First of all, where did I say “the purpose of the interview was to promote the show?” Secondly, the lede of the article is as I quoted, “How in the world did a family of squirrel-eating, Bible-thumping, catchphrase-spouting duck hunters become the biggest TV stars in America? And what will they do now that they have 14 million fervent disciples? Our Drew Magary toured the Louisiana backwater with Phil Robertson and the Duck Dynasty gang to find out.”
Sorry. Not you. The guy whom I asked for the cite: “He was giving an interview to promote the show.”
That shows that they are interviewing him because of the show. Where is the cite that shows that he was giving the interview to promote the show?
Any time you are involved in some sort of production for media consumption and then speak to another media outlet for publication, you are promoting that thing. Particularly in the case of this show, since it is one that sells a particular lifestyle, and that interview was in large about about said lifestyle. If Robertson didn’t want to promote said show to said magazine, he only had to turn down the interview.
Well, the best I can do so far is this from TMZ, “Sources very familiar with the situation tell us … a publicist did indeed accompany Robertson to the interview – per A&E’s rigid PR policy – and the interview took place in several locations. When the GQ reporter and Phil hopped on ATVs, the publicist didn’t come along for the ride.” I, for one, am willing to conclude than an article for which the cover blurb is “Shooting the Sh*t with the Dudes of ‘Duck Dynasty’”, the lede is as I provided twice so far and for which A&E sent along a publicist, was in fact intended to promote the show.
Note, too, that sh*t instead of shit was not me being prudish but how the cover appears in the Google image results.
Again, obviously showing a star of a show or several shows just by itself promotes that show. But that doesn’t mean that the interview was set up to promote the show.
Wow. Just wow.
The purpose of the interview was to ask Phil Robertson questions and print the answers. That would, presumably, sell more GQs. I have still to see any cite that would show that the purpose of the interview was to promote the show. There is a difference.
Like when an actor comes up on a late-night talk show immediately before or immediately the release of his latest movie - or when the same actor is invited just because of his “star power”. One is a promotional appearance. The other isn’t.
Terr, you’re being willfully obtuse. Please stop it.
Agreed. The publicist seals it.
Most jobs, including my minimum wage factory job, have as part of the contract that the employee is a representative of the company, and public acts that look bad for the company are a disciplinary issue. This usually means don’t slag the company off on Facebook or get convicted of a crime, but there’s nothing limiting it to that. I’d be surprised if the contract is less strict for a reality TV star.
The other is a promotional appearance just as much as the first - the actor is promoting the actor.
Bolding added by me. The fifth season of Duck Dynasty premieres on January 15, 2014. Give up yet?
Edited to add, the Christmas special was on December 11.
Of course. But not specifically the show.
Cool. Now if you can show where in GQ interview Phil talked about the Christmas Special that would be relevant. Or how an interview that is given way after the show can promote the show.
I read the interview (it is here: http://www.gq.com/entertainment/television/201401/duck-dynasty-phil-robertson?currentPage=1)
It is about Phil Robertson. It is not about the show.
Tell me; are the goalposts even in the same city, let alone the same field anymore?
By way of explanation:
BTW, these two quotes together are amusing.
“Because of the show” and “about the show” are two different things.
What color is the sky on the world where you live?
How many posters in this thread are not white?