Martin Bashir vs Duck Dynasty

[WTF]

WTF is the difference?

Free speech for one and fire the other?

Why is that do you think?

Why do you want one to be protected with free speech and the other fired because of that same free speech?

[lustylad]

That's easy - One of them was encouraging sick behavior (defecating into someone's mouth) while the other was expressing disapproval and disgust of sick behavior (gay anal sex).

Of course, there is no difference to WTFagboy since he likes to engage in both activities.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by lustylad

That's easy - One of them was encouraging sick behavior (defecating into someone's mouth) while the other was expressing disapproval and disgust of sick behavior (gay anal sex).
Aren't both free speech issues? Aren't both employee/employer issues with regard to being fired?
Is your approval of the speech the key to your free speech?


Of course, there is no difference to WTFagboy since he likes to engage in both activities.

Yea, I'd like to take a dump in your gay ass mouth!



I have no different view of Bashir than I do of Phil the duck man. Say wtf ever you want and then take your medicine like a man. My question is why some of you bitch about Phil being put on hold, yet called for Bashir to be fired? That seems convoluted to me. Please help me understand those two different positions.

[Jackie S]

Originally Posted by WTF

Yea, I'd like to take a dump in your gay ass mouth!



I have no different view of Bashir than I do of Phil the duck man. Say wtf ever you want and then take your medicine like a man. My question is why some of you bitch about Phil being put on hold, yet called for Bashir to be fired? That seems convoluted to me. Please help me understand those two different positions.

I think Bashir should have been able to keep his job. Those that took offense could simply watch something else. Those that agree with him could continue to watch.

The same goes for Phil Robertson. If people are offended by his remarks, simply watch something else. For those that want to continue watching, that is their choice.

If MSNBC found that keeping Bashir on cost too much, then he would suffer the same fate as multitudes of other Television shows, cancelled because of poor ratings.

If A&E found that they were loosing too much money airing Duck Dynasty, they could simply cancel it because of poor ratings as well.

Isn't that the way the system is supposed to work in the entertainment industry?

[I B Hankering]

Bashir's remarks were premeditatedly scripted for a purported news broadcast -- not entertainment. There's supposed to be a different, higher standard for news shows. Robertson's remark was an unscripted response to a question in a personal interview and not as part and parcel of the show from which he was dismissed. Further, nothing Robertson said justified Huffy's vitriolic banner headline: "'Duck Dynasty' Star Makes Shockingly Vile Anti-Gay Comments."

The majority of Americans still reject homosexuality as a personal life style for themselves; in fact, some 40% still consider homosexuality "shockingly vile." Yet, "surprise, surprise," a religious southern man rejects homosexuality as a lifestyle and that becomes front page news. This whole issue is nothing more than lib-retarded hyperbole. It would have been a real story had Robertson said he endorsed homosexuality!

Finally, it took MSNBC almost two weeks before they acted to accept Bashir's "resignation" -- he never was "fired"; whereas, A&E acted within 24 hours and dismissed Phil Robertson. There's definitely bias there. A&E had the right to make that call as a business decision, but it appears the Robertsons are putting the screws to A&E. It appears that the Robertsons are telling A&E to accept the whole family with its inherent values, or they will go elsewhere. By doing this, the Robertsons are showing that their values are real and not affected for the superficial entertainment of others.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

I think Bashir should have been able to keep his job. Those that took offense could simply watch something else. Those that agree with him could continue to watch.

The same goes for Phil Robertson. If people are offended by his remarks, simply watch something else. For those that want to continue watching, that is their choice.

If MSNBC found that keeping Bashir on cost too much, then he would suffer the same fate as multitudes of other Television shows, cancelled because of poor ratings.

If A&E found that they were loosing too much money airing Duck Dynasty, they could simply cancel it because of poor ratings as well.

Isn't that the way the system is supposed to work in the entertainment industry?

Yes it is, well put...my question is more to the folks who called for Bashir to be fired and are crying about this Duck Dynasty flap. People like JD and Whirly.

What is good for the goose should be good for the gander!

[JD Barleycorn]

I have him on ignore but I can imagine the kind of stuff that came out of WTF's mouth (piss and shit likely).

Martin Bashir is a journalist. He made a very personal attack against an individual whom he disagrees with politically. The country his family orginates from actively discriminates against women to point that honor killings and gang rapes are not out of the ordinary. He attacks a woman using a reference about slavery about an Englishman (Bashir's other country) doing terrible things to African slaves on an English island. The scroll at the bottom of the screen proves that Bashir's attack was premeditated and with the approval of MSNBC.
Will Robertson is a entrepreneur. He was paraphrasing a passage from the Bible. He expressed no hatred towards anyone or any group in general. Robertson was giving an interview to a magazine and it was his opinion (which it used to free to express) from off the cuff.

Huge difference between the two comments.

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by lustylad

That's easy - One of them was encouraging sick behavior (defecating into someone's mouth) while the other was expressing disapproval and disgust of sick behavior (gay anal sex).

Check the internet, one person's "sick" is another person's fetish. But I am so glad you have stood up to be the standard setter and enforcer of morals. Good for you--you pompous egotist.

Originally Posted by Jackie S

I think Bashir should have been able to keep his job. Those that took offense could simply watch something else. Those that agree with him could continue to watch.

The same goes for Phil Robertson. If people are offended by his remarks, simply watch something else. For those that want to continue watching, that is their choice.

If MSNBC found that keeping Bashir on cost too much, then he would suffer the same fate as multitudes of other Television shows, cancelled because of poor ratings.

If A&E found that they were loosing too much money airing Duck Dynasty, they could simply cancel it because of poor ratings as well.

Isn't that the way the system is supposed to work in the entertainment industry?

Of course it is--thanks for posting some sanity. Which is why the vehement comments by some on here are so hypocritical. Some of the folks on here who are the loudest "supporters" of free market capitalism don't want to let it work when it is inconvenient for them.

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Bashir's remarks were premeditatedly scripted for a purported news broadcast -- not entertainment.

Right. So free speech only applies in unscripted situations? There is no premeditated free speech? And of course no news station has opinionated commentary, only hard provable facts.

Robertson's remark was an unscripted response to a question in a personal interview and not as part and parcel of the show from which he was dismissed. Further, nothing Robertson said justified Huffy's vitriolic banner headline: "'Duck Dynasty' Star Makes Shockingly Vile Anti-Gay Comments."
"Part and parcel of the show from which he was dismissed" has nothing to do with it, but I agree his comments were far from "Shockingly Vile". He expressed his opinion, which should be completely allowed--as should have been Bashir's--though I disagree with both.


The majority of Americans still reject homosexuality as a personal life style for themselves; in fact, some 40% still consider homosexuality "shockingly vile." Yet, "surprise, surprise," a religious southern man rejects homosexuality as a lifestyle and that becomes front page news. This whole issue is nothing more than lib-retarded hyperbole. It would have been a real story had Robertson said he endorsed homosexuality!
Disagree. This is politicized by both sides. I don't think a TV "star's" opinions on much of anything should be newsworthy. Certainly not headline worthy. The fact that we keep putting these people up as brilliant role models, or as vile evil geniuses, is the real problem. Charles Barkley was absolutely right.


Finally, it took MSNBC almost two weeks before they acted to accept Bashir's "resignation" -- he never was "fired"; whereas, A&E acted within 24 hours and dismissed Phil Robertson. There's definitely bias there. A&E had the right to make that call as a business decision, but it appears the Robertsons are putting the screws to A&E. It appears that the Robertsons are telling A&E to accept the whole family with its inherent values, or they will go elsewhere. By doing this, the Robertsons are showing that their values are real and not affected for the superficial entertainment of others.

Nope. They are showing they think that move gives them the most leverage. Though I do like that the whole group is sticking together. There is no reason to think they are doing it for the reasons you state--and I have no idea why you think you know their "true" feelings--oh, I know, EVERY TV personality is ALWAYS 100% honest in interviews, and NEVER says something that stretches the truth. He should have said whatever he wished to, it should be a non-story, he should not be fired for it, and they should go back to making TV shows I hope I never have to watch again. If lots of Bubbas like the show because it reaches their center, good for them.

[timpage]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

I think Bashir should have been able to keep his job. Those that took offense could simply watch something else. Those that agree with him could continue to watch.

The same goes for Phil Robertson. If people are offended by his remarks, simply watch something else. For those that want to continue watching, that is their choice.

If MSNBC found that keeping Bashir on cost too much, then he would suffer the same fate as multitudes of other Television shows, cancelled because of poor ratings.

If A&E found that they were loosing too much money airing Duck Dynasty, they could simply cancel it because of poor ratings as well.

Isn't that the way the system is supposed to work in the entertainment industry?

Spot on.

Is anybody surprised that a good old boy who lives in the country disapproves of the gays? Like every other good old boy who lives in the country?

I think he is brain-dead and I disagree with his opinion but, he shouldn't get fired for stating it.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Old-T

Right. So free speech only applies in unscripted situations? There is no premeditated free speech? And of course no news station has opinionated commentary, only hard provable facts. Your inability to discern between the role of journalism and purpose of entertainment TV is unfathomable. That that difference escapes you is not surprising.

"Part and parcel of the show from which he was dismissed" has nothing to do with it, but I agree his comments were far from "Shockingly Vile". He expressed his opinion, which should be completely allowed--as should have been Bashir's--though I disagree with both. Venue and premeditation are very relevant to this issue. Bashir's remarks were premeditatedly scripted: prescreened and approved by others before he went on the air. With malice aforethought, Bashir's remarks were the very definition of vile and disgusting. Nevertheless, the producer(s), et al, let him go forward and say them anyway. His remarks reflected the dogmatic, lib-retarded values of the show that aired his remarks; hence, those remarks were more than a "personal opinion": his remarks were "institutional" and aired after due deliberation. Meanwhile, it was GQ that asked for the interview, proposed the questions, which Robertson answered honestly, and it was GQ that chose to print those answers. The venue and the questions were externally imposed upon Robertson. The only thing Robertson did was agree to answer the questions honestly and without premeditated malice. GQ controlled every facet of the Robertson interview, except the honest answers. Bashir maliciously controlled everything he and his producers aired.

Disagree. This is politicized by both sides. I don't think a TV "star's" opinions on much of anything should be newsworthy. Certainly not headline worthy. The fact that we keep putting these people up as brilliant role models, or as vile evil geniuses, is the real problem. Charles Barkley was absolutely right. Suggest you direct your remarks towards GQ. For some reason, a reason unperceived by you, they were of the opinion Robertson was a worthy interview.

Nope. They are showing they think that move gives them the most leverage. Though I do like that the whole group is sticking together. There is no reason to think they are doing it for the reasons you state--and I have no idea why you think you know their "true" feelings--oh, I know, EVERY TV personality is ALWAYS 100% honest in interviews, and NEVER says something that stretches the truth. He should have said whatever he wished to, it should be a non-story, he should not be fired for it, and they should go back to making TV shows I hope I never have to watch again. If lots of Bubbas like the show because it reaches their center, good for them. Who are you? The Miss Cleo of a SHMB? You're the one making unfounded assumptions and imagine to know the Robertson's "true feelings." The Robertsons stated why they are doing what they are doing; nevertheless, you mean to deny their pronounced intent without even a shred of substantive proof to support your contrary position.

.

[JD Barleycorn]

You forgot to mention that Bashir had one of the lowest rated shows on TV and Duck Dynasty is one of the highest rated shows on TV. That should be enough to explain it to you. Kind of like when they kept Charlie Sheen for another year after he called his boss some Jewish insult.

[WTF]

Bashir and Duck Dynasty Dude are both entertainers imho. JD is right for once in his life. It is about ratings.

[stevepar]

i.b. hankering.....
has robertson been terminated from employment....i thought he was on hiatus...
robertson is also trying to walk back his remarks....

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by stevepar

i.b. hankering.....
has robertson been terminated from employment....i thought he was on hiatus...
robertson is also trying to walk back his remarks....

A&E suspended Robertson "indefinitely" mere hours after the interview was made public; whereas, Bashir continued to broadcast for two weeks before MSNBC took action. Robertson is saying he wasn't trying to offend anybody or group, but he and his family are standing by their beliefs.

[SinsOfTheFlesh]

Originally Posted by WTF

WTF is the difference?

Free speech for one and fire the other?

Why is that do you think?

Why do you want one to be protected with free speech and the other fired because of that same free speech?

I thought Martin Bashir's comments were pretty ignorant and disgusting, but I also didn't think he should have had to resign over them either. I believe in freedom of thought, and freedom of expression, regardless of whether or not I like what someone has to say.

Hell, Bill Maher has called Palin a stupid cunt, dumb bitch, and I don't know what else on his show. I don't see anyone calling for his show to be cancelled. Ah, the advantages of airing your show on a premium channel like HBO. I think Maher went way over the line when he called her a cunt, but as long as Maher's show continues to get viewers and HBO feels his show is worth the money they pay him, then that is fine by me.

By the way, regarding your reply to me on the other thread, yes I am well aware of the teaching of the Bible. I actually have read it cover to cover. I used to be a regular church goer at one point. I have gone to a Nazarene church, a Baptist church, and when the Baptists weren't fundamental enough for me, I actually joined a Pentocostal church. They are the ones that roll around on the floor and speak in tongues. So yes, I've done the I'm saved and everyone else is going to hell routine before.

I am no longer a Christian, no longer believe in what the Bible teaches, and no longer go to church. But I respect those who do believe that the Bible is the literal word of God, and I respect the fact that the Bible does indeed tell women to be subservient. The Bible also teaches that God commanded his followers to commit genocide on more than one occasion. The Bible also sanctions slavery, condemns homosexuality, beastiality, prostitution, idolatry, adultery, and lots of other really fun things to do.

It just is what it is. The Bible says what it says and not all parts of the Bible are sunshine and daisies. People need to get over that. Even though I no longer regard the Bible as God's truth, everyone is free to follow the teachings of the Bible or not, and free to express their belief in the Bible. I don't call that bigotry or sexism. Its faith that's all. Some have it, some don't.

As long as Richardson isn't trying to stretch someone out on a rack because they are not a believer, or blowing up buildings full of non-believers, then I don't care what he believes, or if he preaches about what he believes.