Skip to comments.Navarrette: 'Duck Dynasty' network's hypocrisy
Posted on 12/25/2013 1:14:58 AM PST by Slings and Arrows
This whole controversy over A&E's hit show "Duck Dynasty" is whacked. Better make that "quacked."
I have a theory. Here is what you need to keep in mind as you waddle through this controversy: The reason that "Duck Dynasty" is on television is to make liberal studio executives at A&E, and parent company Disney feel superior, while making big profits for the studio.
The Robertsons are on television so that people in New York and Los Angeles -- the kind of folks who refer to anyplace in between as "flyover country" -- can feel progressive and enlightened by comparing themselves to simple country folks in Louisiana who, according to the elites, are neither. (And can make lots of money doing so.)
"Duck Dynasty' is this era's ode to "Amos 'n' Andy." In that show -- which aired on radio and television from the 1920s through the 1960s and which was created, written and produced by white people -- Americans were given the opportunity to laugh at African-Americans, adding insult to the injury that this group of citizens was already sustaining before the civil rights movement.
Now Phil Robertson is in hot water for staying in character and saying something colorful and crude. That is, Robertson was suspended for doing in print what he has, for the last four years, been paid to do on television.
That's awfully hypocritical of A&E. The network is embarrassed and would surely like to distance itself from the Robertson family. However, it seems, it would like to stay acquainted with the millions of dollars the show generates each year.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
“”Duck Dynasty’ is this era’s ode to “Amos ‘n’ Andy.” In that show “
I have such fond memories of Amos, Andy, and the Kingfish (the real star of the show). When visiting my grandparents in Atlanta during my preteen days of the 50s, they had a tin model car of Amos’s taxi. I still remember my grandmother chuckling about them. During my teen years, I probably saw every TV episode at least twice.
In 1983, there was a very good documentary, Amos N Andy, Anatomy of a Controversy, narrated by George Kirby. In it the revrunnn Jackson was interviewed and surprisingly he stated that he never had a problem with Amos n Andy if for no other reason that the show opened doors for Bill Cosby, Sidney Potier, Dihanne Carroll, etc. and the characters in the show were accurate portrayals of people he grew up around in Chicago. Also, Jackie Gleason, in one of his last TV appearances said that Amos N Andy was the main inspiration for the creation of the Honeymooners.
“In 1983, there was a very good documentary, Amos N Andy”
That is interesting. As I recall, the Kingfish and Andy were the most prominent males in the series. IIRC, Amos was the cab driver, and obviously the more intelligent of the trio, but not seen as often as the other two. Keep in mind, I am using memory from over 50 years ago, but now, I do not remember things just from this week :(
As are so many other 'reality' shows. Phil Robertson wasn't crude about his comments, just accurate.
Let those chips fall where they may.
If there is so much 'pride' in those offended, an accurate description of what lurks behind the Liberace smile shouldn't bother them a bit.
Be gentle with Ruben - he’s suffering from a mental impairment. (Leftism.) You did very well today, Ruben. Yes you did!
This show is successful at least in part because the characters say things that many Americans consider colorful and crude. It makes them interesting. That's the schtick of the Robertson clan.
Actually, it is the refreshing break from all the 'beeps' which enhances the show, and what I really appreciate is at the end of the show, the family prays over a meal together, publicly thanking The Almighty, in Jesus' Name.
It might not dawn on someone in LiberalMediaLand that that would appeal to a broad base of Americans, especially considering the sheer volume of crap on TV, but it is refreshing to view. Even the kids can watch.
I used to watch "Lost Girl" and saw several episodes of "Being Human." LG introduced a lesbian theme to the show and it seemed like the purpose of BH was to find different ways for the characters to have sex as often as possible.
I am not a prude by any stretch of the imagination, but I feel that elements of the plot should move the story along.
We need more shows like the Robertson's and less Survivor or "Lost Girl"
I think that Ruben is a totally clueless on one point if not more. “Staying in character” is what actors do when they maintain their part’s pretense while off-stage. Like the A&E folks, Ruben seems unable to comprehend that people like Phil actually do hold deep religious beliefs even when they’re not being filmed for people’s amusement.
Yes, Kingfish was “wheeling and dealing” and Andy was his not so bright sidekick, much like Ralph Kramden and Ed Norton. What’s also interesting, every Black person I’ve known would bust out in hysterical laughter at the mere mention of the show.
Or "Naked and Afraid". What is the point in that one anyway?
We didn’t watch Amos and Andy because we felt superior to blacks. We watched because it was funny.
Sanford and Son, The Cosby show,The Jeffersons and more were all hilarious shows and very entertaining.
I actually like that one. I think that takes Les Stroud and Bear Grylls to the extreme. It is a survival challenge as opposed to "Survivor" which is schlock entertainment.
Did any network condemn and punish Kathy
Griffin for vulgar anti-Christian comments when she won an award a few years ago?
I’m amused with the premise that CNN can comment, or try to analyze why Americans like DD. I note with irony how CNN can describe the East and West coast progressives as being superior to the flyover folks, when CNN has lost significant viewership of those “coastal” informed and progressive viewers and still hasn’t found the winning formula to reclaim those people.
FTA: “Now Phil Robertson is in hot water for staying in character and saying something colorful and crude.”
Phil Robertson _described_ something “colorful and crude” that homosexual sodomites do — after all, brown *is* a color, and sticking one’s wedding tackle up another man’s tailpipe *is* crude.
Amos and Andy was mild compared to Hardcore Pawn.
If you want to see todays blacks and white trash pawn brokers the way they are turn that show on for an hour.
Rubin seems unable to understand that Phil was not “in character”. He was being who he really is.
Yeah, Andy was always being 'regusted'.
But don't forget the gentle Amos. And Lightnin'.
The characters on this radio show (didn't care for the TV) were loved by a lot of people.
Good comparison. A&E thought they were doing another hillbilly Amos & Andy, and it blew back in their smug faces.
Amos ‘n’ Andy is one of my all-time favorites; it was a superb show. And Kingfish was just classic. We have the DVDs and I still have tears of laughter watching those episodes, even though I’ve seen them countless times over the years.
Thank God for “Fly-Over” People.
I watched one episode where the man was more concerned about sunburning his privates than surviving and the girl did all of the work. It was cute in a weird kind of way. I guess most of the survival type shows are educational.
Stopped clocks &c.
There is a helluva cultural divide in the country right now. I semi-seriously wonder if the Union will dissolve because half the country can’t communicate with the other half.
-- Fly-Over People
I always loved to watch the Amos and Andy show. They made me laugh, and not in an condescending way. I never laughed at them because they were black. I laughed at them because they were funny - the same way I would laugh at the Carol Burnett show with Tim Conway and the other comedian whose name escapes me at the moment.
Amos and Andy was a great show, and ought not to be thrown into the dust bin because some oversensitive person is offended. They are discarding TV history. The only people who thought it was racist are those who see racism in every aspect of our lives.
Most of the old shows are either kept from sight by P.C. or severely edited by companies like Paramount.
And to you too.
The dance set 'Choreography' is perfect to show that while the Gay Community is considered the future of the world, the views express by "Duck Dynasty" Phil Robertson are no good any more. Yet when you watch it, it is plain what is what--
If you do not have Netflix, the 'Choreography' Dance Set is on youtube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-cXP1uDFpA so take a look and tell me what you think?
"The theater-- The theater- The theater. What has happened... to the theater. Especially where dancing is concerned?"
Choreography... vs Dancing...
So, which side of the bed... do y'all fall on?
BTW while many consider It's a Wonderful Life, A Christmas Story, A Christmas Carol or Home Alone the perfect film for the season, to me hands down, White Christmas is the winner for best story, best music, best singing, best dancing and best mood setting for the Yuletide--
But, of course, I could... be wrong--
Well, Jeff, I wasn't with him at the time, but from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Christmas_%28song%29 it says:
Accounts vary as to when and where Berlin wrote the song. One story is that he wrote it in 1940, in warm La Quinta, California, while staying at the La Quinta Hotel, a frequent Hollywood retreat also favored by writer-director-producer Frank Capra, although the Arizona Biltmore also claims the song was written there. He often stayed up all night writing he told his secretary, "Grab your pen and take down this song. I just wrote the best song I've ever written heck, I just wrote the best song that anybody's ever written!"
However, my bet is on Irving being in bar... getting the hair of the dog for his Christmas Day hangover--
Rare indeed. Like teeth in a chicken for Ruben.
It’s a Christmas miracle.
CNN has a problem.
If you wanted a true analysis of Duck Dynasty, then you’d go into a lunch-time buffet spot where folks over forty would gather, and ask a hundred for their humble opinion. You’d get around sixty-five percent who admit they watch the show and like it. They’d give you various reasons, which mostly all lead to the same comments over the old Andy Griffith Show.
CNN? Well...they hire some guy to come on and say something of a critical and radical nature....hoping to fire up the audience and keep them baited to watch again because they might get fired up tomorrow over something else (possibly Coke being impure or the Bieber kid needing attention).
It’s not news anymore. It’s a random collection of bait-and-hook episodes where they pretend to feed you analysis, but it’s mostly stuff to get you peeved or upset.
CNN to regain their viewers? No....that crowd has moved on and will never return. Somewhere in the next five years....CNN will be bought by some Chinese media company and start to revise their entire process. CNN’s business model is like the dinosaurs....it’s laying there and waiting to pass on.