From the editor: Ducking the harsh reality

The lopsided national agony over “Duck Dynasty” patriarch Phil Robertson’s plight has entertained me to no end. The controversy—as it were—says far more than the reality star’s commentary touching on civil rights, sin, world history and homosexuality.

Now, I subscribe to GQ, the magazine in which Robertson’s remarks appeared, so I have actually read the piece in its entirety. Many news outlets (and most politically charged talking heads) have concentrated on the lines that can be construed as homophobic.

Let’s face it, the man hardly comes across as learned when discussing sexual preference and scripture. But he also admits that “we never, ever judge someone who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job.”

Essentially this is what Pope Francis intended when he said “who am I to judge” … although, to be quite blunt, the Holy Father did not follow up his observation with one about bestiality.

But that was only one aspect of the feature, and one in which many “Duck Dynasty” viewers agree. There are also examples of profound ignorance of the past. For instance, the patriarch appears to equate Christianity with the absence of violence, though I will admit his expression of an idea is sometimes too discursive for one to be absolutely certain.

So you know my dilemma, he told GQ “Nazis, no Jesus. Look at their record. Uh, Shintos? They started this thing in Pearl Harbor. Any Jesus among them? None. Communists? None. Islamists? Zero.”

One only need a passing knowledge of music to see the flaw in this logic. Allow me to cite the great Mick Jagger: “I watched with glee while His kings and queens fought for ten decades for the gods they made.”

Jagger is referring to the Hundred Years’ war, one of many bloody periods sparked by internecine Christian differences—his use of the plural is deliberate—written during a time when Northern Ireland was in the midst of sectarian violence and churches here were torn over Vietnam.

And then there is his assertion that African Americans he saw in the pre-civil rights south were happy with their lot.

“Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.”

So I guess we can give credit to Gershwin, Crosby or Harry James. And one must pause to consider, based on his account, why any one of them would have risked this joy for the right to vote, prosper or benefit from equal rights under the law.

OK—let’s be clear about this. A&E, the network behind “Duck Dynasty,” did not build a series around this hirsute clan for their scholarly grasp of the social sciences. Instead they are engaging, entertaining, moral, family-oriented and capable of drawing some 12 million viewers.

“Duck Dynasty” is much like any other set piece phenomenon: you get it, tolerate it or ignore it.

The network chose not to ignore complaints and suspended him indefinitely. Do I agree with their decision? Not necessarily, but it’s not my call.

What occurred in the wake of Robertson’s comments and his subsequent shunting aside by the network, as I said, been of far greater interest to me. The expected crowd rushed to his defense, screaming that his First Amendment rights had been violated and comparing his treatment to the much more benign consideration offered Miley Cyrus after her nationally televised twerking session.

Bobby Jindal drew the comparison in comments excerpted by most news outlets. “I remember when TV networks believed in the First Amendment,” he said. “It is a messed up situation when Miley Cyrus gets a laugh and Phil Robertson gets suspended”—to which L.Z. Granderson, writing for CNN’s website, responded,  “The truth is it is a messed up situation when a governor rumored to have his sights on the presidency doesn’t understand the breadth of the First Amendment.”

Personally, I would ask Jindal about the twin beds mandated in early television (did we really believe Rob and Laura Petrie slept apart?), the blacklisting of scriptwriters during the McCarthy era, the squelching of certain words—but I digress.

It behooves the rest of us to understand, before directing our outrage. This is the First Amendment, minus the nuances inscribed by Supreme Court decisions issued over the years:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

And so Robertson was allowed to make his beliefs known to a free press. While some interest groups railed against these and others rallied to his defense, the patriarch of the dynasty and his program suffered no government interference.

In other words, the government did not abridge Robertson’s freedom of speech. That the network put him on hiatus was entirely their decision—and their right.

I will not pretend to know the boardroom process that led to Robertson’s dismissal, however temporary. Perhaps they are merely taking advantage of the situation to raise the stakes in a contract dispute. Perhaps the network determined that a little outside controversy would boost ratings. New episodes begin in a few weeks.

Just as likely, the fact that Hearst and Disney-ABC—the folks behind A&E—recognized that his remarks might turn certain lucrative audiences against the organization and its advertisers led to the decision.

Keep in mind, “Duck Dynasty” is just one of their products.

Unfair? Perhaps. But it’s a reality we all deal with. Just the other day, Justine Sacco, the head of public relations for a firm behind Match.com and an African-American dating site, was sacked because of a racist tweet to friends. Where was the outrage? Also this week, Colorado State suspended assistant coach Greg Lupfer, without pay, for an alleged gay slur directed at the opposing quarterback during this week’s overflow bowl. The great broadcaster Howard Cosell was fired from his high profile Monday Night Football post for blurting “look at that little monkey run.” No 24-hour news cycle back then, but I remember few bringing up the First Amendment in his defense. Republican candidates who dared to challenge the script on such issues as taxation and abortion have been called to account.

I could go on. Just imagine if a Sun-Telegraph reporter or a Cabela’s employee spouted off about blacks, Jews, homosexuals, conservatives, liberals or whatever in a public forum.

The government protects you from its infringement on speech, within limits. Your employer—and Robertson’s—does not. Few my age give a care about Miley Cyrus, or find her act entertaining. But her employer understands that it brought attention her way. Had she said black Americans were happier before civil rights instead of grinding on a male singer, perhaps the response would have been different.

Fair or not, it’s a fact we all live with, no matter what Jindal, Palin or others say.