BS: NPR fires Juan Williams

Subject: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 07:12 PM

Juan Williams told Bill O'Reilly that he felt nervous and uneasy about boarding airplanes when there are folks wearing Muslim clothing boarding the same flight. Williams did not say that he did not board such a flight; he didn't indicate that he suggested others not board the flight; he did not, from what I've read, ask that folks in Muslim garb not be allowed to board the flight. Apparently, in spite of some unease he took his scheduled flights. Yet Mr. Williams, a person of the Left is now considered a bigot for revealing this visceral emotion, which resulted in no overt nor covert actions against Muslims. He has been fired by NPR as a result of his comment.

Many of us have such feelings, if not about Muslims some other group: bikers; excessively tattooed persons; gays or some other religion or skin color as examples. Our feeling, as his, may be visceral; we can't always prevent them from coming to mind. In most cases the feeling passes and we go on with our business, recognizing that that feeling is unfounded. That is a mature, adult action. It is only when we act on those feelings in a way that negatively impacts the that group that causes these visceral reactions that we can be said to be bigoted.

Actually, I find it refreshing that Mr. Williams spoke of his feelings. When he speaks out or writes, contrary to his own occasional negative feelings, in support of Muslims that I know that he has actually analyzed his position both in a personal and a professional manner. I applaud his honesty. I am sorry that NPR felt that such honesty needed to punished...nor am I surprised.

Additionally, I'm surprised that this insane action hasn't been posted here earlier.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Mrrzy
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 07:18 PM

Yeah, this was on all the NPR stations today... not sure who the idiots are here, but we've lost a fine public journalist.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: bobad
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 07:27 PM

If the facts are as presented on the OP then, IMO, NPR has grossly over reacted and Mr. Williams may have grounds for legal redress.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: GUEST,David E.
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 07:51 PM

Moral of the story: Don't tweek the nose of a sacred cow.

David E.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 07:57 PM

Mrrzy, Williams isn't lost. He is on Fox "news" full time, where he belongs. You can see him there, punditing around and on the Fox TV network Sunday mornings.

I've heard Williams dozens of times on NPR, I've heard his opinions and the opinions he attributed to others from him. I have never heard a news story from him. He was a pundit for sure and a whore at that, telling Fox "journalists" what they wanted to hear for high pay, as he did in the interview with O'Reilly. But a journalist? Not in the several years I have been listening to him.

If those are his real feelings, he is also not intelligent enough to be on NPR. He fears the obvious Muslims on planes? He fears obvious looking Muslims who have been through airport security? That is pathetic.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 07:59 PM

I have kinda the same problem... When I get on a plane and I see rich people in 1st class it makes me very uncomfortable to be on same plane with people who most likely hate Obama... I mean, I don't like sharing airplane air with folks like that...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 08:00 PM

Mr. Williams just signed a new $2 million contract with Fox News. I;m not sure it's any great loss to NPR. He is a talented fellow, but far from the semi-neutral, moderately unbiased type we like to hear on NPR.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 08:05 PM

I think NPR is mostly biased center right. But they do make an effort to hear both sides and not to offend. Williams failed on the second account. He never belonged there.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: MarkS
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 08:10 PM

Helen Thomas, call your office.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 08:15 PM

Bill D, I have not much listened to NPR news in a long time, admittedly. When I did hear Mr. Williams, I considered his comments to be generally unbiased, although I mostly disagreed with him.

I don't know about his deal with Fox, but he deserves every penny for having to deal with Bill Krystol and Brit Hume, often on the same show. Just one time I'd like to see him get the first word on some.

As to whether or not Williams is a whore, I just consider the source of that ad hominum attack.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 08:17 PM

Second paragraph should read, "Just one time I'd like to see him (Williams) get the first word on some topic."

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 08:25 PM

I consider the source of your comment. Of course he seemed balanced to you well right of center, and a shade or two to the left of you.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 08:39 PM

It is most unfortunate that NPR took action against what, as John otSC said, is a reaction many of us have about certain individuals or groups.
Some people make me very uncomfortable, those left-leaners who look like they might be harboring fleas or bedbugs and make perjorative comments about the hard-working businessmen who provide them with perhaps more in the way of income than they deserve.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: bobad
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 09:03 PM

Juan Williams explains himself: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/10/21/juan-williams-npr-fired-truth-muslim-garb-airplane-oreilly-ellen-weiss-bush/

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 09:23 PM

NPR is left of center- and I note that no-one has been fired for making such comments about the conservatives...

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 09:26 PM

I think being characterized by his boss at NPR as a 'bigot' was unfair and an exaggeration of his beliefs. That being said, his comments, as stated, were NOT the sort of remarks NPR should be associated with, as they serve to dignify the IDEA of 'fearing Muslims' just because they are Muslims.

   Williams said that "seeing them in Muslim garb" upset him and made him nervous. What, one wonders, does he think of dark-skinned people with Middle-Eastern features who are wearing standard (whatever THAT is) Western garb? The 9/11 hijackers wore sports coats. IF he really can't stifle his fretting, he should at least not make a point of it while ON a network known for fanning fears of Muslims! (He DID get a new 3 year contract and a raise from Fox right after the story broke.)

It may be instructive to follow how his 'fears' are explained now that Fox is his only employer.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 09:36 PM

Well, it is nice to know that something is left-of-center because the center has been shifted so far to the right that that if it weren't for NPR there would be nothin' left of left of center...

But, of course, the right will want to shut down NPR leaving only their stupid ideas on the table... Nothin' else...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 09:37 PM

Did anyone at NPR call him a bigot?

NPR CEO Vivian Schiller says
Williams should have kept his views about Muslims to himself, "his psychiatrist or his publicist."

Here's the statement NPR from CEO Vivian Schiller and Senior Vice President for News Ellen Weiss released just after midnight:

    "Tonight we gave Juan Williams notice that we are terminating his contract as a Senior News Analyst for NPR News.

    "Juan has been a valuable contributor to NPR and public radio for many years and we did not make this decision lightly or without regret. However, his remarks on The O'Reilly Factor this past Monday were inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a News Analyst with NPR.

    "We regret these circumstances and thank Juan Williams for his many years of service to NPR and public radio."

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 10:04 PM

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/ An NPR blog carrying the story now with continuing updates

same blog with the specific story (to get back to it after the story blows over)

The NY Times' take on it

~ Becky in Tucson

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Janie
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 10:13 PM

I guess I am a slow thinker. I'm not ready to jump to the defense of either Mr. Williams or NPR until I have reflected for awhile.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: pdq
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 10:21 PM

Juan Williams told us what he really feels.

That is called honesty, which is seldom found in reporters or politicians.

I don't think his personal feelings are right, but they are his personal feelings.

To be fired for honesty is a travesty.

That is what I really feel.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Janie
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 10:55 PM

That is what you feel, pdq, but there are jobs where the expression of one's personal opinions or feelings are inappropriate. A job as a journalist with NPR appears, from what I have read thus far, appears to be one of those jobs.


It doesn't mean Mr. Williams is not entitled to his emotional reactions. It doesn't mean he is not a good journalist, or that he does not have a point of view or opinion worthy of being both aired and considered.    However, if the NPR code of ethics is as explicit as the NYT article indicates, it does suggest that he and NPR were not a good fit.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 11:19 PM

Context is everything. And as much as I have always admired Juan Williams over the years, I am surprised at the ill-considered remark he made to Bill O'Reilly.

Williams is an excellent journalist, though since the association with FOX his role at NPR shifted. He used to be more than an analyst. And he has done some singularly important work in his day. Eyes on the Prize is one of his early works.

If you're familiar with his work, you may have heard his many interviews when he published the book Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Black America--and What We Can Do About It expresses many views counter to the "typcial" Jesse Jackson/Congressional Black Caucus kinds of issues and attitudes. He's tired of the status quo politically for black politicians. On FOX, Williams may have expressed an opinion that reflected his own misgivings, and he has done this before, but the context - the Bill O'Reilly context - I think makes it shift from edgy to toxic.

I heard Juan Williams speak on campus here where I work a couple of years ago. He spoke, he didn't read. He is brilliant. I think he disappointed a lot of people this week with what I hope is simply a mis-step, and in this context, I think NPR did push too far, too quickly. I'd listen to him on NPR still, happily, but I'm not going to tune into FOX to find what he's thinking. The questions put to him will be biased over at FOX, and the answers won't be as complete, because the audience isn't expecting it. They wouldn't know what to do with a bona fide intellectual answer if it were given to them.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 11:26 PM

I think he probably knew he could not say such things..but I think he spoke honestly for himself and it opens the doors for more people speaking honestly about racial issues..and the main racial issue is not that we want to dominate other groups, but that we are afraid of them, in very physical, primal ways..not fear that they will surpass us in the job market or have more money, but that they will beat us up, sometimes for good historical cause.

So another door has been closed. Healing racial problems will only come through a good long time or through some honesty. It also is something that people can understand and respond to..as in, we did not realize that was the problem. We really are not scary people once you get to know us.

I liked him and he spoke the truth on many issues and ..oh well. mg

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Slag
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 11:39 PM

You can say anything you want, as long as you agree with us (NPR).

I have seldom agreed with Mr. Williams but have always liked the guy and admired his honesty. When he appears on O'Rielly, an opinion show he gives his opinion and when called on as a news analyst, that's what he does, analyzes the news stories. The man IS a journalistas much or more so than than others who wear the label.

He is not a hack or a parrot for left-wing agenda. He engages in fair debate and keeps personality out of the picture. If any cannot see that, I'm sorry for you. What NPR did in the person of Vivian Schiller was completely dispicable and cowardly. I think the renewal of his FN contract was a message to NPR as much as it was to continue his services with FOX.

The First Amendment does not exist to allow people to agree with you. It is there for speech with which you may not agree or even speech that you may find offensive. Dialog, not monolog, is necessary to a free society. Hey, you don't have to agree with that. It's OK, it's your right.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Janie
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 11:40 PM

Thoughtful posts, Stilly and mg.

I will be interested in listening to NPR's coverage of this story.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Joe Offer
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 11:41 PM

Whether Juan Williams feels nervous about Muslims, is not the issue. He is a well-known public figure, and I'm sure he must have known that his remarks were inflammatory. And I'm sure he knew the price for making remarks that would inflame and empower anti-Muslim factions. His remarks enhanced his status with FoxNews and killed his career with NPR.
He made his choice.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 11:46 PM

I suspect Diane Rehm will discuss it in the first hour of her Friday news roundup tomorrow. He was on her program every so often (he still could be, actually, she invites guests of her own choosing, not those offered by NPR).

NPR doesn't insist people agree with them, and contrary to some of the remarks here, it gets good marks for a fair representation of the news covered from many conservative listeners (if you actually listen to NPR, you'll hear it in the letters sent to the various news programs, because people often state their political leanings in their letters).

Every time there is a GOP majority in the house and Senate they whittle down the amount that the government gives to public radio. It is now down to about 2%, so the threat to de-fund NPR is rather toothless.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: artbrooks
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 11:52 PM

No one really knows what Ms. Schller actually said, as far as I can tell. Mr. Williams has quoted/paraphrased it, and NPR has made a generic and very vanilla statement. Which is closer to the truth? Who knows. IMHO, and having worked for many years in the HR field, this was a personal discussion and nobody's business.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Sawzaw
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 12:03 AM

Jesse Jackson said a few years ago, "There is nothing more painful to me ... than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery, then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved."

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Janie
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 12:08 AM

And my latest missive, oozing pearls of insight and wisdom, has gone missing in cyberspace....encouraging me to be brief. There is no corner on the market of right/wrong or effective/ineffective in this instance. There are simply differing and equally compelling points of view, based on where in the room one is seated.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 12:52 AM

Joe, public figures are allowed feelings; it is how they deal with them that matters. He owned up to his. Juan Williams did not incite or inflame against Muslims, nor blame or demean Muslims. It is the rest of us (generically) who demand perfection in thought and deed in others, who have interpreted his remarks so. Where is a Voltaire when he is sore needed?

I believe American society, as it becomes more and more liberal since the mid-1960s, has lost its ability to think and respond coherently. Mainly we are emotive rather than rational, and the worse for it.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 12:59 AM

Sawzaw--I'm glad you posted that Jesse Jackson quote. I knew of it, but wasn't sure if it was apocryphal or real, and so didn't us it. Could even he get away with that statement today?

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Donuel
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 01:16 AM

The funniest shit I heard all day was from the mouth of Newt Gingrich.
"Npr has to have all its funding removed and be closed down forever because they practiced censorship."


We all know this isn't a 1st ammendment issue but there is a point that is deceivingly obvious.
Juan plays a role on FOX news as the foil for the left and is introduced as an npr contributor.
npr has been paying Juan for years when in fact they are not supposed to hire officially partisan people.

Most of the time Juan goes along with the FOX agenda and contributes to the theme of magnifying fear issues. This time his compliance was worthy of suspension by npr. Good for him FOX gave him a 2 million dollar raise.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 02:36 AM

NPR's Ombudsman: NPR's Firing of Juan Williams Was Poorly Handled

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Smedley
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 02:56 AM

As a Brit, Williams isn't well-known to me, but his comments do seem pretty idiotic. Anybody wearing '''''Muslim clothing''''' in an airport in the West is hardly likely to be planning an act of terrorism - not exactly the BEST cover is it ? Hasn't Williams seen the footage of the London bombers, or those who carried out the Mumbai attacks ? Hardly wearing fully-fledged imam outfits.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Wesley S
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 07:44 AM

Her's part of an interview from this mornings Atlanta Journal Constitution with Vivian Schiller the chief executive officer of PBS. Maybe it will shead some light on the situation.

Link to the full story here.


Here is part of the Q&A:

Q: Okay. What happened?

A: Let's state a couple of facts. Juan is not an employee of NPR. He's an independent contractor. He's not NPR staff. He's an NPR analyst. We have a contract with him for analyst opinions to provide news analysis. He is not a columnist or commentator. He also has an on-going relationship with Fox News. Mara Liasson is also on Fox News and is a full-time staffer. We accept that's a whole other issue. However, we expect our journalists, whether they are news analysts or reporters to behave like journalists.

Q: So did Juan really get fired over just those Muslim comments? [He said he was uncomfortable with Muslims dressed in traditional garb on airplanes during a Fox News telecast yesterday.]

A: There have been several instances over the last couple of years where we have felt Juan has stepped over the line. He famously said last year something about Michelle Obama and Stokely Carmichael. [The quote on Fox News early last year: "Michelle Obama, you know, she's got this Stokely Carmichael in a designer dress thing going" and that she'll be an "albatross" for President Obama.]. This isn't a case of one strike and you're out.

Q: So this is obviously not an isolated incident.

A: There's so much misinformation on the blogosphere, it's nuts. This has been an on-going issue. [Here's NPR's ombudsman's piece on him last year after the Obama comment.] When he does that, when anybody does that, it undermines their credibility as a journalist or in Juan's case, a news analyst for NPR. Those two things cannot go together.

Q: Have you done this before with other analysts or reporters?

A: It's impossible to answer that. Every circumstance is different and would create false parallels.

Q: As you mentioned, Mara Liasson appears on Fox News. Is there an issue with Fox News?

A: No. She behaves on Fox as a journalists. I have no issues with anything she has said on Fox. This is not about Fox News. It's not about a political agenda. This is not about even validating or invalidating [Williams'] feelings.

Q: Mike Huckabee is now saying NPR has discredited itself and should have federal funding revoked.

A: Yes, I heard that. This has become a political issue. My God, I'm shocked!

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 09:42 AM

NPR's news story on it this morning

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 10:33 AM

from that link:
"I don't fit in their box," Williams told O'Reilly. "I'm not predictable, black, liberal. And let me tell you something else, you were exactly right when you said you know what this comes down to, they were looking for a reason to get rid of me because I'm appearing on Fox News. They don't want me talking to you."

...and what a predictable remark under the circumstances. Total speculation and guesswork as to what NPR might have thought. This is standard procedure on Fox....attributing 'thoughts & meanings' to those they disagree with which can not be proven, but which please their listeners and dare their opponents to waste time denying. Hurling blanket accusations until it is taken as gospel by everyone who wants to believe such stories already.

It is tedious and shameful...but it does what it is supposed to.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Mrrzy
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 10:34 AM

Right, but we HAVE lost him from NPR, which is what I said.

But I bet Fox pays better!

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 10:55 AM

There's a nugget of truth in the "they were looking for a reason to get rid of me because I'm appearing on Fox News" comment...

From NPR's story this morning:

"We value not the absence of opinion but the illusion of the absence of opinion," said Daniel Okrent, the former public editor of The New York Times [and not affiliated with NPR], who called it a conundrum for the modern press.

"I can't give you a conclusive position on it," he said. "What's the right way to go or the wrong way to go? I do know, once opinion comes into it, it gets to be very shaky ground."

Okrent said the danger is in having someone from a news organization that prizes studied neutrality appear frequently in another outlet that rewards contention and sharply defined opinion — like Fox News.
---

It's that part of Fox News -- contention and sharply defined opinion -- "that's incompatible with being a straight news reporter and analyst. As the NPR CEO noted, it's not Fox per se, but appearing and participating in that Fox context.

~ Becky in Tucson

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 10:57 AM

"There is nothing more painful to me ... than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery, then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved." Saws

"Sawzaw--I'm glad you posted that Jesse Jackson quote. I knew of it, but wasn't sure if it was apocryphal or real, and so didn't us it. Could even he get away with that statement today?" John/Sunset

Hey, if you're going to quote someone, don't use it as a smear. Don't stop there.

Think or say anything you want about Jesse Jackson but there is no way one could deny his trying to inspire several generations. There was nothing remotely racist in what he said. He was speaking as a Black man to Black people. He was mourning.

He said, "There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery. Then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.... After all we have been through. Just to think we can't walk down our own streets, how humiliating."

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: GUEST,Neil D
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 11:10 AM

I'm not sure I agree with those on the right who are calling this censorship on the part of NPR. He was a freelance pundit whose contract was canceled. No one has tried to tell him what he can or can't say on his own time. Must an organization be forced to freely offer a public forum for every view, no matter how inflammatory, to avoid be accused of censorship.
    As to calling Mr. Williams a whore, I probably wouldn't use that word, but there does seem to be a certain amount of altering his views over time time to suit the paymaster, Fox being a much more lucrative paymaster than NPR who has to go begging for donations every 3 months.
    My criticism of NPR isn't for choosing to no longer use his services. It is for doing so in such a ham-handed manner as to allow him to wallow in martyrdom. Surely they could have done it a much less publicly. Why make any announcement at all? If he just wasn't there anymore, most people would not have noticed. Then if Mr. Williams or Fox News tried to make an issue out of it, they would have looked like whiners. To me they do anyhow.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 12:25 PM

Is "muslim clothing" an accurate indicator of malicious intent? Weren't the 9/11 bombers clad in polo shirts and khaki Dockers? Wouldn't a turban or a burkha be the last choice of a terrorist?
There's nothing wrong with Juan or any of us feeling uneasy while boarding a plane with someone in "muslim clothing", but most of us have more brains than to act on that impulse, or even talk about it in a public forum.
Juan's comments, while honest, contribute to the perpetuation of a stereotype that is unhealthy for us all. It goes hand-in-hand with Republican propaganda against the Mosque near the site of the 9/11 attacks, which stated that "first they attacked us, now they want to build a memorial on the site of the attack." Not an exact paraphrase, but damn close. Like I said, it's unhealthy. But more than that, it's just plain stupid.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 12:40 PM

It is really beyond silly.

Doesn't Mr. Williams realize that others have also noted the presence of 'Muslim-garbed' people? Does the presence of an Indian woman with the black dot on her forehead make him uneasy? Does a cowboy in chaps and spurs and tall hat bother his sensibilities? (Well, yes) Does a clown dressed to entertain at a children's party upset him? Does an Amishman in 'plain' clothing make him want to reconsider his flight? Does a robed Muslim family that has passed through the security gates scare him? I guess so.

As implied above, if you want to commit some horrendous act you don't want to attract attention beforehand.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 12:50 PM

I wonder what the reaction would have been if a white person had said that the presence of obviously Negro people on a plane made him nervous.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 12:51 PM

re what Ebbie and EJ said, and what I said earlier along the same lines.

NPR should have simply fired him for a demonstrated lack of analytical skill.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 12:52 PM

>>I wonder what the reaction would have been if a white person had said that the presence of obviously Negro people on a plane made him nervous.<<

I think that even Fox would fire them for that.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 12:59 PM

Dear Ebbie, while I can't speak for Sawzaw, I did not offer the Jackson comment as smear, as you characterize it. I did use it as an example that some folks say things offensive to others and get a pass, and some don't. Do you disagree?

You also state Jackson was mourning in making his statement. I see little difference in his statement and Williams'--especially as concerns Williams complete dialogue with O'Reilly in context.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Sawzaw
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 01:01 PM

Was Juan "Lynched"?

Juan Williams, While lecturing an intolerant person, expressed his feelings.

Mean sprited Progressives struck like a cobra to inflict pain on anyone who they deem "wrong". The self appointed Boss Hoggs of who can say what.

Before you echo someone else's opinion, read all of what was said and form your own opinion:


    O'REILLY: Continuing now with our lead story, danger from the Muslim world.

    Joining us from Washington Mary Katharine Ham and Juan Williams.

    So, Juan, I got to tell everybody, own up to this, that talking points memo was really written by Alan Colmes.

    So, where am I going wrong there, Juan.

    JUAN WILLIAMS: Well, actually, I hate to say this to you because I don't want to get your ego going. But I think you're right. I think, look, political correctness can lead to some kind of paralysis where you don't address reality.

    I mean, look, Bill, 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 the 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.

    Now, I remember also that when the Times Square bomber was at court, I think this was just last week. He said the war with Muslims, America's war is just beginning, first drop of blood. I don't think there's any way to get away from these facts.

    But I think there are people who want to somehow remind us all as President Bush did after 9/11, it's not a war against Islam. President Bush went to a mosque –

    O'REILLY: Well, there isn't any theology involved in this at all from my perspective, Juan. But you live in the liberal precincts. You actually work for NPR, OK?

    WILLIAMS: Yes.

    O'REILLY: And it's not about — it's about politics as I said. But — my analysis is that this Israel thing and that liberals feel that United states is somehow guilty in the world, of exploitation and backing the wrong side, and it makes it easier for them to come up with this kind of crazy stuff that, well, you can't really say the Muslims attacked us on 9/11.

    WILLIAMS: No, but what Barbara Walters said to you –

    O'REILLY: Were they Norwegians? I mean, come on.

    WILLIAMS: Wait a second though, wait, hold on, because if you said Timothy McVeigh, the Atlanta bomber, these people who are protesting against homosexuality at military funerals, very obnoxious, you don't say first and foremost, we got a problem with Christians. That's crazy.

    O'REILLY: But it's not at that level. It doesn't rise near to that level.

    WILLIAMS: Correct. That's — and when you said in the talking points memo a moment ago that there are good Muslims, I think that's a point, you know?

    O'REILLY: But everybody knows that, Juan. I mean, what are, in 3rd grade here or what?

WILLIAMS: No, you don't — but you got to be — this is what Barbara Walters was saying –

O'REILLY: I got to be careful, you just said it. I got to be careful. I have got to qualify everything 50 times. You know what, Juan? I'm not doing it anymore. I'm not doing that anymore.

WILLIAMS: OK. So, be yourself. Take responsibility.

O'REILLY: But I'm not going to say, oh, it's only a few. It's only a tiny bit. It's not, Juan. It's whole nations, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, whole nations.

Go ahead, Mary Katharine. You want to get in here. Go.

MARY KATHARINE HAM: First of all — first of all, the left only thinks that you should be careful with rhetoric in dangerous times when it's a right winger using the rhetoric. When they're doing it themselves, when it deals with other issues, they don't care. So there's a double standard there.

Second of all, there's a distinction worth making between moderate and extremism Islam as you have made that point in the talking points, because frankly, as a conservative, if anybody who believes in the mission in Iraq where you are building up a society of moderate Muslims to push back on extremists, you have to believe in that distinction. So, I think that's important to make.

But, this whole getting up and running off set because you don't use the distinction in every single sentence you say, I think, was ridiculous and immature and they stopped the conversation, not you. It was them freaking out about a conservative position and leaving the stage to stop the conversation.

O'REILLY: All right. But, look, here's the deal. Angela Merkel, all right, in the politically correct nation of Germany — Germany has gone from being a militaristic society to a politically correct society in a generation. OK?

Angela Merkel comes out today and says, "You know what? This is out of control in our country. We can't control it anymore."

So, if it's only a few, and a couple and just in the mountains of Pakistan, that's all, why is Angela Merkel having such a hard time? Why are the French banning burqas? You know why –

O'REILLY: Come on.

WILLIAMS: Because — they have a problem because people have stopped emphasizing and she went on to say, this integration assimilation.

O'REILLY: Why, Juan? Why?

WILLIAMS: — to live side by side. That was wrong-headed and because she sees it as a threat. I think that she pointed out that two of every three or so children under the age of 5 in Germany is Muslim.

O'REILLY: Juan, who is posing a problem in Germany? Is it the Muslims who have come there or the Germans?

WILLIAMS: Absolutely.

O'REILLY: Who's causing the problem?

WILLIAMS: I think — I think — no, no, wait. See, you did it again. It's extremists. It's people who refuse to –

O'REILLY: It's not extremists.

WILLIAMS: It's a German society. They are the ones causing that problem.

O'REILLY: But, Juan, Merkel — according to Merkel, it's not extremists. It's most of the 5 million Muslims who have come there aren't assimilating. That's the problem.

HAM: And also what happens, Bill — Bill, also what happens is that when moderate Muslims want to assimilate or want to stand up, they run the risk of being blown up by their co-religionist who are extreme. So, that is — that's a threat that moderate Christians and Jews don't think.

O'REILLY: But that doesn't happen in America where most Muslim- Americans have assimilated.

HAM: Because our society demands that people assimilate. That's what we demand and that's why it works here.

WILLIAMS: But, Bill, here's a caution point. The other day in New York, some guy cuts a Muslim cabby's neck and says he's attacking him or you think about the protest at the mosque near Ground Zero –

HAM: That guy works at a liberal –

O'REILLY: Yes, he was a crackpot.

O'REILLY: Look, Americans are smart enough to know, Juan.

HAM: But I don't think — the point is the rhetoric was not pushing him to do that.

WILLIAMS: I don't know what is in that guy's head. But I'm saying, we don't want in America, people to have their rights violated to be attacked on the street because they heard a rhetoric from Bill O'Reilly and they act crazy. We've got to say to people as Bill was saying tonight, that guy is a nut.

O'REILLY: He is a nut. And I said that about the guy in Florida — who wanted to burn the Koran. I came town on him like crazy.

WILLIAMS: Correct. There you go.

O'REILLY: But I'll tell you what — if there was going to be a backlash against Muslims, it would happened after 9/11. It didn't happen in this country.

WILLIAMS: It didn't happen in this country.

O'REILLY: It did not happen here. So, we are smart enough to understand who the good Muslims are and who the bad Muslims are. But to diminish the whole thing as the left wants to do, very dangerous. I have got to go, guys, as always.

WILLIAMS: That would be hypocrisy.

O'REILLY: All right. Thank you very much.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 01:11 PM

"there are jobs where the expression of one's personal opinions or feelings are inappropriate. A job as a journalist with NPR appears, from what I have read thus far, appears to be one of those jobs."

Except that many on NPR have made such comments- but azs long as they were about conservatives it was ok.




Art,

"No one really knows what Ms. Schller actually said, as far as I can tell."

Except that the entire set of her remarks was played on Fox. A pity you don't find a news source that actually presents the news...

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Sawzaw
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 01:16 PM

Ebbie:

I didn't see any gracious words about Juan before he was "smeared".


I think Janie is the voice of reason.

Janie:

If your post does not take, keep hitting the back button or arrow and it might reappear. Then you can copy it, reload the thread and start and paste it in the box.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 01:16 PM

BillD,

"attributing 'thoughts & meanings' to those they disagree with which can not be proven, but which please their listeners and dare their opponents to waste time denying. Hurling blanket accusations until it is taken as gospel by everyone who wants to believe such stories already"

You mean like calling Tea Party suppoters racist???

Or is it ONLY when one side does it that you don't like it???

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 01:20 PM

Thanks SAWZAW, For showing the real reason he was fired.

>>>O'REILLY: Well, there isn't any theology involved in this at all from my perspective, Juan. But you live in the liberal precincts. You actually work for NPR, OK?<<<

Fox using the fact that Williams works for NPR to give weight to their fiction of being fair and balanced.

Williams was warned not to use his connection to NPR on Fox. Fox being Fox, had O'Reilly bring it up. One time too many.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 01:24 PM

>>You mean like calling Tea Party suppoters racist???<<

Why don't you Google "tea party racist signs" and see if you can find any evidence?

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 01:26 PM

Anyone who doubts my paraphrase of the mosque ad, or the depths to which the Republican Party will sink to pursue its agenda can view the GOP anti-mosque ad here.
Accusing Islam of perpetuating the 911 attacks makes political hay among the ignorant jingoistic hate-mongering Tea Party legions, but I hope there are still enough rational people left to call out a pandering lie when they hear one.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: GUEST,999
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 01:31 PM

Airplanes themselves make me nervous. Trains: that`s the way to go, imo.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 01:32 PM

Jack,

HOW MANY SIGNS out of how many rallies? I can find signs calling for the death of Bush- so YOU and ALL liberals are murderers????

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 01:33 PM

999,

Have you ever llistened to all those train wreck songs???

It might be that only traveling by walking is safe.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 01:38 PM

Bruce you liar.

You didn't say "ALL TEA PARTY SUPPORTERS are racist."
Now you are saying that in answering YOUR question that I did.

Shame on you. Shame shame shame.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Sawzaw
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 01:40 PM

I apologize if the post about what was actually said was too long but I think it was important to have it all complete.

It took me a long to find it and put it all together.

Whoopi Goldberg says NPR should keep Juan Williams despite Muslim comments.

And another aspect of all of this crap is a media war where each outlet, each host, is promoting controversy to gain audience to sell advertising, books etc. to make money and we are the rubes.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 01:44 PM

Jack,

So you will admit that liberals are murderers?

OK, I did not use "all", so you can have no complaint.




Jack is liberal.

Liberals are murderers.

Now draw the conclusion.


Shame on YOU.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 01:54 PM

"Now you are saying that in answering my question that I did."

No, I am saying that YOU did not say "some" or "extremist" Tea Party supporters- so, like on the View, YOU are guilty and should apologize.

In fact, I have NOT stated what YOU said at all- therefore cannot be lieing about it.

I did imply, just as you and others did, by being loose in my words- BUT THAT SEEMS ACCEPTABLE for people discuyssing conservatives, ao it MUST be acceptable in discussing liberals. Right?

Or are you claiming some special privilege for those YOU agree with???




Shame, shame, shame on you.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 03:34 PM

Yes Bruce, liberals are murderers but it doesn't follow that all liberals are.

I am not a liberal, I am a fiscal conservative.

I just don't call giving welfare to rich people conservatism. I don't see the tea party or Republican platforms as very conservative at all. If you think electing a Rand Paul or a Christine O'Donnell is in any way conservative then the con job is apparently working on you.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: artbrooks
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 03:44 PM

BB, was a recording of her remarks played? OK, I missed that - sorry. Or was Mr. Williams relating what, I assume to the best of his memory, she said? If so, how does anyone know that it was completely accurate and verbatim?

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 03:50 PM

It was a video of her statements.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 03:51 PM

NOT just a soundbite, but her entire statement. I am surprised that MSNBC and CNN did not bother to show it... Or maybe not.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 03:53 PM

"Yes Bruce, liberals are murderers but it doesn't follow that all liberals are."


Gee, but the claims here, not contraticted by any liberal, are that ONE person acting in a bad manner means the entire gorup is tarred with that brush. Just ask Bobert- Or better yet, inform HIM of what you insist on telling me.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Donuel
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 04:23 PM

Juan is protesting 6 hours on a day on FOX and radio. I think he protests too much and is overplaying his disgruntled employee part.

He is vowing to cause npr as much harm as possible. He and NEwt are now thick as theives. Much of his whining smacks of canned outrage and erroneous charges of censorship. The bitter conservatives who have suffered from factual releases by npr are hurriedly writting legislation to forbid all of the 1% of federal grants that npr used toward operations for which npr would bid on but not always win.

Think of it. Neocons went from unbid contracts to can;t bid contracts.

You know when every news organization is broadcasting the President of the United States aka Barak Obama EXCEPT FOX NEWS, isn;t that censorship? Telling parents to not allow their kids to listen to the education speech Obama makes for schools, isn;t that censorship.

I thin it is but I suppose it is different since their censorship is fair and balanced.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 04:29 PM

Donuel,

It appears that you are pushing more lies. FOX has the SAME COVERAGE of Presidential speeches that other networks do- They just don't accept all the lies he makes withourt comment.

Try watching Fox before you make (false) statements about what they do or do not show.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Donuel
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 04:46 PM

NOpe you are wrong.

FOX did not cover the backyard OBama speeches and Q&A sessions.
I monitor FOX on average 2.5 hours a day.


By the way Juan is now saying that npr has sent him to the GOULAG!

I never took Mr. Williams as a Solzkeniskin type.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 04:51 PM

"FOX did not cover the backyard OBama speeches and Q&A sessions."

Gee, then I must have seen them in my imagination...


2.5 hours a day? WOW- That only leaves about 10 hours of NEWS programs that you don't watch- Plus the opinion shows ( which are clearly differentiated).

I am impressed.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Donuel
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 04:57 PM

Part of my fascination of FOX is that I was a psychology nerd who eventually became a therapeutic hypnotist in 6 cities with offices and staff in each. The use of hypnotic techniques and fear is most exemplified by FOX. As you may know fear makes you stupid and puts you in a situation of fight or flight, chutting down the higher functions in the cerebral cortex and causes hormone changes which futher limits critical thinking. Incases of fear induction people react by giving over control in a "now what do we do" response.

I praise FOX for its unparalleled use of fear and suggestion that is truely first class hypnotic training.

Now don't take this as bragging but I know of what I speak regarding hypnosis, fear and PHS. I refused offers to use and teach hypnosis methods for the TD and CIA for which I paid dearly. Not turning to the dark side has its own costs and I've paid my dues.
You're only across the river.
WOuld you like to meet in the middle?

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 05:08 PM

But don't you think that people have a right to speak of their fear? Saying I am afraid..not saying therefore these people should not get to ride on the airplane, vote, buy property etc..simply I am afraid.

If you shut that down, you are just going to have simmering fear plus other emotions. Best to have it out in broad daylight. Not as a freedom of speech issue even..as a life, liberty and pursuit of happiness issue.

You're talking about a situation where people are paralyzed with fear anyway...flying, crashing etc. I think talking about it is therapeutic and if it means you are afraid to sit next to the Irish because they traumatized you with their shamrocks on St. Patrick's day one year, or a bunch of thugs with red hair beat you up, it should be OK to say so..not to deny the Irishwoman a seat on the plane, but to express your fear..but take care of it probably before you get to the airport because then it becomes a security issue with you as a potentially unstable flyer..complicated situation..mg

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 05:14 PM

Actually, I may work across the river, but I live in PG county...

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 05:21 PM

Just in case some in the discussion have forgotten: Juan Williams is a journalist, Jesse Jackson is a politician/preacher/activist.

Different standards apply.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Sawzaw
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 05:43 PM

Dual standards apply.

Some people can do things and say things that others are not allowed to say.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Sawzaw
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 05:51 PM

A Blogger:

"Instead we have resorted to politics as usual. We continue to bash each other, degrade each other, and dismiss the emotions, opinions, and feelings that don't line up with our own. In a country that claims to be tolerant enough to cherish free speech, it amazes me that we are not intelligent enough to accept words spoken freely."

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 05:57 PM

Juan Williams used to have an --excellent---column in the Washington Post. I always looked forward to reading it.   He has however been drifting rightward for a while--probably (possibly unconsciously) to curry favor with his employers at Fox.

I think he should have not been summarily fired. I'm not convinced anything else he said was anything beyond the usual controversy-mongering found on "news shows" these days. But there should have been a program scheduled--say about an hour--where it would be pointed out to him clearly--over and over-- that by this comment he was playing into the hands of anti-Moslem bigots.   Which, with the "mosque" controversy, we don't need--to put it mildly.

If he refused to see this and to apologize, then fine, can him. Who knows, he might have resigned.   And it would have been his decision.    Which would have made it not quite so easy for the Right to make a credible claim of censorship..

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: artbrooks
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 06:03 PM

BB, my original comment was after Mr. Williams had told his version of what happened, and before Ms. Shiller had made her statement. Since I don't watch any television, I would have had no opportunity to see ANY video of her. To the best of my knowledge, and I have read nothing at all to contradict this, there is no record at all of what was said by either party during their telephone conversation. My comment stands.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 06:09 PM

"there is no record at all of what was said by either party during their telephone conversation."

Which recording would be illegal in MD. But Williams has stated HIS recall of it, AND THERE HAS BEEN NO CHALLANGE TO THAT FROM NPR.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 06:15 PM

NPR gave their position, Foxy Juan gave his. Isn't that all that needs to be said.

I don't think that the timing of this was coincidental. NPR affiliates are in the midst of their fall fund drive and I get the feeling that when Republican's bluster about cutting funding, the donations go up.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 06:38 PM

I repeat---because I think it's pertinent.
I wonder what the reaction would have been if a white person had said that the presence of obviously Negro people on a plane made him nervous.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 07:06 PM

More - On NPR: Harsh Criticism Over Juan Williams' Firing

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: sandycreek
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 07:39 PM

I was a sustaining financial contributor for NPR until this morning...I decided that I did not want to help pay salaries for upper management suits who (in my opinion) made such an erroneous decision...I am also supporting legislation for ending financial support from the coffers of the Federal Treasury. Perhaps if these folks lose their jobs or have to take a pay cut they will think about the consequences of their actions and put the PUBLIC back in NPR.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: artbrooks
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 08:07 PM

NPR gets NO money directly from the Federal government. They do get a very small amount (about 2%, overall) from such organizations as the National Endowment for the Arts which are primarily Federally-funded. Local radio stations get nothing from the Feds, and pay dearly for NPR programming.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Slag
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 09:24 PM

BB, Donuel didn't say he LISTENED to Fox news 2.5 hours. He MONITORS Fox News. There is a big difference between listening and monitoring. When one listens they learn something, even if it's from a differing view point. One who monitors is not interested in learning anything. Their mind is already made up. The are trying to find any kind of fault within the verbiage they can. It is a purely adversarial intent on the "monitor's" part.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Sawzaw
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 10:14 PM

"She is a typical white person who if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know, there is a reaction that has been bred into our experiences that don't go away and that sometimes come out in the wrong way. That's just the nature of race in our society."

"Her lips pursed with irritation. 'He was very aggressive, Barry. Very aggressive. I gave him a dollar and he kept asking. If the bus hadn't come, I think he might have hit me over the head.

He turned around and I saw that he was shaking. 'It is a big deal. It's a big deal to me. She's been bothered by men before. You know why she's so scared this time. I'll tell you why. Before you came in, she told me the fella was black.' He whispered the word. 'That's the real reason why she's bothered. And I just don't think that right.'"

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Genie
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 11:10 PM

I agree with what Thom Hartmann said this morning re this: NPR, as a tax-subsidized "news" outfit, should not be offering partisan political commentary, period. Having "representatives" from "both sides" doesn't make it OK. They should, to the best of their ability, be trying to find and present news - including factual analysis where that can be had.

But I can understand why NPR feels that Williams, as a Fox commentator, has not been representing what NPR is supposed to be about.

As for the substance of what he said about "Muslim garb" and having fear aroused, it seems to me that's pretty irrational. As irrational as it would be if I said every time I see a buzz cut I fear another Timothy McVeigh or every time I I hear a German accent I think it may be another Hitler. Were Muhammad Atta and his cohorts "wearing traditional Muslim garb" on 9-11-01, anyway?

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: artbrooks
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 11:27 PM

There is, BTW, no such thing as "Muslim garb", any more than there is Jewish, Christian or Agnostic garb. A person may be wearing an Iranian chador, a Saudi or Afghan burqa, a Pakistani Salwar kameez, a Balinese sarong (ok, unlikely on an airplane), a taqiyah (skullcap), a hajib or a kaffiyah. Most likely, a Muslim man will be dressed like every other male around him.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Slag
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 11:37 PM

You know, that's a funny thing about "feelings". They are neither right nor wrong. They are just feelings. They might be appropriate to the situation or not. They are just feelings. Most of us cannot help how we feel about some things. We might condition ourselves to feel one way or another or perhaps to not feel one way or another, depending how those feelings affect our functionality within our society. Maybe you "feel" that it's inapropriate to give voice to those feelings or any feelings. That's YOUR choice but to condemn a man for honestly stating how he feels in a given situation? Come on. And not only that, I believe that Mr. williams only made the comment to demostrate that we cannot always go by feelings as they are not always rational. Schiller was gunning for Williams because he didn't fit her "profile" of what a black NPR newsman should be.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Sawzaw
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 11:53 PM

And Boss Hogg Soros just contributed $1.8 Million to NPR.

Maybe that was the deal, get rid of those moderates, counteract Fox and here's 1.8?

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Genie
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 12:20 AM

Slag, you said "... to condemn a man for honestly stating how he feels in a given situation? Come on. And not only that, I believe that Mr. williams only made the comment to demostrate that we cannot always go by feelings as they are not always rational. Schiller was gunning for Williams because he didn't fit her "profile" of what a black NPR newsman should be."

First, Juan Williams was fired (as an NPR commentator), not "condemned." When you are a representative of an organization, yes, you do need to consider the likely effects the open expression of your own biases and gut feelings may have on others.   I don't know the terms of Williams's contract with NPR, but if his public statements violate that contract, it's reasonable for NPR to fire him. If not, not.

If Williams's comments, both at NPR and at Fox, don't fit what Schilling/NPR want their "news analysts" to be, I don't see where race comes into the picture.

I've had a problem with Juan Williams for years, partly for reasons that aren't all his fault. Fox holds him up as illustrating how "fair and balanced" they are in including "liberals" like Williams in some of their shows. He's not even close to being a liberal.   Libertarian, maybe. Moderate conservative, maybe.   Liberal/progressive a la Ted Kennedy or FDR or Dennis Kucinich or Bernie Sanders or Rachel Maddow or Thom Hartmann? No way.
But his inclusion Fox as a token "liberal" helps them maintain their facade of being "balanced." And on NPR, too, he doesn't come across as a dispassionate, objective news reporter or analyst, but, again, as part of the team of voices that reify many right-wing talking points while perpetuating the false perception that public radio and TV are "liberal media."   

Juan Williams, I think, is walking away from this in fine shape (well over $1 million richer and a free agent). I guess what remains to be seen is what sort of voice NPR will choose to replace him.   I hope it's not another milquetoast, vapid MOR one like Gwen Ifill.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Ebbie
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 12:41 AM

Everybody has a different take on things political. See, I like Gwen Ifill; I would never consider her as a " milquetoast, vapid MOR". Instead I think of her as being forceful in a reasonable way; "vapid"? NO way! Her eyes speak volumes!); as for being 'middle of the road'- I wish we had a whole lot more people like that.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 12:41 AM

I'll skip to the bottom. I've been hearing NPR folks discuss this all day, many of them people who have worked closely with Williams. The preponderance of them are sorry NPR made this decision, and sorry to see this statement taken out of context, when the entire conversation does come across more level-headed. It is NPR's loss to have Williams gone. Shirley Sherrod's name has been invoked several times.

I suspect there is no un-saying those words, on the part of management, and I imagine they will be discussing how to approach these folks who have dual loyalties. For years Cokie Roberts has worked for NPR and ABC. And Maura Liason, she's another FOX and NPR one. And I'm sure there are more. Robert Crulwich, though he's mostly on the fringes now, has been in multiple news venues.

I don't like the FOX and NPR matchup, FOX has so little credibility. But I imagine the opportunity to bring intelligence to a low-brow audience is awfully tempting, plus the extra income. Trouble is, that job can come back to bite them.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Genie
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 01:28 AM

Not to take the discussion too far afield, but I lost most of the respect I once had for Gwen Ifill during the Democratic primaries in 2008 when she voluntarily inserted the comment, grinning, "Dennis Kucinich was there too -- talking about UFOs."   (Sad to say, Kucinich was ASKED by a debate moderator to comment on a tabloid-esque story about his having told his friend Shirley MacLaine that he had once seen a UFO -- i.e., an airborne object that he could not identify - and felt a sense of awe. That story was not germane to Kuchinich's political views, policies, experience, etc., and it was disrespectful to him and to the voters for the moderator to bring it up during the debate.)
I also see Ifill often seeming to bend over backwards to AVOID appearing "liberal" - to the point where she allows right-wing perspectives and talking points to go unchallenged. I've just found in recent years that she seems lacking in demonstable critical analysis or perception and kind of takes a sort of you-say-X-while-he-says-Y-and-that's-just-fine stance in discussions. If anything, I think she's harder on Democrats and "liberals" than on Republicans and "conservatives" in interviews in her questions and commentaries.

To a large extent I think she and Juan Williams come across very similarly - being identified by the "Right" as evidence of "liberal bias in the media" while not being observably liberal or progressive at all in what they present to the public.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 01:29 AM

Perhaps, Juan Williams, was COMMENTATING about his feelings, and made that distinction, between his feelings, and hard news. As a commentator, that is NOT out of line..after all, he was just stating his OPINION. That's what NPR paid him to do, isn't it??

When I heard it LIVE, it sorta flew right by me, because I knew he was just stating his feelings as an 'aside'....I was blown away, to find out he was actually canned for it. I thought that was VERY poor, and stupid judgment on NPR's part.

Now, NPR has drawn attention to the FACT that the left has little or NO tolerance for any freedom of speech, outside of their pretty little politically correct raps, custom wrapped in doilies for the fragile, but RIGID 'liberal' mindset. Now that NPR has done that, they have drawn a lot of flak for it...and deservedly so! NOTE: It was NOT on NPR's show or time. They have NO right to dictate what someone does or says away from company time!!!! They are WAY out of line, and I'm ashamed of them! They have definitely displayed hypocrisy, on a tyrannical level. Anyone who is not raising an eyebrow over this, needs to re-examine just how open minded you think you really are!. I hope NPR re-instates him, or gets the hell sued out of them!....which they could be vulnerable to.

So much for 'open minded liberals'!...They're phonies!..(as witnessed plenty, on here!)

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 01:32 AM

This whole thing was set up just so you could say that, GFS. You'll wake up soon. . .

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 01:36 AM

Set up??...by who???..for what??...explain..I'm listening. (I've had my suspicions)...but it was still stupid!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 01:37 AM

Oh...and 100
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 01:47 AM

NPR did not contract Williams to be a commentator, but a news analyst, which obviously they take to be something different.

~ Becky in Tucson

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Slag
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 03:05 AM

Well, Genie, a lot of what has been said in this thread I FEEL is a condemnation of Mr. William, certainly not condemnation in the theological sense but in the sense that judgment has been passed upon the man. That's one point.

Where does race enter in? How about the fact that he was the only black journalist at NPR? If that is tokenism, what is? It has already been stated that he was Fox's token liberal (which is not true by a long shot, but...) what was his real function at NPR?

What I am saying is that regardless of anyone's political posiiton this man received shabby treatment at the hands of his former employer. That's all.

And BTW Mr. Williams filled in for O'Reilly tonight on the Factor and did an excellent job, fair, balanced and the rest.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 03:09 AM

...and Fox hired him to be a contributor,..which he has. So, was he analyzing the news for Fox when he spoke?..or NPR?

If 'Tavern on the Green' (a very good restaurant in New York, near Central Park) hired him to be a waiter, on his off hours, should ANY other employer he worked for, be able to fire him because they didn't like the way he waited tables????

NPR was dead wrong!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Slag
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 03:16 AM

I caught a Richard Pryor stand-up routine one night and he was talking about visiting the brothers at a prison in Arizona, I believe. He talked about meeting and greeting the brothers and hearing what they had to say and how things were and that they knew he would understand because he WAS a brother. And then he said once he cleared the front gate, "Thank God for prisons!"

The point, in case you missed it, is that it ISN'T about being black or white, it's about what you do and who and what you are that matters.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Slag
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 03:40 AM

Ggfs, You'd have to see his contract to know if it was legal for them to fire him. When you work for some outfits they have all kinds of conditions from a morality clause to moonlighting to representing the company on or off the clock. NPR may have been well within their rights but was it the right thing to do? And had NPR negated part of the contract by previous non-enforcement.

I think the clencher was the comments Schiller made the day after the firing of Mr. Williams of needing to talk to his psychiatrist and such. Such vindictiveness demonstrates that there was a personal animas involved.

PS You ought to check out Ms Schiller's resume'!

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Genie
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 04:56 AM

Becky's right, GfS. The issue isn't that Williams's stated opinion was "politically incorrect" but that NPR, as a news source, is supposed to be dealing as much as possible with verifiable facts and objective analysis, not serving as a propaganda outlet for any particular political persuasion.   
I'll bet that if Williams had said something like "When I hear any politician argue that we should raise taxes, in my gut I think of Stalin," or "Whenever I see a white man dressed in an Armani suit and driving a Lexus, I can't help wondering if he's a Wall Street crook," NPR's reaction would have been pretty much the same. It's not WHICH group he's contributing to stereotyping, it's THAT giving vent to such prejudices in a national TV show is not behaving like a responsible news analyst.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: kendall
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 09:29 AM

See what happens when you hang out with assholes like Bill O?

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 10:57 AM

Guess who is HOSTING the O'Rielly Factor tonight?

LOL

Poor Juan!

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Jeri
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 11:42 AM

I like what Bernard Shaw, former CNN anchor had to say about it. From an article quoted in Newsmax.com:

"When anchors are reporting the news, they should report the news and allow the viewers at home to decide what they think about issues," Shaw said. "I don't want to hear an anchor's personal opinion about anything. Just report the news."

You either report the news or you ARE the news. You can't do both.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 11:55 AM

I looked at the NPR web page today. I was struck by a "listener" saying that they would no longer listen to Dianne Rhem's show because of what had happened. She loved the show, but could not support the actions of the executive.

I wondered how that person would fill that 10 hours per week.

With Juan on Fox? With CNN? MSNBC? Where is this perfect, blameless medium?

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 12:20 PM

Jeri--
I agree with Bernie Shaw to this extent: when one is anchoring the news, one should let the news speak for itself. Away from the anchor desk, and away from the station it is a different matter.

Further, NPR, not Juan Williams, made him the news. Today, James Rainey, the LA Times media critic, rebuked NPR for its precipitative action.

---------

Yesterday afternoon, the overwhelming consensus in a current events discussion group (seniors aged 57-97) was that NPR blew it. The topic ended on the low note of one speaker saying, in essence, that we'd all know how harmful Williams' remarks were when we saw Muslim bodies swing from trees. A bit of a stretch, I thought (pun intended).

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 01:06 PM

NPR didn't blow it. They got a tom of free publicity during pledge week. You and your group are talking about it are you not?

Was it P T Barnum who said there is no such thing as bad publicity?

They will gain more listeners than they lost. They will gain more funding than they lost. Fox gets free publicity for itself and gets to play the "victim." The country gets just a little more polarized, so the secret money wins and NPR gets to stop having Bill O'Rielly stop leveraging their brand to peddle his lunacy.

EVERYBODY WINS.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 05:03 PM

NPR Defends Firing Williams as Criticism Mounts (NY Times)

excerpted:

In an interview on Friday, Vivian Schiller, NPR's chief executive, defended the decision to dismiss Mr. Williams and said it was not the product of political or financial pressures.

His contract was terminated, she said, because "he had several times in the past violated our news code of ethics with things that he had said on other people's air."

On one such occasion last year, Mr. Williams said on Fox that Michelle Obama has "got this 'Stokely Carmichael in a designer dress' thing going," an allusion to a leader of the black power movement of the 1960s.

In each instance, Ms. Schiller said, "We called him on it, we had a discussion, we asked him not to do it again." NPR's ethics code states that journalists "should not express views" in other outlets, like TV shows, that "they would not air in their role as an NPR journalist."

People deserve second chances, Ms. Schiller said, but "we made the decision here because, at a certain point, if someone keeps not following your guidance, you have to make a break. And that's what we did."

--

Also, similarly, here.

~ Becky in Tucson

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: pdq
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 05:12 PM

"NPR gets NO money directly from the Federal government. They do get a very small amount (about 2%, overall) from such organizations as the National Endowment for the Arts which are primarily Federally-funded. Local radio stations get nothing from the Feds, and pay dearly for NPR programming." ~ artbrooks

As often is the case, this is bunk.

Lyndon Johnson had the Corporation for Public Broadcasting created to isolate PBS from Federal funding.

What happens is the Federal government takes taxpayer's money and transfers it to CPB who then hand it to PBS.

Cleaver, eh?

In 2009 that amounted to $400 million.

CPB board of directors is appointed by the President, so the claim that it is a private or a semi-private company is rather lame.

Just like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack, which hold over 90% of the single family mortgages written in the past two years, they were the brainchildren on Democrats in Congress.

From Wikipedia:

"Historically, 15% to 20% of the aggregate revenues of all public broadcasting stations have been funded from federal sources, principally through CPB."

"Public broadcasting stations are funded by a combination of private donations from members, foundations and corporations (60.4% of 2006 total revenues of all stations), state and local taxes (22.2% of 2006 total revenues), local and national underwriting, and federal funds, principally through CPB (17.3% of 2006 total revenues)."

In big round numbers, about 40% of NPR and PBS funding is taxpayer money: half Federal and half state and local.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 05:12 PM

No. Everybody does not win.

The woman who is afraid to leave her house because of thugs in the neighborhood does not win.

The girl on the bus who is being harrassed by boys does not win.

People who would have benefited from an open dialogue about other ethnic groups and our rational and irrational fears about them do not win. The truth will remain unspoken, and I don't think saying someone is afraid of someone else is hate speech, inflammatory or anything else. I think it is necessary for security reasons to be able to say who we are afraid of. We will be surprised who is afraid of whom..and we might not ever find out who is bothering whom and who is being just a bit paranoid and could be calmed down with statistics about how safe this particular group really is. Or if the particular group is really engaging in thuglike behavior, then that behavior needs to be corrected. In this case, the person..Williams..needs to be reassured that he is going to be OK. Probably. Usually. No guarantees in this life.

But if we stifle this particular type of freedom of speech, and I for one am not for unbridled freedom of speech, we take out one of our first lines of defense against criminal, threatening behavior, which was not the case here, but could be in other cases. THere are situations I am afraid of. I want to be able to say so without fear of losing my job, my library card, my bus pass or whatever, and I want other people to have whatever rights I want for myself.

I think there are probably Muslim or Arabic women and men who feel unsafe in certain arenas and perhaps neighborhoods. I want them to feel safe and to be able to say if they don't feel safe and why. Then it can be addressed, again either by reassuring them that they are really quite safe, or addressing underlying problems that might not make them merely feel unsafe, but actually be unsafe. Hiding emotions like fear under the rug is not going to help racial relations, international relations, etc. mg

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: pdq
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 05:20 PM

mg just nailed it.

Thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 05:28 PM

MG,

Williams said he "felt" unsafe when he saw people in "Muslim garb," people who had passed through airport security in "Muslim garb."

All of the terrorists who have attacked US planes have not been in "Muslim Garb."

Williams expressed fears were completely irrational and unfounded.
Considering what he said next about Timothy McVeigh and others, I doubt that the "fears" were even honestly expressed. If they were he would have said that he DOES fear all white men with crew cuts because of McVeigh.

He was making a rhetorical point about prejudice, he introduced it by saying "I am not a bigot." then clearly saying bigoted things.   

He did not help the cause of the fearful. He helped justify Bill O's projection of fear.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 05:35 PM

NY Times (Same "NPR Defends..." article I linked earlier today):

Fox has been something of a home base for the anti-NPR campaign, with hourly reports about the controversy on both its news and opinion programs. Mr. Williams hosted "The O'Reilly Factor" on Friday night, the same venue where, on Monday, he made the comments that led to his firing on Wednesday.

Ms. Schiller said she perceived a media "overreaction" to Mr. Williams's firing, one that had even set off threats against her children. A camera crew from Fox News followed her from her home on Friday, she added.

On funding --

Associated Press (on the NPR website):

NPR radio stations are independently owned and operated and, like the nation's public TV stations, receive government funding through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which got about $420 million this year from Washington.

As for NPR's headquarters operation, federal grants account for less than 2 percent — or $3.3 million — of its $166 million annual budget. It is funded primarily by its affiliates, corporate sponsors and major donors.

(See graph in that article.)

NY Times ("NPR Defends..." article I linked above):

Invoking the deficit, some Republican congressmen said on Friday that they would be introducing legislation to revoke NPR's federal funding. Mr. Williams himself said on Fox News' morning show that since 1999, NPR had not needed "public funds."

Some said the complaints about NPR's funding were reminiscent of a similar movement after Republicans took control of Congress in 1994. The effort, led by Newt Gingrich, failed.

"These things tend to come in cycles," said Steve Bass, president and chief executive of Oregon Public Broadcasting and a member of the NPR board.

Ms. Schiller said that the "public" in NPR's former name, National Public Radio, referred more to the contributions of listeners than to the contributions of taxpayer dollars. Taxpayer money goes to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which apportions money for local radio and television stations across the country.

NPR gets no direct money from the federal government for its $161.8 million annual budget. It does receive some dedicated grants from Corporation for Public Broadcasting for projects like covering the country's economic crisis; in fiscal years 2009 and 2010 combined, those grants totaled just over $5.2 million. NPR also gets occasional grants from from sources financed by the federal government. In all, NPR said those grants accounted for 1 to 2 percent of its income on average.

The biggest portion — about 41 percent in recent years — of NPR's revenue comes from member station programming fees and dues. Those stations themselves receive $90 million in federal funds each year. On average, that accounts for about 10 percent of the stations' income, according to NPR.

The remainder of NPR's revenue comes from sponsors and, to a lesser extent, foundations, non-federal grants and investments.

--

~ Becky in Tucson

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: pdq
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 06:40 PM

Well, let's see here...

They say that NPR and PBS receive almost nothing from the Federal goverment at the same time claiming that some big baddies are talking about phasing out Federal funding which will destroy them.

Please NPR, PBS and CPB fans, explain how both opinions can be correct.


{Federal funds for 2010: $420 million. Requested funds for next cycle: $608 million}

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: artbrooks
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 07:58 PM

Interesting - since NPR's total annual budget is $160 million. Oh, you meant that CPB's total budget for 2010 was $420 million? Close - actually $422 million, of which $93 million went to individual radio stations, and none to NPR. Public TV gets most of it.

More here.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Slag
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 09:09 PM

DD gives a fine example of why newspapers are vanishing from the American scene with their clearly biased or rather targeted "reportage", ie hit piece. Thank you. Oh? You can't see that? Thanke for making my case.

Kendall flat out calls somebody an AH and that's ok, right? Why? Because it's Bill O'Reilly. No reason why he would call him such a vile name. Hey no need! Everybody KNOWS why, No prejudice here. Only the Right can be prejudice, right?

Thank you artbrooks. I admire you because you may have a different point of view than I but you sir, are at least looking at facts.

I have to go buy some groceries now or I'd play with you all a little more. Sorry, gotta go.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 09:13 PM

NPR receives very little directly from CPB, but CPB support for member stations in part pays their fees to NPR.

PDQ: "They say that NPR and PBS receive almost nothing from the Federal goverment" -- who's "they", and I don't think anyone said anything about PBS, except in response to this statement.

The article that artbrooks linked, and one of my prior links eventually takes you to:
the breakdown of NPR and member station funding.

A loss of the CPB entirely (which is the Gingerich-Palin plan) would affect a lot more than just NPR.

What CPB funds

Who pays for public broadcasting?, including links to revenue reports.

What's the difference between CPB, PBS, and NPR?

About Public Broadcasting, including links to revenue reports.

~ Becky in Tucson

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Genie
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 09:44 PM

[[[ PDQ:
"In big round numbers, about 40% of NPR and PBS funding is taxpayer money: half Federal and half state and local"]]]

And well over half of NPR and PBS programming is totally non-political and non-partisan, too.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Janie
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 09:50 PM

My employer has a written dress code with which I do not agree. I think it is silly. The dress code specifies that one can not wear articles of clothing made from denim fabric. Not just blue jeans, and not just blue denim. No denim, period. No nicely tailored denim skirts or blazers, no denim jumpers, no denim. Period. I don't like it, but I agreed to it as a condition of my employment. If I showed up in denim once, I would be sent home to change clothes. If I showed up in denim twice, I would be sent home, and would also be "written up." If I showed up in denim a 3rd time, I would be fired. End of story.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Genie
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 09:56 PM

mg, I agree with a lot of what you say, but I don't think it bears directly on the legitimacy of NPR's firing Juan Williams -- who, as they say, had previously been admonished about saying things on other outlets (e.g., Fox) that didn't comport with his role as an NPR analysist.

""People who would have benefited from an open dialogue about other ethnic groups and our rational and irrational fears about them do not win. The truth will remain unspoken, and I don't think saying someone is afraid of someone else is hate speech, inflammatory or anything else. I think it is necessary for security reasons to be able to say who we are afraid of. We will be surprised who is afraid of whom - and we might not ever find out who is bothering whom and who is being just a bit paranoid and could be calmed down with statistics about how safe this particular group really is. Or if the particular group is really engaging in thuglike behavior, then that behavior needs to be corrected. In this case, the person, Williams, needs to be reassured that he is going to be OK. Probably. Usually. No guarantees in this life."

Yes, this is a worth and important discussion to have. I think Obama helped move that dialogue along by his speech on race relations a few months ago.    But I don't think that was happening in Juan Williams's conversation with Bill O'Reilly.   And sometimes to give very public vent to an irrational emotional reaction, belief or stereotype is to dignify or legitimize it -- as though to say, "Hey, if you get scared every time you see a woman wearing an abiyah on a plane, you're not paranoid. Maybe they really are out to get you."


"THere are situations I am afraid of. I want to be able to say so without fear of losing my job, my library card, my bus pass or whatever, and I want other people to have whatever rights I want for myself."

I fully agree, Mary. But you and I are not paid news analysists or employees of NPR.

"Hiding emotions like fear under the rug is not going to help racial relations, international relations, etc." Totally agree.   But let's address these issues in a forum where the open dialogue and analysis will follow. Tossing such statements of fear out casually in a discussion on another topic, especially in a venue such as Fox, which is hardly known for its objectivity, is another matter.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Janie
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 10:04 PM

mg is mistaken in her understanding of this as a 1st amendment issue.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: pdq
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 10:12 PM

Janie,

I don't think that Juan William's contract said anything specific about discussing Muslims.

Genie,

As far as I know, Corporation for Public Broadcasting has only one function: control a string of television stations (PBS) and a string of radio stations (NPR).

If CPB costs $422 million in Federal dollars this year, that is at least what NPR and PBS are costing the US taxpayers in the year of 2010.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 10:25 PM

I don't see this as a first amendment issue and I think it was probably OK for NPR to fire Juan Williams. I am surprised that people think it is a balanced news source. It could be. I can't listen to it because something about the sound the announcers make hurts my ears. Literally. To be trapped in a car with someone listening to NPR nonstop for several hours is very very difficult for me. And has nothing to do with what they are saying..just the sound of their voices. I don't know if they select for that, or they record stuff in wierd ways but I don't have the same problem with other people on the radio.

Anyway, I think there are all sorts of issues here, and first among them is the presumed right we have to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. I think there are also racial subissues going on here, such as Mr. Williams deviated from a script he, as a minority person, was supposed to adhere to. This is very very damaging for people in minority groups and bad enough when they have all sorts of peer pressure, but when people outside their group presume to tell them what to think, that is just icky.   NPR does not have to keep him on if they don't like him. I have always liked him. I don't think what he said was bad. I think it was honest. I think it is basically the sort of thing that people can understand if they are the scary group. He did not call for any harm done to them, etc. It is a security issue. I have security issues waiting at dark bus stops in case someone who looks like Timothy McVeigh comes by and blows me up with a fertilizer truck. I should be able to say so. There I just did. mg

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: artbrooks
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 10:35 PM

NPR (the national network), local public radio stations (sometimes called "NPR affiliates"), and the Public Broadcasting System are three entirely separate entities. Mr. Williams once worked for the first of them and some independent stations bought programming from NPR on which he appeared. CPB has no control at all over the two entities to which it provides funding - the independent stations and PBS - other than, I suppose, denying future funding if they were to do something really egregious. NPR (the network) does get some funding indirectly from CPB...some 10% of local funding comes from CPB grants, and about 40% of NPR funding comes from fees paid by those local stations. The CPB budget for 2010 is here.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 11:12 PM

Well I love Fiona Ritchie ..hope she stays. And I must remind people to please not use my entire name. I do not like to be googled and it is a security issue. mg

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 11:26 PM

OK Michelle Glavine mum is the word!!

When Fiona was on with Bill O'Reilly she talked about people in a Pub in Scottish garb making her nervous, but that were perfectly understandable. They were carrying bagpipes.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 11:42 PM

Juan Williams' real crime: Hack punditry

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 12:10 AM

They could have had claymores tucked under the bagpipes. mg

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Sawzaw
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 12:36 AM

"I imagine the opportunity to bring intelligence to a low-brow audience is awfully tempting"

The words of an elitist that considers their self superior to others because they disagree.

You are sooooooooooooooo much better than those lowbrows that watch Fox News aren't you?

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 02:05 AM

As far as I know, Corporation for Public Broadcasting has only one function: control a string of television stations (PBS) and a string of radio stations (NPR).

If that's as far as you know, pdq, that's not very far.

~ Becky in Tucson

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Genie
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 08:52 AM

mg,

NPR is probably as close to fair and balanced as you can get in any major news source, but that applies only to their actual "news" shows. I don't think they even claim to be unbiased in the perspective of the hosts of shows like American Routes; Thistle & Shamrock; Wait, Wait - Don't Tell Me; Car Talk, What'ya Know? ; Prairie Home Companion; This American Life, etc.    I can't think of any network, on TV or Radio, that tries as hard to be objective and balanced, while also dealing for the most part with important issues (as opposed to just "info-tainment."

I don't think Juan Williams or any other minority I think there are also racial subissues going on here, such as Mr. Williams deviated from a script he, as a minority person, was supposed to adhere to. This is very very damaging for people in minority groups and bad enough when they have all sorts of peer pressure, but when people outside their group presume to tell them what to think, that is just icky.   NPR does not have to keep him on if they don't like him. I have always liked him. I don't think what he said was bad. I think it was honest. I think it is basically the sort of thing that people can understand if they are the scary group. He did not call for any harm done to them, etc. It is a security issue. I have security issues waiting at dark bus stops in case someone who looks like Timothy McVeigh comes by and blows me up with a fertilizer truck. I should be able to say so. There I just did. mg

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Genie
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 09:15 AM

Ooops! Accidental premature submission.   This is what I was trying to type when I hit the wrong button:

I don't think Juan Williams or anyone else on NPR is expected to stick to a "script" based on their race, ethnicity, gender, or religion, but various token "liberals" on Fox News have acknowledged that their contracts there did restrict how often they could speak, whom they could address, and what they were allowed to say. (E.g., when Alan Colmes was a "co-host" with Sean Hannity, he was not permitted to bring up questions or issues of his own by posing them directly to a guest on the show; he could only comment on something the guest or Sean Hannity had broached as a subject, and he was limited in how much input he could have in the conversation. You will rarely, if ever, hear a truly liberal or progressive argument put forth on Fox.

As for the content of what Williams said, I think Jack The Sailor said it best:
"NPR should have simply fired him for a demonstrated lack of analytical skill."

Your example of feeling uneasy about someone who looks like Tim McVeigh coming by with a fertilizer truck makes more sense than what Williams said.   Tim McVeigh's appearance did involve a sort of insignia (the "skinhead" look) and he was driving a certain kind of truck.   You didn't say you feel uneasy every time you see someone with a buzz cut or someone driving a delivery truck.
If Williams had said, "I get a little nervous when I see 4 young middle-eastern men board a plane together and they are speaking furtively to each other in Arabic" - or something like that. That scenario would naturally evoke memories of what happened on 9-11-2001.   
But to say that every one in "Muslim garb" in an airport - regardless of age, gender, nationality, demeanor, etc. - makes you feel a little nervous, well, that is to admit to, and thus in a way legitimize a really, really irrational kind of extrapolation and prejudice.   I would not expect any "news analyst" worth his or her salt to give public voice to such irrrational prejudice. Just as I wouldn't expect any decent journalist or news analyst to go on a TV show and say, "You know, I can understand why security guards in stores watch black customers more carefully than they do white people."

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: pdq
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 09:19 AM

" NPR does not have to keep him on if they don't like him." ~ Genie

The problem is, he has a contract and NPR fired him without cause. Same is true with Don Imus who was fired from a privately-owned broadcast company for doing the same thing he had been doing for decades.

Becky,

If CPB does more than fund and operate a string of TV and radio stations, please enlighten folks with some specifics.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 09:38 AM

pdq, The CPB partly funds it does not operate.

Williams was fired with cause, after repeated warnings.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: pdq
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 09:58 AM

The questions I asked are:

         If CPB does more than fund (and operate) a string of TV and radio stations, tell us what else they do? Please be specific.

         If NPR get "almost no federal money" than why would they be damaged by ending all federal money?

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 10:17 AM

Sigh

The CPB PARTLY funds public stations. THEY DO NOT OPERATE THEM.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 10:21 AM

The Feds pay for some of the more expensive TV and radio educational programs.

We are probably better off with them.

Maybe you think Sesame Street should move to Fox News and Star Christine O'Donnell.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 12:22 PM

As I linked above, and to expand on what Jack the Sailor said,

CPB Programs & Projects:

"The Corporation for Public Broadcasting does not produce or broadcast programs. CPB awards grants to create programs that air on public broadcasting stations.

"In addition, CPB helps support the operations of more than 1000 locally owned and operated public television and radio stations nationwide, and is the largest single source of funding for research, technology, and program development for public radio, television, and related on-line services."

This page includes links to lists of funded programs and projects, which range from start-up support for series programs and support for documentaries, to support for related website developement, to support for equipment transitions to digital broadcast, etc..

also,

Who Creates the Programs?

"The programs that you hear and see on your favorite public broadcasting stations come from a variety of sources. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting does not produce or broadcast programs. CPB awards grants to create programs that air on public broadcasting stations."

Who Operates the Stations?

What is the Difference Between CPB, PBS, and NPR?

On the Grants page you can find some more details on how it all works.

It does require a little reading -- easier for you to do than for me to retype in order for you to read!

~ Becky in Tucson

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: artbrooks
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 12:29 PM

Mr. Williams violated the terms of his contract and, under those terms, his employment was terminated. It was done, IMHO as a retired HR manager, in an abrupt and unprofessional manner, but there is no indication that it was illegal and, as far as I know, Mr. Williams is not claiming that it was.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 01:50 PM

Am I the only one who currently listens to NPR News programs?

Williams was only an occasional contributor.

How much of a process does a part time contract worker who has broken his contract and warned several times about it warrant?

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 01:50 PM

artbrooks- "Mr. Williams violated the terms of his contract...."
Can you post the terms of his contract? He was stated to be a contractor.

Ms Schiller, NPR CEO- He" violated the news code of ethics"- What is that code? It has not been stated in any of the above, or on NPR.

Was he fired not because of violations but because they didn't like him, or because of his associated employer? In my opinion, yes.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: pdq
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 01:58 PM

Another point: what he said about Muslims was said on another network. It was not even said on an NPR station. He should be free from restrictions when not actually "on air" with his employer, NPR.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 02:39 PM

The ethical standards for journalists cover behavior outside of the workplace proper:

Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics

Item 3, of 4: Act Independently

Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public's right to know.

Journalists should:

    —Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.
    — Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.
    — Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and shun secondary employment, political involvement, public office and service in community organizations if they compromise journalistic integrity.

~ Becky in Tucson

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 03:44 PM

That code is a far cry from the days when major journalists took part in fictional programs, "You Are There" The whole CBS news department, "Mash" Clete Roberts come quickly to mind. Too, game shows, "Whats My Line?" John Daly. Also commercials, Timex John Cameron Swayze. Plenty of examples, especially in Radio/TV. The funny thing is that we never thought the less of them, back then, or their of their reportage. How times have changed!

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: artbrooks
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 03:57 PM

The terms of his contract and the specific items of the NPR "code of ethics" that were deemed violated are contained in several of the links previously posted in this thread. If you can't be bothered to go back and read, I'm not going to bother going back and cut-and-paste for you.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 04:32 PM

According to the exec at NPR his contract said that he wasn't allowed to say things in other media that he could not say on NPR. You may not like that or think that it is fair. But it is the contract that he signed.

Of course we cannot post the terms of his contract, but if he had a case he would surely sure and Fox "News" would pay his legal fees, if only for the publicity.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 04:37 PM

John, are you meaning to infer that in the old days, when TV journalists were respected, they were despite all this extracurricular activity, so what's all the fuss?

Well,

How would being on "What's My Line" (where a panel of celebrities tries to guess a guest's profession by asking a series of questions) "compromise journalistic integrity or damage credibility"?

Or participating in "You Are There", in which historical events are recreated as if they occurred in the time of modern reporting, as an educational program?

I agree that participating in advertising is shaky, but Swayze's journalistic career actually ended pretty early on in that gig. And the relationship of advertising to TV content has changed drastically since the '50s.

The key part of the code is the consideration of whether outside activities "compromise journalistic integrity or damage credibility".

Lively and opinionated discussion about topics in the news makes entertaining TV, and well-informed opinion is certainly valuable, but it is incompatible with the type of news analysis that entails delving deeper behind a the headlines, pulling together a diversity of information sources, and composing an in-depth analysis that is meant to be objective. (And, given that, such analyses should be explicitly labeled as such and always given a byline, because, as compared with straight news reporting, they are more susceptible to the writer's bias.)

NPR had contracted Juan Williams as a news analyst. His activities (more than this once) on Fox compromised his credibility on NPR. I hope that he continues to provide well-informed opinion on Fox. (They need a bit more from his perspective.) It's too bad that the diversity of NPR's team is reduced as a result.

NPR does have a position that it calls "commentator", Andre Codrescu, and Frank deFord, are examples.

~ Becky in Tucson

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 04:39 PM

I think Katty Kay said it best today on The Chris Matthews Show.

She said basically she would not comment on Williams in particular but it is the media started punishing people for saying things about Muslims which would not be allowed against any other group.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 05:06 PM

artbrooks, please state those terms "previously posted in this thread."
None is quoted from his NPR contract or from an NPR 'code of ethics'.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 06:13 PM

NPR Ethics Code
Published October 24, as a result of the incident.
Ethics Code

Headed "last updated October 15, 2009."

The code allows little or no freedom of public expression on the part of its employees.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 06:20 PM

"abrupt and unprofessional" firing.   Bingo.

More than that, it was perfectly stupid--carried out in such a way as to guarantee maximum negative publicity, and to play into the hands of those who already assert that NPR insists on liberal orthodoxy--whether or not this assertion has any validity.    Just how much of a death wish does NPR have?    And why should anybody sensible want to help Sarah Palin?

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 07:07 PM

Jeez. I hadn't gotten to NPR's Ethics Code yet (though it was linked to the statement from Alicia Shepard, the NPR Ombudsman, that I linked earlier). Pretty unambiguous.

See item II: Who is Covered, and section V, item 10: Outside work, freelancing, and speaking engagements:

"In appearing on TV or other media including electronic Web-based forums, NPR journalists should not express views they would not air in their role as an NPR journalist. They should not participate in shows electronic forums, or blogs that encourage punditry and speculation rather than fact-based analysis."

I do agree (as does the Ombudsman) that it could have been handled better by management -- especially given that Fox "News" is involved and their obvious glee in firing everyone up on the topic as much as possible.

However, this was not actually a spur of the moment decision: read the Ombudsman's article for the history. She says, "since I became Ombudsman in October 2007, no other NPR employee has generated as much controversy as Williams." She also points out, "After other inflammatory comments on Fox, in April 2008 NPR changed Williams' role from news correspondent (a reporting job) to news analyst. In this contract position, he was expected to report, think quickly and give his own analysis – while carefully choosing his words on any given subject."

~ Becky in Tucson

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Janie
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 07:55 PM

Sorry, mg, if I misunderstood what you meant when you said But if we stifle this particular type of freedom of speech,.... in the post to which I was responding. I generally understand accusations that free speech is being stifled to be a first amendment issue.

Art Brooks, thank you for sharing your cogent and informative perspective on this thread.

pdq, I followed the news articles and commentary, the NPR management statements, and Juan Williams comments before forming an opinion. It seems pretty clear to me that Williams was not fired because of the opinions he held, but because he expressed personal opinions one too many times in violation of the NPR code of ethics. I am also aware that many other people on this thread have said the same thing, and it appears your mind is closed to taking in that realization.

I also agree that NPR management handled the firing poorly from a PR standpoint. One should never fire anyone over the telephone or via e-mail. I bet NPR management is also talking about how poorly they handled this personnel matter. I have been impressed with the impartial reporting on NPR news programs regarding what Mr. Williams said on Fox, and the NPR management response.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 08:03 PM

"John, are you meaning to infer that in the old days, when TV journalists were respected, they were despite all this extracurricular activity, so what's all the fuss?"

Pretty much, yeah. My bottom line is that we need to let these folks be complete human beings. Commentary and analysis, ARE a personal take based on the facts as interpreted. I would like to know where the commentator/analyst is coming from, and what motivates his/her statements...then I, the news consumer, will decide what weight to give to it.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Jeri
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 08:20 PM

They can be "complete human beings", but all that completeness shouldn't be on view for the TV viewing world to watch. I can't remember ever hearing who Walter Cronkite voted for or what Huntley or Brinkley thought of anything political. I don't want to hear facts presented by somebody with some other apparent agenda. Be a pundit, be a talking head cheerleader, or report the damned news. Don't try to do both and think you'll get the same respect, because while people from many different political philosophies can respect unadorned facts, they don't respect spin so much. I don't, anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 08:31 PM

He can be a complete human being on Fox, where he belongs, as long as he doesn't express a negative opinion about any of their sacred cows.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 08:40 PM

Jeri, read my post again. I was not speaking of reporters. From them I want just the facts ma'am, to coin a phrase, and all the pertinent facts. From analysts and commentators--which to me are interchangeable terms--I want to know as much as possible about them so I can make an informed judgement about their pontifications.

Scenario: Commentator A says X
          Analyst B, Not X
          C/A C differs, neither X nor Not X, but Y

I would like to know the facts they're working from, and what in their backgrounds and experiences leads them each to a different conclusion. I would think most folks would like that information. But perhaps not.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 09:07 PM

>>>From: John on the Sunset Coast - PM
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 08:40 PM

Jeri, read my post again. I was not speaking of reporters. From them I want just the facts ma'am, to coin a phrase, and all the pertinent facts. From analysts and commentators--which to me are interchangeable terms--I want to know as much as possible about them so I can make an informed judgement about their pontifications.<<<<

I think it is wonderful that you have your own ideas about analysts and commentators, but NPR has another idea. They hold analysts to the same standards as reporters and make them sign a contract acknowledging that. Then they give them a code of ethics outlining what is acceptable to them. Then apparently they warn them a few times before they let them go.

I think Williams has been treated more than fairly then shown his true colors and proved his Foxworthiness by crying about race after being let go.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 09:33 PM

Well, JtS, I guess we just disagree on how complete we want our information. I suppose you think commentary and analysis do not involve personal perspective. Tell that to Bill O'Reilly. Tell that to Keith Olbermann. Tell that (via seance) to the late Daniel Schorr, who by the way spent many years at NPR, and often opined elsewhere during that tenure.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Genie
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 09:56 PM

PDQ, not knowing the specifics of Williams's contract with NPR, how do we know he was terminated 'without cause'?

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Genie
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 10:10 PM

It seems the most relevant terms of Williams's NPR contract have been made public, and I'd say it's pretty clear he violated certain of those terms in this case. What I don't know is how many other times he made comparable statements of personal opinion, in other venues, which he would not have been allowed to make in his position at NPR.

I do agree with Ron and others, though, that NPR handled Williams's firing in a clumsy and self-sabotaging way.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 11:20 PM

Tell that (via seance) to the late Daniel Schorr, who by the way spent many years at NPR, and often opined elsewhere during that tenure.

I have heard Schorr dozens of times, maybe hundreds, I rarely agreed with his analysis. But I will tell you this. Williams and Schorr stared the same title, Senior News Analyst. Juan Williams was no Daniel Schorr.

Since you are answering my point about what NPR considered to be the roll of a News Analyst, I wonder why you bring up O'Reilly and Olbermann. They do not work for NPR. They are not news reporters. They are not news analysts. They are not experts on anything to do with the News. While both often comment, neither are simply commentators. Both are interviewers and entertainers more than anything else. The main difference between the two is that Olbermann values the truth and will admit when something he has said is found to be inaccurate. It is silly to think that because Juan Williams once hosted his show that Bill O'Reilly's status has been switched from provocateur loony to news analyst.

My God! Do you think that Hannity is a News Analyst? Or Limbaugh? Or Beck?

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 11:43 PM

"Williams and Schorr stared [sic] the same title, Senior News Analyst. Juan Williams was no Daniel Schorr."

Stay on point, Jack, we're not debating whether Williams or Schorr was the better at his job. I'll even grant that DS was more astute, but that has no bearing on whether or not Williams should have lost his job for his outside comments.

Yes, Yes, Yes, and those at MSNBC are commentator/analysts as well as interviewers. You may not care for one side, nor I the other, but at least let's have a modicum of honesty about it.

If NPR wants to circumscribe the duties and activities, within and without NPR broadcasts, of their employees and contractors, so be it. It makes, to my mind, pretty sterile radio.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 12:20 AM

The point is that Daniel Schorr would not and did not stoop to the level that Juan Williams has occupied for the past few years, and if you don't know that I wonder where you got your hands on Daniel Schorr's name.

Implying that Daniel Schorr ever did anything anywhere on Earth like Juan Williams did at Fox is a smear on a dead man's reputation as a journalist. And that man's reputation as a journalist was one of his proudest accomplishments. I know this because I have heard him say so. Not to mention having heard it from his peers at NPR in several on air eulogies.

Good news coverage needs to be sterile. It needs to be uncontaminated by personal bias. NPR is not completely "sterile" in that way but at least they try.

If you want unsterile, contaminated radio, you can turn on Limbaugh and have him talk about himself for half the time and spend the other half trying to twist little snippets of news into an insane anarchist narrative. Or you can listen to Beck try to scare you into buying gold and dried apocalypse ready food from his paid sponsors.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 12:39 AM

Good night, Jack. Watch out for your blood pressure.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 12:45 AM

My blood pressure is fine.

As long as I don't listen to that un-sterile radio.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Genie
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 12:54 AM

John (Sunset Coast), you say "If NPR wants to circumscribe the duties and activities, within and without NPR broadcasts, of their employees and contractors, so be it. It makes, to my mind, pretty sterile radio."

If you want to call news reporting and analysis "sterile" because it doesn't seek to be glitzy, propagandistic, provocative, or "info-tainment," fine.    I think we need less provocation, punditry, and titillation in our "news" and more straightforward, uncensored attempts to just report important political news and make it understandable to the public.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 10:10 AM

Possibly Sunset considers NPR news "sterile" because it consists of factual information rather than hysterical, overwrought bullshit, and necessitates people actually thinking for themselves.

Independent, critical thought is anathema to a certain political constituency.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 12:27 PM

Greg F., Genie, Jack, anybody--

I clear declarative statements so you cannot possibly misinterpret:

I want "Reporters" to report facts. I want them to report "who, what, when, where, how".

I do not what reporters to give me the "why".

I want commentators and analysts to provide the "why".

I want commentators and analysts to tell me what they think are the consequences of events in the news.

I want to know the background of people providing the "why".

I want to know the background of people providing the consequences.
                  
I want to know more.

I do not want to know less.

I want to have this information if they report for a government sponsored station.

I want to have this information if they report for a right leaning station.

I want to have this information if they report for or a left leaning station.

I will accept their punditry based on as much information I can get.

Or I will reject their views based on that information.

I may accept their offerings even if I disagree with their privately held views.

Your priorities seem to be different. I think mine better.

                            ----------------------

"Independent, critical thought is anathema to a certain political constituency."

Been looking in the mirror, have you, my friend?

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 12:47 PM

Thank you for sharing your wants with us.

I am sure that what you want matters to NPR. Have you told them? Maybe if you do they will change their job descriptions. Until then, in regard to this issue, why do you think it matters what you want?

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 12:54 PM

I think that I don't disagree with John on the Sunset Coast, except in the definition of what a "news analyst" does.

~ Becky in Tucson

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 01:01 PM

Well yes, what he wants in not unreasonable. No one has said that it is. It is just irrelevant.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 01:14 PM

"Good news coverage needs to be sterile. It needs to be uncontaminated by personal bias. NPR is not completely "sterile" in that way but at least they try."

It would be possible to accept this, IF you admitted that NPR has consistantly failed to do so, by presenting a liberal bias on most, if not all topics.

Since YOU feel they do such a good job, you have accepted that bias as being suitable.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Genie
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 01:32 PM

John on the SC,
I don't disagree with you on what you want in news reporting, analysis, and commentary.

I would add, though, that I don't want much, if any, time spent by news reporters, analysts, or commentators on PREDICTING what's going to happen in politics.   For one thing, their predictions are less scientific than the weather reports. For another, they too often tend toward self-fulfilling prophecy (which I think is often the plan). But mostly, such speculation takes time away from reporting and insightful analysis of the news.

I don't see where in your specifications or mine there's a place for much "sharing" of the commentators' idiosyncratic and irrational gut fears, tastes, etc. Especially if such "sharing" is likely to provoke or reinforce prejudice against a race, religion, ethnicity, gender, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 01:39 PM

"...by presenting a liberal bias on most, if not all topics."

It's amazing how much 'sensible and factual' sounds like "liberal bias" when filtered certain ways. If you disagree with what they say, it is automatically "liberal bias", hmmmm?

One can be basically 'liberal' without necessarily being biased.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 01:45 PM

BiilD,

It's amazing how much 'sensible and factual' sounds like "conservative bias" when filtered certain ways. If you disagree with what they say, it is automatically "conservative bias", hmmmm?



"One can be basically 'liberal' without necessarily being biased."

One can, but that DOES NOT mean that NPR IS.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 01:54 PM

Its only "Liberal Bias" when you define everything which does not agree with your point of view as liberal.

I find all News coverage in US conventional media to have a pro business, pro Zionist bias.

Bruce,

I really don't give a darn what you say you are willing to accept. I know that you are only being rhetorical. I know that you do not want to debate. I know that you only want to bludgeon us with your Tea Party/Fox "News"/Republican/Fear mongering talk radio talking points.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 01:58 PM

NPR is about as close as you'll get. I suppose ALL news from all sources can be described as biased if you just assert that there were 'better ways to describe it' or 'different choices' about what should BE news.

I have heard stories about very 'conservative' issues on NPR that made little or no attempt to slant the presentation. (Today there was one on gun control and the 2nd amendment.) I almost NEVER hear stories on Fox that are not blatantly slanted! (So what? Here's 'so what'...they advertise as 'fair & balanced'. At least Keith & Rachael and Ed make absolutely clear that they are there to be the alternative to Fox, and that they make every attempt to get their facts right....as does NPR.)

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 01:58 PM

JtS,

You know very little, and most of it false.

I don't care if you agree with me or not: I do care if you state that something is true when it is not.

Feel free to post your opinion ( which you would deny Williams), but do NOT tell other what they think, want to do, or believe.

I define "Liberal" as to the left of the middle. I define conservative as to the right of the middle.

YOU are NOT the middle.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: artbrooks
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 02:01 PM

It is unfortunately true that, as the "main-stream media" and the more vocal "news" commentators move more and more to the right (and far right), those information outlets that are even-handed (AKA centrist) are increasingly seen, particularly by those with a "conservative" bent, as being liberal. It is also true that those looking at things from that skewed perspective find it more and more difficult to distinguish between liberals and progressives.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 02:07 PM

Bruce I am not interested in your fictional Tea Party/Fox "News"/Republican/Fear mongering talk radio definitions. I am tired of your constant river of bullshit.

"Liberal" is in the dictionary for those who actually want to know what it means.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 02:13 PM

" I am tired of your constant river of bullshit."


Deal with it.



You being tired has no impact on me.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 02:20 PM

No Art, It is not that way at all. For Bruce's allies, it is all or nothing, you are with them or you are not. They will tolerate no compromise. For God's sake to them Charlie Christ, Murkowski and George W Bush are liberals.

It is not a political movement. It is a special kind of mass hysteria and mental illness.

Keep in mind that they are promising to create jobs by cutting spending and to eliminate the deficit without touching the Military, Medicare and social security.

It is a constant river of Bullshit. People like Bruce are too smart to believe any of their crap. But they think that if they repeat it enough, they won't have to pay their share of taxes and the rest of the country be damned.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 02:21 PM

Thanks, I will, I'm dealing with it by pointing it out to others.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 02:27 PM

Which dictionary definition of 'liberal' do you want? There are many.
To some who post here, it means 'the world owes me a living'.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 02:34 PM

JtS,

For Jack and his allies, it is all or nothing, you are with them or you are bullshit. They will tolerate no compromise. For God's sake to them Obama is a conservative.

It is not a political movement. It is a special kind of mass hysteria and mental illness.

But they will claim to tell you what others think, withou admitting they have never listened to find out the reasons that anyone might disagree with them.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 02:38 PM

Q,

Show me that dictionary.

Bruce

River of bullshit flowing by my door,
You've used childish repetition MANY time before.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 03:13 PM

In Webster's Collegiate- [comments added]
1.of or related to the liberal arts.
2. Marked by generosity, openhanded, liberal giver. [politically, a spendthrift]
3. Lacking moral restraint, licentious [I could comment, but it would only stir the nest]
4. Not literal, :LOOSE [Yes indeedy]
5. broadminded, not bound by orthodoxy, tradition, etc. [think outside the box in current slang]
6. Of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism- [and various political stances implicit in the term]
Syn. Liberal, generous, munificent, etc. [words beloved by those who think the world owes them a living]

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 03:18 PM

[Comments added by river of bullshit contributor Q]

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: artbrooks
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 03:27 PM

I believe that you left out:

Tolerant of views differing from one's own
Favoring reform or progress, as in religion, education, etc., specif. favoring political reforms tending toward democracy and personal freedom for the individual

Syn. liberal implies tolerance of others' views as well as open-mindedness to to ideas that challenge tradition, established institutions, etc.

Webster's New World College Dictionary, 3rd Edition, 1996

Please feel absolutely free to rant on.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 03:40 PM

Liberal- "Tolerant of views differing from one's own"

So many here I accuse of being liberal are most certainly not.

Shall I call them "progressives", even though the paths they advocate are NOT progress???

What term SHOULD we use for people who are neither tolerant of other's views, nor interested in a path of progress?

Stalinists seems to specific and limited, and National Socialist has already been used...

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 03:58 PM

It doesn't mean you have to be tolerant of constant cynical lying. Bruce you do not share your views. You shovel propaganda into the river.


You know what kind of river it is!!

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 04:02 PM

Wrong again.

You are batting 0.000 so far.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 04:10 PM

Not from the dictionary, but applicable.
Be openminded- let your brains drop out.
But I'll be tactful- and tell a liberal he has an open mind when he has a hole in his head.
Liberals believe water can run uphill. Conservatives will send a bill for the pump.
A liberal will give away everything he doesn't own.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 04:11 PM

and 200!

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 04:55 PM

I just did a google video search on Mara Liasson and Fox and found some of the things she has been saying. While here statements have not been on a level with Williams, I feel that Fox is exploiting her relationship with NPR to further its River of Bullshit agenda and that she should be asked by NPR to choose between the two outlets.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Genie
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 05:11 PM

Yeah, Fox likes to claim Liasson as one of their "liberal" perspective voices (like Greta Van Susteren), but she hardly qualifies as one who puts forth very liberal or progressive arguments or brings up facts that counter the right wing Fox commentators' propaganda.

Then, of course, her being on NPR is something Fox turns around and uses as evidence of a "liberal bias" at NPR.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 05:16 PM

From what I have seen she is a bit more of a pundit than an analyst at Fox, and apparently she is giving them enough red meat for them to keep inviting her back. Not a good thing.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 08:22 PM

"...she is a bit more of a pundit than an analyst at Fox..."

American Heritage College Dictionary, Third edition:
"pundit, n, 1. A source of opinion; a critic. 2. A learned person."

MSN Encarta:
"1. somebody who expresses opinion: a critic or authority on a subject, especially in the media. 2. somebody wise: somebody with knowledge and wisdom."

merriam-webster.com:
"2: a learned man: teacher 3: a person who gives opinions in an authoritative manner usually through the mass media: critic"

That seems like a pretty good thing to be called...even by Jack.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 11:50 PM

Yes John not such a bad thing. But, again, it is not compatible with the code of ethics at NPR. NPR expects her to maintain the appearance of objectivity. Giving opinions on Fox erodes that. Fox personalities pointing to her agreement with them to say "even an NPR liberal agrees with this point." capitalizes on NPR's image to make Fox's river of bullshit propaganda.

It might not be so bad if Fox saw it as a sign that NPR is broadminded enough to hire someone to do the news who has a pretty conservative slant. But that is not the way things are spun in "no spin" land.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Genie
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 07:41 AM

As I understand it now, a major reason, if not THE main reason, for Juan Williams being fired by NPR was that his contract specified that he was not to identify himself or be identified in his capacity as a Fox News commentator as "NPR news analyst" or the like, but Bill O'Reilly specifically referred to him as such during one of his shows.   The Bill O'Reilly show is taped and edited before airing, so Williams could have insisted that that comment by O'Reilly be deleted, but that did not happen.

I think NPR did not want Fox News channel or Bill O'Reilly's show, in particular, to seem to be legitimized in their "fair and balanced" claim by holding the inclusion of "an NPR news analyst" up as evidence thereof.   And that makes sense to me, in that Fox does not allow their token "liberals" free rein in asking probing questions or expressing ideas that challenge the Fox perspective.   In any event, if the contract prohibited Williams' being thus identified on Fox, that part of the contract was violated.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 08:07 AM

Williams identified himself as an NPR person to O'Reilly seconds before the "I am not a Bigot but.." statement in question.

O'Reilly asked him if he work for NPR, Williams said "yes".

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 12:08 PM

Genie, neither you nor I know the contract, but I, as a pretty regular viewer of the Sunday Fox show, can tell you that Williams and all the pundit/analysts are identified by their primary affilation, be it NPR, a newspaper, a think tank, etc. Ergo, if such a prohibition was in his contract, both he and NPR had ignored it for years.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Genie
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 10:28 PM

I may be wrong, John, but I believe the report I heard on radio said that the provision that Williams not be identified as affiliated with NPR while doing Fox shows was a new one - part of a recently revised contract.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 01:04 PM

I heard it as part of a warning he got for violating the ethics.

Kind of like, if you must continue to go on their shows, make it clear that you are not representing us.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 06:53 PM

Meanwhile methinks Juan will milk this for at least 7 years.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 07:58 PM

OK..as someone somewhere suggested, what if Juan, as a multi-racial man, but primarily seen as an African-American, saw a bunch of white-robed men ..oh silly Juan. Doesn't he know they could be a ski patrol trying on new camoflauge ponchos. They could be a bunch of men dressed up as angels for a Christmas pageant. They could be some sort of bedbug exterminators. They could be anything. He should be able to verbalize his feelings..the men could explain they were out Christmas carolling, if that is still allowed that is..and the problem is solved. Muslim girls on the busses of Seattle should be able to say they are hassled (I have seen them but I have not seen them harrassed but I imagine some are) and how they feel. Of course, I would hope the bus driver would stop any problems (good luck) or the police would be called. But shutting down one of the primary ways to diffuse racial fears, and that is what 90% of prejudice is..is not going to be good in the long run.   It is pretty much how we have been living for some time and it is not good. A lot of problems could have lessened had we been able to express our fears, and I have bus stop fears...and they are not of women in burkas. mg

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 08:49 PM

Yes. Everyone should be able to go on O'Reilly's show and express their fears.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 08:57 PM

Some good commentary from James Fallows of the Atlantic on the value of NPR, here. The links within the article on Williams' history and on the nature of fear and bigotry are instructive.

~ Becky in Long Beach

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 10:16 PM

I read that on Becky. It is quite good.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: DougR
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 01:21 AM

Firing Juan Williams was a miscarriage of justice, and I predict that NPR will pay a price for it.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Janie
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 02:15 AM

Becky, thank you for all the informative links, as well as your comments on this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Genie
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 03:22 AM

mg, I don't get the analogy of "men in white robes" to "people in Muslim garb.   The white robes that I'm guessing you're referring to are the kind the KKK wore (not the kind the Pope wears), and that organization specifically stood (stands?) for racial segregation and sometimes violence against blacks. "Muslim garb" -- which is nowhere near as specific as "white robes" -- bears little resemblance to the attire of the guys who carried out the 9-11-01 attacks and represents a diverse array of people, the vast majority of whom do not espouse violence or the oppression of anyone else.

I still say that the problem with Williams's "admission" is not that he was sharing a feeling so we could all hope to overcome such, but that the gut feeling he expressed is so totally illogical and not even attributable to classical conditioning; it seems to represent an ethnic stereotyping spawned mainly by over-reaching political factions in the US.

Anyway, as we've discussed, it doesn't seem like he was fired solely, or even mainly, for that comment.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 04:06 AM

Gut feelings are often..not always..illogical...and they certainly don't have to be formed by over-reaching political factions. They are the way are brains are designed..with neural tissue also in the gut itself. We are talking complex neurobiology here. It is not done with our rational brains. What we need to do with our rational brains is bring it out into the light of day, talk about it, see where we are being foolish or stereotyping wrongly, see where there might need to be better protection for the vulnerable in society..especially at bus stops and on public transportation and places where people by definition are close to panic..such as flying for many people. We all need to be able to hear that people are afraid of us, and sometimes amend our behavior, and we need to be able to say that we are afraid of others. It doesn't mean that we get to keep them from riding the bus..it might mean that we need to ask for better lighting at the bus stop, or video surveillance etc..there are really dangers out there..and I see this as a universal problem..cutting across all sorts of ethnic, religious, cultural groups. It ties into the bullying behavior we have talked about. We can not have a civil society where people do not feel safe, where they quiver in their apartments afraid to go out and buy groceries. Shutting down Juan shuts down all of us, and it is perfectly within probably contractual rights of NPR to fire him if they don't like his haircut even..so I wouldn't bother arguing about that...but this is a very big issue, and it needs to be addressed, not concerning any one group or another, but all people. mg

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Genie
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 04:17 AM

mg, I know that gut feelings aren't rational. That's why I mentioned "classical conditioning."
The point is, if someone has a conditioned fear of people who resemble someone who harmed them, that's understandable. So, yes, a white kid who was beat up by a black person might understandably have a "gut reaction" to blacks (and vice-versa).

What I'm saying is that I don't understand how one develops a fear of "Muslim garb" based on what happened on 9-11-01. The hijackers were not wearing "Muslim garb" of any sort. Not to mention that there are many varieties of "Muslim garb" - for men and women and from various countries.

What I'm saying is that if Williams has come to fear all Muslims, it's not because of what happened on 9-11-01 but, most likely, because of the anti-Muslim screeds he's been hearing spewed on Fox and on right-wing talk radio ever since.      And I wish he would realize that and own up to it.

There is no way that a fear of Muslim WOMEN from, say, INDONESIA should automatically arise from our having been attacked by 19 Muslim MEN wearing nonsectarian clothing on 9-11-01.

Genie

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Genie
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 04:21 AM

Oh, and, mg,
As has been pointed out in other recent posts, apparently Juan Williams was fired because he (and Fox) failed to comply with NPR's requirement that, when he was on Fox, he was not to be identified as "NPR news analyst Juan Williams."
It seems that was much more important that whatever he said on Fox about fears.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 05:30 AM

You do not know what made this fear happen and I sincerely doubt it is from your scenario. The brain makes very quick associations and to me this is a very primal, not intellectual thing for him. He mentioned only being afraid in a particular situation, flying. I would suspect that he is a nervous flyer to start with and has all sorts of loose fear looking for something to be attached to. He probably saw a lot of ugly footage from 9/11 and has connected the two. That is my most likely guess. We do not know. Since you are probably wrong in your analysis, no offense, he probably can't realize what you want him to realize. mg

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Greg F.
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 08:37 AM

Yup, phobias and other psychoses aren't rational. That doesn't mean that the person with the psychosis, phobia or delusion doesn't need treatment.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Genie
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 12:28 PM

No, I don't know all the workings of Juan Williams's brain and all the factors that contributed to his making such a fear connection. But since he has no doubt had many peaceful, even friendly, encounters with people wearing "Muslim garb" and since the 9-11 hijackers were not so attired, it's hard to imagine that working for Fox "News" and being surrounded by the anti-Muslim sentiments that are so often expressed by some of their talking heads wasn't a major factor. The 9-11 hijackers also had dark complexions and were male, but Williams' gut level fear is apparently aroused more by an old woman wearing a hijab than by a young dark-skinned man wearing jeans and a t-shirt.

You're right, mg, the brain does make very quick associations. And propaganda contributes a lot to such associations being made.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 05:16 PM

It's really quite simple..NPR fucked up!
And they are paying a price for it, too!!
Thank you, American people!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: pdq
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 05:27 PM

I asked the question along time back, but here it is again:

    If NPR gets less than 2% of its money from the Federal government, what possible damage would it do to cut them loose completely?

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 06:09 PM

pdq--go to:
http://www.npr.org/about/aboutnpr/publicradiofinances.html

The first thing you'll see is the pie chart of revenue. You will see that while the direct dole from the Feds is relatively small, NPR gets nearly 16% of its revenues from Federal, State, and Local taxes, and from CPB, which is a Federally created umbrella organization for NPR, PBS, etc.

I believe this information was noted by somebody earlier on in this thread; now you can see it for yourself. If you are adroit at annual financial statements, a bunch of those are available, too.

Good reading.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: pdq
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 07:56 PM

Well, John on the Sunset Coast, I was just responding to the following post that was said with such conviction that it must be right, eh?


Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: artbrooks - PM
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 08:07 PM

NPR gets NO money directly from the Federal government. They do get a very small amount (about 2%, overall) from such organizations as the National Endowment for the Arts which are primarily Federally-funded. Local radio stations get nothing from the Feds, and pay dearly for NPR programming.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: artbrooks
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 10:25 PM

John, I believe that the chart you are referring to covers member station finances, in the aggregate, not NPR itself. That one is down lower on the page to which you linked. For example, our two NPR affiliates in Albuquerque, KUNM and KANW, are both anchored by educational institutions, so a significant portion of their funding comes (in one way or another) from taxes. However, the amount they get from Federal grants is minuscule. Other stations, who produce shows that have national syndication, derive a lot of their funding (relative to local college stations) from CPB grants.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Donuel
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 10:57 PM

Today Joe Shmoe got fired.
He has a 2 year old daughter and a wife with breast cancer. Joe does not have a 3 million dollar back up plan with FOX. Joe is in deep trouble since his employer declared bankrupccy and took pension funds and embezzeled money for themselves while leaving planted evidence that Joe could have taken the money. Most of joe's work records can not be confirmed for unemplyment insurance.

Joe stopped whining about getting fired last week. He is too busy caring for his wife and child.

Juan is getting paid to complain to the point of pointless bordom even for the FOX news audience who at best took spiteful glee at demonizing npr who has on more than one occaision disagreed with false FOX news stories.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Genie
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 03:49 AM

pdq, to paraphrase an adage (that I can't recall where I first heard),
"Two percent here, two percent there -- pretty soon it adds up to 100%."

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Genie
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 03:54 AM

To put it another way, pdq,
the Tea Partiers and Republicans are screaming bloody murder about the possibility of marginal income taxes being raised from 35% to 39% on people with incomes over $250,000.    If having to pay an additional 4% on just the portion of your taxable income that's above $250,000 is such a huge penalty or "burden," then I'd think losing 2% of the total NPR budget would definitely be a significant blow.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 10:20 PM

I hasten to admit up front that this comes from a column by a conservative in a conservative newspaper (not WSJ), and, as usual in columns, he cites no source.   Particularly annoying that he doesn't cite the name of the ombudsman.

But if he is correct, the idea in this thread (that it's reasonable Williams was fired since he gave his own opinion) falls completely.

Column says:   "Yet last year, NPR's ombudsman wrote: "NPR's management put (Williams) on contract with the title 'news analyst' largely to give him more latitude about what he says. He's now paid to give his opinion, and with three decades in the news business, it is often a valuable take on today's politics."

Column also points out that Cokie Roberts called Glenn Beck a "terrorist". Whether or not you agree with Cokie, that sounds like an opinion to me.

NPR has left itself wide open to various charges on this one.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Oct 10 - 11:24 AM

Tea Partiers and Republicans are screaming bloody murder about the possibility of marginal income taxes being raised from 35% to 39%....

uh, the taxes are not "being raised"- only restored to the level they were before the disastrous BuShite Tax Cuts wch rather than helping the economy (remember VooDoo Economics?), put the economy into the crapper its now in.

U.S. Citizens pay the lowest taxes of of any country in the industrialized world; ca 14% of GDP, down from 21% during the Clinton administration and many times lower than in the decades of the 1950's and 1960's.

Its LONG past time they stopped whining.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 30 Oct 10 - 01:54 PM

Greg F. avers, "U.S. Citizens pay the lowest taxes of of any country in the industrialized world; ca 14% of GDP..."

Whether or not that is a real statistic, it is really not relevant to the populace. The real number is what folks actually pay as a proportion of their income. Between all federal taxes, all state taxes, all local taxes, all sales taxes, and special fees and assessments (really a form of tax), most Americans probably pay, conservatively, 40% of their income in taxes. That is, I think, no little amount. And those in 35% bracket pay more.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Oct 10 - 06:58 PM

"Probably" John? Have you got anything other than your suppositions, to back that up?

If you can refute the figures that I've given with actual fact, by all means do so.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 04:25 AM

Hey, I got a great idea..Why don't we give our entire paychecks to the government, and they can give it all away, and maybe even give you an allowance!....

Oh, you mean the far left already thought of that??

Shucks!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Genie
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 02:15 AM

Ron, if it's correct that what really got Williams fired was Bill O'Reilly's referring to him, on Fox News, as an NPR news analyst and Williams not objecting to that, then NPR isn't selectively enforcing its policies.   

There's also, of course, the issue of how outrageous or damaging an expressed opinion may be.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Genie
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 02:18 AM

Greg, it's true that the Dems aren't talking about raising taxes, but only allowing at least some of Bush's tax cuts to expire as the legislation specifies they will.
But the Republicans and Tea Partiers are CLAIMING that the result will be "a huge tax increase ... :.

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 12:47 PM

I can't imagine that someone could get fired for not admitting to an employer when it was public knowledge. Maybe he got the job title wrong. But Maura what's her name was introduced yesterday as some sort of NPR person and the walls did not cave in. If Juan was on a fire at will contract, then they get to fire him period but it stinks to high heaven. mg

Subject: RE: BS: NPR fires Juan Williams
From: Genie
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 01:45 AM

This pic from the March To Restore Sanity and/or Fear just about sums it up, I think.






(Wait for the page to load so you can see the photo.)