I support the firing of Juan Williams and am sad about the trajectory his career has taken. The Fox News model is to encourage people to make public their least creditable thoughts and fears; Juan gave in to that temptation. He must go. I listen to NPR all the time. It tries very hard to incorporate views from all sides of the ideological spectrum. It is far more accommodating to right-wing views than Fox has ever attempted to be toward the left or even moderate-left.

I wonder which one of these pictures Juan Williams saw that made him nervous?

http://muslimswearingthings.tumblr.com/

Joe Conason over at Salon has written a nice piece on this:

Why the right really hates NPR – with or without Juan Williams
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joe_conason/2010/10/22/npr/index.html

I have listened to the comments and I did not find them offensive. What I did hear was someone having a discussion concerning bigotry in America. Juan only voiced what people actually think, also he did not say he keeps these thoughts in his head, only that he recognized the fact that the thought was present. The actual function of thoughts like this are a natural built in survival mechanism. We do this country, NPR, and Juan Williams a disservice when this organization, which espouses free thinking, did exactly what they have done and propagated effectual censorship. All of my adult life I have been an ardent advocate of NPR. I will acknowledge that even to me Juan Williams’ rhetoric has been at times bewildering, I still think that NPR’s handling of the situation is another indication as to the crumbling of the free thinking that has heretofore fortified the ideal of this once great country. When anyone punishes another for expressing an honest thought it discourages open debate and reinforces and justifies opposition to an open society. This country historically led the way in defining how to achieve the the greatest good for the greatest number. I now fear we are now no longer able to live up to our own ideal. It is a sad thing that I have lied long enough to witness such a demise. So much more the grand experiment.

Steven Bradley writes: “When anyone punishes another for expressing an honest thought it discourages open debate and reinforces and justifies opposition to an open society.”

I couldn’t agree more. I am always disheartened when I hear that some public figure is fired for speaking their mind, no matter what I think of the person or the thought they’ve expressed. The only way we will ever understand other people is through the expression of their honest opinions. Any censorship of any kind anywhere is a wound to the body of our society, and the only truly unAmerican act.

Steven: “Juan only voiced what people actually think”

Which people? I fly often, I don’t think this? Juan has written books about the civil rights movement and racism in America, do you think he thinks it “professional” or okay for white people to get worried when he gets on a plane?

Joshua: “The only way we will ever understand other people is through the expression of their honest opinions”

I’m not interested in understanding Juan Williams’ deepest feelings, he’s a news analyst and reporter and knowing that he might feel this way colors his reporting.

Yes, all reporters are human beings but NPR and PBS attempt to sort out editorial commentary from news. Fox, where Williams made the comments, encourages people like O’Reilly and Williams to vent their sub-cortical fears because viewers of Fox don’t want to hear nuanced, factual reporting, they want to hear simple, black and white arguments that support their fears and make them even more scared.

This is not censorship, NPR has professional standards and Williams butted up against them more than once and was warned numerous times to tone it down. While his firing wasn’t handled well it was the right thing to do.

Steven Bradley and Joshua Hendrickson- regarding Bradley’s

“When anyone punishes another for expressing an honest thought it discourages open debate and reinforces and justifies opposition to an open society.”

When anyone? You mean in this case NPR should not decide on who it wants to employ based on their behavior and what they say in public? In this case NPR decided on not continuing to employ Juan Williams for his association with Fox “News”.

Apparently Williams was aiming for this lucrative career move while using NPR as a stepping stone. NPR has only done itself some good as far as it’s journalistic standards go.

So far, actually we have been having a nice lively discussion here and throughout the media about muslim garb, ( making broad brush judgements- prejudice and tolerance) the responsibilities of a journalist, journalism to citizens and the value of quality analysis. This discussion should continue.

Juan Williams has become a lightweight over these past number of years. When he would have a segment on NPR, I’d switch instantly to easy listening. Nothing much lost, IMO.

But the way the world works these day, journalistic standards be damned. Juan is cashing in and laughing all the way to the bank.

Mara Liasson should move over to Fox “News” too. It’s what she’s aiming for as well.

This entire thing reminds me of when Jimmy Carter stated that he had “Lusted in his heart”. The media used that to badger carter for years. All of it… is a over sensitive politically motivated cudgel.

This is the story of political correctness run amok, and how this now very standard media misdirection and control is used to convert the molehill into a mountain to obscure the landscape of reality behind it.

The real question of this story is why American media has become so focused toward converting tabloid trivia and outright lies into mainstream news, and trivializing really critical issues of national and public importance to mere soundbites.

The importance of removing opinion and biased reporting from news and vetting that reporting is what is at issue here. The real story is why does a large segment the American public demand to be fed trivia, bias and lies?

IMO its Bread and Circus as just further proof that the Empire is under collapse, and as its legions battle for resources in a futile hope to stave off that collapse through conquest, and at home the top 20 percent of the empire also try every scheme to transfer the wealth of the lower 80% of domestic wealth to themselves, all while strutting about in their togas declaring that everything is to blame except the plutocracy itself.

Even if someone will cross the Rubicon to save the republic, it may be too late…because the Vandals are on their way…

Those who ignore the lessons of history (or are to ignorant to know or acknoledge it)…are destined to repeat it.

But of course this is more important than finding out U.S. troops looked the other way when people were tortured in iraq, civilians deaths were covered up.

For the past ten weeks Al Jazeera has had complete access to those files. As part of our forthcoming coverage, we reveal how the US military gave a secret order not to investigate torture by Iraqi authorities discovered by American troops.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/10/20101022184243877818.html

How friendly fire became routine
Secret order that let US ignore abuse
Iraq war logs: British legal threat as UN calls on Obama to look at torture claims
Captives handed to torture squads
The video: Licence to torture

As well, the U.S. covering or under reporting civilian deaths up yet secretly counting them.

Sad that like the economy the Tories and liberal Dem’s are doing what is necessary unlike the U.S. are calling for an investigation into this.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/iraq-war-logs

No outcry from the right?

“The importance of removing opinion and biased reporting from news and vetting that reporting is what is at issue here. The real story is why does a large segment the American public demand to be fed trivia, bias and lies?”

Well said Michael.

If the American public doesn’t know the difference they’ll eat whatever tastes good and is in front of them, in this case Fox and MSNBC.

Whether NPR and PBS have successfully sorted this stuff out, there is no doubt that they’re trying, which is very different from Fox and MSNBC.

The right has been attempting to make the “NPR is a liberal conspiracy backed by Soros” meme stick for years and unfortunately, the way Vivian Schiller handled this firing tosses gasoline on that fire.

The subject is not worthy of so much attention, except for journalistic navel-gazers. But since it’s on the table , two brief remarks:
1) JW is a word man (after all he made an honorable reputation with Eyes on the Prize), so there is no excuse for his beginning his controversial remarks with “I’m not a bigot” Shades of “Some of my best friends are (the enemy of your choice).
2) The outraged cries of “censorship” directed at NPR are beneath contempt, considering their source and the long history of the stifling of dissent from the left in this country in subtle and not so subtle ways.

Tom, I am available for an interview at your convenience
(excepts from my column, Beverly Citizen)

Guarding the Important

“You have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you”
(part of the warnings that officers of the law must read to an arrested person taken from the Supreme Court case, Miranda v. Arizona)

Juan is the loneliest number that you’ll ever do.

First it was Helen Thomas for saying Jews should go back to Poland then it was Juan Williams for saying he was irrationally scared of Muslims on planes, both are prominent and intelligent reporters who were fired for saying their opinions about a particular hot button issue. Unfortunately, there are many more examples of this type of action (firing) over the previous 3 years.

First thing we do here is to make a rule that we cant fire someone within 15 minutes of anything they say, unless of course they say “I quit”, then its ok to fire them.

Next, to prove my objectiveness, I want to offer full disclosure. One, I have a terrible fear of fat people in front of me at the “all you can eat buffet”, ever see it? Those with overactive thyroids coupled with suffering from a poor childhood diet go to the buffet counter, there is a plume of smoke, then puff, no more food. Two, I fear any old lady in front of me at the supermarket check out line paying with a check, why do people still pay with checks? Lastly, I fear anytime my phone rings and the caller ID says “association of… (fill in the blank, “homeless midget veterans, “traumatized transgender Civil servants” and/or abused Romanian gypsies), I have decided I really need one of those robo messages, instead of calling me, to answer the phone for me and say (In a cool robot voice) “Stuart Has No Money, repeat, Stuart Has No Money”

We need to chill out. If we trust someone, someone like Juan Williams or Helen Thomas or anyone else that has spent oddles of time reporting to us, we need to allow them to express their opinions, even if those opinions are not what we think are congruent with political correctness. In fact, I think we are better off with knowing their opinions. If I was the head honcho at NPR and Juan makes his comment about Muslims getting on planes, the first thing I would do is assign him to interview Muslims in Muslim garb getting on planes. Why? Because I know, he knows that everyone and their uncle will be looking at his reporting

The question shouldn’t be should Juan Williams be fired. It should be can an objective news organization allow its employees to work for the PR division of the republican party. And the answer should be no. The actual debate should be is fox a legitimate news organization. Fox has for instance donated heavily to the republicans this year and employs a number of potential republican presidential candidates. And NPR is not Liberal. It is a fact based news organization. It’s just that the facts rarely favor republicans.

It seems like what Juan said was honest and representative and ill-considered and problematic.

What does he think “bigoted” is?

What does he think ordinary Germans honestly thought about Jews in the early 1930′s? What does he think typical Americans really thought about Japanese at the start of World War II? How does he think Japanese Americans ended up in internment camps?
Were we admirably un-bigoted because at least we refrained from wholesale slaughter at the “relocation centers”?

The Nina Totenberg comments as a comparison and example of “hypocrisy” or “double standard” is a false equivalency ploy.

It’s amusing to hear those whose principal sources and outlets are “Fair and Balanced” Fox News or Limbaugh’s “Excellence in Broadcasting Network,” from Palin to Gingrich to Demint and their followers, blasting NPR for enforcing its journalistic standards. To them, liberals are fair game at the slightest hint of doing something off-base; but it’s perfectly acceptable to them for conservatives to continuously characterize President Obama and his supporters as Nazis, socialists, etc. At least NPR does have standards that its journalists must respect.

The conservative media and those funding it, so many of them closeted thanks to the “Citizens United” decision, get away with concocting whatever it takes to castigate everybody who doesn’t lean their way politically. If they succeed in eliminating NPR’s pittance of federal funding, will they also eliminate the tax deductibility of contributions to the 501(c)4 groups?

Signed: As Committed as Ever to NPR (maybe even more so now!)

Virginia Schiller did a bad job of firing Williams and apologized for it. She should have handled it much better. But he needed to go. He’d lost his integrity, had become brash and snarky — inappropriate on NPR.

Now let’s say adios to the other Juan, please. Juan Forero has been reporting from Latin America for years. His reports on the new, stable, and left-leaning democratic governments have been, well, snarky even as those countries’ cooperation has been a big step forward. I’d like to see him replaced with a correspondent who takes a less superior attitude towards their efforts, someone who has greater respect for our neighbors.

Supporters of NPR are faced with a dilemma: NPR is in the lead in both national and international journalism even as it still has a long way to go. I’d love to see it detached (finally!) from Congress and become an independent, non-profit news organization similar to Pro Publica.

The Nina Totenberg comments as a comparison and example of “hypocrisy” or “double standard” is a false equivalency ploy.

Posted by Brett, on October 25th, 2010 at 8:55 AM

Brett,

On the contrary, Nina Totenberg’s comments constitute hate speech for which the liberal left would have castigated similar kind of talk on the other side. And the worst part about it is the laughter during and after her comments and the fact that she wasn’t challenged for making such a provocative comment.

Take a look at Edward R Murrow’s speech at the end of the movie Good Night and Good Luck. Murrow defined broadcast journalism. I think NPR is trying to stay true to that definition. Williams has not.

Juan Willims shouldn’t have been fired over this, but he has been a lightweight from day one. He was fired from of NPR’s ‘Talk of the Nation’ because he was so superficial in comparison to the much more insightful Ray Schwarez who left for The News Hour.

To William’s credit, he does seem like a really cool guy, so un to listen to….but superficial for NPR.

NPR stalwarts John Hockenberry and Celeste Headlee introduced their show “The Takeaway” on Friday, 22 October, by declaring in their conversational manner that the lexical construction “I am not a bigot, but–” succeeds only in identifying the speaker as a bigot, that the very denial of bigotry compels disbelief.
By this institutional measure of objectivity, how credible is Alicia Shepard’s declaration of not twelve hours earlier in her NPR Ombudsman’s post of Thursday evening, 21 October: ” . . . Nor is (the Juan Williams firing) about an alleged attempt by NPR to stifle conservative views”? Can this assertion not also be construed in a similar if not identical manner, as actually saying, meaning, and intending “of course this was a case of stifling conservative views”? Following the compelling logic of Hockenberry and Headlee, an NPR devotee could hardly think otherwise.
The fact that Williams’s dismissal came with an after-midnight press release more than forty-eight hours after his “lapse” (on par with Vivian Schiller’s one-time gaffe that Williams consult a psychiatrist) conjures images of a Committee of Public Safety or a Cheka bent on a purge of its own ranks. (This is not an image necessarily to be invoked, but it springs to mind without appreciable provocation.) Williams’s keeping company with the likes of Bill O’Reilly takes on the appearance of a formerly staunch Montagnard being too chummy with unsavory Girondists or Hebertists, or an erstwhile Bolshevik carrying even a single pail of water on behalf of a Constitutional Democrat or a Menshevik. Maintenance of ideological purity is what this episode looks like to any number of pairs of disinterested eyes: it LOOKS like a purge, a refutation and denunciation of someone who, upon expulsion, is to be reviled as an ideological traitor (at worst) or a self-serving stooge (the charitable view).

Spelling properly is evidence of elitism.

Spelling properly is evidence of elitism.

Posted by John

Well I guess I have outed myself – elitism has apparently come down to my level since my income doesn’t exceed $40K/yr and I don’t work at an University – bad spelling just makes me cringe -especially when used by those who rant at others about how they are uneducated, liberal hacks

Of all the NPR reporters JW is the ONLY one who let his political leanings known in his reporting. It irked me to no end to hear comments that left no doubt of his conservative leanings. The guests on NPR get to make their opinions known-but the interviewers should not. I am glad he is gone from NPr and as I NEVER watch Fox the only time I’ll hopefully have to hear about him is on Keith Olberman’s Worst list!!

Personally I think Juan Williams crossed the line some years ago with his fawning interview of President Bush. Had it been TV we would have been able to see the adoring look on his face and the stars in his eyes.

It’s worth pointing out, as Juan Cole did, that Juan Williams supported the firing of Don Imus and felt that rap records should be censored. That may not justify his firing, but it pretty much pulls the moral ground out from under him.

http://www.juancole.com/2010/10/williams-supported-imus-firing-censoring-of-rap-music.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+juancole%2Fymbn+%28Informed+Comment%29

Tom, PLEASE ask the NPR ombudsman why Nina Totenberg and Cokie Roberts are allowed to go on other networks and give opinions (almost always left-of-center opinions), with no retribution?

Isn’t this a huge double-standard???

The conservative are criticizing to firing of Juan stating that he was fried because of his views. Now the conservative support the right to work states were any on can be fired for any reason at any time. You can not have it both ways.

Didn’t a NPR journalist about a year ago say she wished a specific republican/conservative contract AIDS through a blood transfusion or one of his children? Is this characteristic of a Journalist?

I hate Fox as much as anyone I am sure. Nevertheless, the president of NPR should be fired for firing him. He said that he was afraid when seeing a muslim in full-garb. He went on after that to say such feelings are wrong. So he was not expressing his opinion as opinion but rather he was “reporting” on the state of feelings (just so happens it was his) and then saying that was wrong.
This is absolutely perfectly fine for a journalist to do. If he did other things he could be fired maybe for that but not for this.
Saying we have a muslim problem is true. We should not but we do. It is that we fear them instead of respect them.
The president of NPR made a terrible call and should go.

This whole episode (if you watch the full O’Really segment) is reminiscent of the Shirley Sherod (sp?) incident. One statement out of context can be damning. Viewed in its entirety he made a reasoned argument for all of us to stop and examine our own prejudices. NPR failed us this time, it doesn’t happen often, but it happened this time. I don’t know if Shirley has to go, but being raised a Catholic I think a little penance is in order, maybe hand-washing Juan’s car weekly for a year?

If the firing were the result of a series of behavior and not just this one incident, why did NPR’s press release state otherwise?

Late Wednesday night, NPR issued a statement praising Williams as a valuable contributor but saying it had given him notice that it is severing his contract. “His remarks on The O’Reilly Factor this past Monday were inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR,” the statement read.

http://www.wbur.org/npr/130712737/npr-ends-williams-contract-after-muslim-remarks

Thank you, Ms. Shepard, for clarifying that this is the latest of a string of things that NPR management has had to talk to him about. That pretty much answers the one question I have this morning, but could you clarify whether NPR informed Mr. Williams that if he continued these type of behaviors he would be fired?

The more I hear about this issue the more I think NPR was right firing him although I really wish it had been handled better. It’s giving people a reason to hate NPR rather than to admit that they work hard to give balanced and accurate reporting.

What does Juan Williams’ contract say?

Is he in breach of any specific contractual requirement to not appear on punditry shows?

Are there stipulations in his contract that expressly limits his candor on punditry shows?

If no, NPR is wrong to “fire” or “terminate” his contract.

Bottom-line.

It’s funny/sad that the people who called for Shirley Sherrod to be fired are now saying that Juan Williams is another “Shirley Sherrod.”

They do remember that Sherrod’s clip was edited (by Fox), taken out of context (by Fox) and led to her firing (by cowards).

By contrast, the *more* of the Williams clip that you play, the more obvious it is that he’s playing the liberal patsy on Fox.

There is nothing brave about going on Bill O’Reilly’s show and saying bigoted things about Muslims. Fox has been on a yearlong campaign to gin up Americans’ fears about Muslims. Williams is now getting another $2 million to be a cog in that machine.

People defending the integrity of Williams should remind themselves that the man was collecting two paychecks and was fine with going to work for Fox full time.

His lack of integrity speaks for itself.

“Consider me the first droplet of the flood that will follow.” – Faisal Shahzad

Shahzad didn’t say anything about drops of blood. Is it too much to ask Williams to comment on things that actually happened?

I keep hearing that there have been all these other problems with Juan Williams and I’d like to hear what the guest is talking about.

It’s not a free speech issue, but NPR management’s action has chilled discourse at NPR. Watch your tone Mr. Ashbrook. Mrs. Shepherd’s tone just said it all. Watch yourself!

I’ll take a show with a little interuption over one with silence.

NPR presented this as Juan Williams being fired for his comments. Now that they’re being challenged and shown that his comments were taken out of context, it’s a “personnel issue” and a matter of talking in “the wrong forum”.
I’m a big NPR listener, but can’t help but think that his right-wing opinions have blinded NPR’s objectivity.

If Juan would have offended Christian Tea Party Members, would he have been fired?

This is truly the question that gets down to the brass tacks.

If he would, then several other NPR journalists need fired right away. If not then he was wrongfully terminated by a biased organization that should not receive federal funds.

Often contract provisions that have never been enforced become unenforceable as the violation was not objected to by the party and is thus considered consent for nonperformance.

If you are agreeing with the firing of Juan Williams without actually having watched the full segment on O’Really then quite frankly, you need to shut up until you watch the whole segment. Otherwise you are speaking from a position anchored in ignorance, the same ignorance you allege you are railing against. Remember Shirley Sherod (sp?)? Three or four days ago I affirmed on this forum that I thought he should be fired. I was wrong, I did not have all the facts. NPR missed it on this one.

Outspoken, certainly; but that doesn’t excuse persistent judgement lapses of “what am I saying and where am I saying it.” First Amendment isn’t an issue here. Williams broke his role as an NPR reporter, IE: one who reports, when he a commentator – one who editorializes. He crossed that line and not for the first time. I’m sure that distinction will be lost on a majority of listeners and we’ll be hearing about everything but that.

Juan’s comments did not rise in any way to high crimes and misdemeanors. In fact, they were realistically fair and an expression of his fears and emotions.
To fire Juan over these comments is censorship of the press. And we as government tax supporters of NPR radio, need to review NPR’s government largess.

I’ve been saying to friends for years that Williams should be shown the door, so I am fully on NPR’s side here. It has nothing to do with his opinions (although I don’t much like them).

It has everything to do with the low quality of his so-called journalism. He has been an embarassment to NPR’s journalistic standards from the time he was hired (…and his title of ‘analyst’ doesn’t excuse this).

I’ll throw just one example out there.

He did a 2002 interview with Karl Rove, a potential journalistic coup at the time. It was a soft-ball love-fest of unrivaled proportions. Larry King was probably appalled. It was an inexcusable waste of NPR’s air time (the full 22 minute interview is still available on line if you want to suffer through it yourself).

I won’t miss Juan Williams at all. I’ve heard his comments on NPR years and was always unimpressed – not because he is a “moderate liberal,” whatever that is. I don’t believe that NPR is exhibiting any fascistic, censorious tendencies by firing Williams. What I want to know is why he wasn’t fired earlier.

I would also like to know whether Alicia Shephard is still of the mind that “If the president says it’s not torture, it’s enhanced interrogation,” and why the firing of Juan Williams merits an appearance on On Point, while the controversy over NPR’s refusal to use the word “torture” when describing the activities of American troops or contractors did not.

I would like to have seen the QUOTE issue of Juan Williams ENDQUOTE covered on NPR as an issue in itself before and as part of the firing. And I’d like to see now NPR embrace the issue and the controversy after the firing by bringing on Juan Williams to interview him. This would put the controversy to rest by embracing it, laying out the issues on the table, engaging part of the source of the controversy, taking responsibility for the manner of the firing, and delineating the journalistic issues, many of which I’m sure Juan Williams will go on the record as agreeing with.

–Kevin

I think it was one of Williams’s first runs on ToTN where his treatment of the Cuban Ambassador to the UN showed a reflexive and aggressive conservatism (at which the Ambassador rightly walked off the show). I wondered even then why NPR would hire such an unsophisticated and apparently closed-minded person. His reporting and punditry since then have been less than enlightening. I’m glad he’s gone.

Why this bashing of NPR? The fact that Williams had to show up on Fox and comment in a show that is so revolting and hateful like O’Reilly should be reason enough to fire him. No decent reports or commentators should be on this hate network that serves the ultra right. NPR stays for decent and honest reporting and you cannot find any of this on NPR. The Becks, O’Reilly’s & Co are not fit to stand in a democratic environment.

At best if the firing was “necessary” then NPR exhibited extremely poor timing because of the intense nature of the subject. However, because of the firing, i can no longer use NPR as a standard of unbiased news reporting. My conservative friends say there is an ultra-liberal agenda on NPR and this just confirms their suspicions.

Ron Williams was simply stating how he sometimes “feels” – hardly a reason for firing. And he was using himself as a means to illustrate a point very much “inline” with NPR’s point-of-view.

And contrary to the PR ombudsman’s comment about the “heated” discussion being inappropriate … i have heard a few heated and rude discussions on NPR.

Poorly done, NPR, poorly done.

Fox leaning to the right is an understatement,

Tom you did it again having on such an parstian hack, spewing of course all the right-wing talking points.

Mona is junk

NPR is one of the most biased sources I’ve ever heard. They basically have now come out publicly that the CURRENT leadership at NPR fires people who tell the truth. You should not have a publicly supported news organization which fires people for telling the truth.

The relationship no longer works because Williams was not in-line with NPR’s political beliefs. NPR was fine when they were about rare music, but they are losing their usefulness more everyday. I hope the leadership, high, and low, can be removed in the coming decade.

People yell at each other on THIS SHOW everyday. You don’t have to raise your decibel level, to be doing a sort of yelling.

You can go on any Facebook blog about any subject, and see that 85% of NPR listeners are biased, just as biased as the person who fired Williams is biased. If this company gets any government support, it should not. Just because a bunch of listeners are offended to hear truth coming from Williams, doesn’t mean that he should just be fired in a mob rule sort of way.

I think it is much better for the reporters to go on the record as to their personal beliefs. Then you know where they really stand, without having to wonder where their bias is. Their bias will always show up – just as it does on this show everyday – I would rather know this host’s beliefs as well – all the way down to what religion each one belongs to. All of this information would help people to become better informed about the news they receive. There should be a website dedicated to the biographies, and information (religious/ political beliefs) of each board member, reporter, writer, photographer, owner, etc… so that you know how to decipher the information you receive from every network, or other source.

I hope this is the beginning of the end of the current form of NPR. I like the idea of NPR, and what NPR used to be, but I sure don’t want my money going to this current mess.

Enough of the polls. Enough of the punditry and analysis. I don’t want to hear which candidate is ahead or which one is gaining. Please stop the breathless reporting of horse races. I and many others want to know their positions on the issues.
One of the most valuable pieces of reporting NPR has done lately was submitted by Scott Horstly (sp?) He followed Obama to backyard and broadcast events and listened to what attendees had to say in response to the president’ answers to thier questions. Horstly suggested that reporters were put off by an 8 minute response to a man’s question and felt that he needed to tighten it up into a sound bite. Yet when he spoke to the questioner, we learned that a sound bite response was not what he wanted. The questioner called for patience in the face of complex problems.
More reporting like that of Horstly please. It really stood out.

NPR P/C thugs speak softly and carry a big pink slip if their reporters and analysists step out of the gushy, mushy, better-than-everyon-because-we-try-to-appear-so-open-minded mode. She displays an incredible lack of insight. While I often found Mr. Williams grating, I appreciate his ability to elicit evocative debate.
None of Ms. Shephard’s answers are holding up but you’d better keep your voice down, Tom, I personally would hate to lose you, but keep asking those pointed, difficult questions–this whole situation stinks.

Tom asks if this is a 1st Amendment issue. It is not. The 1st Amendment prohibits GOVERNMENT from passing any LAW which abridges the freedom of speech. NPR is not the government and has not passed any law.

Tom asks if this is a fireable offense, without citing any employment law. If you really want the answer, consult an employment lawyer.

I think the most important role of the media is to inform the public so the public can make its own decisions. NPR is the best media outlet I know serving that role. Fox opinion shows do not do that. They exist because they are entertainment and entertainment sells. Advertisers are willing to pay for ads because the public watches. By participating in the Fox opinion circus, Juan Williams has -for a long time – undermined the primary mission of NPR – to deliver facts in an unbiased manner so the public can make up its own mind.

Mona Charen (et al) allege that NPR has a “leftist viewpoint” or “bias.”

I think it’s noteworthy that no one has defined exactly what “leftist viewpoint” or “leftiist [liberal] bias” means.

Not only that, but the key question is, suppose you gave Charen (et al) transcripts of some NPR news stories, with the identifying markings (reporter, source, etc) removed; and also some *news* stories from Fox. Could these people distinguish between the 2 sources, and say reliably which story came from which source? I doubt it.

Mona,

Since when is being open-minded and interested in all points of view the domain of the Left?! That’s ridiculous, and it perpetuates the notion that the Right is evil and backwards and every other pejorative that is hung on Conservatism. The problem with FOX, and the way it differs from NPR, is not that it is Right leaning, but that it is masquerading as a legitimate news and journalistic outlet. FOX cannot be compared with NPR or any true journalistic institution.

Williams’ firing–while perhaps not handled well–seems perfectly in keeping with an institution trying to maintain its integrity, not trying to silence opposing views.

I wonder how many “final warning” Williams had been given.

You are right that there is a big difference between FOX and NPR News. NPR refuses to give fair discussion of opposition views while FOX encourages the discussion of non popular views. Which is more honest, I ask you?

One is tempted to ask, just how “liberal” Fox News’ policy with Jaun Williams “exercise of his free speech rights” will be.

I am always surprised when conservatives and others say, as Mona Charen does, that FOX ‘leans’ to the right and that NPR leans to the left. What is not acknowledged is actual accuracy and thorough coverage . . . Any network ‘appears’ to lean left compared to the alternate reality that is FOX news!

While others call NPR “left,” most of the time I view the network as tolerant, curious, civil, balanced. And that’s exactly why people both on the left and right criticize the programming. To me, that’s journalism at its best.

One point that is getting lost in the whole argument about Juan Williams is the end of the whole conversation. The conversation ends with Williams asserting that he is an NPR employee. That is probably the biggest point of this whole episode, because tell me one organization in America that will agree to a quote like I am belong to this organization and I hate this particular group.

Juan Williams has been the perfect “token” pundit for Fox – black, conservative, and admittedly afraid of Muslims – and persecuted by NPR.

It is an unfortunate straw that NPR has chosen to break the camel’s back – but the firing is far from politically correctness gone awry. That scenario would have NPR endlessly tolerating William’s violation of their ethics code precisely BECAUSE he is black and conservative and afraid of Muslims – the perfect “token” analyst for NPR.

I’m very happy NPR fired him, in fact I would have preferred NPR fire him or give him an ultimatum about going on fox channel. He is either a lying hypocrite or just not very intelligent.
First, he is a black man who is stereotyping other people based on what a very small number within group have done. I’m sure he complains regularly about being stereotyped by police or others because he is a black man in America.
Second, he states that people in Muslim garb scare him. I would like to point out, “ALL” of the terrorists on 9/11 dressed in western garb. His comment shows how simple he is to believe that a terrorists wouldn’t dress in western clothes in order to blend in. His ideas and intelligence are tailor made for fox news and its ignorant audience.
Here is a crazy fact, these terrorists have killed a whole lot more “Muslims” and middle easterner’s than anyone else. In fact, bush’s illegal war in Iraq has killed more civilians. Yet middle easterner’s, even the ones that were born here in the United States are called terrorists. The whole thing makes me sick and by the way I’m not Muslim so I’m not saying this for my own benefit. I apologize about this long rant by the way…

Tom,

FOX news was started by Roger Ailes who worked for Ronald Reagan when he was governor of California and President. Before FOX News was there ever a television network that was started by a political party?

Williams succumbed to the lure of money. FOX pays those willing to follow their natative very well. Williams tried to be the objective newsman at NPR and play actor at FOX.

It’s interesting that NPR won’t employ the kind of “reporters” FOX promotes.

If the “right” is the party of no, then we have become a nation with no splits whatsoever. Maybe Fox gets higher ratings by upping the resentment, by feeding on controversy, whereas NPR approaches controversy as a topic in itself. But the question of liberal/conservative is becoming moot.
Has anybody noticed? The issue of addressing entitlements and the need to re-establish fiscal stability in order to keep a viable place in the world — that is not left/right. How one is allowed to say those things vary. But from what I can tell, the campaign money flows to both right and left candidates, so the plutocracy doesn’t see a difference. Why should we?

Brabstad,

Maybe in your feeble little narrow mind, but most who know me feel I am kind, loving, and a regular joe.

You, from what I can gather from your posts, are a jerk and pride yourself on this. Maybe a session with your therapist will help you get over this character flaw.

There would not even be a discussion on Fox of this kind because Fox censor’s every voice not in agreement with the hate network. The right has made NPR a target for years and it would only be in their interest to quiet NPR down, so the only voice on air are hate. NPR is pretty much in the middle and I can state this because my opinion is much more to the left. Go on NPR, this is the last source of news and information without a bad right wing republican taste!

The idea of “liberal media bias” is a lie. Corporate bias, yes, liberal bias, no. Simply a right wingnut delusion. Look at the facts Mona. Few things anger me more than to hear this false claim spewed over and over again by ignorant conservatives who didn’t do their homework.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2447

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYlyb1Bx9Ic

I think it is disingenuous to say tat Jaun Williams was an analysis on Fox, he was a token left leaning voice to be beat up like Alan Comes. He was just a straight man to set up Fox talking head’s next rant or attack. As such his role as a serious analyst on NPR was damaged. That said, the decision maker at NPR failed to handle this in an effective way and served to just give those that would seek to harm this valuable news institution.

Unfortunately, NPR’s shifting explanations for Juan Williams’ firing suggest that they are scrambling after the fact to justify their actions. His comments were beyond the pale (and best left to a psychiatrist’s couch) … no, it was that he was expressing any opinions at all … no, it was that the O’Reilly show is too argumentative. At this point, I think NPR should stop trying to justify or explain the decision, because it just makes NPR look worse. You can’t reconcile their latest statements with their continued tolerance of Nina Totenberg’s intemperate remarks re: Jesse Helms.

Good job, Cy. I’m glad Williams is gone. When I first started listening to NPR I used to confuse him with Juan Cole, and was greatly disappointed when Mr. Williams would roll out his analysis. I thought ‘Wait, this isn’t the intelligent, thoughtful analysis I heard that time, this is some other guy named Juan.’ I didn’t think Juan Williams was liberal or left leaning at all. I just thought he was lame.

What is the problem here? Political correctness(Lying through your teeth because you can’t handle the truth) is part of the ingrained DNA of the lefty socialists–whether NPR lefty socialists or MoveOn.org lefty socialists? Juan Williams cleary broke the NPR rules: Don’t tell us what you truly believe–lie to us and tell us what you don’t believe(Political Correctness is of primacy!!!!!); that surely is the approach that the lefties believe is intelligent, no?. It’s appalling that I’m forced at gunpoint to pay for this “unbiased” government-run radio program. But then again, the lefties are never too proud to take another welfare check, no matter the magnitude of the conflict-of-interest. NPR claims it’s government welfare check is quite small. Well, if it is quite small, why is NPR taking this tainted money? If they were getting small money from the mafia, would they make the same defense?

Dear Juan,

A public newsdesk is not the appropriate place to air and discuss your private feelings. Save it for your friends and family. Report the news, not make the news.

Thanks.

Ok time for a topic switch — Juan is getting stale and we are beating a dead horse.

Tom, how about we ask your guests to move to the root of Juan’s comments: can the we do a quick review of the Wars (Iraq, Pak, Afghan, byut maybe even using US arms, forces or just plain old DOD or USAid dollars in Sudan, Iran, Middle East where carnage occurs daily as well?)?

What is in store as we head into the winter season, militarily? How is US protecting its borders as well as prime targets for home-grown terrorists? Are candidates for public office addressing those critical issues, and if so, what are their formulae for “success”?

I didn’t find it offensive that Juan Williams admitted to uneasiness when he sees people in Muslim garb on his plane. I did find it offensive, however, that he seemed to be sharing his wariness just to make nice with Bill O’Reilly. Perhaps NPR was precipitate in firing Mr. Williams, but perhaps they too gagged at the sight of him seeming to be ingratiate himself with a bigot.

2 million dollars for 3 year contract — why has the speaker, Tom Ashbrook, now mentioned that figure *four* times, in less than 40 minutes.

Does he reveal how much Simon made on their adoption book, plugged shamelessly on air?

It suggests somehow that Juan is not “above” money, like NPR personalities seem to want to cast themselves as being?

Why are they keep casting him as some how “money hungry” — they, NPR, were the ones who fired him, triggering the offer, in the first place!

Sometimes the confluence of two different stories in the news is interesting… Like this 1991 story from the NYT which connects last weeks stories about Juan Williams and Ginni & Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill.

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/11/03/us/thomas-defender-apologizes.html

CHRIS M,

As a well educated political activist that enjoys being the thought and spelling police, you might do more of the later than the former since as a wise woman once said, “you can’t spell worth ….”

I think I caught the pot calling the kettle black… LOL

A parent will explain to a child, or a considerate adult to some hater-type teenagers, that “I feel this or that,” and then follow up with how one learns to deal with, moderate, contextualize that feeling.
It is a way of taking the flak to oneself. It lets the other (in this case O’Reilly) hear the truth without being targeted.

Why does your guest feel that NPR needs to tell the public the reasons for firing anyone? Personnel situations are not for public consumption.

the fact that Juan Willimas is scared of Muslim’s in their traditional clothes shows how wrong he is, in that the likiness of a terrorist wearing such clothes is very low………so his personal opinions are flawed.

Juan Williams aside, Ms. Schiller has done much to harm NPR in this affair. She showed poor executive judgment.
In the Williams firing Ms. Schiller showed herself to be as rude and arrogant as any Fox personality. Then she apologizes for speaking “hastily”, which appeared to be the reason Williams was fired.

NPR is supposed to really be” fair and balanced.” Nothing in this affair would support that. Ms. Schiller has given the conservatives who mock the network everything they need to dismiss NPR as liberal and biased. She has done something I did not think was possible – make Bill O’Rielly seem reasonable. I tuned in WBZ radio last week for a traffic report and listened to the host and every caller talk about NPR’s hypocrisy for about twenty minutes until I just couldn’t stand it anymore. She has not only hurt the network, but a week and a half before a crucial election given conservatives one more reason to dismiss “the liberal agenda” and discouraged liberals one more reason to stay home.

I was going to write NPR to protest their unreasonable and basically stupid decision forbidding anyone from attending Jon Stewart’s rally. Yes, you really don’t want to be associated in any way with a “Rally to Restore Sanity”. Does management know Stewart is a comedian? Sadly, because of things like this I’m beginning to think The Daily Show is my only reasonable source for news.
If Ms. Schiller cares about NPR she should resign.

If Mona Charen is going to tell us what an “interesting” liberal is, can I get to decide which conservatives should be employed at Fox?

Let’s get real here. Williams was a terribly boring commentator, and he routinely used his NPR credential to get airtime at Fox where he agreed with Fox’s agenda.

It’s also funny that conservatives are rushing to defend Mara Liasson and Cokie Roberts as “liberals.”

When was the last time Mara did a story that wasn’t “OMG – this is suuuuuch good news for the GOP!!!!” or when Cokie Roberts wasn’t repeating her “Obama’s too lefty and a big failure and I miss W” commentary?

Two Points:
1. This is about ‘brand’ and ‘voice.’ Juan has been changing his personal brand in a direction that is inconsistent with the NRP brand. I can hear him working on his high volume, bombastic, combative voice, which doesn’t fit the NRP brand. NPR has to protect it’s brand image: in-depth, well-informed, high ground journalism, broad representative of perspectives, a calm rational tone. NPR had to act.
2. If NPR had not been fired, it’s likely we still would hear outrage and accusations of hypocrisy from the right.

The Constitution guarantees you a right to freedom of speech. It does not guarantee you a right to a job on NPR or anywhere else. When you enter into an employement contract that includes standards of conduct, you have the right to breach those standards but must also live with the consequences. Here, his employer felt that Juan Williams had breached the terms of his contract exercised its right to terminate him.

You asked the question if we want to know what news analysts and reporters think. No. I don’t want to know; I don’t need to know; and, in fact, knowing gets in the way of my ability to trust that what I’m being told is unbiased. Of course, that doesn’t mean that the information is unbiased, but if I think it is, I’m going to turn it off.

Sometimes I want to hear opinions and perspectives, and sometimes I want to hear objective facts. I don’t need to have trust in the person who relates their opinion. I do need to have trust in the person who is relating the facts.

I was very disappointed in today’s “On Point.” This was not supposed to be a discussion of the FOX format, instead it was to be a discussion of NPR’s decision.

As a retired journalist, editor, and newspaper owner, I feel that unless one knows exactly what NPR’s ethics code says, it is not possible to say whether the firing of Juan Williams was justified. Williams was a news analyst at NPR, not a journalist. Everyone who listens to the news is an analyst and interjects his/her own bias. Thus, when Williams was making his analyses on NPR, he was doing nothing more than interpreting the news using his own bias.

As for whether or not NPR has a liberal slant, my observation is most definitely it does. As a liberal it very easy to recognize this slant and perhaps NPR’s ombudsman needs to open her eyes to this fact. Seldom does NPR offer up any real conservative guests. Why not? Regardless of my own political position, I am always interested in hearing other POVs because I usually learn something new.

whoa! just checked, and still no posting of CEO Shriller’s apology to staff on main web site…

Tom, is someone on your staff reading our comments? Am curious to know how this did not get “posted” yet…

Remember how the CIA operative was “outed”? in re the yellow cake out of Africa at the lead-up to the Iraq war? If Alicia Shepard’s circling of the tents such that NPR journalists are ALWAYS objective, never with a personal take — there you have the risk of being outed.

Besides Juan Williams’s contradictions (e.g., “I am a bigot because I fear people in Muslim garb boarding my flight. . .” as terrorist love to be identified when they are going to act), and NPR’s extremely poor handling of the situation (it sounds more like a tantrum than an administrative decision), there seems to be a more serious problem at stake.

The point I have in mind relates to the content of media performances. Rather than promoting political debate and controversy, are not Fox News night bloc a political vaudeville aiming at representation dramatic performances. Did not Juan Williams fall into the trap of paroding himself (i.e., representing) as the ‘liberal honest commentator in the lion’s den of mean rightwing bullies’? Could it be that Mr. Williams’s a dramatic performance was aiming at playing the role of the honest journalistic hero?

Part of the current cultural crisis seems to the boil down to the fact that American politics has been largely transformed into show business and fiction. I miss authenticity, a state of mind largely fallen out of fashion.

Great show Tom. Bottomline…I see no problem letting Juan go. I have not been impressed with the times I’ve “seen him” on TV (yes, not on NPR). Mr. Ashbrook…this is an example of a great show…as is Charlie Rose on PBS.

1.Unfortunately, the right wing has been using this to deflect arguments and attention from their empty programs in an election year.

2. Narrowmindedness of NPR…EXTREME conservatives invented narrow minded policies.

3. I think the Tom Ashbrook On-Point program is an excellent example of a program that brings out both conservative and liberal views without labels. Good conversation.

4. I do not understand why NPR would be required to provide a list of problems to conservatives they had with Juan. Yes, they should document it for presentation in any legal proceedings Juan wants to bring. If he feels so strong about it, he should.

5. NPR should do what they need to do within their guidelines with NO explanation to LOUD whinning conservatives who have no substantial answers to the issues of the day.

6. I am thinking of making a contribution to the righ wingers…I will give them a broom stick…so they can prove they are not a witch.

There is a need for objective dialogue. The finest credit of NPR is their objectivity. The fact that they are reporting this subject is great depth is a testament to that objectivity. We are adults who are deserve to access to facts and are mature enough to make our own opinions. I don’t want to be fed others.

Good show Tom.

Tom Ashbrook:
Great inquiry on the show – as always. Why not have Juan Williams as a guest on this show???

However, his feelings and opinions do not seem to (and I think should not) be the issue of this discussion. The issue is NPR’s role in today’s environment.

There seem to be three roles for NPR here:

1) NPR as an employer – OK, they can fire any employee

2) NPR as an objective voice – the way they handled this (not the decision itself) leaves them WAY open to legitimate criticisms from opponents

3) NPR as a public voice – NPR is failing here.
This is NOT just about their opinion, but HOW PUBLIC FIGURES AND JOURNALISTS MUST LEARN HOW TO MODEL THE NEW SKILLS WE NEED IN AMERICA TO TALK ABOUT DISAGREEMENTS POST 9/11 (e.g. more inquiry, more attempts to understand before judging).

Right now, Fox News is doing a great job on a bad model: shouting as our main skill in disagreements. Juan Williams was doing a sloppy job of presenting an alternative model on Fox, but at least he was trying. Could NPR try harder to model good skills on-air, and also as an employer?

My continued financial support of our wonderful local NPR station may depend on how they do this.

In a world that is over-communicated and under-informed, we need less opinion and more objectivity. In that context, I care little for what Williams thinks and would like to know more about what he knows. The Right has co-opted opinionated “reporting” so we need little more coming from assumed objective reporters.

More to the point, Williams is not just wrong, but hypocritically wrong. I live in a city beset by gun violence on an almost nightly basis. The overwhelming majority f that violence is perpetrated by young African-Americans. The targets of hat violence, of course, re other African-Americans. But what if I were a commentator who said that I became fearful for my safety each time an African-American male got on a bus? How loud and outraged would the rejoinders be? Williams said hat he said for effect. He is now where he belongs – on a station that cares little for fact.

Great journalism demands that the journalist withhold his personal opinions from the public domain. I want great news stories, presented objectively. I don’t care about the journalists religious views. I don’t want to know them.

Frankly, Mona Charen has never impressed me as an analyst.

Clearly she is very conservative (and she said so on this program). Everything she writes is very unbalanced. There is no attempt to see even a small amount of ‘the other side’ of any issue. She must hang with Limbaugh and Palin.

Along with the above, I think Juan Williams did a better job of news analysis.

It will be interesting to see if he shifts far right with the permanent job at Fox or brings a small amount of “there are people who do not agree with the conservative right living in this country” balance.

I agree that every business has the right to fire people for straying from established policy. Even manufacturing has rules of what people can say. It was handled poorly, but giving opinion on Fox “News” (no resemblence to news) would appear to violate those rules as NPR has identified them. It probably should have been stopped or he warned earlier.

I would prefer my NEWS to come completely unbiased. Thorough robots would be best although boring. NPR makes an honest effort to be unbiased. Fox doesn’t even stop at telling untruths.

I expect that if Juan attacks someone like Palin or Newt or the Bushes, Fox won’t keep him either. And they are supposedly taking the high road. What a joke!

I find it amusing how so many posters align themselves with NPR, but go to great lengths to claim that neither leans to the left. Why do conservatives wear their political colors like a badge of honor and liberals hide behind theirs like a disease?

The lady doth protest too much, me thinks!

What a lost disappointment NPR has become. They have become a victim of group think.

Group think? I hope you never tune in to the Dittoheads or Faux News, else your head will explode.

Juan deserved to be fired! As a news analyst he crossed the line by expressing his own opinion in a commentator role on Fox News. News analysts should be unbiased, fair and use the facts in their analyses and not offer their own opinions if they are to remain credible in their reporting roles.
If Juan wants to express his own opinion – he needs to remain a commentator with Fox News. I don’t think a news analyst should appear both as an analyst and commentator – and still preserve their integrity for unbiased reporting.
On the other hand, if Juan really believes in unbiased and fair reporting of the news – how could he ever accept a contract with Fox News? I can only deduct from this that he wants to be a full time commentator, make big bucks and be used to create more controversial talk on Fox News.

Hearing Juan Williams comments re: “feeling nervous” made me nervous. It was a HUGE public indictment of Muslims across the board-not some little confession around the kitchen table- most likely to salve the O”Reilly ego before going on to the larger issue. This is a common ploy used by Williams. Too bad, however, that NPR chose to deal with the long-standing Williams controversy so unprofessionally.
If someone, entrusted with a voice on the public airways,cannot get his point across without resorting to careless fear mongering , then Fox is the place for him or her. To impune NPR for attempting and most often succeeding, to avoid such is absurd.
Hard to believe, but there are millions of Americans looking for in-depth, balanced news. With 90% of talk radio right wing, Fox extremism, MSNBC extremism, and local MSM dealing in sound bites, there is little choice.
NPR is the closest thing we have by which to make informed decisions. It is hardly “liberal” to hear all sides, though for conservatives like Mona, anything left of right wing is “liberal”
Let’s not let the right propagandize this issue. They have found another piece of red meat.

I can’t believe that NPR would fire Juan Williams (you’re next Maura Liasson), but has no problem with calling George Bush a Nazi.

Incredible.

This is what President Obama called a “teachable moment”. ‘NPR was stupid” in firing Juan Williams. For generations to come journalists will think twice before voicing an opinion about anything that might offend their employer. Yet, another profession destroyed by the liberal march towards the perfect PC World!!!!

I am a left leaning, long time supporting member (25 yrs+) of my local public radio station. I will NOT be sending in my membership contribution for the upcoming year in protest of Williams firing(have already made my contribution for 2010).

In fact, I’ve begun looking for other news organizations/media to replace NPR. I’ll review my position in a year.

Financially, Juan Williams firing worked out for him. It failed the idea of public funding of the airwaves.

Why is it different if Juan Williams had criticized someone else for having irrational fears upon seeing Muslims on a plane than if he criticized himself for having irrational fears upon seeing Muslims on a plane?

Why does expressing our own faults, as opposed to some other person’s faults, suddenly mean we are endorsing these faults?

If I am a black man, and a young white man, bald with a swastika tattooed on his forehead, sits across for me, is it wrong for me to feel fear? If I didn’t, wouldn’t there be something wrong with me?

Why in this case is it OK to feel fear, in the other (Muslims on a plane) not so? Perhaps the answer is that in the former it is rational to feel fear, in the latter it isn’t. Recognizing that our gut reactions do not necessarily equal objective truth is fundamental to a rational worldview.

When we recognize our gut feelings, but then also acknowledge that they are not necessarily rational or moral, we are essentially recognizing the full spectrum of what makes up human, aren’t we?

Sometimes it seems like the right wing only wants people to listen to the gut, and the left wing wants to pretend the gut doesn’t exist. The fact that Juan Williams could hear both the voice of his reason AND his gut perhaps explains why he worked both for NPR and FOX.

Fox News will have George Soros, Alicia Shepard, and anyone else on the left. NPR would not have anyone from the right (even though it would help their ratings).

There are not interested in ideas and discussion. NPR is only about following the left agenda.

They don’t even want to know about how much abortion has helped the crime rate.

Posted by George Potts

Have you ever listened to NPR or On Point before last week’s debacle??? Apparently not.

Williams is making millions with Fox and aiding yet another Fox-driven crusade in its efforts to achieve oligopoly and cultural warfare. Anyone else notice this is on the heels of some very good NPR reporting and programming examining plutocracy in this country, campaign finance, and other vital current issues the right would like us to forget? Though I find the methods of firing questionable, I do think that there is something here that should be examined: the associations we find acceptable when talking about all things “Muslim.” After Oklahoma City, I never heard anyone say they got very nervous when they saw a blond-haired, white man walking around near government buildings. This is all shrouded in a preexisting fear that some Americans have of Muslim people and culture because it is so unknown. I find some of the sentiments very similar to those I hear from anti-Semetic people, and am very troubled by it. Agree with the comment saying this smells of, “I have a ___ friend, so I’m not a bigot, BUT ….”

In essence, it is discrimination. To that point I am not saying Williams should not have those feelings — to have them and to acknowledge them TO HIMSELF is one thing, and probably a healthy part of a process to awareness — but I am saying as an intelligent and culturally sensitive human being, he should question them, examine them, and challenge them. He should not go on national TV and air them, which validates anyone else who has that feeling, or perhaps gives others the idea to entertain such feelings.

On a common sense level, thus far no terrorist has been in “Muslim garb,” but in “American garb,” whatever either of those things mean.

PS I never heard Mona answer the question about how SHE would feel if she were associated with a group that had been lumped together and designated a group that makes a prominent news analyst “nervous.”

PPS Quite frankly I don’t like to be associated with a culture that has been convinced that it’s against their best interests to tax people who control 85 percent of the wealth in this country, and in their best interests to eliminate programs they count on, like Medicaid, but I’ll bet there are plenty of people abroad who do.

HEADLINE – NPR Fires Juan Williams, fearing that they may have hurt his feelings and those of Fox New NPR decides to give Juan more press covereage now than they did when he was employed with NPR. CEO of NPR does not deny reports that there is talk of creating a new radio reality show titled “What is Juan Saying Now?”. Unofficial reports say this reality show could fill the ‘On Point’ time slot.

Get over it! He has been let go. It does not materially change anything. Get back to reporting… please

Matt wrote: “I find it amusing how so many posters align themselves with NPR, but go to great lengths to claim that neither leans to the left. Why do conservatives wear their political colors like a badge of honor and liberals hide behind theirs like a disease? — The lady doth protest too much, me thinks!”
What? If by conservatives you mean those obnoxiously secure and rich crossed with those who are obnoxiously bigoted and impatient, then where on earth does their “badge of honor” come from? I ask again, is it something in the educational system? Do we indoctrinate inordinate confidence and patriotism along with our pledge of allegiance, and it turns into dyed-in-the-flag pride, conservative pride?
And who is protesting too much? I don’t get it.
I am waiting for the Real Right Wing, that of Abraham Lincoln and General Eisenhower, to find its voice.
Second point: On any show, in any conversation, the obvious next thing if someone says “black cats going under ladders make me nervous” (or what-have-you), someone on the other side of the room (it doesn’t need to be a therapist; it can be your 10-year-old) then pipes up, as if scripted, “Oh, no, Dad; the really bad ones shave their beards; and at airports there are people specially employed to see if people have things under their burkas that are illegal.”
The fact we get nervous irrelevantly is old as the hills. Conversations exist in order to deal with this. Isn’t that what the Oprah Winfrey show does? Maybe under Juan Williams, the O’Reilly show will be twisted in that direction. “Express your fears here, where it is safe, and we will help you exorcise them.”

In fact, I’ve begun looking for other news organizations/media to replace NPR. I’ll review my position in a year.

Democracy Now? I mean, Amy Goodman has already been detained crossing a border. Iraq? China? Iran? Somalia?
No. Mild-mannered Canada: Amy was questioned extensively about the speech she intended to give; their car was gone through by armed border guards, and their papers and laptop computers were scoured. They were detained for well over an hour, and were made an hour late for her speech.

That’s not an unusual ratio for NPR or other networks with the exception of FOX.

Let’s see, this show had a dedicated conservative who can’t ever say a Fox News conservative has done anything which embarrassed her. An ombud who gave the right-wing a dream headline, full of half-truth and imbalance saying “Williams firing was poorly handled”. And a straight-down-the-middle journalism critic.

The Colbert quote “Reality has a well-know liberal bias” was said as satire. Are you trying to prove it? Have you spent so much time watching Fox that you can’t tell when you’re in reality?

ThresherK

On Point and NRP rarely have truly balanced shows. I like NPR but anyone that listens realizes pretty quickly that having 2 guests on one side and 1 guest on the other is fairly routine stuff.

Just a few weeks ago a caller called Tom Ashbrook on it. He had a “liberal” guest for the entire hour and had a “Conservative” guest that from 40 after the hour to the top of the hour- and that was – I assume- “balanced” in their view.

That’s pretty routine on NPR shows.

Some of the comments here make it quite clear that certain posters do not routinely listen to On Point or NPR or they would know there have been many complaints stemming from an overload of right-wing, biased guests outnumbering neutral or left-sided guest, especially on this program, in the past. Try to make time to listen to it more often, you will be amazed.

To George Potts
As a regular NPR listener, I have never heard George Bush called a NAZI, or Barack Obama for that matter.
Your comments need reference, please,

I can understand the pleasure derived from a good old-fashioned football-style show-down, if that is what conservative talk-shows offer. To me, it is a waste of my time. From what I hear on NPR, if it is true that conservatives only get one third the airtime, well, thank you for not wasting my time. They seem to have a lot less than one-third as much of substance to say. Lots of emotionalism, bubble-type effervescence, but not much of anything besides. I use my remote when channel surfing during 6:30 to 7:00 to skim right past certain windbags. There are more such windbags on the right, apparently by Order of the Party Leaders. This is too bad, because whatever the policy substance is, it is likely to be prevailing after November 2nd. So we will find out, one way or the other.

This ought to be a much less important story, if it weren’t for the barracuda-like right-wing blowing it up out of proportion, ready as they always are at a moment’s notice to attack one of their favorite targets, the “political correctness of the left.” NPR was perfectly within its rights to let go of Williams, for the reasons presented by Alicia Shepard in her straightforward explanation: Williams’s comments were only the latest in a long line of statements that compromised his journalistic integrity. He was warned repeatedly not to cross the line, and he continued to do so. We ought to accept what she has to say and leave it at that. I also find her points about Bill O’Reilly’s yelling and talking over people to be well-taken. O’Reilly’s show is not an honest forum on which to exchange ideas of any sort. He is a bully and exults in being one. In hindsight, Williams shouldn’t have been allowed to be on O’Reilly’s show from the start. NPR can be criticized for not reeling him in earlier, as well as for making the decision to fire him abruptly, without personally informing Williams or preparing its member stations; however, the far more important story as I see it is the predictable enthusiasm with which right-wingers like Newt Gingrich have used this occasion to wax sanctimonious and boost their obsessive crusade to “de-fund the left.” Pulling the plug on public funding for NPR is one of those craven fantasies that continually make Gingrich and his ilk, including the odiously partisan Mona Charen, salivate. The fact that Williams has now been swept up by Fox with a two million dollar contract is post-hoc evidence that NPR was right, since Williams has allowed himself to be cynically manipulated by the right for its own purposes.

We should not confuse this with the Shirley Sherrod incident. Again, while it is true that Williams’s comments could be seen to have been taken out of context, as Ms. Shepard rightly notes, context is exactly the point: the full context to the firing was the long line of Williams’s inappropriate comments. (Anyone interested can see my letter to the Globe on July 26th on the Sherrod incident for a related perspective: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/letters/articles/2010/07/26/sherrod_incident_shows_how_fast_liberals_cave_in/)

As far as the oft-parroted criticism of NPR, academia, and the media in general as having a “liberal bias” goes, I have this to say: not all conservatives are stupid people, but most stupid people are conservative. The fact that most well-educated people identify more with liberal values isn’t a fault of some supposed left-wing conspiracy in the schools and the media; it’s rather because modern-day conservatism is thoroughly compromised by anti-intellectualism. People who value open-mindedness naturally recoil from conservatism’s widespread irrationality. Conservatism as it exists today is an intellectually dishonest movement whose primary purpose is to serve the interests of the wealthy and powerful. It is no coincidence that the rise to prominence of our nation’s peculiar brand of conservatism comes at a time of historic levels of wealth inequality, with all its wide-ranging, deleterious effects.

I think so many parts of the media are dissecting Juan Williams and NPR management partly because everyone who is paid for broadcasting has a dog in this fight. Has the KoolAid of objectivity gone a drink too many for NPR? Are they frightening off, throttling, the identities behind the individuals who bring us the news? So they fire Juan Williams ostensibly for something I think we can all see was a sort of set-up by Fox? Let me sell you a bridge in Brooklyn. I get nervous when Trick-or-Treaters come over. When they see me, so do they. So what? If anything, Williams’ remark was an attempt to get in line with the more squeamish of our population, in order to pull them back over the line along with him. The first step to sobriety is facing your faults. Way to go, Juan.
Just, if I were anywhere in the media I would be uber-anxious after that little event. Where exactly is the trip-wire for such firing lines?

It is time the public agreed that Fox Network is not the proper venue for intelligent and thoughtful debate. They have stolen the conversation for too long. It is time we “Restore Sanity” to the level of speech and publicly shame networks like Fox. Don’t let your guest debace the last bastion of thoughtful content as “liberal” and “biassed”. She is flat out WRONG.

Regarding Nina Totenberg’s Helm/AIDS remark perhaps we should look at the video of it and judge if it is being portrayed correctly in posts here and elsewhere.

Nina Totenberg on God Giving Jesse Helms Aids

She is not wishing AIDS on Helms. She says “if there is retributive justice” AIDS may strike Helms and those he loves. This was because Helms was against funding help for homosexuals with AIDS and at some point earlier against funding for aids in Africa.

The NYTimes:

But while Mr. Helms, a conservative standard-bearer, has changed his mind, it is only about the international aspect of the AIDS problem. He has made it clear in recent weeks to reporters in his home state, North Carolina, that his concerns do not extend to AIDS in the United States.

On March 5, he said that the ”homosexual lifestyle” was the cause of the spread of AIDS in this country, and that spending on AIDS research took necessary money away from more worthy areas of study like ”heart problems and other medical defects of humanity.”

That distinction has drawn sharp criticism in North Carolina from advocacy groups for people with AIDS. Today, Bill Brent, executive director of the Alliance of AIDS Services-Carolina, said his group agreed with Mr. Helms’s proposals but thought it was ”a shame he has taken two decades to come to this conclusion, only now as he is leaving office.”

Alicia Shepard and the The CEO of NPR (Schiller) that fired Juan Williams should BOTH be fired – as well as anyone else that was part of that decision. I am happy to listen to your free stuff — but I will NEVER contribute to NPR again until AT LEAST both of the above are fired !!

So Alicia basically stated that Juan should of been fired BECUASE he was on FOX rather than the content of his comment.

Where is the even hand of oversight? Shouldn’t she be as critical of all other networks?

Once I hear the entire comment by Williams I think that his firing on this particular incident was a poor choice. Like the woman who was fired for a sentence without full context,his overall point was the opposite of what is being “cut-and pasted.”

I am not a fan of Williams, and I detest “FOX Noise”, but as I saw the controversy developing I wanted to scream, “As a person of color/black in this country, I’ve been afraid whenever I see a white face since I was a child. I censor my emotional response to a white face–not “garb”–designated every day. My three black sons have the condition exponentially more.
Balance, please!

I think NPR walked into Fox’ trap. Fox thrives on controversy. It gets them viewers and ratings and makes them money. I suspect that Mr. Williams had been planning for a while to leave NPR and go full time with Fox. I’m sure he has a much bigger salary and will have more exposure as a television commentator. What better way to draw attention to your new star than by having his old employer fire him? Sooner or later NPR would reach a breaking point and fire Mr. Williams, and Fox would have tons of free publicity, plenty to rant about with their fellow-travelers, and would provide NPR’s enemies with some great ammunition.

Ms. Charon’s argument is that since every newscaster has a personal opinion we should make the news all about celebrating that opinion. No. It does not follow. Facts can be delivered without reference to personal opinion. Objectivity must still be the goal. Too often “opinion” ignores facts or twists facts. “Opinion” as “news” becomes an argument for a point of view, which when morphs into propaganda.

I challenge Ms. Charon to find the inevitable opinion in this: “Today a force of nearly 600 US soldiers attacked a large encampment of Native Americans who had left their reservations. The encampment contained a large number of warriors as well as women, children, and the elderly. In the ensuing battle, American forces were defeated by an enemy force estimated to number 1800. One unit was led by General George Armstrong Custer. General Custer and all of the 200 men under him were killed in the battle.”

I applaud Tom Ashbrook on today’s show. I imagine it took some courage to spend an entire hour on the subject on an NPR member station — someone with less nerve might have claimed to have covered the subject on last Friday’s weekly roundtable and left it at that. It might have been me, but I thought Tom sounded appropriately skeptical of some of the things that the ombudsman was claiming. I was also relieved that Jack Beatty was not on today’s show – I think we pretty much can guess where he stands on all this.

To NPR listeners like me–without television–Juan Williams was simply a delightful, well-informed, and qualified commentator. His firing was a shock.

I do not watch Fox News and missed his appearances there.

However, it sounds to me like NPR would want its commentators to attempt to balance this network.

We can twist perceptions, talk about NPR ethics codes, or past practices, but it is clear to most rational people that Juan Williams was censored.

He spoke and was fired. NPR is selectively applying its policies and has lost credibility with the US public.

How was it objective to fire him?

Isn’t opposing viewpoints a sign of a strong organization?

I am ceasing my funding of NPR and my local affiliate until NPR apologizes to Mr. Williams. I would like to give to “On Point” however.

Careful, Tom Ashbrook, you are also not towing the NPR party line today and could be looking at a pink slip from the current NPR management practices.

In short, NPR loses credibility; Fox News now gains credibility.

Sad day.

“I keep hearing that there have been all these other problems with Juan Williams and I’d like to hear what the guest is talking about.”

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

Williams’ appearances on Fox News, especially O’Reilly’s show, have caused heartburn repeatedly for NPR over the last few years. Management said he’s been warned several times that O’Reilly is a professional provocateur and to be careful.
In early 2009, Williams said on O’Reilly of Michelle Obama: “She’s got this Stokely Carmichael-in-a-designer-dress thing going. If she starts talking . . . her instinct is to start with this blame America, you know, I’m the victim. If that stuff starts to coming out, people will go bananas and she’ll go from being the new Jackie O. to being something of an albatross.”
After other inflammatory comments on Fox, in April 2008 NPR changed Williams’ role from news correspondent (a reporting job) to news analyst. In this contract position, he was expected to report, think quickly and give his own analysis – while carefully choosing his words on any given subject.
One reason he was fired, according to Vivian Schiller, NPR’s CEO, is that the company felt he wasn’t performing the role of a news analyst:
“News analysts may not take personal public positions on controversial issues; doing so undermines their credibility as analysts, and that’s what’s happened in this situation,” said Schiller in an email to NPR member stations, some of which are upset about Williams’ firing.

Williams supported Imus Firing, Censoring of Rap Music

http://www.juancole.com/2010/10/williams-supported-imus-firing-censoring-of-rap-music.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+juancole%2Fymbn+%28Informed+Comment%29

That’s right, Williams the current crusader for absolute free speech rights wanted to use the Imus affair to close down even more speech, by hundreds of rappers, listened to by millions. Despite being given many opportunities to do so, Williams never in the transcripts I could find said “Imus should not have been fired.” Rather, on NPR he suggested that more minorities and women are in the upper echelons of CBS now, and that they mobilized over this issue.

Last time it happen his contract was changed so like the ombudsman stated this was not the 1st time

For the first time in years, I didn’t listen to WBUR and NPR this morning. I just couldn’t stomach it after what happened.

This isn’t about Fox and the type of organization it is, this is about NPR and what standards it sets for itself. On that mark NPR has fallen short.

Nothing Juan Williams said in his comments could be even remotely construed to justify his dismissal. Attempts to do so further embarrass NPR and WBUR management.

I am happy to see that On Point covered this, but given the purge at the organization and the positions of both NPR and WBUR management, I doubt the value of the coverage. I used to appreciate that I could get different perspectives on WBUR and NPR, understanding there was always a slant to the left, but now I will have to tune to Fox News to get a real taste of a different perspective.

The firing of Juan Williams is evidence of incompetence on the part those NPR personnel directly responsible for that act. Indeed that incompetence is so gross as to now require NPR to demonstrate its own competence, with respect to its own mission, not only by firing those responsible but also by making restitution to Jaun Williams.

In their numerous explanations of the firing, those responsible have repeatedly demonstrated their gross incompetence by exposing their lack of ability to distinguish between fact and opinion. That ability is essential to the competent discharge of their responsibilities, not only to NPR, but also to its supporters and listeners.

Perhaps the single greatest cause of human tragedy, throughout the history of the civilized world, has been the failure to distinguish between feelings and knowledge. Knowledge is conceptual, not emotional.

By accurately reporting a fact, the nature of his own emotional feelings in a certain situation, immediately followed by his own rational analysis of that situation, an analysis that clearly rejected treating those feelings as knowledge, Juan Williams demonstrated the very competence that was lacking in those responsible for his firing.

[Indeed, considering not only the crucial societal importance of his rational analysis, but also the psychology of the millions of listeners who shared his feelings without having yet made such rational analyses for themselves, Juan Williams's remarks were an exemplary demonstration of analytical journalism at its finest.]

To achieve excellence in journalism, it is necessary but not sufficient that analyses merely be valid. It is also necessary that valid analyses be presented in those contexts and in those manners that maximize the probability that listeners who do not already share such analyses will critically reexamine their own positions. By prefacing his rational critical analysis of the stereotyping of Muslims as terrorists with his candid personal expression of emotional affinity with the millions of Fox listeners who were actually guilty of such stereotyping, Juan Williams demonstrated an acute sensitivity to the psychology of those listeners — a sensitivity that is a critical prerequisite for the practice of journalistic excellence.

The hallmark of excellence in journalism is not that it comfort and reassure those who already share the journalist’s analysis but that it provoke and challenge those who have thus far rejected that analysis.

Far too much of what has passed for journalism lately, both at Fox and at NPR, has been “preaching to the choir.” The audiences of both networks have a crucial need for Juan Williams’s level of journalism, and it is ironic that the audiences seem to appreciate that fact better than do those in positions of executive journalistic responsibility.

I agree with Michael. Without having researched on line, I too have heard that Juan Williams was sometimes a problem for NPR. It must be tough for administrators to figure out what to do. Do you put him up for auction, competent black news guy? Various experience in the field?
Ummmmm. It’s just that he marches to a different drummer. (Don’t we all?)
But then I noticed Daniel Schorr died. And Juan Williams was next up to bat, the guy to fill Dan Schorr’s shoes.
What is wrong with this picture? There is no such thing as a substitute for Dan Schorr. And Juan Williams, IMHO, needs to work at being Juan Williams, not a duplicate of some putative ideal news analyst. Maybe he hasn’t found his sealegs yet. Maybe Schiller et al are right to dangle the word psychotherapist. I suppose I’m not the only one who hopes he gets together the internal fortitude to totally change Fox News, from the inside out. I can always dream, right?

Juan Williams lost all credibility a long time ago. I watched him on Fox, dripping with incredulity at a supposed lack of common sense in the healthcare reform bill, and then he would indulge in commentary on NPR where he made it clear he understood the complexity and agreed with most of the goals.

The anti-intellectual stance of Fox News promotes this “don’t mind me, I’m just an ordinary person who thinks clearly, not some ivory tower technocrat who has never done an honest day’s work” mode of discussion, which is very disingenuous and destructive. He played both sides of the fence, there, and I found it incredibly annoying.

I would call upon Jerry Browns’ staffers to describe what he is, and why it’s a good thing that NPR no longer deals with him….

The mere fact that Williams would appear on O’Reilly’s show a man just as guilty of the murder of Doctor Tiller
as the gunman himself should be grounds for his firing. Individuals such as Glenn Beck and the moronic O’Reilly who often boasts that he is “looking out for the folk!” is indicative of the disingenuous he is. Ms. Schiller said that she had cautioned him not to continue on O’Reilly, essentially being a shill for his notorious positions as well as a shill for Fox News, which in reality is not news network but rather a propaganda outlet for the right wing in this country. These people don’t believe in freedom of speech and would no doubt censure and fire anyone on the outlet who said anything contrary to their party line. On Point’s having Mona Charen on to debate this matter is not credible to me because she is often contemptuous of anyone who holds an alternative point of view. And why so much clamor and pity for poor, poor Mr. Williams. Woe is he. He wrung 2 million bucks out of Rupert Murdoch and a platform for himself on that outlet. But you wait when he says something that Roger Ailes and Murdoch disagrees with. And as far as Charen’s contention that NPR has a liberal point of view is ridiculous compared to the right wing crap that Fox delivers. Fox has no compunction about lying, lying without any fear of reaction from their viewers. Indeed their viewers lap it up like hungry dogs. Does anyone recall the Fox outlet that ordered two producers to put on a program that the two of them were aware were untrue. The Fox station fired them for refusing to perpetrate a lie on the public. When the two individuals sued for unlawful firing the station’s defense was that they had a constitutional right to lie and the courts upheld that contention. Fair and Balanced indeed. There is nothing Fair and
Balanced about Fox. Fox is antithetical to the American ethos and has done more damage to this nation than many of its worse enemies.

Roy Merritt
Wilmington, NC

Or this?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/jan/5/20040105-114507-1007r/print/

The difference, Rich Sanchez worked for a dead network, and Juan Williams worked for a dying network.

The difference is that NPR people don’t want to hear anything but the liberal line.

NPR is the new thought police.

I agreed with EJ Dionne’s comment made on Meet The Press on Sunday.

Dionne said that he felt that NPR should not have fired Williams, but rather should have told him that his work with Fox was incompatible with the work he does at NPR.

At that point, he should have been given a choice, either resign from Fox or resign from NPR.

In that way, he would not have been fired but rather have chosen to resign.

That’s right, Jack Shultz, NPR HAS NO ROOM FOR ANYONE WHO ISN’T A HARD LINE LEFT WINGER.

Did you hear everything that Juan Williams said on Fox?

More examples of NPR bias – Jack Beatty called Reagan a Bolshevik.

http://www.onpointradio.org/2009/05/week-in-the-news-23

I believe NPR has shot themselves in the foot, and the bullet may have bounced into the Golden Goose.

“bigot” means someone intolerant of views differing from their own. NPR is the bigot here, not Mr. Williams.

Mr. Williams told us how he truthfully feels. He wasn’t intolerant, merely fearful. Nothing wrong with that. Apparently NPR prefers their analysts lie to us. Ah, at least it’s out in the open now.

For those who think it was the right thing, done poorly; ridiculous. Hypocrital snobs and leftist elitists all.

Schadenfreude! NPR, you couldn’t be more deserving of this firestorm of criticism and controversy. I’ll be surprised if it doesn’t rub off on the state public radio outlets too! I can only hope it destroys your fund raising abilities, and you can all retire to Europe and renounce your US citizenship like you always dream of.

David Kennison, you have nailed this issue. I completely agree with each of your conclusions!

Roberto, 10:17 a.m., today (Oct. 25),

Thanks for your reply. You substantiate your own POV very well; we have different feelings about “free” materials on the web (I’m thinking of NPR and PBS freebies), and I fear that a strident stance from offended listeners to NOT send in their regular donations will throw the baby out with the bath water, but you make your case for Logical Consequences very thoughtfully, and I do enjoy thinking about opposite POV’s. Thanks!

• “That’s right, Jack Shultz, NPR HAS NO ROOM FOR ANYONE WHO ISN’T A HARD LINE LEFT WINGER.

Did you hear everything that Juan Williams said on Fox?

Yea just look at each Friday, that dam liberal David Brooks on ATC, That dam Liberal Byron York (often times) on Diane R. York btw wrote an parstian book against liberals, or Like Last week interviewing Newt G. on this thoughts about this election cycle, How about David F on market place? Matthew Continetti. Or the current (sic) ad from Public Notice playing on WBUR and NPR,

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1180

NPR actually relies on more think tanks and PAC from the right to center than the left
CENTER/RIGHT THINK TANKS

For analysis, NPR often turned to D.C-based think tanks. Think tanks of the establishment center like the Brookings Institution (11 appearances) and conservatives think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute (eight appearances) were well-represented . Only one group that might be considered left of center (the National Security Archive, with two appearance) was among the 10 think tanks used two or more times. The leading multi-issue think tanks of the left, the Institute for Policy Studies, was never used as a source.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2605

I don’t get why (other than because they’re perpetual whiners about being oppressed) the right-wingers are criticising NPR for firing Williams. Why just this morning I heard a recording of Sarah Palin saying that if an employer is unhappy with an employee they should fire him. NPR is just as much a corporation as Faux News & should have the same rights.

For virtually my entire life I’ve heard that NPR is leftist.

Is Car Talk a Marxist show because they encourage folks to repair their cars rather than buy new ones like good capitalists?

NPR has been dismissing studies done by FAIR for years. So it even though FAIR studies would support NPR’s position regarding the Juan Williams affair, NPR cannot now use this data to strengthen its case for firing William. Oh the irony, NPR!

Regarding William on FoxNews; he will become the Black Bernard Goldberg, just not as popular. And eventually, he will be given some pseudo-academic sounding title of “Senior Fellow” at The American Heritage Institute. His specialty, of course, will be “race in American politics” or “race and media studies.”

Let’s hope that Juan Williams shows up on NPR as a go-to expert in his preferred field. That would make this story come full circle.

And so, it goes…

Fox News is not a suitable venue for NPR employees to speak on? Ugh…I don’t know if I agree with everythin Juan Williams has ever said but he was one of the few hosts who could speak effectively both on NPR and Fox. The world has gotten a little smaller today and everyone should be sad.

Why wasn’t Juan invited back to NPR to have a thoughtful measured response on FOX. Rather than using this an an opportunity for an open dialogue, the termination of Juan Williams has a chilling effect on the dialogue at NPR. How can NPR remain relevant without it?

juan wiiliams needed to go. he was really just a cookie for o’reilly who would pretend to debate his boss with a half-hearted liberal viewpoint. in other words he was a joe morton – nice, safe and non-threatening.

Tom, you are a tough interviewer, and I appreciate your discussion with the NPR Ombudsman today. I am an NPR listener who is disturbed by this entire Juan Williams affair. I am disturbed because NPR is tarnishing its reputation. The more the network leadership attempts to explain this, the worse they look. A few days and several explanations later, this looks like a kneejerk firing by the CEO, who said some ill-advised and immature things (she later apologized), backed up by an ombudsman who finds herself trying to defend this decision. NPR should be a bastion of free speech, but instead finds itself making Fox look like a network of reasonable people–a sad situation.

“Muslim garb”??!! I wish you wouldn’t get more anxious again Mr. Juan Williams!! http://bit.ly/a94Au5

I am tired of Obama appeasing the radical Muslims.

Fine Peter, then Juan Williams can continue to raise his points on Fox. This was not a matter of Williams waltzing towards legitimate points- it was the conflict between NPR trying to maintain standards of journalism ( particularly with “analysts” they employ) and that analyst engaging in and sucking up to Fox bias and trash talk. This was not about these particular comments so much as a last straw (as was said on the show). Williams was making valid points ultimately but he was also validating ignorant reaction/emotions. He had been warned by PBS about the conflict between his two masters, one interested in quality journalism, the other in propaganda, controversy and bias. As it turns out- Williams was making his choice.

Anyone not supporting their local PBS station a over this is helping corporate ownership of the news and in the process making an excuse for not shelling out ( probably while continuing to listen). Listener support of PBS is critical, more critical than government support especially if you want more quality in this divided political atmosphere.

There has been talk during the show about journalists taking a dispassionate, or detached, viewpoint in their work with news organizations such as NPR.

I would contend, from years of experience as a reporter and editor, that a reporter or commentator may start hewing to that ethic but that it actually becomes not so much a detached viewpoint as one that, from experience, knows every situation is so complex that hipshot opinions don’t wash. The experience of through reporting itself creates a reporter not detached but respectful of the intricacies of every story and every situation.

NPR made 2 big mistakes:

1st. Firing him for his latest comment.
2nd. To not having fired him before.

When I saw him on Fox news, I was asking me who is this little old aggressive man.

Bravo NPR.
Now he just won a 2M$ deal. Shut up and say thanks you to the management of NPR.

First, why has this conversation degenerated into a personal attack on NPR, with labels of goody do-gooders, liberal and left, and right and ultraconservative being bandied about? Are these the terms to which all Americans must be now pegged and classified? Can no one lucidly express an opinion without attacking another group? It saddens me that we as adults are setting such poor examples for our youth, and as Americans, conveying such a poor impression to other countries that we are only capable of petty and myopic thinking.

In terms of firing Juan Williams, it is obvious many listeners have strong feelings on the subject. What this discourse will hopefully bring forth are clearer definitions on the implications of liability when politicians/journalists/employees in the public view express racist or inflammatory views, as well as appropriate termination policies.

NPR was right in firing Juan. He has been a “Fox in sheep’s clothing” for a very long time. He just messed up and let his true thoughts slip out. Oops! See ya Juan!

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1459090

NPR should have fired Williams long time ago, he is not a news analyst any more. What he does is agree and say things that the right wingers and fox pundits will want him to say. You cant allow people to use hypocrisy on your name, the fact that you cant say something negative about Christians, Jews, Blacks,Hispanics also applies to Muslims.

I completely agree with the decision of NPR to let Juan Williams go. His subsequent comments om Fox only confirmed the rational basis of this decision.

I was a bit (only a bit, given the show’s past leaning towards sensationalism) surprised that Tom Ashcroft devoted so much time to second guessing this conclusion. A great shame for Muslim-Americans that this particular issue was the proximate cause of this generally insensitive guy’s dismissal…

If there was anything good to come out of this, it was surely the reputation of the NPR ombudsman: she did a great job of explaining the issue in a calm, thoughtful way.

I can’t comment on NPR’s decision since I don’t know the history w/ Williams before this incident. However, what confuses and surprises me is why Williams would seemingly run into the proverbial arms of FOX after being dismissed by NPR. What’s THAT about! If he considers himself a proponent of journalism that’s not shock-yell-and-awe, why would he JOIN FOX news?! I find that very odd. $2M is attractive of course, but couldn’t he have waited and picked something more respected and still earned a living? Williams has sold out.

Political correctness is what’s harming the “neutral” news media. The political bias of a left-leaning news organization often manifests itself in the form of political correctness: the questions not asked and thus the opinions not aired. This can create a divergence in content between ordinary kitchen table conversations and news media conversations, and the result is a suspicion among consumers that the full range of perspective is not getting aired. Being politically correct destroys trust and decreases relevance.

I just heard this whole discussion. I kept hearing the idea that NPR needs to “admit it has a point of view” and balance liberal voices with conservative ones; the admittedly conservative anti-NPR lady even said NPR should abandon its quest for neutrality altogether. So frustrating that no one got at the real point, which is more than right versus left versus middle, and advancing a pre-determined point of view.

When you think in the “versus” way, you start with a perspective and look for the evidence that supports it. Everything you report is agenda-driven (rather than fact-driven). Thus people with different perspectives will never dialogue and will grow to hate and despise each other’s narrow-mindedness. Why did Tom Ashbrook not confront this deeply flawed approach to thinking?

The real way to think is start with as much objectivity as possible, gather facts, and THEN craft a point of view on a specific issue. Letting a label do your thinking for you is dangerous. Even if pure objectivity is not possible, one can strive for it by keeping a mind open to the best available facts. I am so sick of this pressure to balance by putting one conservative blah blah head up against one liberal one. He said/She said. (More like He yelled/She yelled.) That’s 100% of what is wrong with American media today, and SADLY I’ve noticed it more and more on NPR. The least you people at NPR can do is balance some conservatives and liberals (people who have made up their mind before the question was asked) with some objectivists (people who try to make decisions based on facts). At least it is my hope that NPR will seek fact-based, thoughtful objectivity every time I make my donation to support it.

I’d like very much to know why Williams was fired for saying what every intelligent American feels about being on a plane with Muslims (I suspect even other Muslims are afraid to fly on a plane with Muslims they don’t know), while someone like Nina Totenberg still has a job after actually saying she hoped General Boykin would get killed in the war?

Frank Deford and Terry Gross both say something controversial, and often hateful, nearly every week.

Really NPR, if you want to bill yourselves as somehow offering “objective journalism”, you might want to consider giving back the 1.8 billion dollars you took from liberal kingpin—George Soros….

Enjoyed seeing Charles Krauthammer on another show this weekend directly ask NPR CORRESPONDENT (not analyst) Nina Totenberg why Juan was fired and she was allowed to be on other shows and giver her opinion since she isn’t an analyst.

Nina couldn’t answer the question.

Great job NPR. Your bias is obvious.

I think taking a job at Fox news shows his flimsy convictions and dhows how journalists overall have no convictions but follow the money, pawns of fascists. They will say and do anything for money and ratings. America is void of any real ethics. A black hole.

It is impressive how many people, NPR guests and hosts included, are so impoverished in their ability to differentiate between the concepts of opinion and fact. Mr. Williams did not voice an opinion when he said he gets “worried” when he sees muslims on a plane “identifying themselves first and foremost as muslims.” He voiced an observation, or asserted a fact. The fact he asserted is his typical emotional response to seeing muslims on a plane that he is on. He later iterated his opinion that not all such muslims are extremists. Such confusion between fact and opinion are evidence of the intellectual poverty that NPR’s decision makers are suffering from.

Luckily there are people in the media who can separate their emotional reactions from their opinion, especially considering the majority of humanity doesn’t seem to be able to do any such thing. Such a rare talent is not only refreshing in a largely intellectually shallow media culture, it is neccesary to understand and react appropriately to the viceral issues that NPR claims to take on.

The NPR’s firing of Mr. Williams over his intellectual honesty is indicative of NPR’s typical failure mode. That is, NPR gives in depth coverage to issues from a left of center point of view and at times only cursory coverage to the oposing viewpoint.

The problem with NPR’s assertion that voiceing opinions does not upholding it’s “rigourous” journalistic standards for analysts is at best grossly innacurate, if not laughable. Opinions by hosts and analysts abound on NPR. What does not abound is thourough and deep analysis of contentious issues that get to the heart of the disagreement of the various perspectives. One example that I can think of is Gay marriage. I have never heard a host characterize the debate as anything but a civil rights issue. The problem is that the opposition to gay marriage does not define the issue as one dealing with civil rights. If we are to understand the opposition, rather than simply dismiss their arguments as bigotted, we must understand the arguement against marriage as a civil right. Regardless of where one stands on the issue, the analysis of what exactly marriage is under law, and whether it is a civil right cannot do anything but edify all sides of the conflict. NPR does it’s listeners a disservice by analyzing the issue primarily from the “marriage as a civil right” perspective.

If NPR is so worried about maintaining its editorial standards it should start by enforcing such standards in its own editorial endeavors. Not by worrying about what FOX News does.

Wow, according to Karl Popper, and most of the scientific world, scientific fact (and by that I assume you mean something scientifically proven to be always true) does not exist. What does exist is well corroborated scientific theory, which has proven to be wrong in most cases to date. If there is anything for sure it is that the current theories on global warming are wrong. What is debateable is how wrong they are. As a sceptic, which is generally a leftist thing to be, I have to say that a religion of science is everybit as uncritical as the most faithbased fundamentalist perspective.

I love NPR. I listen to get the liberal perspective. Some days liberal means free, some days it means unbridled. It balances the right wing perspective, which some days means free, some days means killer-religion. That is the reality of it. Left wing thinks they are down-to-earth; right-wing thinks they are down-to-earth. Fact is they are both in the same pot calling the kettle black. It’s great! Tax payers should not have to pay for left-wing agendas, though, which is the point that demands more open perspectives on NPR or you don’t get our money. It is simply not possible for human beings to be unbiased; there are just varying degrees of skill at subduing emotion, better actors but no robots. Intellectual honesty is always better than milk-toast acting.

Jason you took up a lot of space to post a bunch of hogwash.

Gee the next time I’m on a plane should I be scared of all the Evangelicals waiting and hoping for Armageddon.

I will miss Juan Williams’ thoughtful political commentary. I found it hard to credit my ears while listening to Alicia Shepard, NPR’s ombudsman. She spent more time indicting the tenor of Bill O’Reilly than she did explaining why Mr. Williams was let go. Bill O’Reilly’s manner is not my cup of tea but he’s out there, has a following, and, at times, he even makes good arguments. That an emissary from the polite world of NPR discussion could visit Fox, present a more liberal view that O’Reilly’s partisans are accustomed to, and give as good as he got in the yelling arena that arises on the show seems like a good, not a bad thing.

The most frustrating thing about listening to the show was that Alicia Shepard never listed all that long line of previous run-ins that Williams had had with NPR. It kept coming up that there was such a long list, but we never heard it. The show had me yelling at my car radio to give us other examples.

Whoever was producing the show should have made sure that this point was addressed — it was the whole basis of Shepard’s argument that it wasn’t just about this one remark. It would have been more useful if we could have heard about this alleged pattern of behavior, instead of always going back to the “I’m not a bigot, but…” sequence.

Talk about liberal bias — where on this program was the counterbalance to Mona Charen? Williams is no liberal, and NPR is not liberally biased, unless you count raw, flat facts as liberal-slanted. Why didn’t we hear that Williams was the only NPR journalist that Bush considered safe enough to allow an interview?

The firing was a travesty and a disaster for NPR and all the local stations, who will suffer for this hamhanded, politically deaf kneejerk reaction (support your local station — it’s not their fault that incompetent people run the national PBS network). PBS CEO Vivian Schiller should resign, they should reinstate Williams for the rest of his contract, and then they should not rehire him of they don’t like the way he behaves.

Juan Williams’ firing was corporate thinking at its finest, a knee jerk reaction. Mr. Williams obviusly angered someone high on the food chain for his appearance on Fox and was gone. And for that action, NPR is going to have to take its lumps.
A better way would have been to talk to him about his appearance and not renew his contract at review time/end of contract.
Historically, despite Mr. Williams’ obvious talent, it has been considered a no-no to appear on your competitor’s outlet.
It always has been a sticky situation to fire a radio/television on-air personality. When Arthur Godfrey fired Julius LaRossa, members of Congress wanted to investigate.
On the subject of news and journalism; It used to be that journalism was fair and impartial. That maxium was the gold standard. Today, there are many so-called journalists who inject their feelings and opinions into their work. Some cry on the air. Instead of being fair & imparial, there seems to be a call for feelings and opinions dressed up as news, the more the merrier. Maybe the pendulum will start to swing back the other way.
On representation on Public Radio ; There is nothiing in my reading in the Public Radio Act which states that individual groups have to given a voice. Conservatives seem to have this wrong headed notion that they should get a voice on Public Radio because their tax dollars help pay the cost of Public Radio. This idea is like saying you should have the right to drive down a road first because your tax dollars help build & maintain that road. This is folly.
If such were the case, every group or self interest would demand a voice on Public Radio. Public Radio would become a audio Tower Of Babel.
On mistakes; Nobody is perfect. Hopefully, NPR can pick itself back up (after falling down on this Juan Williams matter), dusted itself off and continue forward.
Basically, NPR is like the man who once said, “When I do a good job, it is a great job. When I make a mistake, it is a great mistake.
Also, like the man who said, “Stay tuned, there’s more to come.”

The link from Frontline (opinion) above: Juan Williams and the Million to 1 Fear

steve e you should get your facts straight. The terrorist who were responsible for 9/11 were dressed in western garb. Some of them did not seem to be that religious in terms of following the Islam in the orthodox manner you describe.

I don’t have these thoughts when I see Muslim women who dress in traditional clothing. I can’t tell about the men I see in airports or on planes as they are dressed in western clothing.

As for Joan your antics are pathetic.

It seems to me after listening to this show and the amount of comments here that NPR has made a grave mistake. I agree with criticism of Alicia Shepard who seemed defensive and did not have any good answers.

Williams should have been given a stern warning and if he wanted to resign that would have been a better out.
Fire him has made NPR look like fools.

I also think this sheds a light on the new President of NPR who seems to have created a lot of these issues.
Maybe she should go.

Have to agree with Chris who posted right before me. “Jack Beatty is straight from the Freaking Soviet Politburo” is a little extreme, but he was the one person I immediatly thought about as a person who expresses his left leaning opinions all the time.

But I still love your show!

I despise Fox News, but at least I’m not forced to pay for it with tax dollars. NPR has every right to fire Juan Williams because he said something politically incorrect. Just as ABC has every right to fire Bill Maher for remarks me made about 9/11. It should be our right as taxpayers not to be forced to subsidize NPR’s agenda, which in my view leans left, statist, big-government, and corporatist. Full disclosure – I tend toward libertarian.

“Take a listen to Morning Edition and check out how Steve Inskeep tosses softballs to liberal guests and hardballs to conservative guests,”

yet your own assertion of the above statement is clearly an lie as well, as seen from the Interview of Meg Whitman (an Conservative btw) and softball questions directed her way by Frank James, also just today NPR took down and posted an link to another source on the Rand Paul Supporter Male who works on Paul campaign and stomping the head of an moveon.org female

Put hey he apologize (sort of)
Profitt apologized — sort of — while claiming that his stomping on a woman’s face only looked bad because of the camera angles.

As for the others involved in the assault? Bloggers — including Tea Party members — seem to have identified one of the men who held Valle down while Profitt stepped on her head. The guy is named Mike Pezzano and, yes, while he aided in the attack he was literally wearing a “Don’t Tread on Me” pin.

Valle was diagnosed with mild sprains and a concussion, and said to reporters that her attackers threatened to “take someone out” before they wrestled her to the ground. She is scheduled to appear on MSNBC’s “Countdown” tonight.

The Paul campaign fired Profitt and banned him from future events. And, of course, there is a picture of Paul with the head-stomper himself.

amazing how NPR choose not to report this or cover it today must be that liberal biased working there

http://www.salon.com/news/
rand_paul_kentucky_senate_republican/?story=/politics/war_room/2010/10/26/rand_paul_head_stomper_confesses

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2010/10/26/130843765/meg-whitman-explains-all-the-bad-stuff-to-npr

I don’t think he should have been fired for making that comment, even though it was stupid and based on irrational fears. A simple reprimand and perhaps a little enlightenment was all he needed. Now his comments will only get worse and reach a completely unenlightened audience.

His greater sin is to move over to Fox “News”, where he will be trained to become an absolute bigot supreme. Even if you’re bitter about being fired, moving to Fox is like selling your soul to the devil.

this debate is so shallow–it is complete nonsense.

There is no mainstream media coompany in America on the left–nonsense. Its all center-right to far right. There is no objectivity. NPR is certainly the most balanced mainstream radio station but it is shallow and often a waste of time. Fox certainly wouldnt allow anyone to say the war is a lie and a crime agains thumanity. What radio station in America would? All mainstream media is monitored by fascist police and fed by governemnt–pure propaganda and misinformation–making this argument completely irrational and laughbale.

People lean to the left when they touch on the truth or tell the truth. The left equals logic, reason, humanity, compassion, wisdom. The right is and always has been complete nonsense. To say otherwise is just wrong. Those in the center are ignorant and cowardly. Those on the right are completely insane and living in a irrational brainwashed dreamworld –that is psychotic.

If you want to listen to objective reasoning and truth and real news and analaysis you should be listening to indepndent radio, community radio–true democracy.

How can any institution be democratic or represent democracy or free press if its financed by corporations? it can not. So to listen to it is to ignore the truth. It is to willfully choose lies.

Any other view of the world is simply wrong, bias, and irrational.

Tom, I am a regular listener to On Point. I especially appreciate the wonderfully diverse and eclectic subject matters of your programs, and your own personal enthusiasm for the topics at hand. I regret that NPR has chosen to stifle the voice of Juan Williams. We are all lessened when any voice for reason is not given a forum. I like to hear all sides of an issue. NPR needs to reconsider the ramifications of this action.

What I don’t understand is why NPR gave Williams a Fox-style firing instead of an NPR-style sit-down conversation.

“Mr. Williams, it’s time to choose. Come on board with NPR, appear on our shows, and offer our listeners — who expect only excellence from us — the benefit of your many years in journalism to give high quality news analysis. Or, let’s part ways amicably, and we’ll invite you back as a guest from time to time. What do you say?”

Because it WAS time for Juan Williams to choose. It was unseemly to have him exchanging opinions and engaging in shouting matches with blowhards and bigots. He was using his own credibility AND the credibility of NPR to dignify the squalors of a race-baiting, fear-mongering, mud-slinging propaganda outfit.

Unfortunately, the way NPR handled this gave the frenzy makers at Fox perfect fodder for their phony outrage.

I just listened to the episode of Bill O’Reilly ( on youtube) with Juan Williams plus another Fox analyst and I hear Williams saying the now famous lines. But the discussion that follows is so muddled and filled with each one talking over the other that the mitigating points are not really made by Juan. O’Reilly gets HIS point in and is also clearly putting Juan down for being a liberal from NPR. To me the discussion seemed to end sanctioning the anti-Muslim feelings.

I do not like the left biased reporting and suppression of thought espoused by NPR. I don’t like the combative style and superficial reporting espoused by Fox. However, I do not think NPR will benefit from entering into this “Fox versus NPR” childishness. This country needs a thoughtful analytical news outlet that deals with topics in an open-minded way and just does not “preach to the converted”. Please think about this.

One critical word was noticeably absent from this whole discussion: analysis. In all the debate about facts vs. opinion we need to remember that the role of pundits, public intellectuals and news hosts is to provide the listener with insight because of the presentation of new information and ANALYSIS. The expression of opinion has very limited value: rhetoric and admission of bias; otherwise we need to elevate the importance of analysis at the expense of widely broadcasting unsubstantiated opinions.

I understand that NPR has the right to fire an employee, but the timing leaves public radio in a precarious situation. It seems as if they are punishing someone for saying something heartfelt, which is not to say it was ok. But I think that’s the point Mr. William was trying to make. He was admitting to feelings that are not ideal and probably based on ignorance, but he was trying to work through those feelings with a viewership who probably need to work through those same feelings.

If NPR wanted to fire Mr. Williams, fine. But to do so in this episode makes it seem like we don’t want to have painful conversations in public, which is the only real way we can get past our prejudices–whether they be religious, racial or anything else.

I LOVED THIS COMMENT ABOVE:
“Of all the NPR reporters JW is the ONLY one who let his political leanings known in his reporting. It irked me to no end to hear comments that left no doubt of his conservative leanings. The guests on NPR get to make their opinions known-but the interviewers should not. I am glad he is gone from NPr and as I NEVER watch Fox the only time I’ll hopefully have to hear about him is on Keith Olberman’s Worst list!!”
THIS LISTENER IS CLEARLY A VERY OPEN-MINDED LEFTIST WHO NOT ONLY ISN’T “IRKED” BY LEFTISTS LIKE TERRY GROSS, THE LISTENER DOESN’T WANT TO BE “IRKED” BY OPPOSING VIEWS. PLUS, THIS LISTENER HAS STRONG ANTI-FOX SENTIMENTS, BUT “NEVER” WATCHES FOX!!!!!!! NOW THAT A LISTENER TO BE PROUD OF!!

Let’s cut to the chase here…..NPR has blatantly discriminated against their “News Analyst” Juan Williams. Supposedly Williams violated NPR dictates that it’s “News Analysts” should not express ‘personal opinions’ that some might interpet as being ‘controversial’. Fair enough.

But OTHER NPR News Analysts have violated this rule on a number of occasions…..namely Cokie Roberts and Ted Koppel.(Who are both listed as News Analysts on the NPR website.) Just recently, Ms Roberts opined that Glenn Beck was a ‘circus clown’ and that he is ‘more like a terrorist’. Now regardless of your opinion of Beck, Roberts was clearly expressing a personal opinion that many citizens would undoubtedly find to be controversial and offensive. Earlier (in discussing film director Roman Polanski) , she said (again, personal opinion) “Just take him out and shoot him,”
There is no evidence that Ms Roberts has been warned or disciplined in any way for such ‘opinions’…..a practice that she has engaged in for years.
Yes, NPR can fire Mr Williams for ’cause’….but if NPR winks at the very same behavior by fellow News Analysts Cokie Roberts, etc, …..then it is patently guilty of gross discrimination. Period.