Duck Dynasty' Reaction Roundup: The Usual Robertson Lambastings...and One Surprising Pushback

This 2012 photo released by A&E shows, from left, Phil Robertson, Jase Robertson, Si Robertson and Willie Robertson from the A&E series, "Duck Dynasty." (Image source: AP/A&E, Zach Dilgard)

In the wake of the "Duck Dynasty" flap and A&E lifting show patriarch Phil Robertson's suspension, there has been no shortage of media opinion on the issue.

TheBlaze reported Saturday on GLAAD's suggestion that Robertson engage in a sit-down meeting with black people and gay people so they can tell him how much his words have hurt them.

The Denver Post's TV critic Joanne Ostrow opined on her blog Saturday that Robertson is a "hate-speech spewer" and a "bigot." More from Ostrow:

A&E, which seized the moment to attract more viewers (fans and hate-watchers, both), proved that money is the first priority in TV programming. The network wins the craven capitalism prize.

Sarah Palin and other politicians who piled on, claiming Christianity as an excuse for hate speech, win the hypocrisy award. I’m no theologian, but vile bigoted comments would seem to qualify as unchristian.

Ostrow also insisted that the program "suffered humiliation" after the lengthy media frenzy over Robertson's controversial comments in GQ magazine that started the ball rolling.

Meanwhile, liberal pundit Michael Eric Dyson took aim at Robertson and "Duck Dynasty," claiming they're "part of a majority white supremacist culture that either consciously or unconsciously incubates hatred toward those who are different."

Check out the MSNBC clip via Newsbusters:

But not to be outdone is a Time magazine column seemingly flying a bit under the media radar, penned by a gay journalist who makes no bones about taking GLAAD to task: "I don’t think their hasty reaction to Phil Robertson displayed our LGBT community’s best values."

Writer Brandon Ambrosino's thought-provoking column, "‘Duck Dynasty’ Reversal Shows GLAAD Has an Expiration Date," isn't exactly pro-Robertson clan, but it does read in a rather even-handed fashion...yet doesn't shy away from saying things that most media outlets won't:

If our goal is to progress beyond defamation against LGBT persons, then that means GLAAD has a sell-by date. To put it in a different, albeit cheekier way: Defamation is good for GLAAD’s business. To bankrupt our society of LGBT defamation would certainly put GLAAD out of work. It’s hard for me to imagine I’m the only one who’s wondered about this.

He concludes his piece noting that "speaking out against defamation is a noble thing to do. But gracing our conversation and behavior with the compassion that is sometimes lacking from our loudest political battles – that is more than noble. It’s kind."

(H/T: Newsbusters)

--

[related]