What's new
By:

GD's next crap thread: Free speach or blatant attempt to discredit gays?

ElRoach0 said:
The task of this thread was not go through charts and graphs and ask if it makes sense financially. Analysis is a professional task; not something you should have to do on a message board.

It was a simple question. Do you think that A&E should have suspended this man for voicing his beliefs to someone who was asking him. One which you answered already, a resounding "Yes."

That's when you tried to say that GQ magazine was the same forum as Duck Dynasty, which it isn't. I probably should have told you that you were being dumb right there, but I didn't. And that's my bad.

GQ magazine is not even the same company as A&E. Phil's comments reflect back to Duck Dynasty(a TV series), yes. It's the largest reason for being interviewed. But it's not on A&E TV, now is it? A&E could more easily just put up a stern(or sterner) warning. Which was exactly what GameFace was talking about.

Morally.. sure. Think of it this way: to a degree, A&E is Phil's boss. Mind you, he's already rich.. so he doesn't really need the job in the first place. How would you like it if your boss suspended you for doing something he was paying you to do?
Click to expand...

I do not think they should have but I think they have the right to. It takes their business in a direction they do not want to go and as such they have the right to part ways.
 
One Brow said:
I don't think A&E was paying the man to offer up opinions on gay men.

If I was trying to do my job, and I made a decision that caused my boss to think I would lose the company money, I wouldn't be surprised at being fired, and I wouldn't think the company made a moral error in so doing.

That the interview is not running on A&E TV has no effect on this calculus I can determine, and your claim that being a separate company means they are a separate forum is artificial. Robertson beig interviewed at GQ is there as a member of his show.
Click to expand...

True but it was also on his own time with an entity other than A&E and he has every right to hold his own personal opinions. They do not own him.
 
The stupidest thing of all is that it's okay to put Honey Boo-Boo on TV and not this guy.

tumblr_mezttqujkX1rao0jp.gif
 
UGLI baby said:
A&E needs the Robertson's WAAAY more than the Robertson's need A&E. This isn't a situation where the people in the show were nobodies before the show started.

The Robertson's weren't main stream famous, but they were very rich and icons in the hunting industry before Duck Dynasty was ever a thing.

dat jazzfanz.com mobile app doe
Click to expand...


A&E was a successful cable network before the Robertsons and will be after the Robertsons. Sure, Duck Dynasty is their cash cow right now but if it were to go away, they would be replaced with another show that would cost A&E pennies on the dollar compared to what it cost them to pay the Robertson clan. Not to mention how much they could make if they sold the rights to another network. Neither party really "needs" the other at this point.
 
Freedom of speech does not imply freedom from consequences of speaking.
 
PearlWatson said:
Always remember the homosexual tyrants will sodomize you if you call sodomy a sin.
Click to expand...

And what if someone...you know not me, but someone, probably EJ Wells...is just fine with that?
 
One Brow said:
I don't think A&E was paying the man to offer up opinions on gay men.
Click to expand...

They were paying the man to watch and film his normal life. This happens to be his normal life. You don't get to pick and choose.

One Brow said:
If I was trying to do my job, and I made a decision that caused my boss to think I would lose the company money, I wouldn't be surprised at being fired, and I wouldn't think the company made a moral error in so doing.
But this isn't a situation where he thought he was making the company money. He's paid to be himself. He was himself(exactly what A&E pays for) and he got the ban hammer for it.

One Brow said:
That the interview is not running on A&E TV has no effect on this calculus I can determine, and your claim that being a separate company means they are a separate forum is artificial. Robertson beig interviewed at GQ is there as a member of his show.
Click to expand...

You're putting the cart before the horse, and it's only making things worse.

Phil is a person. He was a person long before A&E was around, and he'll still be a person no matter what A&E does.

A&E pays him to be himself, and they follow him around with cameras and make a TV show out of it.

Then, one day, he says something that someone doesn't like, when the A&E cameras aren't around.

A&E gets some strongly worded letters about what he did while away from those cameras that A&E pays him to let follow him around.

And now he's suspended.

I'm not sure that's fair.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
jazzman12 said:
A&E was a successful cable network before the Robertsons and will be after the Robertsons. Sure, Duck Dynasty is their cash cow right now but if it were to go away, they would be replaced with another show that would cost A&E pennies on the dollar compared to what it cost them to pay the Robertson clan. Not to mention how much they could make if they sold the rights to another network. Neither party really "needs" the other at this point.
Click to expand...

Disagree. This is far and away A&E's biggest hit ever. A&E is a TV channel, that is all they do. The Robertson's have Duck Commander, and now this huge Duck Dynasty brand. (doesnt matter if they had to stop using that name, the people themselves are the brand.) I promise you that the end of Duck Dynasty will be when it stops being fun for the family, not because a TV channel gave them the axe. A&E can't sell the rights to the Robertson family. Would be interesting to know what A&E even owns.

To put it into NBA terms, this would be like saying the Cavaliers didn't need LeBron as much as he needed them. The Cavs had been a playoff team before LeBron, and will be after him.


PS: I don't watch the show. I watched the first season. While funny, it's too scripted for me.

dat jazzfanz.com mobile app doe
 
Stoked said:
True but it was also on his own time with an entity other than A&E and he has every right to hold his own personal opinions. They do not own him.
Click to expand...

Agreed, they don't own him. However, "his own time" was as participating as a member of Duck Dynasty. If the GQ article had not mentioned Duck Dynasty at all, that would be different.
 
UGLI baby said:
Disagree. This is far and away A&E's biggest hit ever. A&E is a TV channel, that is all they do. The Robertson's have Duck Commander, and now this huge Duck Dynasty brand. (doesnt matter if they had to stop using that name, the people themselves are the brand.) I promise you that the end of Duck Dynasty will be when it stops being fun for the family, not because a TV channel gave them the axe. A&E can't sell the rights to the Robertson family. Would be interesting to know what A&E even owns.

To put it into NBA terms, this would be like saying the Cavaliers didn't need LeBron as much as he needed them. The Cavs had been a playoff team before LeBron, and will be after him.


PS: I don't watch the show. I watched the first season. While funny, it's too scripted for me.

dat jazzfanz.com mobile app doe
Click to expand...

We'll just agree to disagree. I think the fact that A&E was alive and well years before Duck Dynasty ever came along is pretty solid evidence that the network can turn a profit without them.
 
ElRoach0 said:
They were paying the man to watch and film his normal life. This happens to be his normal life. You don't get to pick and choose.
Click to expand...

Is that a joke? You don't think A&E gets to pick and choose which moments of his normal life (from among teh moments they film) to air, or whom to air?

ElRoach0 said:
But this isn't a situation where he thought he was making the company money. He's paid to be himself. He was himself(exactly what A&E pays for) and he got the ban hammer for it.
Click to expand...

I don't see how this is a response to my point about bosses (possibly) thinking he would cost the company money.

ElRoach0 said:
I'm not sure that's fair.
Click to expand...

Maybe it's not fair, but what's the alternative? Do we force A&E to keep him on the show?
 
One Brow said:
Is that a joke? You don't think A&E gets to pick and choose which moments of his normal life (from among teh moments they film) to air, or whom to air?



I don't see how this is a response to my point about bosses (possibly) thinking he would cost the company money.



Maybe it's not fair, but what's the alternative? Do we force A&E to keep him on the show?
Click to expand...

A warning woulda been nice.

Do they get to pick and choose? Yes. Absolutely. In this case they didn't get to pick and choose and they hate it.

I think I figured out your thing, so here goes.

1. They don't have any real data on what people will think about this
1a. They haven't had enough to to get enough data to make an educated decision about it
2. They could have put a positive spin on this, stating that this man had an opinion, and he expressed it. That's not something to get upset about, as he's not hurting anybody
3. A&E now looks weak, and they'll probably see an increase in strongly worded letters now that they caved so quickly to the first

Does that work for you?
 
What about this dudes racist comments as well? Were those religiously motivated? Or is he just a bigot. The way he was raised, sure. But of course you suspend someone who says the things this guy did. Not doing anything would be tacit support. I don't watch the show, but this dudes a douche!
 
Just to state my opinion:

Robertson is well within his rights to say whatever he wants, and A&E is even more within their rights to punish or not punish him for it.

A&E will try and find the balance between not pissing off gay rights people and not killing the goose that layed the golden egg in the Robinson's. In the end, I would bet that A&E overplays the PC card and makes the Robinson's mad and possibly destroys their partnership.

dat jazzfanz.com mobile app doe
 
There's no constitutional right to be on some crappy A&E show. If they want to suspend him, fine. If people want to boycott A&E for that punishment, fine. And if A&E loses advertisement from either the boycott or because of what the hick said, fine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top