Freedom of Religious Opinion? Not If You're Phil Robertson

[koshergrl]

Edge are you really this dumb?

Is Phil going to jail? Are people calling to execute him or deport him? No. He has the freedom to say whatever the heck he wants and I will defend that right until the end.

I have nothing against Phil.

What I am in opposition to is individuals like you who feel that a company/brand like A&E has absolutely NO RIGHTS when it comes to protecting their investments. You're basically telling A&E and all of its stakeholders to "go fuck yourself" and that they're not allowed to run their own company.



.

I could see it if Phil R went out and started screaming about how he hated fags and thought they were all scumbags etc, etc.

But what he did was talk about SIN and SINNERS. There was no hate in his heart or in his words.

The problem with you people is that any speech that doesn't fall within the narrow guidelines you demand OF OTHERS is righteously condemned and the people who spoke it along with it.

But let a group with the right 'status' make fun of gays, and..Hey! It's all just in fun, right?

Saturday Night Live
Christmas Past
Watch Saturday Night Live: Christmas Past online | Free | Hulu

You might think of yourself as a good individual, but you're being controlled by some seriously evil people.

Of course, if you admit it, then you have to admit that you've been wrong your entire life.

Not an easy thing to do. Takes a lot of guts and that's one major reason that people don't change.

Edge, you're missing another very important point. It's going completely over your head.

I read the interview, and really don't think it was that bad or that shocking. It's was just what you'd expect from someone who was a pretty outspoken Christian. However, what happened is that a whole shitload of controversy was drummed up about it. Yes, a lot of his comments were twisted and blown out of proportion but at the end of the day the interview completely blew up.

The fervor was unpredictable, scandalous, and could be viewed as damaging to the A&E brand. Again, A&E has a right to protect itself from this by distancing itself from Phil by suspending him.

This is called business, Edge. Hundreds of millions of dollars are on the line and they need to do what's right for the network. If A&E did nothing they ran the risk of losing a big chunk of its viewers who may view the network as "anti-gay" etc.

What I am not doing is denouncing Phil, or denouncing Christians, or denouncing people who dislike gays.

I'm am simply saying that a company has a right to defend itself.

No, they don't. They hired him because of his outspoken manner, and they hired him knowing (because hey, he wrote books and already had produced shows) exactly what his views were.

To suddenly decide that he isn't allowed to voice his Christian views...that's discrimination. They know it too. That's why he's not really fired, and why they are continuing and really just want the whole thing to go away.

One of the higher ups at A&E got a hair crossways, and their decision was vetoed. They were probably fired.

 

[Edgetho]

Edge are you really this dumb?

Is Phil going to jail? Are people calling to execute him or deport him? No. He has the freedom to say whatever the heck he wants and I will defend that right until the end.

I have nothing against Phil.

What I am in opposition to is individuals like you who feel that a company/brand like A&E has absolutely NO RIGHTS when it comes to protecting their investments. You're basically telling A&E and all of its stakeholders to "go fuck yourself" and that they're not allowed to run their own company.



.

I could see it if Phil R went out and started screaming about how he hated fags and thought they were all scumbags etc, etc.

But what he did was talk about SIN and SINNERS. There was no hate in his heart or in his words.

The problem with you people is that any speech that doesn't fall within the narrow guidelines you demand OF OTHERS is righteously condemned and the people who spoke it along with it.

But let a group with the right 'status' make fun of gays, and..Hey! It's all just in fun, right?

Saturday Night Live
Christmas Past
Watch Saturday Night Live: Christmas Past online | Free | Hulu

You might think of yourself as a good individual, but you're being controlled by some seriously evil people.

Of course, if you admit it, then you have to admit that you've been wrong your entire life.

Not an easy thing to do. Takes a lot of guts and that's one major reason that people don't change.

Edge, you're missing another very important point. It's going completely over your head.

I read the interview, and really don't think it was that bad or that shocking. It's was just what you'd expect from someone who was a pretty outspoken Christian. However, what happened is that a whole shitload of controversy was drummed up about it. Yes, a lot of his comments were twisted and blown out of proportion but at the end of the day the interview completely blew up.

The fervor was unpredictable, scandalous, and could be viewed as damaging to the A&E brand. Again, A&E has a right to protect itself from this by distancing itself from Phil by suspending him.

This is called business, Edge. Hundreds of millions of dollars are on the line and they need to do what's right for the network. If A&E did nothing they ran the risk of losing a big chunk of its viewers who may view the network as "anti-gay" etc.

What I am not doing is denouncing Phil, or denouncing Christians, or denouncing people who dislike gays.

I'm am simply saying that a company has a right to defend itself.

As it turns out, the entire point is moot.

A&E backed down. Just like I predicted.

But A&E did not initially act to preserve its reputation or to defend itself. They acted to curry favor with a favored, and minority, group of people.

And they've backed down.

Had they continued, had they stuck to their guns and not let Phil back on the set and actually 'fired' him..... They would have lost a lot more than just their 'reputation'.

You're coming from the POV that PR said something bad. He didn't. He said something 'CONTROVERSIAL'.

And who's making it controversial? The new guys.

For 3,500 years people have lived (or tried to) by what's in the Bible and just recently, I'm talking like in the last decade or so, have people become more tolerant of gays and others of their ilk.

The controversy is not in what Phil R said, but in how gays, a new and minority group, over-reacted to what he said.

A&E would have gotten ripped to shreds if they had followed through. All they've done now is attract another couple million people to watch Phil and his clan.

A&E caved

 

[koshergrl]

I predicted it too.

We're awesome!

 

[KevinWestern]

I could see it if Phil R went out and started screaming about how he hated fags and thought they were all scumbags etc, etc.

But what he did was talk about SIN and SINNERS. There was no hate in his heart or in his words.

The problem with you people is that any speech that doesn't fall within the narrow guidelines you demand OF OTHERS is righteously condemned and the people who spoke it along with it.

But let a group with the right 'status' make fun of gays, and..Hey! It's all just in fun, right?

Saturday Night Live
Christmas Past
Watch Saturday Night Live: Christmas Past online | Free | Hulu

You might think of yourself as a good individual, but you're being controlled by some seriously evil people.

Of course, if you admit it, then you have to admit that you've been wrong your entire life.

Not an easy thing to do. Takes a lot of guts and that's one major reason that people don't change.

Edge, you're missing another very important point. It's going completely over your head.

I read the interview, and really don't think it was that bad or that shocking. It's was just what you'd expect from someone who was a pretty outspoken Christian. However, what happened is that a whole shitload of controversy was drummed up about it. Yes, a lot of his comments were twisted and blown out of proportion but at the end of the day the interview completely blew up.

The fervor was unpredictable, scandalous, and could be viewed as damaging to the A&E brand. Again, A&E has a right to protect itself from this by distancing itself from Phil by suspending him.

This is called business, Edge. Hundreds of millions of dollars are on the line and they need to do what's right for the network. If A&E did nothing they ran the risk of losing a big chunk of its viewers who may view the network as "anti-gay" etc.

What I am not doing is denouncing Phil, or denouncing Christians, or denouncing people who dislike gays.

I'm am simply saying that a company has a right to defend itself.

As it turns out, the entire point is moot.

A&E backed down. Just like I predicted.

But A&E did not initially act to preserve its reputation or to defend itself. They acted to curry favor with a favored, and minority, group of people.

And they've backed down.

Had they continued, had they stuck to their guns and not let Phil back on the set and actually 'fired' him..... They would have lost a lot more than just their 'reputation'.

You're coming from the POV that PR said something bad. He didn't. He said something 'CONTROVERSIAL'.

And who's making it controversial? The new guys.

For 3,500 years people have lived (or tried to) by what's in the Bible and just recently, I'm talking like in the last decade or so, have people become more tolerant of gays and others of their ilk.

The controversy is not in what Phil R said, but in how gays, a new and minority group, over-reacted to what he said.

A&E would have gotten ripped to shreds if they had followed through. All they've done now is attract another couple million people to watch Phil and his clan.

A&E caved

Edge if you want me to say that the folks causing the controversy were OK for doing so you're not going to get that out of me. I don't agree with it and think it's people stupidly trying to make something out of nothing.

But (again) there are contracts signed between TV personalities and their networks stating "if said actor stirs up controversy in the news that can be considered harmful to the network, they have a right to be fired". Controversy is controversy. Makes no difference if it's valid controversy. Most networks want their stars to behave in a predictable manner.

And.... Of course they're not going to fire the guy. He has delivered the #1 show in cable history, and he's a goldmine. However by "suspending" him A&E covered their asses by making it absolutely clear they are not endorsing his opinion. Most networks want to remain neutral on issues like these.

Again, before you start calling everyone a "bigot", just stop and take two seconds to figure out if you're using the word in the correct manner.

 

[JoeB131]

You're wrong. WAY wrong.

"
Yesterday Entertainment Weekly claimed that despite his suspension, Robertson will be back on the hugely popular show – which regularly pulls in 12 million viewers – when filming recommences in January.

They quoted a source saying: ‘The network also hopes the media and fan furor will cool down over the holidays and that tensions over shooting future episodes can then be resolved. There’s no negotiation to have; we’re doing the show.’

]

A&E folded like a cheap suit.

Cuz they know they can't penalize him for his faith.

Particularly when they hired him KNOWING this was a huge part of his schtick.

His schtick is being a dumber than shit redneck.

People aren't laughing WITH him, they are laughing AT him.

 

[koshergrl]

Sure they are, lol.

"
Duck Dynasty currently averages 14.6 million viewers and has become a merchandising empire – raking in more than $400 million in related retail sales – it seems unlikely that A&E, or the quack pack’s advertisers, will dump the most popular reality show of all time."

http://www.advocate.com/arts-entert...-episodes-duck-dynasty-include-phil-robertson

 

[Edgetho]

I predicted it too.

We're awesome!

I've always thought you were.

The Jury is still out on me

 

[theDoctorisIn]

If he doesn't do the show he's in deep doo doo with other parts of the same contract that commits him to do it as they need, so that's wrong too.

You're wrong. WAY wrong.

"
Yesterday Entertainment Weekly claimed that despite his suspension, Robertson will be back on the hugely popular show – which regularly pulls in 12 million viewers – when filming recommences in January.

They quoted a source saying: ‘The network also hopes the media and fan furor will cool down over the holidays and that tensions over shooting future episodes can then be resolved. There’s no negotiation to have; we’re doing the show.’



Read more: Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson says he is a lover not a hater | Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

A&E folded like a cheap suit.

They didn't "fold".

They're airing the episodes that have already been filmed. Phil is still "suspended".

 

[KevinWestern]

I could see it if Phil R went out and started screaming about how he hated fags and thought they were all scumbags etc, etc.

But what he did was talk about SIN and SINNERS. There was no hate in his heart or in his words.

The problem with you people is that any speech that doesn't fall within the narrow guidelines you demand OF OTHERS is righteously condemned and the people who spoke it along with it.

But let a group with the right 'status' make fun of gays, and..Hey! It's all just in fun, right?

Saturday Night Live
Christmas Past
Watch Saturday Night Live: Christmas Past online | Free | Hulu

You might think of yourself as a good individual, but you're being controlled by some seriously evil people.

Of course, if you admit it, then you have to admit that you've been wrong your entire life.

Not an easy thing to do. Takes a lot of guts and that's one major reason that people don't change.

Edge, you're missing another very important point. It's going completely over your head.

I read the interview, and really don't think it was that bad or that shocking. It's was just what you'd expect from someone who was a pretty outspoken Christian. However, what happened is that a whole shitload of controversy was drummed up about it. Yes, a lot of his comments were twisted and blown out of proportion but at the end of the day the interview completely blew up.

The fervor was unpredictable, scandalous, and could be viewed as damaging to the A&E brand. Again, A&E has a right to protect itself from this by distancing itself from Phil by suspending him.

This is called business, Edge. Hundreds of millions of dollars are on the line and they need to do what's right for the network. If A&E did nothing they ran the risk of losing a big chunk of its viewers who may view the network as "anti-gay" etc.

What I am not doing is denouncing Phil, or denouncing Christians, or denouncing people who dislike gays.

I'm am simply saying that a company has a right to defend itself.

No, they don't. They hired him because of his outspoken manner, and they hired him knowing (because hey, he wrote books and already had produced shows) exactly what his views were.

To suddenly decide that he isn't allowed to voice his Christian views...that's discrimination. They know it too. That's why he's not really fired, and why they are continuing and really just want the whole thing to go away.

One of the higher ups at A&E got a hair crossways, and their decision was vetoed. They were probably fired.

And while we're at it, I didn't realize talking about fucking or not fucking someone's ass was a "Christian" viewpoint. Quit defending this as "religious commentary".

It's not fucking religious commentary. Don't recall Jesus ever describing what he thought of men's asses and why it's "gross" to fuck them. Jesus was interested in more important issues.

Phil's comments were lewd and this was one of the reasons this thing blew up. He didn't simply say "I disagree with gay marriage or gay people", he was straight up talking about assholes and vaginas.

 

[Pogo]

I could see it if Phil R went out and started screaming about how he hated fags and thought they were all scumbags etc, etc.

But what he did was talk about SIN and SINNERS. There was no hate in his heart or in his words.

The problem with you people is that any speech that doesn't fall within the narrow guidelines you demand OF OTHERS is righteously condemned and the people who spoke it along with it.

But let a group with the right 'status' make fun of gays, and..Hey! It's all just in fun, right?

Saturday Night Live
Christmas Past
Watch Saturday Night Live: Christmas Past online | Free | Hulu

You might think of yourself as a good individual, but you're being controlled by some seriously evil people.

Of course, if you admit it, then you have to admit that you've been wrong your entire life.

Not an easy thing to do. Takes a lot of guts and that's one major reason that people don't change.

Edge, you're missing another very important point. It's going completely over your head.

I read the interview, and really don't think it was that bad or that shocking. It's was just what you'd expect from someone who was a pretty outspoken Christian. However, what happened is that a whole shitload of controversy was drummed up about it. Yes, a lot of his comments were twisted and blown out of proportion but at the end of the day the interview completely blew up.

The fervor was unpredictable, scandalous, and could be viewed as damaging to the A&E brand. Again, A&E has a right to protect itself from this by distancing itself from Phil by suspending him.

This is called business, Edge. Hundreds of millions of dollars are on the line and they need to do what's right for the network. If A&E did nothing they ran the risk of losing a big chunk of its viewers who may view the network as "anti-gay" etc.

What I am not doing is denouncing Phil, or denouncing Christians, or denouncing people who dislike gays.

I'm am simply saying that a company has a right to defend itself.

No, they don't. They hired him because of his outspoken manner, and they hired him knowing (because hey, he wrote books and already had produced shows) exactly what his views were.

To suddenly decide that he isn't allowed to voice his Christian views...that's discrimination. They know it too. That's why he's not really fired, and why they are continuing and really just want the whole thing to go away.

One of the higher ups at A&E got a hair crossways, and their decision was vetoed. They were probably fired.

To "suddenly decide" actually demonstrates the absence of discrimination. As we said before, Robertson's religion hasn't changed; if they were going to discriminate on that basis they would have done so by not hiring him on that basis. His religion is a constant.

Now if he had suddenly switched to Jainism and A&E decided they don't like Jainism, then you'd have religious discrimination. But as you correctly noted, they knew what they were getting when they went in. Ergo argument doesn't work.

 

[Edgetho]

Edge, you're missing another very important point. It's going completely over your head.

I read the interview, and really don't think it was that bad or that shocking. It's was just what you'd expect from someone who was a pretty outspoken Christian. However, what happened is that a whole shitload of controversy was drummed up about it. Yes, a lot of his comments were twisted and blown out of proportion but at the end of the day the interview completely blew up.

The fervor was unpredictable, scandalous, and could be viewed as damaging to the A&E brand. Again, A&E has a right to protect itself from this by distancing itself from Phil by suspending him.

This is called business, Edge. Hundreds of millions of dollars are on the line and they need to do what's right for the network. If A&E did nothing they ran the risk of losing a big chunk of its viewers who may view the network as "anti-gay" etc.

What I am not doing is denouncing Phil, or denouncing Christians, or denouncing people who dislike gays.

I'm am simply saying that a company has a right to defend itself.

As it turns out, the entire point is moot.

A&E backed down. Just like I predicted.

But A&E did not initially act to preserve its reputation or to defend itself. They acted to curry favor with a favored, and minority, group of people.

And they've backed down.

Had they continued, had they stuck to their guns and not let Phil back on the set and actually 'fired' him..... They would have lost a lot more than just their 'reputation'.

You're coming from the POV that PR said something bad. He didn't. He said something 'CONTROVERSIAL'.

And who's making it controversial? The new guys.

For 3,500 years people have lived (or tried to) by what's in the Bible and just recently, I'm talking like in the last decade or so, have people become more tolerant of gays and others of their ilk.

The controversy is not in what Phil R said, but in how gays, a new and minority group, over-reacted to what he said.

A&E would have gotten ripped to shreds if they had followed through. All they've done now is attract another couple million people to watch Phil and his clan.

A&E caved

Edge if you want me to say that the folks causing the controversy were OK for doing so you're not going to get that out of me. I don't agree with it and think it's people stupidly trying to make something out of nothing.

But (again) there are contracts signed between TV personalities and their networks stating "if said actor stirs up controversy in the news that can be considered harmful to the network, they have a right to be fired". Controversy is controversy. Makes no difference if it's valid controversy. Most networks want their stars to behave in a predictable manner.

And.... Of course they're not going to fire the guy. He has delivered the #1 show in cable history, and he's a goldmine. However by "suspending" him A&E covered their asses by making it absolutely clear they are not endorsing his opinion. Most networks want to remain neutral on issues like these.

Again, before you start calling everyone a "bigot", just stop and take two seconds to figure out if you're using the word in the correct manner.

It took (??) Network a long time to fire Charlie Sheen.

Was it because he was so good? Or was it because the Network was afraid of a lawsuit does it even matter?

Of course Networks have a right..... No, they have a duty, to protect their brand.

But that's not what happened here and you're too sophisticated to argue otherwise.

 

[ClosedCaption]

I could see it if Phil R went out and started screaming about how he hated fags and thought they were all scumbags etc, etc.

But what he did was talk about SIN and SINNERS. There was no hate in his heart or in his words.

The problem with you people is that any speech that doesn't fall within the narrow guidelines you demand OF OTHERS is righteously condemned and the people who spoke it along with it.

But let a group with the right 'status' make fun of gays, and..Hey! It's all just in fun, right?

Saturday Night Live
Christmas Past
Watch Saturday Night Live: Christmas Past online | Free | Hulu

You might think of yourself as a good individual, but you're being controlled by some seriously evil people.

Of course, if you admit it, then you have to admit that you've been wrong your entire life.

Not an easy thing to do. Takes a lot of guts and that's one major reason that people don't change.

Edge, you're missing another very important point. It's going completely over your head.

I read the interview, and really don't think it was that bad or that shocking. It's was just what you'd expect from someone who was a pretty outspoken Christian. However, what happened is that a whole shitload of controversy was drummed up about it. Yes, a lot of his comments were twisted and blown out of proportion but at the end of the day the interview completely blew up.

The fervor was unpredictable, scandalous, and could be viewed as damaging to the A&E brand. Again, A&E has a right to protect itself from this by distancing itself from Phil by suspending him.

This is called business, Edge. Hundreds of millions of dollars are on the line and they need to do what's right for the network. If A&E did nothing they ran the risk of losing a big chunk of its viewers who may view the network as "anti-gay" etc.

What I am not doing is denouncing Phil, or denouncing Christians, or denouncing people who dislike gays.

I'm am simply saying that a company has a right to defend itself.

No, they don't. They hired him because of his outspoken manner, and they hired him knowing (because hey, he wrote books and already had produced shows) exactly what his views were.

To suddenly decide that he isn't allowed to voice his Christian views...that's discrimination. They know it too. That's why he's not really fired, and why they are continuing and really just want the whole thing to go away.

One of the higher ups at A&E got a hair crossways, and their decision was vetoed. They were probably fired.

See?

When it gets down to it defenders of Duck Dynasty believe that A&E shouldnt be able to do what they want simply because they dont like their decision.

Someone says "A&E has the right to protect themself" and the response is "no they dont"

 

[koshergrl]

"A company called Skyjacker -- which builds truck suspensions -- tells us it stands solidly behind Phil and the show ... saying it's a matter of God and country -- it's a free country and Phil has a right to his opinions.


Read more: 'Duck Dynasty' Sponsor -- We Stand Behind Phil | TMZ.com


"Over 1 million people support boycotting A&E following the suspension of “Duck Dynasty” star Phil Robertson.
"As of Thursday evening, more than 1 million people have “liked” the “Boycott A&E Until Phil Robertson is put back on Duck Dynasty".

Obviously.

Over 1 Million Support Boycotting A&E Following ?Duck Dynasty? Star?s Suspension « CBS Houston

 

[koshergrl]

You're wrong. WAY wrong.

"
Yesterday Entertainment Weekly claimed that despite his suspension, Robertson will be back on the hugely popular show – which regularly pulls in 12 million viewers – when filming recommences in January.

They quoted a source saying: ‘The network also hopes the media and fan furor will cool down over the holidays and that tensions over shooting future episodes can then be resolved. There’s no negotiation to have; we’re doing the show.’



Read more: Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson says he is a lover not a hater | Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

A&E folded like a cheap suit.

They didn't "fold".

They're airing the episodes that have already been filmed. Phil is still "suspended".

"Robertson will be back on the hugely popular show – which regularly pulls in 12 million viewers – when filming recommences in January."

 

[KevinWestern]

As it turns out, the entire point is moot.

A&E backed down. Just like I predicted.

But A&E did not initially act to preserve its reputation or to defend itself. They acted to curry favor with a favored, and minority, group of people.

And they've backed down.

Had they continued, had they stuck to their guns and not let Phil back on the set and actually 'fired' him..... They would have lost a lot more than just their 'reputation'.

You're coming from the POV that PR said something bad. He didn't. He said something 'CONTROVERSIAL'.

And who's making it controversial? The new guys.

For 3,500 years people have lived (or tried to) by what's in the Bible and just recently, I'm talking like in the last decade or so, have people become more tolerant of gays and others of their ilk.

The controversy is not in what Phil R said, but in how gays, a new and minority group, over-reacted to what he said.

A&E would have gotten ripped to shreds if they had followed through. All they've done now is attract another couple million people to watch Phil and his clan.

A&E caved

Edge if you want me to say that the folks causing the controversy were OK for doing so you're not going to get that out of me. I don't agree with it and think it's people stupidly trying to make something out of nothing.

But (again) there are contracts signed between TV personalities and their networks stating "if said actor stirs up controversy in the news that can be considered harmful to the network, they have a right to be fired". Controversy is controversy. Makes no difference if it's valid controversy. Most networks want their stars to behave in a predictable manner.

And.... Of course they're not going to fire the guy. He has delivered the #1 show in cable history, and he's a goldmine. However by "suspending" him A&E covered their asses by making it absolutely clear they are not endorsing his opinion. Most networks want to remain neutral on issues like these.

Again, before you start calling everyone a "bigot", just stop and take two seconds to figure out if you're using the word in the correct manner.

It took (??) Network a long time to fire Charlie Sheen.

Was it because he was so good? Or was it because the Network was afraid of a lawsuit does it even matter?

Of course Networks have a right..... No, they have a duty, to protect their brand.

But that's not what happened here and you're too sophisticated to argue otherwise.

Edge - whether you or I personally agree with or disagree with the gay lifestyle is beyond the point.

The point is both of us know it's a highly controversial, touchy, and dividing issue with the American population. That's just how it is. If it appears that A&E endorses a strictly Christian view there's a potential to lose a lot of viewers if things don't go well and I believe A&E just wanted to instantly distance itself from the comments to protect its ass.

It's most certainly about protecting the brand, and if you can't see this you're fooling yourself.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

A&E folded like a cheap suit.

They didn't "fold".

They're airing the episodes that have already been filmed. Phil is still "suspended".

"Robertson will be back on the hugely popular show – which regularly pulls in 12 million viewers – when filming recommences in January."

Unsurprisingly, the Daily Mail has lied to you again.

Here's the Entertainment Tonight article that they're claiming is their source:
'Duck Dynasty': New episodes will include Phil | Inside TV | EW.com

Notice there's nothing about "filming" in January.

 

[Edgetho]

Edge if you want me to say that the folks causing the controversy were OK for doing so you're not going to get that out of me. I don't agree with it and think it's people stupidly trying to make something out of nothing.

But (again) there are contracts signed between TV personalities and their networks stating "if said actor stirs up controversy in the news that can be considered harmful to the network, they have a right to be fired". Controversy is controversy. Makes no difference if it's valid controversy. Most networks want their stars to behave in a predictable manner.

And.... Of course they're not going to fire the guy. He has delivered the #1 show in cable history, and he's a goldmine. However by "suspending" him A&E covered their asses by making it absolutely clear they are not endorsing his opinion. Most networks want to remain neutral on issues like these.

Again, before you start calling everyone a "bigot", just stop and take two seconds to figure out if you're using the word in the correct manner.

It took (??) Network a long time to fire Charlie Sheen.

Was it because he was so good? Or was it because the Network was afraid of a lawsuit does it even matter?

Of course Networks have a right..... No, they have a duty, to protect their brand.

But that's not what happened here and you're too sophisticated to argue otherwise.

Edge - whether you or I personally agree with or disagree with the gay lifestyle is beyond the point.

The point is both of us know it's a highly controversial, touchy, and dividing issue with the American population. That's just how it is. If it appears that A&E endorses a strictly Christian view there's a potential to lose a lot of viewers if things don't go well and I believe A&E just wanted to instantly distance itself from the comments to protect its ass.

It's most certainly about protecting the brand, and if you can't see this you're fooling yourself.

Sans the last sentence, that was the most prescient post on the topic yet. Outside of mine, of course

I will add...... They over-reacted in a major way and they under-predicted the backlash.

Big time.

 

[Pogo]

GQ should not have asked him the question what he viewed as sinful, if some people did not like the answer.

A&E should have exercised more restraint in who Phil should be allowed to hold interviews with. One would have thought they'd do anything to protect their star. But alas not.

Once again -- the A&E guy wasn't there for the ATV ride with the reporter so... there goes that. I'll repost that article when I get to it but we've done this too.

Of course it would be simpler to keep track of all this if posters didn't insist on creating 368 threads about this single topic...

Here's that article, brought forward from another thread, since posters here insist on creating 4800 threads on the same topic in a bizarre attempt to rewrite reality by volume:

Came across this and passing on for what it's worth; make of it what you will...

>>In one of a plethora of posts about the fallout to Phil Robertson’s now infamous anti-gay remarks to a GQ reporter, TMZ, ironically, struck upon a key nuance to the situation that other publications have entirely missed: Where was Roberton’s PR counsel when the notorious interview happened? The publicist supporting Robertson was missing in action when the infamous anti-gay statements went down.

Which points to one of the most fundamental aspects of PR 101: when a reporter is present, you are always on the record. Always. On. The. Record.

Phil Robertson’s now famous interview with the GQ reporter took place in several phases. The network’s publicist attended, in accordance with A&E’s rigid PR policy, TMZ says—but when Robertson and the reporter hopped onto ATVs, the publicist didn’t come along for the ride. Bingo. Opportunity knocked, the reporter took advantage of the casual setting to ask a personal question, and out popped the offending remarks.

Surely the Duck Dynasty team has received ample media training and counsel over the course of their hugely successful series, and yes, Phil Robertson is a bona fide adult who can and should be held accountable for his statements.

But had his PR counsel stayed by his side, the attentiveness could have changed history in two ways: 1) A reporter is far less likely to ask the out-of-left-field question with PR counsel standing by, and 2) Whether it took a kick in the shin, a dirty look or an outright interruption, PR counsel could have prevented the ad hoc statement from ever happening or could have at least softened the impact with a quick retraction, a follow up remark, or an apology on the spot. As it was, the PR counselor (and the network) learned of the statement in the worst possible way–along with the rest of the world, when the interview went to print.

As a career PR lead, I believe this nuance is critical. As unacceptable as Robertson’s crass remark may have been, could the knowledge that it was a casual remark he made in the midst of a seemingly social ATV ride make a difference? It might. Or it might not. Robertson is entitled to his personal opinions, but if TMZ’s reporting of the circumstance is accurate, it seems clear he never intended to issue the blunt statement for print. (However, an apology is still in order for the rudeness and insensitivity of the comments, even if they were made in a social setting and may possibly have been intended in jest.)

Time will tell. But Robertson (and his PR counsel) have reinforced a basic lesson in public relations in the hardest possible way.

Off-the-cuff remarks are on the record. << -- How Phil Robertson's PR Team Let Him Down

 

[Pogo]

It has no effect on Phil Robertson who doesn't need the money or the show. Also, if you read the clause carefully it references loses the respect of the public. What of someone who GAINS the respect of the public like Phil Robertson has done.

This particular morality clause does not exactly support your point.

If A&E has a right to fire him for unwanted publicity, and they do. Does the family not also have a right to quit if the network is getting them unwanted publicity or portraying them in an unfavorable light?

Of course they do.

Nope. The rights are all on the side of the Producer, who after all owns the show and the network that puts it out. We did this.

Yes, and the family has the right to not negotiate with a new contract and to go to another network.

Sure. No one has suggested otherwise...

 

[peach174]

Nope. The rights are all on the side of the Producer, who after all owns the show and the network that puts it out. We did this.

Yes, and the family has the right to not negotiate with a new contract and to go to another network.

Sure. No one has suggested otherwise...

You did by saying the rights are all on the side of the Producer.
I pointed out that the family also has rights not just the producer.