-
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
NPR commentator fired for Muslim remarks
- Thread starter oldmanradio
- Start date
So, basically what NPR is saying is that its commentators cannot hold opinions that don't jibe with its "editorial standards" (read: liberal worldview). Are these people not people? Are NPR's employees not flesh-and-blood individuals that get nervous? That'd be the same as me saying, I don't buy the product my company produces, even though I am employed by that company and take an active role in producing it...and the company firing me. This is still a free country, isn't it? Or did I miss a memo along the line?
I may disagree with Williams' politics, but he's a good commentator and he hits the nail on the head occasionally. But the fact that he was a guest contributor for Fox News (the latest target of George Soros) must not have set well with them, and they finally found an excuse to cut him loose.
But I have a question: Is not NPR taxpayer-funded? Do we, the taxpayers, not have a say in the matter? Are we not the de facto "board of directors" of this institution? So why can't we tell them to un-fire Williams or risk losing their cash cow? (For that matter, we should tell Congress after Nov. 2 to defund NPR, the CPB, and the National Endowment for the Arts, because we have more pressing needs to pay for than some propaganda outlet [and I'd consider defunding VOA, as well, except it doesn't provide propaganda TO America - but fair is fair]).
I may disagree with Williams' politics, but he's a good commentator and he hits the nail on the head occasionally. But the fact that he was a guest contributor for Fox News (the latest target of George Soros) must not have set well with them, and they finally found an excuse to cut him loose.
But I have a question: Is not NPR taxpayer-funded? Do we, the taxpayers, not have a say in the matter? Are we not the de facto "board of directors" of this institution? So why can't we tell them to un-fire Williams or risk losing their cash cow? (For that matter, we should tell Congress after Nov. 2 to defund NPR, the CPB, and the National Endowment for the Arts, because we have more pressing needs to pay for than some propaganda outlet [and I'd consider defunding VOA, as well, except it doesn't provide propaganda TO America - but fair is fair]).
M
mediawonk
Guest
Dan, contrary to oft-heard remarks, NPR isn't a government-funded mouthpiece. As they put it, "NPR receives less than 2% of its funding from competitive grants sought by NPR from federally funded organizations (such as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, National Science Foundation and the National Endowment for the Arts)." That means the other 98% comes from donations, corporate support and dues from member stations.
You may agree or disagree with Williams' remarks, but to throw all Muslims under the bus for the actions of a few isn't exactly what I'd call informed commentary.
You may agree or disagree with Williams' remarks, but to throw all Muslims under the bus for the actions of a few isn't exactly what I'd call informed commentary.
I didn't think he was throwing all Muslims under the bus. His comments sounded to me like a lament- as if he doesn't want to feel that say. My guess is that he simple voiced what even most liberals feel, though they publicly overcompensate out of guilt.
I am an avid NPR fan even though I lean to the right, but I am disappointed that Williams was dismissed without so much as a chance to further explain his comments. That was really classless.
I am an avid NPR fan even though I lean to the right, but I am disappointed that Williams was dismissed without so much as a chance to further explain his comments. That was really classless.
This was a tremendously dumb move on NPR's part. If you asked 100 people whether they feel nervous with people in muslim garb getting on an airplane I suspect 95 of them would say yes. The other 5 would be muslim.
If you pay a guy to give his opinion, let him give his opinion. If someone complains about his opinion, you might want to let them go on your air and respond. It might make for a good discussion of an issue. As it is, NPR is saying to all of its employees to avoid saying anything that might possibly be considered controversial, no matter how mild it is. Shame on them.
If you pay a guy to give his opinion, let him give his opinion. If someone complains about his opinion, you might want to let them go on your air and respond. It might make for a good discussion of an issue. As it is, NPR is saying to all of its employees to avoid saying anything that might possibly be considered controversial, no matter how mild it is. Shame on them.
I think this sums up political correctness: My grandmother's house took a direct hit from a tornado, leaving only a foundation where the house once was. Everytime the sky would darken as a storm approached, Grandma would get nervous. Therefore, Grandma is a racist (as if a tornado was a race).
No matter the conspiracy theories out there, the story is people who have hijacked the Islamic faith (or claim to be of that faith), according to news sources, pulled off an attack in the USA. It is aptly called a terrorist attack from the root word, terror, a feeling of extreme fear that is not rational.
Because your stereotypical Muslim does not purportedly subscribe to this hijacked version of Islam, they do not identify with it and feel no need to apoligise for the action any more than the Christian denominations felt the need to apologise for the Jim Jones mass suicide in Guyana back in the late 1970s.
We all feel what the man said. It is a part of the human experience. If you were alone and saw a bunch of kids of any color or ethnic makeup assembled on a street corner you'd likely think they're up to no good or may hassle you if you got too close. In almost every instance nothing would happen, but your survival instinct kicks in and you get a bit uneasy. Such is not racism and people who claim such do not know the meaning of the word.
No matter the conspiracy theories out there, the story is people who have hijacked the Islamic faith (or claim to be of that faith), according to news sources, pulled off an attack in the USA. It is aptly called a terrorist attack from the root word, terror, a feeling of extreme fear that is not rational.
Because your stereotypical Muslim does not purportedly subscribe to this hijacked version of Islam, they do not identify with it and feel no need to apoligise for the action any more than the Christian denominations felt the need to apologise for the Jim Jones mass suicide in Guyana back in the late 1970s.
We all feel what the man said. It is a part of the human experience. If you were alone and saw a bunch of kids of any color or ethnic makeup assembled on a street corner you'd likely think they're up to no good or may hassle you if you got too close. In almost every instance nothing would happen, but your survival instinct kicks in and you get a bit uneasy. Such is not racism and people who claim such do not know the meaning of the word.
Juan Williams' mistake was to say something that was supposedly "insensitive" about a protected group. For years, he was able to throw verbal Molotov cocktails at various Christian and conservative personalities and causes. In fact, he's made a couple of really outrageous comments during the course of his career. All of those comments were cool as far as anyone in the corridors of NPR were concerned.
The irony is so thick here that you can chew it. He is a victim of the very same mindset which he has defended and justified for a number of years. The problem is that the newest crop of lefties in the business have move well to the left of Mr. Williams. Even he is undoubtedly surprised as to how out of hand this uneven treatment of groups and political subjects has become. He stated his personal feelings about something that is obvious to most of us (as stated above). He wasn't being racist or sexist or even critical of anyone's belief system. He merely stated that seeing someone in Muslim garb at the airport makes him a bit nervous. Hello? With attempted shoe bombings and water bottle bombings and - of course - 9/11, isn't it obvious why he would have that visceral feeling? Isn't it pretty natural? That he was fired for that is absurd.
Lastly, I'd like to state that - although I rarely agree with him - I have a great deal of respect for Juan Williams. He does an excellent job of explaining his point of view and he is adept at the lost art of an actual back and forth conversation with someone of an opposing viewpoint. He is also 'fair' enough to occasionally surprise you with his comments - in other words, he's not just a mouthpiece for the liberal/progressive point of view. The man actually has opinions that don't toe the party line. I respect that. Believe me, NPR's loss will be someone else's gain.
The irony is so thick here that you can chew it. He is a victim of the very same mindset which he has defended and justified for a number of years. The problem is that the newest crop of lefties in the business have move well to the left of Mr. Williams. Even he is undoubtedly surprised as to how out of hand this uneven treatment of groups and political subjects has become. He stated his personal feelings about something that is obvious to most of us (as stated above). He wasn't being racist or sexist or even critical of anyone's belief system. He merely stated that seeing someone in Muslim garb at the airport makes him a bit nervous. Hello? With attempted shoe bombings and water bottle bombings and - of course - 9/11, isn't it obvious why he would have that visceral feeling? Isn't it pretty natural? That he was fired for that is absurd.
Lastly, I'd like to state that - although I rarely agree with him - I have a great deal of respect for Juan Williams. He does an excellent job of explaining his point of view and he is adept at the lost art of an actual back and forth conversation with someone of an opposing viewpoint. He is also 'fair' enough to occasionally surprise you with his comments - in other words, he's not just a mouthpiece for the liberal/progressive point of view. The man actually has opinions that don't toe the party line. I respect that. Believe me, NPR's loss will be someone else's gain.
B
BoomerBuzz
Guest
Response to Dan Dennis: If NPR's agenda were "liberal", as you state, wouldn't they be encouraging rather than discouraging their staff to attend Jon Stewart's rally?
As for Mike Huckabee's suggestion about de-funding NPR because of Juan Williams' "O'Reilly Show" remarks, why would one NPR employee's honest admissions of initial concern in response to visual
stimuli (ie. fellow passengers in Muslim garb initiates situation evaluation response) have any impact on the funding it receives? The reactions were presented as personal and not those of the organization for whom he was employed. If a commercial broadcast news reporter admitted to feeling concerned when she entered a crime-ridden, poverty-stricken neighborhood which happened to be populated mostly by Hispanics or African-Americans, Huckabee's thinking would the FCC be required to rescind the station's federally-issued license.
Seems to me that NPR caved to the whack jobs on this one.
As for Mike Huckabee's suggestion about de-funding NPR because of Juan Williams' "O'Reilly Show" remarks, why would one NPR employee's honest admissions of initial concern in response to visual
stimuli (ie. fellow passengers in Muslim garb initiates situation evaluation response) have any impact on the funding it receives? The reactions were presented as personal and not those of the organization for whom he was employed. If a commercial broadcast news reporter admitted to feeling concerned when she entered a crime-ridden, poverty-stricken neighborhood which happened to be populated mostly by Hispanics or African-Americans, Huckabee's thinking would the FCC be required to rescind the station's federally-issued license.
Seems to me that NPR caved to the whack jobs on this one.
N
no respect
Guest
I suppose the whole "Freedom of Speech" or saying what most people are thinking
is just sinful........the whole thing blows
is just sinful........the whole thing blows
I think the real issue here, from NPR's point of view, is they have an analyst who has been providing commentary for another, more controversial news organization. They've been unhappy with Juan Williams' move to Fox for a long time. If he had made the exact same comment on any other network, in any other context, it would have fallen below the radar. But that's not what happened. There's a journalistic problem when the reporter becomes part of the story. The Fox approach to news, regardless of politics, is tabloidal and oriented around personalities, or at least moreso than other news organizations. For that, they get a lot of attention, and great ratings. Buit I know of no other NPR or public broadcasting reporter who also works for Fox. I don't agree with their use of this instance for firing him. If they didn't like his arrangement with Fox, and clearly they didn't, they simply should have not resigned him.
If Juan Williams with whom I often disagree had said what he said on NPR's air then they would have more of a leg to stand on. There has been an ongoing concern with Williams appearing on FOX news and to that point they have asked FOX to not refer to his NPR affiliation when he appears on the various FOX shows to which he lends commentary.
To that point it is their right but it is also the right, perhaps the duty, of Congress to see that no public funding, through grants, goes to NPR. It is also the right of anyone contemplating giving to the various local station pledge drives to not give if they feel that firing Juan Williams was wrong. Or to the contrary anyone who agrees would be justified in giving because they want their station to espouse far left progressive views. We are still a free country though there are those who would like to change that within the extremes at both ends of our political spectrum.
To that point it is their right but it is also the right, perhaps the duty, of Congress to see that no public funding, through grants, goes to NPR. It is also the right of anyone contemplating giving to the various local station pledge drives to not give if they feel that firing Juan Williams was wrong. Or to the contrary anyone who agrees would be justified in giving because they want their station to espouse far left progressive views. We are still a free country though there are those who would like to change that within the extremes at both ends of our political spectrum.
So much for freedom of speech....political correctness is censhorship.
TheBigA said:
Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner.
One of the things I saw last night was that NPR receives more complaints about Williams than any other person they employ - for the things he says when he's not on NPR.
If NPR is anything like my place of employment, any work I do outside is fine as long as it doesn't affect my work for them.
Let's also look at his history with the network. They first brought him on to replace Ray Suarez on Talk of the Nation. He bombed miserably. Politics aside, he simply sucked as a radio talk show host. They moved him to being a correspondent. Then, once he started shooting his mouth off on Fox, they made him an analyst until they finally dropped him.
But NPR hasn't deprived him of his first amendment rights. They're just no longer giving him a paycheck.
Those who can't see the difference should read the constitution.
If Mr. Williams were a political figure, 50% of the pundits would be demanding his tossing from office for that comment while the other 30% would defend his right to free speech simply because they personally agree with the comment. Had Mr. Williams appeared on FOX and stated that all FOX cable network viewers were generally white racist biggots, don't you think most of the folks here claiming excessive 'political correctness' is in play, wouldn't be asking for Mr. Williams head and firing from NPR?
The fact is that whether a reporter/commentator on a national radio network or an anchor at some small town TV station, you make the choice of becoming a public figure who risks falling into public scrutiny. If one doesn't measure each word, whether on FOX, NPR, NBC, whatever; then you take responsibility and face the consequences if you screw up. It's an individuals choice, not the network or other press.
It will be interesting now to see if FOX will hire Mr. Williams. Come to think of it, maybe that was his plan all along!
The fact is that whether a reporter/commentator on a national radio network or an anchor at some small town TV station, you make the choice of becoming a public figure who risks falling into public scrutiny. If one doesn't measure each word, whether on FOX, NPR, NBC, whatever; then you take responsibility and face the consequences if you screw up. It's an individuals choice, not the network or other press.
It will be interesting now to see if FOX will hire Mr. Williams. Come to think of it, maybe that was his plan all along!
A
average joan
Guest
What does what Juan Williams said have anything to do with the yelling fire in a theater analogy? Are you kidding me? His opinion is protected as free speech hate to break it to you, it is not protected at NPR because it dosent fall in line with what they believe. No one got fired when the hosts were calling George Bush a nazi, by the way , that's protected speech too, because this is America and we are free to voice our opinions, this has nothing to do with " yelling fire " get real.
The First Amendment, if I recall, gives you freedom of speech as it regards the government. In this fact scenario, Mr. Williams doesn't have a freedom of speech protection against his employer, in this instance NPR.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
A
average joan
Guest
As I stated before, it is not protected at NPR. Where I take issue is this whole you can't say that attitude only when it comes to statements made that they don't like. Not a peep from those people when an opinion is voiced they agree with. I hear things that I don't agree with all the time, but I would stand with them in a second if someone told me they didn't have the right to say it. As a business, you can dictate what goes on there, but don't give me the "yell fire" in a theater analogy, please.
average joan said:
No one prevented him from saying it. So that isn't an issue.
It's the same as Dixie Chicks. What they said was protected free speech. But they had to face the consequences.
Also, when you work for a conpany, you represent that company. If you go on a TV station spouting your free speech, and are identified as an employee of a company (and Juan Williams was identified as an analyst for NPR), that company is well with its rights to fire you. Regardless of first amendment.
- Status