Phil Robertson, the patriarch of the Robertson Family and "Duck Commander" of the popular Duck Dynasty program on A&E Cable Network, did an interview for GQ in which he made statements that reflect his hard-line, Christian Conservative views; that are a product of his 67 year old life and conditioning.
A self-entitled, "reformed" honky tonk owner and hellion, the senior Robertson found religion in the 70's and 80's and along the way found personal comfort. And now in the golden years of his life he has found a "bully pulpit" of sorts, with the popularity of his family owned company and it's "reality" program.
To be fair, I have watched this program; which ends with the family at the dinner table saying grace before strapping on the feedbag. It is humorous in a family friendly way, and to be honest I find it occasionally entertaining. (And safe to have on the tube when my 2 year old grandson is around. At least he won't hear profanity and go around repeating it based upon what is on the tv when he is in my home).
His interview with GQ is full of typical hardline Christianity and biblical verse paraphrasing; and within a few passages of said interview one can find reason to be offended if one wants to be. (For that part, most of us can find a reason to be offended by going to church and sittig through a sermon if we want to).
I certainly don't agree with everything Mr. Robertson said within the GQ interview; and sometimes I don't agree with things he says in his program "Duck Dynasty" either. For example; when the final scene of each episode comes on and they're at the table saying grace, if I don't switch channels or turn the TV off, I don't listen or watch that portion of the program. Ever.
Also to be fair, the media has jumped all over this man's interview in GQ, and taken his statements out of context and spun them into a racial and homophobic rant that it certainly was not intended to be. And when combined with the typical reactionary and emotional response battle-plan society has forced people of color, or those living alternative life-styles toward as a means of survival, the media has now created a mountain out of a mole-hill and in all likelihood brought the Duck Dynasty program to an abrupt end.
Do I think Phil Robertson's opinion on the topics of civil-rights and gay lifestyles are wrong? Yes. I do. However, when taken with the context of the entirety of his interview, his responses are no more offensive than watching some of the episodes of Duck Dynasty that have been repetitively aired by A&E for 5 years. Albeit admittedly somewhat more covertly within the televised versions when compared to the printed one; but very similar in content and intent.
No, I do not agree with his position on civil rights and the gay lifestyle. Absolutely not. But I do agree with his right to speak his mind, while I myself make a consistent effort to take into account the fact that he is a 67 year old, conservative, Christian man, that grew up in Louisiana in a time long ago past; and thusly he is a product of that environment.
The issue I now am confronted with is that the friends and family within my circle of life, consists of individuals who are the subject of Robertson's comments in his GQ interview; and a lot of them are now forced via the media, to choose a side surrounding the emotional storm the media has turned this thing into. Facebook pages on both sides of the issue are cropping up, and friends and family on both sides of the issue are sending me requests to "Like" pages on both sides of the issue. And I am choosing to like none of them, because I refuse to let the opinions and interpretations of a 67 year old conservative, Christian, and the nefarious actions of an insidious media, dictate conditions within my personal circle of life.
The fact is, A&E chose to suspend Phil Robertson over his statements made within the GQ interview, and has stated they disagreed with his views; strongly. And as I expected, (and as anyone who has watched that program should have expected), his family has chosen to align themselves with the Patriarch and tell A&E that without Phil, there will be no Duck Dynasty on A&E.
Good for them, I say. While I may not agree with the views of the Robertsons, I also do not agree with the Draconian acts taken against Phil Robertson just for expressing his views and opinions. Opinions that anyone with gray matter between their ears would have, and should have expected to come from his mouth if asked the questions that GQ presented to him. They aren't full of profanity nor sexual in nature, but they are hard line, conservative Christian in basis, and pretty damn typical at that.
And this is a surprise to anyone? Seriously? Come on! :rolleyes:
Again, I absolutely do NOT agree with those views of Phil Robertson being bandied about by the media, and I certainly do not agree with GQ even asking those questions of him; but hey, in all cases it is their company, magazine, network, etc. so they can do as they please, right? And it is Phil's view/opinion too, and he is free to express it as he sees fit.
The rub though is this; Duck Dynasty started out on the outdoor channel as a wholly owned entity of the Robertson Family. It gained popularity and was lured to A&E due to that popularity. And the Robertson Family retained ownership of it. In fact, they insisted upon it before ever agreeing to move to A&E.
So, it would appear A&E just cut their most popular program from it's lineup, based upon the risk they took in televising a program that is based upon the lives of a hard-line, conservative, christian family. And that family owns the full legal rights to the program.
Wonder what channel it will be on next? :biggrin:
And to those who are squalling about "constitutionally guaranteed free speech" being violated, I say this; Welcome to the results of granting constitutional rights to face-less / soul-less corporations while simultaneously failing to require those same face-less / soul-less corporations to conduct business within a means that respects those very same rights that are held by their employees.
Companies now own you. You may not believe that is true but wait until the very first time you say or do something within your private life that is brought to their attention via the media; (and your Andy Warhol predicted "15 minutes of fame"). If it happens to be against something your employers hold dear, you will be escorted from the premises and have your livelihood taken from you and your family, just as quickly as Phil Robertson, and with no legal recourse open to you for redress. NONE. (That's a fact Jack!)
And Phil is still wrong. :yes:
Gee, PH, I think it has frozen over, I agree with everything you wrote.
:biggrin:
This sums up my feelings about the whole brouhaha quite nicely.
(https://scontent-b-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/1491679_10152066739923011_1558177589_n.jpg)
:yes:
Quote from: Locutus on December 20, 2013, 11:18:26 PM
:biggrin:
This sums up my feelings about the whole brouhaha quite nicely.
(https://scontent-b-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/1491679_10152066739923011_1558177589_n.jpg)
:yes:
On the face of it I couldn't agree more, however, the reality that it is imposing itself within my personal life forced me to state my position on the matter; if only for those within my personal life.
That, and the very real implications it holds for everyone; which many have chosen to overlook in favor of the emotional turmoil it is driving.
Free speech is a double-edged sword, and the sooner those who hold that right realize it, the better. Many think that constitutional right provides them with immunity from consequences for spewing every single thought that enters their heads. Nothing could be further from the truth, and since corporations now hold those very same rights, you run the risk of being subjected to corporation imposed consequences if you say or do something that those corporations don't like.
And by the same token a corporate owner cannot express his/her feelings either lest those groups scream for boycott of their products/services. No one is exempt it would seem.
What's driving me crazy is that idiots like Sarah Palin, and other miscellaneous idiots with Internet access, who are treating this like it's a "free speech" issue when nothing is further from the truth. Nobody infringed on Mr. Robertson's right to free speech whatsoever.
A perfect analogy is this one. You're more than welcome to walk into the office of your boss on Monday morning and tell him he's a fat bastard with an ugly wife and kids. See how long you keep your job after exercising your right to free speech.
Quote from: Locutus on December 21, 2013, 11:53:19 AM
What's driving me crazy is that idiots like Sarah Palin, and other miscellaneous idiots with Internet access, who are treating this like it's a "free speech" issue when nothing is further from the truth. Nobody infringed on Mr. Robertson's right to free speech whatsoever.
A perfect analogy is this one. You're more than welcome to walk into the office of your boss on Monday morning and tell him he's a fat bastard with an ugly wife and kids. See how long you keep your job after exercising your right to free speech.
Yup. It's amazing how high ignorant people can rise within our social structure. :mad:
Quote from: Locutus on December 21, 2013, 11:53:19 AM
What's driving me crazy is that idiots like Sarah Palin, and other miscellaneous idiots with Internet access, who are treating this like it's a "free speech" issue when nothing is further from the truth. Nobody infringed on Mr. Robertson's right to free speech whatsoever.
A perfect analogy is this one. You're more than welcome to walk into the office of your boss on Monday morning and tell him he's a fat bastard with an ugly wife and kids. See how long you keep your job after exercising your right to free speech.
He was simply disagreeing with an ideology not a person or people. He said "he" felt it was wrong but held nothing against the person. He has every right to disagree with an ideology and voice it, that is totally different than condemning a person. He and his belief are both being condemned by this group so what's the difference? Oh I get it, he must be a conservative. :rolleyes: Oh, and your analogy is condemning a person and his family, not even close to the same thing. And newscasters were allowed to call Palin and her kids all kinds of vile names so where was your outrage over that? Oops, you were right in there with them.
Quote from: me on December 21, 2013, 12:22:23 PM
He was simply disagreeing with an ideology not a person or people. He said "he" felt it was wrong but held nothing against the person. He has every right to disagree with an ideology and voice it, that is totally different than condemning a person. He and his belief are both being condemned by this group so what's the difference? Oh I get it, he must be a conservative. :rolleyes: Oh, and your analogy is condemning a person and his family, not even close to the same thing. And newscasters were allowed to call Palin and her kids all kinds of vile names so where was your outrage over that? Oops, you were right in there with them.
See what I mean? :rolleyes:
Let's take Locutus's analogy and rephrase it this way: You walk into the office of your boss and tell him he is going to burn in hell because he married a divorced woman.
How long do you think you will keep your job after that? Especially within an "at will" and "right to work" state like Indiana?
Quote from: Palehorse on December 21, 2013, 12:38:09 PM
See what I mean? :rolleyes:
Let's take Locutus's analogy and rephrase it this way: You walk into the office of your boss and tell him he is going to burn in hell because he married a divorced woman.
How long do you think you will keep your job after that? Especially within an "at will" and "right to work" state like Indiana?
Exactly.
I didn't intend to turn this thread into an indictment of Sarah Palin, but since I like to point out double standards when I see them, I'll say this. Where was Sarah Palin's championing of free speech back when Martin Bashir said that someone should defecate in her mouth? I didn't see her on the same side of the argument back then. :wink:
Quote from: Locutus on December 21, 2013, 12:47:08 PM
Exactly.
I didn't intend to turn this thread into an indictment of Sarah Palin, but since I like to point out double standards when I see them, I'll say this. Where was Sarah Palin's championing of free speech back when Martin Bashir said that someone should defecate in her mouth? I didn't see her on the same side of the argument back then. :wink:
That was also being said about a specific person and not an ideology. A better question would be where was the woman's right group that would have been up in arms had that been said about a liberal woman.
Quote from: Palehorse on December 21, 2013, 12:38:09 PM
See what I mean? :rolleyes:
Let's take Locutus's analogy and rephrase it this way: You walk into the office of your boss and tell him he is going to burn in hell because he married a divorced woman.
How long do you think you will keep your job after that? Especially within an "at will" and "right to work" state like Indiana?
That is still against a person not an ideology.
Quote from: me on December 21, 2013, 01:57:17 PM
That was also being said about a specific person and not an ideology. A better question would be where was the woman's right group that would have been up in arms had that been said about a liberal woman.
The bottom line is that none of these cases have anything whatsoever to do with free speech.
Quote from: me on December 21, 2013, 01:58:17 PM
That is still against a person not an ideology.
Doesn't matter. See above.
Quote from: Locutus on December 21, 2013, 02:11:04 PM
The bottom line is that none of these cases have anything whatsoever to do with free speech.
Duck Dynasty's does.
Well, he was stating his opinion and clarified that he was not condemning or judging the people it was the ideology he didn't agree with.
Quote from: me on December 21, 2013, 02:18:59 PM
Duck Dynasty's does.
No. It does not. He stated a personal opinion that is 180 degrees from the corporate views of his employer, A&E Network.
As I have already pointed out, once you work for someone, they own you; lock, stock, and barrel. It doesn't matter if it is A & E or WalMart. Say or do something they don't like and you are fired. And it doesn't matter whether you say or do it on your employers time or your own.
Like it or not, that is
exactly how it works.
The only difference is that Phil Robertson's job makes him a high profile public figure, while John Doe is just an hourly worker at Walmart; both of them will be fired but you only hear about Phil's firing because the public doesn't give two shits about John Doe. The results are exactly the same though.
Here's another case illustrating that exact same point that PH and I are making:
(CNN) -- The "tweet heard round the world" was followed by the sound of a slamming door Saturday.
Media company IAC has "parted ways" with the company PR executive who tweeted: "Going to Africa. Hope I don't get AIDS. Just kidding. I'm white!"
"The offensive comment does not reflect the views and values of IAC. We take this issue very seriously, and we have parted ways with the employee in question," an IAC spokesman said in a statement.
"There is no excuse for the hateful statements that have been made and we condemn them unequivocally," he said. "We hope, however, that time and action, and the forgiving human spirit, will not result in the wholesale condemnation of an individual who we have otherwise known to be a decent person at core."
Sacco did not immediately respond to messages left by CNN.
The tweet Justine Sacco sent before she left Friday for Cape Town, South Africa, went viral and created a social media firestorm.
The incident — Boing Boing called it "the tweet heard round the world" — was a glaring reminder that every word uttered on the Internet can be heard by seemingly everyone on the Internet, sometimes with serious consequences.
Sacco was the head of corporate communications for IAC, the media company chaired by Barry Diller that operates websites such as The Daily Beast, About.com, CollegeHumor and Match.com. Her whole job revolved around communicating with reporters — which made her Twitter comment about Africa all the more shocking.
Sacco was in London and about to begin a long vacation in South Africa when she wrote the message. Her Twitter account was relatively obscure when she posted it — fewer than 500 people were following it. But the message went viral on Friday, unbeknownst to Sacco, who apparently did not have Internet access on her flight.
Websites such as Valleywag and Buzzfeed highlighted Sacco's account, and soon it had thousands of followers — and thousands of harsh replies directed at it. Some were downright hateful. Others said they felt sorry for Sacco, regardless of how offensive her Twitter message was, because she hadn't had a chance to defend herself during the 12-hour flight.
As Twitter observers parsed through her public posts, many were disturbed by her previous messages. ("I had a sex dream about an autistic kid last night," she once wrote.)
Her account was a laundry list of banal complaints about poor customer service and other apparent indignities.
"It seems she has left a trail of casual racism across social media on her various travels," Chris Taylor, a writer for Mashable, opined.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/21/us/sacco-offensive-tweet/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
I agree that A&E has its rights to do what they want. I agree the Robertsons has their rights to say what they want. THIS is what happens. Paula Deen lost her job because of the same thing.
I think it sucks that some corporations are whimps. I think A&E are making a huge mistake. But it is their right. Just as it is for the many viewers who will no longer support A&E.
I have never been a fan of the show Duck Dynasty. I DO like the Robertson family. I love the interviews and the principals they stand for. Just not a fan of the show.
It is what it is. I think the Robertsons are going to be just fine. I think A&E will hurt more from this than they will.
I just find it strange that only certain groups can control what is said and how it's said. This political correctness thing has gotten waaaaay out of hand. It's getting to a point that freedom of speech is being stifled because no matter what you say someone could be offended. What it boils down to is he is being punished for being honest and A&E was given no other choice because people were offended and may have caused them problems. As it is that has put them between a rock and a hard place because now people are screaming because they took the action they did. It's a lose lose situation no matter what they do. Freedom of speech only applies to certain groups it would seem and it's been that way from the time it started years ago.
Freedom of Speech? The reality is there is no true freedom of speech in this country.
Yes, you can say whatever you like, whenever you like. You can hold personal opinions and viewpoints that are comprised of perspectives that are yours, and perhaps even shared by a few or by millions. Something has changed though, that much is true. What though?
It isn't the administrations or the public officials and office holders. While it is true that they have indeed changed, many times over the years, that is not the root cause for all of this.
What has changed is society. As technology gains have served to improve world-wide communications to the point where a disaster in the most remote corner of the world is known world-wide within minutes of it transpiring, so too has our ability to have our opinions and views in front of an ever increasing audience around the world.
You have a bad experience with a certain business, get onto social networking and spew your head off about it, and within minutes hundreds, if not hundreds of thousands of people are aware of what that experience is and your opinions on it.
As much as we would like to think we are anonymous in this world, the reality is that technology has opened the doors to our lives to the world, and removed that anonymity. The days of raging over a lethargic service level from a corporation or mom and pop shop, with little to nothing being said or done about it are long gone; and with them the immunity from consequence for such actions when they are rooted in insidious intent.
Businesses have also had to adjust to the technological boom of wealth and information, and in ways few laymen had thought of. Given the increased power of customers via the global voice social networking provides, (Among other means), businesses have had to increase their efforts toward stifling the caterwauling coming from those of their customers whose experiences are not positive, lest they be forced to endure a public flogging via consumers and the media.
Over time, the scope of this change has crept to include its employees, and as we see in the cases presented within this topic, their personal lives as well.
Now each and every one of us that work for an employer, be it a huge corporate conglomerate or a family owned entity, are forced to take on the "company-man" role that the work-life culture has traditionally exiled. You know what I am talking about here. That man or woman within your company that lives and breathes the company line, the company vision, and serves as captain of the cheer squad within the organizational structure at work. You know, the ones we have historically tagged with the "brown-nose" or other more vulgar label.
Unless you adopt the exact same persona within your personal lives, and incorporate your work culture and vision within every aspect of your life, you are risking the exact same career ending act within each and every second of your time off.
So now we are forced to consider our options; adopt the brown-nose culture or shut the hell up entirely. Go off the grid, delete all social media accounts, refuse to speak to the press, stop grousing about anything that may even remotely touch your employer in any way, shape, or form, and close off all access to your castle for what promises to be a decades long siege. A siege that by all indications, the private citizens of this nation have already all but lost.
If your employer is a labor abusing sweat-shop, as increasingly many are, then you are in for a sad future; because the beatings have begun and they will continue. And if you dare speak out against them you will be fired and forced to grovel at the feet of the next sweat-shop, in the hope that your former employer doesn't black-list you.
And they will, in a way that all but assures them immunity via the laws of this land that are increasingly enacted to protect the almighty corporations. Yes, we have decades old laws on the books that expose corporations to severe liability if they black list you. But by the very definitions of the act, corporations have found the loop-holes and are taking advantage of them in force; which is why we see millions of college educated workers holding menial labor positions in this country these days. . .
This isn't about Phil Robertson and A & E, inasmuch as it is about the power corporations hold over each of their employees; including their personal lives.
Phil got suspended for voicing a personal belief or opinion within a public venue. The public being the domain of his employers, who had every right to suspend him. Right, wrong, or indifferent; no laws or rights were violated.
This time it was about religious viewpoints, but it doesn't mean it won't be about the fact you work for GM and drive a Ford in the future. . .
And to me, therein lies the danger in these kinds of situations. The general public is all up in arms over some perceived violation of constitutional rights, which this is not. But the hidden agenda in all of it is escaping almost everyone. . .
Quote from: me on December 22, 2013, 11:23:21 AM
I just find it strange that only certain groups can control what is said and how it's said. This political correctness thing has gotten waaaaay out of hand. It's getting to a point that freedom of speech is being stifled because no matter what you say someone could be offended. What it boils down to is he is being punished for being honest and A&E was given no other choice because people were offended and may have caused them problems. As it is that has put them between a rock and a hard place because now people are screaming because they took the action they did. It's a lose lose situation no matter what they do. Freedom of speech only applies to certain groups it would seem and it's been that way from the time it started years ago.
Oh hogwash! Freedom of speech applies to everyone as has been said countless times in this thread. Nothing has changed about that at all.
Robertson has a right to free speech; he doesn't have a right to a reality show on A&E or any other network, despite what the right wing noise machine is telling you.
About the only thing you got right above is that A&E made the choice to get rid of him for whatever reasons. It has nothing whatsoever to do with political correctness run amok or anything like that. It was a decision that was all about the dollars.
This is what happened based on the evidence at hand:
1. Robertson gave an interview to GQ (probably encouraged by A&E and Duck Commander for publicity and pecuniary gain).
2. The people at GQ knew in advance exactly what kind of answer they were going to get by asking Robertson the question that they asked (BTW a question that Robertson and A&E should have anticipated and been ready for).
3. Robertson spoke with conviction based upon HIS belief system (though very crudely stated) thereby exercising a right which he and every American citizen has and can exercise.
4. GQ published said statements and sold a TON of magazines.
5. A&E didn't like what it read and exercised ITS right to suspend him for his statements. (A&E isn't the government so 1st Amendment issues aren't in play at all despite what the right wing noise machine is telling you).
6. Any remedy for any of this on the part of Robertson, Duck Commander, or A&E as a result of the actions of any of the parties will come by the way of a civil case in a court of law.
Period; end of story.
Remember, it's all about the money. It's
always about the money.
Once the dust settles on this whole thing, I wouldn't be surprised to see Robertson back on the show to the delight of inbred rednecks all across the land. :rolleyes: He's making too much money for both himself and A&E.
The following is an excerpt from a posting by a friend on social media, with which I couldn't agree more:
I'm saying one last thing about this whole Duck Dynasty fiasco (which I think was launched on purpose by both A&E and the cast just to get higher ratings) and then I'm done with it. I do not even watch reality shows because I have a reality of my own that needs to be lived. Anyway, I fully believe in Phil Robertson's right to say what he wants and state his beliefs, no matter how ignorant or moronic they may be. His First Amendment Right however, was NOT violated. Phil was not hauled off by our government and imprisoned for what he said. That is what our First Amendment protects us from. A&E is a privately owned corporation and they and their advertisers have the RIGHT to fire him for whatever reason they deem fit. . . .
Now that (bold) is probably spot on! :yes:
Quote from: Palehorse on December 22, 2013, 12:27:47 PM
Now that (bold) is probably spot on! :yes:
If it is, then the following will most certainly be the case:
Quote from: Locutus
Once the dust settles on this whole thing, I wouldn't be surprised to see Robertson back on the show to the delight of inbred rednecks all across the land. :rolleyes: He's making too much money for both himself and A&E.
:yes:
Yep! Exactly! :yes:
"Freedom of speech" does not mean that a person is free from the consequences of that speech.
All I know is we don't particularly care for those "reality" shows and have never watched the show except for about 20 min Fri when we heard A & E had planned a marathon this weekend and will probably never watch it again. I just think those "do gooder" groups should get a life and quit policing everything that goes on that may not be to their liking.
Phil Robertson, the patriarch of the Robertson Family and "Duck Commander" of the popular Duck Dynasty program on A&E Cable Network, did an interview for GQ in which he made statements that reflect his hard-line, Christian Conservative views; that are a product of his 67 year old life and conditioning.
A self-entitled, "reformed" honky tonk owner and hellion, the senior Robertson found religion in the 70's and 80's and along the way found personal comfort. And now in the golden years of his life he has found a "bully pulpit" of sorts, with the popularity of his family owned company and it's "reality" program.
To be fair, I have watched this program; which ends with the family at the dinner table saying grace before strapping on the feedbag. It is humorous in a family friendly way, and to be honest I find it occasionally entertaining. (And safe to have on the tube when my 2 year old grandson is around. At least he won't hear profanity and go around repeating it based upon what is on the tv when he is in my home).
His interview with GQ is full of typical hardline Christianity and biblical verse paraphrasing; and within a few passages of said interview one can find reason to be offended if one wants to be. (For that part, most of us can find a reason to be offended by going to church and sittig through a sermon if we want to).
I certainly don't agree with everything Mr. Robertson said within the GQ interview; and sometimes I don't agree with things he says in his program "Duck Dynasty" either. For example; when the final scene of each episode comes on and they're at the table saying grace, if I don't switch channels or turn the TV off, I don't listen or watch that portion of the program. Ever.
Also to be fair, the media has jumped all over this man's interview in GQ, and taken his statements out of context and spun them into a racial and homophobic rant that it certainly was not intended to be. And when combined with the typical reactionary and emotional response battle-plan society has forced people of color, or those living alternative life-styles toward as a means of survival, the media has now created a mountain out of a mole-hill and in all likelihood brought the Duck Dynasty program to an abrupt end.
Do I think Phil Robertson's opinion on the topics of civil-rights and gay lifestyles are wrong? Yes. I do. However, when taken with the context of the entirety of his interview, his responses are no more offensive than watching some of the episodes of Duck Dynasty that have been repetitively aired by A&E for 5 years. Albeit admittedly somewhat more covertly within the televised versions when compared to the printed one; but very similar in content and intent.
No, I do not agree with his position on civil rights and the gay lifestyle. Absolutely not. But I do agree with his right to speak his mind, while I myself make a consistent effort to take into account the fact that he is a 67 year old, conservative, Christian man, that grew up in Louisiana in a time long ago past; and thusly he is a product of that environment.
The issue I now am confronted with is that the friends and family within my circle of life, consists of individuals who are the subject of Robertson's comments in his GQ interview; and a lot of them are now forced via the media, to choose a side surrounding the emotional storm the media has turned this thing into. Facebook pages on both sides of the issue are cropping up, and friends and family on both sides of the issue are sending me requests to "Like" pages on both sides of the issue. And I am choosing to like none of them, because I refuse to let the opinions and interpretations of a 67 year old conservative, Christian, and the nefarious actions of an insidious media, dictate conditions within my personal circle of life.
The fact is, A&E chose to suspend Phil Robertson over his statements made within the GQ interview, and has stated they disagreed with his views; strongly. And as I expected, (and as anyone who has watched that program should have expected), his family has chosen to align themselves with the Patriarch and tell A&E that without Phil, there will be no Duck Dynasty on A&E.
Good for them, I say. While I may not agree with the views of the Robertsons, I also do not agree with the Draconian acts taken against Phil Robertson just for expressing his views and opinions. Opinions that anyone with gray matter between their ears would have, and should have expected to come from his mouth if asked the questions that GQ presented to him. They aren't full of profanity nor sexual in nature, but they are hard line, conservative Christian in basis, and pretty damn typical at that.
And this is a surprise to anyone? Seriously? Come on! :rolleyes:
Again, I absolutely do NOT agree with those views of Phil Robertson being bandied about by the media, and I certainly do not agree with GQ even asking those questions of him; but hey, in all cases it is their company, magazine, network, etc. so they can do as they please, right? And it is Phil's view/opinion too, and he is free to express it as he sees fit.
The rub though is this; Duck Dynasty started out on the outdoor channel as a wholly owned entity of the Robertson Family. It gained popularity and was lured to A&E due to that popularity. And the Robertson Family retained ownership of it. In fact, they insisted upon it before ever agreeing to move to A&E.
So, it would appear A&E just cut their most popular program from it's lineup, based upon the risk they took in televising a program that is based upon the lives of a hard-line, conservative, christian family. And that family owns the full legal rights to the program.
Wonder what channel it will be on next? :biggrin:
And to those who are squalling about "constitutionally guaranteed free speech" being violated, I say this; Welcome to the results of granting constitutional rights to face-less / soul-less corporations while simultaneously failing to require those same face-less / soul-less corporations to conduct business within a means that respects those very same rights that are held by their employees.
Companies now own you. You may not believe that is true but wait until the very first time you say or do something within your private life that is brought to their attention via the media; (and your Andy Warhol predicted "15 minutes of fame"). If it happens to be against something your employers hold dear, you will be escorted from the premises and have your livelihood taken from you and your family, just as quickly as Phil Robertson, and with no legal recourse open to you for redress. NONE. (That's a fact Jack!)
And Phil is still wrong. :yes:
Freedom of Speech? The reality is there is no true freedom of speech in this country.
Yes, you can say whatever you like, whenever you like. You can hold personal opinions and viewpoints that are comprised of perspectives that are yours, and perhaps even shared by a few or by millions. Something has changed though, that much is true. What though?
It isn't the administrations or the public officials and office holders. While it is true that they have indeed changed, many times over the years, that is not the root cause for all of this.
What has changed is society. As technology gains have served to improve world-wide communications to the point where a disaster in the most remote corner of the world is known world-wide within minutes of it transpiring, so too has our ability to have our opinions and views in front of an ever increasing audience around the world.
You have a bad experience with a certain business, get onto social networking and spew your head off about it, and within minutes hundreds, if not hundreds of thousands of people are aware of what that experience is and your opinions on it.
As much as we would like to think we are anonymous in this world, the reality is that technology has opened the doors to our lives to the world, and removed that anonymity. The days of raging over a lethargic service level from a corporation or mom and pop shop, with little to nothing being said or done about it are long gone; and with them the immunity from consequence for such actions when they are rooted in insidious intent.
Businesses have also had to adjust to the technological boom of wealth and information, and in ways few laymen had thought of. Given the increased power of customers via the global voice social networking provides, (Among other means), businesses have had to increase their efforts toward stifling the caterwauling coming from those of their customers whose experiences are not positive, lest they be forced to endure a public flogging via consumers and the media.
Over time, the scope of this change has crept to include its employees, and as we see in the cases presented within this topic, their personal lives as well.
Now each and every one of us that work for an employer, be it a huge corporate conglomerate or a family owned entity, are forced to take on the "company-man" role that the work-life culture has traditionally exiled. You know what I am talking about here. That man or woman within your company that lives and breathes the company line, the company vision, and serves as captain of the cheer squad within the organizational structure at work. You know, the ones we have historically tagged with the "brown-nose" or other more vulgar label.
Unless you adopt the exact same persona within your personal lives, and incorporate your work culture and vision within every aspect of your life, you are risking the exact same career ending act within each and every second of your time off.
So now we are forced to consider our options; adopt the brown-nose culture or shut the hell up entirely. Go off the grid, delete all social media accounts, refuse to speak to the press, stop grousing about anything that may even remotely touch your employer in any way, shape, or form, and close off all access to your castle for what promises to be a decades long siege. A siege that by all indications, the private citizens of this nation have already all but lost.
If your employer is a labor abusing sweat-shop, as increasingly many are, then you are in for a sad future; because the beatings have begun and they will continue. And if you dare speak out against them you will be fired and forced to grovel at the feet of the next sweat-shop, in the hope that your former employer doesn't black-list you.
And they will, in a way that all but assures them immunity via the laws of this land that are increasingly enacted to protect the almighty corporations. Yes, we have decades old laws on the books that expose corporations to severe liability if they black list you. But by the very definitions of the act, corporations have found the loop-holes and are taking advantage of them in force; which is why we see millions of college educated workers holding menial labor positions in this country these days. . .
This isn't about Phil Robertson and A & E, inasmuch as it is about the power corporations hold over each of their employees; including their personal lives.
Phil got suspended for voicing a personal belief or opinion within a public venue. The public being the domain of his employers, who had every right to suspend him. Right, wrong, or indifferent; no laws or rights were violated.
This time it was about religious viewpoints, but it doesn't mean it won't be about the fact you work for GM and drive a Ford in the future. . .
And to me, therein lies the danger in these kinds of situations. The general public is all up in arms over some perceived violation of constitutional rights, which this is not. But the hidden agenda in all of it is escaping almost everyone. . .
For what it is worth..........I say "Bingo"! Spot on, 100%. :yes:
Can you imagine that old man duck was a swamp red neck bigot. :wink: :biggrin:
Quote from: The Troll on December 23, 2013, 11:09:30 AM
Can you imagine that old man duck was a swamp red neck bigot. :wink: :biggrin:
Who would have ever thought that? :confused:
;D
I don't think ANYone is asking the obvious question.
Why was GQ interviewing him to begin with? ;D
Looks as if some people have been jerking the public's collective chain:
Ducks - Before & After (http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Duck+Dynasty+Before+and+After&FORM=RESTAB)
Quote from: Y on December 24, 2013, 05:00:24 PM
Looks as if some people have been jerking the public's collective chain:
Ducks - Before & After (http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Duck+Dynasty+Before+and+After&FORM=RESTAB)
Yeah, I am sure that is the case, however it is in my opinion, not germane to what transpired in this case.
Robertsons "hiatus" is no different than situations that have happened countless times in the past when a high profile public figure speaks within his/her personal life, and expresses an opinion about things that their employer does not agree with.
Take the fate of Rick Sanchez with CNN for example. In September of 2010 Sanchez was on a satellite radio program talking about oppression of minorities. Sanchez had risen up from his Cuban birth to become a rising star among the minorities of cable news. So he was being "interviewed" by Stand Up with Pete Dominick on Sirius XM.
The portion of his interview he was fired over goes like this: Sanchez had a running feud with John Daily's Daily Show, and it was the source of constant barbs being traded between the two hosts, on air. When queried on the issue of whether Stewart likewise belonged to a minority group on account of his Jewish faith, Sanchez responded:
"
Yeah, very powerless people. [laughs] He's such a minority. I mean, you know, please. What—are you kidding? I'm telling you that everybody who runs CNN is a lot like Stewart, and a lot of people who run all the other networks are a lot like Stewart. And to imply that somehow they, the people in this country who are Jewish, are an oppressed minority?"
Taken in context, the above doesn't seem all that inflammatory or racist; however when cherry picked it is not hard to see why CNN decided to take action to distance themselves from Sanchez. Right, wrong, or indifferent, the employer broke no laws in doing so.
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on December 24, 2013, 09:33:20 AM
I don't think ANYone is asking the obvious question.
Why was GQ interviewing him to begin with? ;D
He was targeted for controversy because of his faith, which he uses as a lever to supplement his cash flow.
I don't agree with Robertson at all surrounding his views of his faith, but I also don't agree with the tactics being used by the media to sensationalize the mundane either.
Robertson and Rick Sanchez are both victims of the media's nefarious new product; something I like to call torpedo journalism. Typically the tactic involves inviting someone who enjoys a larger than normal audience, whether they are the typical type of guest interviewed or not, and asking them a series of carefully crafted questions designed to create controversy.
It usually ends up with the target being embroiled within an emotional storm that either ends with their being fired, or leaves their burgeoning career on the rocks. :roll eyes:
There are so many "news" shows out there, and competition is so intense, that now they are forced to create situations that sensationalize just to obtain the ratings bumps necessary to protect their situations. . .
Well guess what. Filming will resume in the spring with Phil. Are we surprised? :no: Wonder if they managed to attract any new viewers, I know we still won't be watching. Even though we like to watch him on talk shows those "reality" shows suck. We do watch Pawn Stars and the Pickers, or what ever the name is, but that's just 'cause we like to see the stuff they bring in to pawn or find.
Quote from: me on December 27, 2013, 05:50:41 PM
Well guess what. Filming will resume in the spring with Phil. Are we surprised? :no: Wonder if they managed to attract any new viewers, I know we still won't be watching. Even though we like to watch him on talk shows those "reality" shows suck. We do watch Pawn Stars and the Pickers, or what ever the name is, but that's just 'cause we like to see the stuff they bring in to pawn or find.
I wonder why you like to watch Pawn Stars cheap people out of their valuable items and people to buy absolute shit and I do mean shit that I would put in the trash can. :rolleyes:
I do like the Ducks cause they are funny. :haha: