Creepy as hell, especially given that if he was an editor his job likely involved filtering through hours and hours of raw footage of children on those shows.

Parents: need any more reasons not to put your children on one of these AW "reality" TV shows? (As if there weren't enough already.)

Is he catholic?

Also for those of you bored at work:

The How to spot a pedo quiz!!
Link (new window)

I'd wager Kate would still argue that putting her children on national TV had no adverse effects on them -- and that she should be given a Parent of the Decade award..

/Kate was broken long before the show ever started

And sadly now it's just AW and a gaggle.

Are we talking 8 year olds or 16-17 year olds?

skinink: And although he is If guilty, hopefully he is convicted and serves a long time, although he was only an editor and he had no direct contact with the kids.

Last sentence rearranged for constitutionality. But we know how these things go.

FTFA: For those who forgot exactly what "Jon and Kate Plus 8" was all about, from Wikipedia:

Wiki is now a source to be used in journalism?

TheSneakerWhore: FTFA: For those who forgot exactly what "Jon and Kate Plus 8" was all about, from Wikipedia:

Wiki is now a source to be used in journalism?

Wiki is, 99 times out of 100, more accurate, more truthful, and more extensively researched than any article or TV segment produced by CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, or any other major mainstream news outlet. Do they make mistakes? Of course, especially when the facts aren't yet clear about something. But they don't make nearly as many as the regular media, and they definitely publish fewer outright lies.

Something that has always bothered me about the regular media: why on earth don't they provide citations that they used to research a story? Or at least just give external links when they discuss something like a study, proposed law, or something like that? They do on occasion, but way too infrequently. If they would, it make it a lot easier to evaluate their credibility and understanding of what they're reporting on (oh, wait, I guess that's why they don't...). It would also help people to dig deeper if interested (which I guess might distract them from watching TV). Even if you do use some off-the-record "sources" in your reporting, you can still cite lots of background info.

skinink: "For those who forgot exactly what "Jon and Kate Plus 8" was all about, from Wikipedia:..."
Okay, which of you Farkers have the short memory? I want to pull a Memento on you and resell you one item over and over again.
And although he is hopefully convicted and serves a long time, he was only an editor and he had no direct contact with the kids.

I never saw it. Like most things, my only knowledge of it comes from Fark, and it's gonna stay that way.

Dude, 8 year olds.

Happy Hours: Big Cheese Make Hair Go Boom: Are we talking 8 year olds or 16-17 year olds?

You're not supposed to ask that.

I need to know! TFA does not mention it.

16-17 year olds are absolutely lawful over here. Yay! Not only can we watch two 17 year olds at it, we can join in and not be arrested.

Now, if only I could find 2 willing 17 year olds...

White people.

How exactly would a background check have prevented this?

How could a background check have informed his employers about something he was to do in the future?

Ahh gotta love the guilty till proven innocent crowd.

Wasilla Hillbilly: How exactly would a background check have prevented this?

Wasilla Hillbilly: How exactly would a background check have prevented this?

Have a child come in to the room. If he gets a woody, kick him out?

True, not so much a background check, but a Pedocheck.

8)

Rule 34 on Kate?

Please?

Anybody?

Eep, I have a buddy who directed a couple of episodes. I wonder if she knew the guy.

lordlight: Also for those of you bored at work:

The How to spot a pedo quiz!!
Link (new window)

your quiz is outdated--whitey was captured

RminusQ: Big Cheese Make Hair Go Boom: Are we talking 8 year olds or 16-17 year olds?

Don't you know that if you've ever wanted to see a 16-year-old naked, that means you also want to rape 8-year-olds?

If you mean that when an older, mature person seeks to take sexual advantage of emotionally immature teenagers who are notorious for poor judgment and inexperience in fending off such manipulations in an act of ephebophilia is sick? Yes, yes it is sick.

Just as it is sick to think that there's nothing wrong it.

/Sick in the same vein as a caregiver taking sexual advantage of a mentally handicapped charge.
//The ephebophiles on Fark really creep me out.

Diogenes Teufelsdrockh: If you mean that when an older, mature person seeks to take sexual advantage of emotionally immature teenagers who are notorious for poor judgment and inexperience in fending off such manipulations in an act of ephebophilia is sick? Yes, yes it is sick.

I tried to write about this from an arm chair biologists perspective trying to compare us to most animal societies where older males get access to young females due to social status.... then I got depressed at the realization were not much different from that.

The article is scant on details, but since this involves CHILD PORN I'm going to assume this guy was raping babies before breakfast every morning and contributing most of his income to Al Queda.

Or he was found with some pictures on his computer. But whatever, same thing.

Planted by a Trojan/virus/hacker/ex-wife through an unsecured WAP.

/should stick to that story.