"19 Kids" Cancelled

[Gimme a Free RV]

I imagine the filming of their show plus the time spent planning the seasons took up a great deal of their time. A rough estimate would be 6 months a year for planning and filming but likely more than that. (their last season lasted three months!) Now that they will no longer be involved in planning and filming, what will they do to fill their time? There are only so many speaking engagements available.

Oh, I dunno...homeschool, maybe? Enjoy being together as a family with no ulterior agenda? Let the girls enjoy their own lives while the biological mother gets to know her little ones? Play? Have fun? Do missions projects without advertising it? Spend less time on Instagram and more time practicing their musical instruments? Writing letters to friends? Helping friends? Bonding with each other?

[VelociRapture]

Oh, I dunno...homeschool, maybe? Enjoy being together as a family with no ulterior agenda? Let the girls enjoy their own lives while the biological mother gets to know her little ones? Play? Have fun? Do missions projects without advertising it? Spend less time on Instagram and more time practicing their musical instruments? Writing letters to friends? Helping friends? Bonding with each other?

Get real jobs. No? Too much to hope for? Darn!

[Queen Of Hearts]

The Duggar parents will have plenty of speaking engagements and likely a book deal in their future - I predict their new platform will be talking about how their family survived dark times with GOD'S help. The mega fundy-lite churches will book them for sure.

[Toothfairy]

Wtf with Jessa saying the 5th victim is totally okay with what happened. Can they just go away forever.

[19 cats and counting]

Even though TLC is gone, I think some of the Duggars will remain famous. Their status (aside from Josh) is not going to go away overnight, and they'll probably still be magazine stories (maybe no more People covers, but I'm sure they'll mention Baby Seewald's birth) and speaking gigs. They still have fans.

[ariel9]

Just read through all of the pages and I am glad to hear the show is cancelled. I am glad that JB ,at least as far as we know of, failed to use his power to keep the show on the air. I know that although the show is cancelled they are not going to back out of the public eye easily. They have a blog, an affinity for filming, speaking engagements, and social media. If they are desperate to make it onto tv they could always visit their good friends the Bates. Maybe they could score a sorta permanent gig through mooching off the salary of whatever daughter they marry off to them.

As far as an earlier post about people being critical of Ben's unemployment and him not being the first person in his situation to have a family. I think people realize that he is not the first but he does not have to find employment to support an average size family, if he subscribes to Duggar beliefs he is going to have double digits barring any medical condition to himself or Jessa. Children are expensive as is and the more you have the more expensive it becomes.

Also about finances does anyone believe that the Duggars will marry off more children to get them off of the grocery bills? Provided they go back to the old leave and cleave philosophy.

[HarleyQuinn]

When I think of Jill blogging, I think of her typing "so yeah umm" "totally" "that's crazy" "ahhhhh"

[SnazzyNazzy]

When I think of Jill blogging, I think of her typing "so yeah umm" "totally" "that's crazy" "ahhhhh"

You forgot "amazing", "awesome", and "blessed". :lol:

[Rescinded and Mended]

Jessa can make of her own experiences with Josh what she wills. Whether she truly moved on past the experience or was simply being coached by her parents will always be open for debate.

But she and Jill both have absolutely no right to speak for the 5th unrelated victim involved, and I would even venture to say the same for their younger sisters. They have no right to minimize any aspect of Josh's actions on behalf of any of the others, especially when both of them lied about everyone being sleep and not understanding when Josh molested them, and the police report stating that Josh cornered one of the younger ones in the laundry room. The others could feel entirely different from how any of the married Duggars portrayed them on the Megyn Kelly interview, and it's completely wrong for them to assume everyone involved wants nothing more than to protect Josh and the paycheck generated for the Duggar family.

If Jessa and Jill want to discuss their own experiences and how they feel, fine. But keep the others out of it, especially when they resort to lying about the timeline of events to protect the Duggar image.

I wonder if it's ever occurred to any of these young women to ask themselves why it's so much more important to protect Precious Princeling Josh compared to truthfully addressing their own physical and emotional needs.

[Gimme a Free RV]

You forgot "amazing", "awesome", and "blessed". :lol:

And "purpose to."

[ShepherdontheRock]

Wtf with Jessa saying the 5th victim is totally okay with what happened. Can they just go away forever.

...I thought it was more like her saying that she was mad that it came out.

The funny thing was right before that Jill almost broke character and said "we can't speak for the other victims" but then Jessa interjected and corrected her...

[Idolatry]

The Duggar parents will have plenty of speaking engagements and likely a book deal in their future - I predict their new platform will be talking about how their family survived dark times with GOD'S help. The mega fundy-lite churches will book them for sure.

I'm not so sure about this. The Duggars still have fans for sure, but they could be seen as an issue to organizations paying them, like all the megachurches that paid them to speak constantly. Those speaking engagements will now be controversial, and there are plenty of conservative christians who are NOT on board with how the Duggars handled this/hid it/dealt with the children.

Because of this, the girls might be carrying the Duggar banner and doing all the speaking.

[jacduggar]

Ben is totally screwed. He has absolutely nothing to offer an employer, even McDonald's.

Mostly, they're all screwed because none of them has anything to offer an employer. But, Ben willing dove into that world and sold himself to the Boob. Most 19 year olds who make bad life altering mistakes can fix them or move on. Ben married and is procreating - he's done. No pitty. None. Not for him or any of the rest.

Except maybe the little ones who will get hit with plumbing line since there aren't camera's or crew around to keep them safe anymore.

Working at McDonald's has one requirement: to be over the age of 15. I think Ben hits that requirement.

I think it's ridiculous that people don't think Ben and Jessa will figure out a way to support their family. He's an asshole but he's perfectly capable of working, even if it means being a mule in a factory somewhere. Yeah they rode the fame train but reality will eventually set in. I don't understand why the general consensus in FJ is that the Duggar men can't figure their lives out. When push comes to shove they will manage. Jeesh.

[DeFrauder]

No politician will touch the Duggars with a ten foot pole. Apart from maybe Huckabee, who has been in cahoots with them for decades, all of them will try to distance themselves as far as possible from them.

The Huckabee/Palin ticket sounds promising. Josh can be their public relations liaison.

[2manyKidzzz]

I thought it was said that he did some auto glass replacement with his Dad's company/employer. That is a job skill.....even to work at while completely a four year degree in holiness management/pastoring. Ha.

[DeFrauder]

I have a question about the ethics of re-runs for shows with sexual misconduct problems.

Josh is a "reality" star. He is playing himself as a role model and therefore it makes sense to destroy all his existing footage (is that extreme?).

That 7th Heaven guy is an actor playing a part. He is not a reality star and the character he plays does not represent him as a person (for thinking people anyway). Is it necessary to never show another episode of that show again?

Bill Cosby is kind of a grey issue because while Cliff Huxtable was a fictional character, he was sort of playing himself. He created a brand out of the character. Plus I think that maybe some of his victims had to go through his drug gauntlet before getting on the show. Certainly there is good reason not to air the Cosby show reruns or any NEW work that Cosby does.

But back to that 7th Heaven show--and other shows with a similar problem like the movie "Ferris Beuller's Day Off" where one of the characters was found to be indulging in sexual misconduct but I have not heard anything about never showing that movie ever again.

Now here is my actual question after beating around the bush for a while:

If an actor is found guilty of sexual misconduct, does it mean that it becomes morally wrong to broadcast everything they ever acted in? Is there a difference between reality stars and 'actors'?

[nokidsmom]

I thought it was said that he did some auto glass replacement with his Dad's company/employer. That is a job skill.....even to work at while completely a four year degree in holiness management/pastoring. Ha.

Yes, that is a good job skill. He does have skills and a degree under his belt. I was a bit dismayed to see him become JB's lawn boy but at least he did go ahead and finish CC. That's a good start but he seems to his head full of how he's going to do ministry and spouting off idiotic stuff. No doubt getting married into the famous Christian family has given him some big ideas so maybe with the show gone, he might rein in the ego and come back down to earth. If he can get work that's not under JB and go back to school, I can see he would be OK. He's got potential but remains to be seen what he will do with it.

[lascuba]

I have a question about the ethics of re-runs for shows with sexual misconduct problems.

Josh is a "reality" star. He is playing himself as a role model and therefore it makes sense to destroy all his existing footage (is that extreme?).

That 7th Heaven guy is an actor playing a part. He is not a reality star and the character he plays does not represent him as a person (for thinking people anyway). Is it necessary to never show another episode of that show again?

Bill Cosby is kind of a grey issue because while Cliff Huxtable was a fictional character, he was sort of playing himself. He created a brand out of the character. Plus I think that maybe some of his victims had to go through his drug gauntlet before getting on the show. Certainly there is good reason not to air the Cosby show reruns or any NEW work that Cosby does.

But back to that 7th Heaven show--and other shows with a similar problem like the movie "Ferris Beuller's Day Off" where one of the characters was found to be indulging in sexual misconduct but I have not heard anything about never showing that movie ever again.

Now here is my actual question after beating around the bush for a while:

If an actor is found guilty of sexual misconduct, does it mean that it becomes morally wrong to broadcast everything they ever acted in? Is there a difference between reality stars and 'actors'?

I really don't know if we can make any hard and fast rules. Personally, things like 7th Heaven and the Duggars are judged differently by me because of their purported messages. There's such a blatant hypocrisy there, no matter if the former is completely fictional. (Steven Collins once blasted a magazine over a cover of 17-year old Jessica Biel in her underwear as "child porn," for one thing). The Cosby Show is permanently tainted for me, and it was such a huge part of my childhood. I don't think I'll ever be able to watch it again, so I'm not sure if it should never be aired again, either. Though the fact that Cosby and other criminal actors get residuals from reruns is something to consider as well. But if we go down that road then there are SO MANY movies and tv shows that should be permanently banned. Anything by Sean Penn, and Michael Fassbender, and Roman Polanski, and Woody Allen, etc., etc., etc.

I just don't know. I think I'd be able to take a firmer stance if there was greater societal and criminal consequences at the time that these crimes are committed. People knew about Cosby back in the 70s, not just his victims. People talked about it behind the scenes, but he was Bill Cosby, seen as too popular to mess with. Sean Penn tied Madonna to a chair and beat her with baseball bat, and he wins an Oscar. If he has done time for that and been out of the limelight for a few years I'd feel a bit differently about his success now. (Like Mike Tyson--not that I'm a fan, but I can't say I'm particularly offended by his success now--he did pay for his crimes.) The fact is no one is held responsible, that there's never any real consequences, makes banning tv shows and the like seem like the only "punishment" these people get. Generally, I'm fine with separating the art from the artist up to a certain point, but since those artists are pretty much invincible I'm not going to complain over banning their art.

ETA:Ugh, that was all a ramble-y mess. tl:dr version-reality shows should definitely be cancelled with no reruns, no exceptions. Fiction is much more of a gray area with so many factors so I just go with my own feelings about the situations and don't form any strong opinions on what should be done.

[socalrules]

Now here is my actual question after beating around the bush for a while:

If an actor is found guilty of sexual misconduct, does it mean that it becomes morally wrong to broadcast everything they ever acted in? Is there a difference between reality stars and 'actors'?

First of all, Hollywood's moral ethics only involve the almighty dollar. Hence Roman "child rapist" Polanski still having a thriving directig career. I think actors get away with it because they are playing a part, no one believes it's is really who they are. I refuse to go see Roman Polanski movies but a lot of people don't seem to care about his crime. A reality star is basically playing themselves on screen. They can't get lost in the character like Brad Pitt so much that you forget he is married to Angelina Jolie and believe he is aging backwards in Benjamin Buttons. You connect to the character, not the actor. A reality star is only about their reality. There is no way to forget that Josh molested five girls when he is still Josh on the tv with the girls he molested next to him or they are holding his little girls. He is showing his real life, his own home, his own family dynamics. A viewer can't forget Josh just being Josh.

[Cleopatra7]

I have a question about the ethics of re-runs for shows with sexual misconduct problems.

Josh is a "reality" star. He is playing himself as a role model and therefore it makes sense to destroy all his existing footage (is that extreme?).

That 7th Heaven guy is an actor playing a part. He is not a reality star and the character he plays does not represent him as a person (for thinking people anyway). Is it necessary to never show another episode of that show again?

Bill Cosby is kind of a grey issue because while Cliff Huxtable was a fictional character, he was sort of playing himself. He created a brand out of the character. Plus I think that maybe some of his victims had to go through his drug gauntlet before getting on the show. Certainly there is good reason not to air the Cosby show reruns or any NEW work that Cosby does.

But back to that 7th Heaven show--and other shows with a similar problem like the movie "Ferris Beuller's Day Off" where one of the characters was found to be indulging in sexual misconduct but I have not heard anything about never showing that movie ever again.

Now here is my actual question after beating around the bush for a while:

If an actor is found guilty of sexual misconduct, does it mean that it becomes morally wrong to broadcast everything they ever acted in? Is there a difference between reality stars and 'actors'?

That's an interesting question. With 19kac, I think that entire show was built on a lie (numerous lies, actually, but especially the lies around "purity"). Since Josh was one of the main characters and essupposedly playing himself while hawking the ATI lifestyle and its damaging beliefs, I think that the show should be jettisoned in its entirety. With sexual predators playing fictional characters, I think that's more of a gray area and I don't have an answer. I know that Jimmy Saville has essentially become a non person in the UK and his episodes of Top of the Pops have been taken out of rotation. Like Josh, he was playing himself on TV and his crimes couldn't be separated from his work, especially since it was revealed that he used his charity work to abuse vulnerable populations. However, as socalrules said, the dollar is what counts for Hollywood, and the Duggars have lost their mainstream appeal for the most part. Without that, they can't return to their former level of D list fame.

[Idolatry]

There's also the not-small issue of the advertisers. So many have pulled ads. If these re-runs were to pop up, the advertisers would get a fast and loud reaction. People are having none of these hypocrites.

[JuicyDuggar]

I have a question about the ethics of re-runs for shows with sexual misconduct problems.

Josh is a "reality" star. He is playing himself as a role model and therefore it makes sense to destroy all his existing footage (is that extreme?).

That 7th Heaven guy is an actor playing a part. He is not a reality star and the character he plays does not represent him as a person (for thinking people anyway). Is it necessary to never show another episode of that show again?

Bill Cosby is kind of a grey issue because while Cliff Huxtable was a fictional character, he was sort of playing himself. He created a brand out of the character. Plus I think that maybe some of his victims had to go through his drug gauntlet before getting on the show. Certainly there is good reason not to air the Cosby show reruns or any NEW work that Cosby does.

But back to that 7th Heaven show--and other shows with a similar problem like the movie "Ferris Beuller's Day Off" where one of the characters was found to be indulging in sexual misconduct but I have not heard anything about never showing that movie ever again.

Now here is my actual question after beating around the bush for a while:

If an actor is found guilty of sexual misconduct, does it mean that it becomes morally wrong to broadcast everything they ever acted in? Is there a difference between reality stars and 'actors'?

Regarding the non-reality shows: when the whole Stephen Collins things came out, I was upset. I grew up watching 7th Heaven and enjoyed catching it on UP from time to time as an adult. I haven't watched it since the news broke of what he had done. I'm not sure I could ever watch it the same way again. It's hard to separate a beloved character from the actor in a show that was memorable. To the fans it's almost as if Reverend Camden had done the act himself. What he did was awful but he also wasn't the only character on the show. I don't think that Mr. Collins should receive any further royalties from 7th Heaven's reruns but the other actors on the show shouldn't be punished for the acts of somebody else. Long answer to your question: Personally I don't think that it's morally wrong to continue broadcasting the show and it should be the viewers choice to continue watching the program or not.

Edit: double negatives, oops

[RabbitKM]

I am totally against Jill and Jessa being involved in this documentary if all they are going to do is minimize the abuse. However, I wonder why TLC isn't also involving the other girls? Now Jill and Jessa are being put in this position of "family abuse spokeswomen."

[grandmadugger]

Besides making Happy B-day Jesus banners and adding fabric to dresses to make them modest, what crafty skills do they have?

Refashion is huge right now. They'd have to hone their sewing skills pretty good but it could work. :?

[RosyDaisy]

I have a strange feeling JB will be given a position at IBLP