Juan Williams fired by NPR - was it fair?

[WhoWee]

Juan Williams was fired this week from National Public Radio after making a cooment on a The O'Reilly Factor on Monday evening.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ac/7014722_juan_williams_fired_free_speech_vs_editorial_policy

"Juan Williams: Muslims Make Him Nervous
The comments which led to the firing of Williams revolved around his admitting to Bill O'Reilly that he gets "nervous" and "worried" when he boards a plane and sees "people in Muslim garb.""

NPR has apparently lit a firestorm of discussion.

http://www.aolnews.com/nation/artic...-right-left-for-firing-juan-williams/19684991

"(Oct. 22) -- NPR is defending itself against cries of liberal bias and of being too "PC," as critics from both right and left launch a rare joint defense of Juan Williams. Some thought the news analyst's comment about Muslims was racist, but others are standing up for his free speech and say Williams' remark reflects a reality in America.

The row has even sparked a U.S. senator to call for NPR's federal funding to be yanked."

Was NPR fair in their treatment of Juan?

 

[lisab]

Whether it's fair or not will depend on his contract with NPR. I can understand why a news organization would require its analysts to keep their own views out of the public sphere. That sounds a bit intrusive, but it happens in many workplaces in the US, especially for employees who are high-profile.

This brouhaha has resulted in Williams getting a $2 million contract with Fox, btw. Not sure what NPR was paying him, but I doubt it was anywhere near that.

 

[WhoWee]

Whether it's fair or not will depend on his contract with NPR. I can understand why a news organization would require its analysts to keep their own views out of the public sphere. That sounds a bit intrusive, but it happens in many workplaces in the US, especially for employees who are high-profile.QUOTE]


Let's not forget this "news organization" also receives public funding to stay afloat. More importantly, the discussion seems to be measuring the fairness of their actions.

The topic of whether NPR leans Left or not is hardly new.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200311/ai_n9317144/

The question now is whether or not NPR polices ALL of their employees equally as to content (left or right).

 

[OmCheeto]

Whether it's fair or not will depend on his contract with NPR. I can understand why a news organization would require its analysts to keep their own views out of the public sphere. That sounds a bit intrusive, but it happens in many workplaces in the US, especially for employees who are high-profile.

This brouhaha has resulted in Williams getting a $2 million contract with Fox, btw. Not sure what NPR was paying him, but I doubt it was anywhere near that.

I suppose I should watch more television. But then again, it seems like such a waste of time, when you can have years of "stuff" summarized in just a few minutes of googling:

by http://www.npr.org/blogs/ombudsman/2009/02/juan_williams_npr_and_fox_news_1.html"
February 11, 2009

Williams joined NPR in 2000, first as host...

Williams is controversial among NPR listeners because of his long-standing contract with Fox News, which he had before he joined NPR.

Has Fox News changed in the last 10 years? I really don't know. Once O'Reilly showed up, I'm quite certain I'd have changed channels.

 

[lisab]

Let's not forget this "news organization" also receives public funding to stay afloat. More importantly, the discussion seems to be measuring the fairness of their actions.

Just curious: do you think of Fox News as a "news organization" or a news organization?

And you think they need public funds to stay afloat? I doubt that...

NPR receives roughly 2 percent of its annual income directly from federal sources such as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the National Endowment for the Arts, but its member stations rely more heavily on such sources.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130746229&ps=cprs

I think they could do without 2% of their funding (and personally, I think it's high time they wean themselves from it).

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Whether it's fair or not will depend on his contract with NPR. I can understand why a news organization would require its analysts to keep their own views out of the public sphere. That sounds a bit intrusive, but it happens in many workplaces in the US, especially for employees who are high-profile.

This brouhaha has resulted in Williams getting a $2 million contract with Fox, btw. Not sure what NPR was paying him, but I doubt it was anywhere near that.

Not only had he been warned before, but his job with Fox is primarily commentary, which would be a direct conflict of interest with his job at NPR, where his role is an analyst.

In this day and age of Fox noise, people may have forgotten that a true journalist is supposed to keep their private opinions private. NPR still tries to uphold that standard. Clearly Williams violated this standard when he took the job with Fox.

 

[WhoWee]

I suppose I should watch more television. But then again, it seems like such a waste of time, when you can have years of "stuff" summarized in just a few minutes of googling:


Has Fox News changed in the last 10 years? I really don't know. Once O'Reilly showed up, I'm quite certain I'd have changed channels.

I'm not trying to challenge your post here OmCheeto, but this debate should not be about Fox or O'Reilly.

Juan Williams is a fair guy. He leans left, but IMO, looks at both sides of every issue.

 

[WhoWee]

Just curious: do you think of Fox News as a "news organization" or a news organization?

Let's take a look at their respective web sites:

http://www.npr.org/

http://www.foxnews.com/

I think both offer a substantial amount of entertainment and opinion. Either way, I don't think you can narrowly define NPR as a "news organization".

 

[WhoWee]

Not only had he been warned before, but his job with Fox is primarily commentary, which would be a direct conflict of interest with his job at NPR, where his role is an analyst.

In this day and age of Fox noise, people may have forgotten that a true journalist is supposed to keep their private opinions private. NPR still tries to uphold that standard. Clearly Williams violated this standard when he took the job with Fox.

Care to support your specific claims about his warnings and clauses in his contract?

As for "true journalists" keeping their opinions private - do you REALLY want to open that can of worms?

 

[Chi Meson]

Care to support your specific claims about his warnings and clauses in his contract?

Read the NPR ombudsman's articles on the subject. You already have the link.

As a long time listener of NPR, and as one who tries really hard to maintain a moderate point of view, I think NPR should not have fired Williams. He was just about as dead-center moderate as anyone can get. Individual points of view from any single person can drift in any political direction, and Williams' certainly did. But always with consideration of the various sides, and with logical analysis that was at very least respectable.

Regarding his contract, the Obudsman made a good point that Williams should have been given a clear choice earlier on: he had a position with NPR as a news analyst, a position that demanded that he not be swayed by irrational emotion.

It was clear to me that Williams was simply acknowledging that he has irrational emotions (as does everybody), but his opinion on the news is not governed by it.

NPR's point of view is that by stating his emotional response to seeing Muslims, he has "showed his hand," so to speak, on this significant issue, and can no longer be viewed as being unbiased when analyzing news that surrounds such issues.

I have no problem believing that he would have been able to professionally continue his job, but it is all about perception from the outside.

It was a lose-lose scenario for NPR, also. Who can count the $ they would have lost from listeners who demanded that Williams be fired (had he not been) compared to the $ that will be lost from listeners who feel he should not have been fired?

Good news for Williams in the end though, eh? At least FOX has a moderate on regular staff now.

 

[WhoWee]

Read the NPR ombudsman's articles on the subject. You already have the link.

Are you suggesting that is where Ivan did his research?

I did find this information regarding NPR interesting.
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.c...use-of-ethics-guidelines/?src=mv&ref=business

"Some critics of the firing have questioned whether NPR caved into pressure from the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR for short. The group, which advocates for Muslims, released a statement on Wednesday calling on NPR to address Mr. Williams’s comments on Fox, and a few hours later the termination decision was announced.

“I have actually not seen the statement from CAIR,” Ms. Schiller said Friday evening. “We don’t make decisions like this based on influence. We don’t make decisions based either on political pressure or financial pressure. That’s not the way we make decisions like this. They’re based on own ethics and our own news values at NPR.”

Some critics have also tried to connect the dots between the firing and a recent donation to NPR by the Open Society Institute, which was founded and is supported by the liberal billionaire George Soros, a favorite target of conservatives. Ms. Schiller called that idea “nonsense.”

She said: “Look, we’re very fortunate in that we have many supporters of all political persuasions. I’m happy to report that people support us and we get grants at regular intervals.” Referring to the Open Society Institute grant, she said, “To suggest that we got this grant in this timing is really, it’s nonsense — it’s nonsense to suggest that there was any correlation between the two.”"

The interesting thing was that of 118 stories about Soros (from a search) on the NPR site - none appear to mention this donation?
http://www.npr.org/templates/search/index.php?searchinput=george+soros&tabId=all&sort=date

I did find a story on Fox though.
http://www.npr.org/templates/search/index.php?searchinput=george+soros&tabId=all&sort=date

It makes me wonder why they don't have a story posted about the $1,800,000 cash infusion - to create 100 new jobs - perhaps the timing is not good?

 

[Hurkyl]

Skimming some of the articles, I can't find anything asserting Juan ever "crossed the line" on NPR -- the problems with Juan seem to have been entirely about comments he makes on other networks' shows.

 

[WhoWee]

From NPR's site.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130712737
This is what Juan said...

" "Look, Bill, I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country. 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."

Williams also warned O'Reilly against blaming all Muslims for "extremists," saying Christians shouldn't be blamed for Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh."

 

[OmCheeto]

The interesting thing was that of 118 stories about Soros (from a search) on the NPR site - none appear to mention this donation?
http://www.npr.org/templates/search/index.php?searchinput=george+soros&tabId=all&sort=date

I did find a story on Fox though.
http://www.npr.org/templates/search/index.php?searchinput=george+soros&tabId=all&sort=date

Is that supposed to be some kind of joke, or was that just a mis-paste?

I'm assuming it is a mis-paste, as I believe I've found your Fox story:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...oxnews/politics+(Internal+-+Politics+-+Text)"

The money will go to launch a project called Impact of Government, which Soros' Open Society Foundation says will "bring greater transparency and accountability to the workings of state capitals across the country."

Sounds reasonable enough to me. I like NPR. Though I rarely listen.

But the connection between Soros and Fox and Juan, isn't all that clear to me.

What did Juan say that would offend Soros? Other than things that would offend most sensible beings, that is.

Or am I being drawn into a media trap?

I am without TV you know, and don't really know what's going on around me.

 

[arildno]

Chi Meson:

It is the leadership of the NPR that is provably swayed by their irrational emotions in choosing to fire Juan Williams, not him.

They are the ones to be kicked out; his candid statement about nervousness (which considering the terrorist attacks that have occurred isn't particularly irrational, or at least unexpectable) was coupled with his statement that this nervousness as such cannot form a basis for political judgments.

 

[Chi Meson]

This should be in the political forum, and I assume it will be moved there.

I'm not continuing myself, so I'll just say, "Bye for now."

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Care to support your specific claims about his warnings and clauses in his contract?

As for "true journalists" keeping their opinions private - do you REALLY want to open that can of worms?

Jeez, don't you ever watch the actual news? I think this came from the report on PBS last night - maybe Washington Week, which is on after the news hour. I'll look for a link later.

That he was reprimanded last year should be easy enough to find.

Here, this talks about it

...(Williams) had several times in the past violated our news code of ethics with things that he had said on other people's air."

On one such occasion last year, Mr. Williams said on Fox that Michelle Obama has "got this 'Stokely Carmichael in a designer dress' thing going," an allusion to a leader of the black power movement of the 1960s.

In each instance, Ms. Schiller said, "We called him on it, we had a discussion, we asked him not to do it again." NPR's ethics code states that journalists "should not express views" in other outlets, like TV shows, that "they would not air in their role as an NPR journalist."...

http://www.newshounds.us/2010/10/23/juan_williams_not_fired_for_just_one_honest_remark.php

 

[Gokul43201]

I suppose those who insisted that CNN was a cesspool of terrorist sympathizers would also be of the opinion that NPR is a cesspool of Islamophobes.

 

[Hurkyl]

I am curious to know if Juan Williams was expressing his views as a representative of NPR, or merely as himself. The difference would certainly affect my opinion of NPR's policies.

Is it just me, or has PF been getting a lot of posts on the issue of employers firing people for off-the-job activities? Is there any particular reason? Is this the new popular thing? Are there any examples in the news where the employee is sympathetic?

 

[rootX]

Is it just me, or has PF been getting a lot of posts on the issue of employers firing people for off-the-job activities? Is there any particular reason? Is this the new popular thing? Are there any examples in the news where the employee is sympathetic?

It is not just PF and neither this is new. One I could recall top of my head: Max Mosley.

 

[lisab]

I am curious to know if Juan Williams was expressing his views as a representative of NPR, or merely as himself. The difference would certainly affect my opinion of NPR's policies.

Is it just me, or has PF been getting a lot of posts on the issue of employers firing people for off-the-job activities? Is there any particular reason? Is this the new popular thing? Are there any examples in the news where the employee is sympathetic?

It's a safe bet that Mr Williams knew what the policy was before he spoke, and he agreed to follow it, implicitly or explicitly (e.g., a signed contract). He broke the policy; why would you let that affect your opinion of just the employer?

I wonder if other major news organizations have a similar policy for their analysts.

 

[Proton Soup]

I am curious to know if Juan Williams was expressing his views as a representative of NPR, or merely as himself. The difference would certainly affect my opinion of NPR's policies.

Is it just me, or has PF been getting a lot of posts on the issue of employers firing people for off-the-job activities? Is there any particular reason? Is this the new popular thing? Are there any examples in the news where the employee is sympathetic?

there is certainly a lot of emphasis on punishing people for what they think or believe. whether it is Westboro (maybe the catalyst?), the attorney picketing a student government candidate, or someone wanting a roommate of their own faith.

 

[OmCheeto]

I am curious to know if Juan Williams was expressing his views as a representative of NPR, or merely as himself. The difference would certainly affect my opinion of NPR's policies.

Is it just me, or has PF been getting a lot of posts on the issue of employers firing people for off-the-job activities? Is there any particular reason? Is this the new popular thing? Are there any examples in the news where the employee is sympathetic?

It's probably a new media phenomena.
You know, TV, twitter, facebook, PF, etc, etc.
It makes things we'd never have heard about 5 years front page news.
And the players become instantly famous.
And in the case of Williams, overnight millionaires.

I don't really have a problem with any of them being fired.

Shrivell used the internet to publicly bad mouth someone. Some would consider it harrassment, slander, (whatever, I'm not a lawyer), and or stalking. I viewed it as a behavior that was diametrically opposed to his occupation.

Juan simultaneously was on the payroll at both Fox and NPR for a decade. As Fox moved further to the right, and lost most of it's credibility, it may have been a worsening embarrassment to NPR. So even though I've never heard of Mr. Williams, I can understand their position.

If a brain surgeon at the Johns Hopkins were to go on TV one night and started promoting his voodoo witch doctor home remedy cures, in his spare time of course, do you think they should keep him on staff?

Would you want to go to the Johns Hopkins if you knew they had witch doctors running around? Would tolerant people re-elect their Attorney General if the assistant attorney general he kept on staff was a gay basher? Would I donate money to NPR if I new they had a Fox staffer on their staff? Not only no, but **** no.

Freedom of speech is fine, but I've never seen anyone practice it in a job interview.

Fire 'em all!

 

[Bobbywhy]

Mr. Williams said "Look, Bill, I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country. 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."

What I want to know is what would people dressed in "Christian garb" look like?

 

[mugaliens]

When I read through all of Juan's comments, instead of just the short blurb NPR has on their website, they seem quite reasonable, balanced, and straightfoward when taken en toto. Nor do I find his uneasiness to be irrational, given the last nine years of American history. Extremism in any form isn't healthy, but I don't know of any other group which routinely straps bombs on themselves, their wives, or their children for the cause. Does that sort of behavior make me uneasy? Yes, it does. In fact, it makes most people uneasy. I'd raise an eyebrow if someone claimed they weren't uneasy by it.

I do find NPR's slant on this strange, however. Their narrow focus of a few words and obviously intentional side-stepping the rest of Juan's comments is suspicious, but it does remind me of the way many of NPR's news articles are written: In a somewhat slanted tone.

Evidently, about 3%* of NPR's funding comes from the U.S. Government (i.e. taxpayer) in the form of grant money, a fact which hasn't escaped the notice of a few members of Congress who've begun the process to eliminate that funding.

*It could be 1.3%. Can't recall if the WSJ article I read this evening said 3% or 1.3%.

 

[arildno]

What I want to know is what would people dressed in "Christian garb" look like?

If you go to the sources of Christian traditions, one of the unique features there is that Jesus dismisses the distinction of "forbidden"/lawful types of food and a host of other external signs of piety.

Thus, christianity, in contrast to a number of other religions (for example islam and judaism) do not operate with these types of religious markers in the manner they do.

Traditions accrue and particularize themselves within christianity as well, of course, but you won't find that some sort of clothing is religiously mandated, while others are religiously forbidden.

 

[Hurkyl]

but I don't know of any other group which routinely straps bombs on themselves, their wives, or their children for the cause.

But Williams wasn't talking about that group. He was talking about Muslims.

While I expect that, statistically speaking, a randomly chosen Muslim is more likely to be a suicide bomber than a randomly chosen non-Muslim, I would also expect the difference to be on the order of the likelihood of being struck by lightning, give or take a couple orders of magnitude.

The nervousness is irrational -- assuming the speaker knows better -- because the danger has been ridiculously blown out of proportion.

 

[Hurkyl]

It's a safe bet that Mr Williams knew what the policy was before he spoke, and he agreed to follow it, implicitly or explicitly (e.g., a signed contract). He broke the policy; why would you let that affect your opinion of just the employer?

I wonder if other major news organizations have a similar policy for their analysts.

I wouldn't. It is the policy itself that may bother me.

 

[DR13]

Hopefully this isn't too off-topic
I feel like NPR should get zero public funding. Not because of this incident but because it is a waste. We have so many news outlets running 24/7 that it is not necessary for the government to spend money to support one. Also, I don't want my government mixing with my journalism (but that's another topic for another thread).

 

[turbo]

I don't get why Juan Williams would cite his fear regarding people in Muslim garb boarding the plane. It's a safe bet that they got far more scrutiny at the security screening than he did. If he wants to be nervous about anybody, it should be a "sleeper" - a person who won't stand out from the crowd, but has radical Islamic motivations.

 

[DR13]

I don't get why Juan Williams would cite his fear regarding people in Muslim garb boarding the plane. It's a safe bet that they got far more scrutiny at the security screening than he did. If he wants to be nervous about anybody, it should be a "sleeper"

It's just instinct. We have been told over and over that Muslim extremists killed us on 9/11 that now we have an innate fear of all Muslims. It is just the natural response.

But yeah. I agree with the sleeper thing. But you can't assume that people are rational... they're people.

 

[WhoWee]

Mr. Williams said "Look, Bill, I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country. 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."

What I want to know is what would people dressed in "Christian garb" look like?

Personally, I always keep an eye on those Nuns - especially those older ones that tend to congrgate.LOL

 

[Gokul43201]

I am curious to know if Juan Williams was expressing his views as a representative of NPR, or merely as himself. The difference would certainly affect my opinion of NPR's policies.

I too think this is important. As it turns out, O'Reilly responds to Williams' opinion, stating that this is coming from someone who works at NPR (and Williams concurs). So Williams is being identified as an NPR employee. That's not exactly the same as saying that he was expressing his opinion as a representative of NPR, but it's close - his position as an NPR employee was being used to "sell" his argument.

And we know that other organizations have similar/harsher policies. Octavia Nasr was fired from CNN for opinions expressed in her personal tweets (don't recall anyone on the Right claiming her First Amendment rights were being eviscerated).

 

[arildno]

To express adoration for an evil religious fascist, as Nasr did, Gokul, is in quite a different league than first acknowledging, as Williams did, a gut reaction of nervousness, and then following up with a comment that such gut reactions cannot be the basis for our actual political decisions.

Equally vile, as nasr's comment, was Helen Thomas' insinuation that the Jews should be sent back to Poland&Germany, conveniently forgetting their history there, or for that matter that 50% of the Jews in Israel have Middle Eastern roots (sephardim).

So, no moral equivalence here.

 

[WhoWee]

This may be more on point.
http://www.youtube.com/das_captcha?next=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7msrF1V4NeY
Totenberg seems to have gotten a pass?