The Duggars: In the Media and TLC

kokapetl · August 27, 2015

I shouldn't really be, but I am shocked these fools burned the People magazine bridge. They lob the softest balls.

Missy Vixen · August 27, 2015

Okay, let's try this again. Let's face it, I made a boo-boo.

I just received the following press release from TLC and RAINN. (It's media, right?) Guess who's NOT mentioned at all?

https://rainn.org/news-room/tlc-to-air-documentary?utm_source=RAINNews+August+2015+Test+B+WINNER&utm_campaign=August+2015+Newsletter+Test+B+WINNER&utm_medium=email

GeeGolly · August 27, 2015

Wow, Jess's gonna be pissed again. No cover story for her when little Bam Bam is born. First the show, then the spin-offs, and now the People cover...

Aja · August 27, 2015

little Bam Bam

You should have heard the series of high-pitched giggles I emitted just now. So high-pitched!

Now Blessa, maybe the Lord is trying to tell you a little something about where you're putting all your eggs...

MyPeopleAreNordic · August 27, 2015

That old line about homophobia being linked to misogyny is truer than we know...

So true. Seems that where there's a homophobe, there's often also a misogynist, racist, antisemite, anti-intellectual, etc.

Which one of these people do y'all think will be the first to grant that exclusive interview? I'm not talking about bullshit Meghan Kelly. I'm talking about the real heavy hitters, Oprah, Barbara Walters or Diane Sawyer. I'll throw in Matt Lauer for good measure. My money is on Josh on NBC with Matt Lauer. He's frequented the Today Show enough that he may think he's developed a rapport. He may also identify with Lauer who dealt with his own (alleged) cheating scandal and is someone who I find to be his own special kind of balding smug bastard. But Josh is going to have to stifle all smugness and really bring the repentance full force. I'm talking 100% Jimmy Swaggart "I have sinned!" fountain tears.

I added in another thing Josh has in common with Lauer above.

IfJosh were do this kind of interview, would he do it with a woman? It seems like given their thoughts on women/modesty/etc, he shouldn't talk about sex with a woman (who he'd surely think is a harlot for working outside of the home rather than being righteously fulfilled as a housewife and homeschool educator).

Edited August 27, 2015 by MyPeopleAreNordic

Joe Jitsu913 · August 27, 2015

Wow, Jess's gonna be pissed again. No cover story for her when little Bam Bam is born. First the show, then the spin-offs, and now the People cover...

Yep...and it warms my heart that the smug bitch will fade into obscurity. She only got pregnant for the attention. Babies= attention & $$$ in Duggarville. It will be interesting to see if Jessa and Bin decide to use birth control in the future.

Churchhoney · August 27, 2015

Okay, let's try this again. Let's face it, I made a boo-boo.

I just received the following press release from TLC and RAINN. (It's media, right?) Guess who's NOT mentioned at all?

https://rainn.org/news-room/tlc-to-air-documentary?utm_source=RAINNews+August+2015+Test+B+WINNER&utm_campaign=August+2015+Newsletter+Test+B+WINNER&utm_medium=email

Woohoo! .... and I mean that even if they do get seen on the show -- seems likely it'll be only a glimpse, if anything, now .... So. woohoo!

KittyS · August 27, 2015

I actually find myself feeling just as disgusted with People magazine as I am with Josh. I know their main objective is to sell magazines, but I have whiplash from how quickly they went from pimping the Duggars to throwing them under the bus. Way to stand for absolutely nothing, People!

Ilovemylabs · August 27, 2015

Not sure where this topic belongs, but after all those years, don't you think the film crew might have suspected something? I've heard them quoted as saying things like' what you see on TV is the way they are', but really? I just find it hard to believe that someone didn't suspect something. Have any of them spoken since all this came out? Perhaps they have a non-disclosure clause? Just wondering.

babyhouseman · August 27, 2015

Not sure where this topic belongs, but after all those years, don't you think the film crew might have suspected something? I've heard them quoted as saying things like' what you see on TV is the way they are', but really? I just find it hard to believe that someone didn't suspect something. Have any of them spoken since all this came out? Perhaps they have a non-disclosure clause? Just wondering.

Was the crew around when the molestations were occurring? I'm sure Josh didn't tell them about AM. They always seemed to get along with the crew. There was a guy named Jim who was there for a long time. He even brought his daughter to a show. There are probably nondisclosure agreements. It was rumored the crew saw stuff with Kate Gosselin that was never reported.

wanderwoman · August 27, 2015

Not sure where this topic belongs, but after all those years, don't you think the film crew might have suspected something? I've heard them quoted as saying things like' what you see on TV is the way they are', but really? I just find it hard to believe that someone didn't suspect something. Have any of them spoken since all this came out? Perhaps they have a non-disclosure clause? Just wondering.

I think it's been said, but it might need to be said again. The cameras film them with their full knowledge, consent, and editorial blessing. I'm sure there's a "Nike" equivalent of STFU in place for the family. Kind of like Dena Burns whispering "muskrat" in Meet the Fockers? As someone else said, most families keep secrets and know that topics are taboo outside the family. Jim may be Uncle Jim on camera; but, I doubt he knew more than the carefully constructed shellac of Jim Bob's hair would allow. These people fooled some of the best investigative journalists in the world because no one wants to believe reality show celebrities are really human. We all think there's a vetting process for cameras, but it turns out that the cleaner their image, the worse the secret is.

anna0852 · August 27, 2015

There must be one hell of a penalty clause in the crew's contracts. After all this publicity and 2 scandals on top of each other and not one of them has talked, even obliquely, about what happens when the camera's are off? Either the Duggar's really lucked into crew members that drank the Kool-Aid or someone laid a 'sacrifice your firstborn' type penalty on them if they open their mouths.

SomePity1066 · August 27, 2015

I've been troubled by the nature of the AM hack since this whole thing started - it's been on my mind for days now, and I finally figured out what's getting to me the most...

I'm NOT defending Josh in any way, shape, or form, but what the hackers did to him, and the other 37 million AM users, is wrong. It's illegal, unethical, immoral, and so far from the spirit and the letter of the law in the United States that it's made my head spin. Yes, I've thoroughly enjoyed the snark, and have been rolling in the schadenfreude with abandon, but it's occurred to me that if the type of people who hacked AM wanted to, they could probably also hack any other database and publish names as well. And that scares the living hell out of me.

Is Josh a pasty, hypocritical fuckface ? Yes, absolutely. Does he deserve our vitriol because he spewed so much hate as a profession while maintaining that he was occupying the "moral high ground" ? Yes. Does his fall from grace and public takedown seem like the perfect ending to a career, if you can call it that, that was guided by "do as I say, don't do as I do" ? Yes.

But, and this is the thing that finally gelled for me today - should he have been "outed" by the illegal actions of a group of renegade hackers ? No.

A thousand times "no".

It's done and over, so it's a moot point now and we can't un-ring that bell, but, like it or not, Josh, even if he is a reprehensible, exhaustingly disgusting specimen of the human race, is afforded the same rights, protections, and privileges as any other citizen of the United States. It may sound trite, but millions of people have died to protect those fundamental principles - the very same principles that allow us to snark away here anonymously and without fear of reprisal or undue censure.

Yes, he is a cheating, lying dirtbag, and his throwing stones from a glass house as big as the Astrodome makes him, indeed, the biggest hypocrite in the world, but if Josh can be taken out by a bunch of incredibly intelligent but...evil...yeah, I'll say evil, hackers, then who is next ? What if the next group decides to publish a list of Planned Parenthood patients ? How about lists of people who sought treatment for drug or alcohol addition ? People on birth control ? Anyone who has ever had an STD ? People who sought private, anonymous help from an LGBT organization ?

Again, I'm not defending Josh here, not at all, but I realized today that the implications of this hack are just staggering. We are all at the mercy now, or so it seems, of the Black Hats who exist underground and toil for the sole purpose of ruining lives. I would rather have had Josh's secret remain one than to have this happen.

It's not just that, um...blah blah freedom blah blah rights of the people blah blah privacy - this is a REAL thing, and anyone and everyone is now in danger of being exposed - even the innocuous minutiae that seems to be of no consequence is still MY innocuous minutiae. There is a huge "There but for the grace of God..." argument in here somewhere, and it hit me like a ton of bricks.

Cat's out of the bag, so I snark - he got caught, and that's that, but I think I'm going to put more thought into what I say from now on. I've never said here that it's my job to be the moral compass of Josh's life, but the implication is there. I don't really care about cheating spouses on AM - really, I don't - but I have an unhealthy interest in beating the dead horse that is Josh. The ultimate irony here is that I've railed against Josh and his ilk for publicly condemning and damning people in the LGBT community when they clearly do not negatively impact his life at all, not one bit, while, I've just realized, Josh's marital indiscretions don't negatively impact my life at all, not one bit.

But his views, so publicly trumpeted for years, do impact my life. As a woman I'm in the crosshairs of his vitriol, and as an ardent, vocal supporter of LGBT rights I'm disgusted by his smallness, his meanness, his hatefulness. I've been saying all along that if Josh could PROVE to me that gay marriage somehow hurts HIS life, liberty, etc, that I would hand over my life savings to the FRC and jump off the Chrysler building buck naked. That's never going to happen, of course, so I can feel free to rage against him with immunity and a clear conscience. I just have to make sure that I'm not becoming the very same hypocrite that I've been skewering him for being for nearly a decade.

Please forgive me for taking all of you along on my journey of self-examination - I didn't mean to have a philosophical battle with myself and make all of you read about it in real time, but this was important for me, so I truly appreciate your patience. Again - third time's a charm ! - I'm NOT defending Josh, I'm defending the right to retain privacy in a world where it seems like that's going to become a luxury.

So, let he/she who is without sin...

Go sit somewhere else ! The other sinners and I will be in the corner drinking a box of wine <<drops mike>>

kokapetl · August 27, 2015

I actually find myself feeling just as disgusted with People magazine as I am with Josh. I know their main objective is to sell magazines, but I have whiplash from how quickly they went from pimping the Duggars to throwing them under the bus. Way to stand for absolutely nothing, People!

I think People went pretty easy on them. Even after Ben's little rant about "people and magazines", and "no comment" from the family, the Duggars got written up like this:

In difficult times, the Duggar family has one unbending rule: Look to God.

Amid a fresh disgrace for oldest son Josh Duggar, whose molestation scandal in May ultimately resulted in TLC pulling the plug on 19 Kids and Counting, parents Jim Bob and Michelle have stayed true to this very value, which they instilled in all of their children since birth.

"We have committed to Him that in all things – difficulties or success, good times or bad – we will purpose to bring Him honor by staying true to our faith and our family," the couple said in a statement regarding the cancellation that was posted on the family website.

It is no secret that the Duggars have centered their lives around their religious beliefs. The couple have created a conservative Christian belief system that has become the foundation for their approach everyday life. Despite what continues to be thrown their way, their faith remains the highest priority

I think People are obviously leaving the door open for the family. Other magazines have been far less considerate.

Wellfleet · August 27, 2015

The Gawker article mentions J-Chelle's Tweeting a while back that it's a "drug and alcohol rehab".

REALLY?

What is someone being treated for what I'm imagining they're calling "porn addiction" and whatever else doing at a "drug and alcohol" rehab?

http://gawker.com/is-this-where-josh-duggar-is-in-sex-rehab-1726687142

Well you know, Me-chelle's getting older now and it's becoming much more difficult to keep all the lies straight. They've told so many in the past, but now both she and Boob are getting confused and having trouble "explaining" their way out of things. It was easier in the old days when they had fewer lies to keep straight.

Wellfleet · August 27, 2015

Not to be suspicious but "Alice's" writing skills seem to have improved a lot in 8 years...

Why is this weird? Better than 8 days ago might be odd. But 8 years? Maybe Alice went to school, even earned a degree? Not for nothing, but I write better now than I did 8 years ago too. Relatively easy to do if you practice, read a lot of different writers etc.

Edited August 27, 2015 by Wellfleet

Churchhoney · August 27, 2015

There must be one hell of a penalty clause in the crew's contracts. After all this publicity and 2 scandals on top of each other and not one of them has talked, even obliquely, about what happens when the camera's are off? Either the Duggar's really lucked into crew members that drank the Kool-Aid or someone laid a 'sacrifice your firstborn' type penalty on them if they open their mouths.

Well, also there's probably a heck of a penalty clause because the network wants to get more reality-tv loonies to film, and if people feared everything would be spilled by the camera crew they'd be less likely to sign up. ... And on the crew end, they want to keep working in video and audio -- and as life goes on, the amount of "reality" tv is swamping a lot of other tv. So they don't want reputations that keep them from working "reality" shows, since it might mean they would lose the livelihoods they've trained for, altogether.

galax-arena · August 27, 2015

The ultimate irony here is that I've railed against Josh and his ilk for publicly condemning and damning people in the LGBT community when they clearly do not negatively impact his life at all, not one bit, while, I've just realized, Josh's marital indiscretions don't negatively impact my life at all, not one bit.

But his views, so publicly trumpeted for years, do impact my life.

But I think these two things are connected. It's not the marital indiscretions in and of themselves that I'm railing against. It's the hypocrisy of it all. Like, I couldn't care less about Ben Affleck's possible affair with his nanny (?), because Ben didn't make a career out of setting himself up as an arbiter of moral righteousness and traditional family values. So for me, it's not about just picking on someone for having an affair. I don't think it's the same thing at all as Josh pontificating against a marginalized group that never did anything to him or was talking out of both sides of its mouth the way he was.

I'll rag on anti-gay Christians for getting a divorce, not because I think divorce is a sin - I don't - but because I think it shows rank hypocrisy.

Edited August 27, 2015 by galax-arena

Aja · August 27, 2015

Again...Josh MOLESTS HIS SISTERS and People magazine is all "Inside the Duggars Private Pain" and "Jessa Blessa On Marriage and Motherhood Amidst Terrible Scandal." Josh dicks around on his wife and suddenly they're "exposing" the Gothard cult? Josh MOLESTING HIS SISTERS wasn't sufficient to get that ball rolling? I'm not saying that paying hookers to have sex with him isn't hilariously disgusting and pathetic and very much in keeping with those awesome Duggar character traits, but just very coldly and pragmatically, Josh humping hookers is the four-alarm fire that makes people...and People...wake up to the reality of this sick lifestyle? It's what has thoroughly devastated the family and killed their dying brand completely? Of the two things Josh has recently been exposed for doing, humping hookers is the thing that the American public JUST WILL NOT ACCEPT? Really? My mouth is hanging open.

Edited August 27, 2015 by Aja

Oldernowiser · August 27, 2015

It's about the benjamins. The Duggar family was continual PG content and worth a ton to TLC and People as a result. One scandal from twelve years ago...maybe parts of the brand can be salvaged, especially those smug pretty girl-wives.

A second scandal? Salvage what you can in short-term readership...turn around and attack.

Edited August 27, 2015 by Oldernowiser

Matryoshka · August 27, 2015

Why is this weird? Better than 8 days ago might be odd. But 8 years? Maybe Alice went to school, even earned a degree? Not for nothing, but I write better now than I did 8 years ago too. Relatively easy to do if you practice, read a lot of different writers etc.

That's true, and I totally agree, especially with formal writing skills. But I think most people do have a recognizable "voice" that stays pretty consistent; particularly in more casual settings like comment sections. That "Alice's" voice just didn't sound to me like the original. YMMV.

Julia · August 27, 2015

Again...Josh MOLESTS HIS SISTERS and People magazine is all "Inside the Duggars Private Pain" and "Jessa Blessa On Marriage and Motherhood Amidst Terrible Scandal." Josh dicks around on his wife and suddenly they're "exposing" the Gothard cult? Josh MOLESTING HIS SISTERS wasn't sufficient to get that ball rolling? I'm not saying that paying hookers to have sex with him isn't hilariously disgusting and pathetic and very much in keeping with those awesome Duggar character traits, but just very coldly and pragmatically, Josh humping hookers is the four-alarm fire that makes people...and People...wake up to the reality of this sick lifestyle? It's what has thoroughly devastated the family and killed their dying brand completely? Of the two things Josh has recently been exposed for doing, humping hookers is the thing that the American public JUST WILL NOT ACCEPT? Really? My mouth is hanging open.

I don't think that the difference is that Anna was affected this time. I think the difference is that JB et al refused to speak to them about Josh for their big issue last week. If the Duggars were still playing ball, I bet we'd still be hearing about their inner pain and Jessa's fetus.

Featherhat · August 27, 2015

It's a completely different type of sex scandal this time. Happening a few months ago, involving consenting parties and a mother wife 4 young kids so they can really go to town without having to tip toe around child molestation. Plus Jessa and Jill were still good for sympathetic covers, even more marketable now that they had been in the news and there was tons of interest on how they were coping and if they were getting a spin off.

But yeah I think a lot of it is JB fumbling it behind the scenes. Jessa and Jill might have had at least a special if he had realised that in the real world two couples in their 20s generally have to hand over their fees and creative control to their Dad who isn't their producer and wouldn't be appearing. Jessa probably would have still gotten her "Brave Jessa Blessa smiles as she introduces Blessing Bam Bam after months of family anguish" but Boob appears to have mucked it up and People decided that they were worth more as a "house of horrors" storyline than having to write gooey puff pieces about a family people are getting more disgusted with after two sex scandals in 3 months and decided Boob was in no way worth the effort. Especially as they don't have the show anymore and there were diminishing returns on pretending that they were as wholesome as they tried to appear on their show, but most of the news about them is extremely unsavoury. That was probably also a factor, so they went for a piece of the In Touch Attack Pie.

Jessa still might get her cover, it just depends where this family stand by the time the baby is born.

Edited August 27, 2015 by Featherhat

kokapetl · August 27, 2015

People magazine still seem amenable to an exclusive from the Duggars. They are somewhat unique amongst tabloids in that they rely on and encourage cultivated relationships with celebrities. Jessa, and even JimBob, can still approach them, they are not InTouch they do not salt the earth.

Quilt Fairy · August 27, 2015

I've been troubled by the nature of the AM hack since this whole thing started - it's been on my mind for days now, and I finally figured out what's getting to me the most...

I'm NOT defending Josh in any way, shape, or form, but what the hackers did to him, and the other 37 million AM users, is wrong. It's illegal, unethical, immoral, and so far from the spirit and the letter of the law in the United States that it's made my head spin. Yes, I've thoroughly enjoyed the snark, and have been rolling in the schadenfreude with abandon, but it's occurred to me that if the type of people who hacked AM wanted to, they could probably also hack any other database and publish names as well. And that scares the living hell out of me.

Is Josh a pasty, hypocritical fuckface ? Yes, absolutely. Does he deserve our vitriol because he spewed so much hate as a profession while maintaining that he was occupying the "moral high ground" ? Yes. Does his fall from grace and public takedown seem like the perfect ending to a career, if you can call it that, that was guided by "do as I say, don't do as I do" ? Yes.

But, and this is the thing that finally gelled for me today - should he have been "outed" by the illegal actions of a group of renegade hackers ? No.

A thousand times "no".

It's done and over, so it's a moot point now and we can't un-ring that bell, but, like it or not, Josh, even if he is a reprehensible, exhaustingly disgusting specimen of the human race, is afforded the same rights, protections, and privileges as any other citizen of the United States. It may sound trite, but millions of people have died to protect those fundamental principles - the very same principles that allow us to snark away here anonymously and without fear of reprisal or undue censure.

Yes, he is a cheating, lying dirtbag, and his throwing stones from a glass house as big as the Astrodome makes him, indeed, the biggest hypocrite in the world, but if Josh can be taken out by a bunch of incredibly intelligent but...evil...yeah, I'll say evil, hackers, then who is next ? What if the next group decides to publish a list of Planned Parenthood patients ? How about lists of people who sought treatment for drug or alcohol addition ? People on birth control ? Anyone who has ever had an STD ? People who sought private, anonymous help from an LGBT organization ?

Again, I'm not defending Josh here, not at all, but I realized today that the implications of this hack are just staggering. We are all at the mercy now, or so it seems, of the Black Hats who exist underground and toil for the sole purpose of ruining lives. I would rather have had Josh's secret remain one than to have this happen.

It's not just that, um...blah blah freedom blah blah rights of the people blah blah privacy - this is a REAL thing, and anyone and everyone is now in danger of being exposed - even the innocuous minutiae that seems to be of no consequence is still MY innocuous minutiae. There is a huge "There but for the grace of God..." argument in here somewhere, and it hit me like a ton of bricks.

Cat's out of the bag, so I snark - he got caught, and that's that, but I think I'm going to put more thought into what I say from now on. I've never said here that it's my job to be the moral compass of Josh's life, but the implication is there. I don't really care about cheating spouses on AM - really, I don't - but I have an unhealthy interest in beating the dead horse that is Josh. The ultimate irony here is that I've railed against Josh and his ilk for publicly condemning and damning people in the LGBT community when they clearly do not negatively impact his life at all, not one bit, while, I've just realized, Josh's marital indiscretions don't negatively impact my life at all, not one bit.

But his views, so publicly trumpeted for years, do impact my life. As a woman I'm in the crosshairs of his vitriol, and as an ardent, vocal supporter of LGBT rights I'm disgusted by his smallness, his meanness, his hatefulness. I've been saying all along that if Josh could PROVE to me that gay marriage somehow hurts HIS life, liberty, etc, that I would hand over my life savings to the FRC and jump off the Chrysler building buck naked. That's never going to happen, of course, so I can feel free to rage against him with immunity and a clear conscience. I just have to make sure that I'm not becoming the very same hypocrite that I've been skewering him for being for nearly a decade.

Please forgive me for taking all of you along on my journey of self-examination - I didn't mean to have a philosophical battle with myself and make all of you read about it in real time, but this was important for me, so I truly appreciate your patience. Again - third time's a charm ! - I'm NOT defending Josh, I'm defending the right to retain privacy in a world where it seems like that's going to become a luxury.

So, let he/she who is without sin...

Go sit somewhere else ! The other sinners and I will be in the corner drinking a box of wine <<drops mike>>

This is not the first time a large database has been hacked. The AM hack is nowhere near as devastating, IMO, as the Target hack where millions of people had their credit card information stolen or the Anthem BC/BS hack where millions of people had their medical information stolen. Stolen and subsequently up for sale on the dark web. Life today, lived online, unfortunately means that there are thousands of bright IT geeks who get paid to hack into our lives. The AM hack is news for the titillation value and the subsequent snark value: millions of horny guys who paid money in the hopes of getting laid but were primarily being scammed by AM. What interests me is that these hackers supposedly have nothing to gain monetarily, because that's too much work just to do on a grudge. (Unless you have the resources of a Kim Jong-un and you're trying to stop a really stupid movie about you.) I feel like there's still another shoe to drop.

So if you want to be upset about hacking and the invasion of privacy, go ahead. It's real and I'm with you. But this hack, nah, these folks don't get a tear out of me.

Bella · August 27, 2015

Let's circle back around to the Duggars in the Media and TLC. The hacking discussion is veering off course.

Thanks.

SometimesBites · August 27, 2015

I've been troubled by the nature of the AM hack since this whole thing started - it's been on my mind for days now, and I finally figured out what's getting to me the most...

I'm NOT defending Josh in any way, shape, or form, but what the hackers did to him, and the other 37 million AM users, is wrong. It's illegal, unethical, immoral, and so far from the spirit and the letter of the law in the United States that it's made my head spin. Yes, I've thoroughly enjoyed the snark, and have been rolling in the schadenfreude with abandon, but it's occurred to me that if the type of people who hacked AM wanted to, they could probably also hack any other database and publish names as well. And that scares the living hell out of me.

Is Josh a pasty, hypocritical fuckface ? Yes, absolutely. Does he deserve our vitriol because he spewed so much hate as a profession while maintaining that he was occupying the "moral high ground" ? Yes. Does his fall from grace and public takedown seem like the perfect ending to a career, if you can call it that, that was guided by "do as I say, don't do as I do" ? Yes.

But, and this is the thing that finally gelled for me today - should he have been "outed" by the illegal actions of a group of renegade hackers ? No.

A thousand times "no".

It's done and over, so it's a moot point now and we can't un-ring that bell, but, like it or not, Josh, even if he is a reprehensible, exhaustingly disgusting specimen of the human race, is afforded the same rights, protections, and privileges as any other citizen of the United States. It may sound trite, but millions of people have died to protect those fundamental principles - the very same principles that allow us to snark away here anonymously and without fear of reprisal or undue censure.

Yes, he is a cheating, lying dirtbag, and his throwing stones from a glass house as big as the Astrodome makes him, indeed, the biggest hypocrite in the world, but if Josh can be taken out by a bunch of incredibly intelligent but...evil...yeah, I'll say evil, hackers, then who is next ? What if the next group decides to publish a list of Planned Parenthood patients ? How about lists of people who sought treatment for drug or alcohol addition ? People on birth control ? Anyone who has ever had an STD ? People who sought private, anonymous help from an LGBT organization ?

Again, I'm not defending Josh here, not at all, but I realized today that the implications of this hack are just staggering. We are all at the mercy now, or so it seems, of the Black Hats who exist underground and toil for the sole purpose of ruining lives. I would rather have had Josh's secret remain one than to have this happen.

It's not just that, um...blah blah freedom blah blah rights of the people blah blah privacy - this is a REAL thing, and anyone and everyone is now in danger of being exposed - even the innocuous minutiae that seems to be of no consequence is still MY innocuous minutiae. There is a huge "There but for the grace of God..." argument in here somewhere, and it hit me like a ton of bricks.

Cat's out of the bag, so I snark - he got caught, and that's that, but I think I'm going to put more thought into what I say from now on. I've never said here that it's my job to be the moral compass of Josh's life, but the implication is there. I don't really care about cheating spouses on AM - really, I don't - but I have an unhealthy interest in beating the dead horse that is Josh. The ultimate irony here is that I've railed against Josh and his ilk for publicly condemning and damning people in the LGBT community when they clearly do not negatively impact his life at all, not one bit, while, I've just realized, Josh's marital indiscretions don't negatively impact my life at all, not one bit.

But his views, so publicly trumpeted for years, do impact my life. As a woman I'm in the crosshairs of his vitriol, and as an ardent, vocal supporter of LGBT rights I'm disgusted by his smallness, his meanness, his hatefulness. I've been saying all along that if Josh could PROVE to me that gay marriage somehow hurts HIS life, liberty, etc, that I would hand over my life savings to the FRC and jump off the Chrysler building buck naked. That's never going to happen, of course, so I can feel free to rage against him with immunity and a clear conscience. I just have to make sure that I'm not becoming the very same hypocrite that I've been skewering him for being for nearly a decade.

Please forgive me for taking all of you along on my journey of self-examination - I didn't mean to have a philosophical battle with myself and make all of you read about it in real time, but this was important for me, so I truly appreciate your patience. Again - third time's a charm ! - I'm NOT defending Josh, I'm defending the right to retain privacy in a world where it seems like that's going to become a luxury.

So, let he/she who is without sin...

Go sit somewhere else ! The other sinners and I will be in the corner drinking a box of wine <<drops mike>>

So here's what I love about this particular forum. We seem to have an inordinate number of very intelligent and effortful critical thinkers here. I love that the conversation can pause to consider the bigger implications than what it means for Josh--I don't think any of us would mistake that for support of Smugs, so...not to worry. :)

SometimesBites · August 27, 2015

Oh, People magazine, you fickle, fickle wench. :)

This is where the schadenfreude streams run deep for me. Every Duggar over the age of 12 must be stunned. "But...but People LOVES us! How could this happen?"

They have assumed from day one that they had a tee vee show because they deserved it. They were on Good Morning America because they deserved it. They got regularly featured in People because they do things just a little different.

Hilarious that People is throwing out SHOCKING AND FREAKISH DETAILS (like 'Nike' *gasp*) as though we haven't already been talking about the weirdness for years.

leighdear · August 27, 2015

I think PEOPLE is basically the ex-girlfriend that's moved on and won't "be sweet" unless there's something profitable in it for her. "She" may throw the family a non-poisoned bone out of pity at some point, but I think the velvet gloves are off for good.

kokapetl · August 27, 2015

Even at this stage, with the Duggars saying "no comment", People magazine are quite careful not to accuse the non Josh family members of anything bad. Recipients of bad advice perhaps.

lulee · August 27, 2015

I think PEOPLE is basically the ex-girlfriend that's moved on and won't "be sweet" unless there's something profitable in it for her. "She" may throw the family a non-poisoned bone out of pity at some point, but I think the velvet gloves are off for good.

I hope you're correct, leighdear, but I fear there's a Josh-has-been-saved-by-Anna's-love special issue coming our way in a few months. Edited August 27, 2015 by lulee

Aja · August 27, 2015

I hope you're correct, leighdesr, but I fear there's a Josh-has-been-saved-by-Anna's-love special issue coming our way in a few months.

My stomach is already turning in anticipation.

Featherhat · August 27, 2015

It's also worth noting that it wasn't just Duggar ass TLC was kissing, it was the whole of TLC. If People completely trashed one of the families then TLC could have withheld other exclusives that were worth a lot like the Gosselins, Honey Boo Boos, Roloffs etc. It's clear they knew a lot of this stuff but it wasn't worth loosing everything that went with going ahead and doing an expose. Now that TLC has cut them loose, their audience is turning on them there's no reason to ignore the scandals and let JB dictate terms.

zenme · August 27, 2015

Oh how I wish we could easily view reruns! I sure would like to read between the lines of some conversations, or pay better attention to the girls' expressions when Josh speaks...There were a couple of scenes where we'd see Josh at work at the used car lot where he'd be on the computer. I wonder if he'd click out of a site or hit minimize when the cameras would enter his office space. Eww...remember his honeymoon? He insinuated that he and Anna had "christened" every room in house. Gross. Then when they attempted to have their "Sleeping with the Sharks" experience at the aquarium in Myrtle Beach, they had to leave early because they realized that they weren't going to have a private room experience. I suppose that's a normal notion to want to have "sweet fellowship" with your new bride/groom, but I guess just because it's pervy Josh it's creeping me out.

flyingdi · August 27, 2015

My problem with the media, among other things, is when they start to sensationalize the small "secrets" I'm sorry the fact that Jim Bob is head of the family has never been a secret. The code words have never been a secret. Nike has never been a secret. Who are these articles aiming at? People who know nothing about the Duggars? Come on, there is plenty they did lie about. Focus on that!

Don't make things they readily admitted into some conspiracy, it cheapens the whole deal even more.

Edited August 27, 2015 by flyingdi

JoanArc · August 27, 2015

Oh how I wish we could easily view reruns!

Popular streaming sites have them. *cough*

Julia · August 27, 2015

Popular streaming sites have them. *cough*

Actually, according to IMDB, Amazon has them.

ChocolateAddict · August 28, 2015

I can't see Jessa Blessa getting a cover for Baby Bam Bam with People. By the time November rolls around they will have been off air for 4-5 months and most of her pregnancy won't have been filmed. The reason that audiences were interested in Izz was because they had watched Jill through her pregnancy and every selfie was breathlessly reported in People. In comparison, most People readers won't be following Jessa Blessa or Bin on social media and any interest in her pregnancy will have fizzled away. The only reason that they ever gave the Duggars covers was so that they could have "exclusive" content. Why would they bother now that everyone has moved on? Binessa can look forward to a few pages, nothing more IMO.

JenCarroll · August 28, 2015

I can't see Jessa Blessa getting a cover for Baby Bam Bam with People.

Well, if she actually named him Bam Bam, that might be worth a cover. :-)

ChocolateAddict · August 28, 2015

Well, if she actually named him Bam Bam, that might be worth a cover. :-)

"Jessa Seewald - My Life With Baby Bam Bam"

I would buy People just for that cover!

DangerousMinds · August 28, 2015

I can't see Jessa Blessa getting a cover for Baby Bam Bam with People. By the time November rolls around they will have been off air for 4-5 months and most of her pregnancy won't have been filmed. The reason that audiences were interested in Izz was because they had watched Jill through her pregnancy and every selfie was breathlessly reported in People. In comparison, most People readers won't be following Jessa Blessa or Bin on social media and any interest in her pregnancy will have fizzled away. The only reason that they ever gave the Duggars covers was so that they could have "exclusive" content. Why would they bother now that everyone has moved on? Binessa can look forward to a few pages, nothing more IMO.

I don't know, E! "News" seems to report on them every night. Still.

Micks Picks · August 28, 2015

Thank you fellow posters for telling how to view old episodes so soon after some that I don't remember at all (Myrtle Beach) are mentioned. See, my curiosity would be killing me if you weren't so nice to provide the way to view them. Now I don't even feel such a need to see them, so long as I know I can. Isn't that the way with most of us, we just want to know we could do something if we wanted to. Not that we would actually do it. Lucky we aren't Dugger kids. They don't get the freedom we do.

EarlGreyTea · August 28, 2015

What a shame those three guys from the Paris train attack are tied up with Duggar on the cover of the People Magazine. They deserve better than that.

I blame People entirely. This is another Lauren-Bacall-legendary-actress-shunted-in-favor-of-two-seconds-pregnant-Jill-Duggar-on-the-cover situation. I'm still bitter about Bacall.

Granted....you have to think the Duggars must sell like gangbusters then. ....Right?

kokapetl · August 28, 2015

Isn't terrorism a little outside of People magazines scope? I thought it was 100 percent celebrities.

kokapetl · August 28, 2015

Aw, did that lady terrify you? Here's what she wrote, which I can see would be terrifying to some people:

BTW, it's not People, it's on an Atlanta TV news site.

Oh, I meant these people:

I don't know, E! "News" seems to report on them every night. Still.

E! News reports on the most inane shit.

Boilergal · August 28, 2015

Josh is single handedly destroying the Duggar's and I can't say that I feel bad for them.

If a stripper says you are creepy and that you scare her - that says A LOT.

http://www.intouchweekly.com/posts/josh-duggar-cheating-affair-mistress-ashley-madison-danica-dillon-68130

Edited August 28, 2015 by Boilergal

Dejana · August 28, 2015

Isn't terrorism a little outside of People magazines scope? I thought it was 100 percent celebrities.

Not strictly...they cover celebrities but also more newsy stories if there's enough of a "human interest" angle, and an exclusive interview helps. At some point after the Miracle on the Hudson, Sully was on the cover, holding a baby from the flight. Of all the glossy celebrity weeklies (In Touch, OK, Life & Style, US Weekly, etc), People would by far be the most likely to put "ordinary" heroes on the cover. Still, that they went with Josh and Anna this week isn't a huge surprise. People kind of gets the best of both worlds with the Duggars, famous people who aren't very Hollywood, plus, there's a religious angle.

Edited August 28, 2015 by Dejana

galax-arena · August 28, 2015

Leadership of Josh Duggar’s Treatment Center Allegedly Involved in Sex Abuse Coverup

Anne Elk · August 28, 2015

Leadership of Josh Duggar’s Treatment Center Allegedly Involved in Sex Abuse Coverup

Good grief! Are there any people in these churches who haven't been accused of sex abuse? Anna, you really, really, REALLY need to get out of there!

Edited August 28, 2015 by Anne Elk

Absolom · August 28, 2015

Leadership of Josh Duggar’s Treatment Center Allegedly Involved in Sex Abuse Coverup

Of course he was. That's becoming the tie that binds this crowd.

Sign In

The Duggars: In the Media and TLC

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

cmr2014

Churchhoney

WhitneyWhit

Posted Images

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment