Juan Williams - Way to go, NPR

[AZhitman]

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/22/ju ... /?hpt=Sbin

"This is one of the things in my life that's shocking. I grew up on the left. I grew up here in New York City and I've always thought the right wing was the ones who were inflexible and intolerant. Now, I'm coming to realize that the orthodoxy at NPR, as it's representing the left, is just unbelievable," he said.

Love the "inflexible and intolerant" quote. Spot-on, Juan. Well-said.

[IBCoupe]

You can go see my thread, or just read the thrust of it here:

Juan Williams has a history of saying things on Fox News that NPR doesn't want its news analysts to say - not because there's something bad about what he's saying, but because it's not analysis. Political analysis may give the pros and cons of searching Muslims, separate from others, at the airport. But if a political analyst goes onto another forum and states, as commentary, "I'm afraid of Muslims on airplanes," that might just call into question his value as a political analyst.

NPR hasn't said that what Juan Williams said was right or wrong. It hasn't said that what Juan Williams said was popular or unpopular. It has said that he can't say those things publicly and remain a reliable source of political analysis at NPR. There are a number of NPR figures that regularly appear on Fox - they still have their jobs.

[AZhitman]

Yours was posted late.

And I'd argue, as many have, that his personal observations can be (and are) far removed from his role as a political analyst.

If he said he doesn't travel to Cabo San Lucas because he fears being harassed by the Federales or kidnapped by a cartel, would that affect his credibility as an analyst?

NPR has bigger issues if they're worried about "credibility" - They're well-known to lean heavily, and although I tune in on occasion, everything on the station needs to be taken with a healthy dose of sodium to choke it down.

p.s. Dianne Reems can retire now. Thanks, Dianne, but it's time. KTHXBAI

[IBCoupe]

You're absolutely right; in addition to being a discredit to his impartiality as a political analyst, his comments were inflammatory, and, as NPR has stated, were also a violation of the code of ethics he agreed to as a newsperson in their organization.

I don't like Dianne Rehm, either. I'm fortunate enough to have another airwave to switch to when her show's on. Her shows about cooking bore me, her social shows don't interest me, and her once-a-week political show is the only one nationally-broadcast on NPR that I've encountered where the host injects her own opinion.

That said, NPR's listenership is politically balanced, and their news commentary and analysis is the same. The method of NPR's reporting, commentary, and analysis (methodical, calm, considerate, and sometimes boring) is not conducive to any kind of overall political leaning, and it shows in that there isn't a lot of leaning, aside from a few locally-produced and locally-broadcast programs across the country (which aren't a part of NPR-organized broadcasting) and the occasional injection of Diane Rehm's commentary in her show.

[srellim234]

As I watched I flashed back to the Walter Cronkite, Chet Huntley and David Brinkley era of news broadcasting. Williams personal opinion would not have been tolerated then and it appears that NPR is trying to enforce those same standards now, standards that I learned in journalism 101 almost 40 years ago.

Unfortunately those standards have disappeared in modern journalism. From main stream television (CBS, NBC,ABC) to extremely biased stations (FoxNews, MSNBC) people are almost expected to inject personal opinion and make comments about the news story they just read. Very unfortunate because it sways the viewer before the viewer has had a chance to digest what he/she just saw or heard and make up his/her own mind.

Since that can of worms has been opened I don't believe NPR is going to be able to put the lid back on it for very long. Too bad, because we need people we can trust to just report the facts. We're adults; let us reach our own conclusions.

I will close this little bit by saying that I don't believe Williams should have been fired for it. Whatever happened to the employer counseling the employee instead of just firing them? If he had worded it as, "Most Americans are leery and apprehensive, even afraid, of people in Muslim garb getting on their plane." we wouldn't even be having this discussion. He'd still be at NPR. This is another example of how uncompromising and intolerant we've become.

[AZhitman]

This is another example of how uncompromising and intolerant we've become.

Not "we". They.

His comments are only "inflammatory" if you're a race-baiter or looking to stir up controversy.

Would he have been fired if he'd said, "I believe in the traditional concept of marriage." Or if he'd said, "I don't support abortion." Does that make him any less credible as a journalist?

Be careful, because if it does, I'm about to bring in Anderson Cooper with a pink bow on his head.

NOTE: I don't agree with his statement itself, I think what he said was silly. But for NPR to take the "artificial high road" was a joke.

[AZhitman]

You're absolutely right; blah blah blah

Maybe I missed a cleverly-concealed slam, but how can you say I'm right and then dispute everything I said?

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_q ... _n9317144/

[srellim234]

Not "we". They.

We're all part of society. I was referring to our society in general.

[AppleBonker]

Not "we". They.

I dunno, Greg. I'm pretty sure that as a country *we* have become pretty intolerant. I'd like to think that I don't have that issue, but I'm fairly certain that the average US citizen is pretty intolerant.

Edit: clearly as I was typing the mess below the comment above was clarified ^

Would he have been fired if he'd said, "I believe in the traditional concept of marriage." Or if he'd said, "I don't support abortion." Does that make him any less credible as a journalist?

Would he have been fired? I doubt it. Does it make him less credible? Maybe (more on this answer later). But, there really aren't too many credible news sources out there.

Look, when I get the news, I want facts. Not opinions and not fluff. I don't have the time or the attention span for it. If the news cannot be reported without being spiked with the reporter's personal color, I question the validity of the "facts" and therefore the whole point of watching is void.

Now, in this case (continuing from the maybe above), the comments were not made on a news report. It was on an opinions show. Given that, I'm not likely to watch it (unless I gain something from it other than news, such as humor). He could've come on and claimed he hated white people. Or said he was afraid of the gremlin on the wing that was going to tear it off and make the plane crash. None of this matters to me. Now, where I see a line that needs to be carefully walked is the specific comments he made involved people/religion that have been in the news quite a bit lately. If he can separate his thoughts/concerns when reporting the news, I have no problem with it (but it seems like this would be difficult).

Given that I feel it would be difficult to keep opinion and news separate, he might slip up eventually. However, he didn't screw up yet, so I don't agree with him losing his job. But as soon as he fails to be objective on the matter, they can fire him right out of there and I wouldn't be concerned. I see where NPR was coming from, but I think this was the wrong decision.

[heliochrome85]

Ill leave this here.
http://muslimswearingthings.tumblr.com/

[AppleBonker]

Damnit. Spit water on my keyboard...

[heliochrome85]

im good like that.

[96Qowner]

Ill leave this here.
http://muslimswearingthings.tumblr.com/

Funny, but remember what Juan said:

But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.

It's actually an interesting, philosophical, sociological question. What does it mean when a person chooses to display like that? It's by no means limited to Muslims or religion. Some people have tattoos, some dress in a studied manner. What does that tell you about the person? Why is it necessary to them that we "see" that?

[AZhitman]

Which brings us to my oft-repeated observation, which starts with:

"If the first thing I learn about you...."

[IBCoupe]

Maybe I missed a cleverly-concealed slam, but how can you say I'm right and then dispute everything I said?

I meant you were absolutely right in that there's a similar issue in that same comment - it calls into question a person's objectivity in analyzing the news. Probably not to the same degree - you can be afraid of something because you've learned more about it. In contrast, Williams basically acknowledged that his fear of Muslims on planes was irrational.

Which is why I went on to clarify that, in addition to calling into question his objectivity as an analyst (to a greater degree than being afraid to wander into a crack den in Mexico), his public statements were inflammatory.

What does it mean when a person chooses to display like that?

"If the first thing I learn about you..."

If I wear a yamulke, is the first thing you've learned about me that I'm Jewish? And is that because it's the first thing I want you to learn about me? Or might it be because I'm an observant Jew, wishing to cover my head before God at all times?

You and Greg seem to have it in your minds that what you perceive initially is entirely related to what people choose to broadcast about themselves, when I'd say it probably has more to do with your own internal workings. If I'm walking over with my girlfriend, and she's not wearing a Hijab, the first thing you learn about her is that she's Asian. Is it her fault that you've chosen this particular attribute to be what you notice?

Might it be that they're wearing those clothes for reasons other than to inform you as to what they are? Please note: I'm calling neither of you a bigot. I'm not saying either of you are wrong for seeing things the way you do. I'm simply calling into question your ability to infer another's subjective intent through your own subjective perception.

[BusyBadger]

Which brings us to my oft-repeated observation, which starts with:

"If the first thing I learn about you...."

I'm a firm believer in this...with a minor change. "If the first thing you tell me about yourself..."

And I use the term "tell" loosely, it doesn't have to be a direct verbalization. Maybe I should change "tell" to "teach", or even "reveal".

[IBCoupe]

Ill leave this here.
http://muslimswearingthings.tumblr.com/

Which in a roundabout and completely unintentional way brings me to the point: are the obvious Muslims the ones you should be afraid of?

Ask these guys:


Oh, wait. Nevermind. They're dead, now.



Aaaand for good measure:

"The Cylons look like us, now."

[heliochrome85]

careful, your nerd is showing.

[IBCoupe]

Are you kidding? I'm openly nerd.

<-- User avatar is proof.

See symbol riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight here ^

[heliochrome85]

ill say this though, i think his firing was approrpiate. i dont disagree with his comments, but if asked to represent an organization in my official capacity, and then i spout off my own opinions, then im not really filling my role as a representative of the organization. This wasnt his first transgression. There is a reason why he was asked on the show, being that he is one of the more conservative members of NPR's staff. This isnt Shirley Sherrod. He earned his own firing.

[heliochrome85]

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/arc ... npr/64953/

[heliochrome85]

Are you kidding? I'm openly nerd.

<-- User avatar is proof.

See symbol riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight here ^

awesome. is your gf a gamer as well? have you acheived the trifecta of awesome?

[IBCoupe]

No. Not at all. See this video for an accurate representation of my relationship.

[heliochrome85]

No. Not at all. See this video for an accurate representation of my relationship.

AWESOME.

but, my favorite comedian is Lewis Black...
http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/ind ... oId=362923

[AZhitman]

Which brings us to my oft-repeated observation, which starts with:

"If the first thing I learn about you...."

I'm a firm believer in this...with a minor change. "If the first thing you tell me about yourself..."

And I use the term "tell" loosely, it doesn't have to be a direct verbalization. Maybe I should change "tell" to "teach", or even "reveal".

Thank you.

I'm not gonna say "that's what I meant", because I actually hadn't considered that. But that's what I would have said if I were as eloquent as Badge.

[IBCoupe]

I still love you, Greg.

Badger, do you mean the minor alteration to eliminate unintended communications? 'Cause the words, unfortunately, can just as easily be viewed to include them as could the words Greg chose. One could see "tell," as you have defined it, to include anything you intentionally do, regardless of whether you intended it to be known to others.

Suppose the following:
If you get on an airplane and there's a man reading the New York Post, sitting in the seat next to where you're supposed to sit, and he's wearing all kinds of Muslim garb, what has he told you about himself, in your understanding of the term?

This isn't a rhetorical question - I'm trying to get on a common vocabulary so that we can carry on a decent conversation.

[AZhitman]

I'll answer that: He's not done anything to draw my ire (relevant to my position on this matter).

It could be better explained by generalizing: The person for whom being Jewish / Muslim / handicapped / Black / gay / cancer survivor / attorney / Sikh / transvestite / etc. becomes WHO they ARE.

You know exactly what I'm getting at. I don't think you're intentionally trying to be difficult, but that guy sitting next to me reading the NYP wouldn't bother me in the least. Were we to strike up a conversation, I'd be more interested in his personality - not what God he follows, because I don't give a damn.

[AZhitman]

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/25/np ... /?iref=NS1

He was explicitly and repeatedly asked to respect NPR's standards and to avoid expressing strong personal opinions on controversial subjects in public settings, as that is inconsistent with his role as an NPR news analyst.

Here's where I take issue with their position:

"...avoid expressing strong personal opinions..."

Really? Like, don't be human? Of all the sources to be promoting inflexibility, intolerance, censorship, and strict adherence to conformity, you'd think it'd be that bunch of rich old white guys.

If their standards were applied to everyone, Fox would be vacant, CNN would have a skeleton crew and most other news outlets would be hurting as well.

NPR president and CEO Vivian Schiller said that Williams' "feelings that he expressed on Fox News are really between him and his psychiatrist... but it is not compatible with the role of a news analyst on NPR's air."

Schiller later apologized for the reference to Williams' psychiatrist, saying in a posting on NPR's website that the remark was "thoughtless."

Hmmm. Lots of apologizing going on. That tells me something right there.

Too bad Mr. Williams wasn't afforded the luxury of backpedaling or explaining himself.

[IBCoupe]

They're not saying, Greg, that he can't express strong personal opinions on public forums. They're saying he can't do it and continue to get paid by NPR.

As for backpeddling, had this been the one time he's had issues with NPR's code of ethics, that'd be one thing. In fact, just last year, his comments about the First Lady had NPR asking him not to be identified as an NPR personality when he appears on Fox.

NPR doesn't care what his opinions are, as the CEO ineptly stated (and apologized for). They care about how NPR is represented. NPR has a media identity that is not conducive to bombast or "Crossfire"-style media, and this is a conscious choice. I honestly do not know Tom Ashbrook's personal opinion on anything, and his show is better for it. E.J. Dionne's internal position on DADT is a complete mystery to me, and I like it that way, too.

[AZhitman]

Taking away a man's livelihood as a consequence for speaking his piece (c 2010) is no different than raiding his home and burning his crops (c 1771).

That's fine, though.

If we're gonna get detailed, making an inference about mental illness was tacky and juvenile. Vivian Schiller is lucky the NIMH doesn't pounce on her ignorant and offensive comment - she should be fired.

They've lost all respect from me and I've deleted NPR from my presets on my daily.