The Difference Between Outrageous and Controversial


Russian television star Ivan Okhlobystin told a Siberian rally he would like to see all gay people “burned alive in ovens,” offering a useful contrast with the raging American controversy over Duck Dynasty.

Media executives might reasonably distance themselves from the Russian actor’s cruel remarks, but Duck Dynasty patriarch Phil Robertson never said anything comparable.  His controversial GQ interview merely suggested that most men instinctively prefer female body parts and paraphrased a New Testament passage including homosexuals in a long list of sinners.

A&E network may disagree with their top reality show star, but his opinions hardly count as so outrageous and disreputable that he must be taken off the air. No, the First Amendment doesn’t protect us from consequences of our own remarks, but the mischaracterization of Robertson’s comments as “vile” or “hate-filled” counts  as media malpractice.

Brought to you by

  • author thumbnail
    Michael Medved
  • Michael Medved specializes in talking about pop culture and politics on a daily basis. Michael’s columns on politics and media appear regularly in the Wall Street Journal, The Daily Beast and USA Today, where he is a member of the Board of Contributors.

Recent Comments