Dog The Bounty Hunter Scandal

Duane "Dog The Bounty Hunter" Chapman’s racist language almost cost him his job in November 2007. During an off-screen telephone conversation, Chapman used an obscene racial slur while trying to persuade his son to break-up with his African American girlfriend. After suspending Chapman for a short time, the A&E network brought back the show.

A&E could have completely pulled Dog The Bounty Hunter from the air and refused to work with a man who misrepresented the company in a negative way. But completely pulling the show off the air before gauging the public’s opinion could have cost them a successful program.

They could have cut Chapman’s pay, unless there was a contract preventing it. Typically, a quick way to let an employee know that you are serious is to cut their pay or hours. Giving Chapman real consequences for his actions might have helped to make his situation seem more serious.

Another interesting option might have been to find another star for this type of show. Although it wouldn’t have been the same “Dog” that attracted an audience with his brash antics; they could have found another fugitive recovery agent to replace him.

This, like many PR questions, is a tricky one. I don’t think it really has a simple answer. To not allow employees to have their own opinions, however disgusting they may be, is not a trait that I would encourage for any institution. However, employees must recognize that their behaviors are a reflection on their employers.

I think that A&E should have taken Chapman back with a long list of conditions. Perhaps they could have insisted that he make a public apology for his behavior.  Or they could have insisted that he enlist in tolerance classes.

Allowing Chapman to return, regardless of the conditions still has a negative impact on A&E’s reputation in some respects. It leads the public to believe that racist language and inappropriate behavior are tolerated by A&E.