RKMBs Forums .::Robegories::. Media A&E shocked when redneck says something...rednecky

'Duck Dynasty' star Phil Robertson suspended by A&E


"Duck Dynasty" dad Phil Robertson has been placed on indefinite suspension by the A&E Network following his recent comments on homosexuality, the network announced Wednesday night.

"We are extremely disappointed to have read Phil Robertson's comments in GQ, which are based on his own personal beliefs and are not reflected in the series Duck Dynasty," the network said in a statement.

"His personal views in no way reflect those of A&E Networks, who have always been strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community. The network has placed Phil under hiatus from filming indefinitely."

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/201...-homosexuality/

Fuck off,GLAAD.

If he had said something antisemitic would you consider that rednecky too?

He of course has a right to his views but A&E also has the right not to use him on the show.

Well, yeah. Who wouldn't ?

redneckist!

I think your view would be different beyond that though.

A&E simply has no room for voices of dissent. All must conform to GLAAD's (MEM's) morality or they will be silenced.

Ah, there's the victim mentality you mentioned in another thread. It belonged to you all along.

You might feel entitled to say whatever you want consequent free but life doesn't work that way for most of us. That includes yours truly btw.

The original group trying to play victim here was A&E executives.

A&E has made millions off a show depicting real life "rednecks." Anyone who has watched even one commercial can see that the network's intent was to highlight how "backwoods" and "unsophisticated" these people supposedly are.

So, now, one of the very people they hired precisely because they wanted stupid rednecks says something consistent with the views many rednecks and now the network suddenly decides that kind of behavior is unacceptable?

I call b.s.

If they think giving that kind of a person a platform is wrong, then stop profiting from the show in the first place.

The guy said that homosexuality is a sin, which it is according to Christianity. He also lumped in adulterers, but I don't see anybody coming to their defense. I don't see anywhere where he calls them bad people or to treat them horribly as everybody that I know who watches the show says that they're a live and let live group of folks.

If you don't like what he said, it's your right to not watch the show. Let's be honest, though. You're probably not watching the show to begin with. Nor do I think that this is going to stop a lot of people from watching it. GQ released this particular part of the interview to get hype. And everyone, especially GLAAD, are helping them to sell more magazines.

this whole thing reeks of a publicity stunt on multiple fronts.

I just listened to Byron York on Greta Van Susteren's show, giving the statistics that manifest Phil Robertson's views are very mainstream.

45% of the public thinks homosexuality is immoral.

78% of Christian evangelicals think homosexuality is immoral.
79% of black evangelicals think homosexuality is immoral.

And that's not even getting into what others of Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist and other views think on the issue.

And as I've made clear many times, the Bible is crystal clear without the slightest ambiguity on the issue.

So... it is not "disgusting" or "hate" or "extremist" for Phil Robertson to voice the opinion that homosexuality is immoral. Quite the opposite, it's a very mainstream Christian/religious view. And a view far more mainstream than the organized homosexual groups who, in their clear hatred and intolerance of all views dissenting from their own, are demanding he be taken off the air.

Again proving that conservatives/Christians are the tolerant ones who allow others their lifestyle and free speech even though they disagree. Whereas liberals intolerantly demand all dissenters from their views be silenced.

I foresee a Chic-Fil-A-style blowback at liberals on this one.

Not sure where I claimed victimhood. It's just an objective observation of A&E 's morality and how it colors their policies.

I just dug up the latest Gallup poll on gay marriage, and not surprisingly, a majority of liberals support it, moderates slightly less, and about 65% of self-identified Republicans/conservatives still oppose it.

Although 2 points:
1) the pro-gay Left for the last 20 years has been carpet-bombing the public in news, tv, movies, etc., that being gay is harmless and just another lifestyle. While there has been virtually no counter-argument or pushback by Christians and other conservatives to cite the negatives, not just Biblically, but also in studies of homosexuality, that arguably prove it is NOT just an alternative lifestyle. Even when I was an agnostic, I intuitively felt this. And it is confirmed by many sources, largely uncited, in a one-way propaganda war by the Left.
2) Many people, even religious professionals, scientists, psychologists, political leaders, actors, news professionals, music stars, owners of corporations, have seen the huge backlash by the political Left at anyone who dares to voice a dissenting opinion toward gays, and are therefore in most cases intimidated into silence about voicing dissenting thought.
The previous Chic-Fil-A intimidation, and the current Phil Robertson/Duck Dynasty purge attempts being prime examples.

As as I cited before, even medical professionals attempting objective research on the subject of homosexuality are intimidated into silence, at threat of having their careers ended if they even potentially do research that raises the question objectively of whether homosexuality is inborn or learrned.
As in the PSYCHOLOGY TODAY magazine staffers who were liberal and pro-gay, but still attacked and threatened when they called for objective research on the subject.


Some REAL polls I'd like to see, as opposed to the liberal-skewed pro-gay ones, would ask:

Do you think gay marriage is acceptable? (which this Gallup one does).
Do you PERSONALLY approve of gay marriage, or is it something weird to you, that you merely tolerate? (NOT asked by Gallup.)
The question they asked about whether people perceive that most others approve/disapprove was a good question in the right direction by Gallup.
Do you feel that you are pressured/intimidated into silence and passive acceptance by those who advocate for gays?
And a specific breakdown of a variety of opinions on gay issues (do you support gay marriage, do you think it should be limited to civil unions but not marriage, do you feel gay advocacy stifles freedom of others, do you accept gay people within your family and social circles, regarding family/friends who are gay would you prefer if they were not, etc., to specifically define where the line of tolerance/acceptance/resigning true feelings in the face of PC intimidation, is drawn.)

I suspect if the questions were asked in a way that shed light on preference vs. acceptance, these rigged polls would manifest far less support for homosexuality across the board.
Tolerated, not shunned, yes.
But fully embraced and preferred, no way.

Which is hard to do, when the pollsters are as intimidated as the scientists, reporters, businesses, actors, musicians and clergy who study, report, or simply voice, a dissenting argument.

This.


And there's nothing wrong with that. It's A&E's network, after all.


This too.


But not this.

It's not exactly fair to assume that he's racist and homophobic because he's a redneck. I've met quite a few racist rednecks in my life (I can't speak on their views on homosexuality since they never came up), but I've also met rednecks who were anything but.

Anyway, I don't think A&E did anything wrong here. They gave these guys a show, predicting its success based on hits like Honey Boo Boo, and suspended that show when the star said something that stood to alienate a large part of that show's fanbase.

No, what they did wasn't B.S. It was just stupid. They should have vetted their reality stars better, or at least put it in writing that these guys wouldn't say anything political while the show was still on air.

I was gonna reply to some of the other posts here, but I have to get ready for work, so, you know, whatevs.

Of course. But that mentality's probably going to hurt them in the long run. Intolerance for certain opinions seems to exclude in its effort to include--or at least create an ironic juxtaposition in their attempt to project an image of "inclusiveness."

They're not even leaving room for argument. They're censoring.

Last I checked, the phrase "open discussion" carried more positive connotations than the term "censorship." A&E really has to dig deep into GLAAD's bag of victocratic knee-jerks and tolerance lectures to compensate for the move.



I don't think anyone here said they did wrong; entrepreneurs have a right to run their businesses however they like. Whatever decision they make, however, is not conducive to a productive business model--or an affirmative social policy for that matter.



Your parallels have cannibalized each other. Honey Boo Boo is, in and of itself, an offensive show that glorifies superficial and self-destructive lifestyles. By your logic, they would have taken that down a long time ago since it risks alienation.

GLAAD certainly houses people fanatical enough to campaign against any show containing a character--who isn't labeled as evil--that dissents with their morality. But there are two things to keep in mind: a) people, when afforded the chance, tend to allow others to keep their own opinions (despite what social liberals would have you believe), and b) it is not, by any means, logical to assume that their propaganda could reach--much less affect--the audience of Duck Dynasty--which is exactly why they'd go through the network itself for a hit job (no different than how they use the judiciary to override democratic measures against their preferred social policies).

Looks like the family is backing A&E into a corner and saying that they'll be no new episodes without their dad. Since it is the network's biggest moneymaker, I see them relenting in a month or so when this cools down because I doubt that they'll cancel the show and let the clan just sell themselves to another channel.

Now, this A&E needs to worry about. This could kill the show.

http://tv.yahoo.com/blogs/tv-news/-duck-...-173821415.html

It is generally illegal to fire someone based on their religious beliefs.

He was being interviewed about his religious beliefs. The comments he made were expressions of said beliefs.

If one were to find (I don't know all the details of his contract with A&E and don't really care to research it) that A&E's actions constituted an adverse employment action, arguably, Robinson would have a cause of action for illegal termination/religious discrimination.

But clearly the judge will tell him to bake a big gay cake for GLAAD.

How do you think this will hurt A&E? What do you think the negative result will be?



Honestly, I want to understand the side that thinks what you just wrote, so please explain to me a.) What you think A&E should have done (beyond keeping the show going), and b.) Who you think should be arguing the opposing side.



Not really. Generally, people would rather eschew open discussion for confirmation bias.



I don't know what this is supposed to mean.



So, to be clear, you don't consider A&E's "intolerance for certain opinions" or "censoring" to be wrong?

I don't mean that in some backhanded way. It's just that this thread seems filled with posters who feel A&E did wrong. Heck, the title is "A&E shocked when redneck says something...rednecky." It feels like most people here feel like A&E made the wrong decision.



Alienation of whom? Self-destructive behavior = ratings gold is a formula that had proven itself successful in shows long before Honey Boo Boo.

Or are you saying that self-destructive behavior was guaranteed to alienate a certain number of people (which is true), and that, by my logic, A&E would have taken the show down a long time ago, regardless of that what that number was, or how it related to the number of people it would have attracted?



You realize that there are a number of politicians and regular folks who, as a result of this, are campaigning against a network that they feel dissent with their moral position.



Roger that.



Two things:

What do you mean by "keep their own opinions"? Do you mean "speak their own opinions"?

Also, really? Do people here still do the whole "stick-and-jab with a broad brush" thing? No wonder I don't see any new liberals.



Who is the they in "their propaganda"? Are you talking about A&E, painting social liberals with a broad brush again, the LGBT community, or discussing someone else entirely? I think you're talking about the LGBT community, but I don't want to respond with a bunch of paragraphs to something you're not saying.

Edit: I know I didn't actually argue anything, but I figured I needed a clearer picture of what you were saying before I wasted paragraphs in reply.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but A&E isn't firing the guy. They're just not renewing his contract. Therefore, those laws don't apply.

Losing the Duck Dynasty audience.



I can only tell you what I would have done. I would have let him have his opinion. He's not a news anchor or a panelist on a news show, but rather one man with an opinion. As such, it would be very easy for me, as a network head, to distance myself from his belief system by simply pointing out that we all think differently. And if we want to watch a reality show, that should be taken under consideration.

I don't necessarily think there should be an argument. I mean, it's a reality show featuring a series of like-minded individuals, and their mindsets are the reality. That format is not going to attract a mixed audience.



Unless someone calls censorship for what it is. That's why I mentioned positive and negative connotations.

When Rahm Immanuel went after Chick-Fil-Et by restricting their expansion into Chicago, he thought he could control the narrative by saying, "their values are not Chicago values," and thus use an alleged moral high ground to paint Chick-Fil-Et as a cousin of the KKK. I have no doubt he would have succeeded in tarnishing their image to the point of irredeemability if the Christian bases hadn't rallied their support for the franchise. But his narrative failed and he was forced to walk back his obvious suppression of Chick-Fil-Et's freedom to solicit wherever they could.

Similarly, a campaign against "censorship" can hurt A&E--especially since the cast of the show itself is protesting.



It's about a battle of narratives.

I'm saying that, with the position that A&E is in, with the circumstances of the issue being what they are, the image of "censorship" is more prevalent and, as such, a stronger campaigning strategy than cries of "discrimination" by homosexuals.



They conducted their business how they saw fit. In my mind, you can never do any moral wrongs that way. The government thinks otherwise of course since you're not allowed to hire, house, or serve according to ethnicity, creed, or nationality. But I've never agreed with that and I never will.

Whether or not their actions are unlawful or anti-liberty makes very little difference to me. I may or may not view them as morally bankrupt for their recent behavior, but my own principles dictate that I have no business telling them they can't do what they've done--no matter how silly or authoritarian I believe it is.



And you're saying that outspoken opinions wouldn't be?

You're contending that very few people would agree with what Robertson has said and, therefore, A&E risks losing viewers because of it. However, I guarantee you that very few people agree with the lifestyle of Honey Boo Boo's family, and yet the show's ratings are great. As such, it stands to reason that your assumption is either premature or terribly bias.



Please clarify your meaning.



I mean being allowed not to conform to a position that their host network would find less than uncontroversial.

And there's no need to pull a Darknight. We're all good with generalizations here as long as they're.....generally accurate.



I'm talking about GLAAD. You can interpret that as the LGBT community if you wish since GLAAD basically acts as a coercive strong arm for that social group with little to no objections from its base.



But they'd be refusing to hire him according to his opinions and religious beliefs, so....

I don't necessarily agree.

A liberal/progressive judge, yes.
But one who is conservative (i.e., one who has respect for the rule of law) would rule on the facts, without consideration of political backlash.

Yes!

No.

The A & E executives have for YEARS seen the deeply Christian views of the Duck Dynasty family. They didn't get hooked into a business relationship with a family whose views were the slightest bit unclear to them.

I saw a report today that even before the GQ magazine interview, A&E had a month's notice on that as well. And beyond that, it is not the slightest bit shocking that their conservative Christian cast hold this belief about homosexuality, either from the CRYSTAL clear stance of the Bible they read, or the opinion polls of Christian evangelicals (78% think homosexuality is immoral, 79% of black Christians think it's immoral).

Add to that, A & E is supending Mr Robertson from NEW programs, but are running a marathon in the next week of existing episodes featuring the same guy they banned!
There is no moral stance by A & E, it's just pure money-motivation, and exploiting the controversy toward that end.

As the Doctor said above, they'll likely cut a deal with the Duck Dynasty family in the next few weeks, and continue to exploit them.

But I'd love if the Robertsons took a better deal and moved their show to another network, and cut these A & E assholes loose.

I don't think there will be any deal cutting at this point. How many sponsors want to chance more anus/vagina interviews after this?

A number of sponsors have already doubled down in support of Phil Roberts and the Duck Dynasty show.

And in the last day, Cracker Barrel -that had previously removed Duck Dynasty merchandise from their shelves-- have reversed themselves and apologized to Duck Dynasty viewers for offending them by attempting to boycott Duck Dynasty products from their stores. Apparently, while having no morals either way, they see that a majority of their clientele support Robertson/Duck Dynasty, and they have reversed themselves to conform to that.

A & E LIFTS PHIL ROBERTSON'S SUSPENSION FROM DUCK DYNASTY




i.e., A & E has no moral principles whatsoever, and they're just lipping empty PC language to appease all sides, as they continue to cash in on the program's success.


Gee, who would have seen this coming?
What a joke. They've been running marathons of episodes with Phil Robertson the whole time this controversy has been unfolding. No principle involved here toward any side from A & E, just posturing, appeasement, and cashing in.

they probably realized that the people who were offended by Phil Robertson's remarks are people who read GQ mag, and not necessarily the people who actually watch Duck Dynasty. When they catered to the party that isn't really their audience, they offended the ones that are bringing them money.

Props go to GQ for trolling both sides and getting a lot of exposure and magazine sales out of it.

I think the media is making more of a big deal out of this than the average person cares about his remarks.

Yeah, how did that work out again?

‘Duck Dynasty’ gets Phil Robertson back: A&E said Friday it’s reinstating “Duck Dynasty” patriarch Phil Robertson

Sorry, MEM, maybe next time the gays should try boycotting a show they actually watched in the first place.

It's ok, the gays at A&E will be collecting the big bucks while the fans will get some educational psa.

I do however recognize that conservative were willing to throw the bigger hissy fit with threats of boycotts and even murder.

I believe you'll find there's a sizable difference between using boycotts to silence someone and using them to give someone a voice.

A boycott is not a principle unto itself. It's more like a neutral facilitator of a given principle. In this case, it was encouraging free speech. In a typical case involving GLAAD, it's used to suppress speech--which is exactly what they tried to do with Robertson.

No need to obfuscate. Just be a graceful loser and move on to the next GLAAD skirmish.

It's ok if a conservative does it!

It's okay if anyone boycotts. It's perfectly legal. The issue at hand is the motivation for boycotting.

But you knew that already...and you ignored it.

Now I'm what, trying to trick you into thinking boycotts are illegal instead of a reference to all the bitching you and other conservatives do when you don't like them? Nice strawman silly boy but if you're making one at least give it a cock.

Boycotting is, after all, the subject at hand. Just because you applied a definition of "bitching" to it (in the case of conservatives alone), that doesn't mean you successfully shifted the focus.

GLAAD tried to use threats of boycotting to silence people. In response, conservatives used threats of boycotting to boost freedom of speech.

You lose again.

Where did GLAAD threaten a boycott over this?

Plus we should also consider that A&E may have changed their mind because of all the death threats they were receiving.