Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Hebrews 11:6

I see that someone asked the question (not verbatim), why did a&e allow Phil Robertson within a mile of a GQ interview? My guess is that they never dreamed he would just be himself, or that through this interview by the knowing, cynical, spinning left media woud salvage their original premise of the show in that we were supposed to laugh at the Robertsons, not with them. Cowards-but it backfired anyway.

What did they expect, runnng a show featuring a Godfearing famiy to whom it wouldn’y occur that they must hide the thing which are the foundation of their lives-their Christianity?


35 posted on 12/24/2013 8:38:09 PM PST by mrsmel (One Who Can See)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: mrsmel
why did a&e allow Phil Robertson within a mile of a GQ interview?

According to one report I saw, A&E had a "handler" on-hand who, at one point, permitted ol' Phil and the interview to wander off by themselves, which is when Phil made the statements in question. I've seen someone speculate that Phil drove off in one of his two-seat swamp buggies with the feller, as he is so fond of doing.

Phil is absolutely irrepressible by nature, so this was bound to happen once he granted--and A&E permitted--the interview.

As for A&E "allowing" the interview: what I don't get is what gives A&E the contractual right to attempt to prevent or moderate Phil from speaking his mind in whatever forum he wishes. I've seen references to standard contract boilerplate, but I haven't actually seen the verbiage. Anyway, A&E's attempt to censor what he can say is purely subjective--they can say he's violative of his contract, but he can dispute it, and then where are they?

43 posted on 12/24/2013 8:50:37 PM PST by Hebrews 11:6 (Do you REALLY believe that (1) God IS, and (2) God IS GOOD?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]

To: mrsmel

I don’t think the show ever was intended to laugh at the guys. It’s not the first show the Robertsons have had, they were doing basically the same thing on a much smaller network before. Everybody knew the audience the old show had and what the audience would be on a bigger network.

There was nothing wrong with being interviewed by GQ, the big mistake was the handler not preparing a proper “no” list (topics that shall not be broached, every interview has them). There’s an anonymous guy out there who makes very little money (and probably has been fired) who just plain didn’t do his job.


78 posted on 12/25/2013 8:25:58 AM PST by discostu (I don't meme well.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson