I have been wondering if A&E knew of his controversal views...
By Scott CollinsDecember 20, 2013, 4:55 p.m.
Anyone looking at the "Duck Dynasty" uproar may wonder why A&E didn't warn Phil Robertson about the dangers of talking too much to reporters.
But it now looks like they did.
Robertson, the long-bearded patriarch of the clan of Louisiana duck-call merchants, is on "hiatus" from filming episodes of the No. 1-rated cable reality show after giving a GQ magazine interview where he made anti-gay remarks and questioned the need for the civil-rights movement. GLAAD and theNAACP, among others, condemned the comments. But thousands of fans - and even Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal - have rushed to his defense, touching off the latest skirmish in the national culture war. Late Thursday, the family said it might not want to continue the show without Phil.
The scandal has turned into the kind of tempest network executives feared all along. A&E knew of Robertson's controversial views - expounded in videotaped sermons and elsewhere - before the show premiered in spring 2012, and warned him not to overshare on hot-button topics such as gay rights and race relations, according to a producer familiar with the situation. Phil and other family members also probably signed contracts containing "morals clauses" in which they promised to, among other things, avoid anything that would embarrass or bring shame to A&E or the brand. Such clauses are standard in the entertainment and sports industries.
More at: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much - latimes.com
The whole issue could have been avoided had Phil simply had the common decency to measure his words when giving an interview just like anyone else would.
The whole issue could have been avoided had Phil simply had the common decency to measure his words when giving an interview just like anyone else would.
You're suggesting he should have lied?
I think the issue could have been avoided if the interviewer hadn't set him up. He HAD to know how Robertsin was going to answer the question and if he did, he shouldn't have asked the question.
The Libbos might want to temper their outrage. The Duck Dynasty vote has already gotten one United States congressman elected. It would suck for the Libbos if every single member of theDuck block voted against a Democrat, because of the way the Libbos treated Phil Robertson.
Making a big deal out of this is a bad business decision for A&E and a bad political move for the Libbos.
The loser in this will be A&E because, in the end the Robertsons will move the show to a different network and A&E will lose their major money maker. So what they did is a poor business decision. I'm not even going to get into the comments because I don't care what bearded people or non bearded people say on TV shows. I'm a businessman the outcome of this thing seems pretty easy to determine.
The loser in this will be A&E because, in the end the Robertsons will move the show to a different network and A&E will lose their major money maker. So what they did is a poor business decision. I'm not even going to get into the comments because I don't care what bearded people or non bearded people say on TV shows. I'm a businessman the outcome of this thing seems pretty easy to determine.
You're suggesting he should have lied? I think the issue could have been avoided if the interviewer hadn't set him up. He HAD to know how Robertsin was going to answer the question and if he did, he shouldn't have asked the question. The Libbos might want to temper their outrage. The Duck Dynasty vote has already gotten one United States congressman elected. It would suck for the Libbos if every single member of theDuck block voted against a Democrat, because of the way the Libbos treated Phil Robertson. Making a big deal out of this is a bad business decision for A&E and a bad political move for the Libbos.
So it is Mammon uber alles???? Seriously???
I have been wondering if A&E knew of his controversal views...
By Scott CollinsDecember 20, 2013, 4:55 p.m.
Anyone looking at the "Duck Dynasty" uproar may wonder why A&E didn't warn Phil Robertson about the dangers of talking too much to reporters.
But it now looks like they did.
Robertson, the long-bearded patriarch of the clan of Louisiana duck-call merchants, is on "hiatus" from filming episodes of the No. 1-rated cable reality show after giving a GQ magazine interview where he made anti-gay remarks and questioned the need for the civil-rights movement. GLAAD and theNAACP, among others, condemned the comments. But thousands of fans - and even Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal - have rushed to his defense, touching off the latest skirmish in the national culture war. Late Thursday, the family said it might not want to continue the show without Phil.
The scandal has turned into the kind of tempest network executives feared all along. A&E knew of Robertson's controversial views - expounded in videotaped sermons and elsewhere - before the show premiered in spring 2012, and warned him not to overshare on hot-button topics such as gay rights and race relations, according to a producer familiar with the situation. Phil and other family members also probably signed contracts containing "morals clauses" in which they promised to, among other things, avoid anything that would embarrass or bring shame to A&E or the brand. Such clauses are standard in the entertainment and sports industries.
More at: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much - latimes.com
You're suggesting he should have lied?
I think the issue could have been avoided if the interviewer hadn't set him up. He HAD to know how Robertsin was going to answer the question and if he did, he shouldn't have asked the question.
The Libbos might want to temper their outrage. The Duck Dynasty vote has already gotten one United States congressman elected. It would suck for the Libbos if every single member of theDuck block voted against a Democrat, because of the way the Libbos treated Phil Robertson.
Making a big deal out of this is a bad business decision for A&E and a bad political move for the Libbos.
The issue that will need to be addressed by those on the offensive against religion, is the demand one group be allowed to say, act, and believe the way they do, while being allowed to excoriate, demean, and attempt economic harm against another for the doing the same thing.
Once again, no one is offended by Phil saying that he believes homosexuality is a sin. They are offended by him then going on to basically compare 2 lesbian chicks living together to a sicko raping a dog.
The loser in this will be A&E because, in the end the Robertsons will move the show to a different network and A&E will lose their major money maker. So what they did is a poor business decision. I'm not even going to get into the comments because I don't care what bearded people or non bearded people say on TV shows. I'm a businessman the outcome of this thing seems pretty easy to determine.
A&E owns the show.
He said no such thing from what I read.Once again, no one is offended by Phil saying that he believes homosexuality is a sin. They are offended by him then going on to basically compare 2 lesbian chicks living together to a sicko raping a dog.
Warn? I bet he could school most at A&E on the 1A.I have been wondering if A&E knew of his controversal views...
By Scott CollinsDecember 20, 2013, 4:55 p.m.
Anyone looking at the "Duck Dynasty" uproar may wonder why A&E didn't warn Phil Robertson about the dangers of talking too much to reporters.
But it now looks like they did.
Robertson, the long-bearded patriarch of the clan of Louisiana duck-call merchants, is on "hiatus" from filming episodes of the No. 1-rated cable reality show after giving a GQ magazine interview where he made anti-gay remarks and questioned the need for the civil-rights movement. GLAAD and theNAACP, among others, condemned the comments. But thousands of fans - and even Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal - have rushed to his defense, touching off the latest skirmish in the national culture war. Late Thursday, the family said it might not want to continue the show without Phil.
The scandal has turned into the kind of tempest network executives feared all along. A&E knew of Robertson's controversial views - expounded in videotaped sermons and elsewhere - before the show premiered in spring 2012, and warned him not to overshare on hot-button topics such as gay rights and race relations, according to a producer familiar with the situation. Phil and other family members also probably signed contracts containing "morals clauses" in which they promised to, among other things, avoid anything that would embarrass or bring shame to A&E or the brand. Such clauses are standard in the entertainment and sports industries.
More at: 'Duck Dynasty': A&E warned Phil Robertson about speaking out too much - latimes.com
Once again, no one is offended by Phil saying that he believes homosexuality is a sin. They are offended by him then going on to basically compare 2 lesbian chicks living together to a sicko raping a dog.
Warn? I bet he could school most at A&E on the 1A.
yea, where did that ability get him?
Μολὼν λαβέ;1062694884 said:Millions of supporters.
Μολὼν λαβέ;1062694884 said:Millions of supporters.
The loser in this will be A&E because, in the end the Robertsons will move the show to a different network and A&E will lose their major money maker.
You're suggesting he should have lied?
I think the issue could have been avoided if the interviewer hadn't set him up. He HAD to know how Robertsin was going to answer the question and if he did, he shouldn't have asked the question.
The Libbos might want to temper their outrage. The Duck Dynasty vote has already gotten one United States congressman elected. It would suck for the Libbos if every single member of theDuck block voted against a Democrat, because of the way the Libbos treated Phil Robertson.
Making a big deal out of this is a bad business decision for A&E and a bad political move for the Libbos.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?