America
\ncontinues to be gripped by Jon and Kate Gosselin whose marriage has now
\ngone belly up and whose TV show seems to be following suit. After TLC
\ninformed Jon that he will no longer play a significant role in the
\nshow, he informed TLC that he is pulling the plug on his children’s
\nparticipation. Many cried foul. Was this a form of perverse payback?
\nWas he pulling his kids from the show for the right reasons or was it a
\nselfish comeuppance?<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
For his part Jon says that he planned to
\npull his kids from the show way before TLC took their action and that
\nhis only consideration was the welfare of his kids.<\/p>\n
My response: who cares? Does it matter what the motive is. Get the
\nkids off the show. They don’t belong there as they suffer through the
\nanguish of their parents divorce. And clearly someone here has to be
\nthe adult. And it seems to me that TLC, as a responsible broadcast
\nnetwork, has to understand that now that the Gosselins experiment in
\nfame has ended in disaster it is time to give this family some alone
\ntime whether they want it or not. And that especially applies to
\nvulnerable young children.<\/p>\n
(Full disclosure. I spent a very brief time counseling Jon Gosselin to do exactly this. Get your kids off the show).<\/p>\n
My own parents divorce was about 35 years ago. I don’t think I have
\nstill completely recovered. I cannot imagine what it would have been
\nlike to have TV cameras in the house as it happened. I was in enough
\npain without having to become a fish in a fishbowl or wonder how people
\npitied me.<\/p>\n
What is even more puzzling is that TLC really is a different kind of
\nnetwork. They spent millions of dollars sending me around the United
\nStates healing families in crisis on ‘Shalom in the Home.’ And yes, it
\nwas for TV. But a boatload of extra money was spent keeping me in
\npeople’s homes well after the shows were completed to try and offer
\nsome help. So why would they now fiddle while this family crashes and
\nburns?<\/p>\n
Then there are Jon and Kate themselves. In a recent interview Kate
\njoked that ‘aliens’ had come and abducted her real husband and replaced
\nhim the partying animal portrayed by the media. She was both right and
\nwrong. It wasn’t an alien. It was something called fame. And it wasn’t
\njust Jon. It affected Jon and Kate, both Jon and Kate were carried away
\nby its current until the entire family crashed against the rocks.
\nClearly before the show these were good, balanced people. They loved
\nkids, had a huge family, and loved each other. They started the show to
\nhelp pay their bills. As a father of nine I know the astronomical costs
\ninvolved. But little did they realize that fame exacts a far higher
\nprice.<\/p>\n
It’s not that fame is itself a bad thing. Judaism argues, wisely,
\nthat everything in life is neutral and it is the use to which you put
\nthe item in question that will determine whether it is a blessing or a
\ncurse. Many celebrities – Bono and Oprah are fabulous cases in point –
\nhave not only survived fame but have consecrated their notoriety to
\ncauses larger and more worthy than themselves. It is, rather, fame
\nwithout foundation, celebrity without balance, that is so deeply
\ncorrosive. And once you see that the fame has become an addiction and
\nthat you can no longer eat breakfast without simultaneously blogging
\nabout it, it’s time to go cold turkey, at the very least until you can
\nonce again find your bearings.<\/p>\n
Above all else, you dare not infect your children with your own
\ninsecure need to always be in the spotlight. Kids are naturally
\nnatural. They have no affectations and they don’t care what people
\nthink of them. Why rob them of that innocence by thrusting them in
\nfront of a camera in their formative years? And why continue making
\nthem live their lives in the public glare when they are having to deal
\nwith extremely painful emotions?<\/p>\n
In my new book The Michael Jackson Tapes: A Tragic Icon Reveals His
\nSoul in Intimate Conversation, Michael is positively eloquent about the
\nscars left by being forced to become a childhood performer at such a
\nyoung age. He relates how trapped he felt as he travelled in his limo
\nto recording studios, all the while eyeing other children who were
\nlucky enough to simply play on monkey bars and have their parents push
\nthem on the merry-go-round. Funny thing, that. All of us wish we were
\nthe ones in the back of the limo. Yet all Michael wanted was the
\ntrappings of a normal childhood. We all know the rest of the story. And
\nthere is no happy ending.<\/p>\n
Since the book’s publication I have discovered many critics who
\nobject to my using Michael’s life as an American morality tale, even
\nthough one of Michael’s principal purposes in sitting down with me to
\ndo the interviews for the express purpose of publication was to warn
\nparents of the dangers of childhood neglect. In particular, many in our
\ncelebrity-obsessed culture have reacted negatively to Michael’s
\nwarnings about fame. Shooting the messenger seems alot more convenient.
\nMichael has been criticized for being a poor spokesman for family
\nvalues and I have been accused by some of Michael most diehard fans of
\npublishing the book for profit, even though the book was sold for an
\nextremely modest advance and a large portion of any potential profits
\nwill go to fund my and Michael’s longtime dream of a national family
\ndinner night, which I am realizing through an initiative called “Turn
\nFriday Night into Family Night.” But does it really make sense that the
\nmost famous entertainer of our generation should die under such tragic
\ncircumstances and the rest of us learn nothing from his life?<\/p>\n
And the main lesson? All the cameras and adoring fans in the world
\ncan scarcely heal the broken heart of a child forced on a stage too
\nsoon.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n