Q Talk

[happygolfcartrider]

When they are on social media they try to appear as a friend even though they could really care less. When they open up about themselves on social media now that is another thing and yes the"friends" should be able to speculate about their sickness or pregnancy or marital problems or whatever they (the host) puts out there for speculation. IF they do not want any comments then they should not say anything about themself at all.  They can't have it both ways.

[dooBdoo]

---

suzyQ3 wrote:

A host or anyone else should be allowed to post on social media without eliciting a rash of gossip. If a host choses to allude to some illness or problem, which she or he may think is preferable to silence, that doesn't make it polite or kind for others to speculate or start rumors.

And I wonder what compels people to do so, anyway. I get that some feel that they know the hosts, that they have some proprietary interest in them. But these TV personalities are not your friends or relatives.

---

         I agree with you, @suzyQ3.   It was pointed out on another thread that the hosts are required to maintain the social media accounts, including personal information.   It's not as though it's their personal choice.   But the way people react to them is a personal choice.   The notion that being in the public eye means we're allowed to spread rumors, gossip, or speculate about their personal lives -- basically treat them like objects instead of flesh-and-blood humans -- is nonsense.   Anyone with a friend or family member who falls prey to such busybody rumor spreading knows it's not "fun," not innocent, and not harmless.

          I think the gossiper has delusions that their activities give them a wildly exaggerated aura of importance, as if they have some kind of "inside scoop" or special intuition.   Instead, it makes them look petty and immature, in the eyes of the onlookers.   Or maybe like a "Gladys Kravitz" caricature.

[suzyQ3]

@dooBdoo, can't you just hear her screeching "Abner"?

[DrBling]

Loois like I need to check Facebook more than every six months. I had been wondering about the bubbly Jacque Gonzalez. Glad to hear she will be back on air soon.

[happygolfcartrider]

"Gossiping" about someone that tells you everything that is going on in their life publicly is not gossiping. Even if they elude to things giving out teasers it is not gossiping.

This of course is my opinion, take it or leave it.  

[jackthebear]

---

@dooBdoo wrote:

---

@suzyQ3 wrote:

A host or anyone else should be allowed to post on social media without eliciting a rash of gossip. If a host choses to allude to some illness or problem, which she or he may think is preferable to silence, that doesn't make it polite or kind for others to speculate or start rumors.

And I wonder what compels people to do so, anyway. I get that some feel that they know the hosts, that they have some proprietary interest in them. But these TV personalities are not your friends or relatives.

---

         I agree with you, @suzyQ3.   It was pointed out on another thread that the hosts are required to maintain the social media accounts, including personal information.   It's not as though it's their personal choice.   But the way people react to them is a personal choice.   The notion that being in the public eye means we're allowed to spread rumors, gossip, or speculate about their personal lives -- basically treat them like objects instead of flesh-and-blood humans -- is nonsense.   Anyone with a friend or family member who falls prey to such busybody rumor spreading knows it's not "fun," not innocent, and not harmless.

          I think the gossiper has delusions that their activities give them a wildly exaggerated aura of importance, as if they have some kind of "inside scoop" or special intuition.   Instead, it makes them look petty and immature, in the eyes of the onlookers.   Or maybe like a "Gladys Kravitz" caricature.

---

I underlined what you posted and it's I think its true they have to do that, but some are better at discretion than others.

Putting out personal information leads to discussion. Jacque used to talk a great deal about her life and child  on her Q page, which I feel should be for promotion of Q business.

[suzyQ3]

Let's get real here. No one is arguing about general discussion regarding hosts' comments on social media.

It's the idea of using their words or comments against them; insinuating all sorts of possibilities, some of which are just unkind; and just generally taking it as carte blanche to blast away.

To what end? To just increase the noise and lower the level of discourse? Yeah, like that's what we need more of these days.

[Tissyanne]

I do not believe that QVC can require a host to divulge information about their health. There are laws to protect that information. I do not know, but believe that some hosts give out just enough information to create interest and it then leads into speculation. I do not know, but believe this is to create popularity and "likes" on facebook. Fuel for the fire so to speak. 

[happygolfcartrider]

@Tissyanne

---

@Tissyanne wrote:

I do not believe that QVC can require a host to divulge information about their health. There are laws to protect that information. I do not know, but believe that some hosts give out just enough information to create interest and it then leads into speculation. I do not know, but believe this is to create popularity and "likes" on facebook. Fuel for the fire so to speak. 

---

I agree 100%

[dooBdoo]

---

@Tissyanne wrote:

I do not believe that QVC can require a host to divulge information about their health. There are laws to protect that information. I do not know, but believe that some hosts give out just enough information to create interest and it then leads into speculation. I do not know, but believe this is to create popularity and "likes" on facebook. Fuel for the fire so to speak. 

---

        @Tissyanne, My entire career has been in the healthcare field and you're right that the Q can't require divulging health details.    However, I don't believe anyone stated the hosts are required to disclose the specifics about their health, just that they're required to have active social media accounts.   

        The problem lies in the fact that if they're missing from shows...   the inevitable gossip starts if they say nothing.   And it starts if they do share info.   

        I saw some despicable, repulsive posts here when Shawn was absent (by people who still post here, by the way).    The hosts are caught between a rock and a hard place, basically because of gossips and rumor-spreaders who can't seem to see the hosts as human beings and will spread rumors if the host says nothing...  and if the host does say something posters use that as an excuse to speculate.   I think if the host were a beloved family member a poster would never condone such things.

        Sometimes I wonder whatever happened to compassion, restraint, grace, and empathy.   The "shield" of anonymous nicknames seems to make people so foul sometimes.   But we can't force people to be ethical, moral, or thoughtful toward others...