Juan Williams - Way to go, NPR

[IBCoupe]

So, now it's your turn to explain why anyone would "be suspicious of his analysis of a controversial issue, which might, in fact, make him less valuable to the organization that pays him to analyze controversial issues."

Are you now not going to advocate for NPR's judgment? At the heart of the conflict is a judgment that what he said was intolerable in some manner. You've been suggesting that it is. If not, then why would anyone be the slightest bit upset about what he said? I'm not upset. I think it was TMI, not well-considered, raising issues that lead nowhere. But it was instructive. A Black man casually, without thinking about it, blurts out that he (fill in the quote any way you like).

BFD

So I'm to assume that your refusal to even acknowledge my analysis on the Bill O'Reilly comment means that you're conceding that issue, then? Just to be clear, because then I'll stop bringing it up. You admit that the only way Bill O'Reilly's statement could have any significance in context is with an implicit explanation that involves either a generalization about all Muslims or a theory of collective guilt? Right? You don't need to go to the trouble of berating me, or even in fulfilling the request I've been making for a while now: a simple "yes" or "no" would do.

I haven't at all said, and neither did NPR, that what Juan Williams said was intolerable. Juan's job at NPR was to be an unbiased, objective analyst of often controversial topics. If it becomes clear that his analysis could be clouded by an admittedly "wrong" fear, why should he be paid to do a job he might not be capable of doing? That's the basis upon which NPR fired him - he violated the part of the code of ethics that forbids NPR correspondants from participating in punditry and commentary (as distinguishable from "reporting" or "analysis"). They didn't call him a bigot. I didn't call him a bigot. He pointed out his own internalized fear, and NPR responded to his admission.

I haven't been advocating for NPR, I've been defusing the arguments you guys make against it. I've already said that maybe NPR could have had a bit more tact, and that "they could have found justification in giving him one more chance," but I have also said that "they certainly were not unjustified in choosing not to."

[96Qowner]

Yup, answers the question plenty clearly. So you don't think that JW or O'Reilly are bigots, but rather that they utter nonsensical statements. I can accept that answer. And you are correct that the analogy should've used the word "hate" rather than "love".

Yup, nonsensical in the context of not properly communicating. Accidental stuff. O'Reilly failed to communicate to the drama queens. Of course, they also failed to comprehend. But to see bystanders, who have the time to consider the words carefully, fail to comprehend ... well, that's puzzling. I would suggest they have no intention of understanding.

[96Qowner]

So I'm to assume that your refusal to even acknowledge my analysis on the Bill O'Reilly comment means that you're conceding that issue, then? Just to be clear, because then I'll stop bringing it up. You admit that the only way Bill O'Reilly's statement could have any significance in context is with an implicit explanation that involves either a generalization about all Muslims or a theory of collective guilt? Right? You don't need to go to the trouble of berating me, or even in fulfilling the request I've been making for a while now: a simple "yes" or "no" would do.

Ok then. No.

If it becomes clear that his analysis could be clouded by an admittedly "wrong" fear, why should he be paid to do a job he might not be capable of doing? That's the basis upon which NPR fired him - he violated the part of the code of ethics that forbids NPR correspondants from participating in punditry and commentary (as distinguishable from "reporting" or "analysis"). They didn't call him a bigot. I didn't call him a bigot. He pointed out his own internalized fear, and NPR responded to his admission.

If there's nothing wrong with confessing your fears of Muslims in the manner that Juan did, then there's no issue, it's a useless thread. There's no discussion if Juan didn't say something "wrong".

[AppleBonker]

Yup, nonsensical in the context of not properly communicating. Accidental stuff. O'Reilly failed to communicate to the drama queens. Of course, they also failed to comprehend. But to see bystanders, who have the time to consider the words carefully, fail to comprehend ... well, that's puzzling. I would suggest they have no intention of understanding.

Well, for someone who is paid to speak at people, failing to communicate correctly is kind of a big deal. And since he can't say what he thinks accurately, why should I blame those who can't infer his hidden/poorly-explained meaning?

For the record, I am not arguing that his comment was nonsensical. I'm arguing that he knew exactly what he was saying (they both did).

[IBCoupe]

Ok then. No.

Okay, so what could "Muslims killed us on 9/11" actually mean, in context?

If there's nothing wrong with confessing your fears of Muslims in the manner that Juan did, then there's no issue, it's a useless thread. There's no discussion if Juan didn't say something "wrong".

It is a useless thread. He didn't say anything wrong, but what he did say made him less valuable to NPR in the role that they wanted him to be. Which is why there wasn't anything wrong in their firing him, either.

While there's nothing wrong in saying to Bill O'Reilly on nationally-broadcast television, "I hate sugary foods. They make me sick to my stomach. I don't understand how anybody could like them," it doesn't mean that there can't possibly be rammifications if you've got a job as "Dessert Critic" for Foodstuffs Magazine Weekly.

[96Qowner]

While there's nothing wrong in saying to Bill O'Reilly on nationally-broadcast television, "I hate sugary foods. They make me sick to my stomach. I don't understand how anybody could like them," it doesn't mean that there can't possibly be rammifications if you've got a job as "Dessert Critic" for Foodstuffs Magazine Weekly.

Oops, bad analogy. That would imply that what Juan said violates the very substance of NPR's existence, which is what a lot of people conclude, but which NPR defenders claim is absolutely false.

[AppleBonker]

Especially because it's doubtful that you hate ALL sugary foods. I mean, who could possibly think that?

Edit: LOLWUT ^

[96Qowner]

Especially because it's doubtful that you hate ALL sugary foods. I mean, who could possibly think that?

You'd sure ask, wouldn't you? You'd say "huh, what do you mean?"

[AppleBonker]

No, I wouldn't ask. I'd trust that he meant what he said. That's how conversation works. Welcome to earth.

[IBCoupe]

Oops, bad analogy. That would imply that what Juan said violates the very substance of NPR's existence, which is what a lot of people conclude, but which NPR defenders claim is absolutely false.

What? Juan's job title was either "News Analyst" or "Political Analyst." NPR's existence isn't what matters - Juan's statements in relation to Juan's job responsibilities are what matter.

I second Adam's LOLWUT.

[96Qowner]

No curiosity about what people think and why they think it? That's gotta be some pretty dull conversation. (I'm assuming you don't actually think I live on another planet. Anyone who meant that would be really stupid and not worth speaking to.)

I'm always interested in why someone says something that sounds outrageous. As you may have noticed, it raises a lot of questions for me, and if given a chance, I'll ask them, in order to more fully understand, just as many of the posters on this thread have done. I'll even put up with direct, disrespectful retorts if I can eventually get an honest answer. That's what's great about forums. You can learn what lies behind those ridiculous things people say in a way you can't when you just hear them parroted on TV. Sometimes people just haven't really thought it through.

[96Qowner]

Oops, bad analogy. That would imply that what Juan said violates the very substance of NPR's existence, which is what a lot of people conclude, but which NPR defenders claim is absolutely false.

What? Juan's job title was either "News Analyst" or "Political Analyst." NPR's existence isn't what matters - Juan's statements in relation to Juan's job responsibilities are what matter.

I second Adam's LOLWUT.

*sigh* Your example was a dessert critic who hated sugary foods.

This IS a nonsensical thread, and I apologize for extending it if it's unwelcome. You know how these things go. We jus' be talkin'

[AZhitman]

Republicans got us into this mess.

Which Republicans? I was a Republican, before I changed my affiliation to "Independent" about 7 years ago... Is he actually accusing me of somehow being complicit in something involving a "mess"? Am I a suspect? Should I retain an attorney?

On a side note, I get nervous when I get on a plane with people in Republican garb.

After all, Republicans got us into this mess.

[AppleBonker]

I'm assuming you don't actually think I live on another planet. Anyone who meant that would be really stupid and not worth speaking to.

No, what makes a dull conversation is when you need to ask someone for clarification on everything. Rather, you could just attempt what the first sentence I quoted here does and interpret the meaning. So either write it off as nonsensical, or pick the most logical (which for some people appears to be difficult) meaning.

Republicans got us into this mess.

Which Republicans?

I would guess the Republican collective. Or Republican ideology in general. So that should probably count as republicans as a group share the blame.

On a side note, I get nervous when I get on a plane with people in Republican garb.

And this wouldn't make sense. Unless the plane is a metaphor for the economy.

Note: not saying I agree with Obama, just pointing out the logical interpretation.

[AZhitman]

I would guess the Muslim collective. Or Muslim ideology in general. So that should probably count as Muslims as a group share the blame.

Look what you did there.

And this wouldn't make sense. Unless the plane is a metaphor for the economy.

No, "plane" is a metaphor for, well, plane. You know... Big ol' jet airliner, don't take me too far away..." or "...I'm leeeeeavin', on a jet plane... don't know when I'll be back again."

Makes as much sense as JW's comment. The underlying point to be made here is that we're a little hypersensitive to anything involving the word "Muslim".

[AppleBonker]

I would guess the Muslim collective. Or Muslim ideology in general. So that should probably count as Muslims as a group share the blame.

Look what you did there.

So now we're arguing the same thing? Obama says "Republicans got us into this mess" in which he means ALL republicans. JW or O'Reilly make a comment about "Muslims..." in which they mean ALL Muslims. I'm being completely consistent here. Sure, Obama isn't a huge fan of repubs (I shouldn't have to elaborate on that). So why is it impossible for me to make the same connection that JW/O'Reilly aren't fans of Muslims?

And this wouldn't make sense. Unless the plane is a metaphor for the economy.

No, "plane" is a metaphor for, well, plane. You know... Big ol' jet airliner, don't take me too far away..." or "...I'm leeeeeavin', on a jet plane... don't know when I'll be back again."

Makes as much sense as JW's comment. The underlying point to be made here is that we're a little hypersensitive to anything involving the word "Muslim".

I'm not more sensitive to one or the other. Hating all Muslims is just as valid as hating all republicans. I don't agree with either. But don't p****-foot around it when you make claims. If "repubs got us into this mess" means all of them, "Muslims killed us" likewise means all of them.

[AppleBonker]

Big ol' jet airliner, don't take me too far away...

Huge threadjack/sidenote: I love that song. One of the most addictive guitar riffs I've ever heard. No idea why. But thanks for making me hum that the rest of the day...

[AZhitman]

So now we're arguing the same thing? Obama says "Republicans got us into this mess" in which he means ALL republicans.

No, we're not.

Realistically, I don't think BO meant "all Republicans" any more than JW or BO'R meant "all Muslims".

If he did, then I take issue, because I had nothing to do with any "mess". See what I mean?

[AppleBonker]

I see what you're saying now, though I don't agree with it. I can't think of any other way to interpret BO's comment. So maybe you should take issue?

I would take his comment to mean that the repubs in power (president/reps/etc) drove us in that direction. And anyone who voted for them had a hand in it. I mean, BO certainly wasn't singling out any repubs or a specific group. Because many of those he would've singled out are no longer able to run for the same office, so he can't be advising against giving them control of the country. Rather, he's arguing against giving power to current republican candidates, many of which could argue that they had nothing to do with the "mess" either. Right?

[AZhitman]

Lots of 'splainin' goin' on, brotha.

BO gets the benefit of the doubt. JW and BO'R don't.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyQ1znMc3og[/youtube]

[AppleBonker]

How was I giving BO the benefit of the doubt? I was merely explaining why I thought he was referring to ALL republicans when he made the comment. I spent more time in this thread and others explaining why I thought JW/BO'R were referring to ALL Muslims as well. I'm holding them to the same standards in my opinion.

And no need to embed youtube vids. As soon as you got that song stuck in my head I tossed the greatest hits album on.

[AZhitman]

That wasn't what I was getting at. I'm not disagreeing with you - I was just pointing out a disconnect.

On a side note, if he was referring to "all Reps", that'd be stupid. I had nothing to do with any mess.

[AppleBonker]

Damn, I must be slow today.

Well, the argument would be that *if* you voted for them, you contributed. While weak, I would say it's still stronger than *all* Muslims having a hand in 9/11.

But in response to your thinking there is a disconnect, I don't think there is as much of an issue with democrats blaming republicans for something (after all, they two groups rarely see eye-to-eye). Just as I don't find it as offensive when republicans blame all democrats for the national debt. It's far more problematic when non-Muslims hate all Muslims for something *most* had no control over. I would b**** someone out just as bad if they said they could never vote for a republican (for any office) because W didn't speak English very well. Or, that they couldn't vote for a democrat for any office because Billy got dome in the oval office. It's completely irrational and I would call that individual out for sure.

[96Qowner]

I wonder if people would choose their words less carefully if a band of Republicans had purposely murdered 3000 innocent people in the name of the Party, and 7% of all Republicans worldwide applauded it, the rest taking time to carefully explain what the motivation was, all the while claiming no responsibility for it.

[IBCoupe]

*sigh* Your example was a dessert critic who hated sugary foods.

Right. Kind of like a political analyst who's afraid of people in Muslim garb on airplanes. The dessert critic is certainly a trustworthy source of information about desserts so long as he doesn't go spouting off about his hate for sugary food on national television. If he does, then maybe his readers might not think of him as such a trustworthy source, and maybe the food magazine he works for might not want to pay for him to continue giving his less-trustworthy info.

EDIT: I think you missed the part where I said he worked for "Foodstuffs Magazine Weekly." Maybe hating sugary foods isn't completely against what FMW stands for, but it's still possibly incompatible with the Dessert Critic's role on the payroll of FMW.

[96Qowner]

*sigh* Your example was a dessert critic who hated sugary foods.

Right. Kind of like a political analyst who's afraid of people in Muslim garb on airplanes. The dessert critic is certainly a trustworthy source of information about desserts so long as he doesn't go spouting off about his hate for sugary food on national television. If he does, then maybe his readers might not think of him as such a trustworthy, and maybe the food magazine he works for might not want to pay for him to continue giving his less-trustworthy info.

Then how is this invalid?

That would imply that what Juan said violates the very substance of NPR's existence, which is what a lot of people conclude, but which NPR defenders claim is absolutely false.

[IBCoupe]

See the edit, and try using this for the SAT:

Dessert Critic : Juan Williams :: Foodstuffs Magazine Weekly : National Public Radio

I'm saying that the Dessert Critic is undermining his role as Dessert Critic, and you're suggesting (by faulty translation to the Juan Williams/NPR parallel) that I'm saying that the Dessert Critic is undermining Foodstuffs Magazine Weekly as a whole.

[IBCoupe]

I'm reminded of something I wrote yesterday evening in this thread:

Juan Williams' problem wasn't that NPR hates Fox, it was Juan Williams' mouth. The more he fit the mold of bombast and opinion that Fox wanted him to be, the less he fit the mold of quiet contemplation that NPR wanted him to be. One observer remarked, "You can't serve two masters."

It's not that Williams' statement was completely in conflict with what NPR allows on its airwaves (there's plenty of bombast and opinion from guests on Talk of the Nation, Tell Me More, and On Point), it's that Williams' statement undermined his credibility as the analyst that NPR wanted Juan Williams to be on NPR.

Had Juan Williams served the same role as commentator on NPR as he did on Fox, there wouldn't have been a violation or a conflict, as commentators have a much different code of ethics (if they have one at all) and a much different broadcast purpose. The whole point of being an analyst is to not give your internalized opinions about the world, but rather to give a breakdown of the facts involved to allow the listener to conjure up their own internalized opinion.

[96Qowner]

No, I agree that the dessert critic has a problem. (re your edit: I DO think the critic would be undermining the magazine's entire raison d'etre.) His beliefs are anathema to those of his employer. I don't understand what about Juan's beliefs are anathema to NPR. I submit it had nothing to do with what he said, even though NPR chose that instance to sever his contract.

But if Juan's beliefs ARE anathema to NPR, what does that say about NPR? We know NPR was upset about Juan's regular appearances on FOX. They didn't like one of their own gaining respectability on FOX and bantering with the devils. It understandably violated their world view. I certainly sympathize, even if I have to conclude that NPR has some irrational hatred for all things FOX.

But that also defines NPR, which was the original intent of the thread. I believe Juan said absolutely nothing to justify firing him, UNLESS NPR has a what I would call a partisan intolerant world view. I believe they do, and I suspect it can be easily demonstrated, but that would require a link contest and we all know how that'll go.

[IBCoupe]

No, I agree that the dessert critic has a problem. His beliefs are anathema to those of his employer. I don't understand what about Juan's beliefs are anathema to NPR. I submit it had nothing to do with what he said, even though NPR chose that instance to sever his contract.

The dessert critic's opinion is not an anathema to the employer. Maybe Foodstuffs is a health-food oriented magazine. Maybe Foodstuffs just contains all kinds of viewpoints about foods. Maybe Foodstuffs puts out articles about a random culture in central Asia that does not eat sugary foods at all, and view it at weakness.

You're making too many assumptions. The only thing his statement was anathema to was his own job as dessert critic.

But if Juan's beliefs ARE anathema to NPR, what does that say about NPR? We know NPR was upset about Juan's regular appearances on FOX. They didn't like one of their own gaining respectability on FOX and bantering with the devils. It understandably violated their world view. I certainly sympathize, even if I have to conclude that NPR has some irrational hatred for all things FOX.

They aren't anathema to NPR. NPR wasn't upset about Juan Williams' regular appearances on Fox. NPR has other personalities that show up on Fox all the time. NPR's problem with Juan Williams on Fox was the kind of image he set for himself. If you're employed as a limo driver, and you get arrested for a DUI, might your employer be justified in kicking you from your job? Can a client really trust that you're going to safely get him to the airport?

EDIT: And before you go and say that the DUI is anathema to the Limousine Service's purpose, what if I tell you that Frankie the Mechanic had a DUI the weekend before, and didn't lose his job? It's not anathema to the company's purpose, it's anathema to the job description.

But that also defines NPR, which was the original intent of the thread. I believe Juan said absolutely nothing to justify firing him, UNLESS NPR has a what I would call a partisan intolerant world view. I believe they do, and I suspect it can be easily demonstrated, but that would require a link contest and we all know how that'll go.

I've figured out what your problem is: you're starting with a conclusion and trying to build up a fact pattern to support it. Your theory only works if NPR fired Juan Williams because they had a fundamental ideological difference about what he said, and to support that assumption, you point to the fact that Juan Williams was fired after giving his opinion, assuming that it was the ideological substance of his opinion that lost him his job.

Welcome to Begging the Question 101.