Juan Williams Fired
 

Is this PC run amuck? I always liked Juan even though I rarely agreed with him.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/..._and_libe.html

NPR is pretty big on their news people staying neutral. They're banned from attending the Jon Stewart/Colbert rally for example.

Lol at "PC run amuk" and "liberal news salivating" to boot off a conservative

NPR's statement

Here is what he said:

“I’m not a bigot. You know the kind of books I’ve written about the Civil Rights movement in this country … But when I get on a plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.”

I believe he was fired for being politically incorrect. I think a whole lot of people (if they are honest with themselves) would agree with his statement.

I wonder if this has anything to do with George Soros giving NPR millions for new hires? Is this a slam at FOX?

It's a nothing. You will never hear Ira Glass saying "I'm not a bigot, but the other day I saw a bunch of Mexicans outside of Home Depot, so I pulled over and asked if they would re-tile my kitchen floor."

A lot of people agree with that or would do that, or at least can see the stereotype as "true", but NPR commentators have no business commenting on it because it's not in line with their organization's goals.

He shouldn't have said it. If anything, he could have made a general statement of how SOME people still feel nervous when they see a person with traditional Muslim garb on a plane. Attaching that nervousness to himself was a bad idea.

People need to stop pretending as though having to watch what they say in certain settings is "political correctness." We watch what we say because we wear many hats. In a professional settings, we are not wearing our "personal hat." We are wearing our "professional hat" and that makes personal opinion not distinct from professional commentary.

Juan Williams should've been smarter just as Dr. Laura's dumbass should've been.

On the other hand, Rick Sanchez shouldn't have been fired because even Jon Stewart said the comments weren't offensive; and CNN was using him as an excuse to fire Sanchez.

What are their goals?

Poor Mara Liason is probably next on their hit list.

Juan had every right to say what he did. NPR probably was within their legal rights to sever his contract. But what he said did not reach the level of a firing offense. Freedom of Speech be damned. But you are right. It just doesn't fit into NPR's political views/agenda/goals. I just see a heck of a lot of hypocrisy here as there are NPR analysts who have dabbled in controversial commentary on occasion. Nina Totenberg for example.

Too busy trying to suck up to his Fox News masters.

He knew better, but chose to place it on himself instead.

He will be alright, I'm sure he already had a contract in hand and needed an out from NPR.

LOL. Freedom of Speech is soooo over-referenced and applied to things that it really doesn't apply to.

Well all things considered (tee hee hee) I'm sure we'll be seeing a lot more of him on Fox News now.

.

In wake of NPR controversy, Fox News gives Juan Williams an expanded role

The cable news network signs the analyst to a new three-year contract for nearly $2 million. Meanwhile, conservative figures blast the public radio network for its response to Williams' comments about Muslims.

link

NPR needs to be fired.

(and not for this...I really don't care about this.)

And, the fact is, there is prejudice involved in feeling fear after seeing someone in a Muslim outfit.

Feeling fear every time you see someone in Arabic, Muslim or other garb might be understandable, might be a normal response following a traumatic event, but that doesn't make it rational or erase the prejudice involved.

Cool Story Bro:
Last time I flew for pleasure I was seated next to man dressed like he was going on the hajj, he ended up moving up a row so he could have an aisle seat, but because this was right after a spate of people getting pulled off a plane because of other passenger complaints, I was concerned that someone else might do or say something.

It's not the people in the Islamic garb Juan should be worried about. It's the real terrorist that play off on Juan's line of thinking and send in a WASP to bomb that plane.

I can see where NPR was coming from. Williams uttered words exposing a certain religious, racial or cultural bias, that, I think is indisputable. Whether his bias is justified is something people can disagree over. I think that it isn't. I'm on board with NPR up to a point.

Management at NPR was given two options, both bad:

1) Leave it to other on-the-air personalities and individuals to express outrage, demand apologies, but otherwise leave the relationship with Williams in place. This would have the possible effect of alienating more liberal, PC-demanding listeners, Islamic listeners, etc., who all donate a lot of money to stations every year. This could also jeopardize a lot of underwriting dollars, foundation dollars, etc., because those gifts are typically conditional, and might not be renewed if they become controversial.

2) Getting rid of Juan Williams, showing an obvious bias towards political correctness. This has had the result of alienating politically conservative listeners. This also, at least to my mind, calls to question whether NPR is about to "clean house" of any on-air personality who doesn't buy into the current political correctness orthodoxy. Also affected here will be donations from conservatives listeners to their local stations.

I can appreciate the tension, but if NPR's chief goal was journalistic integrity, they have obviously missed their calling. They have shown that they are not unlike Fox, CNN, or any other for-profit news entity. At the end of the day, their decisions are based upon revenue. This was a naked and blatant move to protect revenue sources. I absolutely do not approve from a moral stance, but I also wouldn't have been willing to write a check to make up what would have/could have been lost in response to the Williams utterance.

Conservatives like me have no choice really. I listen to NPR because it's the only place on the radio dial which provides decent hard news and analysis. They attempt to be free of bias, but they often fail. And that's just fine. I'm a big kid, I can listen critically.

According to the NPR Ombudsman on Talk of the Nation yesterday, this was not the first incident involving Juan Williams. She said the network has received more complaints about him than about anyone else on their roster. Some of that, she readily admitted, may be just a reaction to the fact that the other network was Fox. Ditto Mara Liason, although the ombudsman noted that she appears on what is clearly a news show, not a pundit show, and that was a large part of the problem: providing (ostensibly) news analysis on NPR and being a pundit, which calls for expressing opinions and biases, on Fox.

Otherwise, I pretty much agree with Kevin. I do think NPR tries more often than not to avoid bias, but I think the reality is that unbiased news when it comes to things like politics is a eutopian dream, not a likely reality. I still prefer NPR to just about any other news source, though it's not the only one I pay attention to, and I can use my big-boy filter and listen critically. I do the same with Fox, though I have little patience with or use for the pundit shows on any network.

Meanwhile, it's pledge drive time, and at least so far it doesn't seem to be making a difference pledge-wise here.

ETA: I somehow missed Dr. Phil's post quoted below by Ch2tf when I read the thread the first time, but I completely agree with what she said.

^^^THIS

That's essentially what Barbara Walters said on The View the other day. I agree.

I agree.

I really like NPR, Fox News, and CNN.

I laughed out loud when Jon Stewart handed CNN its ass while on Larry King. I agree with him that CNN tries too hard to be fair and balanced to the point where they don't take a strong stand from fear of offending any side. Larry King said "then why are you on my show?" Stewart said "because I like YOU."

Something else that bothered me about Williams' quote is the "identifying first and foremost as Muslims". My question is what were they supposed to identify first and foremost as? And how exactly should they go about that?

I agree. Many Christians identify first and foremost as Christian, not American, so it is hypocritical to fault another religion for the same mindset.

I'm tired of the brouhaha. It's over. He knew he was walking a tight rope. He made a misstep and is paying the consequences (though a $2M paycheck isn't such a bad consequence if you ask me!) NPR is hard-nosed when it comes to their employees credibility whether it is appearing on Fox News giving biased opinions or attending Jon Stewart's Rally to Restore Sanity. I applaud them for applying the same standard across the board. In the end, I wouldn't want to see a legitimate news person from any network/news organization compromised like that. That's how Dan Rather lost his credibility.

In the same vein should they have fired Andre Codrescu for this?

On the December 19, 1995, broadcast of All Things Considered, NPR commentator Andrei Codrescu reported that some Christians believe in a "rapture" and 4 million believers will ascend to Heaven immediately. He continued, "The evaporation of 4 million who believe this crap would leave the world an instantly better place.

I wonder.

It was only a matter of time until politicos scanned the vast depths of the NPR archives for 15-year-old gems which aren't relevant today due to any number of factors.

This.

Besides, Andre Codrescu (who I don't like to listen to for a variety of reasons) isn't a journalist and neither he nor NPR claims otherwise. His reason for being on NPR to offer personal reflections and opinions.

The whole point of the Williams brouhaha was that he was on Fox to offer journalistic opinion while at the same time on NPR to offer ostensibly neutral analysis. TPTB at NPR decided the former role compromised his effectiveness in the latter role. Their right to do so, though I think they'd have been better off to tell him he needed to make a choice rather than firing him in the manner that they did.

But comparing Williams and Codrescu = comparing apples and kumquats.

OK - Then how about this from Nina Totenberg who is a journalist and analyst for NPR? I don't care how old the quote is but consistency should be maintained in how a corporation deals with its associates. But, of course, Nina wasn't appearing on Fox when she made this comment. She is a good lib ragging on a conservative and not a bad lib on a center/right network stating his feelings about an evidently protected group.

I hypothesize that if Williams had said he feels uncomfortable when he sees an Amish (do they fly on planes?) or Evangelical Christian reading from a Bible on the plane all would be ok and he would still be employed.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/art..._helms_or.html

Sorry, but that's just plain silly. Of course, consistency is to be desired, but are you suggesting that because something was allowed/overlooked/whatever 15 years ago then anything like it should be forever overlooked just for the sake of consistency? Seriously? Even under different "management"?

Real, meaningful consistency is saying "Regardless of what may or may not have been the policy in the past, everyone should understand that this is the policy now" and then applying it consistently across the board -- say to Juan Williams and to anyone who might be thinking of attending Jon Stewart's and Stephen Colbert's rallies.

I'd be paying much more attention to the "outrage" expressed by some on the conservative side if I thought they were at all concerned about the ethics, journalistic or otherwise, of the Juan Williams situation instead of by the political target that they see and the political benefit they think can be had. As it is, it's just another case of "Oh no, there go the liberals and their biases again." I have no more patience or respect for that than I do for "Oh no, there go the conservatives and their biases again."

BTW, as long as we're on consistency, interesting how so many defending Juan Williams -- who I happen to like, btw -- are appropriately saying that his remarks should be looked at in the broader context of all he said on O'Reilly, yet for Nina Totenberg we get just a 15-second clip with no context at all.

I can't see where wishing someone AIDS or wishing their Grandchildren AIDS can be put into any kind of context. If Bret Hume (for example) had wished Hillary Clinton or Chelsea Clinton a harmful disease we all would have been calling for his termination (myself included). I see a double standard.

Sorry but I believe NPR was wrong to fire him when numerous "offensive" statements were previously overlooked. Why would he be under any conceivable notion that they were finally going to enforce what they claim is their "policy"? I guess no means OK until NPR wanted it to mean no. There is a definite lack of consistency on their part.

Thanks for making that determination for the rest of us so that we needn't trouble our little heads about coming to a conclusion on our own. :rolleyes:

Actually I can see how it could be put into a context -- as an attempt at humor rather than a serious wish that someone become ill, for example. Not saying I would find it humerous in the least, but that would be some context that indicates she didn't mean it seriously and was instead trying to make a humerous point about political karma.

It's not a double standard unless it is the same standard that is perportedly being applied in different ways by the same person or persons in reasonably contemporeneous time. Any idea what the policy was in 1995? Any idea whether any action was taken?

Vivian Schiller, the current president/CEO of NPR (and the person who fired Juan Williams) came that position in Janaury 2009. Can you identify similar statements from others that she has overlooked? If you can, then we can talk about possible double standards.

Prior to Schiller, Kevin Klose was the president/CEO -- 1998 to 2006. In 2006, Ken Stern was named CEO, while Klose remained president, so the Totenberg comment doesn't even fall under his/their tenure. You have to go back to Klose's predeccesor, Delano Lewis, for that. But you say that in order to avoid a charge of double standards, current president/CEO Schiller can't take any action that would be inconsistent with what Lewis did (or failed to do) 15 years ago, even if Lewis failed to do something he should have done? Not buying it.

You're making an assumption it was "overlooked" because he wasn't immediately fired at those times, but you have no idea what NPRs policy is with respect to first vs. multiple violations of contract/company policy. Neither you nor I know whether NPR did or didn't discuss the previous discretions/violations with Williams and whether or not they took the appropriate actions at that time based on their policy at that that time. You're assuming he was fired without appropriate cause based on a single incident.

I am not sure I made any determination for you. I simply said "I can't see..." and "I see a double standard". Seems to me I made a determination for myself and not you. I think a determination for all would include the terms "we all must agree" or "it is obvious to all". :rolleyes:

Don't believe Schiller actually fired Juan Williams. She just defended the firing. Ellen Weiss did the firing.

I don't have a copy of the company policy so I presumed that the policy was consistent from year to year and CEO to CEO. It seems to me that a boss or CEO cannot just say that things were done differently in the past so now that I am here it will be different unless he/she advises all associates that a policy or policies that have been overlooked for years would no longer be overlooked. If it is found out to be different and that he/she did in fact advise of changes via a teleconference, set of meetings, in writing or via other modes of mass communication then I will have to agree with your statement.

Here is Juan's response to his firing. I don't agree with very much he believes politically but I do believe he is a good guy and not a bigot. This simply was not a offense that merits termination IMHO.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/...en-weiss-bush/

When I note that no context was provided, and you say that you can't imagine any context that would matter, I don't think it's a big leap to take that as meaning that context is irrelevant in this instance. But whatever you say.

I thought it was Schiller, but maybe it was Weiss (who has been in her position since 2007). Assuming it was Weiss, then I doubt she did it without Schiller's okay.

Companies, organizations and government agencies change their policies all the time. Often they do so in response to perceived shortcomings (or shoddy enforcement) of previous policies. Often it happens when new CEOs (or organizational equivalents) come in. The shocker for me would be if the policies didn't evolve over the years, especially given the evolution of the news business.

And why do you seem to assume that people at NPR weren't being told what the current policy is? From everything I have read and seen, Juan Williams was told repeatedly what the current policy is and what the consequences of violating them could be, as were other employees at NPR.

I think that's a perfectly reasonable position to take. I have no argument with it and I don't criticize it. Nor do I argue with or criticize those who would say NPR should have handled it very differently even if they were going to fire Williams.

What I do have argument with and what I do criticize is the use of the overbroad this-just-shows-the-double-standards-of-the-liberal-media brush.

I'm amused we're still going back 15 years to 'prove' how wrong NPR must be.

My focus is on what he said, and 2 things stand out. Any time someone says "I'm not a bigot, but..." the next words out of their mouth are going to be bigoted. Second, neither the 9/11 hijackers nor the shoe bomber wore 'Muslim garb.' Mr. William's expressed a bigoted opinion about an entire group of people and didn't even base that opinion on reality. He added that people wearing Muslim garb are 'declaring themselves first and foremost as Muslims' and that attitude to me, demonstrates the undercurrent of belief that Islam is incompatible with being an American.

I believe he was discussing his feelings not an opinion. It may be semantics but I think there is a difference. One's feelings are one's feelings and simply stating them does not a bigot make. It is how you react to those feelings that makes the difference. If one reacts rationally then the feeling/fear has been overcome in that particular instance. I simply don't think a person should be fired for being politically incorrect or expounding a feeling or even a view that is contrary to the perceived liberal or conservative norms.

Jesse Jackson stated at one time that he feels afraid he might be robbed when approached by black men on a dark street. That is his feeling and it is his concern. I am pretty sure he is not bigoted towards black youth due to this feeling. Some may think that these feelings might be irrational but they are apparently real to him. Hypothetically, if Jesse Jackson had worked for NPR and made this same statement today would his firing have been justified?

I agree with MysticCat and Drolefille.

Jesse Jackson is a Black male making a statement about young Black males.

Not the same thing at all.

Pretty sure that "one's feelings" very well make that person a bigot, if they are bigoted feelings.

That's completely fair. It's also short-sighted.

I believe that news reporters need credibility with their audience, and that staying stupid shit diminishes that credibility to an extent that is likely irrecoverable. As a result, I think news people are held to their own standard, and not the standard of "all people," which really hurts your argument here. I wouldn't fire the guy from a CEO position or as garbage man - I think, though, that as "news reporter" he's gone. Same as if he'd claimed that Illuminati killed Kennedy.

The term "politically correct" has become the j-school/political equivalent of "synergy" - everyone would just be better off not using it.

Thank you so much. If I hear some one say that telling people how you feel doesn't make you a bigot one more time, I think I will scream! I guess someone saying, "I hate black people." isn't bigoted? It's ridiculous. Of course stating how you feel can be bigoted. Juan Williams made a bigoted statement. He lost credibility for his job on NPR, but he obviously did not for his job on Fox News.

I've found this commentary from salon.com about Juan Williams being fired, and how there was no similar outcry for other firings rather interesting. Specifically it mentions other journalists who were fired, but their firing wasn't questioned, and also acknowledging the double standard for things said about Muslims as opposed to other groups.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/gl...10/21/williams

I'm not going to apply the term bigot to all people who have thoughts/feelings/opinions about a group of people, but I'd like for someone to say "Yes, I have these thoughts and a fear, I admit it." Then I'd like them to do some introspection into why they have these thoughts or ideas, where it came from, and is it rational or based in fact. There isn't anyone who can say they've never had a thought pop into their head that was inappropriate, but it is what we do once the thought is there that makes a difference.

Second to that I'd also like people to learn the difference between factual news and infotainment/opinion. I'm not sure if this is being taught in school but K-12 and higher education needs to put into curriculums how to do research and find sources, and that being skeptical is a good thing.

^^^ Co-sign. And co-sign KSig RC as well.

One of the 'Shop guys on NPR's Tell Me More was absolutely outraged that basically you can get paid to be an Islamophobe. (And they've been discussing it on the NPR shows pretty neutrally IMO.)

The label sounds extreme, but it is prejudice on its face. Where is the line between prejudice and bigotry? I'm not sure there is one. He didn't have a random inappropriate thought, he stated that he feels fear whenever he sees 'Muslim-garbed' people at the airport. And that he assumes said people are 'Muslims first and foremost.' Those are irrational and prejudicial beliefs. And it goes beyond the "what pops into his head" when he comments on the first and foremost part. People who present themselves in such garb (and unless it's the dress of someone on the hajj, I'm not sure there's any such thing as Muslim garb, Arab, Persian, Indian, Sikh maybe, but not really 'Muslim garb') are not more Muslim than they are American in reality, but in his mind they are.

Co-sign this.