Thursday, December 19, 2013

Duck Dynasty debate

So my facebook newsfeed has erupted recently with comments from all corners about A&E firing Phil Robertson, the patriarch on the reality show Duck Dynasty. I for one have never seen the show (nor do I really have any desire to), but the controversy piqued my interest enough to read through Robertson's interview with GQ (available here). After reading it's clear to me that this is a very stupid controversy. Let me explain:

Robertson's comments on homosexuality are not intelligent. They do not adequately or clearly explain a Christian perspective on homosexuality. He makes no argument that would convince someone that his worldview is an informed one. His comments are those of the stereotypical bible-thumping backwoods hillbilly with a lack of compassion for his fellow man and a lack of delicacy on what is a very delicate issue.

Let me be clear: I believe that homosexual acts are immoral. While I will not go into an in-depth discussion here, I will say that my belief is formed by scripture and my Catholic faith. Homosexuality is an extremely delicate topic to talk about and require a lot of nuance that isn't quite covered by the typically-used phrase "hate the sin, love the sinner."

Regardless of what you believe about homosexuality, it is clear that Robertson's comments do nothing to help understand the issue. His comments sound very unintelligent, though I was previously under the impression that he had to be a (at least somewhat) intelligent man to successfully create his business empire (or is that his son's? I really don't know). Conservatives who defend his comments are hurting their credibility in the homosexuality discussion.

The cry I hear everyone making now is "But he has a Constitutional right to free speech!" Certainly he does! He was well within his rights as an American to make those comments. The thing with free speech though is you still have to deal with the consequences of your speech. A&E is well within their rights to fire Robertson if they don't want to be associated with his comments. They are under no obligation to continue to employ him (I'm sure there are contract stipulations that allow them to terminate the business relationship if he says something that will hurt their image).

Now, do I think A&E should have fired him? From a business standpoint, possibly. The outcry of those obsessed with political correctness makes him a liability to the company, but at the same time his show is insanely popular. Also, his show is popular exactly because they are bible-thumping backwoods good ol' boys. This interview actually helps his branding more than hurting it. A&E seems to have made the decision that the liability outweighed the benefits of continuing to have him on the show. It's entirely conceivable that whenever their contract allows them to do so the family will jump ship to another network, and that is also their right to do so.

Bottom line is: there is nothing morally or constitutionally wrong with A&E firing Phil Robertson. He made comments, they reacted to them. They are not firing him for being a Christian, they are firing him for making public statements that they want to distance themselves from.


There is a bigger lesson here. Reality TV is popular because it is an escape from our lives into other people's lives. Often these people are larger than life characters who start to become like family to their viewers. I'm not talking about game shows, talent competitions, cooking shows, talk shows, or home improvement shows. I'm talking about the Here Comes Honey Boo Boos of the entertainment world. People find entertainment by feeling empathetic with these people, mocking these people, or just escaping into their world. There is very little redeeming value here when considering the opportunity cost. You could spend the time you would normally spend watching Duck Dynasty with your family or friends, reading a book, or watching a fictional show. Finding entertainment in watching other people's families is unhealthy and slightly perverse. You have real people in your life. You have fictional characters that can lead you to a much better understanding of people than the half-real people on the reality shows who only show you the parts of their lives that they (or the network) want you to see.

Reality TV gains viewership by appealing to the voyeurism that is within everyone to some degree. Fight back - don't watch it.

2 comments:

  1. A valid viewpoint Kyle, though I think you are looking for a less harsh word than "voyeurism" there at the end...

    ReplyDelete