Don't get me wrong, guitarfool, I agree with you. What some crazy old duck hunter said should not be an issue at all. And it wasn't an issue at first. Sure, tabloid news outlets were eating it up but it probably would have gone away after a few days. What bothers me is the people like Sarah Palin who make it an issue and who do so for the wrong reasons. Which is why it is important now. Because it turns out that Palin and so many others believe that it is an attack on free speech and they are totally wrong. Others are saying this is an attack on religious freedom, this is also wrong. It's important that people know what freedom of speech actually is and that they know that actions always have consequences, whether they are free to express such actions in the first place or not. It's also important that people know that religion is not a good excuse for homophobia or any sort of bigotry. These are important conversations to have and I do believe that there are people out there who are learning from this debacle, as insignificant as it may have been to start with.
This is a well-reasoned reply, and as such I'd like to expand on some of the issues at hand a bit more and have a dialogue here, exchanging and also debating some of the topics that go much deeper than the TV show itself, which ultimately is what got all of this started in the first place.
I could list a long rambling post of all the topics, but again I appreciate the rational and reasoned tone which the thread has shifted into, and I'd rather take one at a time.
First, consider the issues of crafting and marketing an image or a persona in the entertainment and business worlds.
Dean Martin:
Dean Martin's on-stage persona for years was that of a tipsy, swinging and sauve lothario who always had a drink in his hand. As the show progressed in Vegas, or wherever he was performing, the schtick would sometimes include a drink cart being wheeled out on stage so Dean could fix himself drink after drink, and get more "loose" and tipsy as the show went on, much to the crowd's delight.
The truth is that Dean was most often drinking non-alcoholic apple juice, or some other substitute. Not that he was entirely a tee-totaller his whole life, but he definitely was not downing drink after drink and getting blasted during those stage shows.
But his persona, his image, was part of his swinging schtick that he played up on stage. It's what the crowds expected to see after watching him cultivate that image for years, again always with the drink in hand. But he was not getting drunk on apple juice.
Johnny Carson.
The "King Of Late Night", one of the most brilliant TV personalities to ever host a show. He had a unique ability to warm up the television screen, and connect with people from all ages and backgrounds, all classes and groups. He was the type of guy who made people feel like he was talking with them, and whose personable style and demeanor made it seem like you'd want to have a drink or spend time with him, and he'd be endlessly entertaining, the "life of the party" who lit up any room.
The truth is that Johnny was self-conscious and shy, and was not comfortable among groups of people at gatherings and parties to the point of withdrawing and coming off as aloof if not cold as ice at times. If he didn't need to go, he'd avoid such functions and preferred the company of close friends and familiar surroundings. He was also a lightweight drinker, yet had an appetite for consuming booze, and when he did get fueled up he could be a mean and nasty drunk with people around him. The booze that would get him comfortable enough to deal with crowds he didn't want to be in would also turn him into a less-than-pleasant drunk.
Yet Johnny on camera is still one of the most engaging and "friendly" personalities that has ever appeared on American television, and that warmth from afar is what made him the king of his domain, late-night talk television. No one has nor will ever do that gig better than Johnny.
So where does Phil Robertson fit into all of this?
I don't watch the show, truth is I didn't know much if anything about it until this dust-up over the GQ article and A&E. Looking not far beyond the surface for some background, you might find some interesting points which tie into the persona and image-crafting elements.
Anyone interested, look these things up for yourself, I'm just repeating what I read on just a simple check of the backstory.
"Some crazy old duck hunter" doesn't fit reality. Nor does the image of a gaggle of long-bearded backwoods rednecks. It's what the "reality show" puts out there, but it's *NOT* reality.
Phil Robertson himself did grow up dirt poor in the deep south. But he was a good athlete, which got him a college scholarship and that led to his starting at quarterback ahead of future Hall Of Famer Terry Bradshaw for several years. He was offered an NFL contract, but turned it down.
The man also earned both a Bachelor's and Master's degree in education, and worked as a teacher for several years. At the same time, in the early 70's, he was developing duck calls (hunting was his favorite pursuit) and soon incorporated a business which was his second golden ticket out of the deep south poverty he grew up in, a sports scholarship being his first.
So the man being considered an uneducated, unsophisticated redneck backwoods type is actually holding a Master's degree in education and started a multimillion dollar successful business based on something he grew up doing as a kid.
I'd say the reality far outweighs the persona and image of a country bumpkin, because you do not earn a Master's degree and incorporate a multimillion dollar business if you're an uneducated redneck.
Then his family, specifically his sons who are in the family business. Pretty much the same deal: They're sporting the camo clothes and the unkempt beards, but they are also college-educated business and marketing professionals by trade. They are far from backwoods rednecks who lucked into a pot of gold, rather they studied and learned business at college and for a time were the stereotypical three-piece-suit and wingtip wearing professional types, educated and skillful in their trade.
So that's one element of this: Just like Dean Martin was drinking apple juice and pretending to get boozy and drunk, and Johnny Carson could be a mean and nasty drunk off-stage yet looked like the friendliest guy in America at 11:30 PM on NBC, the family branded and marketed a persona and an image for entertainment and business purposes. Far from being uneducated rednecks, they knew exactly what they were doing and when A&E came calling that image became amplified to the point of caricature, as if the characters seen on TV were scripted and written.
And that's what I'm getting at here.
They're dipping a toe into the entertainment business, which at its core sells the public line after line of bullshit. They market and sell based on image and perception, and what you see on video, print, or elsewhere has been crafted, tweaked, shaped, and focus-grouped to appeal to certain demographics and bottom line...to sell product.
Part of crafting that image involves safeguarding that image. We can't let audiences in 1961 know that Dean Martin was pretending to be drunk, nor can we let people in 1967 know that Johnny Carson had to be forcibly carried out of a certain restaurant for being unruly, it wouldn't fit the image.
Someone tell me that letting an interview like this go in 2013, with our instant-information culture of media, wasn't intentional? How much editing, revising, and crafting happens before a simple press release is sent out? In entertainment, sports, politics...
...I'll say with confidence that anything which gets published on a scale as large as GQ is intentional. And don't think that interview by Robertson was not "vetted" by teams of managers, lawyers, agents, and other reps from both A&E and Robertson's company(s) before it was given the OK. This is how corporations work, and how entertainment works. There are few if any "off the cuff" or "off the record" remarks reported if they're not let slip accidentally by anyone from a boozed-up actor to a politician who gets caught speaking candidly on an open mic.
And what was the outcome of this "Duck Dynasty" debacle? People are talking about "Duck Dynasty", many who had no idea what the show even was. And A&E for all of their "outrage" and swift action against Robertson...conveniently they were running a "Duck Dynasty" marathon of episodes just this past weekend, which timed itself perfectly with the dust-up over the GQ interview.
Coincidence? Or skillful subliminal if not guerrilla marketing and promotion?
It's all about the hype, and the hype is all about selling product.
And just keep in mind what the reality actually is with a Phil Robertson versus what some in this thread seem to have been fooled into thinking is the reality based on the public persona crafted to sell product.
And consider that bashing or critiquing or even supporting a persona as groups like GLAD or Sarah Palin and now "Johnny-Come-Lately" Jesse Jackson are doing is only putting more attention on (and therefore more money into the pockets of) the very persona you're railing against.
The Smiley Smile Message Board
