The Firing of Juan Williams From NPR

[Shawnee123]

Originally Posted by Flint

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.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

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.

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.

[Pico and ME]

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).

[Shawnee123]

*slobber snort*

I dunno George.

[Pico and 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.

[Flint]

Fox bad. Juan bad. Fire Juan! lol

[classicman]

Originally Posted by tw

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.

Originally Posted by Flint

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.

[xoxoxoBruce]

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.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

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.

[glatt]

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.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Griff

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?

[Undertoad]

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."

[Pico and ME]

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.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Pico and ME

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.

[Undertoad]

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.