Any thoughts on the Juan Williams/NPR story?

[Mommy_Again]

I know a lot of people here listen to NPR. I am more of a "Fox News Girl", if you get my drift, but I always appreciate the opinions on this board because they seem to be very thoughtful and well-researched. I saw there was a 10-page thread on Ginny Thomas, but nothing on Juan Williams. I've heard a lot on Fox but flipped back and forth between CNN and MSNBC the other day and didn't see anything more than a ticker at the bottom saying "GOP pushing to end Federal funding on NPR."

I'm curious about the views of those who are left-leaning and moderate...any opinions?

[wellyes]

I personally think it's absurd that he was fired. He admitted to having a bigoted reaction --- but he was aware that it was bigoted, was admitting it as a shortcoming on his part, was trying to have a frank conversation about it. Most of us have knee-jerk reactions that we're not proud of once in a while. Being able to talk about that is a big part of how we get away from our own failings. NPR screwed up for sure. Not a proud moment.

[Karinyc]

All I know is that when you preface a statement with, "I'm not a bigot" well...that's very telling. I will generalize and say that I firmly believe we all have prejudices & bigoted thoughts. It's how you confront & recognize them that makes the difference & allows for productive discussions. I saw part of the interview (not a Fox News gal here -although I do catch them at times) and read the statements & part of the interview. I can see what he's trying to say (and I think it's a completely ignorant statement). It's his opinion, but it smacks of bigotry. I think that you are absolutely entitled to make those statements but there are consequences (especially if you are a public figure & especially a journalist). Same thing happened to Rick Sanchez. Maybe NPR and CNN found an (the) excuse to fire these guys? They not only represent themselves but their employers (I believe O'Reilly not only stated that Williams is a Fox News analyst, but also is w/NPR). I just read that Williams has an expanded role now with Fox. I'm not sure I necessarily agree with the firings but both NPR & CNN are absolutely entitled to terminate their services, IMO. You know, people are always talking about personal accountability and I think this is a perfect example of that. I really don't see how "political correctness" plays into this (and I disagree with his political correctness comment as well).

[niccig]

I think it's one thing to have your own opinion and express that, but as soon as you're on a TV show as "NPR commentator" then what you say reflects on your employer. This is the same for anyone. I could be on a show as XYZ employee and anything I say will reflect back on my employer. If I said a bigoted comment, you can bet there would be consequences from my employer.

I also heard this wasn't the first time he's said something controversial that's very against what NPR says/does with their shows. It may have been the final straw for higher ups to have a commentator make public their personal opinions that are very different to the company's stance and it is reflected back on the employer.

And the cynic in me thinks he's done well by all of this as he now has a 2 million dollar contract with Fox. And I would feel the same if a FOX commentator did the same thing and ended up with a 2 million contract with CNN. I'm actually getting more and more cynical about politicians and political commentators - I do think they're out for themselves first, let's drum up some controversy to obscure real issues...maybe it's all the negative ads from both sides of the aisle that make me feel this way.

ETA. Re-reading that it sounds like I think he did this deliberately - and I don't think that at all. But I am getting cynical and this controversy has ended with him getting a very lucrative deal from FOX, more than NPR would be paying him. So he hasn't been hard done by in my opinion - see, I told you I was getting more and more cynical.

[Twoboos]

I actually just heard about this yesterday on NPR, of all places.

They basically said he should have been fired, but NOT for this as he's made some very questionable comments in the past and it seems the higher ups just used this to dump him.

Apparently the clip that keeps circulating has been edited so it leaves off a key part of what he was saying. To completely paraphrase, it was "I am biased when I see Muslims on planes, [clip usually ends here] but as President Bush said, we should not be biased against all Muslims/Islam for 9/11." Again this is NOT word for word what was said. But that's the gist.

I will see if I can find the story online.

[liamsmom]

All I know is that when you preface a statement with, "I'm not a bigot" well...that's very telling. I will generalize and say that I firmly believe we all have prejudices & bigoted thoughts. It's how you confront & recognize them that makes the difference & allows for productive discussions. I saw part of the interview (not a Fox News gal here -although I do catch them at times) and read the statements & part of the interview. I can see what he's trying to say (and I think it's a completely ignorant statement). It's his opinion, but it smacks of bigotry. I think that you are absolutely entitled to make those statements but there are consequences (especially if you are a public figure & especially a journalist). Same thing happened to Rick Sanchez. Maybe NPR and CNN found an (the) excuse to fire these guys? They not only represent themselves but their employers (I believe O'Reilly not only stated that Williams is a Fox News analyst, but also is w/NPR). I just read that Williams has an expanded role now with Fox. I'm not sure I necessarily agree with the firings but both NPR & CNN are absolutely entitled to terminate their services, IMO. You know, people are always talking about personal accountability and I think this is a perfect example of that. I really don't see how "political correctness" plays into this (and I disagree with his political correctness comment as well).

:yeahthat: Freedom of speech does not entitle one to remain employed, IYKWIM. NPR was free to fire him, although I do agree it was a knee-jerk reaction. But I also think Williams loses a lot of credibility with his behavior and immediately joining FOX news. Rick Sanchez :shake: at least apologized for his remarks and came off as sincere. Williams appears spiteful.

[ellies mom]

I'm of two minds about this. I do think there needs to be a place in our society where people can have an honest conversation of racial/ethnic issues without being worried about being labeled racist. I think more people have unexamined biases than are really full blown racist. And once you call someone racist, it shuts down the conversation so you never get to the examining biases part .

But I don't see that this conversation was type. He did further on in the conversation say that we can't judge all Muslims by the extremists just like you can't judge all Christians by Timothy McVeigh but that was in response to O'Reilly's response that he was done caring that not all Muslims were extremist. Now, if he had prefaced his statement with something like "I'm ashamed to admit this but when I see... I wish we the media did a better job of not feeding these biases because it is really easy to start internalizing them when they simply are untrue". But instead he started off the with official "I'm about to say something bigoted" phrase and offered no self-reflection. Several years ago, in response to a report that jewelry stores were refusing to "Buzz in" black men, Williams said “Racism is a lazy man’s substitute for using good judgment … Common sense becomes racism when skin color becomes a formula for figuring out who is a danger to me.”. If he had referred to that sentiment with an "And now I find myself doing the same thing and it really troubles me." Then maybe it would have been that type of conversation (although not likely on O'Reilly) and maybe the comment would have been acceptable.

But the other aspect here is that this is not the first time Williams has had problems with NPR for the things he says on FOX. NPR demoted him from journalist to news analyst for past issues. NPR had to request that he stop using his NPR title on FOX but it is still being mentioned in interviews. NPR has a standard that they expect of their employees and Williams was having a problem maintaining that.

[mikala]

I have mixed feelings about the firing. I think NPR had the right to fire him as his employer given these remarks and their discussions about his Fox role in the past but I don't think they handled it well.

Did anyone else read the NYTimes article on it? I loved the intro:

Of the thousands of complaints that have saturated NPR in the wake of Juan Williams’s firing earlier this week, some of the most telling have been from callers describing themselves as long-time “viewers” of NPR who warn that they are going to “stop watching.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/23/business/media/23williams.html?_r=3&ref=business

[ellies mom]

Of the thousands of complaints that have saturated NPR in the wake of Juan Williams’s firing earlier this week, some of the most telling have been from callers describing themselves as long-time “viewers” of NPR who warn that they are going to “stop watching.”


A friend on another board volunteers at the pledge drive. She asked the person in charge about the impact it was having. While they can't verify phone calls, she did say that out of the numerous e-mails they had received stating that they would never donate again, only three actually had donated in the past (they can cross-check e-mail addresses, they can't cross-check anonymous phone calls).

[larig]

Williams is supposed to be a journalist. He is not supposed to be offering opinion, especially not in the name of NPR on another network. He violated NPR policy (quoted & bolded below) and deserved to be fired. Besides, knowing the opinion he expressed makes it hard to believe that Williams could ever be an impartial reporter, or that these beliefs wouldn't impact the analysis he did. NPR had no choice but to let him go. I appreciate NPR taking a stand for keeping the line between journalists and pundits clear. :jammin:


9. NPR journalists must get permission from the Vice President for their Division or their designee to appear on TV or other media. It is not necessary to get permission in each instance when the employee is a regular participant on an approved show. Permission for such appearances may be revoked if NPR determines such appearances are harmful to the reputation of NPR or the NPR participant.

10. In appearing on TV or other media including electronic Web-based forums, NPR journalists should not express views they would not air in their role as an NPR journalist. They should not participate in shows electronic forums, or blogs that encourage punditry and speculation rather than rather than fact-based analysis.

ETA: I am a HUGE NPR listener and proud member of local NPR station.

[larig]

Freedom of speech does not entitle one to remain employed, IYKWIM. NPR was free to fire him, although I do agree it was a knee-jerk reaction. But I also think Williams loses a lot of credibility with his behavior and immediately joining FOX news. Rick Sanchez :shake: at least apologized for his remarks and came off as sincere. Williams appears spiteful.

:yeahthat:

[kijip]

Ok, when threats have been levelled against the children of the head of NPR over this issue, people of conscience regardless of political attachment have to stop and think "seriously? Really?". What the heck is wrong with people?

Juan Williams is not new to Fox. his new deal with them was an expanded contract, not a totally out of the blue thing. It is a good opportunity for them to make a splash. And they got a great hire in him, he is smart, experienced and a great journalist. But what he has been doing on Fox spreads out of journalism into the infotainment, uber editorializing brand of journalism so damn popular with Fox and MSNBC. I can see why NPR would think that this is incompatible with their mission. It was their right to fire him for the string of warnings he was given. It was a clumsy time and way of doing it however and speaks to how they are not in the political game in the Sam way as Fox. They knew this would happen, they knew there would be heat from Fox and they did it anyways.

I think that Fox can use it all they want to to create a story but frankly I do not think it is a big deal.



The vast majority of NPR funding is private donations and foundations. I am not concerned about the Sesame Street wars falling on NPR.

[Laurel]

All I know is that when you preface a statement with, "I'm not a bigot" well...that's very telling. I will generalize and say that I firmly believe we all have prejudices & bigoted thoughts. It's how you confront & recognize them that makes the difference & allows for productive discussions. I saw part of the interview (not a Fox News gal here -although I do catch them at times) and read the statements & part of the interview. I can see what he's trying to say (and I think it's a completely ignorant statement). It's his opinion, but it smacks of bigotry. I think that you are absolutely entitled to make those statements but there are consequences (especially if you are a public figure & especially a journalist). Same thing happened to Rick Sanchez. Maybe NPR and CNN found an (the) excuse to fire these guys? They not only represent themselves but their employers (I believe O'Reilly not only stated that Williams is a Fox News analyst, but also is w/NPR). I just read that Williams has an expanded role now with Fox. I'm not sure I necessarily agree with the firings but both NPR & CNN are absolutely entitled to terminate their services, IMO. You know, people are always talking about personal accountability and I think this is a perfect example of that. I really don't see how "political correctness" plays into this (and I disagree with his political correctness comment as well).

Could not have said it better myself.

[maestramommy]

I've not listened to Juan Williams's show much, but I did hear him from time to time on the morning show. At first I was like, "yeah, what'd you expect?", but then I heard more and more. I also heard the Friday news roundup on the Diane Rehm show where they talked about it a bit.

1) I agree with one of the panelists that after 10 years, getting fired by phone with no prelims is rather harsh.

2) Being a news analyst on NPR and a commentator on Fox News is a fine line to walk, and I still think he should've known better, ESP. since he's come under fire before for comments he's made.

3) These are testy times we live in. One of the panelists on the Diane Rehm show said something like we are still living in the aftermath of 9/11, it's like we've never been able to move on from that, or work through that. So now it's extremely difficult to even have a conversation about it, or about where we go from here.

ETA: I am completely in the dark about Nina Totenburg and Mora (Myra?) Liasson, but they keep being brought up as examples that NPR is being hypocritical by firing Williams. Thoughts?

[mommylamb]

I think the reason this wasn't brought up sooner on these boards was because of how badly the last Islam related thread went, which the mods ended up pulling. There were comments made on that thread that make Juan William's comments look extremely benign.

I'm a big NPR fan and have been for my entire adult life, and I will continue to listen to NPR and use it as one of my primary news sources. I do think they reacted badly in this instance though. I believe they had asked Fox to not use the term NPR Correspondent in regards to Juan Williams when he is on their punditry shows, and Fox continued to do so. The fact is that if Williams or any other journalist were to adhere to NPR's policy on not stating opinion, they shouldn't be on a show like that anyway, or shouldn't be associated with NPR when they are at least. Punditry shows are about opinion, not fact.

But other NPR journalists go on lots of other shows on other networks besides Fox and say lots of opinionated stuff and they don't get fired for it. I think NPR should either make a decision to not allow their news staff to do that, or to let them. Firing Williams seemed really inconsistent to me with how they've treated other journalists.

I do think that what Williams said was something that should be discussed in society. I think it's a gut reaction, that has a lot of fear and bigotry-based fear associated with it. But, he's right that there are a lot of people who feel that way and I think it's something that deserves to be discussed so that people can get over it. The fact is, someone who wants to commit a terrorist act on a plane is likely to specifically not wear clothing that would make them stand out as a Muslim, specifically because they would want to go unnoticed. So it's really a very irrational fear.

I feel badly for all the NPR member stations, including WAMU here in DC which was in the middle of their fall membership drive when this happened. I know a lot of people who didn't cut them a check, even though they had nothing to do with NPR's firing decisions.

[mmommy]

I actually just heard about this yesterday on NPR, of all places.

They basically said he should have been fired, but NOT for this as he's made some very questionable comments in the past and it seems the higher ups just used this to dump him.


I heard this story too. And I thought it was great that NPR was covering the story about NPR in what seems like an impartial way. It made me think about whether FOX ever covers stories about FOX in a similarly impartial way. I don't have a TV, so I don't know for sure, but from everything I hear I'm guessing that it doesn't.

[maestramommy]

But other NPR journalists go on lots of other shows on other networks besides Fox and say lots of opinionated stuff and they don't get fired for it. I think NPR should either make a decision to not allow their news staff to do that, or to let them. Firing Williams seemed really inconsistent to me with how they've treated other journalists.

I do think that what Williams said was something that should be discussed in society. I think it's a gut reaction, that has a lot of fear and bigotry-based fear associated with it. But, he's right that there are a lot of people who feel that way and I think it's something that deserves to be discussed so that people can get over it. The fact is, someone who wants to commit a terrorist act on a plane is likely to specifically not wear clothing that would make them stand out as a Muslim, specifically because they would want to go unnoticed. So it's really a very irrational fear.

I feel badly for all the NPR member stations, including WAMU here in DC which was in the middle of their fall membership drive when this happened. I know a lot of people who didn't cut them a check, even though they had nothing to do with NPR's firing decisions.

Our NPR station is going through a membership drive right now, and it was a little weird hearing all the coverage about it on NPR! I also agree with you about your second paragraph. Even though, as a professional journalist Williams should know better, I agree that it is almost impossible to have a thorough discussion on it because as one radio commentator put it, people tend to fly to their respective corners when something even faintly controversial is said.

[MissyAg94]

I think that NPR hated that Williams appeared on FNC. Because if they really fire people for stating an "opinion" publicly, Nina Totenberg would have been gone years ago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7msrF1V4NeY

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/nina-totenberg-next_511512.html

[JBaxter]

I think that NPR hated that Williams appeared on FNC. Because if they really fire people for stating an "opinion" publicly, Nina Totenberg would have been gone years ago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7msrF1V4NeY

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/nina-totenberg-next_511512.html

late to the thread but yes...
Random thoughts but he was doing FNC for like 10yrs right? I think it was an over reaction and maybe they should have thought things through a bit more before firing him.
NPR CEO Vivian Schiller is probably going to get in a bit of legal trouble for her comments too.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130728202&ps=cprs

From what Ive been following they fired the only African/American reporter/correspondent they had on staff.

[kijip]

Random thoughts but he was doing FNC for like 10yrs right? .

13 years on Fox, 10 on NPR.

[kijip]

Regardless of what he said, I am going to miss his pieces on NPR. Incidentally Juan Williams has a fabulous radio voice. I am not upset about him being fired much, but he is one of the more recognizable and standout voices on NPR. That said, there are many other awesome potential hires.

[kijip]

. Several years ago, in response to a report that jewelry stores were refusing to "Buzz in" black men, Williams said “Racism is a lazy man’s substitute for using good judgment … Common sense becomes racism when skin color becomes a formula for figuring out who is a danger to me.”. If he had referred to that sentiment with an "And now I find myself doing the same thing and it really troubles me." Then maybe it would have been that type of conversation (although not likely on O'Reilly) and maybe the comment would have been acceptable.

[/QUOTE]


I think this is a great point, love the quote on when common sense becomes racism.

[larig]

late to the thread but yes...
Random thoughts but he was doing FNC for like 10yrs right? I think it was an over reaction and maybe they should have thought things through a bit more before firing him.
NPR CEO Vivian Schiller is probably going to get in a bit of legal trouble for her comments too.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130728202&ps=cprs

From what Ive been following they fired the only African/American reporter/correspondent they had on staff.


Michele Norris is African American, and I'd say is higher profile than Juan.

[Edensmum]

I personally think it's absurd that he was fired. He admitted to having a bigoted reaction --- but he was aware that it was bigoted, was admitting it as a shortcoming on his part, was trying to have a frank conversation about it. Most of us have knee-jerk reactions that we're not proud of once in a while. Being able to talk about that is a big part of how we get away from our own failings. NPR screwed up for sure. Not a proud moment.


He very clearly violated his contract with NPR if you read it, he did it on Fox, just as he got a huge contract with Fox. It is so obviously an intentional move. It's sad to me that Fox does nothing to even try to put out factual news and now has several potential presidential candidates on the payroll. It puts them above criticism and leaves our potential leaders beholden to them. This is scary stuff if you want any truth in media in this country. I don't see this as NPR's screw up at all, but a maneuver by Fox to gain Williams and call NPR's funding into question. If they do away with NPR they do away with one big source of actual information getting to the public. This was absolutely planned. Now they will begin the campaign to call NPR's funding into question threatening one of the last media sources at least attempting fact based new and doing away with one more outlet that can point out that they are a political machine, not a factual news source. Fox sells extreme opinions and some fiction. Buyer beware.

[mommy111]

He very clearly violated his contract with NPR if you read it, he did it on Fox, just as he got a huge contract with Fox. It is so obviously an intentional move. It's sad to me that Fox does nothing to even try to put out factual news and now has several potential presidential candidates on the payroll. It puts them above criticism and leaves our potential leaders beholden to them. This is scary stuff if you want any truth in media in this country. I don't see this as NPR's screw up at all, but a maneuver by Fox to gain Williams and call NPR's funding into question. If they do away with NPR they do away with one big source of actual information getting to the public. This was absolutely planned. Now they will begin the campaign to call NPR's funding into question threatening one of the last media sources at least attempting fact based new and doing away with one more outlet that can point out that they are a political machine, not a factual news source. Fox sells extreme opinions and some fiction. Buyer beware.
Wow! If that is indeed true, we should look into contributing to NPR. It is the one radio channel that I used to tune in to to and from work. While I found some of their stuff (esp opinions) to be a little far out, I agree that the journalistic/news pieces are excellent and free of all the fox/msnbc hype. Plus they run BBC which I :heart:

[kijip]

Wow! If that is indeed true, we should look into contributing to NPR. It is the one radio channel that I used to tune in to to and from work. While I found some of their stuff (esp opinions) to be a little far out, I agree that the journalistic/news pieces are excellent and free of all the fox/msnbc hype. Plus they run BBC which I :heart:

Public funding actually goes to the stations, not directly to NPR. Some relatively small grants are made to NPR with public funds. This, including the pass through of station federal dollars for npr program fees, amounts to less that 2 percent of their funding at the NPR level. The stations average less than 10 percent of their budgets from federal funding. The PUBLIC in NPR is donor dollars. My station just had a record breaking fund drive.

Regarding opinions on NPR, I hear very little editorializing in NPR produced programs and not the contributors. It is just not what they are about. Also local stations content, either produced locally or purchased from places like pri and apr is often incorrectly attributed to NPR in listener minds. BBC is not carried by NPR, BBC is carried by most NPR member stations. If you like BBC then anything you hear on NPR should be pretty tame. They don't even claim impartiality, they lay it out pretty thick. I have heard BBC news reporters say things like " wow, what an ignorant short sighted move, what an idiot".

[secchick]

It is the hypocrisy that bothers me most. Nina Totenberg has said some inexcusabe things and to me it greatly appears as their policies are selectively enforced. The first amendment is inapplicable here and NPR had every legal right to fire him, but it is just another instance proving that the only free speech they like is speech with which they agree.

To me this seems like much the stir over Mel Gibson appearing in The Hangover II. He was fired after being cast for a cameo much like Mike Tyson's in the first installment because some of the cast members objected to some of the racial slurs used in his taped calls. Now I am the LAST person to stand up for Mel Gibson, but in it disgusts me that now saying something racist is now worse in the eyes of Hollywood than raping a woman or sex with a minor (Mike Tyson, Roman Polanski, Woody Allen, etc.) which seems to be A-OK.

[blisstwins]

It is the hypocrisy that bothers me most. Nina Totenberg has said some inexcusabe things and to me it greatly appears as their policies are selectively enforced. The first amendment is inapplicable here and NPR had every legal right to fire him, but it is just another instance proving that the only free speech they like is speech with which they agree.

This is what bothers me. I am absolutely independent in my politics and can see that Williams was in violation of his contract, but the commentators on my public radio station, which I listen to for hours a day, regularly offer their opinions in all kinds of politicized ways. I think NPR is extremely partisan, but the journalism is great so I listen. I don't think what Williams said is so horrible either. I think a lot of people feel as he does, even if they don't want to say it. I think productive follow up is more needed that total denial. That does not in any way mean I approve, but sweeping people's feelings away instead of confronting them is not useful. For example, I was in the car listening to another radio show and a caller said he was in the military and was uncomfortable with gays in the military. He say a gay man had once made an advance while they were deployed. The host asked what happened and the man said: "I am not into that." The other man dropped it and life when on. The host asked how that was different from unwanted attention from a woman and the man had no answer. I just hate living in an environment that is so PC that real conversation cannot be had.

[wellyes]

it is just another instance proving that the only free speech they like is speech with which they agree.

I'd think of course it is -- they're an at-will employer, right? These are not federally protected jobs.


Now I am the LAST person to stand up for Mel Gibson, but in it disgusts me that now saying something racist is now worse in the eyes of Hollywood than raping a woman or sex with a minor (Mike Tyson, Roman Polanski, Woody Allen, etc.) which seems to be A-OK.

Good point! But in this case, I can see where they're coming from. Tyson went to prison, serve his time, and found religion. There's an attempt at redemption there. Whereas Gibson is a non-repentant full-time bigot.

[mommylamb]

l
From what Ive been following they fired the only African/American reporter/correspondent they had on staff.

Are you insinuating that NPR is racist? I understand people's criticism of them in this instance for things like hypocrisy or bad judgment, but that's really ridiculous.


Michele Norris is African American, and I'd say is higher profile than Juan.

:yeahthat:

[Lolabee]

For example, I was in the car listening to another radio show and a caller said he was in the military and was uncomfortable with gays in the military. He say a gay man had once made an advance while they were deployed. The host asked what happened and the man said: "I am not into that." The other man dropped it and life when on. The host asked how that was different from unwanted attention from a woman and the man had no answer. I just hate living in an environment that is so PC that real conversation cannot be had.

Hmm, it sounds more likely to me that the radio caller realized that he shouldn't say anything further because he was going to say something horribly homophobic if he continued to comment. I'm all for real conversation, so discuss the actual issues, but I don't see how going off on a homophobic screed would in any way further that cause (save to maybe shake a few people out of their comfort zone in order to realize why DADT largely serves to reinforce homophobia as one of the last acceptable bigotries to have...) But really OP, would you have thought it perfectly fine for that radio caller to go off on why he was so horrified and disgusted that it was a man and not a woman who was hitting on him?


Good point! But in this case, I can see where they're coming from. Tyson went to prison, serve his time, and found religion. There's an attempt at redemption there. Whereas Gibson is a non-repentant full-time bigot.

And (allegedly) a pretty horrible domestic abuser to boot.

[babychi]

I think that NPR hated that Williams appeared on FNC. Because if they really fire people for stating an "opinion" publicly, Nina Totenberg would have been gone years ago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7msrF1V4NeY

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/nina-totenberg-next_511512.html

:yeahthat: Completely agree.

[wellyes]

I don't see how Nina T's statements are comparable. Partisanship is not what got Juan Williams fired. Even Fox News has fired / reprimended commentators for bigotry.

[secchick]

I don't see how Nina T's statements are comparable. Partisanship is not what got Juan Williams fired. Even Fox News has fired / reprimended commentators for bigotry.

Do you not agree that wishing Jesse Helms and his grandchildren contract and die of AIDS is beyond partisanship?

My issue is that the whole organization is blatantly partisan. So if taxpayer funds are a small part of the budget, NPR should be able to do without. I don't think it's appropriate for public funds to go to such an organization.

[kara97210]

Do you not agree that wishing Jesse Helms and his grandchildren contract and die of AIDS is beyond partisanship?

Not that I agree with it but to put it in context, Nina was responding to this story: Jesse Helms, the man who in 1995 said (in opposition to refunding the Ryan White Act) that the government should spend less on people with AIDS because they got sick due to their "deliberate, disgusting, revolting conduct."

I worked in the Senate during his time there and I can honestly say Jesse Helms was one of the most disgusting people I have ever encountered.

[MissyAg94]

He very clearly violated his contract with NPR if you read it, he did it on Fox, just as he got a huge contract with Fox. It is so obviously an intentional move. It's sad to me that Fox does nothing to even try to put out factual news and now has several potential presidential candidates on the payroll. It puts them above criticism and leaves our potential leaders beholden to them. This is scary stuff if you want any truth in media in this country. I don't see this as NPR's screw up at all, but a maneuver by Fox to gain Williams and call NPR's funding into question. If they do away with NPR they do away with one big source of actual information getting to the public. This was absolutely planned. Now they will begin the campaign to call NPR's funding into question threatening one of the last media sources at least attempting fact based new and doing away with one more outlet that can point out that they are a political machine, not a factual news source. Fox sells extreme opinions and some fiction. Buyer beware.

LOL. If you've bothered to listen to Williams since he was fired, you'd know that this is not true. Juan Williams could have quit NPR and gone to FNC full time without being fired. But you think there was a big conspiracy by FNC and Williams? I'm almost speechless. How many hours per week do you listen to FNC?

And I thought very little public funding went to NPR. But you think they'd be shut down without it? Honestly, if they're that good at what they do, they'll do very well in the free market.


I don't think what Williams said is so horrible either. I think a lot of people feel as he does, even if they don't want to say it. I think productive follow up is more needed that total denial. That does not in any way mean I approve, but sweeping people's feelings away instead of confronting them is not useful....I just hate living in an environment that is so PC that real conversation cannot be had.

I agree. Juan Williams said as much.

NPR is coming out of this not looking good at all. And their CEO is not helping. Maybe she should be fired for publicly stating her opinion on Williams' mental health.


I don't see how Nina T's statements are comparable. Partisanship is not what got Juan Williams fired. Even Fox News has fired / reprimended commentators for bigotry.

Wow. Really? Are you saying that Totenberg doesn't state opinions publicly, which is why NPR supposedly fired Williams? Did you read my link? She basically wished AIDS on Helms' grandchildren. Again, wow.

[AnnieW625]

I personally think it's absurd that he was fired. He admitted to having a bigoted reaction --- but he was aware that it was bigoted, was admitting it as a shortcoming on his part, was trying to have a frank conversation about it. Most of us have knee-jerk reactions that we're not proud of once in a while. Being able to talk about that is a big part of how we get away from our own failings. NPR screwed up for sure. Not a proud moment.

Those are my feelings too. My friend is a production engineer at NPR (at their CA HQ station) and morale as a whole is really bad there, has been for a few years; they have laid off a lot of people. He was 100% suprised either, but yeah the station could've handled it better.

On a side note they have gone so far to tell their employees that they can't go to any of the Jon Stewart rallies that are taking place this weekend because they don't want their employees seen there (and most of their employees are in the DC area), and from what I understand there was no ban at the Glenn Beck rally which my friend said he had NPR friends in DC attend.

Edited to add my feelings on Fox News Channel:
I usually can't stand that network, but like all news channels there are some nuggets of good information on each channel like Shepard Smith's Studio B, and The Fox Report (I usually only see Studio B as it's on during my lunch hour at the gym), and while he is more conservative I also like Neil Cavuto. They are both pretty straight shooters and have opposing sides on a lot and don't always agree with what is going on. I don't have time to read all four pages of posts (although the media nerd in me would love it) so I am just going to leave it at that.

[Lolabee]

I don't see how Nina T's statements are comparable. Partisanship is not what got Juan Williams fired. Even Fox News has fired / reprimended commentators for bigotry.

I agree. As far as that Weekly Standard article is concerned, it clearly cherry picked comments without giving them the benefit of the greater context in which they were made. Furthermore, the Weekly Standard is itself well known to be a highly partisan, right wing publication.

The greater context of Mr. Williams' statement is that it was not an isolated incident. According to his boss (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/23/business/media/23williams.html?_r=1&sq=juan williams&st=cse&adxnnl=1&scp=6&adxnnlx=1288018853-q+V+UbivCGXd5pBXRaZmjg), Vivian Schiller, Williams has apparently had other incidents wherein he made other statements that violated his contract with NPR, and he further violated his contract by appearing on FN the way that he did.


In an interview on Friday, Vivian Schiller, NPR’s chief executive, defended the decision to dismiss Mr. Williams and said it was not the product of political or financial pressures.

His contract was terminated, she said, because “he had several times in the past violated our news code of ethics with things that he had said on other people’s air.”

...In each instance, Ms. Schiller said, “We called him on it, we had a discussion, we asked him not to do it again.” NPR’s ethics code states that journalists “should not express views” in other outlets, like TV shows, that “they would not air in their role as an NPR journalist.”

Sounds like apples and oranges to me.

[wellyes]

Wow. Really? Are you saying that Totenberg doesn't state opinions publicly, which is why NPR supposedly fired Williams? Did you read my link? She basically wished AIDS on Helms' grandchildren. Again, wow.

And if you know anything about Juan Williams, you wouldn't call him a bigot. Have you read his books?

I read your link and it did not mention Helms at all. I can't watch YouTube (at work).

William's statement about getting nervous when he sees people in "Muslim garb" is bigoted - I honestly don't see how it could be interpreted any other way. I think if you asked him, he'd agree, which is why he started the sentence with "I'm not a bigot but _____".

[kijip]

Nina said it would be a sick sort of justice if after pushing to cut Aids research, helms or his family was in need of that research. Not the very best moment but not precisely what the Weekly Standard presents either. And it was a flip remark, one you might make about anyone regardless of party if they made such harsh remarks about people with AIDS.

Like saying "better hope your house doesn't burn down" if you are the town mayor that decides to cut all fire fighting funding. Or " better hope your son doesn't have to go to war " after cutting funding for military armor. Not "I hope your..."

[MissyAg94]

I agree. As far as that Weekly Standard article is concerned, it clearly cherry picked comments without giving them the benefit of the greater context in which they were made. Furthermore, the Weekly Standard is itself well known to be a highly partisan, right wing publication.
Either she stated those opinions or she didn't. Don't kill the messenger. It's not like NPR is running the clips of her saying those things. So I had to use a right wing publication. Nina Totenberg appears on "Inside Washington" where she regularly states her opinions. And she is an NPR correspondent as opposed to analyst like Juan Williams.


The greater context of Mr. Williams' statement is that it was not an isolated incident. According to his boss (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/23/business/media/23williams.html?_r=1&sq=juan williams&st=cse&adxnnl=1&scp=6&adxnnlx=1288018853-q+V+UbivCGXd5pBXRaZmjg), Vivian Schiller, Williams has apparently had other incidents wherein he made other statements that violated his contract with NPR, and he further violated his contract by appearing on FN the way that he did.



Sounds like apples and oranges to me.

Ms. Totenberg has publicly stated opinions on several occasions as well. How is that apples to oranges? Because she didn't state them on FNC?


I read your link and it did not mention Helms at all. I can't watch YouTube (at work).

William's statement about getting nervous when he sees people in "Muslim garb" is bigoted - I honestly don't see how it could be interpreted any other way. I think if you asked him, he'd agree, which is why he started the sentence with "I'm not a bigot but _____".

Sorry about the youtube. Here's the quote:

'I think he ought to be worried about what's going on in the Good Lord's mind,' she said of Senator Jesse Helms in 1995, 'because if there is retributive justice, he'll get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will.'"

And I decided to edit the bigot comment I made b/c you really weren't attacking JW for being a bigot. You felt his comment was. Your entitled to feel that way. He, however, does not feel that what he said was bigoted. And I don't either.

[Mommy_Again]

Thanks to everyone for posting their opinions...and for keeping it (relatively!) civil. Things seem to be getting just a tad heated so I hope everyone can remain level-headed. It's a touchy subject, I know.

As a conservative who believes in free enterprise, NPR clearly had every right to fire JW (and could have done so because they didn't like his new haircut if they wished). But they do seem to be very selective in which employees they hold accountable for similar behavior. I appreciate the attempts to parse Nina's statements to try to prove why that situation is different than what happened with Juan, but I'm having a hard time seeing how what she did is not blatant political commentary.

I do take what I hear on Fox with a grain of salt, so I was happy to hear that public dollars account for a small portion of NPR's funding and is primarily funneled down to the local level. But the local stations use that money to broadcast what the corporation produces - content that is obviously skewed to the left. I do have a problem with federal dollars being spent in that manner, just as I'd have a problem with federal dollars funding media programs that skewed conservative. As a PP said, if they account for such a small portion of the total operating budget, then why not get rid of them all together. Could take a little chip away from the $13 trillion deficit...

[kara97210]

'I think he ought to be worried about what's going on in the Good Lord's mind,' she said of Senator Jesse Helms in 1995, 'because if there is retributive justice, he'll get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will.'"

This is the hard thing about pulling quotes out of context. There are always multiple ways to read them. Nina was referring to Sen. Helms saying that AIDS was caused by people's retributive justice. He said this when speaking of a child who died from a blood transfusion (Ryan White).

For me, both (Sen. Helms and N. Tottenberg's) these quotes are reprehensible, but I do think it's very unfair to just pull her quotes out of context as if they were made in a bubble.

[mommylamb]

OK, I'm preparing to get flamed by some here, but I really don't think NPR is some ultra left-wing organization.

FTR, I disagreed with the Juan Williams firing (as I said up-thread), but I think NPR overall has excellent programming that isn't really slanted one way or another. Whereas I do think MSNBC is politically slanted to the same degree (with the exception of Scarborough, who I think is awesome) as Fox.

[kara97210]

:yeahthat:

Completely agree with you. I don't know that any news stations are completely impartial, but I think NPR is as close as it comes in this country. I lived in Europe for some time and I really miss BBC as my primary news source.

[Edensmum]

OK, I'm preparing to get flamed by some here, but I really don't think NPR is some ultra left-wing organization.

FTR, I disagreed with the Juan Williams firing (as I said up-thread), but I think NPR overall has excellent programming that isn't really slanted one way or another. Whereas I do think MSNBC is politically slanted to the same degree (with the exception of Scarborough, who I think is awesome) as Fox.


It's not, it really tries to be fact based where news is concerned. If they get something wrong they come back and correct it. They don't go on and on discussing and speculating on their news, they say "this is what happened today...." No opinions, no speculations, no spinning it into nonsense.
They do have discussion shows and other entertainment, and they bill it as such. They don't call that news.
The idea that it's liberally media is something places like Fox push. It's sad to me that in this country actual news is called liberal media and places that purposely distort the truth, show footage from other crowds events to make it look like things were well attended, later photos to make people look ugly and mean when they are trying to discount them is just conservative. There is a difference between conservative and fiction. I wish that was clear to people.

[WolfpackMom]

OK, I'm preparing to get flamed by some here, but I really don't think NPR is some ultra left-wing organization.

FTR, I disagreed with the Juan Williams firing (as I said up-thread), but I think NPR overall has excellent programming that isn't really slanted one way or another. Whereas I do think MSNBC is politically slanted to the same degree (with the exception of Scarborough, who I think is awesome) as Fox.

I agree. Maybe some stories skew one way, but then others will go another way. They have some opinion stories which ofcourse will skew in one direction or another but their general reporting to me is pretty fair and neutral.

[Edensmum]

:yeahthat:

Completely agree with you. I don't know that any news stations are completely impartial, but I think NPR is as close as it comes in this country. I lived in Europe for some time and I really miss BBC as my primary news source.

Of course no one is perfect but they at least try for accuracy which is so much more respectable IMO than intentionally misleading and calling it news. The idea that government funds go to getting liberal ideas out is laughable. Let's just do away with real news and cultural arts.

[secchick]

I wonder how many of the people calling NPR political spectrum-neutral are conservatives. I would guess none. Then, of course, how could conservatives appreciate the value of "real news"?

[MissyAg94]

As a conservative who believes in free enterprise, NPR clearly had every right to fire JW (and could have done so because they didn't like his new haircut if they wished). But they do seem to be very selective in which employees they hold accountable for similar behavior. I appreciate the attempts to parse Nina's statements to try to prove why that situation is different than what happened with Juan, but I'm having a hard time seeing how what she did is not blatant political commentary.

:yeahthat:

IMO, the context of Totenberg's comments are irrelevant. She was stating an opinion (like she has on MANY occasions) and she is still at NPR.


As a PP said, if they account for such a small portion of the total operating budget, then why not get rid of them all together. Could take a little chip away from the $13 trillion deficit...

:yeahthat:

[Lolabee]

Either she stated those opinions or she didn't. Don't kill the messenger. It's not like NPR is running the clips of her saying those things. So I had to use a right wing publication. Nina Totenberg appears on "Inside Washington" where she regularly states her opinions. And she is an NPR correspondent as opposed to analyst like Juan Williams.

Apparently you are still missing my point, which is specifically that those statements were used without providing the context in which they were made. I realize that the trend these days is to use soundbites to make stories, but I stand by my larger point that it is necessarily to find out the bigger picture when drawing conclusions about these things.

The quote about Senator Helms is specifically germaine to this tangential discussion. Mr. Helms said some really horrible things about people with AIDS, and Tottenberg's comment was directly in response to his disgusting and offensive statements. I refuse to jump on some kind of shock and outrage bandwagon for the benefit of poor (deceased) Jesse Helms. The man was a homobigot, a misogynist and a racist of the worst kind.

[MissyAg94]

Apparently you are still missing my point, which is specifically that those statements were used without providing the context in which they were made. I realize that the trend these days is to use soundbites to make stories, but I stand by my larger point that it is necessarily to find out the bigger picture when drawing conclusions about these things.

The quote about Senator Helms is specifically germaine to this tangential discussion. Mr. Helms said some really horrible things about people with AIDS, and Tottenberg's comment was directly in response to his disgusting and offensive statements. I refuse to jump on some kind of shock and outrage bandwagon for the benefit of poor (deceased) Jesse Helms. The man was a homobigot, a misogynist and a racist of the worst kind.

Apparently you are still missing my point that Juan Williams was fired for stating opinions and Totenberg wasn't. You do know that Totenberg appears on "Inside Washington," don't you?

[Lolabee]

Apparently you are still missing my point that Juan Williams was fired for stating opinions and Totenberg wasn't. You do know that Totenberg appears on "Inside Washington," don't you?

Nope, apparently you still missed my point about the context of Mr. Williams's firing. He was in violation of his contract not simply for expressing his opinion.

Here is the quote from his boss at NPR once again:


.” NPR’s ethics code states that journalists “should not express views” in other outlets, like TV shows, that “they would not air in their role as an NPR journalist.” (bolded for emphasis)

I guess one could imply from this that NPR does not want its journalist's to say bigoted/racist things either on it's own air or on other's air. Frankly, I just don't have a problem with that. They want their journalists to report the story, not muse out loud on Fox or CNN or NPR about why he has started to worry that some woman at the airport who was wearing a hijab might be packing a bomb underneath it. I still haven't seen any quotes from Ms. Tottenberg that rise to such a level, regardless of how the Weekly Standard may try to torture them in order to take them out of their larger context.

I think there is also a strange thing going on these days where NPR is being cast in the role of vast, left wing media outlet. It just isn't. It really does strive to be neutral and even seeks to provide both sides of the story. I can see how conservatives might conclude that it is a liberal front because of the topics NPR chooses to cover in the first place, but still I think the accusation rings false.

[secchick]

Nope, apparently you still missed my point about the context of Mr. Williams's firing. He was in violation of his contract not simply for expressing his opinion.

Here is the quote from his boss at NPR once again:

(bolded for emphasis)

I guess one could imply from this that NPR does not want it's journalist's to say bigoted/racist things either on it's own air or on other's air. Which frankly I just don't have a problem with that. I still haven't seen an quotes from Ms. Tottenberg that rise to such a level, regardless of how the Weekly Standard may try to take them out of their larger context.



The crux of the issue is that some others *do* believe that Nina Totenberg's statements and opinions are equally offensive. I guess the key is the standard that “they would not air in their role as an NPR journalist.” It is fine for her to spew her own garbage, because she *can* do so in her role as a NPR journalist. They have made that abundantly clear and that itself is the problem. Essentially, it appears anything that is outside of a liberal viewpoint is what is contrary to NPR standards.

Asserting that NPR is neutral doesn't make it so and that anyone who believes otherwise is a part of a vast right-wing conspiracy.

[mommylamb]

I wonder how many of the people calling NPR political spectrum-neutral are conservatives. I would guess none. Then, of course, how could conservatives appreciate the value of "real news"?

Well, I consider myself a moderate (who happens to support the Democratic party platform in many instances, but not all), and I think it's about as unbiased as you can get. And, I know a lot of mainstream conservatives IRL who think NPR promotes excellent journalism and isn't biased. There is not doubt that those on the right wing fringe will find it left-leaning. Those people think any news outlet that mentions global warming science or tries to explain the nuances of health care reform in a factual manner is the boogy man liberal media. Most of my Republican friends (and yes, I have many) listen to NPR.

[kara97210]

I'm tuning out at this point, because this debate seems to be getting unnecessarily ugly, but I do have one question.

For those who think NPR is a biased liberal news source, what do you consider an unbiased source for news?

[mommylamb]

Asserting that NPR is neutral doesn't make it so and that anyone who believes otherwise is a part of a vast right-wing conspiracy.

I would challenge you to go on NPR's web site and find one instance of a news story that you think is left-leaning.

[MissyAg94]

Nope, apparently you still missed my point about the context of Mr. Williams's firing. He was in violation of his contract not simply for expressing his opinion.
I know exactly why he was fired because I listened to him last week on the big, bad Fox News Channel. You can probably hear his side of the story on youtube.


I still haven't seen any quotes from Ms. Tottenberg that rise to such a level...
Then you aren't looking hard enough.


I think there is also a strange thing going on these days where NPR is being cast in the role of vast, left wing media outlet. It just isn't. It really does strive to be neutral and even seeks to provide both sides of the story. I can see how conservatives might conclude that it is a liberal front because of the topics NPR chooses to cover in the first place, but still I think the accusation rings false.

I think NPR messed up and most everyone who looks at this objectively knows it.

[mommylamb]

I think NPR messed up and most everyone who looks at this objectively knows it.

I think NPR messed up too, but I don't think this one action makes them some left wing fringe news corp.

[mommy111]

I find it unbelievable that anyone, liberal or conservative, can justify making incredibly bigoted and offensive statements (and imagine if you were a Muslim woman wearing a hijab how you would feel.....esp since not a lot of them have been found packing explosives to my knowledge) by prefacing them with a 'I'm not a bigot....'
Whether he should have been fired or not is a whole other issue, but I totally don't get how people can say (as some have) that making statements like these in a public forum by a responsible and well respected journalist is acceptable.

[Ceepa]

Did someone say bigoted statements are acceptable or am I missing something?

[secchick]

I find it unbelievable that anyone, liberal or conservative, can justify making incredibly bigoted and offensive statements (and imagine if you were a Muslim woman wearing a hijab how you would feel.....esp since not a lot of them have been found packing explosives to my knowledge) by prefacing them with a 'I'm not a bigot....'
Whether he should have been fired or not is a whole other issue, but I totally don't get how people can say (as some have) that making statements like these in a public forum by a responsible and well respected journalist is acceptable.

Actually, there has been a significant increase in female muslim suicide bombers in the last 4-5 years or so. A 70 year old woman in Gaza a couple of years back, the teenage suicide bomber who killed the Israeli teen at the grocery store, subway bombings in Moscow in the spring... muslim extremism is not gender specific.

Being a racist is absolutely unacceptable. But I guess I am perplexed that racism, in the form of voicing internal concerns you know to be irrational but can't control and wouldn't act upon, is the worst thing in the world. In terms of the outrage spectrum, I am a lot more outraged about murder, rape, child abuse, etc. Honestly, I am kind of "eh" on getting worked up about Juan Williams comments.

[mommy111]

Actually, there has been a significant increase in female muslim suicide bombers in the last 4-5 years or so. A 70 year old woman in Gaza a couple of years back, the teenage suicide bomber who killed the Israeli teen at the grocery store, subway bombings in Moscow in the spring... muslim extremism is not gender specific.

I assume Juan Williams was talking about boarding an airplane in the US and I do not know of any suicide bomber hijab wearing women in the US. So yes, this kind of extremism in the US has been pretty heavily weighted towards one gender. If I was profiling, I would be looking for a muslim male. Which is irrelevant in any case, because his comments would be equally bigoted if they were made about muslim men boarding planes.
I will not unnecessarily prolong the discussion on whether it is appropriate or not to air these biases on a public forum, but will repeat that I find it completely dumbfounding that some people do and especially in relation to muslims. It is not like most responsible journalists would say on national TV 'Look, I know this is bigoted, but every time I look at a gay guy, I know he has multiple sexual partners' It just seems like in the present environment, Muslim bashing is OK at a level that it is not for any other protected group.
I will not prolong the discussion by responding to this any more since I know how rapidly these threads can head south if they become ping pong matches between people with opposing viewpoints. And I will view all criticism/flaming as constructive and educational in nature ;) I am aiming for perfect composure a la Saint Francis of Asissi :D

[lowrioh]

FYI- Juan Williams will be on Diane Rehm at 11 EST today. Should be interesting.

[mikala]

I'm tuning out at this point, because this debate seems to be getting unnecessarily ugly, but I do have one question.

For those who think NPR is a biased liberal news source, what do you consider an unbiased source for news?

:yeahthat: I'm also curious about this. I try to listen/watch/read a variety of news sources to help me form my own opinions about things and NPR is the most unbiased I've found. I'm curious about any other neutral news sources out there that I might have missed.