Kate Plus Eight

Issue dated September 5, 2016


People (the magazine) is so predictable. "Half Their Size," "Sexiest Man," "Prince George's Birthday," there are certain topics they return to again and again. But the Gosselins? Apparently Gosselin covers sell really well because when I saw this week's cover it looked familiar, and sure enough, three years ago, the magazine ran almost exactly the same cover:

Issue dated August, 26, 2013


In my blog post at the time, I wrote:

"Have you been wondering what Kate Gosselin is up to? Me neither, but apparently People feels we need an update." (Read the post here.)

Three years later, I still haven't been wondering what Kate is up to and People still apparently thinks we need an update. Whatever.

In other news, Ryan Lochte didn't get the main cover slot but he is there, front and center at the top, along with another pregnant Duggar, ick.

Ick

Issue dated February 15, 2016


Just ick.

Kardashian Overload

These are the top stories currently posted at People.com:

1. Kendall Jenner walks the Victoria Secret fashion show
2. Something about last night's GOP debate
3. Caitlyn and Kris share a hug at the VS show
4. Kim K tweets that she's gained 52 pounds
5. Scott Disick leaves rehab traveling in a private jet
6. Kendall was nervous before the VS show
7. Lamar keeps asking about Khloé's new boyfriend 

Yuck. Isn't there anything else going on in the world? Well, yes. The pregnant Duggar daughter gave birth last week and I'm pretty sure that will be the main story when the new cover comes out shortly after 7.00.

And here's the new cover, ick, ick, ick.

Issue dated November 23, 2015

Back To The Blog: It's The Donald

Issue dated October 12, 2015


I've been away from the blog for a few weeks and I'm happy to say that after a couple of days in the hospital, a couple of weeks at a skilled nursing facility and a few days at home moving around with a cane, I'm the proud owner/user of a new left hip. Has anything been happening while I was away from the blog? Yes, oh yes.

I've been figuring we'd get a People cover featuring The Donald and here it is. According to the teaser article at people.com, wife Melania and son Barron are already planning their move to the White House, with Melania reassuring Barron that although he'll miss his friends, his father will be able to "help children like him" and it's all good. (I have to ask: how much help do the children of billionaires really need?)

There's a Duggar story too, ick, ick, ICK!! The fact that some presumably rational advertisers think there's an approving market for more television shows about this wretched family makes me want to scream, scream, SCREAM!! Please, make it stop.

There's also news in the political world, specifically, two GOP presidential candidates, Rick Perry and wow, Scott Walker, have officially dropped out. For months pundit after pundit has had Walker in their top 3, but apparently he just wasn't ready for prime time and couldn't perform at the national/presidential level. I'm updating my lists and in honor of The Donald, I'm going to call the new list of withdrawn candidates the "You're Fired!" list. Here goes:

Declared (and still in the race) GOP Candidates, in order of their official announcement

1. Ted Cruz (March 23) 
2. Rand Paul (April 7)
3. Marco Rubio (April 14)
4. Dr. Ben Carson (May 3) 
5. Carly Fiorina (May 4) 
6. Mike Huckabee (May 5) 
7. Rick Santorum (May 27)
8. George Pataki (May 28)
9. Lindsey Graham (June 1) 
10. Jeb Bush (June 15)
11. Donald Trump (June 16) 
12. Bobby Jindal (June 24) 
13. Chris Christie (June 30)
14. John Kasich (July 21) 
15. Jim Gilmore (July 30) 

Officially Not Running
Rob Portman (Dec 2)
Paul Ryan (Jan 12)
Mitt Romney (Jan 30)
Rick Snyder (May 7)
John Bolton (May 14) 

Mike Pence (May 20) 

Bob Ehrlich (August 4)

You're Fired!: Candidates Who Have Dropped Out

Rick Perry (June 4 - Sept. 11)
Scott Walker (July 13 - Sept. 21)

Days until Election Day: 404

Rosemary Kennedy

Issue dated September 14, 2015


I wasn't expecting a Kennedy cover story and certainly not one about Rosemary Kennedy, but apparently she's the subject of two new books, so there she is. There's no question it's an intriguing story, a secret sister, disabled and hidden away, but it's also old news. The headline sounded familiar to me so I scrolled back through the People Cover posts, and sure enough, from last November there it is, a sidebar story on Matthew McConaughey's cover, "The Forgotten Kennedy Sister," which turned out to be Rosemary. That story was tied to publication of a book called "Fully Alive" by Timothy Shriver, who is chairman of the Special Olympics. (Read the article here.)

Issue dated November 17, 2014


Blog readers know I'm fascinated by the Kennedys, both current and historic, but I've always assumed that not everyone else is. Still, apparently there's enough interest that People's editors believe a cover story with a black and white picture of a relatively unknown woman, who was born in 1918 and died in 2005, will sell well. According to the article at people.com, the new books are "Rosemary, The Hidden Kennedy Daughter," by Kate Larson, and "The Missing Kennedy," by Elizabeth Koehler-Pentacoff.

In a depressing coincidence, both of these issues also feature Duggar stories, Jessa's wedding last November and the on-going scandal around Josh in the new issue. Ick.

"There Was Always Something A Bit Odd About Josh"

Update #2, Thursday morning: It turns out People did produce a cover that features the three American heroes; it was on copies sent out to subscribers.



Mid-morning update: Remember the Tiger Woods scandal a few years ago, when women started coming out of the woodwork to say they had been with Tiger? It's beginning to look like this is going to be like that. For example:



The New York Daily News ponders it all, read it here.

Original post:
Issue dated September 7, 2015


I'd figured People would probably go for it, with a second Duggar scandal cover in a row, and here it is. Based on the "teaser" article currently posted on People.com, however, which states that "The Duggar family didn't respond to requests for comment," and quotes merely a Duggar family source, a source close to Anna and another source with ties to the family, I'm sure there's not much new information in the actual story. Now, please, please, please, let this be the last cover story about the Duggars. Ever.

And, really, People? Why couldn't you have put the three wonderful young Americans who hogtied a terrorist on a train (THEY SAVED HUNDREDS OF LIVES!) front and center as the main cover story? Didn't you think that would sell well? Even as I was expecting a full Sex Scandal 101 cover, I'd been hoping that the guys would be the main story with Josh as a sidebar, or maybe that People would wait until next week for the American Heroes story. But no. A sex scandal wins out every time.

"Inside Baseball"

Occasionally here at Writing The World, I point out how misleading a magazine headline can be. For example, People frequently writes headlines that sound as if they've interviewed the subject, when in fact they're just cribbing together quotes from "sources" and "insiders."

Now the New York Daily News has some info about how the current cover story, featuring two of the Duggar sisters, came about. Yes, the headline, "ONLY IN People / THE DUGGARS NOW / LIFE AFTER SCANDAL" implies an exclusive interview, but No, there wasn't one. The Daily News explains, using the term "write-around":

The scandal-scarred Duggar family graces the latest cover of People magazine with the headline “Only in People: The Duggars now, life after scandal.” There’s just one problem — the family refused to speak directly to the magazine to avoid being asked about Josh Duggar’s molestation confession, a source close to the magazine tells Confidenti@l.

“They did not want to discuss the scandal, only the future of the family. They wanted to avoid it altogether, which is completely ridiculous,” says our source. “How can they do a cover story and not address the issue at hand?”

We’re told People, which has had a long relationship with the family, approached the Duggars about doing “the first big interview since the confession” and since the TLC show was canceled.

“The Duggars said we would love to, however we will not address Josh’s trouble,” says our source. “People tried to negotiate and eventually played hardball, saying we’re doing the cover with or without you.”

The result was a write-around, with most quotes from a family insider.

Making matters worse is that while this week’s magazine is on stands, it leaked that Josh was a member of adult cheating website Ashley Madison, and that his information, like that of many site users, was hacked.

“That may actually work in People’s favor, because if you see that on a newsstand you’ll assume it’s inside the magazine,” laughs our source.

The "source" is right - People lucked out on the timing. The new cover certainly looks as if it's all about Josh's adultery and porn addiction, but in fact the new issue was published Wednesday morning, a few hours before the "Josh Duggar is on Ashley Madison" scandal broke in the press. 

Yes, There Will Be Schadenfreude

Lots of schadenfreude. When People published their new cover, at 7.00 a.m. central time Wednesday, they had no idea that their headline, "LIFE AFTER SCANDAL," would, in a matter of hours, be both eerily prescient and woefully out-of-date. "Josh's life in seclusion"? You have no idea.



What to say about the Duggars now? Thoughts:

There's no eraser on the internet. Josh first posted his apology on the family's website shortly after lunchtime. Not too many minutes later, he, his parents and/or their PR person apparently decided he shouldn't cop to being addicted to porn and the statement was taken down to be revised. Gawker tracked the edits, which also deleted the reference to Satan and to Josh's illegal activities as a teenager:



Unfortunately (for Josh,) even in the short time the original statement was live, several websites grabbed screen shots that preserve the original language, and most of the articles I've seen are now describing Mr. Duggar as both an adulterer and an internet porn addict. Once it's out there, it's out there. There's no going back. 

Clueless. Before the new scandal went public there were reports that parents Jim Bob and Michelle were trying to get themselves back on television, pitching a new "reality" show featuring them as, wait for it, counselors to victims of sexual abuse. If true, this represents a mind-boggling level of clueless self-regard that would get them not only laughed out of, but sneered out of any pitch meeting. 

In the original People cover story, they're described as "stunned" by the backlash to Josh's child molestation scandal, because they "truly felt people would understand and eventually be okay with it." They're still stunned this morning: 

Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar are "absolutely stunned" in the wake of their eldest son Josh's confession that he had cheated on wife Anna and had an addiction to pornography, a source with ties to the family tells PEOPLE.

"This wasn't something they ever imagined was possible," says the source. "They so strictly limit their exposure to these sorts of outside influences – from websites to even the sort of television they watch, if they turn on the TV at all – that they were absolutely baffled by how this could have been possible."

It seems to me that it's time for these people to step out of the spotlight, stop trying to rebuild their brand and focus on getting a clue, a real clue, about what's really going on with their family. Josh is clearly a very troubled young man, and I believe it's at least possible that his actions as an adult are driven by what happened when he was growing up. The "no big deal, Josh is fine, you must forgive your brother" way his sexual assault on his sisters was dealt with appears to have left Josh more screwed up than before and I'd bet everyone in that family is scarred by it. 

Please, please, please stop telling other people how to live. As I said when "abstinence advocate" Bristol Palin announced her second out-of-wedlock pregnancy, if your brand is built on purity, and in particular if you're telling others how to live, you'd better be practicing what you preach. If you're not, you're going to be excoriated. The Duggars are not just a large family with an old-fashioned lifestyle. They're politically active in support of a rigid, hateful and intolerant ideology. They have supported far-right politicians, recorded robocalls in support of discrimination and in Josh's case, worked for a non-profit that supports hate and intolerance in the name of so-called traditional family values. (Yes, Josh, you are a hypocrite. And yes, this is snark, but has Mike Huckabee had anything to say about this yet?) For the Duggars, it's time to stop worrying about what other people are doing and start cleaning up the mess in their own home. 

Finally, to Josh's wife and the other women and girls in this family, none of this is your fault. NONE OF THIS IS YOUR FAULT. The most troubling thing I've read in the tsunami of reporting on this story is this quote in one of the many articles at people.com: 

The source says that from their knowledge of Josh and Anna and the Duggar family, "no way is she leaving him" – adding that it would not come as a surprise if "on some level" Anna tries to "absorb some of the blame." 

"Maybe not publicly, ever, but privately, there will be some suggestion of whether or not she should have been more aware of the pressures Josh was under, of the issues he was facing, and how she could have better counseled him or helped him," says the source. 

If Anna Duggar chooses to stay with her husband that's no one's business but hers, but for someone, anyone, to suggest that this is in any way her fault is reprehensible and rage-inducing. Not only is it unfair to her but it deflects some of the responsibility off of Josh. At Salon.com, Brooke Arnold tells what it was like growing up in the "women are chattel/men rule the world" mind-set in families like the Duggars and it's chilling. (Read it here.) 

This entire situation is sad on every level and frankly I wonder if anyone in the Duggar family can ever really recover from it. I'm sincere when I say that I hope they can and do. I'm also sincerely hoping they'll step back, relinquish the spotlight, get real help and let everyone heal in private. 

Triple Ick

Wednesday evening update: Did things just get a lot more embarrassing for the Duggars? Is it possible that Josh Duggar was on the cheat-on-your-spouse website Ashley Madison? Gawker says yes:

Someone using a credit card belonging to a Joshua J. Duggar, with a billing address that matches the home in Fayetteville, Arkansas owned by his grandmother Mary—a home that was consistently shown on their now-cancelled TV show, and in which Anna Duggar gave birth to her first child—paid a total of $986.76 for two different monthly Ashley Madison subscriptions from February of 2013 until May of 2015.

Read it here. 

Original post:
Issue dated August 31, 2015


I would have thought, and fervently hoped, that after the scandal we would be blessedly finished with Duggar covers, but no. There they are again, and this is the 4th cover this year to feature this family:

June 8: The Duggars' Dark Secrets (Jim Bob and Michelle)
April 27: Duggar Exclusive: My Dramatic Delivery (Jill and her newborn baby)
March 2: Duggar Exclusive: Jessa and Ben, Our Life As Newlyweds

As I've said before, for reasons that completely escape me, covers featuring this family must sell really well. Ick.

New bride Jennifer Aniston gets a sidebar and I have a media literacy reminder about her big cover story last week. Although the cover headline promises "All the details" and claims to have exclusive pictures, I've now read the actual dead-tree story and there are no pictures of Aniston from the wedding and it's clear the magazine didn't actually interview Aniston or Theroux. All the information was attributed to "a source," "one attendee," and "an Aniston friend," And although her dress is described as "strapless, elegant and flowy, simple but beautiful, and cream colored," the dress in the cover photo isn't her wedding dress, it's the dress she wore to the Oscars. People clearly wants readers to think it's the wedding dress (and that they have exclusive pictures of it,) because there are *four* additional pictures of Aniston in that same dress scattered throughout the story.

One more thing: as I surfed around the people.com site this morning I noticed that two stories currently have typos: "many" instead of "man" in the Kathie Lee story, and "min" instead of "mind" in the Yvonne Craig story. Come on, People. Hire some editors!

I'll check back later today to see if the typos get corrected.

Peak Kardashian?

At The Daily Beast, Amy Zimmerman has a fun article pondering the activities of the Kardashians over the last few days and it's a doozy. Sample paragraph:

On Monday Kylie Jenner launched a chemtrail conspiracy theory from her personal Twitter. The 17-year-old accused some unknown enemy (Aviation officials? Blac Chyna?) of poisoning the world and killing the honeybees with airplane emissions in an energetic meme that can only be described as syntactically “on one”. With her modern ideas on grammar and prose form, her anti-government paranoia, and her 25-year-old boyfriend, Kylie is the closest thing the Jenner family will ever have to a college graduate. 

You can read the entire story here. As I said a few posts ago, I usually don't praise the Ks but I will point out that unlike that other reality TV family where no one goes to college, no one in the Kardashian-Jenner clan has been accused of molesting children. (And please, God, let that continue to be true.) They're monumentally annoying but they aren't telling people how to live, and that's something. At least as far as I know, (and, please, God, let this also continue to be true) they don't endorse politicians or make hateful robocalls encouraging voters to support discriminatory laws. 

Duggars Again, Double Ick

Issue dated June 8, 2015


I've gotten a little behind on posting People covers, so let's catch up. This week it's the Duggars, no surprise, but in spite of the dramatic headline ("THE DUGGARS' DARK SECRETS") there's probably not much original or new information. The article accompanying this picture at people.com refers to the "exclusive" statement from the Duggars that was published on May 21 when the scandal first broke, then quotes a "source close to the family." As far as I can tell, other than the family's original official statements and a blog post from the father-in-law of one of the married daughters, everyone in Duggarland has gone completely silent. They'll probably surface eventually to tell their side of the story, and right now I can only imagine the hysteria of bookers from Good Morning, America, Today, Dr. Phil, maybe even Oprah, trying to get the get and serve up the first interview.

No sign of Bristol Palin. There's been some chatter online that if the wedding had gone off as planned we may have seen a big cover story but sorry, Bristol (and Sarah,) without an actual wedding, you're old news.

This is last week's issue, dated June 1, 2015,


The Bachelorette story was just a short interview with Kaitlyn; the most interesting part for me was when she was asked if she's "happy." She replied that she's always happy but things didn't turn out exactly as she expected. I'm paraphrasing, and I admit I'm surprised. Is this some kind of foreshadowing that she's not engaged to one of the fine gentlemen we see courting her every Monday night? In seasons past I would have gone straight to Reality Steve for the scoop but so far I've restrained and stuck to my "no spoilers" strategy, so at this point I truly have no idea how the show ends. I'm watching the old-fashioned way!

Not So Pure After All

Friday afternoon update: TLC has pulled the show from its schedule for "the foreseeable future." Realistically, it's gone for good.

More: Will TLC cancel the Duggars' show? In the end I think they will, as I tweeted last night, but if they don't they might find themselves in court. "Mama June" Shannon, the Mom from the Honey Boo Boo show, reminds everyone that TLC cancelled her show last fall after reports surfaced that she was dating a convicted child molester. That was an expensive loss for Shannon, apparently costing her hundreds of thousands of dollars and she wants to see the Duggars take the same hit. From the Detroit Free Press:

On Friday, she was fuming to TMZ that she wants to sue TLC about unfair treatment, since — so far — the Duggars still have a show, even though, she believes, the parents covered up Josh Duggar's confession to groping five girls 12 years ago in Springdale, Ark.

"I read that the Duggar family said this happening with their son brought them closer to God and each other,' Shannon complained to TMZ. "So they're saying it's OK to have family touch time? Hell no." Read the story here. 

Late Friday afternoon before a long week-end would be the perfect time for TLC to make their announcement. Stay tuned.

Original Post:

My guess? TLC cancels Duggar show before the week-end is over.

— Kimberly Hanes (@WritingTheWorld) May 22, 2015

Believe me when I say that I never thought I'd take to my blog to say nice things about the Kardashians. Around here snarkiness is the usual tone when I talk about Kim and the gang. This morning, however, I'm struck by the contrast between the loving acceptance they've expressed concerning Bruce Jenner's transition, and the hateful intolerance shown by the Duggars for anyone who doesn't live according to their rigid and restrictive morality. And note that the Duggars aren't just a family with a reality show. They use their fame to tell others how to live, supporting conservative politicians and in the case of first-born son Josh, working for the Family Research Council, which has been decribed by the Southern Poverty Law Center as an anti-gay hate group. As the Executive Director of the FRC's political operation (up until yesterday, when he resigned,) Josh Duggar toured the country expounding "traditional family values" and yes, telling people how to live:

"Evil done to children is one of its worst forms."
"We have to stand up to defend the American family"
"Children are a gift from the Lord and and when you look at them that way and you look at them really as more of an investment and really, you know, looking beyond yourself, I think that's what's so important."
"... I think it's just such a blessing when you see family and you see that you can honor each other"

It sounds a little different when you know that young Mr. Duggar was sneaking into his sisters' rooms to sexually assault them, doesn't it? (Quotes are from an article at Think Progress, read it here.)

This is an ugly story all around and the gleeful schadenfreude, even gloating, from observers who don't admire the Duggars, isn't contributing anything positive to the situation. Given the hypocrisy at the heart of the Duggars' purity empire, however, I'd say it's understandable.

Make. It. Stop

Issue dated April 27, 2015


Duggars again. Ick.

Duggars Again? Really?

Issue dated March, 2, 2015


Why, People, why? Isn't there anything else going on in pop culture? Do issues with Duggars on the cover really sell that well? I've been expecting a Fifty Shades of Grey cover and now it only gets a topline tease, bumped by Duggars. Ick.

Who?

Jill Duggar? Really? This week's cover is so dreary that I couldn't even bring myself to post it for a few days. I know about the Duggars but I didn't realize one of the daughters would rate a People cover. I'm more interested in the other Duggar news, which is that mom-of-19 Michelle recorded a robocall encouraging people to fight an ordinance that would protect the rights of transgendered individuals. I think she's ignorant in the extreme, as well-expressed by Rebecca Stokes at The Stir:

I genuinely dig this lady. She's truly gifted when it comes to interacting with children, and I think every human being should be allowed to live their life in whatever way they see fit. In theory, someone in Michelle's position should believe the same thing! She's received her own share of criticism from the country (and the world) about her decision to continue having children. You'd think as such she'd be more sensitive to the feelings and rights of others.

This ordinance (which passed, by the way, in spite of her call) would be preventing other human beings from being persecuted for no crimes other than asserting their identities.Michelle's ignorance is the only thing this call revealed. Promoting the false idea that every member of the transgendered community is a pedophile is just unspeakably stupid. I wish there was a nicer word I could use, but there isn't. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

Read the whole article here.