Where does the blame lie for all the hub-bub about the comments Phil Robertson made, resulting in his suspension from the entertaining 'Duck Dynasty' show on A&E. Does he have the right to make such comments? Absolutely! Should he have? Well, look at it this way... if someone asks you what you believe, how would you respond? Okay, then... should the reporter have even asked the question? Now we're getting a little closer to the heart of the problem. But it's still not that simple. The reporter was just doing his job trying to write an article that will get people to read his employer's magazine... which worked quite well, I believe. Should A&E have issued a suspension for comments made by one of its stars not directly pertaining to the star's show? As a privately-owned corporation with a reputation to consider, they were well within their right to do so, because what that star says or does represents, by extension, the corporation. I think we could argue 'til we're blue in the face whether they should have suspended him, but the fact remains that they had that right.
But here is the most important question we should be asking: Why would a magazine have to worry so much about asking such a controversial question, and then printing the obviously controversial answer, in the first place? Answer: Because we, the consumers, demand to be entertained by such controversy. So aren't we truly the ones to be blamed? And honestly, why are we even trying to pin the blame on any party when it should be very clear from this example that ALL parties had a fair amount of responsibility in creating the problem or causing it to continue to the point where it became the problem we have today.
When are we all going to start acting like the grown-ups as which we want to be seen?
No comments:
Post a Comment