Juan Williams Fired

[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.