Actually, yes ... I do think he would have been fired for that comment, and there certainly would have been much more of an uproar about it.

 

I don't believe that Juan Williams, who I like and respect, is a bigot. But if he was warned about these types of comments in the past, then I would say that NPR's decision to fire him stands up a little more on principle.

 

I'm not sure I would make that same judgment about the validity of comments from some of those blasting NPR.

 

What types of comments? Saying he gets nervous????? That's what I'm not understanding.

I'm not saying I feel sorry for him. Heck, he just got a 2 million dollar deal out of all this. I just don't see how NPR fires someone for expressing some of his nervousness at an airport. What if Juan were to say, " If I found myself at an abortion clinic. I would be afraid that a christian might bomb it." Do you think that he would of been fired?

 

Good and fair question.

I read today that the head of NPR has apologized for the hastiness of the firing and the fact that they didn't bring Juan in to discuss it face-to-face. However, what I found interesting is that she said there have been "several instances" in recent months where NPR has asked Juan to tone down his public comments on controversial issues. While we can all debate whether that request is valid we all have to admit that if your boss tells you to stop doing something and you keep doing it you're going to get fired.

 

Juan made a mistake although it seems to have turned out well financially for him.

 

Pretty much agree with you Clyde.

 

This episode reinforces a concern I've had about the media a long time. NPR was upset with Williams because he spoke his opinion and thoughts freely and NPR felt that such violated it's ethics code and such somehow undermined NPR's integrity. I look at it completely differently. We all know that every news analyst has opinions and political biases. Every one of them, just like every one of us. Personally, I think every news analyst should be forced to disclose who they have voted for in the last several elections and their party registration. If a news analyst voted for a liberal in each of the last 5 elections, I'd factor that into his analysis of the news. Same goes for an analyst that voted for a conservative in each of the last 5 elections. If they required such disclosure, listeners could assess the weight they want to to the analysis provided.

 

The problem NPR has with that of course, is that it could decrease listenership and decrease contributions. When you are needing to receive donations to survive, you can't afford to alienate any possible listener/donor so you create the facade that you are neutral and pure. If NPR required their analysts to disclose more about their political views, it definitely would decrease the perception it tries to create that NPR is the last bastion of neutral reporting (which it is not in my opinion; better than a lot I'll agree, but it's not lilly white). Such would not be good for generating advertising (oops, I mean donations that get talked about on air in the form of subtle commercials); and that my friends would not be good for business at NPR. Wouldn't a liberal want to know how Williams feels about people dressed in Muslim garb the next time they heard him analyze some news events involving Muslims? The NPR wants Williams to keep his feelings, opinions and thoughts secrets. I think the NPR's code of ethics is nothing more than a form of deception. If Williams had not appeared on Fox and stated what he did, the feelings, opinions and thoughts that he expressed would still be with Williams; he'd still have them. Before you take his analysis on the next Muslim story as gospel, wouldn't you want to know that he is nervous or alarmed about people wearing Muslim garb on airplanes? I sure would.

 

Any intelligent person that listens to any news analyst should want to know where the analyst "is coming from" as they put their analysis (or is it spin?) on the news event he or she is covering. Will an analyst with extreme conservative beliefs analyse a new story the way a liberal would? Of course not. I don't care how professional a news analyst wants to be, their values, beliefs, opinions and feelings are going to affect the analysis. As a listener of NPR, wouldn't you want to know the analysis being broadcasted to you might be coming from an extreme conservative or liberal? Is the NPR message of: just keep those feelings, opinions and thoughts to yourself and don't tell any one about them and you'll be fine, really in keeping with "give light and people will find their own way" thinking of journalism? I sure don't think so.

 

NPR's efforts to keep Williams from expressing his opinions somewhat smells like the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy. Just be quiet; don't talk about your opinions and beliefs; you can have them but keep them secret; we don't want people to know that our analysts also have their own opinions, beliefs, biases etc, cause it could undermine our credibility, our listenship and our donations.

 

But they wrap up their cloak of secrecy in this great myth of unbiased, professional journalism that they have long tried to sell to America. They got away with it for some time, but more and more intelligent folks are looking behind the cloak and seeing what's really there. NPR wants to give the people light, but don't tell them the light is being filtered by the person providing the light.

 

And off topic, but does it strike any one else as funny that NPR is itself a large corporation benefitting from tax code incentives as it is a 501c entity? The next time I hear one of their analysts, commentators or guests bemoaning the fat cat corporate types receiving incentives under the tax code to shift jobs overseas, I'm going to call in and say: hypocrit. They might not get much money directly from the federal govt, but as a 501c entity they are a huge beneficiary of the tax code and of corporate welfare. Every 501c organization is for that matter. Every donation that can be taken as a deduction by the donor from the income reported for tax purposes is nothing other than a federal subsidy of the corporation receiving the donation. The money may not come directly from the federal govt, but let there be no doubt about it, the money is indirectly coming from the federal govt via the deduction.

 

And in saying that, I like NPR. I listen to it almost every day. But I do so with the knowledge that the analysis being distributed is not this lilly white, unbiased and pure stuff they try to convince me they are broadcasting. It can't be, because humans are involved. And I find it intellectually offensive when the NPR tries to sell it as something that it is not and it cannot be.

What types of comments? Saying he gets nervous????? That's what I'm not understanding.

I don't know what comments are being referred to ... I'm not following the story all that closely, frankly, because it's of little importance.

Pretty much agree with you Clyde.

 

And in saying that, I like NPR. I listen to it almost every day. But I do so with the knowledge that the analysis being distributed is not this lilly white, unbiased and pure stuff they try to convince me they are broadcasting. It can't be, because humans are involved. And I find it intellectually offensive when the NPR tries to sell it as something that it is not and it cannot be.

 

Like "Fair and Balanced"?

Like "Fair and Balanced"?

 

While the Fair and Balanced tag is obviously unrealistic, you know when you hear the news on Fox that it is going to be filtered through conservative lenses. They really don't try to hide that fact, or if they do in your opinion because of the Fair and Balanced Tag, it's a pretty weak effort to hide it.

While the Fair and Balanced tag is obviously unrealistic, you know when you hear the news on Fox that it is going to be filtered through conservative lenses. They really don't try to hide that fact, or if they do in your opinion because of the Fair and Balanced Tag, it's a pretty weak effort to hide it.

 

FoxNews = "unrealistic"

NPR = "intellectually offensive"

 

True, you know that you will get the republican slant with Fox and the liberal slant with NPR. I wouldn't give Fox a pass because they are bad at trying to hide their bias. Both organizations are run by people. The people at Fox are just lying about their brand and everyone seems to accept it as ok. I think NPR has a liberal slant in the stories they choose to report on but generally try to report fairly.

FoxNews = "unrealistic"

NPR = "intellectually offensive"

 

True, you know that you will get the republican slant with Fox and the liberal slant with NPR. I wouldn't give Fox a pass because they are bad at trying to hide their bias. Both organizations are run by people. The people at Fox are just lying about their brand and everyone seems to accept it as ok. I think NPR has a liberal slant in the stories they choose to report on but generally try to report fairly.

 

I don't have that same impression about NPR trying to report fairly. I think they try very hard to convince people that they report fairly. Fox is obviously deceitful in their Fair and Balanced tag, but only a dolt wouldn't see through that and realize the news has a conservative slant. Other than the tag, I don't think Fox tries hard, if at all, to hide their conservative biases. NPR bothers me more because they have this almost "high and mighty" approach to fairly reporting the news, when in reality it has a liberal slant (as you have observed). it really is more deceitful in my opinion. But you can disagree with that and I'm fine.

I just got finished listening to part of an interview with a NY Times financial reporter and columnist. For purposes of disclosure, I represent banks. But that was the most one sided interview I've heard in some time. The interviewee was giving her perspective: that investors that bought securities backed by home mortgages can sue the servicing banks; that Dodd Frank should have made the big banks much, much smaller and failed to do so, etc. etc. Which is fine. She is entitled to her opinions and perspectives. What bothers me is that no one with a different perspective was also being interviewed to rebut what the woman was saying. So if you are a listener and know nothing about the banking system, bundled mortgage securities, Dodd Frank, and the other items she was talking about, you'd be inclined to think what she is saying is indeed accurate and the truth. That is not fair reporting; that is not providing listeners with the "light" so they can make their own opinions. What a shame.