The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Oct 21, 2010 22:22:50 GMT -5
Why is that relevant to this discussion? Williams' comments were not true - they were untrue fearmongering. Do you really think that a person who's going to hijack a plane is going to dress up in full Muslim garb? Come on! Our enemies may be evil, but they're not stupid. An attacker with even a tiny dose of intelligence is going to do what the 9/11 hijackers did - dress up in Western clothing in order to blend in. If you put all the passengers on a plane in a lineup and asked me to pick out the one who's LEAST likely to carry out a terrorist act on that flight, I'm going to pick out the guy in full Muslim garb. Being controversial is fine. Spreading false ideas in order to scare people isn't. Williams wasn't spreading false ideas in order to scare people. He didn't tell people to beware of Muslims or people in Muslim garb, this wasn't a tactical recommendation for crying out loud. He confessed to thinking naughty thoughts -- that even though he's a dyed in the wool good-thinking NPR liberal progressive, when he sees people on a plane in Muslim garb, his immediate reaction is one of nervousness. I also think anyone who traipses around in full Muslim garb should not be surprised when people treat them "differently" than integrated Muslims. They are intentionally doing it for some reason, and we can all cross our fingers and hope it's because the outfits are uber-comfortable. They could choose to avoid the reactions they get from normal America, but they opt not to. It's more likely they want to shock and/or intimidate others. Why did an American-born Palestinian like Nidal Hassan decide to put on full Pashtun dress before his killing spree at Fort Hood? Because a dude in an Armani Express t-shirt or even traditional Palestinian dress just didn't fit the image he wanted to project that day. I didn't see his comments as confessing to naughty thoughts, I saw his comments as saying that people in Muslim garb on a plane are a threat. If he was indeed confessing to naughty thoughts, he did a very poor job of making that clear. To me he was implying, "I'm the ultimate anti-racist and I get scared about Muslims on planes, therefore it's okay for you - the Fox News viewer - to get scared about Muslims on planes." I also think the average Fox News viewer would take his comments that way, so at the very least his comments were innocent but dangerous. As for your second comment that people in Muslim garb are trying to "shock and intimidate others," I couldn't disagree more. I was close friends with some Pakistanis at Georgetown, some of whom wore Muslim garb all or some of the time. They didn't wear it to shock and intimidate others, they wore it because it was more comfortable to them - not in a physical sense but a cultural sense. When Americans go overseas they generally wear American clothing, even if that's not the norm in the country they're in. So why is it so bad for Pakistanis (or other Muslims) to wear their normal clothes when they're in the US? The comment about Hassan is a logical leap of the worst kind. Nidal Hasan was trying to project the image of a Jihadist with his (non-native) Pashtun garb, so everybody in Pashtun garb is trying to project the image of an Jihadist? |
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,911
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Oct 21, 2010 22:42:31 GMT -5
While I don't disagree this was really PC, what's the teaching moment and why is "gentrified" relevant? WilsonBlvdHoya and I have argued about this topic before, so I'll try to restate it: NPR is less and less about "public" radio and more a narrowcast, a presentation to a urban, upscale and self-selecting audience that is not always tolerant of views and voices that do not fit the dulcet tones of progressivism that NPR is drawn to. "Gentrified" may be more of a generalization but it seems ill-suited and less eager for meaningful bipartisan debate. The "teachable" moment would have been to allow Williams and other NPR hosts to devote time into how we pre-judge others and why this is or is not a clear and present danger for Americans going forward. Williams was especially irritated that he was not even allowed to come back to the NPR offices to discuss the issue after having worked there 10 years, and it was more than intimated by Bill O'Reilly that Williams was let go because of his affiliations with Fox. We're now going to see Fox get on the big bandwagon to end public funding for NPR, and at least one Senator has already announced he'll introduce legislation to do so in the next term. What Williams said was stupid, but not a fireable offense. He put a lot of time into NPR and seems genuinely saddened by the turn of events. |
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,480
|
Post by TC on Oct 21, 2010 23:02:28 GMT -5
I didn't see his comments as confessing to naughty thoughts, I saw his comments as saying that people in Muslim garb on a plane are a threat. If he was indeed confessing to naughty thoughts, he did a very poor job of making that clear. He said they made him nervous and worried. I read that as him expressing an irrational fear - he didn't assert anything about the Muslims themselves - that airport security should be treating them differently or anything like that, he expressed how their appearance made him feel. My favorite part of those comments was his disclaimer though. If you have to precede something with a disclaimer about how you're not bigoted and give your non-bigot cred, odds are you are about to say something bigoted. And he did. An irrational fear about a group of people different from yourself is pretty much the texbook definition of bigotry. |
|
|
|
Post by WilsonBlvdHoya on Oct 22, 2010 7:35:14 GMT -5
I ironically agree with DFW that this was a teachable moment and not a fireable offense but, let's face it, Juan Williams has been migrating to FOX for a while now from a coverage standpoint so this is not a huge surprise. He let his inner id slip and voice what many people wouldn't say in public. It was poor judgment on his part as a journalist but yes NPR pulled the trigger too quickly. At FOX, he'll be free to voice all of his non-PC biases now!  OTOH, DFW's characterization of NPR is classist in my view. NPR is broadcast across the entire country; not just on the Upper West Side, Takoma Park and Berkeley. It caters to those of us who wish to hear critical coverage of world events, speaks truth to power in a way that evokes memories of Edward R. Murrow, and is an invaluable asset in American radio journalism that is increasingly characterized by banal "infotainment" if not crass hucksterism/chicanery (Limbaugh, Beck, et. al). |
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Oct 22, 2010 8:12:17 GMT -5
There was nothing wrong with what Juan said. He was expressing what many people feel, whether you like it or not. It was PC run wild. I say this even though I have little regard for Juan who is left of center but, more importantly to me, a lightweight.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,869
|
Post by thebin on Oct 22, 2010 8:18:22 GMT -5
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Oct 22, 2010 9:28:53 GMT -5
I'm still not convinced that Williams was just trying to discuss the perils of bigotry. If he was trying to do that, he did a very poor job of making himself clear. In the other parts of the conversation with O'Reilly, Williams says that the extremists are the problem and that there are "good Muslims." That's all well and good, but Williams seemed to be implying earlier that when people dress in Muslim garb they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, thus making them part of the extremists (why else would he be scared of them?). I think there's two very dangerous and false logical leaps in there. First, he's assuming that people who dress in Muslim garb are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims. That's false. After all, an American who goes to Pakistan and dresses in jeans and a t-shirt usually isn't identifying themselves first and foremost as an American - they're just wearing stuff that they're comfortable wearing. Second, he's assuming that people who identify first and foremost as Muslims are people to be feared, especially on an airliner. Again, I think that's wrong. There are plenty of Muslims out there who are deeply religious and who identify very strongly with their faith who wholeheartedly reject violent Islamic radicalism. In fact, I'd say the overwhelming majority of devout Muslims in this world wholeheartedly reject violence in the name of Islam, especially against innocent civilians. Unfortunately, we don't hear much about them. We hear all about the 4 flights that were hijacked by violent Islamic radicals on 9/11, but we hear virtually nothing about the millions of flights since then that have carried devout Muslims around the US without any incident. Let's put it this way: Devout Muslims do indeed have a history, albeit a very small one, of carrying out attacks onboard American airliners. Irish Catholics have a much larger history of carrying out attacks in public spaces in Northern Ireland. Should we be afraid of somebody in a Catholic priest's clothing in a public square in Northern Ireland? After all, according to Williams' logic they're dressing in "Catholic garb" and therefore identifying themselves first and foremost as Catholic. Therefore, according to his logic and the history of Catholics in Northern Ireland, we should be afraid of the person wearing a priest's clothes. But all of us here know that fearing that person would be ridiculous, and fearing the person in Muslim garb would be just as ridiculous. It's just irrational fearmongering. |
|
|
|
Post by hoyawatcher on Oct 22, 2010 9:29:39 GMT -5
OTOH, DFW's characterization of NPR is classist in my view. NPR is broadcast across the entire country; not just on the Upper West Side, Takoma Park and Berkeley. It caters to those of us who wish to hear critical coverage of world events, speaks truth to power in a way that evokes memories of Edward R. Murrow, and is an invaluable asset in American radio journalism that is increasingly characterized by banal "infotainment" if not crass hucksterism/chicanery (Limbaugh, Beck, et. al). Yep - NPR is all about critical coverage and always evokes the highest ideals of journalism. That is why they fire Juan Williams but find it fine to host a highfalutin video about "How to speak Teabag". Yep highest ideals of critical journalism at play there. Way different than Rush and certainly not looking to offend anyone there for sure  www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120344047Look NPR is what it is - a left leaning PC network that does have some very good international and personal interest stuff - but a definite liberal PC slant. That is actually fine but don't wrap it up in banalities about it being way above the norm and don't fund it with public money when it doesn't support the views of at least half the country and mocks the views of many. |
|
|
|
Post by WilsonBlvdHoya on Oct 22, 2010 9:44:17 GMT -5
OTOH, DFW's characterization of NPR is classist in my view. NPR is broadcast across the entire country; not just on the Upper West Side, Takoma Park and Berkeley. It caters to those of us who wish to hear critical coverage of world events, speaks truth to power in a way that evokes memories of Edward R. Murrow, and is an invaluable asset in American radio journalism that is increasingly characterized by banal "infotainment" if not crass hucksterism/chicanery (Limbaugh, Beck, et. al). Yep - NPR is all about critical coverage and always evokes the highest ideals of journalism. That is why they fire Juan Williams but find it fine to host a highfalutin video about "How to speak Teabag". Yep highest ideals of critical journalism at play there. Way different than Rush and certainly not looking to offend anyone there for sure www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120344047Look NPR is what it is - a left leaning PC network that does have some very good international and personal interest stuff - but a definite liberal PC slant. That is actually fine but don't wrap it up in banalities about it being way above the norm and don't fund it with public money when it doesn't support the views of at least half the country and mocks the views of many. Interesting that the link you post from NPR links to another "PC" site the National Review!!! ;D Look, if you don't like Mark Fiore (and it's an editorial CARTOON by the way), then get out of the kitchen. There are far more offensive things/lies on the other side posted by FOX and its ilk on a daily basis (comparing Michelle Obama to gorillas etc). Rush lies/distorts every day as well. The point is you will NEVER see a Mark Fiore appearance or video on the Fox network or any other right-wing supported media because they rigorously self-censor while NPR has given lots of air time to "fact-based" conservatives like William F. Buckley and many others over the years. And, by the way, it's National PUBLIC Radio! Its mission/charter inherently incorporates a level of public support.... |
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,480
|
Post by TC on Oct 22, 2010 10:04:25 GMT -5
I'm still not convinced that Williams was just trying to discuss the perils of bigotry. This. If anything it seemed to me like Williams was saying to O'Reilly that "you're not wrong to fear Muslims, I do too, but you have to stick the disclaimer on to your speech on The View that we're not at war with Islam". That's political correctness, and not at all what Sherrod was saying when she told her story about how her prejudices didn't match the right thing to do and her eventual actions. |
|
|
|
Post by hoyawatcher on Oct 22, 2010 10:16:35 GMT -5
Yep - NPR is all about critical coverage and always evokes the highest ideals of journalism. That is why they fire Juan Williams but find it fine to host a highfalutin video about "How to speak Teabag". Yep highest ideals of critical journalism at play there. Way different than Rush and certainly not looking to offend anyone there for sure www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120344047Look NPR is what it is - a left leaning PC network that does have some very good international and personal interest stuff - but a definite liberal PC slant. That is actually fine but don't wrap it up in banalities about it being way above the norm and don't fund it with public money when it doesn't support the views of at least half the country and mocks the views of many. Interesting that the link you post from NPR links to another "PC" site the National Review!!! ;D Look, if you don't like Mark Fiore (and it's an editorial CARTOON by the way), then get out of the kitchen. There are far more offensive things/lies on the other side posted by FOX and its ilk on a daily basis (comparing Michelle Obama to gorillas etc). Rush lies/distorts every day as well. The point is you will NEVER see a Mark Fiore appearance or video on the Fox network or any other right-wing supported media because they rigorously self-censor while NPR has given lots of air time to "fact-based" conservatives like William F. Buckley and many others over the years. And, by the way, it's National PUBLIC Radio! Its mission/charter inherently incorporates a level of public support.... In a "normal" news environment I have no trouble with the cartoon/editorial. It would fit right in at MSNBC. And you are right that others do similar insulting and demeaning things. So the kitchen is full. I only object to trying to describe NPR as way above the fray - somehow an "elite" in the news world. They have their strengths in particular overseas coverage which I listen for. But they are no different than FOX and in my opinion worse than FOX for a political bias basis. Which again is fine except they are taking public tax dollars to do it. That I find very objectionable. |
|
|
|
Post by Frank Black on Oct 22, 2010 12:00:00 GMT -5
Yep - NPR is all about critical coverage and always evokes the highest ideals of journalism. That is why they fire Juan Williams but find it fine to host a highfalutin video about "How to speak Teabag". Yep highest ideals of critical journalism at play there. Way different than Rush and certainly not looking to offend anyone there for sure www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120344047Look NPR is what it is - a left leaning PC network that does have some very good international and personal interest stuff - but a definite liberal PC slant. That is actually fine but don't wrap it up in banalities about it being way above the norm and don't fund it with public money when it doesn't support the views of at least half the country and mocks the views of many. Interesting that the link you post from NPR links to another "PC" site the National Review!!! ;D Look, if you don't like Mark Fiore (and it's an editorial CARTOON by the way), then get out of the kitchen. There are far more offensive things/lies on the other side posted by FOX and its ilk on a daily basis (comparing Michelle Obama to gorillas etc). Rush lies/distorts every day as well. The point is you will NEVER see a Mark Fiore appearance or video on the Fox network or any other right-wing supported media because they rigorously self-censor while NPR has given lots of air time to "fact-based" conservatives like William F. Buckley and many others over the years. And, by the way, it's National PUBLIC Radio! Its mission/charter inherently incorporates a level of public support.... I listen to NPR and watch Fox News regularly. Both are biased, I think most fair minded people would agree. To try to put a (completely arbitrary) number on it, on a scale of 1 to 100 with 1 being far-right John Birch society conservative and 100 being the far left Daily Kos, I'd put Fox News at about a 20 and NPR at about a 70. Basically, NPR leans slightly less left than Fox News leans right. Still, most conservatives don't pretend that Fox is unbiased, most NPR listeners think they get the straight dope from NPR. There is a next to zero chance that any NPR correspondent pulled the lever for John McCain in 2008, and while I'm sure they all strive to be objective, it is totally unrealistic to expect that. Fox features plenty of liberals as well, although they are obviously drowned out by conservatives. It is much more sensationalistic, but it also covers stories--like for example the Acorn scandal--that NPR wouldn't touch because, and here's where the leftist bias comes in, they are not inclined to be skeptical of Acorn but they are quite inclined to be skeptical of Breitbart, James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles, which is problematic because in that case Breitbart, O'Keefe and Giles were right. I don't lament the death of the age of Edward R. Murrow, I think the range of news options today is much greater. Though I hasten to add that NPR ought to have the common decency to reject public funds, which they obviously do not need. |
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Oct 22, 2010 12:07:02 GMT -5
That was far too sober and measured an opinion/response. And there were virtually no references to the evils of Methodism.
Who are you and what have you done with the real Frank Black???
;D
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Oct 22, 2010 12:56:12 GMT -5
"Let's put it this way: Devout Muslims do indeed have a history, albeit a very small one, of carrying out attacks onboard American airliners. Irish Catholics have a much larger history of carrying out attacks in public spaces in Northern Ireland. Should we be afraid of somebody in a Catholic priest's clothing in a public square in Northern Ireland? After all, according to Williams' logic they're dressing in "Catholic garb" and therefore identifying themselves first and foremost as Catholic. Therefore, according to his logic and the history of Catholics in Northern Ireland, we should be afraid of the person wearing a priest's clothes."
Question: if Juan had made the following statement, would he have been fired?
"If I'm traveling on an airplane with my 13-year old kid and a priest, dressed in his white collar and other priestly garb, boards the plane - all dressed up so he shows being a Catholic priest is the most important thing - I would be hesitant and somewhat fearful for my son".
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,480
|
Post by TC on Oct 22, 2010 13:14:46 GMT -5
It is much more sensationalistic, but it also covers stories--like for example the Acorn scandal--that NPR wouldn't touch because, and here's where the leftist bias comes in, they are not inclined to be skeptical of Acorn but they are quite inclined to be skeptical of Breitbart, James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles, which is problematic because in that case Breitbart, O'Keefe and Giles were right. Let me get this straight - NPR is biased because they might be distruShut upl of the journalistic standards/practices or lack thereof of James O'Keefe and Andrew Breitbart? After the mainstream media and the administration were absolutely skewered for following Breitbart's lead on the Shirley Sherrod thing and not approaching it with skepticism and doing their due diligence, this is just a patently ridiculous argument. |
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Oct 22, 2010 13:26:21 GMT -5
TC is correct. Rachel Maddow said recently that a Republican Congressman received advance warning, via fax, about the Oklahoma City bombing, when that never happened. Ergo, Rachel Maddow can never be trusted in any sense or on any story whatsoever. |
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,911
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Oct 22, 2010 13:29:21 GMT -5
Would NPR have fired someone saying this remark about fundamentalist Christians who believe in the Rapture: "The evaporation of four million who believe this crap would leave the world an instantly better place." He didn't say it, but NPR commentator Andrei Codrescu did, in 1995. NPR dismissed it as an "an inappropriate attempt at humor", and he's still there. www.current.org/people/peop601.html |
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,480
|
Post by TC on Oct 22, 2010 14:01:25 GMT -5
Ergo, Rachel Maddow can never be trusted in any sense or on any story whatsoever. No, it means that you check sources and get the complete source material so that you can establish context. Just like in this case, where the context is different if you watch the minute with Williams wetting his pants over Muslims on planes, or if you watch what comes after where he's arguing with O'Reilly and telling him he is wrong for saying what he did on The View. In the case of O'Keefe's ACORN video, he never made the full source material available. And come on, let's drop the act about the firing actually being over these comments. As ksf said on page one, this was a long time coming and they were looking for an excuse. It doesn't make it any better, but it does mean we can ignore the tit-for-tat posts about "NPR Correspondent X said this, how come he's still there". |
|
rosslynhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,595
|
Post by rosslynhoya on Oct 22, 2010 14:06:45 GMT -5
The Nina Totenberg example is even better. Unlike Codrescu or Williams, she's allegedly a straight news correspondent for NPR.
It's impossible for me to believe anything she "reports" with regard to the Supreme Court because it's all forced through a very liberal prism better fit for Matthews/Olbermann/Maddow's pundit hours.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,480
|
Post by TC on Oct 22, 2010 14:10:16 GMT -5
Another great example : 18 seconds of speech, no attempt to establish any context of what Helms said.
|
|
