Duck dynasty

[Above The Rowan]

But the media asks the questions and sets people up.  Your examples involve a person spouting an opinion that is clearly not asked for.

 

This single incident isn't even a big deal to me.  What bothers me is that it's part of a very disturbing pattern IMO.  They ask a hot-button question knowing the answer is probably going to be unpopular.  Then people decide they need to care what that hairy guy thinks (why?) and get themselves all upset about it.  Then the person gets censured, slimed, boycotted, ruined.  Then as soon as that furor dies down, they go after the next person.  It will never end until people stop thinking it actually matters to us individually what some other human being thinks.

Or, alternatively, Phil Robertson gave an answer that HE knew darn well would send people into a frenzy. 

He very well could have set this thing up himself, simply answering the way he did. 

That entire franchise panders to the "dumb redneck" stereotype, knowing that it sells and it makes them a TON of cash. 

[Alicia64]

People still aren't getting it, though.  

 

Do you think A&E did this out of some altruistic reason?  Do you think they would actually suspend a lead cast member on their highest rated show simply because they disagreed with is opinion?  Hardly.  Controversy typically brings viewership.

 

The only reason they would make this decision is because they have information, whatever that may be, that led them to believe this was the better move for them financially.  That's it.  

 

This is absolutely not a free speech issue, by the way.  As Floridamom said, the right to free speech has to do with the government not being able to limit your speech.  It has nothing to do with your employer's ability or inability to make employment decisions based on what you say.

 

I don't mean this rudely, but I'm not sure you're getting it. I worked in media for years. I completely understand that A&E is about profit: pure and simple.

 

A&E is terrified that the gay rights organization -- GLAAD -- will pulverize them. They feel bullied by GLAAD -- and that's why free speech proponents are so concerned. I'm from San Francisco. I know that the gay lobbies are powerful and have every reason to want to push their own interests with strength.

 

They are not cool with some popular old grandpa yakking against gay rights. They won't go for that.

 

A&E is more frightened of the gay lobby than they are of the Christian Conservatives. For now.

 

If the tide turns -- and it appears to be -- A&E will jump behind Phil Robertson. But, at the moment, they're scared of the gay lobby.

 

My point is that the gay lobby is bullying people into shutting their mouths and not talking. That's not right. Bullying people out of their rights isn't okay.

 

Alley

[Above The Rowan]

No, no, no.

It is quite different.  Mr. Robertson has said NOTHING that is not in keeping with Christian doctrine and his obvious stance.  Nothing has changed.  

If a VS model was hired overweight, they can't fire her for saying how much she likes to eat Mrs. Field's cookies all the time.  If she was hired as a thin model and then she gains weight, yes, of course, she has breached the contract.  I seriously doubt Phil agreed contractually to advocate relationships that violate his well-known scriptural faith.  It would be the same as forcing him to advocate infidelity.  Both are outside Biblical marriage.

He is allowed to have an opinion, especially one completely within the parameters of his faith which is showcased on the show. 

I seriously doubt that he was ever asked to "advocate" for anything, least of all advocate for homosexuality. 

 

You can answer questions without being offensive, I feel very strongly he made a clear choice when he chose to answer in the way he did. 

[LucyStoner]

True perhaps but comparing firing a VS model for getting fat to this DD character for talking about his religious beliefs which is a HUGE part of the whole image they have.....that comparison is not accurate. 

 

This man didn't just talk about his religious beliefs, unless there is some religion that says segregation was peachy keen and better than what we have now.  Maybe there is.  But certainly not any Christian faith I know.  The Black churches and a few integrated churches were, after all, the very heart and soul of the Civil Rights movement.  Religious belief and moral outrage was the gas that fueled the Civil Rights movement.  Maybe many of the segregationists were also Christian but they certainly were not behaving in a Christ-like manner. 

[Jane in NC]

But the media asks the questions and sets people up.  Your examples involve a person spouting an opinion that is clearly not asked for.

 

This single incident isn't even a big deal to me.  What bothers me is that it's part of a very disturbing pattern IMO.  They ask a hot-button question knowing the answer is probably going to be unpopular.  Then people decide they need to care what that hairy guy thinks (why?) and get themselves all upset about it.  Then the person gets censured, slimed, boycotted, ruined.  Then as soon as that furor dies down, they go after the next person.  It will never end until people stop thinking it actually matters to us individually what some other human being thinks.

 

From the GQ story:

 

 

Out here in these woods, without any cameras around, Phil is free to say what he wants. Maybe a little too free. He’s got lots of thoughts on modern immorality, and there’s no stopping them from rushing out. Like this one: 

“It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.â€

Read More http://www.gq.com/entertainment/television/201401/duck-dynasty-phil-robertson#ixzz2nxuaSg81

Was the media asking the questions or did Phil just ramble?  Frankly from reading the linked article, I cannot quite see this guy being pinned into a corner.

 

Shrug. I find using the vague "media" as a scapegoat to be a little disingenuous, but that may be just me. 

[Alicia64]

From the GQ story:

 

Was the media asking the questions or did Phil just ramble?  Frankly from reading the linked article, I cannot quite see this guy being pinned into a corner.

 

Shrug. I find using the vague "media" as a scapegoat to be a little disingenuous, but that may be just me. 

 

The media knew they "had a live one." No doubt about it.

 

They knew if they asked a couple of questions Phil would ramble-away. GQ is loving this. It works for them.

 

Alley

[Scarlett]

This man didn't just talk about his religious beliefs, unless there is some religion that says segregation was peachy keen and better than what we have now.  Maybe there is.  But certainly not any Christian faith I know.  The Black churches and a few integrated churches were, after all, the very heart and soul of the Civil Rights movement.  Religious belief and moral outrage was the gas that fueled the Civil Rights movement.  Maybe many of the segregationists were also Christian but they certainly were not behaving in a Christ-like manner. 

 

 

I thought A&E suspended him for the 'anti-gay' comments.  At any rate, it was the homosexual portion of his comments that was being compared to the VS model getting fat.

[Jane in NC]

The media knew they "had a live one." No doubt about it.

 

They knew if they asked a couple of questions Phil would ramble-away. GQ is loving this. It works for them.

 

Alley

 

So this is a family that has been living with cameras running for how long now--a year or more?  And it is "the media's" fault that he spouted?

 

Really?

 

[Dandelion]

True perhaps but comparing firing a VS model for getting fat to this DD character for talking about his religious beliefs which is a HUGE part of the whole image they have.....that comparison is not accurate. 

 

It seems like much of the disagreement and outrage surrounding Phil Robertson's suspension centers on the argument that A&E knew he held these views, it was part of the image being cultivated on the show, etc. etc.

 

The bottom line is that none of this matters.  Sure, A&E probably did know.  They may have even milked some of Phil's more controversial views in the past when it was advantageous from a marketing standpoint.

 

None of that changes the fact that they can and did suspend him when he made statements that were not aligned with their brand.  That's the nature of business.  It's not about what's fair, it's not about loyalty or sticking by your star, and it's not about supporting people's free speech rights.  The A&E execs may support all of those things in their personal lives (maybe some of them even secretly agree with some of what Phil said), but when it comes to business it's all about money.  Pure and simple.  They made the call that suspending him was best for their bottom line - just as he likely decided to say what he did (at least in part) because it will ultimately be advantageous to his bottom line.

[SKL]

From the GQ story:

 

Was the media asking the questions or did Phil just ramble?  Frankly from reading the linked article, I cannot quite see this guy being pinned into a corner.

 

Shrug. I find using the vague "media" as a scapegoat to be a little disingenuous, but that may be just me. 

 

I like the way people are taking the author's word for it.  Those of us who have been quoted by the media know that they take poetic license to a surprising level.  Every time I have been quoted, the "quote" was completely different in both words and tone from what I actually said.  And this GQ dude was clearly putting his own spin on it.

 

But like I said, it's not even about this guy personally, from my perspective.  Even if this guy is the scum of the earth, I hate the media's tactics with a passion.  And seeing how thrilled people are to take part in these bash-fests, I really wonder about humanity.  Don't we have better things to worry about?

 

But directly to the quote you posted - what is wrong with a guy saying he prefers the thought of sex with a vagina vs. sex with an anus?  I mean, this is GQ, he's definitely not the first guy who ever said anything on adult male topics there, so forget the "crude" aspect of it.  I've heard lots of women celebrities say and do grosser things.

[LucyStoner]

I thought A&E suspended him for the 'anti-gay' comments.  At any rate, it was the homosexual portion of his comments that was being compared to the VS model getting fat.

 

No, the media has that as the headlines but I believe Mrs. Mungo linked to the actual statement and it was about more than homosexuality.  

 

Also, even if it were, I personally fail to see the religious nature of this remark:

 

"It seems like, to me, a vagina — as a man — would be more desirable than a man's anus, that's just me," the reality star said.

 

"I'm just thinking: There's more there! She's got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I'm saying?

 

I would not expect to hear that in church!  But I am just a ex-Catholic 100% monogamous girl who admittedly may be more than a bit of a prude.  I can't even understand finding a celebrity sexually attractive and the single brief moment of being attracted to someone outside my marriage was a big crisis for me that I shut down, fast.  

 

[Murphy101]

True perhaps but comparing firing a VS model for getting fat to this DD character for talking about his religious beliefs which is a HUGE part of the whole image they have.....that comparison is not accurate.

It would be more accurate if VS hired someone famous for their huge boobs and long legs and then firing them when that person did an interview for an unrelated to VS magazine and commented hey, they believe having huge boobs and long legs really helps them be a better model.

[Joanne]

No, no, no.

It is quite different. Mr. Robertson has said NOTHING that is not in keeping with Christian doctrine and his obvious stance. Nothing has changed.

.

Actually, he said quite a bit that went beyond the first level of hate which is "homosexuality is against my understanding of a a scripture".

 

He made comments that reduced love to sex. He made ignorant imitations about African Americans. He juxtaposed homosexuality with bestiality (abuse) and promiscuity.

[AlmiraGulch]

Just because you know Christians who do not agree with him doesn't mean he said anything against his own Christian beliefs.

 

Yes, A&E can do what they want. I guess they did that.

The poster I was responding to said that he said that he was Christian when they hired him, and so they knew his beliefs. I'm saying that is untrue, that you cannot simply make those assumptions.

[AlmiraGulch]

I'm sure you know many Christians who are having affairs too or watching porn, or having premarital sex or any number of other sexual things. That doesn't mean they are doing what is scriptural!

He is allowed to have an opinion. A&E knows darn well that he holds this opinion.

They know kow. They didn't necessarily previously. And believing that homosexuality is not actually a sin, or a violation of scripture, is not necessarily out of line with Christian beliefs. There are many interpretations, beliefs, and denominations, as you know. It is not a "one size fits all" proposition.

[SKL]

Actually, he said quite a bit that went beyond the first level of hate which is "homosexuality is against my understanding of a a scripture".

 

 

This is not "hate."

 

[AlmiraGulch]

True perhaps but comparing firing a VS model for getting fat to this DD character for talking about his religious beliefs which is a HUGE part of the whole image they have.....that comparison is not accurate.

It's completely accurate. The topic is about protection of a brand. Whether it's a stomach roll or a religious belief is irrelevant.

[Alicia64]

So this is a family that has been living with cameras running for how long now--a year or more?  And it is "the media's" fault that he spouted?

 

Really?

 

 

Um. I'm not blaming anybody. I just know that GQ knew going in that Phil would say something stupid.

 

I'm a writer. If I were interviewing Phil I'd understand that he would likely say something stupid. I'd be stupid not to know that.

 

Writers can slant their stories one way or the other. Absolutely.

 

Al.

[Joanne]

I don't mean this rudely, but I'm not sure you're getting it. I worked in media for years. I completely understand that A&E is about profit: pure and simple.

 

A&E is terrified that the gay rights organization -- GLAAD -- will pulverize them. They feel bullied by GLAAD -- and that's why free speech proponents are so concerned. I'm from San Francisco. I know that the gay lobbies are powerful and have every reason to want to push their own interests with strength.

 

They are not cool with some popular old grandpa yakking against gay rights. They won't go for that.

 

A&E is more frightened of the gay lobby than they are of the Christian Conservatives. For now.

 

If the tide turns -- and it appears to be -- A&E will jump behind Phil Robertson. But, at the moment, they're scared of the gay lobby.

 

My point is that the gay lobby is bullying people into shutting their mouths and not talking. That's not right. Bullying people out of their rights isn't okay.

 

Alley

Like trying to shut people down by playing to "too much PC today" card?

[AlmiraGulch]

I don't mean this rudely, but I'm not sure you're getting it. I worked in media for years. I completely understand that A&E is about profit: pure and simple.

 

A&E is terrified that the gay rights organization -- GLAAD -- will pulverize them. They feel bullied by GLAAD -- and that's why free speech proponents are so concerned. I'm from San Francisco. I know that the gay lobbies are powerful and have every reason to want to push their own interests with strength.

 

They are not cool with some popular old grandpa yakking against gay rights. They won't go for that.

 

A&E is more frightened of the gay lobby than they are of the Christian Conservatives. For now.

 

If the tide turns -- and it appears to be -- A&E will jump behind Phil Robertson. But, at the moment, they're scared of the gay lobby.

 

My point is that the gay lobby is bullying people into shutting their mouths and not talking. That's not right. Bullying people out of their rights isn't okay.

 

Alley

 

No one has bullied anyone out of anything. He has the right to say what he wants. The organization has every right to protect it's brand and it's advertising revenue in whatever way it sees fit. Clearly it believes that more advertising dollars will be lost by failing to act than by acting in this way. You're exactly right that, depending on societal hot buttons, it very well could be at some point that having openly gay characters on their shows would result in the same outcome. In fact, I'm sure it has, in the past. It's called progress.

[Joanne]

This is not "hate."

 

By definition of many impacted by it, it is hate.

 

Dead (by their own or other hands) people suggest hate to me.

 

I do believe religious conservatives (please note I did not limit it to Christians) don't believe it is hate or that they are hating.

[SKL]

By definition of many impacted by it, it is hate.

 

Dead (by their own or other hands) people suggest hate to me.

 

I do believe religious conservatives (please note I did not limit it to Christians) don't believe it is hate or that they are hating.

 

But your quote said "homosexuality is against my understanding of a scripture."  Let's use the Koran so we take it out of the Christian context.  The Koran is pretty clear on homosexuality, even prescribing specific punishments for both males and females.  If you read that scripture, I don't see how you can NOT understand it to mean homosexuality is wrong.  Acknowledging that this is what the scripture says is not "hate."

 

I'm sorry that some people commit suicide because the Bible or the Koran says what it says.  But that still doesn't make it "hate" to admit that when I read it, yep, that's what it says.

 

I might even believe in it, and still not hate.  I don't hate every person who does things that are inconsistent with scripture.  I'd be hating my own self into oblivion if that were the case.

 

The term "hate" is going to lose its meaning if we keep using it so loosely.

[Scarlett]

By definition of many impacted by it, it is hate.

 

Dead (by their own or other hands) people suggest hate to me.

 

I do believe religious conservatives (please note I did not limit it to Christians) don't believe it is hate or that they are hating.

 

 

Many many people believe that the practice of homosexuality is wrong who do not hate or wish anyone dead. (including me!)  There are also many who have such feelings who choose to live quietly either celibate or in a traditional marriage. 

[Murphy101]

I do not think stating that something is a sin or is wrong is hate.

 

No one ever likes being told what they are doing is a sin or wrong.

 

Their dislike of hearing it doesn't make it hate either.

 

It boils down whether it's okay to call an act wrong on how someone feels rather than whether it is wrong.

 

Which is not a logical method of discussion nor is it conductive to preserving freedom of expression/speech.

 

Sure one might claim they have that freedom, but not related to their work. But I gotta say that just sounds like trading one oppressor for another. And it would seem just a matter of time until the government adopts the corporate policies and people let them do it bc they have grown used to not being able to exercise their rights most of their lives.

[Joanne]

But your quote said "homosexuality is against my understanding of a scripture." Let's use the Koran so we take it out of the Christian context. The Koran is pretty clear on homosexuality, even prescribing specific punishments for both males and females. If you read that scripture, I don't see how you can NOT understand it to mean homosexuality is wrong. Acknowledging that this is what the scripture says is not "hate."

 

I'm sorry that some people commit suicide because the Bible or the Koran says what it says. But that still doesn't make it "hate" to admit that when I read it, yep, that's what it says.

 

I might even believe in it, and still not hate. I don't hate every person who does things that are inconsistent with scripture. I'd be hating my own self into oblivion if that were the case.

 

The term "hate" is going to lose its meaning if we keep using it so loosely.

I am not using it loosely. Those scriptures are born of hate and inspire hate.

[Scarlett]

I am not using it loosely. Those scriptures are born of hate and inspire hate.

 

I don't see it that way at all. 

 

And really this is what it all comes down to.  Those who believe in God/the Bible and those who don't.  (and yes I know there are some who claim to believe in the Bible who think homosexuality is wrong....that is a whole nother topic IMO)

[ThatHomeschoolDad]

Replace selected words to make this dude's comments misogynistic, or racist, or antisemitic, and does it change anyone's opinion?  This will all seem so stupidly quaint to our grown kids, like witch dunking and scarlet letters.

 

That he was fired for what he said shows how far we've come.

 

That he has defenders show how far we have to go.

 

 

[Scarlett]

Replace selected words to make this dude's comments misogynistic, or racist, or antisemitic, and does it change anyone's opinion?  This will all seem so stupidly quaint to our grown kids, like witch dunking and scarlet letters.

 

That he was fired for what he said shows how far we've come.

 

That he has defenders show how far we have to go.

 

 

It has never made sense to me to compare the practice of homosexuality/religion to skin color/gender. 

[Murphy101]

I think it is hateful to say that scripture is born of hate and inspire hate.

 

Yet, I'm not screaming for you or anyone else to be taken off the board for hate speech.

 

That's the problem for me.

 

GLADD doesn't like his comments? Fine. Don't watch the show or even the channel. I really don't care.

 

But in general I don't think employees should lose their jobs for what they say or do on their own time. There's exceptions for safety or contract expectations of course, but otherwise, I usually am not going to agree with it.

[SKL]

I am not using it loosely. Those scriptures are born of hate and inspire hate.

 

Hmm.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this.

[Jane in NC]

I like the way people are taking the author's word for it.  Those of us who have been quoted by the media know that they take poetic license to a surprising level.  Every time I have been quoted, the "quote" was completely different in both words and tone from what I actually said.  And this GQ dude was clearly putting his own spin on it.

 

But like I said, it's not even about this guy personally, from my perspective.  Even if this guy is the scum of the earth, I hate the media's tactics with a passion.  And seeing how thrilled people are to take part in these bash-fests, I really wonder about humanity.  Don't we have better things to worry about?

 

But directly to the quote you posted - what is wrong with a guy saying he prefers the thought of sex with a vagina vs. sex with an anus?  I mean, this is GQ, he's definitely not the first guy who ever said anything on adult male topics there, so forget the "crude" aspect of it.  I've heard lots of women celebrities say and do grosser things.

 

I have been quoted by "the media"--and in my younger days I was a part of "the media".  To be honest, I wish that some of my more recent quotes had been massaged to sound less conversational.  The reporters with whom I deal on a regular basis are very community minded and attentive to details.  This is one of the joys of small town life.

 

Am I "thrilled" to be a part of this "bash-fest"?  Frankly, no.  My interest here is more sociological.  As I stated in an earlier post, I am tired of ignorant Southern rubes being used for entertainment purposes. Although anyone who chooses to live life with a camera recording his every move probably deserves exactly what he gets.  I, for one, value my privacy.

[Mrs Mungo]

I think it is hateful to say that scripture is born of hate and inspire hate.

 

Yet, I'm not screaming for you or anyone else to be taken off the board for hate speech.

 

That's the problem for me.

 

GLADD doesn't like his comments? Fine. Don't watch the show or even the channel. I really don't care.

 

But in general I don't think employees should lose their jobs for what they say or do on their own time. There's exceptions for safety or contract expectations of course, but otherwise, I usually am not going to agree with it.

This wasn't on his own time. This is a celebrity being interviewed by the media.

 

YOU might not care if people stop watching the channel, but his employer certainly does. His job is to make people watch the channel and get them advertising dollars. If his actions are perceived or anticipated to have the opposite effect, then certainly his employer can fire him. We have no idea what his contract might say.

[LucyStoner]

 

Nevermind.  I have said what I need to say and that's really all there is to say.  I don't like real ping pong, much less fake ping pong.  People disagree.  That's certainly not going to change nor is it a bad thing.  And I'd delete the quote box but the interface won't let me.  

[albeto.]

My point is that the gay lobby is bullying people into shutting their mouths and not talking. That's not right. Bullying people out of their rights isn't okay.

 

You make it sound like a marginalized group, historically oppressed and targeted for violent crimes, working together to expose and end the very bigotry that inspires oppression and violence is a bad thing. 

 

:huh:

[ThatHomeschoolDad]

It has never made sense to me to compare the practice of homosexuality/religion to skin color/gender. 

 

 

Were you black, Jewish, and/or gay, it would.

[Miss Marple]

? They don't look anything like hobos. Maybe Oklahoma hobos just look exceptionally bad off, but DD guys look like any other outdoorsman except they have a much longer beard. *shrug*

LOL! Truly the greatest number of hobos I've seen are in the large metro areas we've visited (NY, DC, London, etc.) Definitely don't look like the DD guys.

[ThatHomeschoolDad]

Is the 'powerful gay lobby' manufactured in the same place the 'war on Christmas' comes from ?

 

As a matter of fact, yes.  Perhaps you've heard of Research Triangle, the designation for a region of North Carolina that contains some well known universities.

 

Well, this would be the Pink Triangle.  Same idea, but very secret.  It's like the Manhattan Project, but for a gay bomb, and when it's finally detonated...well, honey, things are gonna be just fabulous!

[Murphy101]

This wasn't on his own time. This is a celebrity being interviewed by the media.

 

YOU might not care if people stop watching the channel, but his employer certainly does. His job is to make people watch the channel and get them advertising dollars. If his actions are perceived or anticipated to have the opposite effect, then certainly his employer can fire him. We have no idea what his contract might say.

So celebrity means they aren't allowed the same freedom to share their opinions as anyone else?

 

And given the huge amount of money DD brings A&E it seem odd to claim getting rid of Phil will help their revenue.

 

I suppose if they want to claim their brand is anti-whatever the Robertsons believe, then they should cancel the show. I wouldn't agree with that action, but at least I could respect it.

 

But this doesn't seem about branding. It seems more like they are just ticked that GLADD is hassling them and want to give token to shut them up.

 

Does this rule apply to all celebrities? If a celebrity movie actor states an opinion, are people stupid enough to think that means the studio that produced a movie starring the actor must share the views of everyone on their staff?

[Mrs Mungo]

So celebrity means they aren't allowed the same freedom to share their opinions as anyone else?

Yes. Celebrities are able to say *whatever they please*, just like everyone else. But, that freedom comes with responsibility. The "freedom" part means that you don't go to jail or any of that. It *does not* mean that you are free from any consequences of your actions. Look at the HUNDREDS of people who have been fired for bad mouthing their boss on social media. You have the freedom to say it, and other people have the freedom to react.

 

And given the huge amount of money DD brings A&E it seem odd to claim getting rid of Phil will help their revenue.

Consumers are not the ones handing over money. *Advertisers* are the ones handing over money. Lots of companies do not what to appear prejudiced by supporting racist and/or homophobic speech.

 

Does this rule apply to all celebrities? If a celebrity movie actor states an opinion, are people stupid enough to think that means the studio that produced a movie starring the actor must share the views of everyone on their staff?

Movie studios don't rely on ad revenue. But, if a movie star says something that ticked off a crap-ton of people while on a press junket, which affected the performance of the movie, then you could expect to see them in fewer movies.

[LucyStoner]

Does this rule apply to all celebrities? If a celebrity movie actor states an opinion, are people stupid enough to think that means the studio that produced a movie starring the actor must share the views of everyone on their staff?

 

I think that celebrities pay for very unpopular opinions all the time.  

 

I won't go to see a movie with Tom Cruise or Mel Gibson.  Not because I think that their opinions are shared by the studio but because their faces make me wanna puke and I don't want any of my pennies going to them.  And honestly their faces make me want to puke because of some of the stupid stuff they have done.  The Dixie Chicks lost serious money over their views (and needed higher security).  I don't agree with anyone threatening to kill them (over the top much?) but I don't think it is unfair that they paid a financial price for their statements which upset their audience.  No one owes a celebrity or pseudo-celebrity a living.  Not the studio, not the station and certainly not the fans.  

[ThatHomeschoolDad]

Does this rule apply to all celebrities? If a celebrity movie actor states an opinion, are people stupid enough to think that means the studio that produced a movie starring the actor must share the views of everyone on their staff?

 

I would say that, historically, it applies to celebs based on their continued bankability to the studio or entertainment complex for which they generate revenue.

 

Mel Gibson's repeated antisemitic rants don't seem to have hurt him long term.

 

Gilbert Gottfried was fired from his job voicing the Aflac duck for tweeting "I just split up with my girlfriend, but like the Japanese say, ‘There’ll be another one floating by any minute now.'" and â€œJapan is really advanced. They don’t go to the beach. They beach comes to them.

 

Jimmy "The Greek" Snyder was fired from CBS in 1988, for this on-air pearl of wisdom:  "The black is a better athlete to begin with because he's been bred to be that way, because of his high thighs and big thighs that goes up into his back, and they can jump higher and run faster because of their bigger thighs and he's bred to be the better athlete because this goes back all the way to the Civil War when during the slave trade … the slave owner would breed his big black to his big woman so that he could have a big black kid."

 

IN 1973, Howard Cosell said "Look at that monkey run" on air while announcing a football game, but his career went on for some time.

 

Inconsistency is something we tend to do very well, thank you.

 

Edit -- I take no responsibility for what seem to be random changes in font size here....  odd.

[Murphy101]

I guess I just don't get much of this bc I really don't give much notice to celebrities. The only name mentioned that I knew was Mel Gibson. And for a long long time he was just "that guy that played a long haired cop with a black partner in that one movie"

 

I don't think anyone is owed their job. But I don't necessarily think that is always incompatible with citizens being able to speak freely outside of work either.

[Murphy101]

LOL! Truly the greatest number of hobos I've seen are in the large metro areas we've visited (NY, DC, London, etc.) Definitely don't look like the DD guys.

I know right?

 

Especially as I have a son that would live in camo and military boots if I let him. That stuff can get expensive! Hobos only wish they could dress that nice.

[Scarlett]

Were you black, Jewish, and/or gay, it would.

I doubt it. Being female and white I can't change. I choose my religion and who I have sex with.

[ThatHomeschoolDad]

I doubt it. Being female and white I can't change. I choose my religion and who I have sex with.

Well, that does make sense, and as the father of a white female, I'm intrigued as to when the choice of hetero or homosexual takes place, age-wise. I don't remember it as an event from my own childhood, but I'll admit to far less experience with female adolescence, so far, I mean.

[Murphy101]

I doubt it. Being female and white I can't change. I choose my religion and who I have sex with.

Not to mention not every black person or Jew would agree with it either. It's not as though being black automatically means they have to be pro-gay whatever.

[Scarlett]

Well, that does make sense, and as the father of a white female, I'm intrigued as to when the choice of hetero or homosexual takes place, age-wise. I don't remember it as an event from my own childhood, but I'll admit to far less experience with female adolescence, so far, I mean.

I said I choose who I have sex with. I swear I feel like I have repeated that 20 times on this thread.

[Lisa R.]

"I am interested in receiving intelligent and insightful social and political commentary. I think I'll go see what a reality TV star has to say," said no one ever.

 

To hear the discussion on this guy, you would think he has vast influence and power. He sounds like a narrow minded guy that was asked a question designed to make him look bad. I believe this reporter fully knew what he was doing. I can't imagine anyone is surprised that this guy actually holds these views, are they?

[Above The Rowan]

I guess I just don't get much of this bc I really don't give much notice to celebrities. The only name mentioned that I knew was Mel Gibson. And for a long long time he was just "that guy that played a long haired cop with a black partner in that one movie"

 

I don't think anyone is owed their job. But I don't necessarily think that is always incompatible with citizens being able to speak freely outside of work either.

He wasn't outside of work.

Dealing with press and media IS part of his job, and when he's doing so he is representing not just himself but the company and the tv franchise. I doubt anyone would want to interview him had he not been one of the stars of a reality tv series. I also doubt A&E would find issue with any number of things he may say while shootin the breeze with his buddies over a beer - but during media/press events, he is on record and he is representing his business and tv persona. 

 

And he knew all of this, and STILL chose to say things he very probably knew would ruffle feathers and cause a stir. 

[Guest]

I think it is hateful to say that scripture is born of hate and inspire hate...

Totally agree.