Review of Williams' firing completed, Weiss resigns

[DG]

From NPR:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...ring-completed-npr-senior-vp-for-news-resigns

..."The Board has expressed confidence in Vivian Schiller's leadership going forward. She accepted responsibility as CEO and cooperated fully with the review process. The Board, however, expressed concern over her role in the termination process and has voted that she will not receive a 2010 bonus...

 

[MattParker]

This is disgusting. Schiller stays and makes Weiss the scapegoat. Schiller is responsible for the decision to fire Williams. She had Weiss deliver the bad news to Williams and now makes her take the fall. Whatever her faults as a manager, she has shown herself to be a despicable human being. And some people continue to believe the people in charge of public radio are somehow higher caliber than the bosses in commercial radio. Right!

 

[listener-in]

This is disgusting. Schiller stays and makes Weiss the scapegoat. Schiller is responsible for the decision to fire Williams. She had Weiss deliver the bad news to Williams and now makes her take the fall. Whatever her faults as a manager, she has shown herself to be a despicable human being. And some people continue to believe the people in charge of public radio are somehow higher caliber than the bosses in commercial radio. Right!

I agree with you until you get to the last part, which just isn't so; as a defender of public broadcasting, I am under no illusion that its management ranks are populated only by saints. However, at least it is washing its dirty linen in public, which rarely happens in the corporate media.

 

[TheBigA]

This is disgusting. Schiller stays and makes Weiss the scapegoat. Schiller is responsible for the decision to fire Williams. She had Weiss deliver the bad news to Williams and now makes her take the fall.

That's an interesting statement. Where do you come by the information that Schiller told Weiss to fire Williams? Maybe I missed it.

 

[MattParker]

The accounts of the Williams firing say Weiss discussed it with Schiller. It does not say who broached the idea of firing Williams first, or if both were already considering this. After her conversation with Schiller, Weiss called Williams and gave him the ax. Two possibilities: Schiller said fire him and Weiss as a good solider delivered the message. Or Weiss made a recommendation and Schiller said OK, fire him. Either way, Schiller is the boss and therefore she, and she alone, is responsible. And it was Schiller, not Weiss, who made the cheap shot comment about Williams and his psychiatrist.

So, under what possible scenario should Weiss go and Schiller stay?

This is an example of craven public sector bureaucrats caving to outside pressure. Apparently NPR's operating principle, like that of most politicians, is: When in doubt fire somebody (of course, never the person responsible - they are too important).

 

[TheBigA]

The accounts of the Williams firing say Weiss discussed it with Schiller.

Which accounts? I can't find any.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Schiller was the one caught on tape alluding that Williams needs to consult a psychiatrist. Therefore she should have been fired; or at least Williams should have sued her for that public remark.

 

[TheBigA]

Schiller was the one caught on tape alluding that Williams needs to consult a psychiatrist. Therefore she should have been fired; or at least Williams should have sued her for that public remark.

Fired for expressing her freedom of speech? Isn't that tit for tat?

 

[amfmxm]

Weiss wasn't fired, she resigned. The official statements don't seem to clarify reasons for the resignation, and we'll probably never know for sure.

My interpretation is that she wasn't forced out but instead chose to bail rather than continue to be associated any longer with this clusterf*ck.

An understandable decision on her part.

 

[DG]

Weiss wasn't fired, she resigned. The official statements don't seem to clarify reasons for the resignation, and we'll probably never know for sure.

My interpretation is that she wasn't forced out but instead chose to bail rather than continue to be associated any longer with this clusterf*ck.

An understandable decision on her part.

I agree that things at NPR are a Charlie Foxtrot...

I was told by an NPR staffer that Weiss did indeed consult with Viv before the firing, but that the timing and method (via the telephone) were Weiss' decision, NOT Viv's.

Apparently it was Weiss that had it in for Mr. Williams, and while the decision to fire him was backed by Viv and the Board, the actual manner in which he was fired was purely hers alone, and many both inside and outside the network were shocked at how she handled it. "She knew better" was what I was told, and one would expect a 30-year NPR veteran to have handled this much differently both in terms of the timing of it, and the manner in which it was done.

I was also told that the "findings" of the investigation were given verbally, and not conveyed by hardcopy report.

I think the timing of Weiss' "resignation" is also interesting.

I think Viv got off light in all of this...

 

[MattParker]

I don't like Schiller but I don't think either she or Weiss deserves to be pushed out. The NPR posting on the big CF of 2010 lists a bunch of proposed guidelines to keep something like this from happening again. Well, those guidelines were not in place when this happened. Weiss did not violate any guidelines or rules then in place; neither did Schiller. This once again shows NPR operates with a public sector mind-set: People are upset. Find a scapegoat and 86 them.

Not only should public radio lose federal funding but congress should force a reorganization of public radio. Instead of going to the BBC, maybe Howard Stringer should take over NPR.

 

[TheBigA]

Not only should public radio lose federal funding but congress should force a reorganization of public radio.

Can't force a re-org if they don't fund them. The only justification they have is because of funding. Otherwise it's an FCC matter. Even the FCC doesn't investigate commercial stations when problems arise. If an owner commits a crime and is found to be unfit, they lose their license. NPR doesn't own any station licenses.

Keep in mind that Congress has a "public sector mindset." That's what the purpose is here.

Regarding the guidelines, I think the view is that those guidelines were vague, NPR knew they had a potential situation brewing, and didn't prepare adequately or involve enough people in the process.

 

[onetake]

National PUBLIC Radio?

Yeah right.
Lots of internal games and agenda.
Seldom do we see people from the print world really absorb and be effective in radio.
It's an interesting club that runs this place

 

[aaronread]

National PUBLIC Radio?

Yeah right.

You know, people...it's a brand. You act like there's actual frogs in the studio at Froggy 107.1 and that there's hot lip action at every Kiss station.

 

[TheBigA]

Reaction from within NPR community, as reported in today's Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/07/AR2011010706063.html

 

[flashback]

all the uproar on what happened after the williams firing but the williams firing is condoned by the NPR community.i guess they don`t believe in freedom of speech.

 

[TheBigA]

all the uproar on what happened after the williams firing but the williams firing is condoned by the NPR community.i guess they don`t believe in freedom of speech.

Sure they do. He had the freedom to say it. But he has to deal with the consequences. Freedom of speech doesn't absolve anyone from consequences. That's the cost of freedom. Libel and slander are consequences of free speech. So is getting fired.

 

[flashback]

all the uproar on what happened after the williams firing but the williams firing is condoned by the NPR community.i guess they don`t believe in freedom of speech.

Sure they do. He had the freedom to say it. But he has to deal with the consequences. Freedom of speech doesn't absolve anyone from consequences. That's the cost of freedom. Libel and slander are consequences of free speech. So is getting fired.

apparently they don`t.if they did williams would be on NPR still.

NPR always seemed like it was open to diffrent ideas.i guess not.

 

[TheBigA]

apparently they don`t.if they did williams would be on NPR still.

NPR always seemed like it was open to diffrent ideas.i guess not.

If he had expressed those ideas at NPR, he'd still have a job. The fact that he presented them someplace else, while representing another employer, is where the problem comes in. You try expressing your free speech while also representing your employer and see how quickly you get fired. You can do it as a private citizen, but not representing your employer, unless you've been authorized to do it. He wasn't, and knew he wasn't. Yet he continued to do it. Nothing in the report says he shouldn't have been fired.

 

[flashback]

apparently they don`t.if they did williams would be on NPR still.

NPR always seemed like it was open to diffrent ideas.i guess not.

If he had expressed those ideas at NPR, he'd still have a job. The fact that he presented them someplace else, while representing another employer, is where the problem comes in. You try expressing your free speech while also representing your employer and see how quickly you get fired. You can do it as a private citizen, but not representing your employer, unless you've been authorized to do it. He wasn't, and knew he wasn't. Yet he continued to do it. Nothing in the report says he shouldn't have been fired.

obviously he was able to go on fox and keep his job.or he would have been told not to way before the incident.

he did not say it on NPR.any inteligent person would not think "if juan williams said this it must be what NPR thinks." anyone who said it is what NPR thinks to an inteligent person would get disbelief.it was a case of overreaction and unjustified.perhaps legally justified but still wrong.