The Firing of Juan Williams From NPR
This is BS. NPR made a big mistake.
This explains it.
Williams' presence on the largely conservative and often contentious prime-time talk shows of Fox News has long been a sore point with NPR News executives.
They have been looking for an excuse to get rid of him.
"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."
He told the truth. An ugly truth that many people are too ashamed to admit.
NPR issued a statement praising Williams as a valuable contributor but saying it had given him notice that it is severing his contract. "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," the statement read.
Bold mine - Apparently honesty is inconsistent with NPR lately. Fuck them.
More opinions here. He told the truth. An ugly truth that many people are too ashamed to admit.
For real? I don't think that. Am I in the minority? Srsly?
He told the truth. An ugly truth that many [COLOR="Red"]xenophobic unthinking [/COLOR]people are too ashamed to admit, [COLOR="red"]and should be.[/COLOR]
Don't worry, I FTFH.
:lol:
Williams' presence on the largely conservative and often contentious prime-time talk shows of Fox News has long been a sore point with NPR News executives.
I see, so NPR doesn't want to fair and balanced either.
This is some new level of political correctness and I think
Richard Fernandez put it well when he calls it a new form of blasphemy: things that simply cannot be said.
This is the modern age of faith, and how. Under these circumstances occasions of offense are likely to multiply and not diminish. Belief, and therefore blasphemy, is back. Ironically it has returned just as the secular world was congratulating itself on creating a multicultural world in which religion had been banished to domestic altars. It was in fact creating its parody all along: a patchwork of monocultures, a series of echo-chambers, a checkerboard of ghettos each with its own public idol living in uneasy proximity with each other.
At this rate there must eventually come a time when we simply cannot understand each other, when people suddenly jump up at the mention of opening an egg on the big, or mayhap, on the little end, when the demand for reasons itself will have become the ultimate disrespect.
For real? I don't think that. Am I in the minority? Srsly?
Yes. And since you are a "
loser" your opinion doesn't count.
I don't think it either, but "many people" is a meaningless phrase. "Many people" starts with an "m" like "most people" but it doesn't mean "most people" at all. "Most" means "greater than 50%." It has a mathematical definition. "Many" is arbitrary and could mean anything. Anywhere from oh, 4 people, to 5 billion people.
I don't think it either, but "many people" is a meaningless phrase. "Many people" starts with an "m" like "most people" but it doesn't mean "most people" at all. "Most" means "greater than 50%." It has a mathematical definition. "Many" is arbitrary and could mean anything. Anywhere from oh, 4 people, to 5 billion people.
Anything could mean one thing or two things or many things or most things or all things. Anywhere could mean one where or two wheres or many wheres or most wheres or all wheres.
:p:
"many people" is a meaningless phrase.
I intentionally said many to leave it arbitrary. I would guess that it is a lot more than you want to believe.
It was the topic of discussion on This Week with Christiane Amanpour recently. Very heated opinions on both sides. I do think that feeling is more prevalent than is known.
I often wonder whether what I'm observing people do is pretend to feel a certain way because they are "supposed to" ... and furthermore: do they realize that they are doing this, or is it embedded deep enough to escape their own self-perception? This thought often occurs to me when the "obviously right" thing doesn't feel obvious to me. The worst part of this is that it feels like a horrific dystopian sci-fi novel--but it is real, and it is really happening. A chorus of all-agreeing voices hammer down every inconsistency. This doesn't feel like enlightenment, it feels like intellectual tyranny.
Do Catholics, Jews, or Amish in their customary attire make Juan nervous too ?
Probably not.
There's a bit of irony there...
People (used to) say that sort of thing about being on a bus with black men,
but of course Juan is not bigoted like those people.
In my opinion, these sort of events are part of the way society changes for the better.
When people see there are negative consequences of bigotry,
they tend to think twice about belittling the minority.
In my opinion, these sort of events are part of the way society changes for the better.
When people see there are negative consequences of bigotry,
they tend to think twice about belittling the minority.
One possible devil's advocate position could be that feelings like "worried" and "nervous" are involuntary reactions. The crime isn't having a reaction or feeling, it is admitting it out loud. This squashes honest conversation, which, it could be argued, can't possibly foster a meaningful dialogue. It just pushes the things we don't want to think about further under the surface, under the radar, where they can fester unchecked and unexamined.
There is a not small difference between choosing to follow a religion and being born with dark skin. I no longer practice Catholicism because of the ugliness, the misogyny, the homophobia etc... If you choose to put yourself out in the world as a follower of some insane desert prophet don't blame the world for watching you closely. Juan is an idiot for giving Fox cover and NPR should be embarrassed for their inability to hire a decent right wing journalist.
Speaking of religious
nuts.that's a fun article to read... the folks in Texas will appreciate this part:
Carbon regulation, cap and trade, it’s all just a money-control avenue, Ms. Khuri added. Some people say I’m extreme, but they said the John Birch Society was extreme, too.
There aren't many good ways to end the sentence "I'm not a bigot, but...", but his could have been much worse. This seems to be more of a final straw issue than a big thing in itself. They'd been modifying his title and their editorial rules to accomodate his FOX appearnces for a while; it's probably best that he finally move over to FOX full time.
Ok, I'll chime in. First, Shawnee said "[COLOR=Blue]Anything could mean one thing or two things or many things or most things or all things. Anywhere could mean one where or two wheres or many wheres or most wheres or all wheres.[/COLOR]" [COLOR=Black]To which I respond, what about silverware or tupperware?
Then Lamplighter said [COLOR=Blue]"[/COLOR][/COLOR][COLOR=Blue]Do Catholics, Jews, or Amish in their customary attire make Juan nervous too ?
Probably not."[COLOR=Black] They don't make me nervous either. Of course, I've never heard of those groups strapping on explosives to blow themselves and everyone else up, either.
Then Griff said [COLOR=Blue]"[/COLOR][/COLOR]Juan is an idiot for giving Fox cover and NPR should be embarrassed for their inability to hire a decent right wing journalist." [COLOR=Black]I agree, but when did NPR start hiring right wing journalists?
And finally, Spudcon says "NPR has been totally biased toward the left for as long as I've known. Juan Williams isn't conservative, Fox has him on to be fair and balanced, along with Geraldo."
I still wanna know about Shawnee's Tupperware.
[/COLOR][/COLOR]
First, Shawnee said "Anything could mean one thing or two things or many things or most things or all things. Anywhere could mean one where or two wheres or many wheres or most wheres or all wheres." To which I respond, what about silverware or tupperware?
I made you say underwear. Oh, wait, no I didn't.
When GD George Soros gives 1.8 million dollars to NPR and that dumb beotch CEO of NPR says that Juan is crazy and needs to take it up with his psychologist, we need to cut off the public support of NPR. I have been a loyal member of NPR since 1979. I will no longer give them a dime until the rectify this situation with Mr. Williams. And this is our state drive for money week. National Pubic Radio gets only about 2% of their money from the government, not so at the state level. They get a much higher percentage. Further, today on NPR All Things Considered, what did they do? They did not just report on the issue, they attempted to demonize Juan by emphasizing his relationship with Fox News, not the fact that he was a loyal employee for 10+ years, not that he was often a voice of reason on a majority conservative news program. No, they chose to demonize their fellow reporter. I am absolutely pissed and insulted by the actions of NPR and that idiot in charge. They need to sack that bitch if they want another dime from me....
[/rantover]
Juan is an idiot for giving Fox cover and NPR should be embarrassed for their inability to hire a decent right wing journalist.
How can you realistically call Juan Williams "right wing"?
There aren't many good ways to end the sentence "I'm not a bigot, but...", but his could have been much worse. This seems to be more of a final straw issue than a big thing in itself. They'd been modifying his title and their editorial rules to accomodate his FOX appearnces for a while; it's probably best that he finally move over to FOX full time.
The guy should not have the ability to express his personal feelings, many feelings that possibly numerous other people have, without being demonized and fired for those feelings after years of loyal service to an organization?
This is nothing more than another case of Political Correctness gone wild. NPR fails in a big way. I, along with countless others, have written them and publicly displayed my anger with this issue on their website. I challenge you to go to NPR.org and look at their report and after about 20 pages of comments find me positive and supportive comments about this issue. This is nothing short of character assassination of someone who had an affiliation with Fox News, they have been looking for a way to terminate him for a long time and that is evident. Nina Totenberg made comments about a religious figure, saying he should be careful because he might just get HIV and die and God will get him, or something to that effect and no one fired her. Can you say double standard? This just exposes the the hypocrisy and attempt of manipulation of the media message of the left and IMHO it is backfiring in a big way on this issue.
When he says
nutty stuff like:
Michelle Obama, you know, she's got this Stokely Carmichael in a designer dress thing going. If she starts talking, as Mary Katharine is suggesting, her instinct is to start with this blame America, you know, I'm the victim. If that stuff starts coming out, people will go bananas and she'll go from being the new Jackie O to being something of an albatross.
The key words are blame America a phrase limited in use to right wingers who imagine that understanding hate equals supporting it.
Ok, so back up statements from Nina Totenberg. All people say nutty things sometimes. It does not mean they should be demonized and fired because of natural feelings he expressed. It was handled poorly and I think NPR may regret this way they dealt with it. I have been a loyal member of NPR since 1980 and I am pissed, I will not give them any money this year. Who knows, maybe next year as well, at least until they fire that idiot CEO. This is nothing more than the fact they do not like the fact he appears on Fox News. He is a welcome and refreshing voice of reason in what is otherwise a mainly conservative news program. They should be ashamed.
Don't worry, I FTFH.
:lol:
He doesn't deserve you......
One possible devil's advocate position could be that feelings like "worried" and "nervous" are involuntary reactions. The crime isn't having a reaction or feeling, it is admitting it out loud. This squashes honest conversation, which, it could be argued, can't possibly foster a meaningful dialogue. It just pushes the things we don't want to think about further under the surface, under the radar, where they can fester unchecked and unexamined.
Word.
He doesn't deserve you......
And for that, I am thankful.
Word.
Or he could just have been being honest...
But let's not give him the benefit of the doubt...
I mean he was the only black commentator on all of NPR.
Maybe they don't like black people.
Merc, you may have hit on something. Maybe they are racist.
Well, sheesh. He gets worried when on airplanes with Muslims?
Commercial air is by far the safest way to travel in America. Was, too, in 2001, as far as I can tell. In a world of about 6.6 billion people, there are about 1.6 billion muslims, or about one in four.
He should be completely free to be nervous around Muslims, and particularly on airplanes -- but it's completely irrational, and kinda dumb.
Firing him was probably counter-productive in terms of helping educate him, or anybody else. It seems to have, somehow, validated his paranoia.
This seems to be more of a final straw issue than a big thing in itself. They'd been modifying his title and their editorial rules to accomodate his FOX appearnces for a while; it's probably best that he finally move over to FOX full time.
The bottom line was he could have chosen between a news network and an entertainment network in the end he becomes an entertainer. NPR is lefty and does have a diversity problem but they are still a legit news outlet.
Legit news outlet? For you, but for half the population it's just left-wing bullshit, and Fox is the shining path to truth and light.:rolleyes:
One possible devil's advocate position could be that feelings like "worried" and "nervous" are involuntary reactions. The crime isn't having a reaction or feeling, it is admitting it out loud. This squashes honest conversation, which, it could be argued, can't possibly foster a meaningful dialogue. It just pushes the things we don't want to think about further under the surface, under the radar, where they can fester unchecked and unexamined.
Meaningful dialogue is good, but don't...as we grow, learn about such things? Isn't meaningful dialogue dependent on having the dialogue with those who differ from us (i.e. not pointing and screaming and running away.) Reinforcing fear due to race or religion or appearance is not, in my humblest of opinions, a step toward enlightenment. We can say "I'm allowed to express my disdain of ferners heartily and loudly" but I don't see how that's fostering anything helpful. Yes, you're allowed. However, we live in a society...we have to live together. I wonder how he would feel if it were still acceptable to not allow black people in the same swimming pool as the whites, or to someone who verbalizes fear of those black people in the pool?
I'm afraid of spiders, and I'm not afraid to admit it. Unfortunately, it's not a fear I've been able to overcome because I've not had a meaningful dialogue with a spider. I've never sat down with a spider and discussed its hopes and dreams, where it came from, where it hopes to go.
:lol:
he was often a voice of reason on a majority conservative news program.
So you admit that conservative news programs are unreasonable. :p:
Feelings cannot be helped - they are irrational. Acting on those feelings can be. Juan did not suggest that people in full muslim garb should not be allowed on planes, as a bigot would. I admit that seeing two men kissing or having sex makes me uncomfortable, but I don't think it should be illegal.
Naked men have very few places to hide, like, bombs and stuff. :lol:
NPR website
Fox News Gives Juan Williams $2 Million Contract
NPR website
"It is an act of total censorship," Gingrich said. "I think that the U.S. Congress should investigate NPR and consider cutting off their money."
Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin — themselves possible Republican presidential candidates with similar ties to Fox — chimed in with the same call, as did others in more of a position to do so, such as South Carolina Sen. Jim Demint and Ohio Rep. John Boehner.
Oh. My. Gawd. I cannot WAIT to cast my vote against Boehner...again.
Little dogs in the tall grass, always jumping up to see what all the other dogs are doing.
This is how deeply NPR stepped in it:
From the far right, Stephen Hayes demands that Nina Totenberg should be fired for making far more partisan remarks on Inside Washington;
From the far left, Eric Boehlert demands that Mara Liasson should be fired for appearing on Fox.
And Mr Williams notes that NPR now has zero black on-air talent. They demand 100% compliance with modern political correctness which values multiculturalism and diversity above all else. As a result they have developed a monoculture with no diversity. It simply couldn't be any more ironic.
Muslims speak out against NPR's political correctness
Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, told The Daily Caller that though Williams could have been more tactful, his ouster is symptomatic of the problems Americans continue to face when discussing Islam.
“As much as the way he said it was poorly chosen, the era we find ourselves — of political correctness — we are not able to address what this fear is,” Jasser said. “Anybody that starts talking about this fear gets shut down.”
Fatah agreed, saying that he did not believe that anything Williams’ said was terrible enough to lose his job. “I think it is another expression of political correctness. I didn’t find anything that he said that he deserved to be fired,” he told TheDC.
According to Jasser, the fact that the vast majority of national security threats emanate from the Muslim world makes Williams’ fear reasonable. Without open discussion, however, those concerns will never be conquered.
And Mr Williams notes that NPR now has zero black on-air talent. They demand 100% compliance with modern political correctness which values multiculturalism and diversity above all else. As a result they have developed a monoculture with no diversity. It simply couldn't be any more ironic.
Indeed. It's almost as ironic as those who rail against "compliance" with diversity because in this compliance they may not actually be hiring the best person for the job.
Or he could just have been being honest...
But let's not give him the benefit of the doubt...
I mean he was the only black commentator on all of NPR.
Maybe they don't like black people.
Lots of NPR stations carry the Tavis Smiley show.
Isn't meaningful dialogue dependent on having the dialogue with those who differ from us (i.e. not pointing and screaming and running away.)
So then you agree it is counterproductive to point, scream, and run away from Juan Williams? Oh, wait, no that's not right. He's the one we're "supposed to" be upset with. Sorry, I got confused because I don't have my political correctness handbook with me. It gets pretty complicated when you have to carry around a list of what your opinions are "supposed to" be.
Lots of NPR stations carry the Tavis Smiley show.
And
"Tell Me More"So then you agree it is counterproductive to point, scream, and run away from Juan Williams? Oh, wait, no that's not right. He's the one we're "supposed to" be upset with. Sorry, I got confused because I don't have my political correctness handbook with me. It gets pretty complicated when you have to carry around a list of what your opinions are "supposed to" be.
Oh, don't be so testes.
Actually, I haven't chimed in on the political correctness or lack thereof of Juan or NPR. I have merely put in some other ways to look at things. Does this meaningful dialogue not jive with the kind of meaningful dialogue you seek?
Being defensive is the first way to assure we'll never get anywhere.
And Mr Williams notes that NPR now has zero black on-air talent
That is incorrect.
Michel Martin looks black, to me
Well, we must make the distinction between "light-skinned" and "dark-skinned" blacks. Following that: Beige-ish Muslims in Levis don't bother us a'tall. :D
noise
Go join a jokey thread.
Eh, bite my apple. Then, say something useful.
Weekend Update"I don't judge a man by the color of his skin; I judge him according to the size of his nostrils."
NPR did not fire Williams for being Black.
His own race has nothing to do with this event, except at the level of hypocrisy.
It would have been worse for NPR to ignore his comments
just to keep him as "the only Black" commentator... even tho he isn't.
Mr Williams noted that he was the only black male on air at NPR and I misquoted him.
Mr Smiley works for Public Radio International, not NPR.
The point is, for all the lip service given to the importance of diversity of people and views, here political correctness has produced the exact opposite result in the real world.
Does the importance of diversity also mean we should never question a black man, if'n he is perceived to be the token diverse one?
I guess I see it as (and I hate this phrase) two sides of the same coin: imagine if Juan wasn't black, but white. I'm not being argumentative: do you think there would have been a different reaction? I'm only asking here (regardless of the rock throwing to cow me into some corner, this is one specific issue I haven't found a "comfortable" side.)
What say y'all?
There certainly would be a different reaction. It would be acceptable to NPR if a white person did it, witness white women
Totenberg and Liasson.
Because the problem is not that Williams is a black man, but because he's a
black man who goes on O'Reilly. That is far more offensive to NPR and its audience than if a white person does it.
Michael Barone:
Reading between the lines of Juan’s statement and those of NPR officials, it’s apparent that NPR was moved to fire Juan because he irritates so many people in its audience. An interesting contrast: while many NPR listeners apparently could not stomach that Williams also appeared on Fox News. But it doesn’t seem that any perceptible number of Fox News viewers had any complaints that Williams also worked for NPR. The Fox audience seems to be more tolerant of diversity than the NPR audience.
Williams at ABC News:
"This is one of the things in my life that's shocking. I grew up on the left. I grew up here in New York City and I've always thought the right wing was the ones who were inflexible and intolerant. Now, I'm coming to realize that the orthodoxy at NPR, as it's representing the left, is just unbelievable," he said.
Considering the heightened level of irrational anxiety in our society regarding Muslims, his statement regarding his own irrational anxiety is beyond just irresponsible. It is what's helping to feed the problem - exactly what Fox is good at and why it even exists. I applaud NPR for taking a stand against that king of noise.
Considering the heightened level of irrational anxiety in our society regarding Muslims, his statement regarding his own irrational anxiety is beyond just irresponsible.
You're arguing for dishonesty.
Do you see the problem there? I ask this in all seriousness. If we feel a certain way about something, is it always better to keep quiet--stuff that feeling deep down inside and pretend that it will go away? Or is it better to address it openly and honestly?
Why do I even have to ask this?
Are we in the ƒucking twilight zone???Precisely. It wasn't knee-jerk intolerant irrational anxiety about Muslims that got Williams fired. It was knee-jerk intolerant irrational anxiety about Fox News, from NPR listeners.
So now a man who has written about, studied, and suffered bigotry is secretly a bigot? Pico I don't think this approach will help bring about the kind of world you want.
Precisely. It wasn't knee-jerk intolerant irrational anxiety about Muslims that got Williams fired. It was knee-jerk intolerant irrational anxiety about Fox News, from NPR listeners.So now a man who has written about, studied, and suffered bigotry is secretly a bigot? Pico I don't think this approach will help bring about the kind of world you want.
I thought you said it was because he's black, that this wouldn't have happened to a white NPR person??????
Is it because he's black, or because of Faux news?
I don't think it has much to do with NPR listeners.
I think it's a management/talent issue and they were looking for an excuse to fire him. NPR doesn't like FOX, and they don't like it that he was going on FOX. So they fired him over this arbitrary infraction of his job description.
Because he's black on Fox News, Shaw. That is not a condition NPR or its listeners can tolerate... the very idea of a black liberal person on Fox is unacceptable (amongst other things, Fox offering opposing viewpoints demonstrates that Fox isn't what they think it is) and they demanded his removal well before this incident.
I see what you're saying now. Thanks.
You're arguing for dishonesty.
Do you see the problem there? I ask this in all seriousness. If we feel a certain way about something, is it always better to keep quiet--stuff that feeling deep down inside and pretend that it will go away? Or is it better to address it openly and honestly?
Why do I even have to ask this? Are we in the ƒucking twilight zone???
Excuse me for being skeptical about Fox's ability to discuss this openly and honestly with the intention of helping to alleviate the problem. Fox News and its commentators are all about keeping the pot stirred, not real discussion.
Precisely. It wasn't knee-jerk intolerant irrational anxiety about Muslims that got Williams fired. It was knee-jerk intolerant irrational anxiety about Fox News, from NPR listeners.
So now a man who has written about, studied, and suffered bigotry is secretly a bigot? Pico I don't think this approach will help bring about the kind of world you want.
I don't think he is a bigot for what he said. But I also seriously doubt that he really feels this anxiety in the first place. I think what he said was done purposely and it wasn't for sharing feelings openly and honestly.
This is just how I feel about it. I am unsure about NPR's real reason for firing him.
You've just composed an eloquent proof of Undertoad's theory! lol
I wasn't refuting Undertoads assertion for NPR's reason.
Right. You demonstrated that he was correct.
"It was knee-jerk intolerant irrational anxiety about Fox News, from NPR listeners." << That's you!
Its knee-jerk mistrust about their motives. I seriously do not think Fox is helpful to society in way, shape or form and in fact that they are actually harmful. Oh, maybe they do perform a service in that they help to blow off steam, but essentially I think they go horribly past that. I think skepticism, especially of Fox News Corp, is healthy.
Right, they are such bad mojo that NPR had to fire a dude for being on there too much.
If it doesn't jibe with their editorial principles, then yes.
Why do you hate Fox News?
Because they lie!
How do you
know they're lying?
Because they're on Fox News, duh!
linkIt has the electrolytes that plants crave!
I thought there were numerous instances of Fox on Film, lying, creeping, shopping, bending, numerous posts to point to these instances...I thought this was public knowledge at the Cellar?
I thought there were numerous instances of Fox on Film, lying, creeping, shopping, bending, numerous posts to point to these instances...I thought this was public knowledge at the Cellar?
You're damn right there is! Fox News is downright "pure evil" and that is why it is ƒucking hilarious that y'all continue to drive home more and more convincing proofs of Undertoad's theory. lol he was fired because Fox gives people the heebie jeebies.
[SIZE="1"][COLOR="DimGray"]Oh, and also we collectively agree to "say" it was because of the Muslim comments.[/COLOR][/SIZE]
I don't think it has much to do with NPR listeners.
I think it's a management/talent issue and they were looking for an excuse to fire him. NPR doesn't like FOX, and they don't like it that he was going on FOX. So they fired him over this arbitrary infraction of his job description.
imma take this back
The part that it's just a management talent issue and has nothing to do with the listeners perceptions about fox new.
You're damn right there is! Fox News is downright "pure evil" and that is why it is ƒucking hilarious that y'all continue to drive home more and more convincing proofs of Undertoad's theory. lol he was fired because Fox gives people the heebie jeebies.
I guess I'm obtuse. I was really just trying to understand, but if you're happier getting one over on the dumb girl, have at it. Never could read you, Flint my man, but I do see why I don't bother trying "meaningful dialogue." I'm usually way off base from the rest of you.
In the interest of me getting some rest this weekend, might you tell me if I'm just not getting the joke, or I'm a loser for hating Fox, or if I'm just a (nice) butt of a joke. ;)
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go drink a case of beer and toke on some chronic that the Mexxies didn't get their hands on. :lol:
If I was management at NPR and one of my new analysts decided to be a shill at times for Fox, then I would only have to wonder at his integrity and seriously doubt his usefulness at NPR. ESPECIALLY after he expressed an irrational fear of a person simply based on how they were dressed and how he decided to characterize that person based on their garb...its just insane in this day in age (and especially 10 years after 911).
Did anyone here see the whole program? I'm guessing that it's the context that makes this what it is. Without context, all this jabber... is just jabber.
*slobber snort*
I dunno George.
I guess I'm obtuse. I was really just trying to understand, but if you're happier getting one over on the dumb girl, have at it. Never could read you, Flint my man, but I do see why I don't bother trying "meaningful dialogue." I'm usually way off base from the rest of you.
In the interest of me getting some rest this weekend, might you tell me if I'm just not getting the joke, or I'm a loser for hating Fox, or if I'm just a (nice) butt of a joke. ;)
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go drink a case of beer and toke on some chronic that the Mexxies didn't get their hands on. :lol:
I'll explain why I think this is so funny: we just got done with this "other" conversation about the "Muslim comments" when it comes to light that people go absolutely apeshit at the mere mention of Fox news. In other words, the "reason" he was fired was a ruse. Just ask the very same people who just got done agreeing with the "reason" which turns out to be
not the actual reason.
People can't keep track of what to agree with. That's funny, to me.
You cant separate Fox and also in this instance, O'Reilly, from the Muslim comments. O'Reilly started it with his Muslim comment on the View. Williams just helped to legitimize it...even though he did say that not all Muslims are terrorists. The going trend these days, though, is to believe that all terrorists are Muslims, which only compounds the problem.
Fox bad. Juan bad. Fire Juan! lol
There have been numerous nasty lies and errors and other outrages on Fox News. Many of these have been located and highlighted and amplified by
media professionals whose sole job it is to watch FNC full-time and take potshots at it. Its loose, tabloid-style approach makes that job pretty easy.
But to my knowledge, they have never aired such an obvious and complete fabrication as Dan Rather's
Rathergate.
It took bloggers (and me, frankly) MINUTES to determine that Rather's story was manufactured. It took CBS News MONTHS to fire the responsible producer.
But I also seriously doubt that he really feels this anxiety in the first place. I think what he said was done purposely and it wasn't for sharing feelings openly and honestly.
OK, here's some of
the larger context:
The damning video clip of Williams, like the damning clip of Sherrod, cuts off the speaker just as he's about to reverse course. According to the full transcript, immediately after saying, "I don't think there's any way to get away from these facts," Williams continues: "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." That continuation has been conveniently snipped from the excerpt.
A few seconds later, Williams challenges O'Reilly's suggestion that "the Muslims attacked us on 9/11." Williams points out how wrong it would be to generalize similarly about Christians:
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.
Williams reminds O'Reilly that "there are good Muslims." A short while later, O'Reilly asks: "Juan, who is posing a problem in Germany? Is it the Muslims who have come there, or the Germans?" Williams refuses to play the group blame game. "See, you did it again," he tells O'Reilly. "It's extremists."
OK, so I commented without watching the whole exchange on O'Reilly. I will have to do some re-thinking. He does try to reverse his stance after his initial statement, but honestly, because of the talking-over and half sentences, what he does say afterwards doesn't have the same impact. So I still cant get over this one point...
Considering the level of hysteria in this country regarding Muslim terrorists, I am really surprised at the near absence of terrorist attacks on our soil since 911. Where are all the suicide bombings that should keep us truly fearful of Muslim men wearing the traditional Islamic garb that proclaims their total in-your-face Muslimness. Seriously, how does Williams get off on telling O'Reilly that he agrees with him because Muslims worry him too.
I will have to do some re-thinking. He does try to reverse his stance after his initial statement, but honestly, because of the talking-over and half sentences, what he does say afterwards doesn't have the same impact.
Obviously, a Muslim to fear is the one who is a religious fanatic, who espouses hate of infidels, and is dressing like an American. Mr commentator - how do you tell the difference between a threat and a common citizen? You don't.
First impressions - even in a job interview - is akin to racism and other forms of hate. Racism is judging people based upon a first impression. So Juan's soundbyte implies emotional hate; judgments based upon first impression. Implies.
Should Williams have been fired? I cannot even begin to have an opinion. A shortage of hard facts even after six pages here is deafening.
From what I have seen, Juan Williams is paid to be a punching bag. When he tries to make a point, then one of the extremists cuts in and talks over him. Why does he even stay? His job was not to commentate. His job was to be a wind dummy for other commentators.
Now, before anyone can discuss this firing, first, one must understand why he was fired. The always required reasons why. First, standards required of NPR commentators are vastly different from those at Fox. When he works at Fox, must he still confirm to the higher standards at NPR? Or must he conform to the Fox 'incite hate' attitudes so often promoted in Fox? Without a definitive answer, then no one can have a useful opinion.
Second, Juan Williams was fired for a list of previous reasons. His comment on Fox was only the latest. And apparently he could not justify them in a phone conversation with his NPR boss. What are those many reasons? Again, without hard fact, then no one can have a responsible opinion. All we have is hearsay and speculation.
Listed are two facts that must be known before anyone can have a responsible opinion on whether he should have been fired. Only relevant facts are that so many have emotional conclusions or speculation. State as an opinion rather than as possibilities.
I was always troubled why Juan Williams let himself be a punching bag in a new organization whose purpose is defined by a lie about being fair and balanced. But that still does not provide a hard fact. Required is an historical pattern cited by NPR for their actions. Still waiting for hard facts. Still see none. Meanwhile Williams was working for two organizations with vastly different conduct standards and job descriptions.
That's the sound way to think about it: it's not the people in full Muslim garb you should be worried about, it's the slightly middle-eastern-looking 20-something guys dressed normally and nervously looking around, studying the situation.
But then we will have bigotry against slightly middle-eastern-looking 20-something guys dressed normally.
Some of my best friends are slightly middle-eastern-looking 20-something guys dressed normally and nervously looking around, studying the situation.
it's the slightly middle-eastern-looking 20-something guys dressed normally and nervously looking around,
Oh if I could only be one of those again. Now I no long look around. Too old.
Or must he conform to the Fox 'incite hate' attitudes so often promoted in Fox?
I was always troubled why Juan Williams let himself be a punching bag in a new organization whose purpose is defined by a lie about being fair and balanced.
Fox bad. Juan bad. Fire Juan! lol
round and round we go.
It seems that there has bee a lot of discussion on Salon about this as well. The vast majority were people who HATED that he was affiliated with Fox. I wonder their reaction if it were MSNBC instead.
The
NPR Ombudsman, who had to deal with the public backlash, explains NPR's position, while admitting they handled it badly.
Juan Williams once again got himself into trouble with NPR for comments he made at his other job, at Fox News. And NPR's reaction has unleashed an unprecedented firestorm of criticism directed not at Williams – but at NPR.
Instead, this latest incident with Williams centers around a collision of values: NPR's values emphasizing fact-based, objective journalism versus the tendency in some parts of the news media, notably Fox News, to promote only one side of the ideological spectrum.
The issue also is whether someone on NPR's payroll should be allowed to say something in one venue that NPR would not allow on its air. NPR’s ethics code says they cannot.
So if you work for NPR you're never off duty, they own your ass.
So if you work for NPR you're never off duty, they own your ass.
That is as it should be. On any job if your after hours activities make you ineffective you should be let go. NPR listeners, of which I am one, want reporters we find credible. If you appear on a Fox entertainment program your credibility with me is gone. That goes for all their reporters. They shouldn't be appearing on the talking head Sunday shows regardless of network either. They are either serious journalists or they are not. It is time for NPR to draw a bright line between journalism and pop entertainment. NPR has a chance to turn this in their favor. Make some good minority hires and acknowledge that their liberal world view does skew their reporting in as much as they always look first for a government role when a problem presents itself and they could gain from this.These problems don't make them Fox though. NPR doesn't invent controversy and manage and build it over days and weeks. They actually report what happens.
The NPR vice president, Vivian Schiller,
tells employees she regrets how she handles the incident.
Morale at NPR is very low right now. I think they know Schiller seriously fucked up and they are about to lose their funding when the Republican win in two weeks.
In a meeting with employees that had been scheduled before the Williams story broke, Schiller acknowledged that NPR didn't manage the firing well, but offered no specifics. She said NPR would conduct a "post-mortem" next week to review how the firing was handled, according to employees who attended the meeting, which was closed to the news media. Schiller didn't say who would handle the review or what the consequences of it might be.
....
Staffers said that at the Friday meeting, Schiller apologized again for telling an audience in Atlanta on Thursday that Williams should have kept his comments about Muslims between "himself and his psychiatrist."
"There wasn't anger" among NPR employees at the meeting, "but I did get a sense of despair and disappointment," said one NPR journalist, who asked not to be named because employees are not authorized to speak on the record about the matter. "I got the impression that [management] felt they had acted rashly and without deliberation. When [Schiller] made the psychiatrist crack, it just made matters much, much worse."
Schiller is making mistakes this week. Maybe she should take a step back and let someone else take the helm for a bit.
The reason,according to NPR?
Washington-based NPR said the firing was the culmination of a long series of run-ins with Williams in which he was warned to stick to news analysis and not veer into personal opinions or inflammatory commentary. NPR executives have also said they have been concerned that Fox News has used Williams, an avowedly liberal analyst, to paint NPR itself as a liberal news organization rather than a nonpartisan one.
NPR executives have also said they have been concerned that Fox News has used Williams, an avowedly liberal analyst, to paint NPR itself as a liberal news organization rather than a nonpartisan one.
Knee-jerk intolerant irrational anxiety about Fox News.
It doesn't work the way they think, you know. When we look back, FNC's greatest triumph will be how massively it terrified its non-watchers --
thus convincing its watchers that it's not just A force but THE force to be reckoned with.
What has NPR done? Promoted the shit out of Fox. And made Juan Williams the pre-eminent liberal name known by the right... just as he will not work for NPR anymore.
O'Reilly's ratings are up 15% this week.
Some of my best friends are slightly middle-eastern-looking 20-something guys dressed normally and nervously looking around, studying the situation.
Worry if you see one that bulges around the midsection or has a fuse sticking out of his shoe.;)
So if you work for NPR you're never off duty, they own your ass.
Same concept as drug testing, and that is much more prevalent. If you do drugs on your own time, and your corporate pee test comes back hot, you are toast.
They actually report what happens.
He was not a reporter, but an analyst, who gives an interpretation, an opinion. On FOX it would be called a spin.
Same concept as drug testing, and that is much more prevalent. If you do drugs on your own time, and your corporate pee test comes back hot, you are toast.
Which is also wrong.
He was not a reporter, but an [COLOR="Red"]analyst[/COLOR], who gives an interpretation, an opinion.
That is exactly what NPR needs to get away from. TV is not a forum for analysis. TV is pictures, gut reactions, and emotions not analysis.
One of the most irritating things NPR has done is to put washed up lefty reporters on Weekend Edition as radio analysts. Wouldn't it be possible to let the consumer analyze the news instead of hitting people over the head with spin?
Maybe there isn't a market for news, but NPR could try.
Shawnee, I'll break it to you gently: the people who hate Fox News bitterly are NOT among the winners. They're not, in a fundamental way, pro-democracy, for they are pro-something else; they're not capitalists, they do not value cultivating virtue -- in a word, they aren't in connection with anything that makes a life worth having lived it.
UG - Thats just total BS. They just have a different vision of how to do things.:mad2:
Wrong is also "different." I stand by my contention (and sotto voce acknowledge your satire). The Left found virtue inconvenient, and affects to despise it -- one more stupid thing the Left does among a whole gallimaufry of statist stupidity. Stupid because there's nothing the Left does that improves upon virtue. It ends up being a philosophy of whores.
Same concept as drug testing, and that is much more prevalent. If you do drugs on your own time, and your corporate pee test comes back hot, you are toast.
Drug use and freedom of speech are not comparable. Everyone trashes Fox news for being biased, but NPR is not just left biased, it is bigoted.
Wrong is also "different." I stand by my contention (and sotto voce acknowledge your satire). The Left found virtue inconvenient, and affects to despise it -- one more stupid thing the Left does among a whole gallimaufry of statist stupidity. Stupid because there's nothing the Left does that improves upon virtue. It ends up being a philosophy of whores.
I'm glad to see consistency in the calling of the whores. That words lends as much credence to your statements as it does to mercs. You bastard. :lol:
Wouldn't whores be the ultimate capitalists? I mean, they don't give anything away for free when they can charge for it. They make a profit off of sex...
Yes, you're absolutely right. Capitalist and whore are interchangeable these days.
Drug use and freedom of speech are not comparable. Everyone trashes Fox news for being biased, but NPR is not just left biased, it is bigoted.
They are comparable in that an employer should not be involved with what you do when you are not being paid by them, regardless of legality.
That is as it should be. On any job if your after hours activities make you ineffective you should be let go. NPR listeners, of which I am one, want reporters we find credible. If you appear on a Fox entertainment program your credibility with me is gone. That goes for all their reporters. They shouldn't be appearing on the talking head Sunday shows regardless of network either. They are either serious journalists or they are not. It is time for NPR to draw a bright line between journalism and pop entertainment. NPR has a chance to turn this in their favor. Make some good minority hires and acknowledge that their liberal world view does skew their reporting in as much as they always look first for a government role when a problem presents itself and they could gain from this.These problems don't make them Fox though. NPR doesn't invent controversy and manage and build it over days and weeks. They actually report what happens.
Do you feel the same about Mara Liasson and Nina Totenberg?
I'm glad to see consistency in the calling of the whores. That words {sic} lends as much credence to your statements as it does to mercs.{sic} You bastard.
Well, Shawnee, consider this. Merc and I, we have, or at least pursue, virtue, and you despise us. What would that make you? A precious daughter of God? :D
And for the general reading pleasure, something Tw will never exhibit the courage to click on:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/21/AR2010102104856.html. May cause ratiocination.
Do you feel the same about Mara Liasson and Nina Totenberg?
Yes.
Well, Shawnee, consider this. Merc and I, we have, or at least pursue, virtue, and you despise us. What would that make you? A precious daughter of God? :D
And for the general reading pleasure, something Tw will never exhibit the courage to click on: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/21/AR2010102104856.html. May cause ratiocination.
You, pursue, virtue. For your own means. That quality isn't virtue, that's egocentricity.
However, it's not you I despise. You're at least an intelligent person. Watch your bedmates, they are not always as virtuous as you.
I had read Krauthammer's article earlier today. Sometimes I don't agree with him, but he nailed it today.
The Dems are getting kookie with the paranoid talk. It is just like the GOP Soros talk. The SC did ruin campaign finance but, the real problem is a lot of us voted for Obama in hopes that he'd work across the aisle. Now he'll have to but, the GOP primaries may have given us a bunch who can't work with people of different beliefs. Now we are staring at 2 years of full on asshattery.
the real problem is a lot of us voted for Obama in hopes that he'd work across the aisle.
He tried, far longer than was reasonable. I have no doubt that he'll keep trying, with the same or less effect.
When the R's take over tomorrow, the onus will be on BOTH parties to work together. More so on the R's - IMO.
When the R's take over tomorrow, the onus will be on BOTH parties to work together. More so on the R's - IMO.
Nonsense. Their agenda was bluntly and publically stated. They want Obama (and America) to fail. Obstructionist rhetoric will continue. Why not? Even with a recession that is over, they still got so many Americans to believe there has been no recovery, that taxes have increased, and that government will never see that $700 billion Tarp. They even got Americans to forget who subverts science, created the destruction of NASA’s manned space program, encouraged wacko Likud to run rampant over Palestinians, invented Mission Accomplished to massacre 4,400 good Americans, surrendered to the Taliban, and let bin Laden run free. How many will apologize for even claiming bin Laden is dead? Why should they. Lying and obstructionism works.
Why should they change? They even got the recession created by Republicans to be blamed on the Democrats. Why change anything? Lying works.
Maher noted the news that Mohammed (when its various spellings are combined) is the year's most popular baby name in the United Kingdom.
Am I a racist to feel alarmed by that? Because I am. And it’s not because of the race, it’s because of the religion. I don’t have to apologize, do I, for not wanting the Western world to be taken over by Islam in 300 years? ... I should be alarmed, and I don't apologize for it.
One guest, MSNBC host Lawrence O'Donnell, responded that Maher's statement was "worse" than Juan Williams' admission of his fears of people wearing Muslim clothes on airplanes.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Link
I'm not sure how this can be justified any other way. No, Maher doesn't work for NPR and probably doesn't have the same restrictions on opinions, but this is still worse than what Juan said.
You only mean "worse" in the way that neither one of them was bad to begin with, right?
The Dems are getting kookie with the paranoid talk. It is just like the GOP Soros talk. The SC did ruin campaign finance but, the real problem is a lot of us voted for Obama in hopes that he'd work across the aisle. Now he'll have to but, the GOP primaries may have given us a bunch who can't work with people of different beliefs. Now we are staring at 2 years of full on asshattery.
The grid lock is about to start in full earnest. Now the burden is on both parties and both Houses to find compromise and make things work. One party is no longer responsible. Both parties will have to make compromises to get the job of the people done. Time will tell. But certainly no one should be fooled to think that progressive liberals are just going to throw partisan bills at the House and wonder why they don't pass...
I'm thinking that the republicans want the continual tanking of our economy for the next two years...how else are they gonna get the presidency in 2012.
Wasn't sure if I should start another thread on this ... Then I figured Olbermann didn't deserve one - soooooooooooooooooooo
Olbermann suspended by MSNBC
MSNBC host Keith Olbermann has been suspended indefinitely without pay for making political campaign contributions to three Democratic candidates last month, MSNBC president Phil Griffin said in a statement Friday afternoon.
"I became aware of Keith's political contributions late last night," Griffin said. "Mindful of NBC News policy and standards, I have suspended him indefinitely without pay."
Politico first reported Friday morning that the host of "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" gave $2,400 apiece in late October to Kentucky candidate Jack Conway and to Arizona Reps. Raul Grijalva and Gabrielle Giffords. The donation to Grijalva came on the same day the Democratic incumbent appeared on "Countdown," Politico reported.
Conway lost his race against Tea Party favorite Rand Paul. Grijalva was declared the winner in his race late Thursday, and Giffords's had remained too close to call after Election Day.
Olbermann said in a statement to Politico: "I did not privately or publicly encourage anyone else to donate to these campaigns, nor to any others in this election or any previous ones, nor have I previously donated to any political campaign at any level."
from Washpo
Let it be said that I don't like Olbermann at all. I do watch some of MSNBC - Chris Matthews is cough/tolerable/cough and Maddow is usually ok. I do enjoy Morning Joe.
Off the cuff, I think its probably a good decision. But again I really think the guy is jerk so...
Just seems to be a bunch of journalists/hosts/whatever getting canned lately. I'm trying to figure out the connection and who they all pissed off. (conspiracy theory)
Meanwhile, Rupert Murdock is bankrolling the repubican party. Different standards for different organizations.
Irrelevant. He doesn't host a news show nor is he a journalist.
Why didn't you use Soros as an example?
Scarborough is a better counterexample. He did the same thing as Olbermann, and has a newsy opinion show like Olbermann, on the same network as Olbermann, and didn't get suspended.
He told his boss first as per the rules put forth to him/them.
If Olbermann had incorporated himself and given through one of those secret "Love America Long-time Foundation" fakes, would he had to have reveal he was a contributor?
Irrelevant. He doesn't host a news show nor is he a journalist.
He and all his companies only bankroll Republicans. Then his company called Fox News calls itself 'Fair and Balanced'. At what point does a liar not deserve respect?
Fox New is not a source of news. It is a propaganda machine. So many Fox News people are in an entertainment division. Not part of a news division. Therefore Fox News reporters and commentators can spin stories according to the political agenda - with cover. All part of the purpose of Fox News - propaganda for a political agenda.
Olbermann is part of a news organization. Therefore he must conform to higher standards that include no political contributions.
Fox News employees openly contributed $thousands to Republican candidates. But they are 'Fair and Balanced'?
But Comcast and NBC don't want to piss off the newly elected regime right now.
But Comcast and NBC don't want to piss off the newly elected regime right now.
Neither Comcast (Xfinity) or NBC have political agendas. Neither are driven first and foremost to empower the 'right' party.
Comcast does have a market agenda. To subvert net neutrality for higher profits. To protect a duopoly created by the George Jr administration. A duopoly that has eliminated free market competition in communications. And cause the United States to fall drastically in the list of best broadband countries.
If that is Comcast promoting the Republican party, it is not for ideological reasons. It is simply a company whose profits are important; the product irrelevant - something dirty that Comcast must also do to build more skyscrapers.
Meanwhile, Murdoch needs us to all vote for the 'right' party. Just as all Italians must also vote for Berlusconi to 'save' Italy. Silvio Berlusconi's communication empire also promotes his political aspirations for same 'Fair and Balanced' reasons.
Does a political agenda promote interests of the company? Or does a company exist to promote the political agenda?
A look at campaign finance disclosures for several organizations shows that Phil Anschutz, content partner with Comcast, donated large sums of money to the First Amendment Alliance, one of the largest outside groups targeting Democrats in the 2010 midterm elections.
The Anschutz Corporation, wholly owned by Phil Anschutz, gave $50,000 on 9/24/2010 to the First Amendment Alliance. The two candidates targeted by the First Amendment Alliance? Jack Conway and Michael Bennet.
Keith Olbermann gave to Jack Conway's campaign along with Raul Grijalva and Gabrielle Giffords.
In addition, the Anschutz family donated $169,900 to Republican candidates and committees during the 2010 election cycle, according to Open Secrets.
Additionally, Comcast Corporation has contributed $125,000 to the Republican Governors' Association in the 2010 cycle (as of 9/30/2010).
Crooksandliars
He and all his companies only bankroll Republicans. Then his company called Fox News calls itself 'Fair and Balanced'. At what point does a liar not deserve respect?
Fox New is not a source of news. It is a propaganda machine. So many Fox News people are in an entertainment division. Not part of a news division. Therefore Fox News reporters and commentators can spin stories according to the political agenda - with cover. All part of the purpose of Fox News - propaganda for a political agenda.
Olbermann is part of a news organization. Therefore he must conform to higher standards that include no political contributions.
Fox News employees openly contributed $thousands to Republican candidates. But they are 'Fair and Balanced'?
Irrelevant. He doesn't host a news show nor is he a journalist.
Why didn't you use Soros as an example?
Justice is served, but they should have fired her...
The NPR executive who sparked a public outrcy in October by firing journalist Juan Williams is resigning from her job, the organization announced Thursday.
Ellen Weiss resigned as senior vice president for news on the same day that NPR's board of directors completed its independent review of the dismissal of Williams. The directors recommended new internal procedures for personnel decisions and disciplinary action.
The board expressed confidence in CEO Vivian Schiller's leadership but voted to forgo her 2010 bonus because of "concern over her role in the termination process." Schiller drew criticism in November for saying Williams should keep his feelings about Muslims between him and "his psychiatrist or publicist" -- comments that she later apologized for.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/06/npr-boss-fired-juan-williams-resigns/Yeah, fire anyone that tells the truth.