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

[Harambe]

I don't think A&E was paying the man to offer up opinions on gay men.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[UGLI baby]

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.

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

 

[One Brow]

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.

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.

 

[7StraightIsGreat]

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

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.

 

[One Brow]

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.

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?

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.

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

I'm not sure that's fair.

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

 

[Harambe]

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?

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?

 

[Sneakers]

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!

 

[UGLI baby]

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

 

[Nate505]

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.

 

[PearlWatson]

Of course everything is fine after smoking some pot.

 

[Stoked]

Of course everything is fine after smoking some pot.

Back on ignore you go. Ugh.

 

[Harambe]

Back on ignore you go. Ugh.

You, as a moderator, are allowed to do that?

Dang it, Jason, would you get your s**t together and post the moderator rule book already?