Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

The Duggars: In the Media and TLC

Null 302

By Null 302
in Counting On

Guest

As a reminder, the site's Politics Policy remains in effect.  Yes, Jim Bob is apparently running for office again. That does not make it an acceptable topic of conversation in here - unless for some mysterious reason, TLC brings the show back and it is discussed on there. Even then, it would be limited to how it was discussed on the show.

If you have any questions, please PM the mods, @SCARLETT45 and myself.

  • Reply
  • Start Topic

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 13k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

cmr2014
cmr2014

I was thinking about this and the idea that the girls weren't "harmed" and weren't "damaged goods" which led me to realize that ALL of the Duggar children are "damaged goods" and I think that's becomi

Churchhoney
Churchhoney

They put themselves on tv and have proclaimed over and over and over and over again that their way of life is the way to ensure that your children are totally safe from every evil of the world, and in

WhitneyWhit
WhitneyWhit

I don't know where to post this but I fucking met Michelle Duggar. Let me set the scene. So my cousin is getting married and we were at a shop looking at dresses here in Kentucky when the Duggars marc

Posted Images

Missy Vixen

Missy Vixen

I smell a coordinated PR effort. I can't imagine it's by TLC, so I'm wondering if there's another channel in the mix now. Someone mentioned CMT the other day; the Duggars would fit right in with Dog & Beth, wouldn't they?

 

I'm LOVING the fact that the "leaker" in question (and I'm wondering if that leaker is none other than Jessa Duggar Seewald) throws some big shade at ol' Jim Boob. One can only imagine what the past two months have been like at the TTH. For all of the "wisdom" they learned from Gothard, they don't have enough common sense to come in from the rain.

 

One more thing: The Duggars demanding to be "consultants" on the child molestation documentary? Uh, no. And if RAINN and Darkness to Light allow it, they're insane. The Duggars continue to peddle the fiction there was no effect on the family and those molested as a result of Smuggar's behavior.

  • Love 3
Hana Chan

Hana Chan

There doesn't have to be another network involved. I have no doubt that the Duggars have their own PR representation. Given their "celebrity" status and their political "relevance", they would not be dependent upon TLC for their extracurricular activities. Anyone in their shoes would have their own representation.

 

They have a seriously vested interest in keeping themselves in the public eye. First, I have no doubt that they've grown dependent on the financial benefit of being on television and having their every utterance and procreational activity in full public view. Those gaudy anniversary rings don't come cheap. Not to mention the fact that they've got a whole passel of children who are undereducated and completely incapable of supporting themselves (and their future oversized families) by themselves. As much money as JimBoob has squirreled away, it's not going to last forever.

 

Then you also have the fact that they've set themselves up as the darlings of the ultra-conservative wing of the Republican party (who want to replace the American flag with a picture of a fetus). It's got to be a huge ego boost to have Huckabee and his ilk rushing to them and asking their support. If they loose their standing in the public eye, their political importance falls as well.

  • Love 5
Defrauder

Defrauder

Why is TLC even featuring the Duggars' in a special about abuse? J'Chelle and Boob feel that Smuggar did nothing wrong, and all should be forgiven. This is not the right message to be portraying.  Just axe the Duggars' all together, TLC. We've had enough.

Right because as far as the Duggars claim it was a mistake made by a a boy who was just a little too curious about girls.  

  • Love 2
Churchhoney

Churchhoney

I smell a coordinated PR effort. I can't imagine it's by TLC, so I'm wondering if there's another channel in the mix now. Someone mentioned CMT the other day; the Duggars would fit right in with Dog & Beth, wouldn't they?

 

 

I think they should go to Animal Planet. I envision a new show called "My Cat Owner from Hell." I'd like to see Jackson Galaxy kick their asses on a weekly basis. He might be willing to go after them for their treatment of dogs and children, too.

Google cached Instagram pages don't work, and if they did, the image would still be hosted on an Instagram server, so they would know you viewed it.

 

Don't they? I have no idea, since I almost never look at instagram. ... Well, at least all those friends now know how to get cached versions of stuff that does allow itself to be cached!

  • Love 2
HumblePi

HumblePi

Why is TLC even featuring the Duggars' in a special about abuse? J'Chelle and Boob feel that Smuggar did nothing wrong, and all should be forgiven. This is not the right message to be portraying.  Just axe the Duggars' all together, TLC. We've had enough.

That's exactly the same question I posed in an earlier post. It would seem to be very contradictory after the way they downplayed any inappropriate touching when they were young, even denying they were aware of it, in the Meghan Kelly interview. And to profess in a documentary to have been sexually molested or give 'sage advice' to other people that have been sexually abused will only make them appear to be playing for television exposure. If they plan to do that in a documentary about child sexual abuse, then shame on them. It's only to keep their names and faces in the spotlight.

  • Love 4
kokapetl

kokapetl

(edited)

Don't they? I have no idea, since I almost never look at instagram. ... Well, at least all those friends now know how to get cached versions of stuff that does allow itself to be cached!

I tried it in Chrome and an older version of Internet Explorer, and the page either redirected to a "login to see" Instagram page, or got stuck in an endless redirect loop.

When I post pics from Instagram on here, I've had them uploaded to tinypic.com. Instagram seem really anal about preventing people from viewing their hosted content the "wrong" way.

I'm almost certain Instagram's robot.txt file prevents archive.org from archiving their pages. Anyone interested in viewing the old TWoP Duggar forum can find it here on archive.org

Edited by Kokapetl
  • Love 1
Churchhoney

Churchhoney

I tried it in Chrome and an older version of Internet Explorer, and the page either redirected to a "login to see" Instagram page, or got stuck in an endless redirect loop.

When I post pics from Instagram on here, I've had them uploaded to tinypic.com. Instagram seem really anal about preventing people from viewing their hosted content the "wrong" way.

I'm almost certain Instagram's robot.txt file prevents archive.org from archiving their pages. Anyone interested in viewing the old TWoP Duggar forum can find it here on archive.org

 

Not surprising, i suppose. Gotta own  all that stuff, because who knows? One day we might figure out something to do with people's billions of snapshots!

 

The endless redirect loop would be a way to prevent it without actually preventing it, I guess .... You could still see them if you have really really really fast eyes. Like, if you're a fly, perhaps.

  • Love 1
HundFan

HundFan

(edited)

Thanks, Kokapetl, for the Instagram help, though it's not good news since it means the Duggars will inevitably know when I look at one of their Instagrams.

 

What a ​Sophie's Choice my interest in this unclean brood has wrought! Six months past, no one was the wiser (well, except you guys and my goldens) when I watched and obsessed over 19-21 Kids & Whatever. I loved and loathed every Duggar detail (for ex: my lengthy analysis last month of the mystery "penis/appendage" in the Jerick anniversary photo, a topic I still believe requires resolution).

 

Granted, I always watched late at night, drapes drawn and dogs sworn to silence, but I'll cop to routinely savoring the Boob, MEchelle and fruit of their loins slop as much as any fan. From the get-go, I found these people from a planet that's not mine beyond fascinating - and I couldn't and didn't want to look away. Then they had to go all criminal and amoral and even more stupid than we ever thought they could be. So they got themselves cancelled (and rightly so) ... and now here we are.

 

Quelle mess. Because they fucked up, I now need to actually work to hide my virtual tracks (in those cases where that's even possible) so my liberal fascination with their reactionary strangeness doesn't result in a careless, prurient click by me that they can then use as proof they're still popular. The Duggars have clearly misunderstood the nature of our relationship. Because to me they were the Cheetos and a Coke in bed late at night. The guilty yet sublime pleasure I didn't have to explain. 

 

But if I have to work to stay in this relationship, like I did when I gave up my absolute, favorite food - tuna - for 10 long years (way before I was vegetarian) to protest the by-catch killing of dolphins during tuna trawling, I may have to seriously rethink our future. Talkin' to you Hairspray, Womb, Gelatinous Molester, Denial-Ain't-A-River Sisters and the Captive Minions. You just ruin everything, don't you?

 

Edited by HundFan
  • Love 22
parisprincess

parisprincess

(edited)

Since God is a Tee Vee programer, can He find a way to bring back Joan of Arcadia?  I would think that would be right up His alley.

 

And while He's at it, maybe He could bring Zeke back to life and give me back one of my favorite shows, Parenthood.

 

On topic, I can't believe TLC is letting ANY of the Duggars anywhere near a show about sexual abuse.  Even though they cancelled 10KAC, JimBob must have something on them in order for them not to kick the whole damn family to the curb all together forever.

Edited by parisprincess
  • Love 2
Churchhoney

Churchhoney

 

Since God is a Tee Vee programer, can He find a way to bring back Joan of Arcadia?  I would think that would be right up His alley.

How about Eli Stone? The staffs of those spiritually oriented shows have a legitimate beef with God, I'd say. He's been very lax in letting them get canceled, despite all the attention he seems to pay to American television.

Julia

Julia

(edited)

I want SGA back. I can't understand why an interventionist supreme being would have allowed Universe to happen.

 

Which is off-topic. So, on topic, I'll just say that I'm not clear what the theology is behind thinking that their show being cancelled because they protected a predator is not god's will and women being infected with HIV because condoms would mean non-procreative sex is.

Edited by Julia
  • Love 6
Marigny

Marigny

So Jim Bob gets to say No to the spin off? If TLC sat down with Jill and Derick in El Salvador and asked to film them and gave them a contract , would they really have to call Jim Bob or have him involved in anyway? they are 24 and 26, should they not be able to sign their own contract? I see it being harder with Ben and Jessa since they live in grandma's house but again they are adults and can sign for themselves.

 

I wonder if the original contract which was for the Duggar family as a whole keeps all members under contract with or without episodes for a certain period of time and the only way out is for Jim Bob to release the 4? The Roloffs and Kate were under contract after the show went off the air for 12-18 months, so they couldn't go film with another network but were getting very little from TLC.

 

No matter how long they're married, how old they get or how many children of their own they may pop out, Boob will never release the tator tot throne. The dynamics of that family are set up in a way that when folks marry in, they basically add a J to the front of their names and submit to Jim Bob. Ben and Derrick being headships is only an illusion. No matter how much Blessa may want a spin off, I can't imagine her being bold enough to go against Jim Bob like that. Could you imagine the tension that would cause? 

  • Love 7
Vermicious Knid

Vermicious Knid

You didn't hear this from me...

 

Check bugmenot.com, where people post logins for non-paid sites so anyone can use them without having to register themselves.

 

Whistles nonchalantly while turning the corner

 

More on topic, I read an article on the BBC website about how sexual abuse is handled internally in these insular religious communities. The subject of the story was the Jehovah's Witnesses in the UK, and the victim was trying to have her abuser punished. So not quite the same but their procedures sound very similar to what the Duggars did, minus an accuser. Also the name of the molester is very close to a Duggar family member.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-33609927

  • Love 4
kokapetl

kokapetl

You didn't hear this from me...

Check bugmenot.com, where people post logins for non-paid sites so anyone can use them without having to register themselves.

Whistles nonchalantly while turning the corner

More on topic, I read an article on the BBC website about how sexual abuse is handled internally in these insular religious communities. The subject of the story was the Jehovah's Witnesses in the UK, and the victim was trying to have her abuser punished. So not quite the same but their procedures sound very similar to what the Duggars did, minus an accuser. Also the name of the molester is very close to a Duggar family member.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-33609927

Are the Duggars actually devout members of a particular religious sect? Gothard and co seemed to keep the family at arms length because JimBob is as dumb as dog shit, and from the tiny amount of info the show revealed about the Duggars church routines, JimBob has them going to leaderless meetups with like-minded families, as "church".
  • Love 2
Churchhoney

Churchhoney

No matter how much Blessa may want a spin off, I can't imagine her being bold enough to go against Jim Bob like that. Could you imagine the tension that would cause? 

 

Sad and ironic. Since, boy, would she ever get a spinoff if she offered to rebel.

 

Would be great if one of them were smart enough to figure this out. Especially because a lot of them are going to have to see the wisdom of moving away from JimBob eventually. Hard to see how they'll all eat in years to come, otherwise. JB's clearly not smart, hardworking or lucky enough to feed a small town in perpetuity. And I can't imagine that recent events are going to make it any easier for him to earn money, in the long run.

  • Love 2
GEML

GEML

But what does"rebel" mean? Wearing pants? Getting drunk and weepy at a party? Becoming an atheist and being obnoxious on Twitter towards Christians the way she is to atheists now? Cutting her hair into a pixie?

The thing is, a lot rebellious things aren't very exciting to watch (I should know) but she's also a married woman with a child on the way. For better or worse, I'm not really excited to watch her put that child's life aside so she can prance around as a TV star "finding herself" How is that any different from her own mother?

  • Love 6
Aja

Aja

But what does"rebel" mean? Wearing pants? Getting drunk and weepy at a party? Becoming an atheist and being obnoxious on Twitter towards Christians the way she is to atheists now? Cutting her hair into a pixie?

The thing is, a lot rebellious things aren't very exciting to watch (I should know) but she's also a married woman with a child on the way. For better or worse, I'm not really excited to watch her put that child's life aside so she can prance around as a TV star "finding herself" How is that any different from her own mother?

Jessa "rebelling" could be as simple and straightforward as distancing herself from her family. Whatever that means to her. Very true that a random, young wife and mother trying to navigate her way out of a FUBARed family dynamic probably wouldn't make for an exciting TV show, unless you knew her personally. Which, in Jessa's case, we kind of do. I think lots of folks would be interested in that kind of show, particularly given what we all know what she has been through, and given that we have watched her perform for the cameras since she was a little girl. While her and her dipshit husband's current Instagram tent-meeting crap is entertaining to snark on, I don't think there's a single one of us who doesn't genuinely feel for Jessa--or any one of the kids (apart from Josh)--and would be extremely supportive in our internets kind of way. You do make a good point about her turning into Michelle Jr., though. Sadly, in reality, that's probably what would happen.

  • Love 4
GEML

GEML

I've watched dozens of men and women leave fundamentalism after their children were born. That's the worst of all worlds, if it means she's going to experience a secular adolescence that she believes all teenagers had and she missed out on. One of the hardest things to accept about rebelling is how boring most "heathens" really are.

  • Love 4
Churchhoney

Churchhoney

(edited)

But what does"rebel" mean? Wearing pants? Getting drunk and weepy at a party? Becoming an atheist and being obnoxious on Twitter towards Christians the way she is to atheists now? Cutting her hair into a pixie?

The thing is, a lot rebellious things aren't very exciting to watch (I should know) but she's also a married woman with a child on the way. For better or worse, I'm not really excited to watch her put that child's life aside so she can prance around as a TV star "finding herself" How is that any different from her own mother?

 

Yeah, I agree. But even though I might not want to watch her, I'm pretty sure that TLC -- or somebody -- would jump at the chance to film it. I can see them doing a "Breaking Anything" from "Breaking the Convent" to "Breaking the Brothel" or "Breaking the Democratic Party" to "Breaking CitiBank." Don't the networks love that kind of stuff? After all, a "rebel" show always has both internal and external conflict, often of the most intense kind. Plus, it's got the "Englishman in New York" thing going, too.

 

In Jessa's case, I wasn't thinking "bad girl," though. I was thinking more along the lines of -- Go to college or a career or tech school, get a job and enjoy having it and have only one kid.... while Ben becomes a skeptic, goes back to school and states his ambition to be working in the lab of a company trying to develop effective male contraceptives. I did conveniently forget that they already have a kid, though, which certainly does complicate things. When I left my home, I didn't grab onto my lost childhood and adolescence by doing wild fun that I thought I'd missed out on, but I was a volatile emotional wreck for years, which of course would also be bad for a kid (then again, lots of people who haven't left anything are volatile emotional wrecks while having kids ...)

Edited by Churchhoney
  • Love 3
kokapetl

kokapetl

(edited)

http://www.intouchweekly.com/posts/duggar-investigation-text-messages-64087

New Documents Reveal Duggar Family Threatened the City of Springdale with 'Embarrassing' Lawsuit

Considering InTouch used a malicious couple looking to embarrass the Duggars, and a local law firm to get the original police documents, what's their problem? That they won't have more lurid details about Duggar child sexual abuse victims to sell their magazines? Edited by Kokapetl
Churchhoney

Churchhoney

http://www.intouchweekly.com/posts/duggar-investigation-text-messages-64087

New Documents Reveal Duggar Family Threatened the City of Springdale with 'Embarrassing' Lawsuit

 

Jim Bob hired a lawyer named "crass"?

 

And his new earning plan is to sue people for things they did that were probably legal and hope they pay him off so he'll go away? I don't know how well that's going to work.

  • Love 16
kokapetl

kokapetl

(edited)

Jim Bob hired a lawyer named "crass"?

And his new earning plan is to sue people for things they did that were probably legal and hope they pay him off so he'll go away? I don't know how well that's going to work.

I think his aim would be to stop what happened with InTouch magazine from happening again. InTouch's lawyers made that happen, so lawyers are JimBob's best bet to stop it. Edited by Kokapetl
Churchhoney

Churchhoney

I think his aim would be to stop what happened with InTouch magazine from happening again. InTouch's lawyers made that happen, so lawyers are JimBob's best bet to stop it.

 

So you mean that there are probably additional Duggar skeletons stashed in filed documents around Arkansas, and he hopes to use the fear of lawsuits to keep people from releasing them, even if it would be a legal requirement to do so under FOIA, if somebody made a request?

 

Could be. But I'm not sure how much that would accomplish either. I don't really see that the city has a tremendous amount to lose in this suit. They have their own lawyers, so it won't cost them much. And if some judge determines that the release was illegal -- although it doesn't look to this non-lawyer that it was, given what's in the Arkansas statute that I've seen -- then I guess they'd have to pay some damages, I guess. But how much would those be, considering that even a judge who declared the release illegal would have to see that the law was darned fuzzy on the point, and that the city's release procedure doesn't really look malicious or negligent -- just a different reading of a fuzzy law. Plus, their having to pay damages would only deter releases that also were in the gray areas of the FOIA law -- and those seem to mostly surround stuff with children involved. And I sure hope that any other Duggar skeletons don't involve children but involve finances or something.

  • Love 6
Missy Vixen

Missy Vixen

Only an idiot would threaten to sue when there is no good reason to do so. Does Jim Boob think if he sues enough people for obeying existing laws, he's going to get his show back on the air?

 

Also, this is my opinion, but Jim Boob just confirmed there's more. And someone either has access to it or knows where (and what) it is.

  • Love 21
kokapetl

kokapetl

So you mean that there are probably additional Duggar skeletons stashed in filed documents around Arkansas, and he hopes to use the fear of lawsuits to keep people from releasing them, even if it would be a legal requirement to do so under FOIA, if somebody made a request?

Could be. But I'm not sure how much that would accomplish either. I don't really see that the city has a tremendous amount to lose in this suit. They have their own lawyers, so it won't cost them much. And if some judge determines that the release was illegal -- although it doesn't look to this non-lawyer that it was, given what's in the Arkansas statute that I've seen -- then I guess they'd have to pay some damages, I guess. But how much would those be, considering that even a judge who declared the release illegal would have to see that the law was darned fuzzy on the point, and that the city's release procedure doesn't really look malicious or negligent -- just a different reading of a fuzzy law. Plus, their having to pay damages would only deter releases that also were in the gray areas of the FOIA law -- and those seem to mostly surround stuff with children involved. And I sure hope that any other Duggar skeletons don't involve children but involve finances or something.

I don't know if there's any skeletons, but JimBob is a shady slumlord kind of guy. I think in these situations, it takes a lawyer to make sure your rights and interests are considered in the government's decision making process.

If JimBob could be successfully sued for millions in a negligence case, the city, a much larger organization, probably could be sued for more. And this isn't really comparable at all (6 deaths due to a state official being bribed for a drivers license), but the Willis family settled for $100 million, implying that a jury would have awarded even more.

  • Love 1
Churchhoney

Churchhoney

If better redacted documents are the result, I'm all for it. There were far too many details about the five girls. I realize people who know better than I do say that's pretty standard, but that only made me feel worse about all of the young lives we ruin like this every day.

 

 I agree that this would be a good outcome....

 

But why do I think that, if no monetary damages were awarded, no intimidation factor against future release of any Jim Bob-related information resulted, and much-improved privacy protection for minors were the only outcome, Jim Bob (otherwise known as Mr. Public Spirited) would not consider this a victory?   ; )

  • Love 1
Defrauder

Defrauder

I think the Duggars feel threatened by more releases of info because when they feel they are being 'attacked' they try to divert the attention to others.  In the now infamous defend Josh interview they accused an official of accepting a bribe to get the info released and to slander them.  Now we know that's not how it all went down.   I do think, just my opinion, that they are worried more stuff is going to come out.

  • Love 12
kokapetl

kokapetl

(edited)

I think they were genuinely shocked that their daughters police interviews, about their own sexual abuse, were released to the press and released with sufficient identifying information.

I can't blame them for hiring lawyers. It's an adversarial legal system, and an adversarial country. If InTouch and Springdale Police used lawyers, why shouldn't the Duggars?

Edited by Kokapetl
  • Love 2
Churchhoney

Churchhoney

I think they were genuinely shocked that their daughters police interviews, about their own sexual abuse, were released to the press and released with sufficient identifying information.

 

Yeah, if this really was what they felt, I do see exactly what you're saying.

 

I just can't give them this much credit, though. Given the short shrift that they seemed to give their daughters' problems, both at the time and in their recent statements, I've just read them as caring only about the release of information damaging to them, their wallets, and number-one son. Given that, I see their motivations a lot differently. And, of course, none of us actually know their motivations.

  • Love 11
HundFan

HundFan

I'm not a lawyer (though my husband has played one for 40 years), but suing someone just to annoy them is what the law calls "spurious." Judges, if they smell this happening, can extinguish such suits without trials via the respondant's motions to dismiss. Even if a suit makes into a courtroom, it can still be sent to the dung heap early on for various reasons. And even if it does get heard, the lawsuit damn well better have merit; otherwise the complaining party (i.e., Boob) can end up paying both his and his target's legal fees, should the judge deem that fair. I think in some states it's even possible to award civil punitive damages to an unfairly sued party (even if those haven't been specifically asked for by the respondant) - and there's also the stalking horse of libel and other counter-suits that often phoenix to life post-trial and could possibly could burn Boob's butt and his wallet.

 

That said, lawsuits are always a costly hassle. That's why most respondants choose to settle pre-trial; guilt or innocence aside, a settlement, in most cases, is the path of least resistance.  And yet ... people who've done nothing wrong (especially if they think they're being sued out of sheer malice) also have a strong bent to stand their ground. Especially when their defense is being funded by a municipality, county or state that already has legal staff in place and wants to avoid setting an "easy target" precedent.  

 

A shrewd person can harass their enemies with lawsuits - and sometimes even make some money doing it. But Boob and shrewd? Not a match.  Another saying comes to mind: If you're going to shoot for the king, you better kill him. I'd advise Boob to pick his target wisely and practice aiming that gun. Because a miss can land him in more trouble that his little brain ever dreamed of.  

  • Love 22
GEML

GEML

Until the police report, I don't think anyone thought the "sin in the camp" pertained to allegations against the daughters. The had either "protected" them or "covered that up" depending upon your point of view, but it was the police report that might indeed lead to lost wages for Jill and Jessa. Right now we have reports about JB demanding a day in a spin off, but there are also speaking engagements, write-up in places like PEOPLE for birth announcements, etc that wouldn't be too difficult to prove were taken away because of the police report as a result of the show being cancelled.

Also keep in mind they will know the judges better in AR than most of us will. Don't be surprised if it gets a hearing.

  • Love 2
Guest

As a reminder, the site's Politics Policy remains in effect.  Yes, Jim Bob is apparently running for office again. That does not make it an acceptable topic of conversation in here - unless for some mysterious reason, TLC brings the show back and it is discussed on there. Even then, it would be limited to how it was discussed on the show.

If you have any questions, please PM the mods, @SCARLETT45 and myself.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...