Duck Dynasty Drama

Avatar for cmkristy
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-05-2005
Duck Dynasty Drama
7
Thu, 12-19-2013 - 8:07am

Duck Dynasty is down a star. 

A&E, which airs the reality show that follows the duck-hunting and duck call-creating Robertson family, has suspended patriarch Phil Robertson indefinitely from filming following his anti-gay comments printed in GQ

"We are extremely disappointed to have read Phil Robertson's comments in GQ, which are based on his own personal beliefs and not reflected in the series Duck Dynasty," says a statement from the network that was sent to PEOPLE. "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.people.com/people/article/0,,20767859,00.html

What do you think about this? Was A&E right to suspend  Phil Robertson from filming?

 photo snowsiggy.png

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-13-2009
Sat, 12-21-2013 - 12:54pm

ashmama wrote:
<p>If the majority of the DD audience supports this man's beliefs, as you assert, then this was clearly not a business decision at all, but a political one. If it were really about business, they wouldn't have risked losing their audience this way.</p>

A&E has 24/7 network programming, not just the 1hr a week of DD. The DD viewers are not their only demographic.

A&E did not make a political decision that would harm their business; that makes no sense. 

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-27-1998
Sat, 12-21-2013 - 10:25am

If the majority of the DD audience supports this man's beliefs, as you assert, then this was clearly not a business decision at all, but a political one. If it were really about business, they wouldn't have risked losing their audience this way.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-23-2001
Sat, 12-21-2013 - 9:51am
Yes I think it's wrong what A&E did, What is gained in suspending an actor that has only kept your own ratings up? I don't watch the show but my kid does and I know others that do, It wouldn't surprise me if A&E phases out as I thought it already has, Duck Dynasty has probably kept it alive and its own executives paid.

 


 


iVillage Member
Registered: 05-13-2009
Fri, 12-20-2013 - 7:28pm

ashmama wrote:
<p>I've never seen the show, but this type of thing drives me nuts. It happens all the time. Why not just let the guy stay on the show and see what happens? If his POV is that offensive to the show's viewers, they'd boycott it and then the powers that be could simply make a business decision and fire the guy, rather than making a political one. Instead, they got scared of offending people who probably don't even watch the show in the first place!</p><p>More importantly, why not just let the First Amendment do its job?  It was designed so that the truth would emerge from the "marketplace" of ideas and objectionable, hateful and untenable viewpoints would eventually be quashed or marginalized. Instead, people try to put  "politically correct" fences around ideas they like, thereby taking them off the discussion table. This is anti-intellectual and undemocratic.</p>

As a business owner, if an employee says offensive things, I should just wait for the market to decide "how offensive" my customers find it? No, that's not how I run my business, I set the bar on what my employees can say within labor laws. This is a business decision, not a political one. I think that the majority of the DD audience supports Phil's beliefs, but the network evidentally, does not.

I think what DD Phil said about black people pre- civil rights and Shintoism as offensive, if not more so, but I digress...

The First Amendment has done its job. Phil can say anything he wants, no matter how offensive to some nor how right on representative to a certain segment of the population.The government has not interfered, which is the only thing that the 1st Amendment protects.   He is not owed a guaranteed forum on a public media outlet like A&E.

Hateful speech is protected under the constitution, but it is not guarenteed a public network forum. Civil rights are not democratically decided, they are protected by the constitution. It was Phil who mas the anti-intellectual, with ignorant speech about LGBT, Black, Japanese, Muslims.

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-27-1998
Fri, 12-20-2013 - 2:14pm

I've never seen the show, but this type of thing drives me nuts. It happens all the time. Why not just let the guy stay on the show and see what happens? If his POV is that offensive to the show's viewers, they'd boycott it and then the powers that be could simply make a business decision and fire the guy, rather than making a political one. Instead, they got scared of offending people who probably don't even watch the show in the first place!

More importantly, why not just let the First Amendment do its job?  It was designed so that the truth would emerge from the "marketplace" of ideas and objectionable, hateful and untenable viewpoints would eventually be quashed or marginalized. Instead, people try to put  "politically correct" fences around ideas they like, thereby taking them off the discussion table. This is anti-intellectual and undemocratic.

Avatar for xxxs
Community Leader
Registered: 01-25-2010
Fri, 12-20-2013 - 2:19am

  I never watch the show but many do not have any understanding of the culture where he lives and the difference between the person and the network and the show.    It could have been a "trap" that GQ set.

dragowoman

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2012
Thu, 12-19-2013 - 11:49pm

NO.  A&E could simply have distanced themselves from Phil's expressed beliefs rather than "indefinitely suspend" him.  Besides, they're incredible hypocrites, running multiple repeat episodes and having a DD marathon in a week or so.  If their offense was genuine, they'd pull the show altogether... or at least every episode starring Phil.