Jill and Jessa Counting On - Part 4

[missegeno]

Unpopular opinion here, but I guess it must be said. I don't think TLC got the same letter warning of Josh's past that Oprah did. I think the writer of the letter was upset in seeing the fame and success of the Duggars, and was probably an Oprah fan who couldn't stand to see Oprah suckered into perpetuating their lies. If TLC got the same letter, I would think it came around the same time as the Oprah letter, not from the beginning. And at that point, TLC probably saw the potential cash cow and were deeper in contractual obligations, so were less cautious about it than Oprah. Still shitty, yes. But I just don't see this writer sending it to them pre-emptively before the 14K&PA special. I think the writer would most likely have decided action was necessary after seeing how the family was gaining prominence as a wholesome example. They may have thought Oprah was enough. They may have thought TLC was a lost cause or somehow more impersonal. Who knows. It's likely that the writer sent the same letter to TLC, but it's also likely that they didn't, or that the timing of it impacted the differing responses.

I'm not trying to defend TLC here, they've handled everything horribly. Just throwing my dissenting opinion in the mix to balance out all of the "TLC must have received the same letter" claims, which I have never felt inclined to believe.

[eclairaupistache]

On 2.4.2016 at 11:53 PM, quiverofdoubt said:

I vaguely remember this episode- in a "i saw the promos but not the whole thing" kind of way. What exactly was this "sex talk"? Curious minds need to know. Or was it plain old "wait for the right guy, don't do anything till then, you're female body is shameful and doesn't belong to you"

I watched the episodes 2 or 3 years ago. but it is not on youtube anymore I think. Jinger was keen on hunting and shooting and was the only girl who did it. She went with JB and that hunter as group of three and there she was cornered by JB (with that other grown man watching) and coerced into a "sex talk". Jinger was saying nothing at the time just nodding and looking embarassed. Jb said something along the line of: you see, it's mating season für the turkies right now, the gobblers fight for the hens, that's the way it is and it has always been.

It was not a normal "sex talk" of how things work, no, it was more along the lines of: See what is natural and don't you dare question it. It's supposed to be like that.

If I remember correctly Jinger was a minor at the time with two grown men in their 40's talking to her about sex and mating which is creepy to say the least!!! And all that on camera! Poor Jinger. If she really was a minor at the time, could she not sue JB for coercing her in front of the camera like that? It was cringe-worthy!

[foreign fundie]

13 minutes ago, eclairaupistache said:

I watched the episodes 2 or 3 years ago. but it is not on youtube anymore I think. Jinger was keen on hunting and shooting and was the only girl who did it. She went with JB and that hunter as group of three and there she was cornered by JB (with that other grown man watching) and coerced into a "sex talk". Jinger was saying nothing at the time just nodding and looking embarassed. Jb said something along the line of: you see, it's mating season für the turkies right now, the gobblers fight for the hens, that's the way it is and it has always been.

It was not a normal "sex talk" of how things work, no, it was more along the lines of: See what is natural and don't you dare question it. It's supposed to be like that.

If I remember correctly Jinger was a minor at the time with two grown men in their 40's talking to her about sex and mating which is creepy to say the least!!! And all that on camera! Poor Jinger. If she really was a minor at the time, could she not sue JB for coercing her in front of the camera like that? It was cringe-worthy!

Well, after that it wouldn't surprise me if she never wanted to touch a gun again, and did not dare to leave the kitchen and her sisters' company for a loooong time. A great way to domesticize your daughters for sure. And just another confirmation for her that men can do nothing (not even shooting a bird for dinner) without thinking/talking of sex.

[lascuba]

As @EmCatlyn stated, Oprah forwarded the letter to the proper authorities. That's how the police investigation started. It could have been just a rumor for all she knew, but she didn't take any chances. She had no responsibility to follow up or investigate the family herself. How would she even do that anyway? If she had tried to get information from CPS or the police they would have rightfully told her to mind her business.

[anotherone]

9 hours ago, CreationMuseumSeasonPass said:

I'm a journalist. War correspondents have risked being kidnapped, beheaded by ISIS and sexual assaults on the streets of Cairo during the Egyptian revolution. I know the original comment wasn't meant to offend, but please REFRAIN from comparing TLC executives to people who literally put their LIVES on the line to shine the light of truth in a dark world.

OK, really? I mean, some stranger makes an offhand comparison on an anonymous internet board about a goofball family and their ridiculous religion.  And you choose to be all indignant about it and attempt to chastise this person?  Maybe the internet is not for you.

[Trynn]

Look, all I'm saying is the "crime" was committed by the Duggars.  The Duggars were the ones who covered it up. TLC possibly had knowledge of an alleged crime, from an anonymous letter, and didn't follow up on it. Which is no where near as bad as the Duggars themselves.  After all, Oprah didn't even follow up on it, she just cancelled the show and that was it.  I just don't understand why people expect so much out of a TV network.

Wasn't Oprah the one who informed the authorities?

[blessalessi]

15 hours ago, anotherone said:

I just feel blaming TLC is like shooting the messenger.  All TLC is doing is showing them to the world, and it's only helping bring attention to these cults and riling people up, which is good in my opinion.

Blaming the Police Chief who authorised the release of the reports on Josh would constitute blaming the messenger, IMO.

Blaming TLC for turning a blind eye to child abuse and heinous parenting, and profiting from a televised celebration of all that is wrong with the world?  That needs another kind of analogy.

[MargaretElliott]

11 hours ago, anotherone said:

But even if they crossed paths, what is TLC's responsibility? To not air them?  What about the sister wives show?  I don't know anything about that show except the name. I thought multiple wives were illegal, or just in some states?  Should there be a moral obligation to not show those people on TV? 

I think that guy was only legally married to his first wife, and had a religious ceremony with no legal implications with the others. Then he legally divorced his first wife in order to marry his fourth wife, so that he could adopt her children from a previous marriage. So they're not doing anything illegal, since technically he's only married to one person at a time. While a lot of people might consider multiple marriages immoral, they're all consenting adults. With the Josh situation, no one was consenting and no one was an adult, and that's a much bigger moral issue in my opinion.

[anotherone]

 

 

3 minutes ago, blessalessi said:

Blaming police thief who authorised the release of the reports on Josh would constitute blaming the messenger, IMO.

Blaming TLC for turning a blind eye to child abuse and heinous parenting, and profiting from a televised celebration of all that is wrong with the world?  That needs another kind of analogy.

So you are saying TLC actually witnessed child abuse?  If so, yes, that is illegal, they should report it, no questions asked.  If they witnessed bad parenting, one could say that is just opinion.  Many of their shows have showcased really bad parenting and all sorts of bad behavior, including crimes and murders and drug deals and all.  It's TV after all, the majority of it is actually celebrating all that is wrong with the world. 

Unless TLC themselves actually witnessed a crime, they can't be faulted for putting a 3-ring circus family on the air.  An anonymous letter, even if they did receive it, just isn't enough.

 

[blessalessi]

 

I think that any reasonable suspicion should be investigated thoroughly. If the burden of proof required for alerting the authorities is eyewitness accounts, then we are all royally screwed.

You do know that child sex abuse doesn't usually take place in public spaces, right?

TLC should have referred the matter to the authorities immediately and held fire on the TV show plans.

 

 

[anotherone]

5 minutes ago, blessalessi said:

 

I think that any reasonable suspicion should be investigated thoroughly. If the burden of proof required for alerting the authorities is eyewitness accounts, then we are all royally screwed. TLC should have referred the matter to the authorities immediately.

 

 

Maybe they did?  Just like Oprah.  Do we know?

[Four is Enough]

This brings up a question for me. If a crew member has signed a "non disclosure" agreement, how is he protected by law if he goes ahead and reports child abuse? I would think that child safety is paramount in any case. But if someone who'd signed a non disclosure agreement then "broke" the agreement to protect a child, what would happen? I imagine he'd lose his job, and possibly be blackballed in the tv community. I'm not saying that's right or ethical, by the way, I'm just imagining what might happen. Can anyone shed some light on this for me?

I'd like to know that children are protected, but I get the idea that crews hide behind non disclosure agreements when they see something "off".

[blessalessi]

47 minutes ago, anotherone said:

Maybe they did?  Just like Oprah.  Do we know?

IF TLC reported the Duggars (and we have no evidence that they did), then I think that they made a seriously shitty decision to go ahead with the show and promote the Duggars as wholesome parents, on the basis that a teenager sex-offender given "a stern talking-to" was no longer a danger to his siblings, or at risk himself of growing up to be a very damaged individual. By all accounts, Oprah reported the concern AND stopped transmission of the show.  TLC's behaviour is about as far from "Just like Oprah" as I can imagine.

I have no more to say, really, except that THIS IS NOT A DUGGAR FANSITE. Telling people who are neither Duggar Fans nor TLC Groupies to "stop shooting the messenger" and/or advising them that "maybe the internet is not for you" is likely to get some push back.  

[OyToTheVey]

7 minutes ago, Four is Enough said:

This brings up a question for me. If a crew member has signed a "non disclosure" agreement, how is he protected by law if he goes ahead and reports child abuse? I would think that child safety is paramount in any case. But if someone who'd signed a non disclosure agreement then "broke" the agreement to protect a child, what would happen? I imagine he'd lose his job, and possibly be blackballed in the tv community. I'm not saying that's right or ethical, by the way, I'm just imagining what might happen. Can anyone shed some light on this for me?

I'd like to know that children are protected, but I get the idea that crews hide behind non disclosure agreements when they see something "off".

I'm a mandated reporter. I also have to follow HIPAA laws and not disclose any information regarding my students, their parents, any specifics in the house,etc. HUGE HOWEVER, all that goes in the shitter if gdforbid I notice anything suspicious. I am required by law to immediately report any wrongdoing I observe. Obviously, a bruise on a knee of a toddler is normal but if the bruise is in the shape of a human hand and it's on an arm that's suspicious family behavior I would report if I got no plausible explanation. It's a very thin line between reporting and HIPAA.

I would assume that a non disclosure agreement goes in the trash if a sound guy or videographer notices something isn't right. But I also assume that TLC would tell that guy to shut up and not ruin his career because that show brings in a lot of money. If he feels strongly about it he would need an excellent lawyer on his side. One with endless pockets.  

[blessalessi]

19 minutes ago, Four is Enough said:

This brings up a question for me. If a crew member has signed a "non disclosure" agreement, how is he protected by law if he goes ahead and reports child abuse? I would think that child safety is paramount in any case. But if someone who'd signed a non disclosure agreement then "broke" the agreement to protect a child, what would happen? I imagine he'd lose his job, and possibly be blackballed in the tv community. I'm not saying that's right or ethical, by the way, I'm just imagining what might happen. Can anyone shed some light on this for me?

I'd like to know that children are protected, but I get the idea that crews hide behind non disclosure agreements when they see something "off".

Non-disclosure agreements cannot be used to prevent people from reporting illegal activity. 

I cannot believe how far we are reaching into our arses to defend the indefensible here. 

[lascuba]

Here's the thing...how many times since practically the beginning celebrity history have there been stories about how some beloved author/actor/musician/etc. is actually a horrible person in some way or another behind the scenes? It's almost always years later, after the shine has worn off a bit, but always, ALWAYS, it turns out that people behind the scenes knew what was going on, knew of the rumors, witnessed seriously off behavior, something. And yet every time, the world reacts in shock. "What do you mean people knew and didn't say anything?!" (Cosby is the most glaring example right now.)

We need to stop giving people in a position of wealth and power the benefit of the doubt. Let's pretend that TLC knew nothing of the molestation...there's still no way that they haven't witnessed egregious behavior over the years. It is just not possible. And while I have some sympathy with the "it's just business" mentality, it has it's limits. TLC deliberately markets the Duggars in a particular way, knowing they are full of shit. They give them a platform to appear like a nice, wholesome family, thereby legitimizing their off-TLC political acts. Sure, in business you have to separate the personal from the professional, but TLC continuously displays a breathtaking level of cynicism with regards to the Duggars that I'd think only existed in badly written thrillers if we didn't constantly see it with our own eyes.

ETA: Let's say TLC did get the same letter Oprah got and reported it to the authorities. They still continued on with the show. Who in their right mind would keep on with the show knowing something like that was hanging over their heads? Cynical assholes, that's who. TLC is culpable to some degree, here.

[violynn]

7 minutes ago, blessalessi said:

Non-disclosure agreements cannot be used to prevent people from reporting illegal activity. 

I cannot believe how far we are reaching into our arses to defend the indefensible here. 

That's what I was googling when you commented.  I think defenders just don't want to face what their ideals have done, and are looking for some...any way to make it not so.

[EmCatlyn]

3 hours ago, missegeno said:

Unpopular opinion here, but I guess it must be said. I don't think TLC got the same letter warning of Josh's past that Oprah did. I think the writer of the letter was upset in seeing the fame and success of the Duggars, and was probably an Oprah fan who couldn't stand to see Oprah suckered into perpetuating their lies. If TLC got the same letter, I would think it came around the same time as the Oprah letter, not from the beginning. And at that point, TLC probably saw the potential cash cow and were deeper in contractual obligations, so were less cautious about it than Oprah. Still shitty, yes. But I just don't see this writer sending it to them pre-emptively before the 14K&PA special. I think the writer would most likely have decided action was necessary after seeing how the family was gaining prominence as a wholesome example. They may have thought Oprah was enough. They may have thought TLC was a lost cause or somehow more impersonal. Who knows. It's likely that the writer sent the same letter to TLC, but it's also likely that they didn't, or that the timing of it impacted the differing responses.

I'm not trying to defend TLC here, they've handled everything horribly. Just throwing my dissenting opinion in the mix to balance out all of the "TLC must have received the same letter" claims, which I have never felt inclined to believe.

You may be right. We have no way of knowing if TLC (or The Discovery Network) got the same letter as Oprah did. I do think that even if they didn't get a letter, they must have had some inkling that these people were not what they were representing themselves to be. As others have noted, there have been rumors in homeschooling circles, in the community, on the Internet. Due diligence would have given the TV people a hint that not all was "pure."

I agree that it is possible, maybe even probable, that by the time the network was aware of the potential problems, they were already engaged in developing what they could see would be a profitable show.  This, as you say, does not absolve the network of responsibility, but it does explain why they did not act the way Oprah did.

[EmCatlyn]

33 minutes ago, blessalessi said:

Non-disclosure agreements cannot be used to prevent people from reporting illegal activity. 

I just checked the statutes online. TLC is based in Maryland, where anyone who suspects abuse is supposed to report it even if not mandatory reporters.  In Arkansas, people who are not mandatory reporters may report without fear of violating confidentiality and the report can be confidential unless a court determines it was malicious.

In short, if someone at TLC had spoken up, they would have been legally protected.

[lascuba]

12 minutes ago, EmCatlyn said:

I just checked the statutes online. TLC is based in Maryland, where anyone who suspects abuse is supposed to report it even if not mandatory reporters.  In Arkansas, people who are not mandatory reporters may report without fear of violating confidentiality and the report can be confidential unless a court determines it was malicious.

In short, if someone at TLC had spoken up, they would have been legally protected.

I think TLC just claims plausible deniability in all of this. The things they've witnessed were never unambiguously illegal, just controversial. Sure, they've heard rumors, but it was all heresy...they couldn't be expected to follow up on anything. Blah blah blah. 

[season of life]

Deep down in my heart, I don't believe that TLC was 100% oblivious to the dark secret the family was covering up. I honestly think someone working for that conniving channel knew something was off with the Duggars. I know Jim the soundman has gone on record to praise the family, albeit before the molestation scandal came out. However, someone had to know about the rumors that have been floating around for years and wondered about them.

[for_the_Kitties]

On 4/3/2016 at 0:45 AM, RosyDaisy said:

Anna Hackle? What did she do? I know at one time a few years ago there was a rumor that she and JD might have been courting which wasn't true. In thst ring episode she didn't do or say anything bad.

I dont think there is anything substantial about anna hackle, except that NST does not like her. Last fall she got very angry whenever anyone mentioned AH, so people just stopped bringing AH up in comments. I'm still confused  why she is "off limits" and why we bow down to NST's wishes.

[Four is Enough]

1 hour ago, blessalessi said:

Non-disclosure agreements cannot be used to prevent people from reporting illegal activity. 

I cannot believe how far we are reaching into our arses to defend the indefensible here. 

Not defending anybody. Just wondering how, if a crew person stuck the neck out and actually reported something, the law would protect said crew person when the fam or TLC gave them the boot.

[season of life]

9 minutes ago, for_the_Kitties said:

I dont think there is anything substantial about anna hackle, except that NST does not like her. Last fall she got very angry whenever anyone mentioned AH, so people just stopped bringing AH up in comments. I'm still confused  why she is "off limits" and why we bow down to NST's wishes.

I found this from a thread a while back. Someone commented:

It was just her body language and her attitude in the Jessa wedding prep episode that gave NST the impression that she's kind of a bitch. So she doesn't like her now. And since NST is either a Duggar or TLC employee, we have to abide by her wishes and not give the girl a name

[blessalessi]

8 minutes ago, Four is Enough said:

Not defending anybody. Just wondering how, if a crew person stuck the neck out and actually reported something, the law would protect said crew person when the fam or TLC gave them the boot.

OK, well, as another poster said there are various ways that the law offers limited protection for people who report illegal activity.

To answer your question about non-disclosure agreements as they relate to employees, and in very broad terms because I haven't been a Certified Legal Professional for about 200 posts now, an employment contract is only valid if it has a legal objective. In the UK, for example, it not possible to enter into an employment contract where the objective is to work in a knocking shop, but it is perfectly legal to sign a contract to work in a corner shop. In its most basic form, an employment contract will probably specify the hours of work, the rate of pay, any holiday or sick leave entitlement, and it will set out the reasons for which the contract can be terminated by the employer, and the notice period required on either side. If an employee breaks the terms of the employment contract, and all other legal requirements have been observed, the employer can terminate the contract and get shot of the errant employee.

A non-disclosure agreement is an additional contract that sets out a specific agreement that the employee will not disclose trade secrets, ie, information that has been shared with the employee for a specific purpose. If they break the terms of the NDA the employee may be subject to additional sanctions beyond losing their job, in order to compensate the employer for any damages  The NDA again can only relate to a legal objective, such as recording the banal daily activities of an oversized family for distribution via a crap second-rate cable channel. In reality tv terms, this puts a gag on potentially gossipy crew members and ensures that the entire nation is completely gobsmacked every time that it is announced that a particularly fertile woman is pregnant again on a show, for example, called "14 kids and pregnant again". What it cannot do is gag employees from reporting illegal activity that is nothing at all to do with the terms of the contract.