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
Polly's Book


Kindle Edition:

Al's Book
Powered By
Powered by Squarespace
« Don't Believe Everything You Read | Main | TLC's Editing Magic in Action »

Interview with a TV Producer ~ Part II

I will be interviewing Al Walentis, author of The Secret World of Jon and Kate: The Stupidest Story in the History of the Universe and the People Who Covered It.   If you haven't read it, Al worked as a reporter covering the story of the Gosselins for US Weekly.  His book, which is the only book about the Gosselins other than those "written" by Kate, chronicles the story during the crazy summer of 2009.  I contributed a chapter to the book which covers psychological aspects of the impact of reality TV on the family.  The book can be purchased by clicking on the amazon link to the right (look for the little green book.)

What would you like to ask Al Walentis?  Now is your chance.  Leave your questions in the comments here, or email them to me directly at 

                                           *     *     *     *     *     *

This is part II of my interview with an anonymous television producer.  The producer works for a network other than TLC and s/he has worked on reality TV shows as well as other forms of programming.  This segment of our conversation goes more into how ratings work and how realistically reality TV participants are portrayed on their shows.   I hope you enjoy it and I look forward to our discussion.

TVP: The ratings are an interesting thing. I noticed there's a question about how far the ratings have to drop before a show is canceled. It doesn't matter. Ratings don't have to drop for a show to be canceled. It can be canceled for any reason or it can be kept on if they see a viable interest in it.


WG: Even if the ratings aren't good?


TVP: Absolutely. They don't have to have a show go into the black to keep it on the air.


WG: How is interest in a show expressed, if not in ratings?


TVP: DVD sales, among other things, cross-over promotional types of things.


WG: So in other words, if the TV commercial revenue is only a small part of the revenue generated from a show, as long as the overall revenue is good...


TVP: Yes, the show doesn't have to generate any revenue to keep it on the air. Is it as good investment? No. But the rules set by the shareholders and set by the heads of development determine whether they'll keep it on the air or not. So, there's no set rules that if it drops below this rating, we have to take it off the air.


WG: But don't low ratings encourage them to move on to shows that will rate higher ratings?


TVP: Absolutely.


WG: It's just not as black and white as most people think it is.


TVP: It doesn't have to make sense, that’s the thing. To you and I, if something doesn't make money, we try something else. Ultimately you have to decide to stop doing it. [In this case] TLC has to make that decision. Do we keep the show, as far as the ratings are concerned? In the cable market a 1.4 is actually a decent rating going across the board. You can make money off that. Now if you're comparing that to what their high was, like a 10.6 or so, that's a dramatic drop. But 10.6 was a dramatic high, too, when you're averaging a 3 or 4 before that.


WG: Speaking of the 10.6 ratings high, that was what the viewership was on the Hawaiian episode when Jon and Kate went to Hawaii to renew their wedding vows, and later on when looking at the time line it was apparent the marriage had already dissolved before that, but they kept producing shows.


TVP: Right.


WG: What do you think about that?


TVP: As a person or as a producer?


WG: Both.


TVP: As a producer you have a responsibility to deliver a product for your network.


WG: Even if you have to blatantly lie to do it?


TVP: I'm not defending the ethics of everybody out there, but for me, that's not something I abide by. But there are people who will fight you that the truth is relative, and nowhere is there an actual affidavit at the top of the show saying “everything in this show we promise to be true and nothing but the truth.” It's not there. So it can be completely fabricated because they're not telling you that this is a testimonial. There's a lot of loopholes. As a producer, you have say as far as your content goes, but you always answer to a higher power, an executive producer, or to a head of development, or to the shareholders. There's always somebody above you who makes those decisions.


WG: So as a producer, you can excuse it, more or less.


TVP: You can fight it, but ultimately you'll lose the battle. The network gets what the network wants, and if you're not going to do it they'll find someone who will. So it's black or white in that way: Either you do it or you don't.

As a person, I'd feel morally pretty bad about putting stuff out there and showing it as the truth and knowing full well that it isn't. But, I don't work for TLC, so I really don't know what their motivation was or even what the nature of the relationship was that morning. It may have been what the tabloids said, who knows.


WG: I think one of the differences between this and other shows is that the viewers have really been emotionally invested in this show. They feel like they've seen the kids grow up, they've come to love the children, they've been through the marriage, they've been through the divorce, they've been through all kinds of important life things, so they're more invested than they might be for other shows. So when they find out that something like that, and it's part of such a big production, in an hour long episode of a show that's normally just a half hour, that the whole thing was fabricated, that the kids were taken to Hawaii to be a part of it, that they bought those pretty outfits, that they stood on that beach and did the whole shebang, viewers feel manipulated.


TVP: Absolutely.


WG: Because that feels to them like a lie because of their emotional investment.


TVP: Right. And that's completely understandable to feel that way, it makes sense. But at the same time, there's no affidavit saying “this is the truth.” So it's kind of shady, that's the best word I can use, but there's nothing against what they're doing, and you can't sue somebody for putting a show on TV and then lying to you in it, unless they're trying to demonstrate this as the truth.


WG: But don't you think that part of the appeal of it is that they call it “reality TV.” I mean, why not then instead have a sit-com about this Asian-looking dad and Pennsylvania Dutch looking mom, and then have the mom have all kinds of gizmos done to herself to become a barbie, and then take the kids to the farmer’s house and get chickens, or whatever. Why not just have a sit-com like that? But we call it realty TV and the implication is “this is real.”


TVP: It's based in reality. You could do a sit-com like that and nobody would watch it. To a lot of people, reality TV is escapism, it gives you the ability to be a voyeur, to see how other people live, that's why these shows with the “real housewives” and the celebrities are so enticing. Because they're showing you another side of society, the “what-if.” You're fantasizing about a life that you don't have. If you put them into a sit-com you'd know right away, here are the lines, this is an actor who's playing a character. The lines are a little bit more gray for a reality show. You've probably heard of the show The Hills. It's constantly being put down for being scripted and heavily produced, and there's no apologies for that because there's no guarantee or promise about what happens.

I think the best thing viewers can do is educate themselves about reality TV, what is and isn't real life vs. reality television. To know that reality TV is a snapshot of somebody at their very worst or very best. In essence, they're playing an archetype of who they really are.


WG: When someone comes across as a villain, like Spencer Pratt or Danielle Staub, do they allow themselves to be portrayed that way just for the money? Because in essence what you're saying is that the Spencer Pratt we all know and hate isn't really Spencer Pratt.


TVP: I'm saying that what you see on the show is a heightened version of who this person really is. Now you're talking about individual choice. Some people can decide they're going to play a full-blown character for a show, and you have others who are just going with the flow. You just don't know, it's very individual, so you can't make one judgment about them all.


WG: But why would someone continue on a show when they're portrayed poorly? Why do a Spencer Pratt or a Danielle continue on for further seasons when they appear so unattractive and unlikeable?


TVP: Because a key part of infamy is fame. I think that to be a household name and be hated is almost as good as to be a household name and be loved.


WG: If you want fame that badly. So basically you're saying they’re' fame whores. [WG and TVP both laugh.] I said that, you didn't.


TVP: And you can't make a statement like that about someone specifically, because you don't know. I don't know these people, I can't say this is why they do it, but there was a recent study done of high school students and what they wanted to do later in life and what was most important to them after they graduate, and overwhelmingly the answer was to be famous. That tells you a lot about the society we live in right now, and it's as important to be noticed and validated as it is to be successful and autonomous. So in some ways reality shows are a reflection of who we are as a society as much as the reverse.


WG: I personally think it would be wonderful to be incredibly rich and have nobody know who I am, because then you could really enjoy it. But fame changes your life.


TVP: It doesn't have to. If you look at Los Angeles as a city, there are places there where people go where they know they'll be photographed and they know there’s going to be paparazzi there, and they know that if they frequent this club, they're going to be in the magazines. That will keep them relevant, their names will be in the tabloids. And then you have the others, who are successful actors and musicians and entertainers who decide they're going to live outside of that area. They still go about their regular lives. We go to the grocery store here and there [around L.A.] and we see celebrities on a regular basis. Why? Because they're not [promoting anything and they're just living their normal lives.]


WG: Yeah, but we're talking reality TV. You can't be a Housewife of Atlanta and not have people know who you are. It's the nature of reality TV that causes people to associate you with your character. You can't get away from it.


TVP: And that's where reality TV is a very different medium from traditional scripted television, or films for that matter. Because that line isn't drawn in the sand, you don't have that privacy, because I'm inviting you into my house every week, to see my bedroom, to see my husband, to see my family, to see us in our intimate moments, in our emotional strife. You're giving that up by letting the cameras in? Why do people do it? They want to get a point across, or they want to sell a product, or they want to get money, who knows what the reasons are and they vary from one side to the other. But that's one of the issues of reality TV in general: You're inviting speculation about your life, and inviting infamy, by doing it.



p.s.  don't forget to submit your questions for Al.

Reader Comments (62)

Does Al still talk to Jon? Is Jon the one selling these recent stories to ROL? If not Jon, is it Ellen? Just how much can we believe the stories submitted by a source? I really want to believe that Jon would not sell out his kids; but reading Al's book made me pause. Jon didn't come across very well.

December 16, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterJon Supporter

TVP has really shed a lot of light on this subject for me. I’ve always thought some reality shows were more scripted than others. The Hills for example was definitely more show than reality. I saw a documentary “Teenage Paparazzo” and Matt Damon who is a major movie star and never in the tabloids explained it just like TVP. He said that people in the tabloids put themselves there for their own personal gain (for the most part). That makes so much sense to me. The celebs in the tabloids don’t seem to care if it’s good or bad publicity…in the end it publicity. And it’s addicting.

I think K+8 started out with J as a little reality show and it all just went straight to K’s head. She loves the attention and the notoriety so she keeps putting herself in precarious situations to feed that need inside of her. She only cares about her own agenda and not those children. People love a train wreck, she is the one we love to hate (Spencer Pratt of TLC). What’s she going to do when Hollywood turns their back on her? What about those kids?

As for your question for Al…Please ask him why Kate and Jon’s family don’t get more involved in saving these kids. What made them run so fast away from Kate from the very beginning?

Thanks WG,
Jeanette Nemec

December 16, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterJeanette

Thank you very much for this WG. For the first time I have an understanding of what this stuff is about. And also have absolutely no idea why anyone would want to do it!

December 16, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterAeduko

My question for Al would be how often did you see Kate being abusive to her children. Did she ever pay attention or show mother love or even a connection to them when she wasn't being filmed? Are they really ignored by her as they seem?

December 16, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterPat

Jon Supporter said, "Does Al still talk to Jon? Is Jon the one selling these recent stories to ROL? If not Jon, is it Ellen? Just how much can we believe the stories submitted by a source?"

No, Al and Jon do not talk. Jon is not a fan of Al's book, understandably. They were never friends although they did talk sometimes while Al was working for US Weekly. I agree Jon did not come across well in Al's book. Al happened to work for US during the time when Jon was acting out, after the separation from Kate. I believe that was not the real Jon, and the real Jon is the one we are seeing now. He has been with Ellen for about 7 months now and they appear to have a good, loving and committed relationship IMO. I also believe Jon is a good father who loves his children and wants the best for them.
I can speak with authority that it is not Jon or Ellen selling the stories and it is not Jon or Ellen on other blogs telling stories. I would also advise not believing the comments left on other blogs by a person supposedly close to the situation. Unless you actually hear it from Jon or Ellen, don't believe it. And if you hear it from an anonymous source, don't believe it. It might be true, it might be partially true, or it might be total crapola.

Aeduko, the world of reality TV sure is a weird one, right?

December 16, 2010 | Registered CommenterWerny Gal

I think the most insightful - although not surprising - thing the TVP stated is what you see on the show is a heightened version of who this person really is. I knew early on that something was off with Kate and as the show progressed, her true spots really started showing even more. It's nearly impossible for someone with NPD to stay "closeted" (for lack of a better term). Their NPD will always be revealed because they have zero shame and sincerely do not believe they are in the wrong for anything they do. They will ALWAYS blame someone or something else for their behavior. In Kate's case, her primary dumping grounds for her ridiculous behavior have been low blood sugar and being tired, Jon and the divorce, and the stress of having 8 kids, both before and after the divorce. She will continue to blame whoever or whatever she can for her actions. Always. It's how she's wired and no amount of therapy or drugs can change her.

I don't think she even believes she is or is playing a villain either. She doesn't think what she says or does is wrong or bad so I don't believe she even recognizes that she's a villain. Think back to DWTS - she really believed she was a good dancer and she always had an excuse after hearing the judges very accurate opinions of her poor dancing. I guarantee you she still blames Tony for her not winning DWTS. When he stated in a recent interview that Kate won't return his calls, I believe him and the reason she doesn't return his calls is because he wronged's HIS fault and he made her look like a fool. Let me be clear - I'm not excusing her behavior or actions in any way. I have a mother in law who has NPD and I don't excuse her behavior either, but I don't believe they are capable of seeing their conduct as being atrocious.

I do think they are master manipulators and are adept at very quickly figuring out who they can pounce on to help them achieve their desired outcome. That's why it is so hard to understand the NPD mind. On the one hand, they can manipulate people and situations and are actually quite masterful at it, but at the same time, they are incapable of seeing their own pretension. This is also why it's so difficult to explain to others what is so awful about them. They are so good at lying and manipulating and people are - at least initially - easily deluded by their charms. Their true nature eventually comes out when their latest victim fails to meet their ridiculous demands and/or wises up to the situation and calls them out on their behavior. They will then quickly shed this person and move on to the next.....but not before they have caused all manner of anarchy and affliction in that person's life and effectively blamed the innocent party for their path of destruction.

Kate will eventually discard her children. She already has in any parental sense, but she will ultimately ditch them completely and will blame them for the dissolution of the relationship. I absolutely believe the stories out there that state she leaves the kids in the care of nannies a good deal of the time. She will eventually abdicate them to avoid having to help them in any way financially. She will do whatever she can to ensure that she walks away with as much money as possible. I predict many lawsuits by some or all of the children someday. I don't think they will ALL sue her, but I do believe some will. There will also be one or more that will defend her because she long ago selected her golden child(ren) and her scapegoat(s). She has been disciplining her subjects since they were born.

I do believe the court of public opinion has shifted substantially and I think she will likely not recover from the poor impression people have of her now. I believe her NPD has carried her past the point of no return. Even if her handlers were to try and rehab her image, her NPD will eventually surface again and she will - once again - be the sole cause of her predicament. I am curious - and anxious for those kids - as to what will unfold in the coming days and months. I hurt for those children.

December 17, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterHeather

Thanks once again, WG. You and TVP are opening a window and giving us a great peek into the world of Reality Tv. It's very interesting, but disappointing too.

December 17, 2010 | Unregistered Commenterreadingmom

Question for Al, Since your interview with the producer has shed more light on how "un-reality" TV works will he consider doing a follow-up?
I am concerned about the young teenage fans of Kate and other reality stars, who believe what they see is real and will try to follow in their footpaths. I hope someone points out your interview with the producer to them.
I am with you about being rich but unfamous!

December 17, 2010 | Unregistered Commentersftk

Questions for Al in regard to Steve:

What is his knowledge of Steve's relationship with Kate?
Does he have any knowledge of Kate needing the services of a 'real' bodyguard?
If anyone needs a bodyguard, would it be the kids or Kate, in Al's opinion?
What is Al's opinion of the 'services' Steve is providing for Kate?
Is Steve a 'handler' or a 'bodyguard'?

Thanks, WG

December 17, 2010 | Unregistered Commenterreadingmom

Hello Neighbors...hope everyone is having a wonderful holiday season...I have to get to wrapping which is something I absolutely hate to do.

TVP is really an open person it seems like. Trying to give us a glimpse into the whole behind the scenes of production. I really liked their answer that fame doesn't have to change you. I was thinking this year about the 2010 marriage scandals. Sandra Bullock's whole ordeal was the makings for a tabloid could have played out many many ways. Only, Sandra really took that high road that Kate always says with her lips but doesn't do with her actions. So, to me it blows away Kate's argument about how far the media will dig into private lives.

I am so sick of hearing the Paps the paps...It is one paparazzi! Chris! Uno! One....

Great that Al W is willing to do an interview. I read the book when it came out. I was very hesitant to read the book because I felt it is just another hurdle for the kids to get over someday. But, unlike many the tone Al used kinda made it bearable. My favorite line in the whole thing is, "Be glad it is not your life." And, gosh isn't it the truth.

I have some questions I wrote in the margin of the book I will look them up today and get back.

I know this...history is repeating itself and I hope Kate has plan b because TV careers can cease and desist with little notice, compassion and or knowledge. She was not the most googled this year, not the most searched on Yahoo....etc...What does she plan to do in the future? What I see her doing with the kids is getting a lot of backlash now from the one wants to see kids exploited to this extent....

December 17, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterIrene

This may have been a better question for the producer - but I wonder who is coordinating the spin for Kate. When she gets bad press this week, there she is at the bus stop again. Does her PR agent call the paps? When there was news about 2 of the tups several weeks ago, on the "reality" show they show her specifically helping one of the tups with anger issues (corn maze show). Did the producer do that or does her agent influence what is included in the show to spin her a positive image?

December 17, 2010 | Unregistered Commenterlalaland

Hi. I've never posted here but I've enjoyed reading the past couple of months. I have a question about the freebies that families get. Some people seem to think that the Gosselins have everything paid for, that TLC paid for the Gosselin's big mansion and Kate's $2,000 haircut and all the furniture in the Duggars' home -- outside of the regular salary they get. I have a hard time believing these families have their entire lives underwritten. On the Gosselin shows the kids all wear cute matching outfits that look like they are probably Gymboree. I can see those being provided as wardrobe and donated by Gymboree for the advertising. But when you see pictures of the kids on non-filming days, like when the paparazzi have snagged a few photos, they're just wearing regular jeans and sweaters or shorts and tee shirts that could have been bought from any big box or department store. You know, nothing special, just what parents would buy. What about when they filmed Kate taking the kids shopping for school shoes, backpacks and their uniforms. Would those things have been donated or something Kate would have paid for like any other parent?

December 17, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterKaty's mom

sftk said, "I am concerned about the young teenage fans of Kate and other reality stars, who believe what they see is real and will try to follow in their footpaths."

Isn't this reportedly what happened with the octomom? She saw the Gosselins and thought she'd found the money tree, so she got pregnant with her multiples in order to generate revenue thru TV shows, product placement, etc.

Hey Irene, wish we lived closer together. I love wrapping gifts. You could put the holiday music on and bake cookies while I wrapped the presents. :D Fun!

lalaland, there is only one paps around here and that is Chris. There isn't enough happening here to warrant paying people to come and hang out in the hopes of something happening. The press is probably notified when she goes to LA or NYC, but it would be too expensive to keep paps here doing nothing.

No one was directing anyone on what to say at the corn maze. The producers were directing the activities but not the conversations. IMO Kate wasn't really "helping" the tup with anger issues, she was trying to stop the anger issue. I think it was more like "don't do that" rather than a more helpful comment like, "It's okay to be angry but it's not okay to behave badly because it." It looked to me like more of a reprimand than guidance. JMO.

I'll save all these questions for Al, thanks.

December 17, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterWerny Gal

My questions for Al :

I am wondering why during that during that crazy summer of 2009, it was never determined where Kate went to stay when it was Jon's custody time? There was one set of pictures of her at a local hotel but that was all. This was during that period of time that multiple paps were camped out in Wernersville. In an interview that summer, Kate was asked where she went when it was Jon's time with the kids. She responded with a sly smile on her face (and I'm paraphrasing here) that she was so close that she could almost see her kids or something close to that. It seems odd that Jon's comings and goings were scrutinized so closely and Kate's movements were not. Why is that?

December 17, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterNancyB

Nearly anyone could answer this question:

Do the Gosselin's attract a lot of gawkers when they go out in public? I understand that a film crew following someone around would attract some onlookers - but what is the reality?

I remember a shot of a shoe shopping excursion, and there were some people waiting when they came out.. maybe a dozen? In those cases are these people harassing the family, or just watching and snapping a photo?

How serious is the problem? And some examples would be interesting.

December 17, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterFact Lover

WG.. Why hasn't Jon simply asked for a psych eval on Kate? It happens quite often around here in Indiana with warring spouses & custodial issues. I personally worked with a woman who lost temporary custody of her children just because her husband accused her of having a personality disorder. She had to enter a day treatment program for 6 weeks at a local mental hospital and pay her own expenses to prove to the court that she was fit to raise her children.

Simply, what does it take in PA to order a psych eval on Kate and what is the holdup? Everyone knows she's crazy but the judge, it seems. This is the same question I've had for 2 years now. Can't someone (Jon, LCDS, Jon's lawyer ) just order an evaluation?

December 17, 2010 | Unregistered Commenterjust wondering

Thanks for part two of this interview. It was very insightful.

Question for Al: Based on his experience and knowledge of the situation, has Steve's role morphed into that of a "minder" who is there to protect Kate from going off the deep end, harming her kids, or harming other people? And, is there any truth to what people have been saying - that Steve and Kate are lovers? And what about Gina Neild? If the latter is true, is she completely oblivious or are they separated? Steve is supposedly staying at the house and sleeping there. Why is that?

December 17, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterMerette

To AL:

Did you directly speak to Beth? If so, was it by phone or in person? Did she flat out refuse to be interviewed or did she give you a specific reason? What was her reason?

Did you try and speak to Jenny, friend of Beth's older daughter and first travel nanny?

Did you try and speak to Carla and Ashley Turner, who btw, I think I have seen more than anyone besides Jon and are in my opinion very much to blame as to the children's current situation. Ashley was at the Palin campsite and Carla's blog has been down since the day it aired.

December 17, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterTopeka

This isn't necessarily a question for Al, but I'm curious about the PR for Kate. I know she is represented by Julie Carson May of Media Motion Entertainment, but does TLC have its own PR people? Are there two separate "teams" working on her behalf? Also, who pays for this? Is it part of the contract with TLC? If and when TLC drops her, does her PR team cease to work for her?

December 17, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterEmptynester

My question for Al would be about the source who backed out of the book. What, if anything can he tell us about this person and what they were going to reveal.

December 17, 2010 | Unregistered Commentersandi

Questions for Al W:
(1) Have you ever had any contact with or from anyone associated with TLC, Figure 8 Films or a PR rep? If so, can you tell us about those instances? Has anyone tried to influence your coverage, feed you information or try to muzzle your coverage of the Gosselins? If so, can you provide some information about what was asked, and what happened?

(2) We've read on various blogs a few reports from locals who report that Kate's behavior in the community is rude, nasty and diva-like. Why do you think more people don't come forward with stories about Kate? There's been speculation that many of those who have access to Kate and the children are forced to sign strict confidentiality agreements. Do you have any knowledge of that? Any sources tell you about that? Are people scared to speak up?

(3) Do you have any contacts or sources with the local police, emergency response workers etc. who may have been called to the Gosselin household who might speak off the record about what they've observed? If so, what kind of information have they shared with you? Any reports or investigations or call about domestic violence or child abuse or animal cruelty?

(4) Do you have any insights yourself or any sources who can provide info into the legal proceedings relating to the custody issues, the alimony/support payments, and divorce settlement? It seems as if Kate out-lawyered Jon, but there's been some speculation that the legal issues might be taking another turn in Jon's favor. Can you add any details or color to this?

Thank you.

December 17, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterFandM Alumna

I'd like to know if Al is considering writing a book about the Gosselins that is a "straight" accounting of the last few years. His first book had what seemed like a lot of personal opinion and a certain tone to it, which he attributed to, if I remember correctly, trying to think/write like Jon.
I think a journalistic approach would be a book more people - a wider audience - would read. It seem as if J&K aren't going away anytime soon, so there should still be a market for a book that covers their lives, the media and rise/fall since the children were born.

December 17, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterAsIseeit

Just Wondering, I don't think a psych eval could be court ordered unless it was felt kate could be a danger to herself or others. Just being a crappy parent in some people's opinions wouldn't be enough to warrant one, to my knowledge. It may also be that such a thing is common in divorce or custody disputes in PA and I'm just not aware of it.

Great questions for Al, everyone, thanks.

December 17, 2010 | Registered CommenterWerny Gal

Thank you for these interesting interviews. Would it be possible for you to persuade Beth Carson to do an interview? At this point I don't know if anyone involved with this train wreck is legit, but Beth sure seemed like the real deal to me. I was just wondering. It would be interesting to hear what she may say about what she witnessed and why the relationship between her and K ended. (if it did?) I know the rumor is that Kate refused to pay Beth or didn't want Beth's name on the first book or it had something to do with the book. But Beth was K best friend, right?

December 18, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterMiti

Hi Miti, both Al Walentis and I wrote about Beth Carson in Al's book. Al interviewed Beth for the book, and I wrote about what happened to their friendship in the chapter I contributed to the book. Several things happened, yes they were good friends, no they are not friends anymore.

December 18, 2010 | Registered CommenterWerny Gal

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):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>