This in a nutshell! Trying to imagine walking a mile in another mans moccasins is a trait that I feel has severely diminished in this country. Another word for it is Empathy.
I suspect that the most morally damaging stance on any issue is the one that harms other people while not harming (or actually benefiting) ourselves. When examining any issue I try to put myself in the other guy's shoes, and I can tell you - if the government or my fellow Americans were insisting that I did not have the right to marry a consenting adult of my choice, but instead insisted that I must choose from among people to whom I have no sexual attraction, I would be pissed. Were I gay, I would not be one of these reasonable gays on Anandtech. I'd be one of the eternally pissed off in-your-face GLAAD gays, and I know it. Same if I were black; while I appreciate that we have equal opportunity, I would not let you forget that in my father's time you crackers* were artificially limiting his opportunity, which limits what he could do for me, which constrains my starting position in life, which affects what I can do for my kids.
* I can say that since in real life I am quite crackery myself. It's the Chris Rock principle
A cursory search shows Conde Nast Publications, which is owned by Advance Publications, which is owned by Discovery Communications. Are you thinking that the Discovery Channel is making a backdoor play for Duck Dynasty or attempting to damage a major competitor? Or am I missing a major Disney share of one of these holding companies?I think you are absolutely correct here.
And still all this talk about boycotting A&E. Does no one care who owns GQ?
A cursory search shows Conde Nast Publications, which is owned by Advance Publications, which is owned by Discovery Communications. Are you thinking that the Discovery Channel is making a backdoor play for Duck Dynasty or attempting to damage a major competitor? Or am I missing a major Disney share of one of these holding companies?
It does seem odd to me that Phil would even grant an interview to GQ. As the major metrosexual publication and a part of a competing media conglomerate, obviously the guy is not there to do him any favors. And I can't imagine there is any significant overlap between GQ readers and Duck Dynasty viewers or that metrosexuals are likely to discover a sudden interest in hunting and praying.
Unless we're being played and Phil actually did want off the show, there will not be a show after this, or at least not on A&E. This is not Honey Boo Boo, these are self-made millionaires who were fine before A&E & will be fine after A&E. Considering that this is the highest watched non-fiction show in cable TV history, they can easily find another network if they wish to continue the show without A&E. After all, all they must do to get fired (and out of their contracts and the associated non-compete clauses) is to recite fairly orthodox and mainstream Christian values in public.
Actually, A&E is a 50/50 joint venture of Hearst and Disney.
GQ is owned by Conde Nast which is in turn owned by Advance Publications and the Newhouse family. Advance is the major shareholder of the Discovery Channel ,A&E's main competition.
Why was Phil interviewing with GQ?
I did not know that - I thought A&E was wholly owned by Disney.Actually, A&E is a 50/50 joint venture of Hearst and Disney.
GQ is owned by Conde Nast which is in turn owned by Advance Publications and the Newhouse family. Advance is the major shareholder of the Discovery Channel ,A&E's main competition.
Why was Phil interviewing with GQ?
Agreed.This in a nutshell! Trying to imagine walking a mile in another mans moccasins is a trait that I feel has severely diminished in this country. Another word for it is Empathy.
That makes sense. Though I'm at a loss as to why A&E would even allow an interview with GQ, which would be doubly motivated to damage the franchise.Advance owns Discovery but all those questions still apply.
There's no love lost between Hearst and Advance. They've been bitter rivals in the newspaper business for nearly a century.
While the Newhouse family, Advance's private owners, are Obama/DNC supporters and decidedly not aligned with the Christian right.
I've been told that Phil was not happy with A&E anyway because they edit out much of the religious content. If true, the Robertsons just got leverage to get out of their contracts AND a double buttload of free publicity to attract another network.Right, these guys can play it however they want. They had money before this show, and now they have even more....and much fame as well.
I've been told that Phil was not happy with A&E anyway because they edit out much of the religious content. If true, the Robertsons just got leverage to get out of their contracts AND a double buttload of free publicity to attract another network.
Maybe we are all being played.
People should be free to make political and religious comments without retaliation from government, business or individuals.
At will huh?
So a company can fire someone for being black?
Of course not. There is this little thing called "rights."
Christian Broadcasting Network? If so, that would seem to be a natural fit.It wouldn't surprise me. Either way, we don't have cable TV (just basic), so these guys aren't getting any of my money. I'm not a hunter either, so same thing.
It's only got any of my attention because it showed up on the forum
I hear CBN is looking to fill a spot.
that's a bunch of BS....your saying Mr Duck gave up his rights when he went to work for A&E...BS!!
Homosexuality is not a sin under Catholic doctrine. The fact you cannot get that simple thing correct pretty much invalidates everything you're going on to say.
Learn first, THEN post. Please!
He still has his rights, he can say whatever he wants. Thing is the network has rights too and can decide not to employe him for their perception he damaged their brand.
And customers can refuse to watch the network and make them reverse the decision.
That is not what I said...Working for A&E is a right?
Absolutely, frankly I think its silly, they sort of knew who this guy was when they hired him. He acts in accordance with what they know and they suspend him, its stupid.
I have no issue with people boycotting the network, I only take issue with people claiming this is some sort of free speech issue. because it isn't and to say so means you're stupid.
I cite the First Amendment,
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
Do you see that "abridging the freedom of speech" part?
Congress trumps company policy, consider it the supremacy clause.
If congress can not restrict free speech, then neither can a company.
My stance is simple, congress is the supreme law maker. If congress can not make a law against free speech, than neither can a company make a policy.
Do you have anything to prove me wrong?
Yea, I was trying to keep is simple for these guys by just saying "Disney". Either way, boycotting A&E is laughable, it won't do any good. Cable TV isn't a la carte for a reason...and this here is the reason.
I didn't even look into the GQ side of things, the plot thickens...
Damage their brand by expressing his religious beliefs?
I believe rights trump company policy.
<sigh> So, apparently you are incapapble of understanding your own constitution. Home schooled? No wonder your country is in such rough shape.
My stance is simple, congress is the supreme law maker. If congress can not make a law against free speech, than neither can a company make a policy.
Do you have anything to prove me wrong?
Of course a boycott of A&E is relevant.
It would seem the threat of a boycott, whether sponsors and/or viewers, is what prompted A&E to rebuke Phil for his comments.
While true that one cannot drop just the A&E channel, advertising $'s are based on viewership. If there were a boycott that significantly reduced viewership of A&E it would reduce their ad revenue.
Fern
People should be free to make political and religious comments without retaliation from government, business or individuals.
At will huh?
So a company can fire someone for being black?
Of course not. There is this little thing called "rights."
Hi Texashiker,
We here at Anandtech can, and do, make rules about what language etc is permissible here because as a private entity we are not covered by Free Speech etc.
Fern