Juan Williams fired by NPR

I have not ventured in IMO for a while. You could say the sky is blue, but someone will try to argue it is not. So, I am just going to write this one entry.

I am a fan of Juan Williams. While I do not agree with everything he says, I think he is an intelligent and fair person. I will defend his right to say what he feels.

Diversity it the battle cry of the liberal NPR set. Unless, you offer a diverse opinion to theirs.

Juan is the winner here. He is now on Fox in an expanded form, NPR may loose funding from the government, his "boss" has proven herself to be mean spirited and insulting with her remark about his "psychiatrist" which we don't know if he has one or not. Oh and then there is the Soros factor.

IMO he is well rid of NPR, who IMO, were just looking for an excuse to fire him for his appearances on Fox. They are classless hypocrits. Is Moira Liasson next?

I think you're onto something here. But I don't think that's so bad. I despise fox, and I don't think any reputable journalist should be on there, and I think Fox are the classless hypocrites, not NPR JMHO

NPR's presentation; it sounds as if he were on his way out even before this incident:
NPR Ends Williams' Contract After Muslim Remarks
This is what the Christian Science Monitor has to say:
Juan Williams fired: pitfalls of the 'insta-opinion' age

NPR fires Juan Williams for Muslim comments. Was it fair?

As to public funding, CBS is reporting as follows:

Juan Williams and NPR: Does National Public Radio Take Taxpayer Dollars?

The difference between NPR and Fox is that NPR provides journalists who actually report the news, versus Fox who offers opinions on topics they use for their financial gain.

To say that NPR is liberal is simply Fox propoganda. Think about it. If they can get a movement going to eliminate their funding, isn't that an easy way to put their competition out of business? I'm all for capitalism, but not at the expense of eliminating one of the few organizations left in this country that does actual journalism.

Do facts really threaten the right wing "media" that much that they would resort to this level of propoganda?

It looks like something that ALL involved parties have been planning for awhile. In less than 2 days they've negotiated a million dollar contract and cleared a spot for him at Fox?

My guess is that spot for him has been in the making for some time. They just had to get him fired instead of hiring him away so that he would fit in with Fox's "persecuted" mindset.

If NPR actually has this desire, then they would wish that the people of this country would have a desire to hear real news over opinion sound bites.

So how does this matter?

Most of the liberals that I know are offended at the terrorist stereotype that is rampant in the media, particularly Fox news. For Juan to admit that he is afraid of a Muslim, he is bowing to the right wing media hype.

A lot of thoughts here. A bet you could find a lot of legal pundits who will claim that it is the right of any company to fire someone who doesn't support their viewpoints. As Tricia pointed out earlier, NPR doesn't get a lot of governmental funding, as most of it comes from public donations. I'm part of the "public" that donates to them. It gives me more faith in them that they don't want journalists who don't support their integrity.

Juan has already come out ahead with a big fat contract from Fox. What this tells me is that Fox is happy to oblige anyone willing to spout out an opinion that matches their agenda. And that's what it all boils down to. Fox reports opinions. The public is the loser here. Not NPR.

Just the last in a long line of issues/problems/etc etc etc. The ombudsmen said yesterday on TOTN that by far the most calls she had received were about Williams.


But as to the comment itself, it's not even that he's admitting that he's afraid of muslims, it's the prejudice in this part of the statement:

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.

It implies that there is something wrong with the choice to identify oneself first and foremost as a muslim. I happen to be one of those people, and have received plenty of dirty looks in my life to know that people think this, so it's not a shock that people think this. It's just sad that he would say this and not admit it is a bigoted feeling. What I wish he had said was I feel this way (leaving out the qualifier of people who identify themselves first and foremost as muslims), but that this knee jerk reaction is not the correct one to have.

Williams put himself in the situation of being interviewed by Bill O'Reilly, who, from the transcript, wouldn't let him make a clear point, and used William's affiliation with NPR as some bizare talking point. He put himself in the situation of violated NPR's code of ethics. He knew that code, and went against it. That's enough to get someone fired, is it not?

Actually the owner of FOX, Rupert Murdoch is a known conservative, same with the president of FOX Roger Ailes. The contributors who are liberal are specifically picked to be people who aren't very knowledgeable, and not even very famous, so that O'Reilly and Hannity can shut them up easily.
Not to mention conservative presidential hopefuls for 2012 are fox employees, like Mike Huckabee!
There's a good documentary on this called Outfoxed

Just a hint: If you want to know about Fox, watch Fox, not some anti-Fox website. And the same is true of NPR.

I was a contributor/subscriber to NPR for many years. When satellite radio came out, we held off from getting XM until Sirius came on line, because it had 2 NPR feeds.

But I quit contributing to NPR when they took their hard left turn. Their idea of "balance" on a talk show (Diane Rehm, for example) is two liberals and a moderate. That show, while it had interesting topics, became for eight years the "What stupid, illegal, or immoral thing has the Bush administration done this week?" show.

A good example was her Friday News Roundup show of 10/8/10. The guest host was Susan Page, of USA Today (a left-leaning newspaper). Her guests were Jackie Calmes of the New York Times (a left-leaning newspaper), Steve Roberts (Cokie Robert's husband and the head of several left-leaning organizations), and Dana Milbank (columnist for the Washington Post, a left leaning newspaper) and the author of "Tears of a Clown: Glenn Beck and the Tea Bagging of America."

I'm willing to bet she didn't even look around for balance from a conservative journalist who wrote a book with an equally distasteful title like, oh, say, "How the Obama Administration is Sodomizing America." (No, I don't think there is any such book.)

But Juan Williams has been on the outs with much of the liberal establishment since he wrote, "Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America--and What We Can Do About It." He was brave enough to do exactly what Bill Cosby did, which is to tell the cold hard truth.

Enough

However, Juan has been consistently a defender of the President and liberal causes wherever he appears. What NPR has done here is create an enemy that they didn't need, and possibly many more former contributors, like myself. Except for the Islamic group who seems to have triggered his firing (and the rumors that George Soros personally made or instructed a subordinate to make a call to NPR), Juan has nearly universal support among NPR listeners.

http://blogcritics.org/politics/arti...lliams-enough/

I was always impressed that NPR allowed Juan to appear on Fox, and even carefully made mention of it whenever he was introduced on air (a mention they tried to prohibit him from making on Fox). Apparently my high regard for them was, again, misplaced. I'm wondering how Mara Liasson is feeling today.

And as to the quick contract at Fox, I have no doubt that he was approached long ago and told to let them know if he ever wanted to make a change.

And to call Fox News' liberal employees and commentators "stupid" is just too...well...stupid.

I didn't "forget." I merely highlighted the part of the statement that was particularly offensive to me. What does bother me is that the statement seems to say that there is something wrong about identifying first and foremost as muslims. What should we identify as? Do we need to hide our religion? Change our names? Lighten our skins if we happen to be of the non white variety? Take off our hijabs and shave our beards? Then, when we're not identifying first and foremost as muslims, will Mr. William's fears be soothed?

It's like saying a black man is identifying first and foremost as an african american because he's black, and people are scared of that. The black man can't change that he's black. Mr. Williams is scared of something I can't change, so I now should feel ashamed because I scare people merely by being me.

If one has this gut level fear reaction, then they need to work to get over it. Until this last month, I lived in an area with a lot of gang activity. I could have been shrinking in fear from every young african american and hmong man, but I don't let my id overcome my ego.

And it is an asinine and irrational worry to be afraid at the sight of people who first and foremost identify themselves as muslims. Those (very few) who have committed terroristic acts have specifically not identified themselves first and foremost as muslims in the public sphere, and have taken special care not to be dressed in muslim garb.

Has anyone noticed, watching some of the security videos of attacks and such, that NONE of the terrorists that made strikes were wearing "traditional Muslim garb"?

Just an observation.

This is not the first time Juan Williams has been in trouble. Back in the nineties he was considered a rising star and being black and Spanish (from Panama) did not hurt him at all. He frequently appeared on The MacNeil Lehrer NewsHour on PBS, which is where I got to know him.

Then it was revealed that while working at The Washington Post he had been accused of verbal sexual harrassment for a few years. He also was a huge defender of Clarence Thomas, another man accused of sexual harrassment.

Juan Williams has never recovered his career since and surely this episode will not help.

Maybe I'm just not up on the politics of political punditry, but I just can't see the justification for firing someone who merely stated their opinion (whatever it is) on another network. Unless it was done at another time in the program, I don't see where he claimed to be representing NPR with his statements.

He appeared in court in traditional dress a couple of times, but when he was taken from the plane, he was wearing jeans and a white hoodie...Seahawks, I think.

I've read the entire transcript of the O'Reilly segment, so I know what he said and how he said it, thanks. Doesn't make what he said any less unwise

Having feelings that are visceral reactions doesn't make those feelings right, nor unbigoted. There are 6 million muslims in america. A few dozen have plotted to harm people. To think that I (or any other person who identifies first and foremost as muslim by their dress) are one of this 0.0002% and be worried is irrational.

To put it into context, 13,000 people are killed every year by drunk drivers. Let's say that there are roughly 7,000 drivers responsible for these deaths (some drivers killing more than one person in an accident). Say there are 200,000,000 drivers in the US. That's 0.0035% of all drivers. So it would make more sense, logically, to be afraid of each and every driver on the road, because who knows who's the drunk driver?

That is why his comment was stupid, and he should re-think his visceral gut reaction.

Als, if I wanted to commit a terrorist act (which is something I would never do in a million years), I would do everything in my power NOT to identify first and foremost as a muslim. Because I'd want to avoid the extra scrutiny that visible muslims are afforded at airports each and every day.

It's been interesting to see them present their case over the last 2 days, and the fact that they're willing to criticize themselves.

It's part of their code of ethics that what they say on other programs could also be said on NPR. If it doesn't fit with what could be broadcast on NPR, it's a violation of that code that they agreed to.

Did you notice that he said this while defending Muslims, and he said he was embarrassed by it?

He made a simple, honest statement about a gut feeling that is at the basis of intelligence and self-preservation. Most of us here are acquainted with feral cats. And probably not one out of 10 people would ever intentionally hurt a feral cat. Yet, what does the cat do when an unknown person approaches? It seeks a safe location, it doesn't let the person get between it and an escape, and it flees or attacks if it's approached too close. That is nature, and to deny it is to lie.

Jesse Jackson's statement about crossing the street if he was approached by a bunch of young black men falls in the same category.

Without trying to argue what it means to be Muslim, and what Muslims should do about the radicals and extremists in their midst, I WOULD argue that to say being uneasy when suddenly confronted by someone who clearly wants to make themselves stand out from the crowd is only natural.

And when Bill O'Reilly, Whoopi Goldberg, Joy Behar, and many others all agree on this point, I would say NPR has some pretty weak arguments to present for themselves.

In two months or so, we'll know some more about the fallout from this. But my guess is that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting will be lucky if all they lose is their public funding.

NPR says they only get 3% of their budget from the federal government. However, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting gets $422,000,000 this year.

Beware of Seahawks fans! (Right???)

The NPR ombudsman says it was poorly handled.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/ombudsman/2...-juan-williams