PRUDEN: Duck Dynasty’s Robertson family teaches Hollywood a lesson

[musiclady]

Agreed. That is reality, and why they call it "reality TV."

The GQ interview was not part of "reality TV." 

What is and is not reality TV is a separate discussion from what happened to Phil Robertson as a result of his GQ interview.

[musiclady]

One thing for sure, there are some who are contrarians and (transparent) pot-stirrers, so knowing what they actually believe is practically impossible.

Well, ML, I am just applying their world view to themselves, have concluded they don't mean a word of what they say, and are motivated instead by some personal needs.

I don't know what the motivation is, but it is obvious that they don't mean what they say and are merely pot-stirrers.

Whatever personal satisfaction they get out of being obnoxious remains to be seen, but it's pretty clear that they get something out of it.

I'm not an analyst, so I can only guess as to what that might be, but no matter what it is, it's bizarre, and I always wonder if they're this obnoxious in real life, or just play jerks on the internet.....

[DCPatriot]

Phil's staging the controversy in cahoots with A&E seems a bit far fetched, but I suppose anything is possible, given enough cynicism.

Given the scandal up the road when they can point to the Christian bible-quoter and prove it was a marketing ploy....I doubt it was staged.

Hope there's not a tape laying around somewhere.

That would knock down the image of social conservatism a peg or three.

[musiclady]

Given the scandal up the road when they can point to the Christian bible-quoter and prove it was a marketing ploy....I doubt it was staged.

Hope there's not a tape laying around somewhere.

That would knock down the image of social conservatism a peg or three.

I think it was nearly impossible that it was staged.

If some day it's proven I was wrong, I will freely admit it, but knowing even as little as I do about the Robertson family, I think the only blows to social conservatism in the future will be the same bogus arguments we hear on a daily basis from those who hang around on the left, or agree with those who do.

[DCPatriot]

I think it was nearly impossible that it was staged.

If some day it's proven I was wrong, I will freely admit it, but knowing even as little as I do about the Robertson family, I think the only blows to social conservatism in the future will be the same bogus arguments we hear on a daily basis from those who hang around on the left, or agree with those who do.

Yeah....my point was that the Robertson family...while staging a reality show...are genuine in their moral base.  That's not faked.  It's them.

It would be catastrophic if definitive proof came out that they were all in on it from the start.

[Oceander]

The comments I've read here have implied that Phil Robertson was in on some kind of conspiracy with A&E to make them all more money.

I'm sorry, but I find that ridiculous.

Anyone suggesting a 'wag the dog' scenario is indulging in some sort of conspiratorial fantasy.

Just because you cannot imagine it does not mean that it didn't happen.  I'm not saying that it did happen, I'm just saying that it could have happened and that from our perspective, standing on the outside looking in, there is no real way to tell which scenario actually happened; the most we can do is argue probabilities.

You also damn Mr. Robertson with faint praise because you're essentially saying that he's a naif, an innocent who simply doesn't have the wherewithal to be crafty or ingenious; I don't think you get to Mr. Robertson's position without being a lot more sophisticated than he lets on.  And that doesn't mean that I'm saying he lied - I don't think he did - the beauty of this set of events is that Mr. Robertson told the truth, and that doesn't change if A&E and Robertson agreed that it might prove profitable if he really let it all hang out in that interview.  That's the real sophistication in this sort of wag-the-dog - and I am just assuming wag-the-dog for the sake of argument here - it was precisely by being as real as possible that he managed to get such a knee-jerk reaction out of GLAAD - more real than he is on the show itself, which necessarily contains a lot of scripted content.  And that's the thing about it:  there is no need to ascribe any sordid motive to Mr. Robertson in order for things to have played out this way.  In fact, you could even cast this as a form of testifying by Mr. Robertson:  telling the truth of God the way it is; the fact that it might have also provided him and A&E some material benefit as well is not necessarily relevant because it wouldn't have been 100% certain that GLAAD would in fact react the way they did.

To paraphrase J.B.S. Haldane:  "reality is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine."

Let's give Mr. Robertson his due.

[musiclady]

Just because you cannot imagine it does not mean that it didn't happen.  I'm not saying that it did happen, I'm just saying that it could have happened and that from our perspective, standing on the outside looking in, there is no real way to tell which scenario actually happened; the most we can do is argue probabilities.

You also damn Mr. Robertson with faint praise because you're essentially saying that he's a naif, an innocent who simply doesn't have the wherewithal to be crafty or ingenious; I don't think you get to Mr. Robertson's position without being a lot more sophisticated than he lets on.  And that doesn't mean that I'm saying he lied - I don't think he did - the beauty of this set of events is that Mr. Robertson told the truth, and that doesn't change if A&E and Robertson agreed that it might prove profitable if he really let it all hang out in that interview.  That's the real sophistication in this sort of wag-the-dog - and I am just assuming wag-the-dog for the sake of argument here - it was precisely by being as real as possible that he managed to get such a knee-jerk reaction out of GLAAD - more real than he is on the show itself, which necessarily contains a lot of scripted content.  And that's the thing about it:  there is no need to ascribe any sordid motive to Mr. Robertson in order for things to have played out this way.  In fact, you could even cast this as a form of testifying by Mr. Robertson:  telling the truth of God the way it is; the fact that it might have also provided him and A&E some material benefit as well is not necessarily relevant because it wouldn't have been 100% certain that GLAAD would in fact react the way they did.

To paraphrase J.B.S. Haldane:  "reality is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine."

Let's give Mr. Robertson his due.

Actually, what I believe is that Phil has no reason to be "crafty" and do such a lame thing to bring about greater profits.  But I certainly don't think the man is naïve.  Not at all.

I don't doubt for a moment that he uses his new found fame as a platform to proclaim his faith in God, through Jesus Christ, nor do I doubt that the rest of his family does as well (Jase makes public speaking appearances frequently on behalf of Biblical morality and the sanctity of life).

What I am saying is not even remotely likely, given the nature of the Robertson family, is that they were in cahoots with A&E in this gigantic publicity stunt to garner more profits for DD.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Just because you cannot imagine it does not mean that it didn't happen.  I'm not saying that it did happen, I'm just saying that it could have happened and that from our perspective, standing on the outside looking in, there is no real way to tell which scenario actually happened; the most we can do is argue probabilities.

You also damn Mr. Robertson with faint praise because you're essentially saying that he's a naif, an innocent who simply doesn't have the wherewithal to be crafty or ingenious; I don't think you get to Mr. Robertson's position without being a lot more sophisticated than he lets on.  And that doesn't mean that I'm saying he lied - I don't think he did - the beauty of this set of events is that Mr. Robertson told the truth, and that doesn't change if A&E and Robertson agreed that it might prove profitable if he really let it all hang out in that interview.  That's the real sophistication in this sort of wag-the-dog - and I am just assuming wag-the-dog for the sake of argument here - it was precisely by being as real as possible that he managed to get such a knee-jerk reaction out of GLAAD - more real than he is on the show itself, which necessarily contains a lot of scripted content.  And that's the thing about it:  there is no need to ascribe any sordid motive to Mr. Robertson in order for things to have played out this way.  In fact, you could even cast this as a form of testifying by Mr. Robertson:  telling the truth of God the way it is; the fact that it might have also provided him and A&E some material benefit as well is not necessarily relevant because it wouldn't have been 100% certain that GLAAD would in fact react the way they did.

To paraphrase J.B.S. Haldane:  "reality is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine."

Let's give Mr. Robertson his due.

What's amusing about this whole thing is the air of "Phil Robertson is one of us" that so many people seem to have.

Make no mistake, the Robertsons are crafty and shrewd businessmen who play the part of down home country folk, perpetuating the stereo typical image of southerners as slow talking, squirrel-eating hicks to amuse those who already hold that image of people from the South in their minds, and they do it for money.

Honey Boo Boo is a more realistic show than Duck Dynasty.

If you think they're "one of us", tell me which one of you live in a house like this.

Willie Robertson does.

[Oceander]

Where's that pic of the rhino in undies?  Or was that a RINO in undies?

[sinkspur]

What's amusing about this whole thing is the air of "Phil Robertson is one of us" that so many people seem to have.

Make no mistake, the Robertsons are crafty and shrewd businessmen who play the part of down home country folk, perpetuating the stereo typical image of southerners as slow talking, squirrel-eating hicks to amuse those who already hold that image of people from the South in their minds, and they do it for money.

Honey Boo Boo is a more realistic show than Duck Dynasty.

If you think they're "one of us", tell me which one of you live in a house like this.

Willie Robertson does.

So Willie's not really a toothpick-chewing, backwoods-dwelling dweeb?

[truth_seeker]

The GQ interview was not part of "reality TV." 

What is and is not reality TV is a separate discussion from what happened to Phil Robertson as a result of his GQ interview.

Everything public figures do in public, is "reality tv."

"All the world's a stage."

[Oceander]

[happyg]

The Robertsons don't hide their wealth. Their first show was about how they made millions with their duck calling business. Their homes are shown on the show.

Read this, and you might get a better understanding of them and the show. Or, you might even watch the show.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_Dynasty

[Oceander]

Art Frahm, gotta love it!

[Oceander]

Who's a naughty bird then?

[Oceander]

I'm going to start getting more explicit if I have to ......

[Rapunzel]

The Robertsons don't hide their wealth. Their first show was about how they made millions with their duck calling business. Their homes are shown on the show.

Read this, and you might get a better understanding of them and the show. Or, you might even watch the show.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_Dynasty

and they made their money legally.  More power to them.  Bet they still get the flu like the rest of us.

[Oceander]

DC mentioned Vargas earlier on.  Anyone up for Vargas (so to speak):

[Oceander]

[Oceander]

[Oceander]

[Luis Gonzalez]

The Robertsons don't hide their wealth. Their first show was about how they made millions with their duck calling business. Their homes are shown on the show.

Read this, and you might get a better understanding of them and the show. Or, you might even watch the show.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_Dynasty

The wealth is secondary to their on-air persona.

They're far more than what they portray.

I watch the show, only on occasion (it's not "my thing") but I watch it nevertheless.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Where's that pic of the rhino in undies?  Or was that a RINO in undies?

Seriously.

[evadR]

L O L

[truth_seeker]

More, more, more.....