By Anya
“How did two average parents from rural Pennsylvania with an outsize brood rise to such dizzying heights of stardom and tabloid infamy? The author peers behind the curtain of the biggest celebrity story of the year….”
Vanity Fair contributor Nancy Jo Sales tackles those tabloid darlings, Jon Gosselin and his soon-to-be ex, Kate.
As a long-time reader of Vanity Fair, I was interested to see their take on the Jon & Kate saga. For some, Vanity Fair has the reputation of being a somewhat cultured magazine (whatever that means), but I have found they like to dish the dirt as much as the next tabloid. It’s just that the dirt they are dishing is usually about some rich socialite you may never have heard of, such as Tamara Mellon, co-founder of Jimmy Choo. Ms. Sales gives the impression that she is investigating a story that is perplexing to her elite readers – that is “who in the heck are Jon & Kate Plus 8 and why are they taking over every outlet of mass media with their sordid mess of a story?”
Ms. Sales apparently had some limited access to Kate during a couple of her appearances in New York City. As expected, there are a couple of Kate quotes that I am positive will make Kate-haters do a happy jig. Because I am convinced nothing makes them happier than seeing Kate seemingly uninterested in the boy’s toys section of FAO Schwartz (“she hates the boys, you know”) or greedily contemplating a dinner at the New York location of the chain restaurant, Nobu.
Overall, I didn’t learn anything new from this article, but it wasn’t a hachet job either. I didn’t care for the fact that the writer dredged up the Steve Neild affair rumor while offering zero proof. My heart goes out to Gina Neild having to put up with this nonsense. Also, Sales asserts in the article (with no apparent citation) that Jon “never wanted to do it (the show), but Kate was the boss.” Kate the she-devil strikes again! Yawn. Haven’t heard that before.
So if you haven’t already, hop on over to Vanityfair.com, read the article and share your thoughts with other IW readers. You would be insane not to!
http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/features/2009/10/jon-and-kate-gosselin-200910?currentPage=1
Loading ...
Comments
23 Responses to Vanity Fair Dissects the Gosselin Phenomenon
well i did see a few discrepancies in the article and i think the writer has an opinion on j & k that comes through in her writing, but for the most part i see it as a kind of recap of things i’ve heard before.
i don’t see it making or breaking either one of them.
nothing new imo
I agree with you Kimmie. There were indeed discrepancies as well as biased writing. No proof of her assumptions. (hmmmm sounds like a blog we all know?)
I too do not like the fact that Gina Neild has to go through those stupid rumors again because of some ill-informed writer wants to put her two cents in. I bet gwoppers are offering this article of proof…Ohhh, Vanity Fair brought it up, must be true.
I thought the writer was fairly even handed with her criticism. She was rightfully hard on Jon, but she was also hard on Kate. I do think they both share blame in the frenzy that this has become. I think the only innocent ones here are the kids. I haven’t read any of the tabloid back and forth. I’m turned off by the crazy headlines and their pictures on every magazine. I read this article on line. I thought it was good, because she wasn’t in anyone’s camp. She was just reporting the phenomenon. She did mention the body guard story, because–like it or not–it is part of the story. No, I don’t believe it, but it is part of the story. She brought up all the allegations against Jon. Unfortunately, I believe most of those. She was just reporting on the circus, not picking out her favorite clown.
I think the author was trying to get at the essense of the celebrity phenomenon of Jon and Kate. She did so though by focusing so much on the tabloids – I am not sure that Levin (former editor of US) and Levin (TMZ) are actually people whose opinions I would weigh heavily
I did have one quote I enjoyed.
They are the subject of gossipy talk-show talk—a frequent “Hot Topic” on The View—and the target of thousands of disapproving blogs (GosselinsWithoutPity being the most insane).
The author sees that place for what it is.
And I think she captured the essense of each parent very accurately. Kate is unapologetic an Jon is desultory.
I agree that she didn’t have all her facts right or up-to-date or something. I feel like I am reading August’s Gosselin news. Is this in the print version of the magazine?
She knows insane when she sees it.
Are there really 1,000 of blogs about the Gosselins? I think 10′s would have been closer. No more than 20-30, right? Am I missing something here?
I thought the same thing Ann! Thousands of G blogs? Crazy right? Though I guess if you read the same info over, and over, and over again- maybe it could seem like 1,000′s.
If there are more than 10-20 I’ve never seen them (and don’t want to).
I have to agree the article almost seemed outdated. It almost seemed like it was a rehash of all of August. Thankfully it was online because it is a magazine I usually don’t buy, matter of fact with so much information online any more I don’t how magazines stay in business.
Well, VF has a TON of advertising (seriously, the actual magazine starts like half-way in); how they sell all that advertising might be a question though.
I thought the piece was a bit sloppy (and throwing in stuff about an affair for which I’ve seen absolutely no evidence is tacky and lame), but VF, though it has a bit more creditability than whatever publication it was that published Reporter! Jess!’s piece back in the day, isn’t really a bastion of journalistic excellence.
For heaven sakes, Vanity Fair is a lot closer to People magazine than it is Time or Newsweek. It used to a classier fashion magazine in the early 1900′s but went of business in 40′s, I think. The current version of Vanity Fair is a magazine of pop culture and fashion that re-started up in the 80′s.
There has been controversary surrounding the magazine . They have had nude starletts on the cover (Kierra Knightly and Scarlett Johanson, I think) and they were the ones that had Miley Cyrus on the cover in just a sheet. The magazine was also found guity in a case brought by Roman Polanski claiming that the magazine libeled him in a 2002 article. There was also controversy surrounding an article they did on Lindsay Lohan in 2006. They wrote about her drug use and bulimia and Lohan claims her words were misconstrued.
It is not the high brow magazine GWOPers are claiming it to be. Nor do I believe that the author truly intended the word “insane” used to describe GWOP to mean ” insanely awesome” as posters there have concluded.
Nor do I believe that the author truly intended the word “insane” used to describe GWOP to mean ” insanely awesome” as posters there have concluded. – Paige
Paige, I saw that too. Funny!
You make some good points about “Vanity Fair.” It sure isn’t “The New Yorker” or “The Atlantic Monthly.” I used to have a subscription, but cancelled it when they doubled the price. I still buy it every so often.
They have done a series of interesting articles on Bernie Madoff that I have enjoyed the last several months. It is a mystery trying to get at the root of how that all went down and who knew what.
Kind of interesting that they honored Dominick Dunne in the same issue they featured an article on J&K. He was the ultimate Hollywood gossip, but pretended to be above-it-all because he had connections going back decades.
I could never get past the insane amount of ads in VF. I know all magazines have to sell advertising but its more like one long print ad than anything I’d actually like to read.
This article is only online, not in the actual magazine. I thought I was going crazy, because I have that issue, and I’ve skimmed it, and I couldn’t believe I could have missed J&K in there.
I say, let Kate have all the sushi she wants. She’s made tons of money for all these magazines, so they should buy her sushi for life.
I think Kate comes off as, well, Kate. She always has that snarky attitude, but she says things in a joking manner, and I don’t know that the people she’s talking to (like the personal shopper), necessarily find her as rude as the people talking about her online. I do think both she and Jon are a little full of themselves right now, but it’s hard to blame them. They are being talked about, and invited on, the morning “news” shows and entertainment shows, are on magazine covers all the time, being followed by paps. Not to mention the “thousands” of blogs!
I do wonder if the reporter actually talked to the “sources close to Jon”, or just repeated what has already been said. She didn’t seem to have anything new on that front.
Kiki, I agree that she isn’t as rude as she can come off in print. She is very dry, and she says things very sarcastically (not unlike myself) and without hearing her words spoken you get very little in the way of context. Over on the princess boards they are saying that Kate has lost any credibility she had prior to this article, and I’m not sure I would agree. She comes off like Kate. Dry, sarcastic, loud, somewhat obnoxious. Not someone I want as my best friend, but not the devil incarnate. I think some people don’t translate well in print, I tend to think I come off much like Kate seems to come off to people.
Anya, I too was about to comment that this is the magazine that Dominic Dunne worked for–and he was the king of high-class gossip. He was a member of the Hollywood elite, he was an upper-class kid, and he basically reinvented himself as an upper class gossip. He took the people he had been among his entire life and basically put all of their dirty laundry out to air. So to me, Vanity Fair is just a high-class gossip/fashion/issues magazine, not a real hard hitting, unbiased news organization.
I should point out that I love Dominic Dunne, and love that he put everyone on blast–I’m not casting aspersions.
erin kate – Kiki, I agree that she isn’t as rude as she can come off in print. She is very dry, and she says things very sarcastically (not unlike myself) and without hearing her words spoken you get very little in the way of context. Over on the princess boards they are saying that Kate has lost any credibility she had prior to this article, and I’m not sure I would agree. She comes off like Kate. Dry, sarcastic, loud, somewhat obnoxious. Not someone I want as my best friend, but not the devil incarnate. I think some people don’t translate well in print, I tend to think I come off much like Kate seems to come off to people.
i totally agree with the bolded parts.
i am wondering though why the people on the princess board are saying kate has lost credibility…are you talking about he crown princess board?
Kimmie, on the GWOP thread, I’m not sure, but on the actual Jon and Kate Plus 8, they are hating on her for the article. I think they are hilarious regardless of what they think, or who they hate. They do snark right.
Yeah, I was surprised at the reaction of the “Greecies” (as they call themselves). Have they not ever watched the show? Really, at this point it would be ridiculous for her to go all “wow, I can’t believe people want to talk to little old me, just get me an organic peanut butter sandwich, and I’ll be fine”. People wouldn’t buy that at all.
I was amused at the GWoP quote about VF being a “hip, young person’s magazine” and that insane probably means “bang up and with it” or “neat”. Because I’m sure all the hip young’uns enjoy reading about Dominick Dunne, Bernie Madoff, and Brooke Astor’s final days.
I’m glad I don’t have someone “dictating” that I go to the toy store opposed to Nobu for sushi. All part of the PR game- obviously shows Kate’s people are more professional that what anyone lets Jon do.
I like how she called GWOP insane and the Gwoppers are spinning that around to make it sound like a good thing. Hilarious.
Kiki,
I read that gwop comment on the princess boards (about insane meaning ‘bang up’) and I think it must be a troll. It so insane over there, the gwop moderators can’t tell the real insanity from the mocking insanity. However, there are others buying into this idea that ‘insane’ is a positive description.
And so, they prove they are insane by their attempts to make being called ‘insane’ a compliment.
Erin Kate,
You wrote, “Not someone I want as my best friend, but not the devil incarnate. I think some people don’t translate well in print, I tend to think I come off much like Kate seems to come off to people.” I agree with your assessment of Kate Gosselin, but not about yourself! You come off as very smart and honest. I appreciate your knowledge and comments.
I was an avid watcher of the show from the first couple of hour specials. I found alot of Kate’s qualities a lot like my own; the freaking out about stains, worrying about germs, bossing husband around, yelling at husband in public. Even my husband would turn to me and say, “wow, that sounds like you.” It does not mean I am the most awful wife and mother, I know I love my family more than anything . This show has shown me to actually try to relax and not go all Kate on my lovely husband. So I agree 100% with Erin Kate’s remark . I myself will admit I am not at all a people person and find myself self-concious when talking to people I don’t know, which could come off as rude or snotty. Maybe this is true with Kate, does it make her as evil as the Gwoppers think her to be? Also, do the Gwoppers honestly never find a little of themselves in Kate?
Thanks Ann! I don’t us IM anymore because it caused too many disagreements because my sarcasm loses something in the typing. In person I’m probably a lot more like Kate than I would like to admit. I’m pretty abrupt and I don’t pay much attention to those around me. I’ve always like that Kate knows her faults and admits them.
Erin I have alot of Kate in me too:) I think that is why I have a tendency to cut her alot of slack becuase she is well aware of her faults and admits to them.
A little off the subject of the magazine article but it looks like Jon replaced the missing funds. But I wish Heller would keep his mouth shut completely when it comes to the divorce since Meyers is representing Jon in PA again. More or less he implied that Kate had not complied yet with her side of the money which was not true she submitted her itemized accounting to the court earlier in the week. Monahan also stated that she was not required to return any funds. Jon needs to have this man stay out of making statements since he not representing him in the divorce at this point.