I had a subscription to GQ in the 80’s. It had very intelligent and sophisticated writing. They had guest authors on a par with Playboy. Some of the best authors of the 60’s and 70’s wrote for GQ and Playboy.
I was really shocked at the tabloid feel of this article. This was a hatchet job meant to make fun of the Robertsons and the Southern way of life. The Sierra Club has talked about the beauty and serenity of nature since its earliest beginnings. Notice how they portray Phil’s words? A professional author in GQ is casually cursing now? They even made fun of the man’s house and the bunions on his feet?
This isn’t the GQ I read and respected years ago. Is it strictly a tabloid now? This author needs to be writing for Star. This is just pathetic and exploitative reporting.
For this thread lets please focus on the approach this article took and the writers voice. There are threads in imho and great debates about the dumb things Phil foolishly said.
Anyone else remember the exercises in writing classes? I only took a few classes when I briefly considered a writing minor. I can remember being given an outline of details and we had to write the story from various perspectives. Any college Junior writing major could take Phil’s interview tape and craft a story. If you want it to be a straight fluff piece, a celebrity profile the inflammatory quotes wouldn’t even be used. A responsible reporter would use them but in a more balanced way. Reminding readers that Phil is a lay evangelical minister with years of preaching would be a more balanced way to present his views. He’s actually pretty mild compared to some of the fire and brimstone tent meetings I attended as a kid. You don’t make fun of a guys calloused feet and bunions. What a cheap shot. Any writer with a MFA could craft this story a dozen different ways.
I have no earthly idea what you’re taking about. I had a subscription for the past several years, and I thought the content was superb. It is absolutely nothing at all like a tabloid.
Also, you’re all over the place with your posts. There’s about three separate threads in your replies to yourself.
Sorry about the disjointed posts. I should have taken the time to properly compose an OP.
The examples I quoted from the article are clearly tabloid fodder. The way the author approached the subject like these people are freaks. Cursing in one of his sentences. Commenting on the clutter in someone ones home. Even stooping so low to comment on the callous and bunions on his subject’s feet. That’s not fair and balanced journalism. It’s a classic hatchet job meant to embarrass and discredit not only the subject but Southern Evangelicals in general.
I had hoped we could get some writers together and discuss how stories are crafted. The different points of view that can be created with the same set of information. It’s the art of writing. Every writer approaches a story with an agenda, the story he wants to tell.
It could be a good topic. I regret not taking the time to write a better OP this morning. I was a bit rushed.
Maybe yellow journalism is a better word than tabloid. I knew what kind of article it would be by the 2nd paragraph. Long before they got to the controversial stuff Phil said.
I’ve seen these kinds of stories over the years. Quoting evangelicals praising God and using their words to make them look delusional or crazy. It’s an old nasty trick.
Worst of all, this was supposed to be a typcial celebrity profile. Writers do them all the time. Ask some soft questions like what did you name your puppy? What are you hoping to get for Christmas? Instead this reporter gets Phil off alone away from A&E’s PR rep and asks the stuff in the article. Knowing of course he’d get a nice juicy sensational bit of reporting.
I’m curious about this juxtaposition. You say it used to be “on par with Playboy,” but now has gone down hill, as can be seen by the cursing in the article.
So, old school Playboy didn’t have cursing in it? Seems remarkably prudish for a beaver mag.
And I’m curious about this part. How can using the subject’s own words (unless they’re taken out of context) be a “nasty trick”? What? These guys purport to be bastions of Christianity. I can guarantee you that they see not one thing wrong with the writer’s observations, nor with what Phil said. They like being seem as backwoods, God fearing, simple people. It’s what they’re whole concept is based, and sold, on.
Yeah, this is awesomely outrageous writing. If this were 1963 and the New Journalism still didn’t have a name. But it’s 2013. Sorry. It’s 20 and fucking 13.
That’s what happens when GQ hires a writer who made his bones writing for KSK and Deadspin. Having said that, I find Drew’s writing entertaining and look forward to his weekly contributions on Deadspin.
The quotes in the OP sound exactly like every other GQ article I’ve ever read while waiting for a haircut. Is it really supposed to contain very high quality writing? Even something like Vanity Fair is definitely a cut above GQ.
It should be. From what I’ve heard Vanity Fair pays writers more than any other publication.
But that doesn’t mean *GQ *is a high quality publication. I read it only occasionally because the articles are inferior to those in its competitor Esquire, which I only read occasionally because its articles are nowhere near the quality they used to be.
I miss the great Esquire profiles too. Frank Sinatra Has a Cold set the gold standard for New Journalism.
I like New Journalism when it’s done well. It requires a lot of work, research, and interviews to get enough information to weave a balanced story profile.
I would have loved seeing a well written story about Phil. Interview old friends and neighbors that knew him and the family long before the A&E media machine took over. Use that information with the Phil interviews to get a more balanced story. There’s more to the Robertsons than Bible thumping, Duck Hunting, and beards. Maybe that story would be even less flattering. Who knows what might get uncovered. Any balanced story will have both good and bad. The reader can decide.
That is my biggest issue with the GQ article. They wanted to do more than the standard celebrity profile, fluff piece. Ok, great. Then give me a balanced narrative. The family has lived in West Monroe for 40 plus years. Interview some of the locals and include that with the profile. If you want to do a New Journalism style profile than get off your lazy asses and do the research. Give me a balanced story. Include the scripture quoting, the ignorant and outdated comments about gays, but also tell me what the locals say about Phil and his family. Give me insights into how Phil thinks and how he operates. Then the reader can decide how they feel about him.
I didn’t read the story, but what I wanted was for him to be stomped on, eviscerated, humiliated, hung out to dry, and hauled out for a public shaming.
Guess we both didn’t get what we want.
A few questions. Why should you get what you want more than me? Is this the only article ever written on Robertson? Have there never been other positive ones? Is every magazine and every interviewer responsible for doing a perfectly “balanced” article? What constitutes a “balanced” article in the first place? Does every interview subject deserve one? Should all magazines publish exactly the same article in that case? Why can only the reader decide; can’t writers have an opinion that they share? Would you feel different about the outcome if you felt different about the subject? How many other GQ profiles have you read to compare this one to? How many other profiles in other contemporary magazines?
I let my GQ subscription lapse 25 years ago. I read Esquire and GQ regularly in college. I don’t read either anymore except when I find some at the Doctor’s office.
I’ve read several Duck Dynasty articles in the past year or so. They’ll all been fluff pieces. Typical of almost any celebrity interview. There were some appearances on religious shows like the 700 Club.
Any article needs to be fair and balanced if serious questions are being asked. Also there needs to be some kind of advance warning of sensitive or controversial questions. At least let Tom Cruise’s publicist know you intend to ask about his recent divorce. If he wants to discuss it then that’s fine. Reporters find themselves on publicist’s naughty list when they try ambush questions. It’s a quick way to get banned from any interviews in the future.
This interviewer had an agenda. He got Phil away from the PR rep long enough to slip in his controversial questions. He got a big story because Phil is too stupid to say, Next Question please.
I’m not sure I’d be very proud of that story. I’d be a lot more impressed if he got the same controversial quotes from somebody that actually mattered. The Palins, Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor or any of the Tea Party folks.
Bagging a 70 year old redneck reality star is just too easy.