NPR fires Juan Williams for speaking his mind

[Rodster]

CNN fires Rick Sanchez for speaking his mind.

They fired him cause he's an idiot. Some of Rick Sanchez classic quotes..."Iceland's too cold for a Volcano" or "9 Meters in English is what?" Miami threw a party the day he left for Atlanta.

[F308GTB]

I've always like Juan Williams. He's one of the best reporters/columnists out there in my opinion. While he is left-leaning, he doesn't play the standard role of someone fully on the left. He could call a spade a spade. In many ways he's just like Bill O'Reilly (who is right-leaning but will certainly switch to a more liberal stance when his convictions are there). Guys like Williams and O'Reilly carry much more credibility with me than the likes of Hannity, Limbaugh, Maddow, Oberman, etc. Those folks are clowns compared to the likes of Williams.

I don't have a problem with him being fired - his employer can have any reason (other than race, sexual preference, etc as protected by law) to can him. But what was low was the head of NPR saying he should work those views out with his psychiatrist. That just tells me the lack of class with the NPR brass. Williams got the better of this whole situation. NPR lost a great journalist.

[Teal]

Yeah, the psychiatrist line was stupid. Again, I have much respect for Juan Williams, even though his views are miles away from mine in alot of ways. And NPR firing Williams is no better, or no more warranted, than the firing of the stage hand yesterday for an Obama rally because he was wearing a shirt and hat supporting his son who is stationed on the George HW Bush. Stupid. Pointless. And more than a little juvenile. That guy was a stand up fella too, as he went on Hannity's radio show, and Shaun began talking as if the Obama people fired him. He was very quick to defend the president from the insinuation, adding that, while he didn't vote for him, he's "my president, and I support him". Very classy move, and very Juan Williams-like.

[Jackdog]

I've always like Juan Williams. He's one of the best reporters/columnists out there in my opinion. While he is left-leaning, he doesn't play the standard role of someone fully on the left. He could call a spade a spade. In many ways he's just like Bill O'Reilly (who is right-leaning but will certainly switch to a more liberal stance when his convictions are there). Guys like Williams and O'Reilly carry much more credibility with me than the likes of Hannity, Limbaugh, Maddow, Oberman, etc. Those folks are clowns compared to the likes of Williams.

I don't have a problem with him being fired - his employer can have any reason (other than race, sexual preference, etc as protected by law) to can him. But what was low was the head of NPR saying he should work those views out with his psychiatrist. That just tells me the lack of class with the NPR brass. Williams got the better of this whole situation. NPR lost a great journalist.

NPR brass does have a lack of class and total regard for hypocrisy.

From calling Tea Party members “Tea Baggers,” to saying that "the evaporation of 4 million" Christians would leave the world a better place, to suggesting that God could give former Sen. Jesse Helms or his family AIDS from a blood transfusion, NPR's personalities have said some pretty un-PC things in the past. A look at the record reveals no shortage of intolerant statements and unbalanced segments on the publicly sponsored network's airwaves.

Here's an incomplete list of questionable and controversial content that has aired on NPR or has been uttered by its employees:

-- In June, the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) said it was easy to see why some refer to NPR as "National Palestine Radio" following a June 2 segment hosted by Tom Ashbrook on the Gaza flotilla incident. The segment featured five guests -- none of whom defended Israel's actions.

Among the five guests, Janine Zacharia, a Middle East correspondent for The Washington Post, was the only one who did not overtly criticize Israel. She also did not defend its actions, CAMERA officials said.

"So there you have it -- five perspectives and not one voice to present the mainstream Israeli perspective," they said in a June 17 press release. "That's Ashbrook's and NPR's version of a balanced discussion on Israel."

-- Last week, Newsbusters, a conservative media watchdog group, claimed that NPR's "Fresh Air" spent most of its hour insinuating that the Republican Party was dangerously infested with extremists.

NPR's Terry Gross hosted Princeton professor Sean Wilentz, who has written that President George W. Bush practiced "a radicalized version of Reaganism," Newsbusters' Tom Graham wrote.

"Can you think of another time in American history when there have been as many people running for Congress who seem to be on the extreme?" Gross asked, according to Graham.

"Not running for Congress, no," Wilentz replied. "I mean even back in the '50s."

-- NPR issued an apology in 2005 for a commentator's remark on the return of Christ following a complaint by the Christian Coalition that the comment was anti-Christian.

On "All Things Considered," the network's afternoon drive-time program, humorist Andrei Codrescu said that the "evaporation of 4 million [people] who believe" in the doctrine of Rapture "would leave the world a better place."

Codrescu, who was on contract with NPR but not a full-time employee, later told The Associated Press he was sorry for the language, but "not for what [he] said."

NPR apologized for the comment, saying, it "crossed a line of taste and tolerance" and was an inappropriate attempt at humor.

-- Also in 2005, NPR apologized to Mark Levin, author of "Men in Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America," after a broadcast of its program "Day to Day" falsely accused him of advocating violence against judges. Levin accepted the apology, but said the broadcast was "illustrative of a smear campaign launched by the Left to try and silence" his criticisms of judicial activism.

-- In 2002, the head of NPR issued an apology six months after a report linking anthrax-laced letters to a Christian conservative organization.

-- Also in 2002, during an interview with the Philadelphia City Paper, NPR host Tavis Smiley said he strived to do a show that is "authentically black," but not "too black."

-- In 1995, Nina Totenberg, NPR's award-winning legal affairs correspondent, was allowed to keep her job after telling the host of PBS' "Inside Washington" that if there was "retributive justice" in the world, former North Carolina Sen. Jesse Helms would "get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it."

F308GTB,this isn't directed at you.
They have a right to their opinions. They don't have a right to use my tax dollars to espouse them.

[pk500]

We all know where everybody stands politically and therefore can surmise where they are going to fall on a fox/NPR spectrum. So what exaxtly is going to be accomplished here by arguing the actions of this. Juan Williams got fired not executed. And he probably got a better deal with more hype on FOX. NPR got rid of a guy they wanted to fire for a long time, who probably added little viewship value to NPR. Does anyone here think that there's a great crossover between Fox viewers and NPR listeners? Seems to me, Juan gets a better contract at Fox. Fox gets fuel for it's war against the so-called liberal media. And NPR gets rid of it's headache. That's not fascism that's free market capitalism.

No, it's not fascism. It's not censorship, either. But it's political correctness run amok, a disease that afflicts both sides of the aisle in America.

There's a difference between Sanchez's and Williams' comments, too. Sanchez was an idiot, insulting his employer by criticizing Jews. His direct quote:

"I'm telling you that everybody who runs CNN is a lot like Stewart, and a lot of people who run all the other networks are a lot like Stewart. And to imply that somehow they, the people in this country who are Jewish, are an oppressed minority?"

Should Sanchez have expected Wolf Blitzer's seat instead of a pink slip?

Bottom line: Companies have a right to hire and fire who they want, when they want. But it's sadly ironic that the news media, which features reporting and programming based as much or more on opinion than fact these days, is firing its talking heads for -- gasp! -- expressing an opinion. That's all Williams did. Sanchez took a public shot at his employers, which is beyond stupid.

[Rodster]

I would have still fired Sanchez without the insult to his employer. 'You can't fix stupid.' -Ron White

[bulls23]

Quick question about Juan Williams:

Liberal or conservative?

I remember him from Crossfire on CNN in the 90s "from the left". Now he's on FOX News. I'm confused

About what he said: Must admit I would tend to agree with him.

[Feanor]

Two whole posts before a Nazi comparison was made. No wonder political threads were banned here.

After a guy was fired from PUBLIC radio for saying this.....

JUAN WILLIAMS: When I get on a plane, I got to tell you, 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.

I like Juan Williams, don't think the entirety of what he said was grounds for being fired, and don't see why NPR needs federal tax dollars.

But at least give a thread a chance to breathe before you prove Godwin's law to be true.

[Jackdog]

Quick question about Juan Williams:

Liberal or conservative?

I remember him from Crossfire on CNN in the 90s "from the left". Now he's on FOX News. I'm confused

About what he said: Must admit I would tend to agree with him.

Juan's a liberal. Fox News has quite a few liberal contributors. Juan,Allen Colmes,Bob Beckel,Wesley Clark,Geraldine Ann Ferraro,Susan Estrich,Ellen Ratner,Mark Lamont Hill.....http://www.foxnews.com/bios/index.html

[XXXIV]

Two whole posts before a Nazi comparison was made. No wonder political threads were banned here.

After a guy was fired from PUBLIC radio for saying this.....

JUAN WILLIAMS: When I get on a plane, I got to tell you, 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.

I like Juan Williams, don't think the entirety of what he said was grounds for being fired, and don't see why NPR needs federal tax dollars.

But at least give a thread a chance to breathe before you prove Godwin's law to be true.

I do agree with you that in this case and in a few others that I was a bit over the top but ya know what...I still will not be sending my posts to you for your prior approval.

[Teal]

I know that NPR has Soros' backing, so they'd not miss a beat if they weren't federally funded. I do think if NPR is to be taxpayer funded, then they should be an apolitical entity. Or at least balanced. But apolitical would be the better option.

[Brando70]

The problem with what Williams said -- divorcing any political tones from it -- is that he made a categorically stupid statement. What were the 9/11 bombers wearing? What was Richard Reid wearing? How about Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab this past December? Certainly someone could try to get on a plane with a bomb or weapon dressed in traditional Muslim garb, but the historical data shows that, generally speaking, a potential airborne terrorist is likely to be dressed in Western garb and could look as Hispanic or black as other non-Muslim passengers.

Should he have gotten fired over it? I don't know. At the same time, his comments could be seen as a reason to harrass a certain group of passengers for the way that they are dressed, when the record shows the people actually attempting violent acts against air passengers aren't dressed that way.

[RobVarak]

The problem with what Williams said -- divorcing any political tones from it -- is that he made a categorically stupid statement. What were the 9/11 bombers wearing? What was Richard Reid wearing? How about Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab this past December? Certainly someone could try to get on a plane with a bomb or weapon dressed in traditional Muslim garb, but the historical data shows that, generally speaking, a potential airborne terrorist is likely to be dressed in Western garb and could look as Hispanic or black as other non-Muslim passengers.

Should he have gotten fired over it? I don't know. At the same time, his comments could be seen as a reason to harrass a certain group of passengers for the way that they are dressed, when the record shows the people actually attempting violent acts against air passengers aren't dressed that way.

True. OTOH, the record also shows that flying is much safer than driving or even walking. But we accept that it's human nature to respond to a perceived threat based on the terror it generates rather than its likelihood. We don't call those who are afraid to fly "categorically stupid." As a society we try to assist those who fear flying, and the first step in doing so is recognizing the validity of their fear. The only significant difference between the two cases is that some portion of society has arbitrarily decided that it's impolitic to admit that people are inherently inclined to judge on appearances.

[dougb]

Frankly if the networks fired all the pundits (whatever stripe) that would be a plus for journalism. There's far too much gossip and conventional wisdom being pawned off as serious news analysis these days. The major benefit for the networks and cable orgs is that it costs one hell of a lot less to set up programs like 'This Week', 'Meet the Press', or the Fox panels then it costs to properly staff and run news bureaus with reporters who go out and, well, actually dig up and report stories. Much easier to just have a program where pundits sit around and pass off cocktail party conversation and personal speculation as serious thinking.

Best wishes,

doug

[Brando70]

Williams is not categorically stupid. What he said was categorically stupid. There is a difference. Using Williams logic, we should refuse to rent trucks to white guys with buzz cuts, because they fit the profile of a terrorist. We should be bugging the offices of every white guy in a suit who works on a hedge fund, because those guys fit the profile of white-collar criminals. It's funny to me that white people are so quick to defend racial profiling because if it was done to us to the same extent it's done to minorities, we would be howling about it from every media outlet.

I don't think Williams is some fear-monger, and I know he clarified his comments that he doesn't hate Muslims. But again, what he said not only doesn't fit the facts, but it stokes an already warm fire of prejudice against a specific group of people. Do you think he'd think it was okay for a white reporter to admit he's uncomfortable around black people because so many black people are criminals?

[Teal]

It's okay for anyone to admit anything, Brando...it's called the First Amendment. What makes it so 'horrible' is that people have become jelly spined weenies, and the PC police have become bullying thugs.

[RobVarak]

I don't think Williams is some fear-monger, and I know he clarified his comments that he doesn't hate Muslims. But again, what he said not only doesn't fit the facts, but it stokes an already warm fire of prejudice against a specific group of people. Do you think he'd think it was okay for a white reporter to admit he's uncomfortable around black people because so many black people are criminals?

Please! His statement doesn't change the level of fear or prejudice one bit. It's neither better or worse than the day before he said it. Moreover, IMO there is a huge difference between him saying something about his personal reaction (particularly when that reaction is very widely widely shared) and someone leveraging bigotry for their personal political or financial gain, for example.

Would it be OK for a white reporter in your scenario? Not necessarily on those facts, but those are substantially more general. Williams didn't say that Muslims in general make him nervous. The context is an incredibly important factor.

[Brando70]

Williams didn't say that Muslims in general make him nervous. The context is an incredibly important factor.

Context? You mean this: "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."

Is that like, "The Amish don't make me nervous, but I don't like being around anyone who wears a beard without a mustache and who doesn't trust zippers"? You're not being anti-Amish, no, you'd just be more comfortable if they didn't look so Amishy.

If in fact we had people who were dressed in traditional Muslim garb attempting to hijack or destroy airplanes, I could see his point. Unfortunately for Juan Williams, the exact opposite is true, which is what makes him look like a small-minded bigot and why he got fired. The real irony is, right before the above statement, he made a comment that politcal correctness was getting in the way of reality. Funny how prejudice does that too.

The sad thing is he is a thoughtful, respected journalist who actually wrote "Common sense becomes racism when skin color becomes a formula for figuring out who is a danger to me." Too bad he couldn't take his own advice.

[fsquid]

NPR dropped the ball, period. Glad to see it fly in their faces.

[Jackdog]

I know that NPR has Soros' backing, so they'd not miss a beat if they weren't federally funded. I do think if NPR is to be taxpayer funded, then they should be an apolitical entity. Or at least balanced. But apolitical would be the better option.

I agree. I just looked through NPR's list of Corespondents,Newscasters and Editors. I see no balance at all. I couldn't find one conservative. Tom Bowman is the only one that comes close. He's a moderate democrat.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... 0&typeId=1

Until they become apolitical,they should not receive tax payer funding.

[wabash97]

David Brooks

[fsquid]

I know that NPR has Soros' backing, so they'd not miss a beat if they weren't federally funded. I do think if NPR is to be taxpayer funded, then they should be an apolitical entity. Or at least balanced. But apolitical would be the better option.

I agree. I just looked through NPR's list of Corespondents,Newscasters and Editors. I see no balance at all. I couldn't find one conservative. Tom Bowman is the only one that comes close. He's a moderate democrat.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... 0&typeId=1

Until they become apolitical,they should not receive tax payer funding.

But you can't take money from Seseme Street. At least that will be the rebuttal.

[Teal]

They don't play Sesame Street on the radio. Of course, sometimes Sesame Street has better content...

[JRod]

Apolitical...

If an organization takes Federal funding they should be apolitical? Jackdog, then according to your logic should faith based groups not receive Federal grant monies? This was opened up during the Bush Administration where before faith-based groups could not receive Federal funding.

For the people that think this isn't related. Your logic says that any group that receives Federal funding should be apolitical (even though his statements were religious in nature and not political). Let me link this logic, you can't apply this view for the parts of government you like and not for the parts you don't like. Well, obviously most here do.

The hypocrisy of this is--- A conservative got fired from a "liberal" media outlet. And conservatives think this is an attack by the so-called elite liberal media on free speech. Therefore they shouldn't receive any Federal funding, not because of the political stance or NPR's leanings, but because they disagree with the firing. What exactly governs that a person on a media outlet, with some Federal funding, should be be able to say whatever they want and without repercussions. What's the line? Making no distinction between Muslims and terrorists. What if he said something disparaging about Christians, gays, African Americans or women. Or there's no line and free speech means free reign?

Rick Sanchez got fired for making disparaging remarks toward CNN and Jews. I can't remember the name but the guy that got fired from MSNBC over the "nappy" comment. Both on private business but media outlets nonetheless. By the brilliant logic displayed here, what you are saying, somehow Federal funding divorces responsibility from free speech.

[Teal]

If you think Juan Williams is a conservative, then you've got your head in the sand more than I ever thought. CNN and MSNBC aren't taxpayer funded entities. Neither are churches. So I see absolutely no point to your argument at all...other than you just want to argue.