Juan Williams - Way to go, NPR

[IBCoupe]

I've got to get to class now; I'll check back in an hour.

[96Qowner]

Arg, you're projecting again, IB. (Doesn't mean I don't get caught doing it occasionally, too.)

I don't have a problem and I most certainly am presenting a fact pattern to support my conclusion, just as you are.

Let me make one last post before I have to head out, too. I've enjoyed the way the discussion settled in - thank you.

Juan is one of FOX's pet liberals, just as CNN has their pet conservatives. I don't think MSNBC actually has any conservatives ... maybe. As such, his role is to present the liberal side in a way that FOX's conservative audience can tolerate. I've seen Juan give hundreds of opinions on FOX. Sometimes he vigorously defends Obama and Pelosi and Reid and the legitimate liberal viewpoint. Sometimes he violates the party line. Clearly, he tries hard to satisfy his role.

We've argued the substance and interpretation of his words. It doesn't really appear that his specific words are the issue. The issue, as you present it, is that NPR can fire Juan for violating his contract, and you're correct. I haven't spoken to the people at NPR, so all I know is what I've seen and read, and I've been informed without reading any denial from NPR, that they have spoken to him in the past about his appearances on FOX and the manner in which he conducted himself. They claim that this recent occasion was the last straw.

I don't believe what he said is a cause to summarily fire him over the phone. I think that's PC run amok. So if that's why NPR fired him, it reflects poorly on NPR. If that's NOT why they fired him - if it was because they don't like him appearing on FOX - that also reflects poorly on NPR.

I don't see any other miscreant here. I don't think either Juan nor FOX should be chastised. The only issue is whether NPR should be.

I repeat - it was foolish and unprofessional, and got turned into a clown show by the way NPR chose to handle the outcry over it. The part that gets my dander up is the part where NPR chose this example to fire him. I not believing it wasn't meant to be a statement of NPR values, which apparently don't include confessing an unreasonable fear of some stereotype, while trying to counter another person's apparent fears of that same stereotype.

Opinions are given on a regular basis by other NPR contributors - that's simply a fact. We can have a link war over it, but it's true. Those people don't give their opinions on a regular basis on FOX, and those opinions rarely stray from the liberal line. But they give their opinions.

You hear people say ALL, I hear NPR say they won't employ a guy who gives opinions on FOX. It's not a matter of law - the contract is clear. It's a matter of selective enforcement and corporate culture. Ergo, NPR dumped Juan in particular, and in that disgraceful manner because he said what he said on FOX, and had said things on FOX before.

[AZhitman]

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.

Now, this is a solid rebuttal.

Thanks IB and 96 for getting this train wreck (somehow) back on the tracks.

[IBCoupe]

We've argued the substance and interpretation of his words. It doesn't really appear that his specific words are the issue. The issue, as you present it, is that NPR can fire Juan for violating his contract, and you're correct. I haven't spoken to the people at NPR, so all I know is what I've seen and read, and I've been informed without reading any denial from NPR, that they have spoken to him in the past about his appearances on FOX and the manner in which he conducted himself. They claim that this recent occasion was the last straw.

Yes, Juan has been a problem for NPR prior to this last incident, most recently in January of 2009. I'm sure that helped NPR make its decision. That doesn't mean that the timing isn't merited on its own basis, it just means that there was other stuff that helped to make it much easier. A few other factors that might have come into play are that NPR's in the middle of its pledge drive, and it doesn't need comments like this driving away money. Unfortunately, it may have cost itself cash on that count, but c'est la vie. Additionally, CAIR is on an anti-islamophobia campaign right now, I've heard, and they might have been trying to avoid those political guns. With all that in mind, Juan Williams' comments still violated the code of ethics he agreed to in order to work for NPR, they still undermined his reliability as an analyst of at least one hot news topic, and NPR had every right to remove him from their payroll because of it.

I don't believe what he said is a cause to summarily fire him over the phone. I think that's PC run amok. So if that's why NPR fired him, it reflects poorly on NPR. If that's NOT why they fired him - if it was because they don't like him appearing on FOX - that also reflects poorly on NPR.

I think it is; it's a violation of the code of ethics. That they didn't fire him before is a testament to NPR's patience then, not evidence of their intolerance now. As I've said repeatedly, NPR has multiple correspondents on FOX who have not lost their jobs for anything they've said. So, it can't possibly be that they don't like him appearing on FOX. The only two options left are that they didn't like the substance of what he said (which doesn't make sense, as it's something that I've heard many times on Talk of the Nation from callers, and I've heard it alluded to by other guests) or the interpretation that I've presented, using NPR's own statements as corroboration: that his statement undermined his reliability as a news analyst. Correct me if I'm my memory is failing me, but it doesn't appear as if you have even tried to address this distinction in this thread - you keep dodging it by saying it isn't so, but you don't go so far as to explain why it can't be.

I can't help but notice that you didn't address the first two parts of my last post to you - where I included greater explanation of the role of the comment in relation to the job, rather than to the employer. If you wouldn't mind terribly, I'd like a response on that point, which is sort of at the heart of what I wrote in the immediately preceding paragraph.

I repeat - it was foolish and unprofessional, and got turned into a clown show by the way NPR chose to handle the outcry over it. The part that gets my dander up is the part where NPR chose this example to fire him. I not believing it wasn't meant to be a statement of NPR values, which apparently don't include confessing an unreasonable fear of some stereotype, while trying to counter another person's apparent fears of that same stereotype.

They don't include letting supposedly objective analysts revealing themselves to be potentially less objective. You say you can substantiate your characterization of NPR's standards. Please do so.

Opinions are given on a regular basis by other NPR contributors - that's simply a fact. We can have a link war over it, but it's true. Those people don't give their opinions on a regular basis on FOX, and those opinions rarely stray from the liberal line. But they give their opinions.

Go ahead and start the link war. I'd like to see the nature of these comments, when they were made, and the nature of the commentator's relationship to NPR. It's not just what Juan Williams said, remember, it's his NPR job responsibilities that come into play, too. This isn't really meant to be an open challenge to you, it's just that from my side of the computer monitor, it looks like you're making a lot of assumptions without any real reasoning to back it up. That's probably not the case, but, if this were a math class, you'd probably be scolded for not showing your work.

You hear people say ALL, I hear NPR say they won't employ a guy who gives opinions on FOX. It's not a matter of law - the contract is clear. It's a matter of selective enforcement and corporate culture. Ergo, NPR dumped Juan in particular, and in that disgraceful manner because he said what he said on FOX, and had said things on FOX before.

Mara Liasson still has a job because she doesn't make personal comments on controversial topics that compromise her appearance as unbiased. That's all there is to it.

[96Qowner]

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201010260008

Indeed, two of the three reasons I’ll give for why Liasson’s shouldn’t be on Fox News come straight from NPR’s own newsroom guidelines, which clearly states that staffers should not make outside media appearances in forums that promote punditry, or with media outlets that could be “harmful to the reputation of NPR.” In both instances, Liasson’s association with Fox News violates both those guidelines. And specifically, her status as a contributor with the uber-partisan, uber-reckless Fox News that’s emerged during the Obama administration.

You've read the contract. Anything like that in there?

http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/media ... /19684452/

Liasson has appeared on Fox talk shows since 1997. NPR managers have reportedly expressed concerns about her appearances on the cable channel. Outsiders were concerned too: Slate's Jacob Weisberg wrote, "Respectable journalists -- I'm talking to you, Mara Liasson -- should stop appearing on its programs." She has not taken the hint.

Perhaps it's because she is more circumspect than Williams. Liasson also can argue that the Fox shows where she appears don't make NPR look bad and are respectful exchanges of ideas rather than shout-fests. Before the Williams issue, NPR was probably afraid to address the subject with Liasson out of fear that she might exit in a huff and invite an avalanche of negative publicity over NPR's supposed liberal bias.

Again, don' what those guidelines actually are. Keep in mind Juan's violation wasn't what he said, it was his continued appearances on FOX as a commentator.

http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/2010/ ... last-year/

According to a source, Liasson was summoned in early October by NPR’s executive editor for news, d!ck Meyer, and the network’s supervising senior Washington editor, Ron Elving. The NPR executives said they had concerns that Fox’s programming had grown more partisan, and they asked Liasson to spend 30 days watching the network.

That's just 5 minutes looking for Mara Liasson. And I didn't know she'd been hassled about FOX herself. Go figure.

[AZhitman]

Interestingly, Jon Stewart, Jesse Jackson, and none other than the brilliant and politically-astute [pukes on shoes] Whoopi Goldberg have all spoken out against NPR's firing of JW.

I'm not interested in tlking about JW anyway - I've said my piece, and I think he's better off. My beef now is with the hag who runs NPR and her disgusting, offensive insinuation about mental illness.

I'll be firing off a rant her way, just so she knows that she should be held to the same standards of accountability for what comes out of her manpleaser as JW has been.

[heliochrome85]

ill admit, it took me a while to figure out what you meant by "manpleaser"

[AZhitman]

ill admit, it took me a while to figure out what you meant by "manpleaser"

LIES.

[heliochrome85]

since when did men love to hear women talk?

[heliochrome85]

again, you knock the a-rabs for their women cargo racks, but dont you wish you had one now?

[AZhitman]

Y'know, I'm thinking the whole "virgins" thing might not be a good idea for you... Heaven shouldn't be confusing.

[AZhitman]

again, you knock the a-rabs for their women cargo racks, but dont you wish you had one now?

Nicely done.

[heliochrome85]

Y'know, I'm thinking the whole "virgins" thing might not be a good idea for you... Heaven shouldn't be confusing.

WIN

[IBCoupe]

Re: Mara Liasson

I read the Mediamatters article earlier. I don't agree with their reading of NPR's code of ethics (I linked to it earlier this week in this thread). They have an argument under one of the items that FOX is bad enough that simply appearing on FOX's network could call into question her reliability on NPR, but that's not what got Juan Williams in trouble. It was the item two numbers after that:

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 fact-based analysis.

The problem with Juan was the first sentence: "In appearing on TV or other media... NPR journalists should not express views they would not air in their role as an NPR journalist." To my knowledge, none of the issues that came up with Mara Liasson have had to do with what Liasson herself has said. All of the concerns have to do with the face FOXNews puts on, which certainly could eventually cause Liasson to violate the code for showing up there, but I'm not so sure that NPR would be so pleased to fire her for it.

As to the other two links, they have asked Liasson to reexamine her relationship to FOX, but they haven't done what they did to Juan, even before he was fired: they haven't asked her to stop allowing FOX to identify her as an NPR personality. That's, again, because she doesn't have the problems with following that first sentence of item 10 that Williams has had.

Again, I notice that you didn't address the rest of my post. Please do. ...unless this was was your attempt to show that NPR was actually unjustified in firing Williams. In which case, I'm sorry in more than one way.

[audtatious]

He's black so it's racism regardless of the reasoning. Where's Jessie, Sharpton and the NAACP?

[AZhitman]

Jesse chimed in.

I'd like to hear IB argue with his beloved Jon Stewart on this topic.

[audtatious]

Did he? I must have missed it.

[heliochrome85]

Jesse chimed in.

I'd like to hear IB argue with his beloved Jon Stewart on this topic.

unless one of them wears the hat and the curls, jews dont fight with other jews. they just slash credit scores.

[AppleBonker]

Did I miss Jon's take on this issue? Anyone have a link by chance? Was it outside of the DS? Because I watched Monday's episode and I didn't think it was attacking either side more than the other.

[AZhitman]

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.co ... -video.php

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/2 ... 73854.html

On a side note, this is backfiring on NPR in more ways than one: http://www.npr.org/blogs/ombudsman/2010 ... rt-colbert They're dedicating an awful lot of time to "explaining" away their actions.

Perhaps the TRUE problem is their wackjob CEO.

[AppleBonker]

I dunno, I thought he was equally harsh to both parties. Maybe I'm just confused though.

And wouldn't this be a complete non-issue if it weren't election season?

[AZhitman]

unless one of them wears the hat and the curls

Is that how they distinguish the "tops" from "bottoms"?

[IBCoupe]

Jon and I are both fighting for the bottom on that count.

And I don't disagree with anything he said. I don't know what I'm supposed to fight with him over. He made jokes and said that FOX came out the winner (as opposed to, y'know, NPR or Juan Williams). Can you point to the actual criticism of NPR's decision beyond "FOXNews has you outgunned?"

[audtatious]

Maybe Juan can ride in the back of the Obama bus now.

[heliochrome85]

http://gawker.com/#!5791610/after-all-t ... -its-money