Juan Williams - Way to go, NPR

[heliochrome85]

im not trying to be a martyr. i just am trying to point out the disparity between the outrage over what JW said, and his firing, and the even more inflammatory, even more insulting things that Bill O'reilly said. Bill was not reprimanded. in fact, he was supported by his network later on in the week. Where was the Right's indignation over his statements. Oh yea, they sat silent. So much for Anti-Muslim not being a conservative talking point.

Well, why weren't Whoopi and Joy fired?

Talk about unprofessional.

Then again, Whoopi gets away with saying asinine things every time she opens that hideous flip-top noggin of hers.

Why are you looking for "indignation"? What ever happened to personal freedoms and individual expression?

they were unprofessional. and should have been reprimanded. but dont forget that that hen house is hardly a civil forum. nor did their behavior disparage anyone. Isnt walking out exactly what the Right wanted Obama to do to reverend wright? Why was it ok then, but not ok now?

[AZhitman]

Contract? I'd like to read it. If you think what he said "disparaged" anyone but himself, then you're looking for boogeymen under the bed. He expressed a personal opinion. But, like I said - I'll make sure to apply the same level of scrutiny to everyone's speech from now on.

Face it, you don't like what he said.

If he'd said something about "rich fatcat white guys on Wall Street", no one would have flinched.

Obama / Wright is totally different and you know it.

[IBCoupe]

Here's the contract.

8. NPR journalists may not speak to groups where the appearance might put in question NPR's impartiality. Such instances include situations where the employee's appearance may appear to endorse the agenda of a group or organization. This would include participation in some political debates and forums where the sponsoring group(s) or other participants are identified with a particular perspective on an issue or issues and NPR journalist's participation might put into question NPR's impartiality.

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.

[AZhitman]

There is no evidence that Nina Totenberg has ever been in any way criticized, warned, or suffered any loss of standing for her free-wheeling opinion dispensing as she has done on that show, Inside Washington, for almost the better part of two decades. And as you pointed out Cokie Roberts, another esteemed colleague, someone who like you we all know very well, has never been reprimanded for that kind of thing either.

It's a howling double standard. The standard being applied to Juan Williams is manifestly not being applied to other NPR people. And I think it is simply this, that in the culture of NPR, appearing on Fox is a sin.

Gotta admit, I LOL'ed at this one:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sean-carm ... 72975.html

[AZhitman]

Here's the contract.

8. NPR journalists may not speak to groups where the appearance might put in question NPR's impartiality. Such instances include situations where the employee's appearance may appear to endorse the agenda of a group or organization. This would include participation in some political debates and forums where the sponsoring group(s) or other participants are identified with a particular perspective on an issue or issues and NPR journalist's participation might put into question NPR's impartiality.

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.

Thanks, IB.

In that case, he should have been dealt with as soon as he first appeared on Fox. Period.

Don't use a personal observation (as stupid as it may have sounded) as an EXCUSE to exercise the terms of the contract.

Then again, what can you expect from a bunch of chickens*** libbies?

[heliochrome85]

we're good at screwing up. thats why we're democrats. one big slightly retarded tent.

[IBCoupe]

Until he actually expressed views he would not air in his role as an NPR journalist, he hadn't violated the code of ethics. There was nothing to terminate him for when he went onto Fox, assuming he had received written permission from NPR to do so, in compliance with other portions of the code of ethics. Simply being there wasn't a violation.

[AZhitman]

So, I suppose he shouldn't mention that he likes to hunt. Or that he's pro-life, or believes in the sanctity of marriage, or that he thinks beef and chicken tastes good, or that [insert actress's name] is a "hottie", or that he once smoked pot (wait, nevermind, that one's ok)....

He said something dumb.

They overreacted.

NPR is a bunch of hypocrites, led by someone who makes fun of mental illness.

[heliochrome85]

sounds like i need to raise my annual NPR donation to compensate

I AM PRO-OPERA AND I VOTE

[AZhitman]

sounds like i need to raise my annual NPR donation to compensate

I AM PRO-OPERA AND I VOTE

Brown people aren't allowed at the opera.

[AppleBonker]

I'll make sure to keep all these in mind when someone DESERVES to be s***canned and isn't... or is defended by you guys.

Hey, I was actually defending the guy and said he shouldn't have been fired (but with the contract that IBC found, my opinion has changed slightly since it does seem like he broke it). Public personalities say things I don't like all the time. The beauty of the world we live in today is I have the choice not to listen to them. I'd like to think I wouldn't get fired for stuff that happens outside of work, but I just know that's not how it works.

They have a business to run. And if they feel that comment may hurt their bottom line this is what happens. Or, maybe they were just looking to get rid of him anyway and he gifted them with a good reason.

If you're categorizing what JW said as "racist", then you're one sensitive sistah.

And no, I wasn't calling his comment racist. Just using it as an example of something I could do outside of work that has no connection whatsoever to my job that I could get fired for. While it may be similar to this situation, I wasn't calling this particular comment racist.

[heliochrome85]

maybe not, but my mother calls me frasier for a reason.

[96Qowner]

What do murderous, inoocents-killing Muslims have to do with you?

Exactly the point of all the outrage over this gem:

Muslims killed us on 9/11.

I've been wondering for quite awhile if liberals aren't simply projecting. They seem to see everything in racist, bigoted terms. Whenever anyone refers to "Muslims", liberals hear "all Muslims". If someone criticizes a man whose father was a Kenyan, it's simply because of his race.

Are you being sarcastic?

LOL, guess not, huh? Nobody said All Muslims. That was too easy.

[AppleBonker]

Are you being sarcastic?

LOL, guess not, huh? Nobody said All Muslims. That was too easy.

Good point. On that note, I hate black people. And women.

[96Qowner]

Which ones?

[heliochrome85]

careful. big words ahead.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/arc ... ong/65068/

[heliochrome85]

also. more big words
http://www.slate.com/id/2272262/pagenum/all/#p2

[96Qowner]

careful. big words ahead.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/arc ... ong/65068/

Seriously? Nah, you can't be. You should probably reread the piece. Isn't it a tad predictable and fluffy? NPR is highly professional and representative of all good things, while it appears FOX is a tawdry impostor only using news to drive its on-air personalities. The few safe bastions of journalism appear to be the New York Times, etc, blah, blah, blah. I do agree with him, when he admits that all this would have been taken care of in a righteous and respectful manner if NPR could have waited until his contract expired. But no, his sort of language just can't be tolerated on an eminent treasure like NPR even one more time. Nope.

Two words: Nina & Totenberg
QED

[IBCoupe]

People who use the username "96Qowner" ought to have their First Amendment rights revoked because they obviously don't make constructive use of them.

Fun game we have here. Look, there's no context within which Bill O'Reilley made that statement and didn't mean it to have larger consequences: whether the statement means that all Muslims are culpable for the crimes of 9/11 or whether it's meant to be a defense of plainly irrational islamophobia (as described by Juan Williams), it's still a retarded comment.

[IBCoupe]

Two words: Nina & Totenberg
QED

A few more words: "1995 and nothing since" versus "twice in 2007, in January 2009 and in October 2010"

Try harder, Q. Nina Totenberg made one comment in 1995 and you think that compares to a recent string of head-butts from Juan Williams? If you can't justify his defense on its own terms, find a different topic, dude.

[96Qowner]

Here's an instructive article:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/farai-chi ... 72849.html

If NPR had such clear concerns over how Juan Williams fit into their organization, in the amorphous role of "news analyst," then they had an opportunity to let him go a long time ago. They could have decided he didn't fit their needs, and moved on in a less polarized time. But by firing him now, in this instance, after years of sitting uncomfortably with his dual roles on NPR and Fox, they made a few crucial errors. They chose to fire him for doing what he has done for years... be a hype man for Bill O'Reilly. Why now? And they also showed tone-deaf communication with member stations by firing Williams during a pledge drive season. I know to many that will sound like nit-picking, but the relationship between NPR and member stations has oft been strained, and the Williams matter does so more, as evidenced by station disclaimers like this one from WBUR.

[IBCoupe]

Yes, they could have let him go. They would have been justified for doing it then, too. What are you trying to argue? Do you even know?

Instructive my hairy Jewish a**. This is getting tiresome. You guys aren't even trying anymore.

[heliochrome85]

its tougher to come up with actual organized arguments rather than a general "Nuh uhh"

[96Qowner]

also. more big words
http://www.slate.com/id/2272262/pagenum/all/#p2

I could do without the posed condescension any time you get tired of it.

Ok, I noticed a couple things about this one.

Those who would explicitly link all Muslims with terrorism might point to evidence showing that some Muslims say they want to wage a war against the West, that a large preponderance of terrorlst attacks today are carried out by Muslims, and so on. This is similar to our longstanding national narrative about blacks and crime.

But that's my point. Who ever says ALL Muslims this or ALL Muslims that? Seriously,you actually think you heard someone say that? So far, every example I've seen specifically doesn't say that. O'Reilly said "Muslims" and Juan said "people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they're identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims".

And this:

If you know there are 1 billion Muslims on our planet (low estimate) and you've heard of 1,000 incidents where Muslims carried out terrorlst attacks (an exaggerated number) ...

Oddly enough, I just learned today that these filthy pieces of useless humanity have conducted over 16,000 attacks worldwide causing over 45,000 deaths, almost all of them innocents.

I don't ever intend to be empathetic and understanding about it.

[heliochrome85]

also. more big words
http://www.slate.com/id/2272262/pagenum/all/#p2

I could do without the posed condescension any time you get tired of it.

Ok, I noticed a couple things about this one.

Those who would explicitly link all Muslims with terrorism might point to evidence showing that some Muslims say they want to wage a war against the West, that a large preponderance of terrorlst attacks today are carried out by Muslims, and so on. This is similar to our longstanding national narrative about blacks and crime.

But that's my point. Who ever says ALL Muslims this or ALL Muslims that? Seriously,you actually think you heard someone say that? So far, every example I've seen specifically doesn't say that. O'Reilly said "Muslims" and Juan said "people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they're identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims".

And this:

If you know there are 1 billion Muslims on our planet (low estimate) and you've heard of 1,000 incidents where Muslims carried out terrorlst attacks (an exaggerated number) ...

Oddly enough, I just learned today that these filthy pieces of useless humanity have conducted over 16,000 attacks worldwide causing over 45,000 deaths, almost all of them innocents.

I don't ever intend to be empathetic and understanding about it.

i bring links to the table from factual and established news sources. you bring me the huffington post. i vote democratic and even i dont believe have the s*** they print. try harder or go home. please, this is no longer fun for any of us.

[IBCoupe]

Oh, so you're going for 0.000001 attack for every Muslim to 0.000016 attacks for every Muslim? Dude.

Who ever says ALL Muslims this or ALL Muslims that?

Bill O'Reilly and Juan Williams did. Bill O'Reilly because in order for his words to have any meaning at all, they must be used in coordination with something about all Muslims, unless you can come up with some other way for "Muslims killed us on 9/11" to be at all significant. Juan Williams because his fear of any person in "Muslim garb" on an airplanes necessarily implicates all people in "Muslim garb" on airplanes. Stop trying to go this route - you're wrong here, too.

[heliochrome85]

and before you et all haughty about the atlantic, you might want to know its been in the business since 1857 and has featured some of the US's most important thinkers and authors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Atlantic

[AppleBonker]

And even if a person doesn't specifically state "all" isn't that what is implied in common language? If I were to tell someone I dislike tomatoes, and then followed that statement with I love roma tomatoes they'd look at me funny. If I referred to a square as a rectangle, would I not be laughed at? While both are technically accurate statements, they do not fit what is implied. It's just the way the mind works.

[heliochrome85]

but somehow, i dont think you are an atlantic monthly subscriber...

[IBCoupe]

and before you et all haughty about the atlantic, you might want to know its been in the business since 1857 and has featured some of the US's most important thinkers and authors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Atlantic

...Including a younger, less heated Juan Williams, if I'm not mistaken.