• 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 Hires Firm to Investigate Williams Firing

Give me a break. I like NPR, and I don't think Juan Williams was a good fit because, frankly, he was two-faced (one face on NPR, the other on Fox. But, NPR made a complete mess in firing him. They should have just let his contract expire.

I'm so happy that NPR feels it can afford to pay high priced lawyers to tell them what common sense should tell them anyway. As a listener and contributor to my local station, I object - as should all member stations.
 
They have a credibility problem. So they need someone from the outside who doesn't have a dog in the fight do an assessment. It might also help them in the event of a lawsuit (from either Williams or the CEO).
 
So. Does NPR have anything of value to gain by going to the trouble and expense of having the consulting study? As NPR has developed through the years, some very valuable talent has developed hand-in-hand with the networks growth in stature. There has to be a lot of soul-searching by many of these people-of-talent. Can I trust NPR? Will they come in some morning and have me walk the plank?

If NPR's talent is going to focus on doing their craft, NPR needs to defuse the water-cooler-conversations. Make it obvious to The Stars that NPR will shoot straight as we go forward.

And big donors deserve (and require?) the same kind of honest and open establishment of policy. What is a fire-able offense? What is an acceptable scenario for communicating the decision to the person targeted, and what are the acceptable and expected explanations to the public, and what behavior is expected of the responsible executives who discuss the action in public.

Talent and contributors need to understand whether NPR operates like the fire-at-will mom and pop businesses of a couple of generations ago, or is NPR in the mold of buttoned-down, sophisticated corporate America? (Much of corporate America has dirty hands and red faces, but much of corporate America has built a personnel model that contains a lot of The Golden Rule.)
 
I don't think it's either of your choices. To me, they're handling it the typical way a non-profit does this kind of thing. It takes a village to run a non-profit. So they consult with everyone. You don't see Citadel hiring an outside firm to investigate Farid.
 
TheBigA said:
I don't think it's either of your choices. To me, they're handling it the typical way a non-profit does this kind of thing. It takes a village to run a non-profit. So they consult with everyone. You don't see Citadel hiring an outside firm to investigate Farid.
Click to expand...

If NPR expects a nickel of taxpayer funding (regardless of how it gets laundered through various means), then every taxpayer in the United States has a vested interest in how NPR squanders its money. If they want to hire an outside firm, let them. It'll be a cold day in Hell before any congressman or senator that I can vote for will ever get my vote for his re-election if he votes to give them anything. And I intend to make sure that my congressmen know that!
 
Did anybody read the article? These "consultants" are a law firm. A big time, big money, white shoe, corporate law firm. They specialize in things like bankruptcy, corporate litigation, mergers and acquisitions and patents. So, what exactly are they "consulting" about. Citadel might well hire this firm. They are bankruptcy lawyers, after all.

The rather vague announcement was made by an NPR board chairman Dave Edwards (probably no relation to Bob), who represents WUWM (University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee). He avoids saying what this firm of some 1300 high priced lawyers is going to consult about (in their never ending quest to run up billable hours).

NPR, like a lot of public sector types, seems to operate on the principle of: When in doubt, hire a consultant.

NPR also has a record of hiring on-air talent with a "day job" some place else. Exhibit A is Cokie Roberts (who used to work full-time for NPR but now really works for ABC).
 
Instead of going hiring some outsiders to investigate Juan Williams firing NPR should have just fired Vivian Schiller weeks ago.
Her comments were totally uncalled for regarding Williams needing to see a psychiatric.

Here is just another example of some so-called non profit organization wasting money when the solution is simple.

Perhaps NPR is trying to get enough evidence to fire Schiller, thus bringing in these "suits."
 
It's not just NPR. Everybody in radio seems unable to do anything without consultants. Often these consultants are ex-broadcasters (program directors, music directors, managers, etc.) who had some success back in the day - invariably while working with a consultant - and then cash in by becoming consultants. Nobody in broadcasting seems able to think for himself or to have the cajones to make a decision on his own. Consultants perpetuate the myth that there are rules or formulae (know only to the consultant) which guarantee success. Sorry, radio is a crap-shoot. No guarantees - ever.
 
If NPR was going to hire consultants to help them with this issue, they should have hired them before taking action, not after.

At this point in the game, it's all about "cover." Having already screwed the pooch, they need a reputable firm to proclaim that they did nothing wrong, so that they can point to it henceforth whenever the name Juan Williams pops up.

NPR in CYA mode.
 
amfmxm said:
Having already screwed the pooch, they need a reputable firm to proclaim that they did nothing wrong, so that they can point to it henceforth whenever the name Juan Williams pops up.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Their ombudsman has already said they did wrong things. And the Board doesn't need a puff piece. If they did, they'd hire a PR firm. They need someone to bring integrity to the discussion, because there's a lot of misinformation being thrown around.

It's an interesting situation. In this day and time, when the blogosphere and message boards are filled with all kinds of theories and accusations, who can we trust to actually report facts? We don't trust the media, we don't trust the government, and there really is no one out there who can say "this is the truth." We just believe what we want to believe.

Bringing an outside law firm that has no interest in what it finds can bring credibility to the discussion, by laying out in full detail the timeline of what happened, and understanding why the decision was made in a scientific way, rather than an emotional way.

This is an organization that wants its reputation back. They don't care about CYA. That won't help their integrity. I think they have to follow what the company says, and if that means heads roll, so be it. But this time, there will be no question about what was done or why.
 
This is an organization that wants its reputation back. They don't care about CYA. That won't help their integrity. I think they have to follow what the company says, and if that means heads roll, so be it. But this time, there will be no question about what was done or why.
Click to expand...

This strikes me as a cogent analysis. I'll add something to it: remember that NPR may or may not care what the general public thinks about this move. But I'll bet good money they care a lot about what the affiliate stations think about it. I could see the stations taking this more a lot more seriously than anyone in the general public would.
 
aaronread said:
This is an organization that wants its reputation back. They don't care about CYA. That won't help their integrity. I think they have to follow what the company says, and if that means heads roll, so be it. But this time, there will be no question about what was done or why.
Click to expand...

This strikes me as a cogent analysis. I'll add something to it: remember that NPR may or may not care what the general public thinks about this move. But I'll bet good money they care a lot about what the affiliate stations think about it. I could see the stations taking this more a lot more seriously than anyone in the general public would.
Click to expand...
To NPR listeners like myself- I only saw/heard Jaun on excerpts from Fox News Sunday. He wasn't a headliner for NPR. His insights were poor at best. The right wing commenters on the Fox show just ran over him (which is probably why Fox News swooped him up so fast- they love faux balance and beating up a weak black moderate with a hispanic name fits the bill wonderfully).
 
Pandora Fan said:
To NPR listeners like myself- I only saw/heard Jaun on excerpts from Fox News Sunday. He wasn't a headliner for NPR. His insights were poor at best. The right wing commenters on the Fox show just ran over him (which is probably why Fox News swooped him up so fast- they love faux balance and beating up a weak black moderate with a hispanic name fits the bill wonderfully).
Click to expand...

Wow...such an unbiased assessment!
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom