How do you think this will hurt A&E? What do you think the negative result will be?
Losing the Duck Dynasty audience.
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.
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.
Not really. Generally, people would rather eschew open discussion for confirmation bias.
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.
I don't know what this is supposed to mean.
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.
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.
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.
Alienation of whom? Self-destructive behavior = ratings gold is a formula that had proven itself successful in shows long before Honey Boo Boo.
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.
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.
Please clarify your meaning.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It is generally
illegal to fire someone based on their religious beliefs.
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.
But they'd be refusing to hire him according to his opinions and religious beliefs, so....
