ZoloftBlob

Were the Gosselin kids and Roloff kids also not working then? And is the show not focusing on the children or are events set up for filming that are clearly meant to depict the children like filmed parties at the zoo and tea parties and staged moments picking berries on a farm? And are you aware that there's often retakes, even on reality shows? And getting 20 minutes of workable footage can take days? The kids are working and they aren't provided any choice in that. The kids have been added to the show logo... that tells me we're going to see more, not less.

But photographing a celeb's child while in public is not the same as filming a weekly half hour tv show where the child is a significant participant. Absolom sums it up accurately. If Bill and Jen are working, then so are Will and Zoey. Horrible sweat shop problems are indeed horrible, but those horrible things happening don't make the lesser issues ok. Yes, there are worse problems. That the problem here is less severe is not the same as no problem at all.

Well, just my opinion, Bill and Jen both are pretty quick to steer the kids to gender appropriate choices. Will gets trucks and cars and Zoey gets pretty clothes and there never seems to be any natural leanings. Will was handed toy cars on day one, and Zoey has been deemed a girly girl.

Gotta be honest, I'd love to see a LPBW crossover... but then I enjoy Matt trying to outdouche himself

And when this process started, Jason knew it was going to be public and about a custodial fight. He could have settled then and instead decided to run up his legal bills and keep the public eye on his custody fight.I think its a fair assumption that he got something better than what was origanally offered in order to settle but if this is about not dragging people to court and making things public, Jason could have spared us all and his little girl and taken the origanal offer. Mind you, I don't think that was realistic, but I am not the one saying he settled to spare his little girl the public furor. I don't think the child was much on the minds of either participant and I really don't think either parent comes off as "the good one" in this.

Well, my worst ex was nothing like Jason and I still think Jason isn't an innocent little boy in this marriage. I'm fully capable of seeing Bethenny in a bad light - she has a streak of self interest (I'm being kind) that isn't difficult to see. The problem... is that I see the same streak in Jason. Made worse in that its hard for Jason to not get the gold digger label. He did sign a pre-nup, his wife does make a ton more money than him and he take the settlement rather than have his day in court. Its hard to say he can't be bought when.... he can indeed be bought.

If you read the linked article, the people being hurt are his neighbors who have to live with a reek that makes their eyes water in summer time. I'm positive they have a roach problem as well, because I had a neighbor who was a trash picker and the whole time she lived there, we had roaches. Kevin got away with this for years because he has money.

And of course he was held hostage and forced to have a child with her and marry her, and was never ever a willing participant in this little farce? Oh right, he's an adult and its often claimed he's even bright. But didn't. He didn't turn down the offer. He could have but didn't. Like someone else already said, Jason had a price in mind and shut up when it was met.

Yeah, I can see "po po" falling on american ears oddly....

Right. As I said originally, they aren't doing the show out of the goodness of their hearts, they're getting paid. There's nothing wrong with that but no one really claims that the Real Housewives of NYC are doing us a service, by making us aware of a different lifestyle we weren't exposed to as children. No one claims that for My Big Fat American Gypsy Wedding either. I don't think the Kleins started doing this show with the express intent of exploiting their childrens privacy, but I also don't think they started doing the show with no profit motive in mind. There's nothing wrong with that, but there is something wrong in assigning them a higher motive simply because they're little people. Frankly the only real takeaway I got from Little People Big World is that little people can be sneaky self serving arrogant assholes, just like everyone else.

Well, you can look to the examples that came before. For every Shirley Temple, there's a Dana Plato, a Jodi Sweetin, the Olsen twins, an Anissa Jones, a Todd Bridges, a Gary Coleman, a Jonathan Brandeis. I could list a lot more. I could also point to the various reality shows where the family ends up torn apart. Most kids aren't asked to help support the family's lifestyle from toddlerhood. Absolom has some really good points about reality show kids in that they don't get the minimal protections that child actors get. A child on a reality show has no one advocating for them. They don't get paid. I've seen Kate Gosselin and Matt Roloff both brag at times that the cameras were in their homes 18 hours a day at times. To roll it back to the money issue - Bill and Jen do get paid for this, so there is a profit motive. Since they don't seem as strapped as other TLC families, is "dwarfism awareness" really worth the potential damage to the kids? To me, that's the question.

BigBuzz - There's nothing wrong with earning money from doing a reality show if you're an adult. I was a lot more comfortable with this show when it was Bill and Jen, because they're adults, they're making the choice to be there and to display themselves to the public. Now they have kids, and if you've watched other reality shows with kids, its fair to say that putting your kids on a reality show a)opens your child up to public criticism and b) doesn't allow your child to have privacy. The children on these shows aren't getting paid, they aren't protected by law and they don't get a choice. A child shouldn't have to help support the family in a monetary fashion and that is what is happening on these shows, including The Little Couple. When this is mentioned and that maybe the show should end, as it's been said again and again that Bill and Jen, unlike a lot of the other TLC families, don't seem to rely on the show to provide income, the argument is made that they are doing the show for awareness and education. When it's pointed out that they are still getting paid, then the argument becomes how we don't know how much it is - despite the evidence seen on the show and on other TLC shows that participant families have a serious uptick in wages. I facetiously noted that they don't claim to be donating their salaries or doing the show out of the goodness of their hearts and a few people ran with it, noting that we can't know that they aren't donating their wages. Whether or not they donate their wages or not (and I have absolutely no reason, based on Bill's comments about doing the show to ennable an early retirement, to think they donate their wages) they're still doing the show for wages. Their children aren't getting a choice in having their childhood exposed to the public, and if you think the public is harsh now, wait until the kids are older. Because reality shows are damaging to kids, in order to continue to paint Bill and Jen as people doing good, as opposed to people profiting from exposing their children to public scorn, they either can't be making much money and think the whole awareness thing negates that, or aren't making any money at all, thereby doing us all a favor.... as opposed to getting paid to be on a reality show.

Then they don't get credit for not getting paid, or donating their time. We don't know if they are donating their time to do the show. Therefore, when someone mentions that Bill and Jen are accepting money from TLC to film their family, "The Kleins could be donating their salaries, we don't know" isn't a fair point. This isn't a charity, its a tv show. Several people have cited Bill stating they did the show so they could retire early. To me, that seems like proof they are doing the show for the money. Even if they were donating the show proceeds... they're still getting paid.

I think I read somewhere that he's got some serious hip or back issues that they *don't* talk about a lot

Of course he is. All kids do it. My niece totally knows that if she is whining in public, she's more likely to get a positive reaction - a treat, agreement to do what she wants, than if she is home and no one other than family is around. Because I simply wasn't raised this way, I don't think treats need to be removed but why not replace cake with grapes? Or apple slices? And yes, its perfectly fine to hear "no treats" once in a while. Minx - I think you're making a fair point. My only real disagreement is that unless one of us is a member of the Loud family, hardly any of us had our childhoods delivered to the public in this fashion. I consider any number of amusing photos in my childhood, me eating cat food from the dish while the cat looks on in irritation, me riding the dog naked, me on the potty holding up the "business" I have made...these photos are cute *in the family* but I would have been mortified if my middle school pals had ever gotten ahold of them. Will and Zoey will never have that privacy. As adorable as Will's sad panda face is, or his screaming "cake" - and as likely as it is that his friends in school had equally embarrassing and cute things occur in the childhood, Will won't have access to their embarrassing childhood moments and they *will* have access to his. We all have embarrassing things in our childhood that we prefer to keep private. Will and Zoey, like the Gosselin kids and the Duggar kids, and Jake Roloff, aren't getting any choice to have that privacy.

She is really on the small side, even for a dwarf, though, so I think its fair to say her voice is higher pitched due to her size. Look at Vern Troyer - he's about her size and isn't primordial either, and while his voice is deeper, its hardly the rolling bass of James Earl Jones. :)

Oh I get you. And I think that's perfectly reasonable. I just don't care for the assumption that they're not profiting from the show and are martyring themselves, doing a reality show entirely "for awareness" and deserve special credit since they aren't profiting in any way at all - even though there's utterly no evidence Jen and Bill are donating their time. I mean, does the opposite work? There's no evidence Bill and Jen aren't using the money to fund a meth lab so until we know they aren't, its perfectly ok to give them the credit for doing so? More to the point, if they are anonymously donating their wages from the show - then they don't WANT credit, so why are we giving it to them? Oh right, because there's no evidence (despite the new house, the fancy toys, the expensive adoption trips, all of which is a pattern on TLC shows, where families of modest to reasonable means have a sudden huge uptick in their cashflow) that Bill and Jen aren't donating their show wages. I'm sorry, until Bill and Jen say "we're donating all our profits from the show to charity", I have no reason to believe they are not being paid and I will continue to point out that they ARE being paid. Because they are. If they secretly are donating their pay checks, they obviously don't want credit for it, and they're not going to get it. Until they do say something, its unreasonable to put them on charitable pedestal when there's no evidence that they aren't taking the money, and plenty of evidence that they are, Bitter Apple, I think you have it exactly right - they're profiting from the show and the real test is coming.

Do you believe they are donating their salary? Are we supposed to grant them, unlike every other reality show family, special credit for the possibility? I mean, we can't prove any reality whore is actually paid or doesn't donate their salary to charity. I get why its a pleasant fantasy, it gets Jen and Bill off the hook for exploiting the kids but is there any credible evidence that Bill and Jen aren't financially profiting from their reality show?

Sure, that's possible. I certainly can't rule it out because I don't do their taxes but based on a number of things, I think it's extremely unlikely and not true. And I don't see anyone seriously entertaining it. If you think they are, that's your choice. I'm going with the reasonable assumption that Jen and Bill like the money. They have a taste for nice things, and from watching a co=worker do the fertility rounds, the lengthy time Jen spent trying to have her own baby via in vitro and surrogacy was pretty expensive. So was the adoption process and I am sure that TLC contributed financially to the trips to China and India that they filmed. I will throw them a bone in this. I think they started to do the reality show to get the fundage for the in vitro stuff because its expensive. I don't think the kids are meal tickets.... but I also can't deny that this show was no where near as popular when there was just Bill and Jen.

I disagree in that I believe people who are considered adults and smart enough to attend college have to take some responsibility for the choices they make.I took out loans for college, and yes, I took the "refunds" but frankly I always knew I would have to pay the money back. I graduated in 1995 during a recession and I was student loan free by 2003 (and that included a grad degree) and for literally 25 years now I have heard constant incessant warnings to students about how loan debt will get you. I'm sorry but any 19 year old who attends college should have SOME idea what the word "loan" means and should have some idea, simply from watching tv, that student loans can ruin you.

Bill's job doesn't fall under such a restrictive catagory. Also, TLC is notorious for filming "holidays" when its convienant for filming, and not on the actual holiday. (If you need an example, please see the LPBW Thanksgiving special that was clearly filmed in September and how do we know? Because Jake was injured by the trebuchet at Halloween but had no injury in the Thanksgiving special. Also its been admitted). Doing things with your kids on the holidays isn't praiseworthy when its my parents, its just expected. The only exact amounts published were for Gosselins, 22k per episode. I doubt Jen and Bill are getting that, but the specifics of the Gosselins contract indicated that each year the show renewed they were earning more per episode. Also per the Gosselins and the Roloffs, any filmed trip or activity was paid for TLC, and any special treat almost always had TLC picking up the tab. Considering that The Little Couple is made by TLC as well, while its possible they aren't compensated in the same way as other TLC show participants, it seems pretty unlikely. That means that custom trikes, and parties at the zoo and special Easter outings are perks. I agree, JustAlison, but I don't see any indication that Bill and Jen don't like the money and would do the show without it. I am probably cynical from seeing too many of these TLC families prat about how its all about making people aware when with rare exception, they all have to be dragged off reality tv kicking and screaming. The reality is probably somewhere between "Bill and Jen are total famewhores" and "Bill and Jen don't need the money, and don't like the fame, but are compelled by their saintly natures to continue the show for dwarfism awareness!".

Well, I don't see them donating their salaries from the show to charity. :) More seriously, I don't see this show as such a beacon of hope for others that Bill and Jen would continue to do it if it was something they didn't enjoy. I also think that its unfair to dismiss the money factor out of hand. Yes, Jen and Bill made a nice living before the show - but more money is tempting and TLC does pay pretty and Bill and Jen have added two kids to a lifestyle that was already on the low end of upper class. I also agree with BitterApple, spending time with your kids on a holiday is expected.

Well, I think its fair to say that anyone who chooses to do more than one season of a reality show likes either the fame or the money. I think Bill and Jen are nice people but really, this is season what, five? They aren't doing the show out of the goodness of their hearts.

So here's the thing. I'm gonna be realistic for a moment and say I don't think its reasonable to sit a 2 year old and a four year down in front of a berry field and say "You can pick but no eating". If the folks running the berry field are *really* that strict, then realistically, they just aren't going to let younger kids into the field. (I grew up in the country, and the U-pick farms usually had a "children need to be over eight" rule. The field owner either was making an exception for filming purposes in letting the kids in, or has the sign up but doesn't really enforce it. I don't know why this would be considered a fun activety for small children if they *weren't* allowed to eat the berries.

Lilybee, most likely yes. The kid is probably a dwarf and I am just speculating. But she doesn't have the disproportionate look, and she's from a country where boys get fed before girls and girls get dumped in the corner in favor of a boy child. Granted, I have probably seen the episodes of Law and Order with the "baby" adoptions where the parents find out their baby is really a starved 2 1/2 year old too many times.