rosslynhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,595
|
Post by rosslynhoya on Oct 22, 2010 14:20:00 GMT -5
Another great example : 18 seconds of speech, no attempt to establish any context of what Helms said. Well it's a good thing there were no Helms defenders in the room! Hee hee hee hee! Aren't we all good little goodthinkers! |
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Oct 22, 2010 14:22:13 GMT -5
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". Now this part I agree with 100%. But from my point of view, not only does it not make it any better, it actually makes NPR look a lot worse. |
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Oct 22, 2010 14:42:05 GMT -5
NPR management fired him because they did not believe his comments fit in with the image they wish to portray as an organization. Good for NPR. This hand-wringing over the fate of Juan Williams is a bit hard to take.
Luckily, in this free-market system he found someone willing to compensate him highly, despite his horrific, bigoted, hateful comments. Nice country, America.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Oct 22, 2010 15:12:40 GMT -5
Discussing that Juan Williams said something stupid does not equal saying that his comments are horrific or hateful, or that he is a bad person. Discussing that NPR was wrong (or not) in firing him does not equal hand wringing over Williams' fate, or wailing and gnashing of teeth about his "victim" status, or forcing everyone at NPR to wear a hairshirt (unless you consider revoking public funds to be a hairshirt). I grant you that both are going on in spades over the Interwebs and in the broadcast media, but I for one think Hoyatakers have had a pretty sane and reasoned conversation about this*. (*A little snark here and there notwithstanding, but if you can't be sarcastic once in a while, what's the point?  ) Is it a discussion of nuclear proliferation in the former Soviet republics? No. But it's a conversation worth having, IMO. Besides, no one has come up with anything today for the Friday Fun thread, Concert thread or Movie thread, so  |
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Oct 22, 2010 15:17:28 GMT -5
Discussing that Juan Williams said something stupid does not equal saying that his comments are horrific or hateful, or that he is a bad person. Discussing that NPR was wrong (or not) in firing him does not equal hand wringing over Williams' fate, or wailing and gnashing of teeth about his "victim" status, or forcing everyone at NPR to wear a hairshirt (unless you consider revoking public funds to be a hairshirt). I grant you that both are going on in spades over the Interwebs and in the broadcast media, but I for one think Hoyatakers have had a pretty sane and reasoned conversation about this*. (*A little snark here and there notwithstanding, but if you can't be sarcastic once in a while, what's the point? ) Is it a discussion of nuclear proliferation in the former Soviet republics? No. But it's a conversation worth having, IMO. Besides, no one has come up with anything today for the Friday Fun thread, Concert thread or Movie thread, so On a positive note, this little brouhaha has allowed no less a great thinker than Whoopi Goldberg to weigh back in with some of her wisdom on Mr. Williams' comments and NPR's reaction to them. She would not fire him, however, she would turn her back and walk out on him if he made these comments on her show. |
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Oct 22, 2010 15:19:52 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". I think that would be a stupid and ignorant thing to say. Would that comment have gotten a person on NPR fired? Depends on their previous record. If NPR was looking for an excuse to fire them (as it seems they were with Williams), then that comment could have fit the bill. |
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Oct 22, 2010 18:25:33 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." The answer to my question is no, Juan would not have been fired. Furthermore, why this belief NPR was looking for an excuse to fire him? NPR's spokesperson specifically said his comments were the basis as it was against NPR's way of doing business. Are you people calling the spokesperson a liar? Do you have any evidence to support your contention they were looking for an excuse to fire him? 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". I think that would be a stupid and ignorant thing to say. Would that comment have gotten a person on NPR fired? Depends on their previous record. If NPR was looking for an excuse to fire them (as it seems they were with Williams), then that comment could have fit the bill. |
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Oct 22, 2010 18:40:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Oct 22, 2010 21:18:52 GMT -5
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Oct 22, 2010 21:27:00 GMT -5
Furthermore, why this belief NPR was looking for an excuse to fire him? NPR's spokesperson specifically said his comments were the basis as it was against NPR's way of doing business. Are you people calling the spokesperson a liar? Do you have any evidence to support your contention they were looking for an excuse to fire him? Maybe it was this quote from Williams himself: "I think they were looking for a reason to get rid of me." As for what NPR said was the reason: Dana Davis Rehm, a spokeswoman for NPR, said that Williams's repeated violations of NPR policy sparked the dismissal Juan Williams: NPR was 'antagonistic' about Fox appearancesWhile I agree with those who think NPR handled this very poorly, the outcome for Williams is great. His profile has been raised significantly, he can play the martyr card, his next book will be a hot commodity, and now he is free to make paid appearances at Glenn Beck events. |
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,727
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Oct 23, 2010 16:06:42 GMT -5
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. Frank, tell that to our local NPR station and maybe they will not have fundraisers every two weeks. "We just need $60,000 and 10,000 members or else..." I am such a white-knuckler flier that anybody without Hoya articles of clothes, I start being fearful.  And I think NPR handled this a bit poorly. I generally enjoyed Williams reports/commentary and never thought he leaned one way or the other (perhaps I was not listening closely enough), but he seemed balanced. And I think it is important that NPR presents a balanced view. Of course, those of us who listen think that the balanced view might be different than those, who do not listen. |
|
|
|
Post by Frank Black on Oct 25, 2010 8:35:34 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. Except that the ACORN videos surfaced several months before the Shirley Sherrod video. I also never suggested NPR not be skeptical of Breitbart et al, but rather that they run the story to ground rather than ignore it entirely until it became absurdly obvious that ACORN was a criminal-enabling mess. NPR is certainly left-leaning. It is still a critical source of news, to be sure, but it just means that occasionally I will find myself turning it off in frustration. |
|
ksf42001
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 901
|
Post by ksf42001 on Oct 25, 2010 9:08:04 GMT -5
While I dislike how NPR's business side handled the situation, I was actually pretty impressed by how the news side covered the fallout. This was especially true on Friday, when they had their talking head session with EJ Dionne and that other guy whose name I forget. The brought up the topic for discussion, and both commentator raked NPR over the coals for it.
Both the conservative and liberal commentator said it was not only handled poorly, but that the firing was a bad decision in the first place. I don't feel like Fox would be as willing to allow public condemnation of their company on their own network if the roles were reversed.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,480
|
Post by TC on Oct 25, 2010 9:32:36 GMT -5
Except that the ACORN videos surfaced several months before the Shirley Sherrod video. So? News organizations should doubt both the ACORN videos and the Shirley Sherrod video because they were heavily edited, they went out before getting comment from the other side, and the source material wasn't available - not because of Breitbart or O'Keefe's reputation or affiliations. |
|
|
|
Post by Frank Black on Oct 25, 2010 14:43:16 GMT -5
Except that the ACORN videos surfaced several months before the Shirley Sherrod video. So? News organizations should doubt both the ACORN videos and the Shirley Sherrod video because they were heavily edited, they went out before getting comment from the other side, and the source material wasn't available - not because of Breitbart or O'Keefe's reputation or affiliations. Well, I should hope they doubt most stories. Doubt is fine, ignoring is not. A federally-funded "community" organization was caught on tape aiding a child prostitution ring in several locations. It is self-evident that this is a story that ought to be run to ground, not ignored because you don't like the sourcing. The Rodney King tape was edited, but all media organizations rightly jumped all over it because its contents were appalling regardless of context. |
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Oct 26, 2010 14:42:47 GMT -5
ESPN weighs in on the issue (ok, it's Easterbrook): When George W. Bush's Corporation for Public Broadcasting Tried to Purge Liberal Views, the Left Called This an Outrage: Recently TMQ did an item about National Public Radio changing its name to NPR. Last week the organization changed its name again, to NTPR -- National Thought Police Radio -- by firing commentator Juan Williams. For NTPR to act horrified when its sole prominent right-of-center commentator -- commentator, not newscaster! -- utters remarks unacceptable to the limousine liberal circuit is political correctness gone berserk. There is plenty to disagree with in Williams' opinions, but what he says clearly is presented as opinion. "Williams' presence on the largely conservative and often contentious primetime talk shows of Fox News has long been a sore point," NTPR said in announcing the sacking,, adding prissily -- as if Hester Prynne's personal life were the topic -- "strong criticism followed Williams' comments." The horror! If having a viewpoint and sparking criticism are scarlet letters, all NTPR programs except "Car Talk" and "Splendid Table" should be canceled. TMQ is a longtime listener and sometime donor to public radio, and thinks the network does mainly a fine job. But now that it's clear public radio's Washington headquarters has been lying in its long-standing contention that the organization is impartial, public funding must end. It would be offensive if money were forcibly extracted from taxpayers' pockets to fund right-wing dogma on Fox News. It is offensive that money is forcibly extracted from taxpayers' pockets to fund left-wing dogma at National Thought Police Radio. The full context of Williams' remarks was that he has felt frightened when encountering Muslims on airplanes but also understands that assuming Muslims are extremists is wrong. From his writing on the civil rights movement -- Williams' biography of A. Philip Randolph is terrific -- he knows prejudice cannot be resolved until it is first confronted honestly. Yours truly having lived in Pakistan, I can report that most Muslims are peace-loving, law-abiding people. (Yes, there are dangerous Islamic fanatics -- there are dangerous Christian, Jewish and Hindu fanatics, too.) Open-mindedness about the good and the bad of Islam won't happen until United States society learns to talk openly about its biases regarding Muslims. Williams was just being honest. sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/101026_tuesday_morning_quarterback&sportCat=nfl |
|
)
