December 19, 2013

  • Sharing of an Opinion

     

     

    A man has been suspended for stating his opinion in an interview.

    Of course I'm talking about Duck Dynasty, and one of the stars of the show, Mr. Phil Robertson.

    The controversy revolves around his opinion regarding Homosexuality.

    Now, before anyone gets on their 'high-horse' on this topic - read the article first...

    http://www.gq.com/entertainment/television/201401/duck-dynasty-phil-robertson

    I provided the link to make sure we're all on the same page here.  Some articles I've found online don't even cite the link to the interview in question.  Hey, if it's of a controversial issue - at least cite the source (just sayin').

     

    Now....

     

    We know, and A&E knows, that Mr. Robertson is a very opinionated person.   He, like any of us, has a right to his own opinion - and anyone has the right to state their opinion.

    Agree or disagree with what he actually said, I'm going back to the basics of the issue at hand:  A man stated his opinion, and the network that he works with has reprimanded him for stating his opinion.

    Now, let's do a role reversal here - what if the show in question was nothing but folks that were supportive of homosexual rights and strongly disagreed with a group of people who had a traditional biblical view of marriage?  (I'm being a bit rhetorical here)

    My point is that in as much as Mr. Robertson has the right to state his opinion, we - the general public - have the right to state our own opinions as well.

    Bottom line here is the issue of respecting one another, regardless of the opinion being shared.   Agree or disagree with his opinion, at least we know where he stands on that particular topic.

    I could elaborate more, but feel free to share your thoughts on this issue in the comments.  I only ask that you be respectful and family friendly.

Comments (38)

  • I don't know anything about this Robertson person. I remember reading somewhere that his show has a lot of followers. At the same time, I've never had a gay thought or inclination. I'm strictly heterosexual in orientation. But after reading your Duck link, I feel seduced. Suddenly I want to cornhole this Robertson fellow!

  • We're not just dealing with one man's personal view and his "right" to have it. He's on a television show whose network wishes to appeal to all segments of the population. Therefore an attack on any group of "prospective buyers" hurts the bottom line of advertising dollars.

    If there were an incident similar to your rhetorical question, the outcome would likely be the same. It's not personal, just pure business from A&E's perspective. I wouldn't be surprised if he voluntarily left knowing he could be impacting the bottom line in a negative way, since he also has a financial stake in keeping viewership at max levels.

    • Ok, good thought. Let's expand on this one from a business perspective a moment:

      If your audience demographic is in the 10's of millions and consists of people who believe as most Christians do, then what he said reached the shows target audience. Why should we be suprised?
      From a business perspective, this type of publicity could prove to improve Duck Dynasty's ratings even more - due to the controversy now surrounding it.

      As a potential advertiser, I'd want to purchase ads that would be displayed on the show - as I'd expect more viewers to see it - thus having more impact on ROI.

      But... that's my opinion.

  • By the way, what's your opinion on Xanga's 3+ month blackout of updates?

    • Talked with Marc this past week. The team is still addressing people's accounts, making more archives available to more people, and also upgrading what we are seeing.

      I wouldn't expect an update unless there was something more significant going on... until then... status quo.

  • It's sad that you can only have "free" speech and practice of religion when you agree with the left agenda.

    GLADD is mad because they don't like the truth or those who stick up for it, because then they have to do something with it.

  • well at least I know a bit more about the Duck folks now, I've never watched their show, I probably won't watch....but I found the article to be interesting, I didn't find what Mr. Roberson said to be offensive, well maybe a little bit offensive, he was stating his personal belief and I believe he was asked -hey if you don't want to know something don't ask! What I did think was great was that he wasn't judging anyone else, that job belonged to the Lord...that's how I feel too...As far as the suspension goes, it'll just make his fan base grow...

    who would put the duck folks in GQ anyway?

  • I forgot to say:

    Merry Christmas Joel!

  • You're not considering the bigger picture. A&E as a network wants to be "inclusive" and not "exclusive" of any sizable segment of the population. Christians are just ONE target of many they seek to advertise to.

    Negative controversy that attacks any group is verboten. They don't want things spiraling out of control that leads to groups boycotting the network over the matter.

    If there were a character that expressed strong anti Christian sentiment, you can be sure they would have been shown the door as well.

    They are not in business to promote one show at the expense of their entire franchise. Therefore, the unspoken rule is all groups need to be tolerant of each other- as they wish to sell to everyone.

    • Of course! opinions still vary. :)

    • Maybe I just see a different 'bigger picture' than you do. That's my point about being able to share an opinion in this post. Our perspectives differ, and we have to respect that difference.

      Again, just my perspective. Thanks for sharing yours. :)

  • I agree with SoullFire completely. Imagine that, instead of his homophobic statement, he said something totally racist?

    Oh wait, that was Paula Deen and she was also out of a network job. Precedent.

    Intolerance of a group of people, whether because of age, sex, sexual orientation, race, religion, or handicap will always be grounds for a publicity nightmare. Surely you agree with that.

  • Court dismissal is not what I'm referring to. She admitted publicly that she used the n word. She did so many times in interviews.

    If this dude had been just talking with his buddies, that would be one thing. His statements were during an interview. Public. Not private.

    He may have his opinions just like all of us. But when he stated them during a public interview to the media, he caused a business problem.

    • Yes, she admitted to it - and apologized for it. However, the court of public opinion did - in fact - cast a shadow over her and her career suffered for it.

      However, the difference here is that she used a racial slur that she (for all purposes) shouldn't have used. This was a word choice issue - not a sharing of one's opinion issue.

  • This, by the way, isn't a new phenomenon. It has always been said, "don't discuss politics or religion at work."

    • true, I don't think this phenomenon is new in any case - and agree.

      My point here is the issue of being able to express ones opinion.

      Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

  • One can express his or her opinion. But do it at work about one of the no no issues? It's a business problem, not a freedom problem.

  • Whether or not he has a right to state his opinion is irrelevant. A&E has a right to not have their network used as a vehicle for hate speech and intolerance.

  • My statement is not just a matter of opinion, Joel. It's a well known, oft discussed, long held business practice. You don't discuss politics, religion, or sex at work. Is it a law? No. It's just good business.

    Why don't you discuss this with someone whose degree is in HR?

    Because I didn't come here to play semantics with you. Want my opinion? You can't admit another pov because you're in love with your own. Now that's an opinion.

    • I'm not attempting to sway anyone in either direction. My point is that he has the right to share what his opinion is, and of course A&E has the right to do what they think is best for their business.

      Of course we all have the right to speak our minds, but I think what you bring to the table here is really the responsibility of when to use that right - which is a very good point indeed.

  • Princess - [It has always been said, “don’t discuss politics or religion at work.”]

    He didn't discuss it at work. It was an interview with GQ magazine.

  • musterion - An interview, for a television personality, is work. He knew what he was saying would be published, he said it to a reporter. Why was he being interviewed at all? Publicity for the show. Business related, indeed.

  • Listen, being raised a coach's kid, I know about keeping your opinion to yourself when you don't know for sure your audience - and that's any time you're public. If you are in a public position, you carry yourself accordingly. We couldn't say who was a crappy player, who were overly involved parents, we couldn't bad mouth the refs. Why? Because words matter. My dad's job could be on the line if public opinion was negative. TV personalities, politicians, there are lots of jobs that require some manners.

  • my sister asked me why the Christians hate gays and I said,"they think it's the same as being a phedofile." and my sister said,"oh, my."
    I'm glad the pope says who are we to judge?

    • I like the new Pope's direction. Personally I have too many issues with myself to cast the first stone.

  • I agree with Soullfire, too. My husband loves that show and I put up with it. I didn't find the "gay" remarks very alarming, but I'm an atheist and try to avoid Christian evangelizing.I probably won't watch it again.
    Also, Phil knew that what he was saying would cause some kind of a shitstorm: he's not an idiot. What I wonder is, what percentage of GQ's audience watches Duck Dynasty?

    • Good question. Thinking about this some more, I think that after this coming season much of this will blow over. The series will either stay with A&E or move to another network. After all, it still is very popular and draws a significant audience.

  • I agree. Freedom of speech wasn't created to only protect speech that people agree with. Rather, it was created to protect speech that people might disagree with.

  • The U.S. Constitution acknowledges the right of ONE & ALL! to freedom of speech. It most certainly does NOT! , however , acknowledge anyone's right, sexually dysfunctional or no sexually dysfunctional, never to be offended.

  • The same people that defend these Duck Dynasty people are the same people that were calling for the head of Martin Bashir. Where was his freedom of speech and right to an opinion?

    And I can bet you, if they said something derogatory about autistic people, you wouldn't be s diplomatic as you are right now. Methinks you agree with some of his stances.

    • I'm not so sure I'd agree with you completely between the two examples you provided. Although I think both people stated their opinions, and both had the right to say them, I personally think from a business perspective they both received the actions that their employers would enact on them. Was what they said right or wrong? In my perspective it doesn't matter - Public outlets such as TV stations have to respond rapidly to public opinion - and there was a lot of public opinion for both of these folks. However, between the two opinions, Mr. Robertson was asked for his opinion - and Mr. Bashir made a statement. No matter how asked or responded, both opinions could have been handled better - and with respect.

      We should remember that people can and should have differences of opinion on varying topics - and we should all respect them. Agree to disagree if necessary.

      There have been several people who are in the public limelight that have said some very derogatory statements regarding those with Autism. However, I contact those individuals directly or through their management. I have shared openly some of my own opinions as well regarding a few individuals comments. However, there will always be a strong attempt at maintaining respect.

      I'm not bringing my own beliefs into the conversation - but trying to remain objective and unbiased to keep this discussion going. As always, thanks for your insight.

  • I think the man had every right to voice his opinions. He was asked-he answered.I am so glad the Robertson family is standing behind him and his right to voice his opinion.Like others have said--its not our job to judge--that's God's job. I might disagree with some opinions but I respect your right to have them,without judging who's right.

  • For what it's worth, men and women with more to do than watch TV are working as we speak to develop a new and more powerful electron microscope with which they hope to be able to see our interest, here in the Third world, in the spew gassing out of your 'Merkin' babbling fireplaces. Anyone here in Israel at least who even knows what the poop-storm is about learned solely out of morbid curiosity and sorrow. Sorrow for the brain-death of a nation which could actually have dedicated its skills and resources to solving some of the planet's genuine problems. For shame, to see an entire country hopelessly preoccupied with the trivial excretions of some barely-literate loser.

  • I'm just saying how it' so hypocritical to see all these rightwingers get so self righteous about how freedom of speech is under attack whenever someone criticizes something they support, but they have no problem insulting other people. Let's face it, most of these people simply use their limited understanding of the Constitution to thinly veil their prejudices. Nobody got arrested in this case, so it's not even a 1st Amendment issue.

Comments are closed.

Post a Comment