Secretary of Budget and Administration of the question upon which his opinion has been requested, and afford to these departments an opportunity to present any views which they may have upon such question.<< (emphasis added)
Given that the current AG is the Republican candidate for governor this year, I think the odds are slim to non-existent that either the governor or the secretary of DOLI will ask the office of AG for an opinion.
It just seems to me like more attention grabbing from politicians on the backs of the Gosselins. Yawn.
I don’t understand this at all. In the entire Commonwealth of PA there’s no other children under the age of 7 doing local tv commercials? Doesn’t make any sense. There must be some provision for children in that age group.
I know, Lily, there have to be some car dealers or dentists in PA who think they have the cutest kids and put them in their commercials. I know we have plenty of them in IN.
This is beginning to seem like harassment. Bringing the laws for filming children up to speed is a good idea, one that everyone seems to agree with.
Trying to use the laws to keep one family from filming because people don’t like the mother is wrong. It’s also pretty ridiculous to say, after they’ve been filming for four years, “Oops, sorry, you shouldn’t have been doing that,you have to stop. Start again next year, then it’ll be fine.”
I wonder if this will backfire on Rep. Murt. I don’t imagine the people of PA are terribly concerned about all this. They’re probably pretty tired of hearing about the whole thing.
Kiki, I agree, this is harassment. The sole focus on the Gosselins is unfair. They’ve been filming all this time and now Murt throws this out into the mix. It seems really strange that this comes up after he presents new legislation. Which, I think w/Kate and her 8, the only missing piece is the onset teacher who would just be standing there watching I guess. It seems this would have come up or been handled in his new Bill. He’s not doing anything to strengthen my confidence in politicians, that’s for sure.
Lily, you are so spot on! The last paragraph of Murt’s statement splits him in half. CA is collapsing & all states are desperately looking for ‘entertainment’ revenues. Of course, he is being the typical polititian – speaking out of both sides of his mouth & passing the buck so whatever comes down…he can spin in Allred-speak.
Lily says…It seems really strange that this comes up after he presents new legislation. Which, I think w/Kate and her 8, the only missing piece is the onset teacher who would just be standing there watching I guess. It seems this would have come up or been handled in his new Bill.
Lily, funny I was just pondering this whole thing and was thinking the same thing you are. If there is this strange little loophole, shouldn’t/wouldn’t that have been addressed in his original Bill? Unless it was just discovered? Which seems strange.
At this point, I am not sure what to think regarding Murt’s motives or where he is going with this. I guess time will tell.
I think is also ‘interesting’ that he always comes out with his ‘stuff’ when Kate is either about to be on TV in some significant way, i.e. DWTS, her show, etc.
I’m with Ziggy. Were permits obtained? Yes. Are the kids protected? Yes. Seems a bit nitpicky to me and I wonder who is putting him up to this. Is the haters letter writing campaign so annoying that he must deal with this? Seems to me he would have more pressing concerns.
Well, there is no law governing reatilty TV in PA right now, according to Representive Murt. He said so in the hearings and on the phone to me. I agree.
TLC complied with getting permits and abiding by certain conditions for setting money aside for the kids, but TECHNICALLY, TLC could have challenged all of that. They have taken a cooperative stance, but they didn’t have to do so. (I am glad they have.) TLC could easily film without the work permits then challenge any fines imposed, asking the court to decide if these children fall under a statute. I think TLC would win. There is testimony of Gloria Alred, Paul Peterson, and Representative Murt saying that there is no law on the books governing the Gosselin kids right now. That’s why PA needs his new, updated, law. He would have a hard time convincing a court that there is no law but TLC broke the law. it contradictory.
If there is no law governing children in reality TV, then there is no law.
The law about work permits for children under 7 does address only actors in a movie. There is no law to address children appearing as themselves on a TV program.
I’m disappointed. I thought Rep. Murt did a good thing holding the hearings. I didn’t think the Kreiders were honest, but I didn’t blame Peterson, Alred, or Murt for that. It looks like a witch hunt now.
I’m sticking this here, since it’s the top thread in the G chatter. It would seem that the new trees are working since there haven’t been any pics of the kids (that I have seen). I’m glad Kate was able to shut the paps down from her front yard.
What I’d like to know is, if the permits that they were given stipulate that they not be filmed in the nude, or in the bathroom or bedrooms, who authorized them? That seems directly aimed at the Gosselins. Did someone just make that up, and if so, why was that allowed?
Oh, please. I’m wondering which regular contributers to this site slept through Civics class on this one. I just read a lot of stangely uninformed goobledigook above.
Rep. Murt is an elected official. A Legislator. His job is to examine existing legislation and work on improving it. He has proposed new legislation to protect working children that will be voted on in the fall. That legislation goes further than existing legislation for the protection of children. I hardly think he is in the business of harassing Kate Gosselin, except that she (and Figure
have notably failed to comply with the existing incomplete child labor laws.
Rep. Murt is most certainly in the business of protecting working children from their parents and from entitities like Figure 8 and TLC. As far as he can. As the existing law permits.
Let me just say that the head of a Regulatory Agency normally complies with requests for public record quickly. Speaking from experience as a state worker – those requests are usually honored quite fast if they come from Jane Doe. If requested by a State Rep– oh, boy! Fast track! If not fast track, there is something to hide. Sandi Vito of the DOL seems to have something to hide because she resists.
Her office seems also to have issued the wrong work permits for the Gosselin under 7 children.
Wow, that is embarrassing for the DOL, even if the old legislation is somewhat obscure.
And ambiguous. The law really does need clarifying.
By asking the AG for an opinion and encouraging the DOL to ask the AG for an opinion on the old legislation Rep. Murt is only doing his job. He wants to clarify and hone the new proposed legislation to protect working children. In cooperation with the DOL and with the understanding that kids can and will work in TV. So what is so horribly wrong with that?
Enough with the conspiracy theories. I did not sleep through Civics and I hope you all didn’t either. Donning my flame -proof panties and bracing myself just in case this makes it through. :-)
“Jane” (the name you are using tonight)
We really do welcome all opinions here and we welcome and want a discussion. However, every time you post here you have to insult people for their opinions and have at times called people names. Why can’t you just post your thoughts and ask questions without insulting others and having an angry tone in your comments? Are you always looking for a fight instead of a discussion?
Seriously, your opinions are welcomed here but your approach is not.
What did you expect, Jane? Did you expect to be flamed with “regular contributers to this site slept through Civics class, “I just read a lot of stangely uninformed goobledigook,” or “just in case this makes it through?” No worries.
I’m not sure which conspiracy theory you are referencing in your comment. It can’t be “Sandi Vito of the DOL seems to have something to hide because she resists,” because that one belongs to you! :-)
I agree with you (and Rep. Murt) that the present law is ambiguous, obscure (same thing), incomplete, and I’ll add out-of-date. That’s why we need a new law, especially with a popular show being filmed in the state. Until there is a new law, though, Rep. Murt has to live with the one we’ve got. Th one we’ve got is ambiguous about children being filmed, documentary-style, living their lives in front of a camera for a certain number of hours/day two-three days per week.
I think it was in TLC’s best interest to agree to get work permits for the kids, and to agree to set aside a certain percentage of profits or earnings (I read two different accounts.) Fighting the request to get the work permits would have been a public relations mistake, but not necessarily a legal error. I think that TLC would have won in court. The child labor laws address working children, but a VERY good case can be made to show that the Gosselin kids weren’t working, just as the Kreider children were not working when they appeared on the show. Both TLC and the DOL made the right decision to negotiate the solution of work permits without getting a judge involved.
I think Murt should pass his law, and honor the compromise the state worked out with the TLC until his law is passed. I’d hate to see TLC challenge the notion that the kids are “working” if these permits are revoked because of Murt. I do not want the state to take the decision about appearing as a family on TV away from the family, whether i think the decision is a wise one or not. It belongs to the parents, not the state. I like more freedom, not less.
What? Every time? The name I am using tonight? My approach? Are you confusing me with someone else? I posted here once before under the name of Jane. Weeks, if not months ago. Check my IP.
I am fully aware that my informed and quite critical opinions may not welcomed here. But I would like them to be considered before you dismiss me as some *troll* or other.
Informed and quite critical remarks are welcome. Nasty remarks about the regular contributors are not. How are those panties holding up?
Jane,
The Word Press manager is a wonderful tool.
Your opinion is not the problem. Your approach is:
Oh, please. I’m wondering which regular contributers to this site slept through Civics class on this one. I just read a lot of stangely uninformed goobledigook above.
No need to attack anyone posting here. Just state your opinion and you will get a discussion.
Jane-So far neither the Gosselins, TLC, and/or any other entities have been found to have committed any significant legal violations. No one was fined, reprimanded, nor did they have any other negative action taken against them for anything that happened before even after DOLI closed its investigation. However, those who claimed that the basis for their objections was that there weren’t permits got what they supposedly wanted; permits were obtained. Now that they have been, they’ve tried to change the issue.
I doubt much will come of this for the very basic fact that, if Rep. Murt’s interpretation were correct and no permits can be issued for anyone under 7 except in the movie industry, that would mean that no TV show or TV commercial or indeed any other medium than movies involving children under the age of 7 could be made in Pennsylvania which would certainly not please the state officials working to get productions to film in PA. I think he realizes that and even he is back stepping on it. In any event, all he needs to do is propose additional language specifically dealing with children under the age of 7 outside of the movie industry for his bill whether anyone else agrees that there is a problem or not. Furthermore, in 10 months, the sextuplets will be 7.
As for the Gosselins not being targeted and harassed, I really don’t think they are the only children under 7 being filmed for TV or any non-movie medium in the state but they’re the only ones that Murt talks about. The hearing was stacked with people who have been using their alleged concern for the Gosselin children to get money and publicity for themselves. While there has been speculation as to long-term damage, nothing has been shown to counteract that the children appear to be happy, healthy, and enrolled in a very good school.
It is up to the governor and/or the Secretary of Labor and Industry to decide if there is any need for an opinion from the Attorney General. There is nothing under the Commonwealth Attorneys Act that would give the AG the right to intervene without prior request from either the governor or the Secretary. Since no constitutional issues are involved, I can not see any reason why either would go to the AG instead of turning to the Office of General Counsel, which is the legally designated legal advisor to the Governor and all agencies/departments that report to him, if they feel any additional legal advice is needed.
It’s ironic that you decry conspiracy theories, right after you propound a lulu of one. You state “Let me just say that the head of a Regulatory Agency normally complies with requests for public record quickly. Speaking from experience as a state worker – those requests are usually honored quite fast if they come from Jane Doe. If requested by a State Rep– oh, boy! Fast track! If not fast track, there is something to hide. Sandi Vito of the DOL seems to have something to hide because she resists.” There is absolutely no comparison between a failure to respond to a request for public information either under the Right to Know Law or from a legislator on one hand and an agency asking for a legal opinion when, in its opinion, there is no need for one on the other hand. In fact, Rep. Murt’s press release is quite specific. He didn’t request any information, public or otherwise, from the Secretary of DOLI. His release stated, “Murt also sent a letter to Labor and Industry Secretary Sandi Vito asking her to seek the attorney general’s guidance on the issue.” I hate to spoil your conspiracy theory, but a Secretary deciding not to take a purely discretionary action just because a single state representative asks for it does not constitute hiding information.
You may be a state worker but not all state workers deal with legal opinions, including the interpretations of regulations, and/or with the interaction beweeen the executive and legislative branches of the government and/or with the relationships and interactions among the Office of General Counsel, the Office of Attorney General and the Chief Counsels and other attorneys for the agencies that are designated as independent under the Commonwealth Attorneys Act and do not report to either the General Counsel or to the Attorney General.
Thanks, PeggyP. I knew you were paying attention during civics class.
Here’s an example of a working baby in PA. Crayola takes photos for there product packaging right here in Eastern PA.
http://www.crayola.com/products/index.cfm?n_id=3
Ann@IW- I’d have never heard the last of it if I’d slept during Civics class.<g> My mother taught civics at another local high school.
My panties are in fine form. And my previous quite negative opinion of this site has been confirmed and then some. My opinion is now truly negative. It is shoot to kill when a negative opinion is expressed or when some of you are called out on silly interpretations.
Yes, I blew my top because some of the posts here were just idiotic. It was the *harassment* rubbish that set me off. Oh, and, um, yes. I have worked for a regulatory agency at higher levels, have enforced legislation, and been involved in developing new and improved legislation with legal counsel. I know what I was talking about. But why should you believe me? Yawn.
My dears, believe it or not, some of you are not in a good place in the long run. You can pretend to be on the fence. You can pretend that your facile and uninformed interpretations of the DOL laws all favor Kate and state reps and regulatory agencies are wrong. You can claim that AGs have no right to issue opinions. You can complain that Kate Gosselin is being *harassed* by a state Rep who is merely trying to develop new and better laws — to kingdom come. You can defend Saint Kate and the exploitation of the children for all you are worth.
I’m glad that a couple of you do seem to see that increased and improved legislation to protect Reality TV children like the Gosselins might be a good thing.
Over and out. Except to ask you all to remember your civics class before posting stupidity. Not naming names, but there were some very stupid posts. That is all.
Rep. Murt is an elected official. A Legislator.~Jane
That makes him a politician. It’s not like they ever work in their own self-interest and for re-election (sarcasm).
In fairness, is he checking the work permits of any other child who just did a commercial? No, he’s all about the Gs. He’s certainly getting his name out there.
Jane-People have disagreed with you and your approach in a very civil fashion. If you consider that shooting to kill, then you have demonstrated that you are not interested in genuine debate. You just wish to insult people and stalk off in high dudgeon if they have the nerve to challenge you.
>>I know what I was talking about. But why should you believe me? Yawn.<<
Claiming expertise and demonstrating it are two entirely different things. You’ve only shown us the first.
No one opposes legitimate legislation that provides reasonable standards for all children in reality and any other entertainment medium. It would be add credibility if Murt & co. showed any interest in any one or anything other than the Gosselins.
Jane, if Murt was in political office in most states, people would vote him out for not taking care of the real issues . Most states welcome filming as it brings dollars to their states. Murt should concentrate why PA has failing schools, unemployment, taxes, etc. Kate can film outside of the state and still live there. That’s like kicking your own behind.
Justpoor. Very well said. Last year, there were two massive furloughs of state employees in Pennsylvania. At least one agency of which I am aware lost just over 1/3 of its state-funded positions (It has some that are federally funded). The only two agencies that I’ve heard of doing any real hiring are unemployment compensation and Welfare. I’m retired now, so it doesn’t affect me, but it appears likely there will be yet another round of furloughs.
Pennsylvania has a lot of problems and a lot of children in desperate need, but Rep. Murt doesn’t seem to be setting the world on fire looking out for them. He has a list on his website of legislation he’s cosponsored since the beginning of February (BTW, the dental one is to prohibit insurance companies from negotiating with dentists to charge patients they insure the discounted rates for covered procedures even if the procedure isn’t covered & paid for by the insurance companies (basically get charged the wholesale rather than the retail price) http://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDocs/Legis/CSM/DisplayMemos.cfm?Chamber=H&MemberID=1124
Jane,
I understand you are having a problem showing respect for others’ ideas and opinions because they don’t agree with yours. Please discuss the issues without calling others’ posts stupid, silly, etc. We didn’t learn that in civics class. We learned it in kindergarten.
…’Saint Kate’ & ‘exploitation’ tends to take away from what ultimately might be a serious topic. Murt, having pulled in 2 of LA’s biggest mouthpieces - that focused on unsworn testimony revolving around the Gosselins - did not happen w/o a wink, a nod & a polititian’s handshake.
ALL politics is LOCAL, & prior to an election just one ‘Jane Doe’ made happy can have a huge ripple effect. Especially if that said ‘Jane’ whips up enough ANGER to get noticed. When I hear *Saint Kate* it makes my skin crawl. This blogger ‘Jane’ has succeeded in doing just that. Plus, in tone, erased the FOCUS AWAY from the issue of good laws protecting ALL children in the PA workplace…back to HATING KATE GOSSELIN.
I don’t have a dog in this race, …am not from PA, but if this blogger Jane happens to be “Doe’…you do fight a good fight. Yet in the scheme of things…no single person should tell Kate how to be a parent by proxy.
Just wanted to add to Jane’s comments. If Kevin and Jodi were paid for their part on the show, and their kids were filmed also, did Jodi turn her money back over to the State to protect children for what she did also? Gee, maybe you should start with the ones who raised the issue first, instead of targeting Kate and her children.
Justpoor-That’s what’s always gotten me about Jodi and Kevin’s adoring followers. is their ability to totally disregard the chronology and the fact, especially those that have been preserved on video and/or in print. Jodi and Kevin allowed their own children to be filmed as part of the show both at home and at the Gosselins and allowed filming of the Gosselin children in their home even when their parents weren’t present. Kevin’s admitted that they were paid for the use of their home. Even by Jodi, Kevin, and Julie’s own accounts, the break occurred over Kate allegedly blackballing what they claim was an offer of a formal contract to Jodi & Kevin by TLC as part of the show. What I saw as most unforgivable, though, was that Jodi and Kevin’s first appearances spilling dirt on the state of the Gosselin marriage, tales which they’d clearly gotten from Jon, occurred before the Gosselins actually separated, although the marriage was clearly in trouble at that point. We’ll never know what would have happened without Jodi & Kevin’s actions, but, when one sees a fire smoldering, it’s better to pour water on it than gasoline. It seems clear that the Kreiders’ alleged qualms about filming occurring only after they left the show, and their doing all they could to increase the tensions between the children’s parents is totally inconsistent with their claims about caring for the children. I saw no signs that Murt ever examined the motives or credibility of the Kreiders which hardly seems like what one would expect of an objective investigation.
Peggy, I agree with your comments, although I have never see a hate blog on Jodi and Kevin. They should be ashamed of themselves, instead they play the victim. They were caught telling a few lies to the PA leg, but for some reason Jodi went into hiding instead of facing the public. Maybe someone contacted her and said if she was going to keep on telling her lies, a lawsuit would follow. What is she doing these days??? I would not trust Kevin to be my contractor as his word would be no good. I do feel for Kates parents, one moving forward to raise her children, and one telling lies, a nightmare for all involved.
PeggyP, that’s exactly how I have seen Jodi’s actions. I really liked her on the show. I still think Kate was hurtful about her during ‘gumgate.’ I know if she were my sister, I would have been furious about the little remarks Kate made about her (“bless her heart”) on camera. Her reaction and her sister’s reaction were completely disproportionate to what happened. I think what she did to Kate as payback is far, far worse than anything Kate ever did to her. At worst, Kate’s remarks left the impression that Jodi was ditzy and a doormat to three year olds. Her remarks? She fueled the cheating rumors directly. She insinuated that her sister-in-law and a father and husband were unfaithful to their own families, just to sell tabloid gossip. I don’t see how anyone can justify that. I don’t blame Jon for what Jodi said. Jodi said it. Jon may be guilty but not of saying it on camera at a tabloid site. Jodi owns that. I frankly don’t see how she can live with herself is she really is the nice person I thought she was.
There’s a retraction I would love to see.
Some of the reality shows are scripted, maybe the gum gate scene was one of them. I still have hopes that someday Jodi would retract her statements, but that would prove to everybody that she was telling lies all along. Jodi wanted the attention that was given to J/K and their family. It’s like she wanted to hang on for the ride and take money for her part on the show. She was paid, not just a long term contract. Jodi split Kevin’s family, while I would want my family’s support in life. Jodi being a Christian, tells me this is her smoke screen to destroy what she can’t have. She should be held accountable and Murt should look into her background also.
I was reading on Z’s this am and a poster asked how Kate could look the public in the eye?? My question to her would be, ‘ How can Jodi and Kevin look people in the eye”? Just saying——–
In the same vein, I would wonder how some of the bloggers on Z on TV can sleep at night knowing the hate filled and libelous remarks they have made about Kate Gosselin. They are the ones who should be having a matter of conscience. Kate never did anything to them, did she?
Ann, Judy, and justpoor-I don’t think the show is scripted (I mean the younger kids were about 18 months when the first show aired) but they certainly set up themes and, especially after season 1, activities. Also, as even Jon has pointed out, TLC makes the editorial choices of what to show. In some cases, that makes things look like a bigger deal than they really were. Something that might really have been like a heavy downpour (heavy rain but brief) can, by taking it out of context and highlighting it, make it look like Hurricane Katrina. I do think Kate overreacted to the gum, but, I know I have had times where something that I normally shrug off or be mildly annoyed at, hits me when I’m tired, or in a lot of pain, etc. and I will have a meltdown of sorts. Fortunately, normally the only witnesses to them are my cats, who are philosophical about them. Kate pays the price of having her meltdowns preserved for posterity.
OTOH, Jodi played a role in making herself look like a ditz and/or doormat to three year olds. I remember the very first time I saw the part of the episode where she gave the little kids gum, I listened to her ask the little ones if their mother let them chew gum. I had no idea that Kate would react THAT strongly since that came later in the episode. Nevertheless, I remember thinking what kind of idiot asks a three year old, especially a three year old who badly wants gum, a question like that? Does she honestly think for one solitary second that it is possible that her neatnik, organic sister-in-law normally let her 3 year olds chew gum? Someone pointed out on a blog that Jon & Kate gave the kids gum when they flew in an attempt to make it look like Kate’s objections were after the fact to make Jodi look bad. My reaction to that was that it sounded like a sensible way to get children who are too young to intentionally keep swallowing in order equalize the pressure in their ears as the cabin pressurizes to do so.
However, Jodi should have worked it out with Kate privately. Instead she and her sister went on a vendetta against Kate. There are people who decry how Kate could deprive her children of the company of her brother and sister-in-law and the kids in the belief that blood relatives are always best. Quite frankly, if a sibling did to me what JoKe did to Kate and if I had kids, I’d never let them near my children again. After that kind of betrayal, I’d never be able to trust them again.
Although I appalled and support proper and reasonable regulations being in place, and said regulations should be amended to keep up with progress, there is quite a difference in doing that and in targeting someone specific.
When Jodi and Keven were used in Murt’s first hearings, and used without being sworn in, and Petersen and Alred being used, with their connection to Jodi and Kevin, and only others involved where 2 state agencies, it was clear to me only the Gosselin’s were being targeted and there was a witch hunt in progress.
This is NOT the way this should’ve been handled if it were only trying to update current regulations.
Murt has made statements about certain things being show on the show which were NEVER shown. Therefore, clearly he was getting this information second hand without doing backup verification of what was reported to him which was supposed to have been shown on the show. This only confirmed for me that this was only about the Gosselins, that a witch hunt was in progress and Jodi & Kevin had succeeded in using a state representative to further their personal vendetta against Kate.
If it were succeeded in destroying Kate’s ability to take care of her children at the current level which she does now, if I were Kate, I’d show up on JoKe’s doorstep, all eight kids in tow and say, you wanted us destroyed, now you take care of us in at the same level I provided for my kids.
Regarding the show being scripted -
Frankly, although I love watching the six interact with each other, the difference in their personalities,
how many times can a show hold the interest of the public showing kids playing, just doing everyday things over and over.
I like the format of taking the kids to places and seeing their enjoying and partaking of the experiences. It also gives me a view of places which I can’t experience for myself and no longer have young children to enjoy experiences through a child’s eyes. And with so many children, one gets so many child different child views through a child’s eyes. There’s something about being able to see things through a child’s eyes which keeps one’s outlook on life fresher. Even something as simplistic as doing the chicken coup. There has to be a certain amount of ’scripting’ if you will, for some things to be filmed. To do so, doesn’t mean one isn’t getting real life.
I agree ziggy, the children are seeing and doing interesting things with all the travel. I’m sure some of the things have to be planned for the shows, crafts, farmers market, etc, but it is real life for most people who have children. I just hope the State leaves this family alone, but I guess they can always film elsewhere and PA would not reap the $ TLC pours into the economy.
To me, scripted means it is decided in advance what is going to happen, even if there are no actual lines memorized. Some “reality” shows are definitely scripted, or planned out. Such as some of the cake shows (how many shows about cakes do we need?), where there are near-disasters that always seem to turn out okay. Setting up a trip, or other experience, for the Gosselin kids and filming their reactions, I wouldn’t call scripted. The things the kids do always seem like normal, random kid behavior that you couldn’t plan if you wanted to.
Jodi and Kevin are like Jon in that they had a certain level of public support and admiration and they blew it. If they (especially Jodi) hadn’t been involved in Julie’s blog and GWoP, and hadn’t repeated gossip about Kate’s sex life (which had nothing to do with the kids being filmed), then it might be believable that they really care about the children. Their actions show no respect for the Gosselin, Neild, or their own , children. Taking your disagreements public, via the internet, and gossiping about others are things you are supposed to teach your children not to do.
I’ve never seen anyone say that kids on reality shows, or any other shows, or kids working in any way, shouldn’t be protected by laws. Surely it can be done without singling out one group of kids who are a very tiny percentage of the children who need protecting.
“What ‘scripted’ means” is the debate that would have happened if TLC or Jon and Kate had been fined for not getting labor permits. I think there need to be regulations regarding children on reality TV, but I still think the law is so ambiguous about it as it stands now, that TLC doesn’t even need permits. I think they negotiated for the permits because “TLC” is made up of real human beings who do not want the public relations nightmare of fighting the point in court. After all, it’s not like the state has the power to stop production permanently. They have to provide a solution. Reality TV shows are not illegal. This is not child exploitation, abuse, or pornography, despite the twisted logic applied by a portion of the shows viewers and former viewers.
Is having Christmas twice, unscripted according to Kevin’s testimony, scripted? Wasn’t that Kevin’s point- that they celebrated Christmas early but the kids didn’t know, so they could get a genuine reaction? In other words, the kids did not have to act a certain way or say certain lines.
The best solution was to negotiate some permits, agreeing to restrictions that are included in Murt’s law in the fall. That’s what the DOL and TLC did. I think the money was already being put aside by Kate, now it is TLC doing that part of the banking for the kids. (By the way, that means more money for the family, including Kate, good for them.) We know from Jon and Kate’s own mouths, confirmed by Jodi and Kevin, that the filming was only two or three days per week anyway. I think they were already filming within the restrictions so I don’t think it was a big deal.
I think that if the DOL issued the wrong permits to the family, there is a very, very good reason for it: no permits are actually needed. The law doesn’t cover this. So TLC asks for whatever permits they were supposed to get, and you know what? PA has none to give them; they have to give them the next closest thing.
I would like to apply for permits to film my under-7 niece and nephew for my upcoming reality show “Ann@IW + 2.” I wonder what the DOL would do if I ask?
Anya@IW- I agree totally. Also, does Rep. Murt’s intepretation mean that, if either of my two youngest great-nephews were to visit me and I got some really cute video on them and posted it on You Tube and it went viral, I’d be violating the law?
I think these points again emphais the point, Murt’s intentions is using Kate & her 8 for a witch hunt, for his own benefit.
I just saw this posted at Z on TV’s blog
‘Kate Plus 8′ child work permits defended
PeggyP called this one right. Representative Murt may not ask the attorney General’s office for an opinion. The DOL must ask for it. Rep. Murt’s statement regarding the law and 6 year olds working is correct, IMO. The problem for Rep. Murt is that “children working” may not apply to the Gosselin kids’ situation. There is an excellent case to be made, from the testimony he collected at his hearing, that what the kids do on their show does not constitute the performances prohibited. He himself stated they are not presently covered by PA’s child labor law. Rep. Murt needs to pass his law to cover kids on reality TV shows. What’s taking so long, anyway?
Oh for Pete’s sake. I took a look around the Gosselin blogs and this news is being received as if it were a death in the family or a declaration of war. I do not understand the thinking.
There are pemits. They exist, even though they do not need them as the law currently stands. Pass Murt’s law and what do the Gosselin kids get? The same protections they have NOW without the law. Shouldn’t we be happy? Shouldn’t some of these bloggers be declaring a victory?
Murt can NOT stop Jon and Kate Gosselin from allowing their children to participate in a reality show. It is not abusive. Parents have a right to make these decisions for their family. The Gosselins have a show once a month. Remember the line, “I wouldn’t mind if it were just a few times a year…” Well, it’s a few times a year. No need for tears, crusaades, petitions. Buck up, naysayers. It’s not that bad. You’re just stuck in negative gear.
Pass Murt’s law and what do the Gosselin kids get? The same protections they have NOW without the law. Shouldn’t we be happy? Shouldn’t some of these bloggers be declaring a victory? ~Ann
ITA – I don’t get why they didn’t declare a victory after the PA Labor made their findings and TLC complied. Murt’s leg also calls for an advocate to be onset. But, it’s not like that person is going to tell Kate how to raise her children. There’s nothing they can do to stop children from appearing on television. When the government steps in to decide how public/private a family can live their life, they need to step right back out.
If they end up having an advocate with them while filming, it’s just going to add to the drama (not that I think having one is a bad idea). We will see headlines saying “Kate Clashes with Advocate”, sorry, “Klashes with AdvoKate”. If the advocate doesn’t declare all the children damaged beyond repair, and Kate the worst mother ever, well, that will be because TLC has paid her off, or forced her to sign a confidentiality agreement. I don’t think the new laws, if they pass, are going to change things as much as some people are expecting.
Rep. Murt is quoted as saying, “Children under 7 in Pennsylvania are not allowed on television for their own health and well-being.” We talked about this before, I find it hard to believe that kids under 7 have not been on tv in PA . He seems to think that is already the law, but there is disagreement about that. I think the more restrictions he tries to put in the law, the less likely it will be passed. The PA Film Industry Assoc. might not be pleased.
Lily@IW, Ann@IW, and Kiki, ITA. One thing in Z (Zurawik)’s blog annoys me more than the rest of it, the line, “Furthermore, under rules of protocul, it will only happen if the depertment of Labor & Industry asks the attorney general to rule on the matter.” It isn’t due to any “rules of protocol” whatever that is. It is due to the express language of the Commonwealth Attorneys Act.
In any event, the current AG has his eye on bigger fish; he’s the Republican candidate for governor and his major cause celebre has been busting major state Democratic legislators for violating laws against using legislative staff doing campaign work on the state dime (eventually he got around to going after a couple of Republicans, too.)
Lily said –
When the government steps in to decide how public/private a family can live their life, they need to step right back out.
and isn’t this what Murt is trying to do, again, using the excuse of concerns for child labor issues?
PeggyP, Thanks for all the information you’ve given on this thread. I find it funny that while yelling about TLC breaking unwritten laws there’s no attention given that Murt was ignoring the rules and skirted around the labor dept. to get the Attorney General to investigate. That would irk me if was a PA resident.
Ziggy, Murt’s legislation wouldn’t interfere in how a family chooses to live their life or if your child can be star. PA residents will still be able to blog, write books, or be on tv w/their families. The hoopla around his interest in the Gs has others hopeful that somehow he will shut down the show. They want him to write a law just for Kate.
I don’t have a problem w/his bill. I like the effort to ensure and protect the minor’s income. The restrictive working hours are good thing too. I have questions about the on-set advocate. Is it necessary for every tv appearance and commercial? I believe the advocate would mostly be watching out for situations that are extreme. I imagine that they would mostly be standing around doing nothing. It’s a good thing to CYA in case something ever does happen, they’ve taken preventative steps to prevent that from happening.
Ugh. This guy and all the higher ups and Kreider’s that agree with him need to go away.
A large majority of politicians are nothing more than snake oil salesmen….think you that Murt is of this ilk?