• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Juan Williams Calls to Defund NPR

T

TheBigA

Juan Williams writes this commentary in TheHill.com calling to defund NPR:

http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/juan-williams/150925-williams-now-i-want-them-to-defund-npr

We knew it was going to happen eventually. Just never expected it to be done this way.

First of all, does this man have ANY credibility on this subject? And why is he not saying this on Fox? Probably because they said no.

Second, he's basing his opinion on a letter from a Democratic Congressman, who was raising money for Democrats in his letter, not NPR. So he wasn't representing NPR, and I'm sure his comments come as a complete surprise to anyone there. And he never mentions NPR programming, just examples of conservative programming. So Williams isn't even truthful in what the Congressman is saying. No wonder he didn't present this opinion on Fox.

He then goes on to attack NPR's "troubled management team," ignoring the fact that they're now all gone. There IS no management team any more. All the people he attacks are gone.

Finally, as if it's his stringest point, he quotes the O'Keefe video, which has already been discredited by Glenn Beck. Why doesn't Juan quote the unedited video? Or mention that it's been discredited? That's what a fair journalist would do. Would he rather see a video that says what HE wants it to say, rather than what the people actually DID say? Ron Schiller MUST think that, since the edited video shows him saying it. It's almost like assuming someone is a terrorist just because he's in Muslim garb. Oh that's right, he admitted to that already.

My question to Williams would be: Did NPR ever force you to say something liberal or change your story because it was critical of liberals? Did they in any way compromise your ethics as a journalist? If so, why did you stay there so long? In other words, if they're so liberal, why were you so willing to accept their biased and tainted money?

No it's a good thing Juan Williams didn't give this opinion on Fox, because even they would have laughed him out of the building. I wonder how much TheHill.com paid him for this.
 
Intellectual dishonesty such as this shows he didn't belong on NPR in the first place. Oh, I forgot - intellectual is a dirty word.
 
In the years after Eyes on the Prize, he had a lot of credibility, especially with regards to the Civil Rights movement. But the further he moved away from his area of expertise, the harder it became for him to find his voice. I think that was his biggest problem at NPR once he left the Washington Post.
 
I guess he will also hand back to the US Treasury all the money (taxpayer's) he made while working at NPR? I would think not. Let's have our cake and eat it to....zero credibility.
 
I fail to see what's the problem here.

NPR is not going to lose government funding because the Senate won't even consider the bill passed by the House.
And even if the Senate did vote to defund NPR, Obama said he would veto such legislation.

So why worry about something that isn't going to happen?

As for Juan Williams editorial; he has the right to voice his opinions, even you disagree with them.
 
Mark_Giardina said:
As for Juan Williams editorial; he has the right to voice his opinions, even you disagree with them.
Click to expand...

Sure he does, and no one is saying he doesn't.

But he has no credibility on this subject. And I find it curious that he voices his opinion somewhere other than Fox. This is someone who sells his services to anyone.
 
TheBigA said:
Juan Williams writes this commentary in TheHill.com calling to defund NPR:

http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/juan-williams/150925-williams-now-i-want-them-to-defund-npr

We knew it was going to happen eventually. Just never expected it to be done this way.

First of all, does this man have ANY credibility on this subject? And why is he not saying this on Fox? Probably because they said no.

Second, he's basing his opinion on a letter from a Democratic Congressman, who was raising money for Democrats in his letter, not NPR. So he wasn't representing NPR, and I'm sure his comments come as a complete surprise to anyone there. And he never mentions NPR programming, just examples of conservative programming. So Williams isn't even truthful in what the Congressman is saying. No wonder he didn't present this opinion on Fox.

He then goes on to attack NPR's "troubled management team," ignoring the fact that they're now all gone. There IS no management team any more. All the people he attacks are gone.

Finally, as if it's his stringest point, he quotes the O'Keefe video, which has already been discredited by Glenn Beck. Why doesn't Juan quote the unedited video? Or mention that it's been discredited? That's what a fair journalist would do. Would he rather see a video that says what HE wants it to say, rather than what the people actually DID say? Ron Schiller MUST think that, since the edited video shows him saying it. It's almost like assuming someone is a terrorist just because he's inhe other question is How Muslim garb. Oh that's right, he admitted to that already.

My question to Williams would be: Did NPR ever force you to say something liberal or change your story because it was critical of liberals? Did they in any way compromise your ethics as a journalist? If so, why did you stay there so long? In other words, if they're so liberal, why were you so willing to accept their biased and tainted money?

No it's a good thing Juan Williams didn't give this opinion on Fox, because even they would have laughed him out of the building. I wonder how much TheHill.com paid him for this.
Click to expand...



The other question is that how much money did Juan pay to the guy who got the NPR management to get fired to match his allegations? I think Juan has to be the main guy behind getting the NPR management fired. Its clear he paid the hidden camera guy the Chris Hansen wanna be and ashton Kutcher wanna be to go after NPR and make NPR management look like they are "predators" because they don't match Fox News Ideology.
 
Mark_Giardina said:
I fail to see what's the problem here.

NPR is not going to lose government funding because the Senate won't even consider the bill passed by the House.
And even if the Senate did vote to defund NPR, Obama said he would veto such legislation.

So why worry about something that isn't going to happen.
Click to expand...

Such complacency is all very well, but it ignores the fact that this is but one battle in a very long war and, in the absence of a strong philosophical defense of the idea of a public subsidy for public broadcasting, it will sway a few more people each time it is argued. A sound philosophical argument is available, and I have attempted to make it elsewhere on these boards, but for the most part, the defenders of public broadcasting have failed to make it or even to understand the importance of making it. They think that "nuts-and-bolts" arguments will keep carrying the day. Well, one of these days they may not; the barbarians will be climbing over the gates and by that time it will be too late to stop them.

Mark, if you agree with public funding for public broadcasting, don't sit back and say there's no problem. There is a problem and it will remain a problem. I wrote to my representative and even though this particular House vote has come and gone, there will be more. There's nothing like an approaching election to concentrate at least some congressional minds, so I'm going to keep on writing. What are you doing?
 
listener-in said:
Such complacency is all very well, but it ignores the fact that this is but one battle in a very long war
Click to expand...

Which is the point behind what the Democrats did yesterday:

http://www.rbr.com/radio/house-democrats-stand-firm-behind-npr.html

And not because, as Juan Williams says, the Democrats want to protect liberalism on radio. Because as the article states, conservative Democrats (and there are quite a few, like Heath Shuler) have joined the liberals on this. But because Democrats recognize that this isn't about the debt, this isn't about the Constitution, and this isn't about whether or not NPR can live without the money. This vote was pure politics, from a small group of Republicans who have gone wild.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom