Blog Guidelines

★ No bullying or threats allowed.
★ No putting down other sites or bloggers.
★ Most comments by "anonymous" are deleted.
 Your comment is more likely to be published if you own it. 

RSS Feeds
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Polly's Book

Paperback:

Kindle Edition:

Search
Al's Book
Advertisement
Powered By
Powered by Squarespace
« TLC's Editing Magic in Action | Main | What Would You Ask a Television Producer? »
Friday
Dec102010

Interview with a TV Producer

This is the first 18 minutes of the 2.25 hour interview.  The television producer is TVP below, and I am WG.  We can refer to the TVP as male for the purposes of this discussion.  He does not work for TLC but he has worked on reality shows on another network, which you would recognize the name of.  

 

For those of you who are not cuckoo for reality show cocoapuffs the way I am, Spencer Pratt was Heidi Montag's boyfriend on The Hills (they're married now and Heidi has had dramatic physical changes due to multiple plastic surgeries) and Scott Disick is the "bad boy" boyfriend of one of the Kardashian sisters.  Kris Jenner is the Kardashians' mom, married to Bruce Jenner.

 

Believe it or not, this segment only covers the first question.  I hope you enjoy it and as usual, I look forward to your comments.

Werny Gal

*          *          *          *          *          *

TVP: So I guess the first question here is from GKWay. “How 'real' are reality shows and how much of it is actually 'scripted' with a story line?” The big thing to understand is that reality shows really are hyperbolized. A reality show really is a heightened sense of who somebody is and their dynamics with somebody, and when you have it edited together, you can consider it the highlight reel of this conversation for the day, put into an interesting way, coupled with music and narration into a seemingly plausible plot. The way that it usually goes is you sit down with your talent, who are involved in the show, ask them what are we doing here, what are we doing there, and as producers you get ideas on how you're going to sculpt them.

 

WG: You're saying that happens when you're actually taping, like the day of the taping?

 

TVP: Generally there's a meeting beforehand and there are decisions made before you do it. A lot of it is heavily produced. To call it scripted is kind of a misnomer, because you're not really writing down dialogue. What you're doing is you're setting up a situation, knowing who your characters are, knowing their dynamics, knowing how they'll interact with each other, and just letting it play out.

 

WG: For example, you might take one Housewife of New Jersey, who dislikes another Housewife of New Jersey, and get them together at the same restaurant at the same time.

 

TVP: Yes, setting them up there and knowing one of them is not going to be happy about something.

 

WG: And might you incite discord between them by egging them on privately beforehand?

 

TVP: Well, that's more of a Jerry Springer type of approach to it, and some people have gone that way and some people have not. If you take reality TV as a genre, [the approaches are] very widespread. Not every rule applies to every production. It really depends on what your goals are going to be with your viewers. Do you want them to laugh, do you want them to cry, do you want them to feel whatever it may be, that's how you're going to go about it. You always have a goal in mind.

 

WG: So that's primary: Having an emotional goal in mind.

 

TVP: Correct. Because even when writing a script for TV or a script for screen, you have a character arc. You have to have something that you love and something that you hate. Look at a show like the Kardashians, one of the biggest reality shows right now. Scott Disick, for example. Everybody hates him. He is really an exaggeration of the actual person, simply because you need a villain. Same thing with Spencer Pratt. They play a role. They create a character for themselves they portray for that. Knowing that in advance, the producers then can put things together and massage a story out of it. But again, we're talking about the entire genre. Reality TV encompasses the talent shows, it encompasses the family drama type of things, the game show types of things, so we have this wide dichotomy of what is and isn't reality.

 

WG: We're talking here, for our purposes, about "Jon and Kate Plus Eight,' all the Housewives shows on Bravo, "The Kardashians," now there's David Hasslehoff, "Little People, Big World," all those kinds of things. They actually show people, and it appears to the viewers that this is how those people really are.

 

TVP: No. Not even close. You have two different worlds here. When you're talking about the Kardashians and the Hasslehoffs, there's creative control because that celebrity's involved as a producer. When you look at the credits for the Kardashians, you'll notice that Kris Jenner is one of the executive producers of the show, so she makes executive decisions about what goes into the show, while they're shooting, while they're putting stuff together, and also in post and the editing. Something like "Little People, Big World" or "J&K+8" or now "kate Plus Eight," [the people in it don't] have that type of creative control. Shows like the Kardashians, the Hasslehoffs, "The TO Show," whatever it may be, they have an idea, and they pitch it to a network, and they get included as a producer as part of the creative process.

 

WG: So if Kate Gosselin was a producer, would she have more control?

 

TVP: Absolutely. As a producer, she could have final say here and there or have some word as to what they will or won't do. A lot of times what changes one show from another is the contract you sign with the network. How much control you have, what you are willing to do and not to do, and so forth. If you sign a contract saying you're going to adhere to whatever the standards are right there, then you're going to do that. But if you say “I have to have input on where we shoot,when we shoot, how long we shoot, and [things like that] then obviously you're going to take it into your own hands and make it a different experience.

 

     There's a lot of talk out there about who really called the shots in the Gosselin household. Was it Kate? Was it Jon? Is it TLC? And I think when you look at the term exploitation, which is thrown out there a lot, who's doing it, who isn't doing it, it's relative, and I think, in my personal opinion, not as a producer, not as a member of their staff, not as any of that, it's just my personal opinion as a viewer, is that there's multiple responsibility here. TLC sees something that's great for ratings, something that appeals to people. Kate had this appeal to people with a moral center, back when things started going. She was very pro-life, and that was attractive to the religious community. You supported her, you wanted to be there for her, because now she had this incredible plight on her hands. And what is she going to do? Nowadays that's changed a lot. So the show was more, in the beginning, about looking at cute kids and watching home movies, because everybody likes home movies. Now, they're getting older and it's not the same type of thing, so you have to amp up the drama. You have to put something else in there that will attract the viewers, and if it's not the show-and-tell of cuteness, there's got to be something else out there. When you have competition out there, like "Jersey Shore" or "The Bad Girls Club," people want that, they want the drama. I mean, look at Kate's latest on the Sarah Palin show. There's a reason why TLC put her crying in their promos. Because people like drama. As long as there's drama, there will be viewers.

 

     So, I kind of deviated from the question here, how much of it is actually scripted? Scripted isn't the term I'd use. “Heavily produced.” There are procedural ways of doing things. If you're writing a screenplay or writing a script for TV, you have characters, you have personalities, all you have to do now is put them in situations and create conflict or a catalyst. So, if you know Kate's going to be a hothead and you know Jon's going to be kind of frumpy, and you have him do something that's going to piss her off, well, there you go. Instant drama. It's a recipe.

 

WG: What I'm getting out of this is that there's no reality TV that's actually real. So don't you feel that's manipulative to viewers? And how can viewers discern what to actually believe and what not to believe?

 

TVP: I don't think that's completely true. Every reality show has a portion of it that's real. But look at your normal life. If you watch something like Kate Gosselin 24 hours a day, you're going to be bored. She's going to be sitting for eight hours, she's going to be cooking. There has to be something real there. These are real people, they have real lives, they have real emotions, and there are real circumstances. What isn't real necessarily is these extraneous circumstances you put them in.

 

WG: Yes, like taking the kids to the corn maze. If you look at the film, it looks like they had this wonderful day of going on the hayride, and going to the corn maze, and getting costumes at the store, and picking out pumpkins, when actually, it was several days, it actually took place over a couple of weeks, and they were only at the corn maze for 20 minutes, and they weren't really playing, they were working. But what you see is this happy production of loving family time, and that's not what really happened.

 

TVP: And maybe to a certain extent, when you look at everything [the eight kids] go through, for them that might be happy family time.

     I think the big thing to keep in mind here is that you have to fill 22 minutes with content that's interesting and thought-provoking and makes you feel something. And if you had a true reality show with a camera on somebody 24 hours a day, it'd be boring. You only put in the highlights, so these little trip out there to the corn maze, or to the zoo, or to Alaska, they become the basis for an entire episode because it's interesting. You're not going to put the stuff that's boring on there. So reality, yes. It is real, what they do is real, but the circumstances are provoked or they're helped or they're produced.

 

WG: Contrived.

 

TVP: I wouldn't go so far as to say they're contrived, because again, when you have people involved in the creative process, it doesn't have to be. I think with Jon and Kate it's a very different type of show. There aren't very many things out there where children are the focus and the basis for it.

 

     Now as far as the adults involved in these things, you're playing off of the highlights. Really, a reality show is a highlight reel of somebody during a certain amount of time that involves provoked experiences. If you know Kate’s going to be the villain of the show, you're going to patch together a series of events that make her look bad. With anyone you could easily do the same thing. One of your readers asked how much footage it takes to do a 30 minute show. It's relative. It's depends on what you're trying to get across what happened there, and if you can complete a story. So a 30 minute show could be shot in one day or it could be shot over a year, it just depends on what point you're trying to make. You always overshoot. You always have several angles. You always have the cutaway, that reaction shot. It's interesting to see what other people think, and the angle of the shot can bring you into the experience.

 

WG: So since you said something about the kids, as a producer vs. as a person, what do you think about having kids on TV in these so-called reality shows who aren't capable of consent due to their young age or immaturity or lack of education or experience?

 

TVP: I think it depends on the situation. When you have a reality show when the family is the center, and the family is in it together, an they all agree, “this is what we want to do,” and there's an open dialogue, with ways out of a contract, and ways to walk away and have that privacy, then you have the opportunity to have that exposure, and your privacy, and still have your boundaries set. When the show The Osbournes was on, a lot of people don't know this, but Ozzy has an older daughter who lived in the house who said “I don't want to be a part of this,” and that was respected. It didn't hurt her, it didn't hurt her reputation, it didn't hurt the family, and it definitely didn't hurt the show.

 

WG: I've always had the impression that with the Roloffs of "Little People, Big World" that this was very much something they wanted to do together as a family.  {TVP nods in agreement.]   So what do you think about the Gosselins in relation to that? Those kids have literally grown up on camera. And they've said several times they don’t want to film.

 

TVP: I think it's hard to trust the words that are out there unless they're spoken directly from the mouths of the people, and I think the Gosselins are a very specific, unique situation. You're talking about kids who don't know anything in their comprehensive lives outside of camera exposure. So you're really establishing a new precedent for other shows. Child actors have the opportunity to go on set for how many hours, and then go home, and get that break. There aren’t cameras set up in their bedrooms, in their bathrooms, in their living rooms, following them around constantly [like the G kids have been subjected to.]  They have that ability to still be a child, and are free to make mistakes, are free to strip, are free to have tantrums, without having the world document this. That's what's so different about the Gosselins, and I think that's why there are people on both sides of the spectrum.

 

      For me personally, I would not subject my children to that type of exposure. They're now old enough where they can't make adult decisions for themselves, but if they're telling you they don't want to be a part of something, as a person with a bleeding heart, I would say, “Okay, I'm going to take your thoughts into consideration and you don't have to do this.” I understand that you need to provide for your family, which is one thing Kate says time and time again. But just recently she was marked as the number five grossing reality star. I mean, she made 3.5 million dollars this year [according to an official trade report.] I mean, you can say, “That's enough.” A lot of people don't make that much money their entire lives.

 

WG: You know, a lot of people thought she made like $70-80K an episode, until TV Guide published that said she makes $250K.

 

TVP: Which sounds like a lot, because it is, but from what I'm reading that $250,000 is for the entire family, which is split eight ways.

 

WG: No, it's not.

 

TVP: No?

 

WG: The children split 15% eight ways, which means they each get 1.87%. She gets 85%.

 

TVP: What I'm saying though, is that $250K is for them, but because they're minors, they're only entitled to 15% set aside into their Coogan account.

 

PK: Except the Coogan Law doesn't apply in Pennsylvanian.  That's a California law.

 

TVP: Oh, really?

 

WG: Yeah. That's one of the reasons that we're looking at laws here in PA, because we don't have those laws to protect kids in entertainment here.

 

TVP: That's pretty shady.

 

WG: Yes, and according to Paul Petersen, the eight kids do split 15%, which is the minimum required that the kids get, so they actually are splitting the minimum.

 

TVP: And that reflects a lot on TLC's practices.

 

WG: Does it? Or does it reflect on the parents?

 

TVP: The parent is the one who has to sign on behalf of the children, but the fact that the network is putting that out there in that term, instead of dividing it by each person? If they set it up that way, then I don't want to say they're enabling the parent to exploit them, but they're not helping it either. And that's something that, you know, we're in the business of making money, and you're going to do whatever's most profitable for you, and I'm sure the amount of money they make on the show vs. what they make between DVD sales, appearances, ratings overall, is all a lot more lucrative for them than their investment right now.

 

     I think the big question is going to be, what's going to happen when the show gets canceled?

 

WG: She has a contract until I think the end of February 2012 so although the ratings have steeply declined, does that mean that TLC will continue to try to find something for her to do, to utilize her because she has this contract?

 

TVP: It depends on what's in the contract, and a contract can be defined in so many different ways. There's speculation that when the show ends you're out of your contract, and if that's in the contract, it is. But if that's not in the contract, then for this many years? Then it doesn't matter. The only ones who know the right answer to that would be the lawyers at TLC, and Kate’s attorneys and herself, and they're not talking.

                                                                            ~END~

 

Reader Comments (53)

WG,
Sincere thanks for your efforts in revealing the truth about the G's and reality tv in general. You are really becoming quite the investigative reporter!
I am riveted so far, particularly about how reality show "talent" are there for the sole purpose of creating a story that will hook viewers. His comment about "watching home movies" when the kids were really young is spot on. What a way to insinuate the Gosselins into the the American zeitgeist. Insidious, really, and it worked! It *does* hook people emotionally.
I agree with your interviewee-Kate and Jon did appeal to the religious conservatives. Truthfully, that was their breadbasket. Since the facade of being devout Christians has been tarnished seemingly irretrievably, I have be fascinated by Kate (and Jon's) evolution from from a yoga pants-wearing Mom, who had overbearing tendencies, to a harridan and harlot (appearance).
I think it is the drama that keeps people watching. Kate's PR team and handlers are pure genius.
She is loathe-worthy with her self-indulgence and unceasing willingness to exploit her children, yet somehow, she remains relevant to the tune of $250/episode.
I'm looking forward to the rest of the interview!

December 10, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterTucker's Mom

This is very interesting stuff. I can't wait for the next installment! Thank you for doing this.

December 10, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterLaura Dalios

Great interview so far WG! TVP was surprised to find out that there are no Coogan laws nationwide and that the Gosselin children split 15%. I'm sure he'd have also been surprised to know that the children were getting NOTHING until the DOL started investigating and Kate/TLC finally set up accounts for them.

December 10, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterReadingMom

This is awesome Neighbor!

I am a little struck about how you explained what you knew about the pay of the Gosselin show. Many think the kids are 'each" getting paid for working...they are but such a small percentage that can be used for their health and education if necessary.

Also, the idea of talking about a theme for the show. Oh, me oh my as far as gosselin goes they have that production, themes, advertising down to the very last Juicy juice...

Finally, the contract and it all being about the contract and nothing but the contract. And, when they are done with her & her children this isn't going to be pretty.

Oprah said last night to Barbara Walter's she wants mindful entertainment...Wonder how she handles having her new corporation aligned with Kate... Since April 2009 I have not heard Oprah say a thing to or about the gosselin-spin-o-rama?? Enquiring minds want to know.

This is great!!!

December 10, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterIrene

But they DID HAVE CAMERAS "in their bedrooms, in their bathrooms...following them around constantly" and they COULD NOT "go home" and have privacy away from the cameras...

Please, Wernygal, don't let this one get past Mr. Producer. Could you go back and ask him to clarify what he meant?

So far, there are some glaring examples of how certain practices "don't reflect" well for TLC and the parents; TVP was unaware of them. I'd love to ask TVP if it is customary for a production company to be secretly unethical...as it appears to us that TLC has been? The hoopla with the DOL rules is one instance that comes to mind.

You're a GEM, Wernygal! Thanks SO much.

December 10, 2010 | Unregistered Commenteralana

Great job WG and much appreciated!

The fact that Kate has sold her soul to the devil is certain and if she is ok with that fine, but I just want the kids out of it. I bet there will be filming over the Christmas and New Year vacation so the poor kids will not get a break. It sounds like Kate knows she is in the drivers seat holding the kids hostage and making TLC meet her demands. Think they will be going to Austria next?

December 10, 2010 | Unregistered Commentersftk

alana, that's what TVP meant, and I clarified it in his comment to make it clearer to the reader. Thank you.

sftk, one thing that came out of this interview for me was that I was surprised Kate didn't make herself a producer. That way she would have had a double paycheck and had more creative control. I think she might have done that if she had an option, but got her contract as a talent instead of a producer and since the contract is one-way cancel-able (the network has the option cancel it but she doesn't...they can end it but she can't until the contract runs out, like what happened with Jon) she can't now have herself made a producer. Which IMO is better for the kids, because can you imagine how much they would have worked if she was in charge?

December 10, 2010 | Registered CommenterWerny Gal

Somewhere in my head I seem to remember there was talk of Jon and Kate being or becoming producers of their show. That was a long time ago and I don't know where I heard it. Is that familiar to any of you others?

December 10, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterSidney

Great Stuff WG, A lot of insiteful information. Your friend made some very good points and I'm looking forward to the rest of the interview. My concern just goes back to those kids. It's shameful we don't have better laws protecting them and thier interest.

The whole situation is just sad. When they came onto the scene, they did have a lot of appeal. But I remember a few years back and J&K were spotted at a Hollywood restaurant. And I remember thinking back then that they were losing sight of why they started this in the first place. She slowly became this person you love to hate and has turned into a demanding diva. And I have to admit...and I wonder, if I was suddenly thrown into the glitz of stardom...would it go to my head too? But I do know in my heart that my children would have the best of the best and come first. Something she also lost sight of.

If you look at other families, The Duggars, Little People Big World, you see families who have remained true to themselves. I may not personally agree with all thier beliefs but I can relate to them. Looking back K always had control issues and diva like behavior, but TLC unleashed the monster inside and now they should be held accountable. And they should watch over their youngest talent.

Thanks again WG for listening. And I'm praying for those kids.

Jeanette Nemec

December 10, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterJeanette

Very interesting reading. Thanks for asking such good questions. Can't wait for the next intallment.

December 10, 2010 | Unregistered Commenterreadingteacher

Werny, You mentioned Little People Big World in the interview in regard to producer vs non-producer. I know for a fact that Matt and Amy Roloff were the producers on their show. However, the LPBW phenomenon is over, the very last show was last Monday night. There is no comparison as far a the content of character between the Gosselins and the Roloffs. Matt and Amy felt the time had come for their family to stop filming, so they did.

I think this interview is revealing some interesting behind the scenes stuff typical for most reality TV. But I noticed several times during the interview TCP was surprised and/or maybe shocked when it was revealed how TLC did certain things on the Gosselin show.

You are a class-act by the way!

December 10, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterMiti

VERY interesting. You asked great questions and I'm glad you informed him about the laws in PA regarding what is actually put away for the kids.

December 10, 2010 | Unregistered Commentersquatmunkie24

I know that I read - but it was so long ago that I cannot remember where, and also cannot swear that it is true - that the early eps, they sat down and asked Kate (?) what she wanted (grownup beds, new carpeting, a housekeeper) and then they just made shows out of that. Voila! A theme for the episode. (and who cares if your son is constipated).
Wish I could remember where I read that. I'm not sure where I was before GWOP.
I can say that it probably didn't take me more than 3 eps to be totally annoyed by Kate's rudeness or bossiness. And in the very first ep, I remember her talking about Mady, in a less than positive manner. It was extremely toned down from what it became in later years though.

December 11, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterPamelaJaye

Great job, WG! Thank you for speaking up and setting the record straight on some of his misconceptions about Kate and that kiddos.

Also, I thought that 15% of the children's earnings had to go into an account as opposed to the children getting 15% of the salary from the show. I remember many people being up in arms over the fact that the children's salary has not been disclosed because technically they are not "actors" so the income generated from the show goes solely to Kate?

December 11, 2010 | Unregistered Commentermommyinca

Fascinating!

December 11, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterLynn W.

PamelaJaye said "A theme for the episode. (and who cares if your son is constipated)."

When the constipation just happened to occur during filming, they should have not filmed it. Just like when vomiting just happened during filming, they should have not filmed it. And then they sure as hell should not have edited it in as part of a story arc, IMO.

mommyinca said "I thought that 15% of the children's earnings had to go into an account as opposed to the children getting 15% of the salary from the show."

I believe the $250K is for one episode for the family, not just for Kate with the kids having their own salaries. This is supported by the time Jon took money out of their account after the breakup and said he was removing his part of their earnings. I also got this impression during conversations I've had with Paul Petersen about the children's earnings. The kids get 15% of the show revenue as their earnings, because it must be set aside for them. If this rule wasn't in place, the parents would not have to share any of it with them in PA. Let me know if I'm not understanding your comment correctly but I think this answers your comment.

December 11, 2010 | Registered CommenterWerny Gal

PamelaJaye, I believe Kevin and Jodi revealed that the episodes were planned around Kate's "wish list." I think it was also Jodi who was present when Kate got a call from the producers pitching the idea of "game night" as an epi. Kate said "you mean I have to pretend I play with my kids?" As you say, it was so long ago I can't remember which blog this was on but I clearly remember it.

December 11, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterLaura Dalios

WG- Great info so far. This is very interesting. I can hardly wait for the rest. haha. Congratulations on getting this interview.

Pamela- I think you may have read that in Aunt Jodi's sister's blog. I think that is where I read that Kate had a wish list that they turned into episodes.

Sidney- That is familiar to me, too. I think J and K may have mentioned it in one of the question and answer episodes a couple of years ago.

mommyinca- I thought 15% of the child's salary had to be put aside, too. But, if they are actually putting aside 15% of the total, I would be happier about it. But, I don't trust Kate or TLC to do anything more than they are forced to.

Thanks again Werny Gal.

December 11, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterDiane F.

Sidney said: Somewhere in my head I seem to remember there was talk of Jon and Kate being or becoming producers of their show. That was a long time ago and I don't know where I heard it. Is that familiar to any of you others?

I remember the same thing. During the credits at the end of each episode, J&K were for a time listed as producers (maybe one season); iirc it didn't last long, and I wondered why they'd give up that control, if it was really control at all, or if it was just a title that gave them more income.

December 11, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterReadingMom

WG and mommyinca,
The terms of the DOL agreement read:

"At least 15% of the gross proceeds of this show and future shows or performances, due to the children, remain or will be placed in the irrevocable trusts accounts for the minors registered on November 20, 2009 .... until the minors reach at least 18 years old unless the funds are distributed for the safety, welfare, education or health of the minor children according to the terms of the trusts and applicable state law." ...

tmz_gosselindoldocuments

December 11, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterReadingMom

Thanks so much WG for all the work you do on this blog. You did a wonderful job on this interview. Many, many thanks to you and to TVP.

December 11, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterMomE

WG,
Thanks for the peek behind the curtain. Your site is a class act, always informative, well-written and responsible.

I live in the Lancaster area, have an executive-level professional job and I am surprised and perplexed at my interest in Kate Gosselin. I've never before read entertainment blogs like those associated with the Gosselins' show, and rarely watch TV except for the news, Mad Men and CSI. I got hooked initially from reading the Baltimore newspaper's Z on TV blog, then found some other sites, including yours.

Since you're a psychologist, I'm asking for your perspective about what makes people like me - really nonfans who aren't obsessed with celebrities - get so hooked into this story. Sure, there's the "local" angle - these people, picked from obscurity going "big time" - but there's more to it than that. Ordinarily, the public disintegration of a family and the apparent decline into craziness of a 35-year-old woman wouldn't generate in me this intense interest I have ... I'd usually see it, feel sorry for those involved and move on. What makes the Kate Gosselin story so "sticky" (as they say in the Web world)?

December 11, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterFandM Alumna

Thanks for the interview, and thank you to the TVP for educating us about the business end of reality shows. Thank you TVP!

Like many other readers I wonder how things change when participants are listed as Executive Producers. Does this change the process?

I see TVP's point about the kids having good memories about shooting the show, even if the situations are not typical (like being at the corn maze), a lot of people grow up with happy childhoods under extreme circumstances. Let's hope that is the case for the Gosselin kids.

December 11, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterFact Lover

Sidney ~ I remember the comment about J&K becoming producers (or setting up a production company) from the ridiculous interview Jon did in Park City UT in January 2009. He also mentioned at that time how marketable the children were.
Finally found the video... he doesn't say they are producers, he says toward the end of the interview that "they have a corporation". There is another video segment, but haven't been able to locate it.

http://jk8wop.blogspot.com/2009/03/interview-with-jon.html
I checked on KUTV's website and the interview is transcribed, but not entirely.

December 11, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterCJ

The kids get 15% of the show revenue as their earnings, because it must be set aside for them.
__________________
WG,
This may be true, but Kate can use any and all of this money for the kids' tuition, clothes, food, medical care, and anything else that is considered an expense of raising a child. Sounds to me like it is the same policy that is used for foster parents. They get x amount of $ per month per child from the state to use for these expenses. Would not a real mother set that money aside for them as their earnings to use once they become of age and use her money to pay for taking care of them? Isn't that what a parent does? Provide for their children? No. not in this case.

December 11, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterMerette

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>