Quick Hits
“A&E has free
speech rights too, and they exercised those rights.”
Certainly. And they lost an enormous chunk of business.
There’s no law against stupidity—mainly because it would be too hard to
prosecute every politician in D.C.
Second thought: Was it really an exercise of free speech by
A&E? Or was it caving to GLAAD’s demands for punishment?
Third thought: A&E is a business—a business that sacked
its top tier moneymaker, and intentionally jeopardized it’s best show. Someone
online asked: “does GLAAD pay A&E’s bills?” Probably not. It’s the people
that watch A&E? …err…used to
watch A&E.
Fourth thought: A&E’s business is to make money via
network television. Delving into matters of belief and morality was obviously
beyond the scope of their best interests. But they feared GLAAD more than their
customers and now the rest is history. This is the same reason that singers and
bands should stay out of politics. I don’t care what their politics are…I’m
just here for the music. I’ve got an internet full of punditry if I need it.
“Was
firing/suspending Phil Robertson wrong?”
Ethically: Probably borderline. There’s a good case for “the
boss does what he wants” but also a good case for being fired for irrelevant off-the-clock
opinions.
Morally: Dicey. An external group pressured Phil’s bosses to
pull him. That’s like me talking your boss into firing you because I don’t
agree with your belief. Sketchy.
Business: Yes. A&E just shot their cash cow on their
little duck hunt. Dick Cheney now takes Second Place for the “Dumbest Thing
Someone Shot While Duck Hunting” award. It was the wrong business decision.
Pissing your customers off is always the wrong decision. (Hey at least Cracker
Barrel got the memo).
“A&E just wanted
to distance themselves and disassociate from Robertson’s remarks.”
That’s a weak argument for two reasons.
First, it requires the faith of a canonized saint to really
believe that in 4 years of filming this family’s everyday lives that A&E
did not ever find out the Robertson’s beliefs on homosexuality. This then
reveals a viable theory: A&E knew their beliefs and ran the show anyway. In
other words, Phil could believe it, but the moment he expressed that belief
they caved to GLAAD and canned him. That would make the suspension about
nothing other than speech.
Second, as the Twitterverse (@AceofSpadesHQ) pointed out,
A&E is still running the Duck Dynasty Marathon and presumably reruns—all
with Phil in them. They’re actively running new content from Phil. If they
REALLY wanted true separation they’d stop running all Duck Dynasty content with
Phil in it. Oh wait. They need the money.
“This whole thing is
a ploy, a fabrication, a conspiracy.”
If so, by whom?
The Ducks? Canning themselves? Why? Just quit…they didn’t
need a scandal for that.
GQ? Possibly, but only in the sense of “hey let’s get a
Christian conservative traditionalist in for an interview and ask him about
gays.” That’s journalism? That would make GQ the most predictably boring
magazine in the world. Seriously…what did they THINK he was going to say?
A&E? On the one hand, it makes sense. Get someone to
bait Phil into something controversial, make a stink, get attention, and then
watch the ratings soar. Not a bad plan…if not for the (now very real) backlash risk
involved. Kind of a long shot for that to be true. It’s a multi-million dollar
gamble on A&E’s part—with a lot to lose.
“This is dumb…while
everyone was griping about Phil, Congress passed XYZ.”
On the one hand, yes, people pay
too much attention to entertainment figures instead of rotten politicians.
On the other hand, I’d argue that
this incident generated steam because it was about freedom of expression, and
it brought people into the fray who don’t even watch Duck Dynasty. In other
words the issue was bigger than the entertainment factor. Being able to speak
your mind without fear is a universally desired standard.
Also, Congress would have done
business as usual, Phil or no. The Phil-Incident happening did not distract the
people from D.C. long enough to sneak something through. Congress would ram
anything through, whether anyone is watching or not. Proof? ObamaCare. It’s
never enjoyed majority support, and probably never will. If the American people
had voted on it, it would never have passed. Congress passed it anyway, in full
view of the public.
Gay writers
A few homosexuals have actually
sided with Robertson. Yes, you read that right. What’s interesting is that
they see this as a freedom of expression issues first and foremost. Gay CNN
Anchor Don Lemon said, “I always err on the side of free speech. Just because
I’m offended — as I said, people can say whatever they want to say. I don’t
think people should be fired. I think the marketplace should decide.”1
In short, Don Lemon handled this way better than A&E did—and note his
stance: it’s based on free speech.
Camille Paglia, a lesbian author,
teacher, and social critic wasn’t so passive in her remarks. She called the
action against Robertson, “punitive” and “Stalinist”. “People have the right to free thought
and free speech. In a democratic country, people have the right to be homophobic
as they have the right to support homosexuality -- as I 100% do. If people are
basing their views against gays on the Bible, again they have a right to
religious freedom,” she said on a radio interview.2 Paglia seems to
understand something about free speech: you can’t be choosy about what’s “ok”
and what’s not. Perhaps it’s because she’s been on the “wrong” side of the line
everyone is so fond of drawing.
Tammy
Bruce is the former head of NOW, a feminist activist group, and a lesbian. She
tweeted, “The gay civil rights effort was about
making sure we weren't punished for being who we are. [It's] Time the left applies
that same value to others.”4
But
perhaps the most poignant quote comes from Brandon Abrosino, a gay writer at
Time magazine’s online site. He wrote that, “I’m undecided on whether or not I
think Phil actually is homophobic, although I certainly think his statement was
offensive . . . But I also think that if I were to spend a day calling ducks
with Phil, I’d probably end up liking him — even in spite of his position on
gay men. It’s quite possible to throw one’s political support behind
traditional, heterosexual marriage, and yet not be bigoted.”3 That’s
profound. Brandon’s punch line, as a leftie is: “Why is our go-to political
strategy for beating our opponents to silence them?” It’s a great question, and
one that I don’t expect the political left to want to answer.
Sources
No comments:
Post a Comment