Jaycee Lee Dugard On The Cover Of “People” Makes Us Feel Icky
Posted by: Jessica Wakeman
Filed in:
news
11:10AM, Wednesday October 14th 2009
Really, people? Or maybe I should say really, People? Kidnapped for 18 years, Jaycee Lee Dugard and her two children finally escaped their lives as prisoners of Phillip Garrido this August, much to the joy of the Dugard family. But not two months have passed before Jaycee is on the cover of People magazine.
She is allegedly still living “in seclusion” with her daughters Angel, 15, and Starlit, 11, and it seems like the paparazzi have respected the family’s privacy so far. But now Jaycee Lee Dugard’s face is peering out to everyone in America from the supermarket checkout line. The attention smells icky to me, because it would be so easy to unscrupulously exploit these young women with more magazine covers, TV appearances and books. We just hope their family is looking out for their best interests in the long run. [People]
TheFrisky.com is part of the Turner Sports and Entertainment Digital Network
thehighandlow
wrote on October 14 2009 @ 10:33 am: [report]
Yes, very icky.
evelwood
wrote on October 14 2009 @ 10:33 am: [report]
I saw this story on cnn.com and immediately felt disgusted. Obviously her family is NOT looking out for her best interest by allowing her face to be plastered all over the nation for money. Poor girl is an understatement.
retro chic
wrote on October 14 2009 @ 10:48 am: [report]
I agree. It would be too easy to unwittingly exploit her and her children. Unfortunately, being vulnerable, she’ll listen to the ones closest to her, whatever their motives are. Good luck to her. As it is, I’m heartbroken over a story that didn’t have to happen.
Shriekback68
wrote on October 14 2009 @ 11:06 am: [report]
How do we know that Jaycee didn’t choose to do this? She’s not in a coma. Also, IIRC, these people who appear on covers are paid a bundle. Good chance the family was flat broke and needed the cash. A cynical possibility, but a possibility nonetheless.
Anyway..not sure how this particular cover is any skeevier than most People covers.
RemixCity
wrote on October 14 2009 @ 01:03 pm: [report]
My imagination says maybe there’s an upside to a recently rescued kidnap survivor to be expressly public. Maybe it’ll do some good. Let’s hope for the best. I’ll skip the mag personally, just glad she’s smiling and reportedly happy.
conspicuous
wrote on October 14 2009 @ 01:33 pm: [report]
Shriekback68, I see where your point is coming from, but have to disagree last part. This girl was kidnapped 18 years ago and held in seclusion from the world, raped by the man who kidnapped her, and held in a shed for all of that time. I would say, it definitely is skeevier than posting some celebrity divorce story on the front cover, if in fact her family or the pub is exploiting her image.
That said, there is a possiblity that she did agree to do it, and wants to get her story out there, perhaps to give hope to other families looking for their lost children.
We don’t really know either way, so we can’t determine one way or the other.
ayalabear
wrote on October 14 2009 @ 06:47 pm: [report]
I fully understand how this could be icky to some. However, as a little girl living in northern california, I remember this story in the news, along with that of Polly Klass. Being able to see this girl alive and healthy brings a sense of calmness knowing that there are hope for other families. The amount of media coverage surrounding this young girl is astronomical and until now her family has been able to keep her secluded, as they still are. This is there way of showing the world, hey she’s a normal girl, this is what she looks like, now leave our family alone. I am not her family, I don’t think this is for the fame or for the money, merely a way to share their story and most likely alleviate those terrible calls from magazine and media reporters across the nation. And hopefully this is the case, not the icky way around.
and those are my two cents.
ayalabear
wrote on October 14 2009 @ 06:49 pm: [report]
*their NOT there.
janessadawn
wrote on October 14 2009 @ 08:44 pm: [report]
I doubt anyone forced her to do this. I also had the thought that she and her kids needed the money. People already knew what she used to look like, so putting her grown self out there wasn’t that much of a stretch. It’s not like her kids are in the pic too.
QTKT
wrote on October 15 2009 @ 11:31 am: [report]
I agree, the need for some money may have played a major role in deciding to do the article. She and her daughters will most likely need years of therapy, education, housing, etc. She was in the pictures and the rest of the article came from a family rep not Jaycee herself. I think she’s doing the best she can to protect her privacy and her girls. Also she was able to call the shots instead of some intrusive pictures eventually getting leaked.