Phil Robertson Ban

Chris Lemler | December 22, 2013
I think that banning Phil Robertson from the show is so dumb. A&E knew about these guys religion. And what happened to freedom of speech. I watch that show everyday when it comes on and I will back Phil on what he said. I may not agree with what he said but, I think that A&E is just being stupid. I love these guys they are funny and very religious and I really think A&E need to give Phil a break on what he said. He was just speaking his mind and they want to ban him from the show Duck Dynasty. I don't agree with them at all on that. To me Phil was speaking the truth in his mind. People may not agree what he says but putting a ban on him from the show is stupid. I would like to know everyone else's thoughts on this topic!!!!!!!

Samir Mehta | December 22, 2013
[hidden by request]

Erik Bates | December 23, 2013
[hidden by request]

Scott Hardie | December 24, 2013
The Internet's perpetual sense of outrage is really getting ridiculous. I find Robertson's comments crude and his positions disagreeable, but I also find them unworthy of a second thought. I am no more bothered by some cranky old bastard on a cable TV show than I would be by a cranky old bastard saying the same things ahead of me in the grocery checkout lane. Were many people genuinely angry about what he said, or were they just whipped up into a frenzy of outrage by groups like GLAAD and news organizations who framed the comments as horribly offensive? And is the backlash in the other direction, the outrage over the outrage, not also mostly manufactured? I don't have it in me to give a damn about this, and I resent the media's attempts to provoke anger within me for their benefit.

Here's one of the more thoughtful articles that I've seen on the subject, arguing that it's dangerous for suspensions and bans to become the standard response to these kinds of statements, because they have a chilling effect on freedom of expression for a significant number of people. (45% of Americans agree with Robertson's basic argument, if not his word choice.)

On a related note: Other than talk shows, does cable TV produce anything other than reality shows now? I channel-surfed for a while on my recent road trip, and holy crap is there a lot of reality TV out there. Every channel, every hour, every day seems to be nothing but another reality show, about hoarders or home-flippers or survivalists or lumberjacks or fishmongers or whatever the hell. And they're all basically the same show with the same rhythm and the same tone. I didn't watch during primetime -- are there other kinds of shows broadcast during that time period? I would bet not.

Scott Hardie | December 26, 2013
And he's back.

Samir Mehta | December 26, 2013
[hidden by request]

Scott Hardie | December 28, 2013
Keep reciting those titles like a mantra against the engulfing darkness that is the ever-growing number of asinine reality shows. "There is good TV, there is good TV..." (In case anyone wonders: Yes, I still watch every episode of Survivor, and yes, I think its quality has significantly diminished in recent years.)

Scott Hardie | April 8, 2014
Here's another fantastic (and funny) article about the chilling effect of all of this perpetual outrage.

Samir Mehta | April 8, 2014
[hidden by request]

Scott Hardie | April 9, 2014
Agreed. Too many people don't read past the headline. Modern media consumption habits encourage not just rapid skimming, but the instant formation of opinion without analysis. We feel enraged by something one day, but how mad are we justified in being if we completely forget about it the next day?

When I first heard about the #CancelColbert story, the article was focused on Suey Park, the "hashtag activist" who started it. I wish I could find the story now, but the gist was that Park was doing this for sport, that she discovered that she had power with prior successful hashtag campaigns and was now gleefully exercising that power against Colbert for her own amusement. It definitely colored my perception of the whole event, but I have no idea how true it is. It's too bad that the group that's actually being harmed, the Native Americans who want Dan Snyder to stop using the name Redskins that inspired Colbert's allegedly racist satire in the first place, have been completely forgotten in the whole mess.