The Duggars: In the Media and TLC

[PikaScrewChu]

9 minutes ago, bigskygirl said:

And I hope people will start calling out the Duggars on their hypocritical beliefs of gays, lesbians and certain other groups are child molesters when their oldest son was molested four of his sisters, and they did a crappy job dealing with the whole incident. I would love for these terrible heathens to sue them for calling them child molesters because they are not the outstanding, blessed, special season of life Duggars. In fact, I have a cousin who is gay. Maybe I should sue the Duggars for him. Where is my DONATE button to start collecting funds for the law suit.

I've been lurking and reading the articles here. That's why one of the Springdale residents went to In Touch. She was upset with Michelle's robocalls and their treatment of the LGBTQ community. Springdale isn't too fond of the Duggars apparently.

Sir Roger Moore has passed away. That and the terrorist attack at the Ariana Grande concert means the Duggars have a very slim chance Joy and Austin will be featured on the cover at all next week. That is if their wedding is actually this weekend.

[Rabbittron]

13 minutes ago, PikaScrewChu said:

I've been lurking and reading the articles here. That's why one of the Springdale residents went to In Touch. She was upset with Michelle's robocalls and their treatment of the LGBTQ community. Springdale isn't too fond of the Duggars apparently.

Sir Roger Moore has passed away. That and the terrorist attack at the Ariana Grande concert means the Duggars have a very slim chance Joy and Austin will be featured on the cover at all next week. That is if their wedding is actually this weekend.

The wedding will not even get a blurb they didn't even have a engagement blurb in the magazine. 

[lascuba]

16 minutes ago, Rabbittron said:

The wedding will not even get a blurb they didn't even have a engagement blurb in the magazine. 

Yeah, I think as far as weddings go, no one cares about any of the middle kids and People isn't going to waste much space on them. All the kids between Jinger and Jackson are SOL, with the exception of Josiah, maybe.

[sometimesy]

Wonder what leghumpers are thinking. They defended the girls as it wasn't a big deal and happens all the time. The made posts on social media and in comments sections.

imo  

They shouldn't have minimized the molestation. They could have at least acknowledged that molestation is a serious issue. Then, state their position that they forgave Josh and establish that their religion, strong family unit had helped them to find peace...or whatever. 

They could have done that through a one sentence statement on social media. Not go on Fox News. And who was speaking should have remained ambiguous to make the identification of the victims muddy. A family statement. 

[GeeGolly]

26 minutes ago, Rabbittron said:

The wedding will not even get a blurb they didn't even have a engagement blurb in the magazine. 

http://people.com/celebrity/joy-anna-duggar-engaged-austin-forsyth/

[Rabbittron]

Before the molestation was no big deal now they are almost out of money it is now a great big deal.  Which one is it because you can't have it both ways. 

[Natalie68]

On 5/21/2017 at 8:46 AM, sometimesy said:

If they do an interview, I suspect it will be with pre-arranged questions. There would probably be a lawyer sitting beside them to keep them from going off the plot.   

I would hope NO ONE agrees to this.  They are adults who decided to sue someone.  They are going to need to answer questions on the fly on the stand so they better get used to it.  If you are old enough to get married, have kids, file a lawsuit you are old enough to handle surprise questions.  

I am going to sound like a bitch I know but here goes.  They live this crazy uneducated life and are bringing other innocents into it.  They have some mighty skeletons in their closet and now are trying to profit off of them *after* claiming its no big deal, its over (and being totally judgmental assholes in other areas of their lives).  Its time for kid gloves to be off and they be treated just like other adults.  They seem to forget Josh was handsy and inappropriate with someone outside their family.  They shit on her experience by calling it no big deal, over the clothes etc.  So I want them interviewed by someone who will NOT give them questions ahead of time and will treat them like the adults they are.  Not children of Boob and Meechelle.

[Churchhoney]

7 minutes ago, Natalie68 said:

I would hope NO ONE agrees to this.  They are adults who decided to sue someone.  They are going to need to answer questions on the fly on the stand so they better get used to it.  If you are old enough to get married, have kids, file a lawsuit you are old enough to handle surprise questions.  

I am going to sound like a bitch I know but here goes.  They live this crazy uneducated life and are bringing other innocents into it.  They have some mighty skeletons in their closet and now are trying to profit off of them *after* claiming its no big deal, its over (and being totally judgmental assholes in other areas of their lives).  Its time for kid gloves to be off and they be treated just like other adults.  They seem to forget Josh was handsy and inappropriate with someone outside their family.  They shit on her experience by calling it no big deal, over the clothes etc.  So I want them interviewed by someone who will NOT give them questions ahead of time and will treat them like the adults they are.  Not children of Boob and Meechelle.

I could get behind that. Mainly because I think that if they had to do it this way they just wouldn't do it!

Thing is, any network who's contemplating doing this "interview" is doing it only to pull in some Christian eyeballs and those of some other curiosity seekers for the commercials, right? Might beef up that 18-49 viewer demographic a bit for whatever evening it's on. 

Anyway, I'm sure nobody thinks for a second that it has any news value. Megyn Kelly might try to bullshit someone about that, in the interest of upholding her supposed journalistic cred, but I expect she doesn't really believe it either. And they're certainly only "offering" it as a paid "interview." Because: Jim Bob. Which puts it in the category of performance, not journalism, immediately, in my opinion (and in most other people's as well, right?)

No one in this family will ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever do an unscripted interview ever ever ever ever ever ever ever, no matter what happens, ever, is my guess. They're all about "presenting' themselves. Falsely. Because they have to present the picture that best serves Jesus, GOthard, and JB and M.

They're not in the least about talking in an unscripted manner. As we see, they don't even do that with each other. They don't even do it on birthday cards. So they're definitely not going to do it on television. 

And this is leaving aside the fact that they're all too stupid and ignorant to do it in any case, of course. 

It's truly pitiful. I hate the idea that they'll be able to go on tv all scripted and further fool some leghumpers into thinking they're smart and together and wonderful. But they wouldn't allow anything else to happen. Their livelihood and self image both depend on it, I think. 

[lascuba]

14 minutes ago, Churchhoney said:

They're not in the least about talking in an unscripted manner. As we see, they don't even do that with each other. They don't even do it on birthday cards. So they're definitely not going to do it on television. 

And this is leaving aside the fact that they're all too stupid and ignorant to do it in any case, of course. 

It's truly pitiful. I hate the idea that they'll be able to go on tv all scripted and further fool some leghumpers into thinking they're smart and together and wonderful. But they wouldn't allow anything else to happen. Their livelihood and self image both depend on it, I think. 

Reminds me of that time years ago when Jim Bob and Michelle were campaigning for someone in Virginia, and Jim Bob was asked a question by a street reporter. He started rambling on but kept tripping over his words, and he would just start over, fully expecting the station to edit out his mistakes.

There's no way any one them will agree to a real interview. They've been programmed by TLC to just start over whenever they mess up until they get something made for TV. They don't know how to think on their feet (or think at all, really).

[Mollie]

The lawyers for the 4 Sisters are hoping to be awarded $10 −$15 million dollars.  Well, good luck with that.

Even when a death is involved, settlements are not anywhere near that amount in Arkansas.

This is from a case against the Department of Health and Human Services:

"Little Rock, AR: (Mar-20-07) Leroy Johnson, 41, died on April 24, 2006, at the Alexander Human Development Center in Saline County, where he was a resident. Johnson was disabled and had been in state care since he was a child. He was mentally retarded and suffered from coronary heart disease, high blood pressure, and an enlarged heart. Following his death, his family filed a claim with the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), alleging wrongful death, maltreatment, battery, assault and negligence. Johnson died after a struggle with employees at the Alexander Human Development Center, after becoming upset after learning that a fishing trip for the facility's residents had been postponed. In a settlement reached with the DHHS, the state of Arkansas agreed to pay the family $150,000, but did not admit to any wrongdoing."

https://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/settlements/07489/disabled-death.html

And, this is from a lawsuit against a police officer who shot and killed a suspect:

"A federal jury has awarded $415,000 in damages [divided among eight people] in the civil lawsuit against Josh Hastings, a former Little Rock police officer, in the 2012 slaying of Bobby Moore, a suspect in car burglaries at a West Little Rock apartment complex.

"Two trials of Hastings for manslaughter ended in hung juries. He has said he fired on a car that was about to run him down. Other witnesses and a police investigation said the car was backing up. The suit was filed by Moore's mother, Sylvia Perkins. Little Rock and its police chief were ruled immune from suit by Judge Brian Miller."

https://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2017/04/13/verdict-expected-shortly-in-josh-hastings-lawsuit

In reference to the large settlement awarded to Hulk Hogan, that was a completely different invasion of privacy issue.  Hulk was videotaped having sex with a married woman.  The woman's husband had secretly set up the camera and filmed the episode without the permission or knowledge of his wife or Hogan, which is against the law and a huge violation of privacy.  He then posted the sex tape on the Internet (which included shots of Hogan's genitalia) and Gawker then posted salient portions of the pornographic video on its website.  

Hogan first sued in US District Court for copyright infringement and asked for an Injunction to have Gawker remove the video from its site.

The Court ruled that the validity of the copyright was in question, and that given the degree to which Hogan had already put his own private life into the public arena, the publication of the video might be protected by fair use. The court refused to issue an Injunction.  Hogan had to pay all of the attorney fees and court costs.

Hogan withdrew his case in the US District Court and sued Gawker in Florida State Court. An Injunction was issued to force Gawker to remove the video and accompanying article from its site.  Gawker removed the video, but not the article and added a link to another site where the entire video was posted.

On appeal by Gawker, the Injunction was denied in 2014 by the appeals court, which ruled that under the circumstances it was an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech under the First Amendment. Gawker tried to get Judge Campbell to dismiss the case based on that ruling, but the case went to trial.

During the trial, Gawker argued that Hogan made his sex life a public matter, although on cross-examination, when asked by Hogan's lawyer whether a depiction of his genitalia had any "news value," former Gawker editor AJ Daulerio responded "no".

Hogan won a settlement of $5,000 from the man who shot the video and $31 million from Gawker. Hogan had to pay the IRS for taxes on the settlement, then pay the attorney fees (which were included in the settlement amount and Forbes estimates those fees at 40% of the gross settlement).  Forbes estimates that Hogan's net take home was about $9.72 million. That is still a lot of money, but a much different case than that of the Duggar 4.

So, even if they win – and I don't think they will win against all defendants, if any, and on all counts, if any – the settlement divided four ways may not be much and not worth all of the damage the suit is causing the Duggar franchise by bringing up the molestations once again.  If the case goes to trial, more family 'secrets' might be exposed because they will have to answer all questions asked on the witness stand or be found in contempt of court and possibly jailed.  (Pack your tissues, Jill, for your big day in court.)  Everything they say in court will be published all over the Internet. Plus, they will be hounded by paparazzi everytime they go to Walmart.  The Duggars aren't Kardashians and can't afford body guards to keep the press away from them.

Not only that, if they lose cases against even some of the defendants, the girls will have to pay the defendants' attorney fees and court costs.

Edited May 23, 2017 by Mollie

[Rabbittron]

I wonder if Blob thinks he will be able pick the deposition questions that they will have to answer. 

[JoanArc]

Quote

No one in this family will ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever do an unscripted interview ever ever ever ever ever ever ever, no matter what happens, ever, is my guess.

Quote

 If the case goes to trial, more family 'secrets' might be exposed because they will have to answer all questions asked on the witness stand or be found in contempt of court and possibly jailed.  (Pack your tissues, Jill, for your big day in court.)  Everything they say in court will be published all over the Internet.

This is why the deposition is going to be so very sweet. They have enough hubris to think they can run a court case like a segment of the Today Show. Not gonna happen.

[Mollie]

9 minutes ago, JoanArc said:

This is why the deposition is going to be so very sweet. They have enough hubris to think they can run a court case like a segment of the Today Show. Not gonna happen.

But, depositions can be made public.  The Duggars cannot be certain at this point if they will be secret.  If some or all of the deposition transcripts are attached as exhibits to documents which are filed with the court, whatever gets filed with the court would be public record.  Also, certain other people are allowed to be in the room when the depositions are given.  In short, since they filed this lawsuit, they can't demand privacy on anything.

[ginger90]

Focus on the Family

Christians and Lawsuits

http://family.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/26133/~/christians-and-lawsuits

[Rabbittron]

I  can see this happening Dumbo's lawyer handing him a menu during the practice deposition saying pick which questions you won't answer.

[JoanArc]

1 hour ago, Mollie said:

But, depositions can be made public.  The Duggars cannot be certain at this point if they will be secret.  If some or all of the deposition transcripts are attached as exhibits to documents which are filed with the court, whatever gets filed with the court would be public record.  Also, certain other people are allowed to be in the room when the depositions are given.  In short, since they filed this lawsuit, they can't demand privacy on anything.

Um, yes? Where did I say they would be private? I meant they think they can control the situation, and they have the upper hand.

[fonfereksglen]

2 hours ago, Mollie said:

But, depositions can be made public.  The Duggars cannot be certain at this point if they will be secret.  If some or all of the deposition transcripts are attached as exhibits to documents which are filed with the court, whatever gets filed with the court would be public record.  Also, certain other people are allowed to be in the room when the depositions are given.  In short, since they filed this lawsuit, they can't demand privacy on anything.

In my experience, the transcript of the depositions belongs to the court reporter/company which the reporter is an employee or subcontractor.  The plaintiff and defendant then order the transcript which is the way the court reporter makes money.  Unless either party requests the depos be sealed, and the court grants this request, anyone who wants to pay for the transcript can request a copy.  However, I can guarantee if this case gets to the depo stage, there will be leaks.  MANY LEAKS.  The only person under oath in the depo is the deponent.  While there is an implied sense of secrecy, I frequently came home an told my husband some of the crazy stuff I heard during depos.  As did anyone else.   Good luck tracing anything.  Additionally, it will be several years before all the pre trial issues are resolved. Finally, I still can not see any financial loss.  That is my two cents.

[hathorlive]

14 hours ago, Churchhoney said:

Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive because we're not only deceptive but deeply deeply confused about literally everything and we're also Duggars, which is just another word for lazy, grifty and stupid. 

Maybe the most interesting thing about all this to me is that, given the demographic realities, this is not going to be the last Hail Mary pass Jim Bob has to attempt. Interested to see what's coming next. I might suggest sending the kids to school and starting a family business that depends on some kind of actual 8 to 5 work, not preening for cameras or land speculation. Or leading souls to Christ when it's only too obvious that you're not any kind of a pastor, just a self-absorbed greedy idiot. 

I can see a set of specials like Rumspringa where they send their kids out "into the real world" to see how shocking it is.  And to film them marveling at nike women and porn.  Or not. . .lol.  I thought their 14 minutes of fame were up but they keep finding that extra minute over and over again.

Edited May 24, 2017 by hathorlive
cause grammar is good.

[toodles]

12 hours ago, Churchhoney said:

Maybe TLC should consider launching a new reality show with all the Duggars. They can call it "Piss Poor Parenting." That way they really could serve as a useful example. Wonder when Jim Bob will be desperate enough for money to go along with that. 

Soon.  Very soon.

[Nysha]

17 minutes ago, hathorlive said:

I can see a set of specials like Rumspringa where they send their kids out "into the real world" to see how shocking it is.  And to film them marveling at nike women and porn.

I would love to watch the single adult Duggars on a Rumspringa trip. How about a crossover show with the Breaking Amish grifters?

[toodles]

6 hours ago, Natalie68 said:

I would hope NO ONE agrees to this.  They are adults who decided to sue someone.  They are going to need to answer questions on the fly on the stand so they better get used to it.  If you are old enough to get married, have kids, file a lawsuit you are old enough to handle surprise questions.  

I am going to sound like a bitch I know but here goes.  They live this crazy uneducated life and are bringing other innocents into it.  They have some mighty skeletons in their closet and now are trying to profit off of them *after* claiming its no big deal, its over (and being totally judgmental assholes in other areas of their lives).  Its time for kid gloves to be off and they be treated just like other adults.  They seem to forget Josh was handsy and inappropriate with someone outside their family.  They shit on her experience by calling it no big deal, over the clothes etc.  So I want them interviewed by someone who will NOT give them questions ahead of time and will treat them like the adults they are.  Not children of Boob and Meechelle.

Like a thousand times.?

[hathorlive]

4 hours ago, JoanArc said:

This is why the deposition is going to be so very sweet. They have enough hubris to think they can run a court case like a segment of the Today Show. Not gonna happen.

And as sad as it is to think that four very unprepared girls are walking into the lion's den, well then,  that's the human sacrifice Jim Bob has made.  I have never seen a single interview where this family wasn't given the same 10 ten questions.  It's going to be a shock when they are asked deeply personal questions about the abuse that their parents never allowed them to think about.  I Just hope they get some real help after the trial because they are going to need it.

5 minutes ago, Nysha said:

I would love to watch the single adult Duggars on a Rumspringa trip. How about a crossover show with the Breaking Amish grifters?

Josh can be their tour guide.  "This is porn.  Act shocked, like you've never seen naked people having sex before".   Now that might be a show worth watching!

[Rabbittron]

http://barentsnova.com/celebrity-news/duggar-family-has-tv-networks-in-bidding-war-over-interview-about-new-sexual-molestation-lawsuit/399 

Can you believe this shit?

[toodles]

24 minutes ago, Rabbittron said:

http://barentsnova.com/celebrity-news/duggar-family-has-tv-networks-in-bidding-war-over-interview-about-new-sexual-molestation-lawsuit/399 

Can you believe this shit?

The article is not exactly flattering.  But I can absolutely 100% believe this shit.

[doodlebug]

If, they are indeed trying to get a TV deal, then it seems clear to me, anyway, that the lawsuit itself is totally a PR move and none of them ever really expect to collect damages from the defendants. When someone is serious about a lawsuit, the first thing their lawyer advises is to never discuss the case anywhere,ever. Even a TV interview with JimBob as puppet master and all questions vetted and approved (which I think the major networks would never allow) is going to provide a large amount of fodder for the defense.

We all saw how the dog and pony show with Megyn Kelly did nothing to mitigate the story, giving another TV interview is not the approach any legal expert would suggest as helpful to the case.

Of course, a lawsuit takes years to wend its way through the courts, about 3 years to come to trial in my jurisdiction and, if the Duggars win at trial, the defendants will appeal and it will take another couple years and lots more legal fees, before they might ever see a dime. 

So, perhaps the lawsuit is just one more cynical money grab by the Duggars meant to up their TV time and get the show renewed now that the endless stream of courtships, weddings, and births is getting old.

[Churchhoney]

38 minutes ago, Rabbittron said:

http://barentsnova.com/celebrity-news/duggar-family-has-tv-networks-in-bidding-war-over-interview-about-new-sexual-molestation-lawsuit/399 

Can you believe this shit?

Ew.

[Churchhoney]

3 hours ago, doodlebug said:

If, they are indeed trying to get a TV deal, then it seems clear to me, anyway, that the lawsuit itself is totally a PR move and none of them ever really expect to collect damages from the defendants. When someone is serious about a lawsuit, the first thing their lawyer advises is to never discuss the case anywhere,ever. Even a TV interview with JimBob as puppet master and all questions vetted and approved (which I think the major networks would never allow) is going to provide a large amount of fodder for the defense.

We all saw how the dog and pony show with Megyn Kelly did nothing to mitigate the story, giving another TV interview is not the approach any legal expert would suggest as helpful to the case.

Of course, a lawsuit takes years to wend its way through the courts, about 3 years to come to trial in my jurisdiction and, if the Duggars win at trial, the defendants will appeal and it will take another couple years and lots more legal fees, before they might ever see a dime. 

So, perhaps the lawsuit is just one more cynical money grab by the Duggars meant to up their TV time and get the show renewed now that the endless stream of courtships, weddings, and births is getting old.

Sounds likely. And as a tv-contract-renewal and/or cash-grabbing ploy, a lawsuit isn't going to be repeatable. 

Here's an idea, Jim Bob. Send the kids to school. Start a family business that doesn't run on Duggar time and is based on labor, not looking cute for cameras, buying crap low and hoping to sell it high after a sloppy repainting, or "ministry." Oh ... and start buying contraception in bulk, not pregnancy tests. 

Edited May 24, 2017 by Churchhoney

[kokapetl]

On 23/05/2017 at 2:58 AM, mimionthebeach said:

I'm a few pages behind in this thread, but here's my take, with the usual proviso that IANAL. Apologies if these points have already been articulated.

The records that were released were investigative reports/interviews that did not lead to charges and were therefore not sealed. My understanding is that the city was thus compelled to release them in accordance with the FOIA request. The resulting media explosion led to Josh resigning/losing his job and being outed as a complete and utter hypocrite with respect to his family values positions. Mr. and Mrs. Perfect Parents were also revealed to have consumed large dishes of hypocrisy, especially Jim Boob, given his campaign stance that rape and incest should be a capital crimes. The outrage seemed to me to be about harboring a sexual predator, never getting him or his victims adequate help and proceeding to invite cameras into their home to hold themselves up as paragons of godly virtue. I, myself, also had tremendous issues with the breeders going on to have so many more children, once it was obvious they were failing the ones they already had.

These were the reasons TLC, after "much consideration", cancelled the show. Not because the girls involved were his sisters.

So, had the police reports been redacted to the point that the public only knew Josh assaulted 5 very young girls, but not that 4 of them were his sisters, and that efforts had been made to protect him from legal consequences, would that have materially altered public response and the pressure TLC felt to cancel the show?

The girls are suing for damages, alleging loss of income. But they're the ones who got the new show; they get the magazine covers, exclusive contracts for their weddings and breeding; they have the social media following. I'm not unsympathetic to the pain the outing of their victimhood would have caused them (despite the fact that 2 of them outed themselves and denied they were victims), but it doesn't seem to have hurt the plaintiffs materially. (If the kidults have chosen to hand over all proceeds to a Duggar trust, managed by their umbrella, that's on them.) The reputational and material backlash from the release of the police reports has hit their parents and, mostly, Josh. 

I'm struggling to see the merits of their case.

If I seem naive, I must acknowledge that I'm Canadian and therefore not as well-versed as some of my southern neighbours may be with a culture of apparently frivolous litigation. No offense intended.

Stuff like this is probably also unfamiliar because it wouldn't happen in Canada, I'm almost certain a Canadian publisher would never attempt something similar to what InTouch did in the first place, publishing identifying information about child sexual assault victims, it would be unlawful.

[kokapetl]

23 hours ago, bigskygirl said:

JD is a volunteer constable who was elected into the position. This can and possibly will bite him in the behind. His sisters and parents are suing a law enforcement department. The actions of officers' families reflects on them 24/7/365. I find it hypocritical JB does not mind one of his sons being in the law enforcement field, but he is quick to sue over a family secret brought on because of his famewhoring and calling out other people because they do not share his beliefs. As long as they give him what he wants, he is fine and dandy with them, but God help you if he thinks you have double crossed him. Plus the fact he and JD made a mockery of police departments in the one episode where they were trying to prove what a great catch JD is. I cannot to this day understand why the local law enforcement agency JD is a part of would okay this stupidity. It made him look bad, and the rest of the department look bad also. I guess they really must be hard up for constables if the people where the Duggars live vote him in. I also wonder if JB wanted one of his sons in the department so he can find out what is going on in the local community via the two Josh scandals.

And I hope people will start calling out the Duggars on their hypocritical beliefs of gays, lesbians and certain other groups are child molesters when their oldest son was molested four of his sisters, and they did a crappy job dealing with the whole incident. I would love for these terrible heathens to sue them for calling them child molesters because they are not the outstanding, blessed, special season of life Duggars. In fact, I have a cousin who is gay. Maybe I should sue the Duggars for him. Where is my DONATE button to start collecting funds for the law suit.

You're conflating the plaintiffs with other members of their family. The court won't. 

[MichaelaRae]

Bigskygirl is not saying that the court would. The point is that regardless of what the court does, law enforcement tends to be a very tightknit community with their own customs and mores. JD is in law enforcement and his immediately family is suing a law enforcement agency. This could be frowned upon by LE officers in the community, who could see his family as attacking law enforcement and shun JD as a result. I've seen it happen with the blue line for far less.

[LilJen]

2 hours ago, Rabbittron said:

http://barentsnova.com/celebrity-news/duggar-family-has-tv-networks-in-bidding-war-over-interview-about-new-sexual-molestation-lawsuit/399 

Can you believe this shit?

I would LOVE it if all the networks bidding for this "interview" agreed to a very low price AND the right to go off-script with unprepared questions.

[JoanArc]

43 minutes ago, LilJen said:

I would LOVE it if all the networks bidding for this "interview" agreed to a very low price AND the right to go off-script with unprepared questions.

I'd like a live interview with a halfway prepared interviewer. Maybe an audience to ask questions, and follow up on the answerers.

[lookeyloo]

Or would never agree to those terms in the first place.

[Churchhoney]

5 minutes ago, PoshSprinkles said:

Megyn Kelly tried to follow up during her interview. She asked JB a few times how he felt as a father about his daughters being violated/how did he think his daughters felt and he refused to answer the question. I imagine any interview they do will be similar to this. They'll just refuse to answer or give a non-answer to anything they don't want to discuss. 

Absolutely. You can cajole and hammer and wheedle and slam some people with follow-up questions until your tongue falls out and you will never ever ever ever ever get a responsive answer. Deflection. Deflection. Non-response. Blinking silence. Obfuscating ramble. Lather rinse repeat. 

The only way to stop them from getting their mugs on tv to say whatever they want to say while presenting whatever image they want to present is not to let them on tv. Of course the networks know this perfectly well, but they don't care because they'll bring in some eyeballs.

Plus, the TeeVee folks in general have absolutely no qualms about lionizing these hideous parents and covering up their hideous cult behavior for years, letting them deflect forever all the problems that they ought to own up to by casting blame (some deserved, some likely not) onto other people while lying industriously to make sure they meet this goal, or helping these fame-hungry, mega-irresponsible, money-grubbing parents expose the already warped-by-a-cult Duggar kids to further hideous warping as "reality-teevee stahs."

So on tv they'll go once again. To be paid -- by the highest damn bidder -- for a completely bogus, lying-ass worthless "interview." Lovely.

Edited May 24, 2017 by Churchhoney

[PikaScrewChu]

I wonder what the lawyer representing them thinks of them trying to get a TV interview that will probably involve talking about the lawsuit after filing a lawsuit.

[kokapetl]

Why does Bauer Media keep getting sued?

[bigskygirl]

2 hours ago, MichaelaRae said:

Bigskygirl is not saying that the court would. The point is that regardless of what the court does, law enforcement tends to be a very tightknit community with their own customs and mores. JD is in law enforcement and his immediately family is suing a law enforcement agency. This could be frowned upon by LE officers in the community, who could see his family as attacking law enforcement and shun JD as a result. I've seen it happen with the blue line for far less.

This is exactly what I mean. Thank you @MichaelaRae  I often wonder what JD's follow officers think of him. I would not be surprise if they think less of him because of his family actions. I hope he is not called on more serious calls aka domestic abuse calls where a woman is being beaten or sexual assaulted because of his narrow mind thinking she deserves it. Also, he had at least one of sisters go with him when he was a volunteer fireman/EMT. I could imagine going on calls with him, and one of his sisters tagging along because a heathen female victim may turn her charms on him in order to cause him to do an evil act on her.

[Churchhoney]

24 minutes ago, Kokapetl said:

Why does Bauer Media keep getting sued?

Because they have hundreds and hundreds of outlets that churn out content 24 hours a day 7 days a week and in today's absurd media environment there will be editors some of them who'll be desperate to bring in eyeballs and careless enough to fail to do enough checking?

And they're hardly the only media who get sued. 

Plus -- TLC has lied through its teeth about the Duggars for YEARS. But their lies all cast the crap family in a good light. And totally ignore their tight connection to molesting lying thieving brainwashing Gothard. Or all the stuff that TLC most likely knew or at least strongly suspected about what had gone down in the Duggar household in the years immediately proceeding their being cast as The Waltons II.  So they can spout their dangerous malarkey to millions of people and viciously emotionally abuse children in plain sight while everybody gives 'em tongue baths for it. But nobody'll get sued for those deliberate lies. And TLC, too, is just doing it for the eyeballs. 

And the TLC lies? HORRIBLE for society as well as horrible for the kids in that family, even though said kids are too brainwashed to know it, in my opinion. Absolutely sick and wrong to portray a family run by insane evil parents who are in an insane evil cult as some sweet fairy tale. Sick and dangerous for others. But of course the crap parents aren't going to sue the network. They love what the network's doing. And I don't have standing. Because if I did -- I'd sue them. I know what parents like that do to people. It's hellish for a lifetime. And they've been depicted -- by a network at which somebody clearly must have known better -- as a little cotton-candy dream. 

So criminal negligence vs. criminal deliberate lying. Both bad. But one gets you sued and the other gets you your millions. 

Edited May 24, 2017 by Churchhoney

[kokapetl]

Just now, bigskygirl said:

This is exactly what I mean. Thank you @MichaelaRae  I often wonder what JD's follow officers think of him. I would not be surprise if they think less of him because of his family actions. I hope he is not called on more serious calls aka domestic abuse calls where a woman is being beaten or sexual assaulted because of his narrow mind thinking she deserves it. Also, he had at least one of sisters go with him when he was a volunteer fireman/EMT. I could imagine going on calls with him, and one of his sisters tagging along because a heathen female victim may turn her charms on him in order to cause him to do an evil act on her.

You don't know how John-David thinks. He's a man of few words. There's no logic to such a claim. 

8 minutes ago, Churchhoney said:

Because they have hundreds and hundreds of outlets that churn out content 24 hours a day 7 days a week and in today's absurd media environment there will be editors some of them who'll be desperate to bring in eyeballs and careless enough to fail to do enough checking?

And they're hardly the only media who get sued. 

Plus -- TLC has lied through its teeth about the Duggars for YEARS. But their lies all cast the crap family in a good light. And totally ignore their tight connection to molesting lying thieving brainwashing Gothard. Or all the stuff that TLC most likely knew or at least strongly suspected about what had gone down in the Duggar household in the years immediately proceeding their being cast as The Waltons II.  So they can spout their dangerous malarkey to millions of people and viciously emotionally abuse children in plain sight while everybody gives 'em tongue baths for it. But nobody'll get sued for those deliberate lies. And TLC, too, is just doing it for the eyeballs. 

And the TLC lies? HORRIBLE for society as well as horrible for the kids in that family, even though said kids are too brainwashed to know it, in my opinion. Absolutely sick and wrong to portray a family run by insane evil parents who are in an insane evil cult as some sweet fairy tale. Sick and dangerous for others. But of course the crap parents aren't going to sue the network. They love what the network's doing. And I don't have standing. Because if I did -- I'd sue them. I know what parents like that do to people. It's hellish for a lifetime. And they've been depicted -- by a network at which somebody clearly must have known better -- as a little cotton-candy dream. 

So criminal negligence vs. criminal deliberate lying. Both bad. But one gets you sued and the other gets you your millions. 

"Criminal deliberate lying"? False statements to police or perjury? The Plaintiffs are figuratively pure as the driven snow.

[Churchhoney]

26 minutes ago, Kokapetl said:

Why does Bauer Media keep getting sued?

I'm not saying that In Touch shouldn't necessarily be sued or pay money. 

I'm saying that Jim Bob is using this -- and the many other accusations he's used over time, such as the ones accusing the sheriff of taking bribes -- to deflect from himself any and all blame for the severe problems that occurred, over a quite along time period, inhis home.

And he's using it not only to deflect all the blame in the eyes of the public but, worse, to deflect any blame that his children, if finally awakened, might realize he should bear. That's what grinds my gears.

If he had ever for one minute been able to be truthful about his, Josh's, and Michelle's, (and probably Holt's and some others) roles in this and accepted that there was blame and problems that needed fixing in connection with those people, I wouldn't be upset about this lawsuit at all. But I know for a damn fact that, as a person who will not accept an iota of blame for himself, he's now looking at the possibility of getting tens of millions of dollars because of other people's flaws -- including those of the police department, who were clearly not malicious but inexperienced and negligent at worst -- and dancing off with it while continuing to portray himself as bearing absolutely no responsibility whatever for any of the Josh problem. 

So while I know that it has nothing to do with the justice in the legal case, I continue to say that the justice of the universe is really really being messed up if he gets a bunch of money and continues to dodge all blame in his children's eyes and the eyes of his leghumpers, while other people who were to blame for likely somewhat smaller things have to fork over that money into his greedy fists. ..... 

There were harms that followed from the first harm. But the first harm -- that's on Jim Bob and Michelle. 

[bigskygirl]

1 minute ago, Kokapetl said:

You don't know how John-David thinks. He's a man of few words. There's no logic to such a claim. 

True, but he was raised to believe it is or was the woman's fault aka it is Anna's fault Josh was cheating on her and looking at porn, and it was his sister's fault because they tempted Josh to molested them. I doubt he is going out or assisting on serious calls as a volunteer since it takes more specialized training and experience.

[JoanArc]

1 hour ago, PoshSprinkles said:

Megyn Kelly tried to follow up during her interview. She asked JB a few times how he felt as a father about his daughters being violated/how did he think his daughters felt and he refused to answer the question. I imagine any interview they do will be similar to this. They'll just refuse to answer or give a non-answer to anything they don't want to discuss. 

Good point, I should've said with a dogged interviewer. Non-answers are telling, too.

 

Quote

I hope he is not called on more serious calls aka domestic abuse calls where a woman is being beaten or sexual assaulted because of his narrow mind thinking she deserves it.

Do constables even handle this kind of thing? He's not a police officer.

Edited May 24, 2017 by JoanArc

[kokapetl]

Just now, Churchhoney said:

I'm not saying that In Touch shouldn't necessarily be sued or pay money. 

I'm saying that Jim Bob is using this -- and the many other accusations he's used over time, such as the ones accusing the sheriff of taking bribes -- to deflect from himself any and all blame for the severe problems that occurred, over a quite along time period, inhis home.

And he's using it not only to deflect all the blame in the eyes of the public but, worse, to deflect any blame that his children, if finally awakened, might realize he should bear. That's what grinds my gears.

If he had ever for one minute been able to be truthful about his, Josh's, and Michelle's, (and probably Holt's and some others) roles in this and accepted that there was blame and problems that needed fixing in connection with those people, I wouldn't be upset about this lawsuit at all. But I know for a damn fact that, as a person who will not accept an iota of blame for himself, he's now looking at the possibility of getting tens of millions of dollars because of other people's flaws -- including those of the police department, who were clearly not malicious but inexperienced and negligent at worst -- and dancing off with it while continuing to portray himself as bearing absolutely no responsibility whatever for any of the Josh problem. 

So while I know that it has nothing to do with the justice in the legal case, I continue to say that the justice of the universe is really really being messed up if he gets a bunch of money and continues to dodge all blame in his children's eyes and the eyes of his leghumpers, while other people who were to blame for likely somewhat smaller things have to fork over that money into his greedy fists. ..... 

There were harms that followed from the first harm. But the first harm -- that's on Jim Bob and Michelle. 

But "they were already damaged" isn't an excuse for media to treat the plaintiffs the way they did. 

[Churchhoney]

5 minutes ago, Kokapetl said:

You don't know how John-David thinks. He's a man of few words. There's no logic to such a claim. 

"Criminal deliberate lying"? False statements to police or perjury? The Plaintiffs are figuratively pure as the driven snow.

You're not reading very well today. Look again. I was clearly talking about TLC -- the MEDIA outlet. . I never said or implied word one about the Duggar girls. 

But Jim Bob and Michelle and their god Gothard -- Yeah, in their case "deliberate evil lying," too. 

[kokapetl]

4 minutes ago, bigskygirl said:

True, but he was raised to believe it is or was the woman's fault aka it is Anna's fault Josh was cheating on her and looking at porn, and it was his sister's fault because they tempted Josh to molested them. I doubt he is going out or assisting on serious calls as a volunteer since it takes more specialized training and experience.

He went on the (TV) TLC record and renounced the respect he once had for Josh. 

[kokapetl]

14 minutes ago, Churchhoney said:

You're not reading very well today. Look again. I was clearly talking about TLC -- the MEDIA outlet. . I never said or implied word one about the Duggar girls. 

But Jim Bob and Michelle and their god Gothard -- Yeah, in their case "deliberate evil lying," too. 

Background checks are not something that normal people do on children, so I've never believed that TLC knew anything about Josh. They wouldn't have knowingly let him have all that screen time, or followed him to D.C. if they did.

Edited May 24, 2017 by Kokapetl

[lascuba]

7 minutes ago, Kokapetl said:

He went on the (TV) TLC record and renounced the respect he once had for Josh. 

For cheating, not for the molestations.

[Churchhoney]

Just now, Kokapetl said:

But "they were already damaged" isn't an excuse for media to treat the plaintiffs the way they did. 

You really aren't reading well today. 

I've said numerous times that I have no probably with suing In Tough and the police and having them pay money if that's how it comes down. I am not excusing other people's wrongs.

However -- frigging Jim Bob is clearly using this -- as he's used similar arguments all along -- to totally excuse himself and his creepy wife and sometimes his creepy son as well for the terrible terrible things they've done to all of their children and continue to do. Since this whole mess began, he's been pointing fingers at everyone as a way of deflecting any and all blame from himself. I don't mean that that has anything to do with the lawsuit. However, it has everything to do with the truths about the Duggar family

And you know what? Down the line, as their lives go on, what's really really really going to fuck up the Duggar girls isn't their being outed in In Touch. It's going to be the hideous warping they got from birth at the hands of their parents. And a whole lot of that warping has taken place during and after the Josh mess. 

I'm not talking about the lawsuit. I'm talking about the whole story. And, frankly, it just makes me a little sick that JIm Bob may get more money because of other people's wrongs. Not in terms of the lawsuit. But in terms of right and wrong in the larger sense. 

It's what the PR agent the Duggars tried to hire back in 2015 said caused him to refuse to take Jim Bob as a client. That JB simply has no willingness to admit for one second his own role in the problems. The fact that somebody like that -- who started the problem ball rolling -- might walk away with this with millions of dollars gleaned from other participants while still taking zero blame himself that I think also needs to be paid attention to and acknowledged as we look at this whole story -- As here 

'Fderick explained that his clients go through an intense vetting process to determine whether they are capable of being helped and whether it's worth the company's investment. Despite rumors that he was hired to help the Duggars get through the scandal, Frederick said things did not work out with the Duggar family for reasons he could not reveal.

'Hesaid that his firm looks for clients who have: "a willingness to admit fault, transparency, willingness to want to change. … Especially with our Christian clients, repentance is critical. This isn't our first time doing this, we know when something's going to work out and when it's not."'

Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/christian-pr-expert-says-josh-duggars-apology-is-not-enough-to-satisfy-sexual-molestation-scandal-139688/#vz0z40lC2OXoaoEF.99

[Churchhoney]

1 minute ago, Kokapetl said:

Background checks are not something that normal people do on children, so I've never believed that TLC knew anything about Josh. They wouldn't have knowingly let him have all that screen time, or followed him to D.C. if they did.

Aybody who had any sense could have easily seen that there was something very wrong with the Duggar family, just from those damn handmaiden photos alone. Jim Bob Duggar was sleaze and nuttiness personified and many people knew it. And TLC portrayed that family as some kind of perfection. That wasn't their first rodeo and they had every reason to do background checks to see if they were worth all that worship. And since they were adults, they should have known that it was very unlikely that anybody would be. 

I'm opposed to people being willfully ignorant of emotional child abuse when there are signs of it all over the place. And then going on to put those people on television as role models. Which TLC clearly did. And yeah, that isn't in the letter of any law anywhere. Can't be, obviously. But there are a lot of evils  that are too complicated to be prosecutable. That doesn't make them any less evil, in my opinion. 

[kokapetl]

I thought this topic was for Duggars who are in the media, currently the plaintiffs suing the City of Springdale, Washington County, and InTouch/Bauer media.  

Edited May 24, 2017 by Kokapetl