Juan Williams Fired

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

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.

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.

[Ch2tf]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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.

^^^THIS

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by moe.ron

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.

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

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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.

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."

[Ch2tf]

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?

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by Ch2tf

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.

[Ghostwriter]

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.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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.

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

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

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

I don't care how old the quote is but consistency should be maintained in how a corporation deals with its associates.

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.

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

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.

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.

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.

I see a double standard.

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.

[Ch2tf]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

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.

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.

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

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.

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".

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/