Juan Williams Fired over Politically Incorrect Remarks

[Pangloss]

Yup.

 

That is exactly what I'm saying, ydoaps, that these politically-correct progressives are convinced that conservatives are incapable of drawing intellectual distinctions -- he MUST have meant that he's so afraid of Muslims that he thinks they should be harmed before they can harm us. Or at the very least people will THINK that's what he meant, and they'll panic and go out and harm Muslims as a result of what he said.

 

That's how far we've fallen. You can blame all that on the Fox News crowd if you like, but you'll be missing half the picture.

[swansont]

Yup.

 

That is exactly what I'm saying, ydoaps, that these politically-correct progressives are convinced that conservatives are incapable of drawing intellectual distinctions -- he MUST have meant that he's so afraid of Muslims that he thinks they should be harmed before they can harm us. Or at the very least people will THINK that's what he meant, and they'll panic and go out and harm Muslims as a result of what he said.

 

That's how far we've fallen. You can blame all that on the Fox News crowd if you like, but you'll be missing half the picture.

 

But you're the one who tagged it as "sounds conservative" and "conservative-like statement." Not that I disagree — if someone says something that exhibits a generic mistrust of someone who isn't a white heterosexual Christian, I'd bet that the person saying it is a conservative.

 

——

 

I'm guessing that the people most upset by this are interpreting "if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they’re identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous" as "how dare they identify themselves as Muslims." And yet there really isn't an equivalent outcry for people who display a cross (or star of David, or even if they have a dot on their forehead) so in that interpretation it's bigoted. And if that's how NPR thinks their audience will interpret it, then that's a problem.

[Pangloss]

What a horrible thing, that free exchange of ideas.

[jackson33]

CEO's comments that he should talk to a "psychiatrist" was a low blow.

 

“I think they were looking for a reason to get rid of me. That they were uncomfortable with the idea that I was talking to the likes of Bill O’Reilly or Sean Hannity,” he told me on "GMA."

“I knew about their antagonism towards Fox. And I knew that they really didn’t like it, and as I said I have been there more than 10 years and I have seen managers come and go and who dealt with this issue. This current crew was really getting vicious,” Williams said.[/Quote]

 

http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2010/10/juan-williams-i-dont-have-a-psychiatrist-npr-ceo-low.html

 

You really don't need to read between the line to determine Mr. Williams and Ms. Schiller, were having some kind of problem and you don't have should admit for her to say Williams might not be mentally stable, after the fact, is inexcusable.

 

A media executive and journalist with 25 years experience in the industry, Vivian Schiller joined NPR as President and CEO in January 2009. Schiller leads all NPR's worldwide media operations, including the organization's partnerships with a network of more than 900 public radio stations, and their service to the nearly 30 million people who listen to NPR programming. [/Quote]

 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99152497

 

Without offering a conclusion, Ms. Schiller took charge of NPR in January 2009, I believe a few others arrived in DC about that time and has been highly rated by other media, from the start. I think there might be some ego problem involved, reading through the article in that Williams was no doubt earning more money and already well versed in the Washington spotlight.

 

This is not a first amendment issue at all, and Beck is wrong to spin it as one, as is everyone else who did. It isn't an example of the government censoring a private citizen, it's an employer firing an employee who represents them and failed to do in a manner acceptable to them. [/Quote]

 

swansont; Unfortunately you are correct, this is not a first amendment issue and as a private citizen, he had a total right to say exactly what was said even if not in context with the O'Reilly Show, BUT fortunately for Williams it is a Contractual Issue and one Megyn Kelly Fox News and Attorney, feels he probably has a good legal case to pursue. I'm not sure how, since I don't see any harm done, obviously the opposite both in support and his new Fox Contract. Then NPR is really going to pay a financial price, firing the one Liberal most moderates respected and some not so moderate, respect for journalist does not come easy.

[Mr Skeptic]

What a horrible thing, that free exchange of ideas.

 

Yeah, now he can't talk write or otherwise communicate, how sad.

[swansont]

 

swansont; Unfortunately you are correct, this is not a first amendment issue and as a private citizen, he had a total right to say exactly what was said even if not in context with the O'Reilly Show, BUT fortunately for Williams it is a Contractual Issue and one Megyn Kelly Fox News and Attorney, feels he probably has a good legal case to pursue. I'm not sure how, since I don't see any harm done, obviously the opposite both in support and his new Fox Contract. Then NPR is really going to pay a financial price, firing the one Liberal most moderates respected and some not so moderate, respect for journalist does not come easy.

 

What's unfortunate about it?

 

I don't know what his work agreement was, but there are many people who are at-will employees and can be fired for almost any reason. I suppose it's possible his contract said he can violate NPR's journalism rules, but somehow I doubt it.

 

Yeah, now he can't talk write or otherwise communicate, how sad.

 

Whatever happend to our right to be paid by NPR to say whatever we want to?

[padren]

Why does everything have to be so black and white? Regardless of whether NPR had the right to fire him, the reasons he was fired and the manner in which he was fired cannot be a healthy contribution to the national dialogue. This is a person who was paid to participate in and comment on the daily political climate in America. It's understandable for someone to fear loosing their job if they are inaccurate, sloppy, or misleading - regardless of political implications. To fire someone in this manner only heightens the fear among their staff that they can be fired for making statements that are disagreeable to their boss, even if the statement is accurate and not at all misleading. Sure, this undoubtedly happens all the time, but this is a rather high profile and blatant case that only exasperates that general concern. Sure Fox News is worse for these sorts of actions, but they are quintessentially worse at everything "News" and sure has hell don't set the bar on ethical standards.

 

 

If NPR wants to be considered a source for reasonable analysis and discourse on political topics, this firing (in both cause and execution) hurts that goal. It is not consistent with "walking the walk" and can only push their staff to second guess themselves and choose "safer assessments" in what they report - not for accuracy, but for the perspectives they try to relate. That just hurts everyone.

[Pangloss]

Whatever happend to our right to be paid by NPR to say whatever we want to?

 

What I said is that NPR had the right to fire him, but that in my opinion it was hypocritical and shows their bias.

 

 

Regardless of whether NPR had the right to fire him, the reasons he was fired and the manner in which he was fired cannot be a healthy contribution to the national dialogue.

 

Well said.

 

 

If NPR wants to be considered a source for reasonable analysis and discourse on political topics, this firing (in both cause and execution) hurts that goal. It is not consistent with "walking the walk" and can only push their staff to second guess themselves and choose "safer assessments" in what they report - not for accuracy, but for the perspectives they try to relate. That just hurts everyone.

 

Exactly.

 

----------

 

NPR Ombudsman Alicia Shepard is criticizing NPR's hasty and long-distance decision to fire Williams, but supporting their implementation of the ethics code.

 

http://www.npr.org/blogs/ombudsman/2010/10/21/130713285/npr-terminates-contract-with-juan-williams

 

She doesn't look at the consistency/hypocrisy issue, but that's not the job of an ombudsman -- they're supposed to weigh the merits of individual decisions -- so I guess that makes sense.

[ydoaPs]

What I said is that NPR had the right to fire him, but that in my opinion it was hypocritical and shows their bias.

How is it hypocritical to not want to be perceived as a bunch of bigots?

[swansont]

What I said is that NPR had the right to fire him, but that in my opinion it was hypocritical and shows their bias.

 

 

I don't see how it can be both. If it shows their bias, it's not hypocritical. It's not like NPR was being mistaken for conservative talk radio.

 

Why does everything have to be so black and white? Regardless of whether NPR had the right to fire him, the reasons he was fired and the manner in which he was fired cannot be a healthy contribution to the national dialogue. This is a person who was paid to participate in and comment on the daily political climate in America. It's understandable for someone to fear loosing their job if they are inaccurate, sloppy, or misleading - regardless of political implications. To fire someone in this manner only heightens the fear among their staff that they can be fired for making statements that are disagreeable to their boss, even if the statement is accurate and not at all misleading. Sure, this undoubtedly happens all the time, but this is a rather high profile and blatant case that only exasperates that general concern. Sure Fox News is worse for these sorts of actions, but they are quintessentially worse at everything "News" and sure has hell don't set the bar on ethical standards.

 

 

If NPR wants to be considered a source for reasonable analysis and discourse on political topics, this firing (in both cause and execution) hurts that goal. It is not consistent with "walking the walk" and can only push their staff to second guess themselves and choose "safer assessments" in what they report - not for accuracy, but for the perspectives they try to relate. That just hurts everyone.

 

If this had been a commercial station and advertisers were upset, this would be a no-brainer. Google on radio host firing and see what gets people fired.

[Pangloss]

How is it hypocritical to not want to be perceived as a bunch of bigots?

 

It's hypocritical to allow him to provide commentary for ten years, and then fire him for providing commentary. Quoting his boss, "News analysts may not take personal public positions on controversial issues; doing so undermines their credibility as analysts". This is ridiculous -- what does she think Juan Williams was doing for ten years on the air at NPR? IMO that's a statement about their bias, but regardless of whether you agree, that's clearly inconsistent. And they did it remotely, without even so much as a face to face meeting after ten years of service.

 

And you're forgetting something: He ISN'T a bigot. Once his comments are seen in the actual context of his statement, it's clear that he was NOT promoting racism. So he CAN'T make them look like "a bunch of bigots".

 

Here's the irony: They fired the one and only black man they employ on the air over a perception that isn't accurate. But are Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson storming the bastions of NPR with crowds of angry protestors? Nope. Gee, I wonder why. (foxnewsfoxnewsfoxnewsboogaboogaboogaaieeeee!)

[swansont]

And you're forgetting something: He ISN'T a bigot. Once his comments are seen in the actual context of his statement, it's clear that he was NOT promoting racism. So he CAN'T make them look like "a bunch of bigots".

 

 

I'll reiterate what ydoaPs posted, only with emphasis: How is it hypocritical to not want to be perceived as a bunch of bigots?

 

We've had a number of threads in politics where we discussed what someone said, and how it played out in the press. What they said, and what the context was, rarely mattered. Why is this different? Several times I've seen someone say "what he clearly meant was …" in some of those threads, even though there was dissent over the interpretation — so it's not so clear for everybody. Too many listeners (or viewers, in other cases) don't have the patience for context, and then there's source amnesia — all they'll remember is that he's a bigot because they remember the controversy rather than the facts. Perception is reality.

[Pangloss]

How is it hypocritical to not want to be perceived as a bunch of bigots?

 

I didn't say that it was.

 

 

We've had a number of threads in politics where we discussed what someone said, and how it played out in the press. What they said, and what the context was, rarely mattered.

 

And that's wrong.

 

 

Why is this different?

 

It isn't.

 

 

Several times I've seen someone say "what he clearly meant was …" in some of those threads, even though there was dissent over the interpretation — so it's not so clear for everybody.

 

The explanation of "what he really said" isn't a matter of interpretation, it's a matter of what he actually said.

 

 

Too many listeners (or viewers, in other cases) don't have the patience for context, and then there's source amnesia — all they'll remember is that he's a bigot because they remember the controversy rather than the facts. Perception is reality.

 

And look at the result when they reacted to perception rather than sound policy -- a massive controversy. According to that ombudsman article I linked earlier, she said they got "hundreds" of requests to fire Williams, but "thousands" of complaints after they fired him.

 

I get what you're saying -- they're stuck between a rock and a hard place, and to some extent paying a price for society's presently divided political environment. Sure. But if they had done the right thing, taking the time to view the man's statement in context, and having the courtesy to talk to him in person, they might have found the sanity to make the right call and avoided a much larger controversy than a few hundred people who were really just complaining about Fox News.

[Mr Skeptic]

And look at the result when they reacted to perception rather than sound policy -- a massive controversy. According to that ombudsman article I linked earlier, she said they got "hundreds" of requests to fire Williams, but "thousands" of complaints after they fired him.

 

And I don't think anyone here actually thinks firing him was the right move. Some of us are pointing out that it's not a 1'st Ammendment issue, and it is well within the rights (legal and moral) of NPR to fire people who speak for them and say something they disagree with. But it's still a dumb move.

 

I get what you're saying -- they're stuck between a rock and a hard place, and to some extent paying a price for society's presently divided political environment. Sure. But if they had done the right thing, taking the time to view the man's statement in context, and having the courtesy to talk to him in person, they might have found the sanity to make the right call and avoided a much larger controversy than a few hundred people who were really just complaining about Fox News.

 

Sure, and looking at the statement in context (what you provided and what I could find searching for it), it is a bigoted statement that promotes bigotry. Does it advocate bigotry? No. But public displays of bigotry are pretty much the only thing that promotes bigotry, and that's what Williams did.

 

And it doesn't really matter if it's true; if someone on the air said something similar about Bush or Obama it could likewise be a firing offense, even if it truly was their own opinion. Like being told they are fat, some things even if true are best left unsaid. And it doesn't matter whether he's bigoted against black people or not; you only have to be bigoted against one people group to be a bigot.

[swansont]

 

 

The explanation of "what he really said" isn't a matter of interpretation, it's a matter of what he actually said.

 

Why would people start acting rationally, all of the sudden? Al Gore invented the internet and Obama's a Muslim. But in this one instance, everyone is going to get it right?

 

 

 

And look at the result when they reacted to perception rather than sound policy -- a massive controversy. According to that ombudsman article I linked earlier, she said they got "hundreds" of requests to fire Williams, but "thousands" of complaints after they fired him.

 

I get what you're saying -- they're stuck between a rock and a hard place, and to some extent paying a price for society's presently divided political environment. Sure. But if they had done the right thing, taking the time to view the man's statement in context, and having the courtesy to talk to him in person, they might have found the sanity to make the right call and avoided a much larger controversy than a few hundred people who were really just complaining about Fox News.

 

It's not clear how much of the "larger controversy" is real.

 

At KUNC, an NPR affiliate in Colorado, general manager Neil Best said that Thursday, the start of a pledge drive, was one of the station's best fundraising days ever. Best said some callers who criticized the firing seemed to be reading from a script since they used some of the same words, such as "totalitarian."

 

NPR spokeswoman Dana Davis Rehm in Washington said several other stations also reported callers may be reading from a script. In other cases, it was clear the callers weren't listeners or supporters, she said.

 

"When people say, `I'm never going to watch you again,' that's an indicator," she said, because NPR isn't on TV.

 

http://www.ksdk.com/news/watercooler/story.aspx?storyid=223108&catid=71

[padren]

And I don't think anyone here actually thinks firing him was the right move. Some of us are pointing out that it's not a 1'st Ammendment issue, and it is well within the rights (legal and moral) of NPR to fire people who speak for them and say something they disagree with. But it's still a dumb move.

I think we are agreed on this being a dumb move and not a 1st Amendment issue, but there are "dumb firings" (due to egos butting heads, etc) and then there are firings for doing your job. In my mind, this is almost as bad as the Bush Administration firing researchers for producing data that made drilling in NWAR appear less "win win" due to ecological impacts. That is not to say there were not other grounds for firing him, and I wouldn't be half surprised if he was intentionally pushing buttons to get fired to drum up more publicity in moving to Fox. I can't say he did do that intentionally, I don't know enough about the guy to say either way - but I am not giving him a free pass either.

 

However, even if he did play his boss, his boss clearly played into it and fired him specifically for those statements, and as such that's all I can evaluate the decision on unless the position is clarified.

Sure, and looking at the statement in context (what you provided and what I could find searching for it), it is a bigoted statement that promotes bigotry. Does it advocate bigotry? No. But public displays of bigotry are pretty much the only thing that promotes bigotry, and that's what Williams did.

I've noticed a pattern that people who have been assaulted by a group of individuals of similar apparel and mannerisms, tend to have a visceral reaction to people displaying those traits in the future. Some have trouble trusting cowboys, some have trouble trusting "white trash" and others native Americans and others dressed as gangbangers, and others in police uniforms.

 

When I'm walking home through an alley at 4 in the morning in a questionable part of the city, I am always on guard even if all I see is a cat, but I also know my heart rate responds differently to a black guy in a business suit than it does a black guy dressed like the Somalians that cruise around and roll the small time drug dealers. Personally I have drank with Somalis dressed as hood rats quite comfortably, but there is a biological reaction creating a sense of concern or mild apprehension when running across a group of people who present themselves in certain ways before you have the chance to evaluate the individuals or the nuances of the specific group's behavior.

 

I don't think that makes me a bigot, nor do I think admitting this reality means I am promoting bigotry. If you want to reduce bigotry, you actually have to look at the real challenges in overcoming the real obstacles, and one of the largest obstacles is that when a group of people are traumatized by the actions of another group, it has a lasting psychological effect triggered by anyone matching that individual's mental model for that group.

 

On 9-11, a lot of people who did not know next to a damn thing about Islam or the Middle East were traumatized by the attacks, and whether or not the "mental model for that group" is well refined, they have had to deal with the psychological impact of that event. That's not bigotry anymore than it would be for a kid to be apprehensive around a priest, when they had been abused by a completely different priest in the past. It would be bigoted to say you can't trust anyone with black robes and a white collar, but admitting the visceral reaction the poor kid has is the first step in helping him get passed it, and the same goes for the issues faced by those Americans traumatized by 9-11 in this manner.

 

If this had been a commercial station and advertisers were upset, this would be a no-brainer. Google on radio host firing and see what gets people fired.

Yet, it's the very fact that commercial stations like Fox News are so aggressive with such policies that we no longer even consider them a news organization. It may be a fact that commercialized agenda-media has largely replaced respectable journalism in this country, but it's also something we pretty much all complain about as being bad for the country. It's also a fact that commercial stations are required to put the interests of stock holders above journalistic integrity, fairness and even honesty... and since this is not the image that National Public Radio wants to portray, they should probably avoid the practice.

Edited October 24, 2010 by padren

[Mr Skeptic]

It's not clear how much of the "larger controversy" is real.

 

At KUNC, an NPR affiliate in Colorado, general manager Neil Best said that Thursday, the start of a pledge drive, was one of the station's best fundraising days ever. Best said some callers who criticized the firing seemed to be reading from a script since they used some of the same words, such as "totalitarian."

 

NPR spokeswoman Dana Davis Rehm in Washington said several other stations also reported callers may be reading from a script. In other cases, it was clear the callers weren't listeners or supporters, she said.

 

"When people say, `I'm never going to watch you again,' that's an indicator," she said, because NPR isn't on TV.

 

http://www.ksdk.com/...223108&catid=71

 

Interesting. I wonder if someone intentionally helped with manufactured furor, or these were just side-effect of poorly informed but angry people who read about it and decided to get involved.

 

I think we are agreed on this being a dumb move and not a 1st Amendment issue, but there are "dumb firings" (due to egos butting heads, etc) and then there are firings for doing your job. In my mind, this is almost as bad as the Bush Administration firing researchers for producing data that made drilling in NWAR appear less "win win" due to ecological impacts. That is not to say there were not other grounds for firing him, and I wouldn't be half surprised if he was intentionally pushing buttons to get fired to drum up more publicity in moving to Fox. I can't say he did do that intentionally, I don't know enough about the guy to say either way - but I am not giving him a free pass either.

 

However, even if he did play his boss, his boss clearly played into it and fired him specifically for those statements, and as such that's all I can evaluate the decision on unless the position is clarified.

 

I don't think that part of his job is being bigoted though. Certainly, its unreasonable to expect people to have no such feelings toward some group or another, but most people have the sense to keep it to themselves, so as not to spread it and also not embarrass themselves.

 

I've noticed a pattern that people who have been assaulted by a group of individuals of similar apparel and mannerisms, tend to have a visceral reaction to people displaying those traits in the future. Some have trouble trusting cowboys, some have trouble trusting "white trash" and others native Americans and others dressed as gangbangers, and others in police uniforms.

 

When I'm walking home through an alley at 4 in the morning in a questionable part of the city, I am always on guard even if all I see is a cat, but I also know my heart rate responds differently to a black guy in a business suit than it does a black guy dressed like the Somalians that cruise around and roll the small time drug dealers. Personally I have drank with Somalis dressed as hood rats quite comfortably, but there is a biological reaction creating a sense of concern or mild apprehension when running across a group of people who present themselves in certain ways before you have the chance to evaluate the individuals or the nuances of the specific group's behavior.

 

I don't think that makes me a bigot, nor do I think admitting this reality means I am promoting bigotry. If you want to reduce bigotry, you actually have to look at the real challenges in overcoming the real obstacles, and one of the largest obstacles is that when a group of people are traumatized by the actions of another group, it has a lasting psychological effect triggered by anyone matching that individual's mental model for that group.

 

On 9-11, a lot of people who did not know next to a damn thing about Islam or the Middle East were traumatized by the attacks, and whether or not the "mental model for that group" is well refined, they have had to deal with the psychological impact of that event. That's not bigotry anymore than it would be for a kid to be apprehensive around a priest, when they had been abused by a completely different priest in the past. It would be bigoted to say you can't trust anyone with black robes and a white collar, but admitting the visceral reaction the poor kid has is the first step in helping him get passed it, and the same goes for the issues faced by those Americans traumatized by 9-11 in this manner.

 

 

Yet, it's the very fact that commercial stations like Fox News are so aggressive with such policies that we no longer even consider them a news organization. It may be a fact that commercialized agenda-media has largely replaced respectable journalism in this country, but it's also something we pretty much all complain about as being bad for the country. It's also a fact that commercial stations are required to put the interests of stock holders above journalistic integrity, fairness and even honesty... and since this is not the image that National Public Radio wants to portray, they should probably avoid the practice.

 

Well, it's understandable that people can have such feelings, even when they should know it is irrational. Being irrational isn't even a necessary component of bigotry. But in this case, it also is an irrational fear -- terrorists don't go about distinguishing themselves, they usually dress up to blend in.

 

Look at all those scary terrorists in their Muslim clothing with their turbans and beards so they can identify themselves first and foremost as Muslims.

 

And arguing that what he said is true because he really is a bigot doesn't help his case.

 

---

 

What scares me is religious extremists who received hundreds of millions of assistance from the US government. (Operation Cyclone) However, I can't distinguish them by sight so I can't really discriminate against them.

[Pangloss]

Why would people start acting rationally, all of the sudden? Al Gore invented the internet and Obama's a Muslim. But in this one instance, everyone is going to get it right?

 

Well I guess that's true enough.

 

 

"When people say, `I'm never going to watch you again,' that's an indicator," she said, because NPR isn't on TV.

 

ROFL!

[pioneer]

Political correctness appears to work under the assumption that emotion trumps reason and data. If you make up a warm fuzzy fantasy that makes people feel good or if the fantasy coordinates with what the herd is told to feel, this is OK. But if you state facts or logical arguments that deviate emotion from the emotional template, that is a violation of PC.

 

Politics is less about presenting detailed ideas, as it is about using rhetoric, spin and mud slinging to cloud the water, so it comes down to an emotional reaction. If one is too honest, the other side will spin and misrepresent, which then takes a lot of energy to regain reality. Politically correct means the proper or correct spin and mudslinging, but not a logical discussion of issues. They wish to follow the correct procedure of politics.

 

It is OK to say that Christians are a big problem. But one can not say the same of Muslims. We can only mudsling in one direction according to PC spin. This is not logical, but is based the illusion templates of politics, to create conditioned emotional reactions. This special effect may have worked better if the word political was not in it. But the choice of words helps us to see that the goal is not logic but spin.

 

PC was a spawn of the democratic party and seems to use its platform and it spin templates. When in power, they ignored the will of the people, which in the case of PC, is free speech. The reason Williams got fired was a political move to create an example to scare others. The idea is to induce the emotion of fear to trump data and logic. Did anyone check to see the political orientation of the decision makers?

 

What is interesting is Hollywood, the place of illusions, special effects and fantasy prefer the democrats. Birds of as feather will flock together, with PC spin, sort of using the Hollywood template that can turn a farm girl into a star.

Edited October 24, 2010 by pioneer