Unfair to loyal Bronco fans
Am I a "local market Bronco fan," worthy of seeing my team play without an extra fee?
I came to Denver from the Chicago area in 1965 for school. I was a Bear fan; Mike Ditka was my hero. My older brother who had been here for four years was a Bronco fan. The next year I sold beer at Mile High Stadium under age and I began an allegiance to two teams. I subsequently moved to Boulder, Estes Park, Boulder, Denver, and Colorado Springs. My son could perform "The Super Bowl Shuffle", but by then both of our hearts were firmly with the Broncos. I have been a Bronco fan for 47 years, all of my adult life. Am I not a loyal fan?
Last week the NFL in its calculating wisdom determined that I was not worthy to watch my team play without an additional fee because long ago an entrepreneur created a local television station in Colorado Springs so the residents could get decent reception. A friend and I tried to view the game with a computer to television hookup broadcast from London "across the Atlantic Sea". We deemed it "detective football", you have to figure out what happened between the intermittent frames that you get. It is maybe one step better than a gamecast if you have had to endure that. In the fourth quarter, we finally whisked ourselves off to a bar to see the end of the game.
So my point is, did the NFL and the Broncos organization stand up for the "local fan", me. They certainly give us our fair share of talking points - the fans this and the fans that, and we are nothing without the fans. Last night they screwed us. Yes Pat Bowlen, I hold you equally accountable. No, I'm not going anywhere, I'm a Bronco fan, but I deeply feel that you owe us and have let us down. Not as bad as the Josh McDaniel debacle, but that was just a poor decision. This was done, I believe with intent, definitely by the NFL. Where is the voice of the Broncos organization? Are the "other" Bronco fans, those outside of the KOA area, not worthy? Stand up and fight for us.
Jeff Mervis, Colorado Springs
A right to speak out
Phil Robertson certainly had a right to speak as he did. GLAAD and other gay organizations have the right to speak as they did. A&E had the right to react as they did.
Of course, since the behavior of A&E is not responsible and offensive, we can choose to not watch anything on the network.
That is what I am doing. I refuse to watch any show or participate in any activity supported by A&E until they correct their behavior.
Dean Nyquist, Colorado Springs
They played it all wrong
The dustup over Phil Robertson's comments to GQ magazine about homosexual behavior is nothing more than "gotcha reporting". It's new, sensational, a scoop, and a game that reporters play in hopes of separating glitter from otherwise average Q&A, to "sell soap".
They want to stir it up, start something, initiate conflict, to sell magazines. Why else would GQ want to interview Phil Robertson? Does camouflage really sell on Wall Street? Have you noticed the difference between the coverage in the "drive-by media" when a Christian speaks his mind, and when Hollywood figures or Democrats speak theirs?
Anyway, the mistake is when A&E (the cable channel that carries Duck Dynasty) punished Phil with suspension. If they wanted this drama to continue for maximum curiosity (ratings), I think they played it wrong. Instead of suspension, they should have "slapped him on the wrist", told him not to do it again, he should have apologized on the "Tonight Show" (in tears), then GLAAD could have played the moral indignation card and insisted that A&E cast Richard Simmons on the show, and this issue could have played on for a year or more. Jeepers, I'm a marketing genius!
James Davis, Colorado Springs