Media scholars have known for a long time that the key to a popular show is to create the space for a wide variety of viewers to find enjoyment. Nearly 40 years ago, a study by Neil Vidmar & Milton Rokeach* found that conservative viewers of the satirical All in the Family were laughing along with the racist/sexist/homophobic Archie Bunker while liberals were laughing at him. The distinction is important and it may explain why Duck Dynasty is now in deep trouble.
Prior to the controversy stemming from DD's "patriarch" Phil Robertson's racist and anti-gay comments, the show could be (at least in theory) enjoyed by a wide variety of viewers. Many viewers identified with one aspect of the show or another, while other viewers learned about a part of Americana that they may have known little about. Narratives are driven by characters (the more interesting, the better) and through their words and actions, they affirm some values and challenge others. Audiences watch programs for a wide variety of reasons, and a cleverly constructed program will make room for a very diverse audience to find pleasure in watching, whether it is to identify with central characters (and laugh or cry with them), or to feel superior to them and laugh at them.
The problem for DD now is that a significant part of their audience will find it difficult to continue to watch and take pleasure from watching someone they know to be so prejudiced (even if he doesn't quite realize it himself). For those with a social conscience, Phil Robertson is no longer a harmless, sometimes even endearing hillbilly who reminds us a bit of Jed Clampett. He is a genuine redneck, complete with prejudices and a level of ignorance that is pretty much the opposite of endearing.
There is no freedom of speech issue here. It is simpler than that: It is business. While certain self-proclaimed Christians now claim to support Robertson's right to be prejudiced toward gays and lesbians and painfully ignorant of race relations, the bottom line is the bottom line, which is that A&E needs to rescue the program so that Americans who don't share Robertson's views can still find a way to enjoy the show. That won't happen while Phil Robertson remains defiantly committed to view points that many viewers find backward and extreme.
*"Archie Bunker's Bigotry: A Study In Selective Perception And Exposure." Journal of Communication 1974 24(1): 36-47.
Agreed. After all these years of teaching a course in the First Amendment, it's still shocking to me how many people conflate business decisions such as this one which government infringement on speech. It speaks incredibly poorly of our civics education in this country. (P.S. You probably don't remember me, but when I was at Georgia for my PhD, you joined one of our classes via email [who could even imagine Skype back then?] and you and I had a great conversation about the First Amendment's protection of silence, as well as speech.)
ReplyDeleteOf course I remember you! Nice to hear from you and thank you for your comment.
ReplyDeleteBut then the recent wide-reaching Kansas statement on academics using social media brings back to bear the important role that employers have in a capitalist system for allowing First Amendment rights. As people working for universities, we have to be mindful that other sectors need similar protections (e.g., news workers and editorial writers need vast free speech protections, even while reality television shows do not. When they are owned by the same company composing the policies, that can get icky.) Not at all a question in the Duck case, and of course the idiocy that stupid speech = great free speech, and the conflation of laughing at/with are the real issues here.
ReplyDeleteHi Ed! Love this, but am puzzled by something. What is it about the public confirmation of Robertson's views that changes my act of "laughing at?" I'll admit to the occasional viewing of DD (complete with smugly superior giggling), so Robertson's views came as no surprise to me. Yet somehow, now that those views are no longer tacit, I couldn't continue to watch the show -- and as A&E fears, I could remain leery of their programming in general unless they pull off the best rhetorical sacrifice since Earl Butz. Something has changed about the act of my watching the show, and I can't quite put my finger on what it is. If you have a second, thoughts would be appreciated! (OK, back to spreadsheets and grading now....)
ReplyDeleteAt least in the short term, the act of watching DD will be tainted with an unpleasantness that creates cognitive dissonance. Unless once watches DD "religiously" (no pun intended), one makes a conscious decision to watch it, and I would imagine a sense of cognitive dissonance in doing so if one is offended by his statements. The dissonance can be minimized by simply changing the channel. Or if one elects to watch, suddenly comments previously viewed as innocent or non-malicious might sound differently as they resonate with what we now know. The interpretive ecosystem has changed and not to DD's advantage.
DeleteThis does not mean DD can't recover. But at least in the short-term, A&E did the prudent thing.
I feel like: 'There is no freedom of speech issue here. It is simpler than that: It is business' has more analyzable depth.
ReplyDeleteFor example, I feel it's often presented as a mentality that must to be accepted *mostly* when the speech in question correlates with that of the commentator. It posits that businesses can snub people with open ideological positions ... that is, so-long as they're acting in a manner which they believe is germane to their business' standards, future, and so forth.
However, does: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-25119158 -- fit this? Here, the owners ultimately felt accepting gay lodgers blackened and/or risked
their business -- or, at the very least, made them too uncomfortable to operate said business effectively.
That said, I do generally agree with the of your post. My only issue is that I feel the people *pick and choose*, for lack of a better phrase, the acceptability of 'it is business'