Duck Dynasty wins! GLAAD loses!

… this means we’ll all be hearing about DD and what’s his name for another week or two.

A few weeks ago I didn’t even know what “Duck Dynasty” was, and still wish I didn’t.

that this was going to “end” this way? (the desired ending for A&E will be indignant fans of the Robertson clan delivering the network ratings that top last season’s records.) If I were a gambler, I would bet that this was a marketing ploy from day one.

Since I don’t watch DD, (I don’t pay for TV channels), I’ll wait to see what happens.
I’m much more interested in the actions of those who are DD fans.

Will they flock back to watch the show, or will they decide that it would be better to see DD on a channel/network which actually treats DD with a measure of respect?
Will they continue to give their money to A & E or will they withhold it until DD moves to another network?
The bigger picture, how the church/christians will fight the culture war against the sodomy lobby, remains the far more important question.

for the network and the network’s P.R. reps, who would have vetted the GQ questions, to foresee the outcome. This was a win/win/win for A&E, the family, and GQ (and Cracker Barrel who managed to insert their brand into this profitable hullabaloo).

The producers had the enviable yet un-enviable task of topping last season’s record ratings with a show and format that eschews traditional sweeps week type gimmicks. I predict that this “GQ episode” will ensure that they are able to do just that. If A&E had truly wanted to take a “moral” stand, they would have re-cut the upcoming January episodes leaving Phil on the editing room floor. They announced at the onset that Phil was going to remain in those episodes. I promise you that the ad-sales team was working feverishly over the holidays selling the January slots at the new, higher prices. The network would also have fired him outright. They didn’t, because they knew that they were going to reinstate him.

This is how the industry works. It’s all about ratings and how ratings = money. Personal anecdote on a much, much smaller level - almost 15 years ago, I was in a production of Tartuffe. The theatre’s Producing Director was having trouble drumming up interest for the show - from local media outlets and their patrons. The theatre had someone place a call to a local, conservative baptist church about the anti-religious play the theatre was producing. The church announced a boycott. The show sold out.

the likes of “the Fosters” and “Modern Family” since Duck Dynasty is too debased for you all. Better yet, I’m sure you all are so holy you never turn on the devil’s box!

Here in Kansas a “married” homosexual couple, one of whom is in jail, is suing to get conjugal visitation rights…and you think this is all a game?

I probably could have been a little bit clearer, my apologies.

I don’t think “this” is a game; I believe that this Duck Dynasty dustup was/is a type of game. I won’t post it here, but in the Duck Dynasty post that I wrote for my blog, I mentioned the recent NJ legislature’s decision to reject a gay marriage bill. What makes it noteworthy is that the bill was pro-gay marriage. It codified it for the state. The gay lobby pushed the legislature to reject the bill because the bill contained religious exemptions. That most definitely isn’t a game, and the marketing schemes of Hollywood swamped the NJ story. That’s frustrating for me.

If fans of Duck Dynasty want to stand up to moral pluralism, by all means, they should do so. But, the only way to punish A&E is to stop watching and stop buying merchandise regardless of the fact that the network reinstated Phil Robertson.

By the way, I don’t watch Duck Dynasty because I think it’s a boring show. I don’t watch much tv at all because we don’t have cable/satellite and I can’t get “rabbit ears” to work (not that I tried very hard).

John, the “hollywood insider” type articles I read after A&E suspended Phil but before they reversed their decision, seemed to be unanimous that it was a mistake and that A&E wasn’t counting on the rest of the family saying “If he goes, we go.” For example, the article below says the suspension was “a confused knee-jerk reaction that ultimately will probably mean very little.”

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/duck-dynasty-why-phil-robert…

This one says, “Five Things A&E Did Wrong has become the hot parlor game among TV industry execs at holiday get-togethers…’A rookie mistake.’ That’s how one TV industry veteran who’s put in time dealing with rogue reality stars described A&E’s handling of its Duck Dynasty nightmare.”

http://www.deadline.com/2013/12/duck-dynasty-debacle-has-tv-industry-ab…

Now, there’s no doubt A&E came out financial winners in the end, but in the midst of the controversy no one was taking the view that they planned all of this.

the “hollywood insider” sources may not have talked much about a ‘fake controversy’ explanation, but there were other voices writing about this possiblity like Vincent Eagan’s piece “Real points behind the Duck Dynasty controversy – seeing past the smoke screen”:

…what if controversy is the whole point? If former controversies, especially the marketing of wine, hurt the show’s popularity, maybe a new controversy in which a moral and upright person is persecuted for his views – and then restored to filming when the outcry against this action is so large – will draw viewers back to the show. It’s entirely dishonest, but from a marketing standpoint, it’s entirely ingenious – if a bit of a gamble.

~~I read the links you posted, and one thing stood out to me – the comment in Deadline from the “veteran” wondering why A&E allowed Phil Robertson anywhere near GQ. That’s one of the variables that caused me to question the sincerity of this whole thing from the beginning. Duck Dynasty’s audience and GQ’s audience are not the same. The claims of “rookie” mistakes are, from what I can tell, are as speculative as my claims. And, I went back and read my previous posts to make sure, but I used words like “gambling” and “bet” for a reason. I’m not claiming certainty; I’m simply attempting to get Believers to realize that there is the possibility that they are being played. To make sure that I don’t appear to be backing off – I would bet, if I were a gambling man, that Duck Dynasty’s audience is being played.

Back to the articles, I hadn’t read those two, but I’ve read many others that are similar. I wouldn’t necessarily refer to either Deadline or Hollywood Insider as “Hollywood insiders,” but that may come down to a difference in definition. Some of their sources may be Hollywood insiders. I have friends whom I would tag with the label “Hollywood insider,” and, in the issue of full discloser, in my conversations with them, they tend to agree with you and disagree with my take. One of them (and this is purely hearsay, I’m not claiming this is true - I don’t buy it, at any rate) told me that he was told by one of the producers that some of the wives of A&E executives were putting pressure on their husbands to reign the show in because the show was an embarrassment for them at their liberal, elite parties.

The biggest question I have about the whole incident that was one of the variables that made me question the premise being spun by the media is “why didn’t A&E fire Phil outright, and why didn’t they cut him out of the upcoming January episodes that were already in the can?”

If A&E really wanted to take a “moral” stand (and, to be clear, I believe that homosexuality is a sin and I believe that moral pluralists are pushing hard and we Believers have reasons to be gravely concerned.) they would have fired him outright. And they would’ve re-edited the upcoming January episodes. The uproar ensured that anything DD related with Phil involved would garner a lot of attention and support from offended evangelicals and social conservatives, which means that these upcoming episodes’ ad-spots will be sold at a premium. The way this has played out and the way that A&E has handled it doesn’t speas to “rookie mistakes.” A rookie mistake would have been canning Phil and anything related to him.

Good thoughts John. Thanks.

If I had a blog and actually made my living by writing, this is the way I would write. This is one of the funniest articles I have read in a long time, delivered via a perfect mix of acerbic wit, biting sarcasm and naked truth…

http://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2013/12/31/the-anus-monologues-n1770466