What's new
By:

Muslims, Political Correctness, and the Juan Williams saga

Hopper

Hopper

Banned
Recently there have been some claims and statements made about "racism," "religious slurs," etc., in connection with the Muslim religion. These include some comments made in Eric's recent thread, with a specific reference to "politcal correctness," but I am also thinking, among others things, about specific comments made to me by mods in recent infractions and warnings I have been given.

I don't know if it even possible for many people to have an honest discussion of these issues. Many seem to think the utterance of truth is unacceptable if it doesn't cater to, or advance, their personal socio-political dogma.

Since words and pictures are much easier and more fun to view and understand than obnoxious printed words, I will attempt to elucidate some of the issues by means of a couple videos pertaning to Juan Williams. As most of you probably know, Williams is a distinguished (black) man who wrote an excellent book on racism and is a life-long liberal. He held a high position (senior news analyst) at NPR for many years, but was summarily fired and accused of being a bigot by NPR for expressing some of his personal anxiety about muslim garb when on an airplane.

This first vid is mainly just a summary of the circumstances of the firing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIOBYsVuuFs

This next vid is a conversation between Williams and O'Reilly talking about political correctness as it relates to racism, in which they are complaining about CNN for it's wanton allegations of racism. Among other things, CNN apparently derisely called Williams a "happy negro" for agreeing with O'Reilly. If you have ever watched him on Fox, you will know that he frequently disagrees vehmently with O'Reilly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJhe00QSlBI&NR=1

This last video goes back to Williams' discussing his NPR firing with O'Reilly. It is preceded by a diatribe by O'Reilly against NPR, which you might want to ignore, even if it does raise some interesting questions. Then Williams talks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBWR31CGR54&feature=related

Who's right here, in your opinion? NPR for firing Williams, or the critics of that action?
 
Last edited:
One liberal argument I heard is that none of the planes were taken down by Muslims in Muslim garb so Juan is just being a bigot, and deserved to be fired.
 
There's a part in there where Williams says if had just listened to CNN, without having been present at the conversation, he might have thought O'Reilly was a racsit (as he is quite frequently charged to be by many who never listen to what he actually says). As Williams, and others, pointed out, in the very same segment where Williams made the statements that got him fired, he clearly said that Muslims should NOT be deprived of their civil rights and that one should not over-generalize. NPR didn't mention that when they fired him, of course.

The problem with these partisans is that they never hear ANYTHING but what the people manipulating them want them to hear. They have no means of independent assessment of any of these issues, because they choose to ONLY listen to people who share and propogate their prejudices.
 
I disagree. I listen to NPR and am still a Juan Williams fan. But I had no problem with the firing.
 
Ken Hutcherson, a former NFL player and a pastor, weighs in on the ad hominem approach to being a "non-racist," eh?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77JGeKEZ8rQ&NR=1
 
VINYLONE said:
I disagree. I listen to NPR and am still a Juan Williams fan. But I had no problem with the firing.
Click to expand...


Why ya agree, Vinny"

Because he was on O'Reilly's show? Because he is a bigot? Because it not a "proper" thing to say, true or not?
 
Hopper said:
There's a part in there where Williams says if had just listened to CNN, without having been present at the conversation, he might have thought O'Reilly was a racsit (as he is quite frequently charged to be by many who never listen to what he actually says). As Williams, and others, pointed out, in the very same segment where Williams made the statements that got him fired, he clearly said that Muslims should NOT be deprived of their civil rights and that one should not over-generalize. NPR didn't mention that when they fired him, of course.

The problem with these partisans is that they never hear ANYTHING but what the people manipulating them want them to hear. They have no means of independent assessment of any of these issues, because they choose to ONLY listen to people who share and propogate their prejudices.
Click to expand...

Yes, it was ironic that we were talking about Political correctness just prior to the statement he was fired for.
It is also ironic that in order to avoid Muslims being profiled we all have to lose our civil liberties by being forced to expose our naked bodies to strangers.
 
More context, since I believe it is incorrect to say that Juan Williams relationship with NPR was severed solely as a result of the arab garb comment. Tension between Juan and NPR over his Fox News contributions had been growing for some time.

This is an NPR ombudsman column from February of 2009.

https://www.npr.org/blogs/ombudsman/2009/02/juan_williams_npr_and_fox_news_1.html

Juan Williams, NPR and Fox News


Juan Williams.

NPR has more than 400 reporters, editors, producers and analysts on its news team, and none is more of a lightning rod than Juan Williams. But it's usually not for anything he says on NPR.

Williams joined NPR in 2000, first as host of Talk of the Nation, then morphing into a senior correspondent. Last spring, NPR's management put him on contract with the title "news analyst" largely to give him more latitude about what he says. He's now paid to give his opinion, and with three decades in the news business, it is often a valuable take on today's politics.

Williams is controversial among NPR listeners because of his long-standing contract with Fox News, which he had before he joined NPR. Currently, he appears on Fox sometimes with Bill O'Reilly and on Sunday morning with Chris Wallace.

On TV, Fox identifies Williams as "NPR News Political Analyst." (Conversely, NPR rarely identifies him as Fox News contributor.)

Last year, 378 listeners emailed me complaints and frustrations about things Williams said on Fox. The listener themes are similar: Williams "dishonors NPR." He's an "embarrassment to NPR." "NPR should sever their relationship with him."

The latest flap involves Williams' comment on Fox about First Lady Michelle Obama. To date, I've received 56 angry emails. For comparison, this year so far, listeners sent 13 emails about Steve Inskeep, 8 about Mara Liasson and 6 about Cokie Roberts — other NPR personalities who I often get emails about.

Here's what Williams said on Jan. 26, but the transcript doesn't convey the same impact as the video, posted on YouTube. Williams is explaining that Vice President Joe Biden could be a liability for President Obama. But so could his wife.

"Michelle Obama, you know, she's got this Stokely Carmichael in a designer dress thing going," said Williams. "If she starts talking, as Mary Katharine [Ham, a conservative blogger] is suggesting, her instinct is to start with this blame America, you know, I'm the victim. If that stuff starts coming out, people will go bananas and she'll go from being the new Jackie O to being something of an albatross."

O'Reilly responded: "She's not going to do that."

When I asked Williams about his comments, he initially called it a "faux controversy."

But then he reviewed the tape and realized that "the tone and tenor of my comments may have spurred a strong reaction to what I considered to be pure political analysis of the First Lady's use of her White House pulpit," said Williams via email. "I regret that in the fast-paced, argumentative format my tone and tenor seems to have led people to see me as attacking instead of explaining my informed point of view."

When Williams was speaking of Mrs. Obama as a potential liability, he told me, he was referencing pieces in The Atlantic and Politico. A Politico article listed Mrs. Obama as one "Dem" her husband should watch out for. "She's glamorous, she's on message, she's the nation's favorite mom — and now she has nowhere to go but down," said the article.

But anyone watching the O'Reilly segment wouldn't know Williams was talking about those two articles. He never mentioned them. Those who wrote me felt Williams was attacking the First Lady.

"I am concerned about the objectivity Juan Williams brings to his news analysis," wrote Alison Fowler. "He has made statements on Fox News regarding Michelle Obama that appear to paint her as an angry Black Nationalist without any basis in fact. Despite the fact that these statements were not made on NPR, they undermine his credibility as an impartial news analyst on your network."

Williams also appears regularly as a news analyst on NPR's Weekend Edition with Scott Simon, and on Morning Edition and Day to Day.

"We don't monitor what Juan says on Fox — or for that matter, his books or other appearances," said Simon by email. "Juan is one of the foremost chroniclers of the history of the U.S. Civil Rights Movement and African-American life...I think the world of Juan, and he is on our show because the analysis that he offers is insightful, reasoned, fair-minded and interesting."

But after watching the Fox segment, Simon said, "What can I say? That's not the Juan Williams who is on our show."

That may be the cause of the criticism. Williams tends to speak one way on NPR and another on Fox.

His "Stokely Carmichael" comment got the attention of NPR's top managers. They are in a bind because Williams is no longer a staff employee but an independent contractor. As a contract news analyst, NPR doesn't exercise control over what Williams says outside of NPR.

"Juan Williams is a contributor to NPR programs as a news analyst," said Ron Elving, NPR's Washington editor. "What he says on NPR is the product of a journalistic process that includes editors. What he says when he is not on our air is not within our control. But we recognize that what he says elsewhere reflects on NPR, and we have discussed that fact with him specifically in regard to his remarks on Fox News regarding Michelle Obama."

This recent comment may have undermined his credibility with some NPR listeners. But I question whether listeners, overall, object to what Williams says outside of NPR or the fact that he says it on Fox.

NPR legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg appears on the Washington, D.C., ABC affiliate, WJLA-TV. Rarely do I get email criticizing her TV appearances. But in 2008, there were a healthy number of emails attacking political correspondent Mara Liasson for her regular appearances on Fox News.

So why does Williams receive so much criticism? And is it fair?

"There's something about me as a voice with more latitude than a daily news reporter that may bother people," Williams told me. "Maybe it's that people have trouble with the fact that I cross political lines regularly. I try to be curious, to ask questions and to get answers. And I tell you what I see as I see it."

It appears people don't understand that he has two different roles. On NPR, he's expected to provide well-thought out commentary, based on his reporting, about today's politics. On Fox, the pace is faster, and spontaneity and expressing strong opinions are valued.

"I would say the same thing on NPR but we don't have a show with a fast-paced, Cross-Fire format," said Williams. "What I said about Michelle Obama is not out of the realm of main-stream political discourse. It's there in The Atlantic and in The Politico. The point is that NPR has a much more deliberative, slow-paced form with more time to explain what you meant."

Williams is an experienced, multi-talented journalist plugged into the political world. He is also author of a critically acclaimed biography of Justice Thurgood Marshall. He spent 21 years at the Washington Post as an editorial writer, op-ed columnist and White House reporter. According to NPR's Communications office, he is one of NPR's most-sought after public speakers.

Williams brings a valuable viewpoint to NPR. Sometimes it is that of an African-American, but it is also that of someone with a long track record of covering politics. Some think he is a conservative because he's on Fox. Others think Fox uses him as a liberal voice because, whether true or not, a perception exists that NPR is liberal.

The assets that make Williams valuable to NPR are his knowledge, his perspective and that he is rarely predictable.

But in the end, NPR must decide — as it apparently already has — whether giving its listeners the benefit of Williams' voice is worth the cost of annoying some listeners for his work on Fox.

As a result of this latest flap, NPR's Vice President of News, Ellen Weiss, has asked Williams to ask that Fox remove his NPR identification whenever he is on O'Reilly.
Click to expand...

Obviously, they determined that the arab garb comment was the tipping point at which the balance went towards he was more trouble than he was worth. I think that's rightly their call to make.
 
Sirkickyass said:
Obviously, they determined that the arab garb comment was the tipping point at which the balance went towards he was more trouble than he was worth. I think that's rightly their call to make.
Click to expand...


Did you watch any of the videos I posted, Kicky? The case is also made there that it is his association with Fox that NPR finds objectionable. Your own source here says: "... I question whether listeners, overall, object to what Williams says outside of NPR or the fact that he says it on Fox."

NPR: '"Juan Williams is a contributor to NPR programs as a news analyst," said Ron Elving, NPR's Washington editor. "What he says on NPR is the product of a journalistic process that includes editors. What he says when he is not on our air is not within our control. But we recognize that what he says elsewhere reflects on NPR, and we have discussed that fact with him specifically in regard to his remarks on Fox News regarding Michelle Obama." What's the criterion here? Speak of Michelle Obama with only the highest praise or else, that it?

What must one say to "reflect" favorably on NPR?
 
Sirkickyass said:
Obviously, they determined that the arab garb comment was the tipping point at which the balance went towards he was more trouble than he was worth. I think that's rightly their call to make.
Click to expand...

They "determined?" You mean they "decided," that it? What makes a person more trouble than they're worth? Not jumping to the idealogical tune of NPR listeners, that it? I would agree with you that's it entirely their call if they wanna rely solely on the $1.8 million funding of Soros. But they takin tax money, bigtime. To do what? Promulgate the Obama party line? Is that their mission?
 
Hopper said:
Did you watch any of the videos I posted, Kicky? The case is also made there that it is his association with Fox that NPR finds objectionable. Your own source here says: "... I question whether listeners, overall, object to what Williams says outside of NPR or the fact that he says it on Fox."
Click to expand...

I frankly acknowledge that fact and part of the reason I posted that ombudsman article was to show that this was a long-boiling pot.

That's not an argument against NPR having some level of editorial control. At some point in time if one of your contributors, through his name alone, brings certain baggage that detracts (in the editor's opinion) from the program then it's not unreasonable to opt to use a different contributor.

What must one say to "reflect" favorably on NPR?
Click to expand...

Well, having four times as many complaint letters as any other NPR personality probably isn't a good start.
 
Hopper said:
But they takin tax money, bigtime.
Click to expand...

False. You're conflating NPR as an organization with individual public stations that may or may not choose to purchase NPR content and become "member stations."

In 2009, NPR revenues totaled $164 million, with the bulk of revenues coming from programming fees, grants, contributions and sponsorships.[14] According to the 2009 financial statement, about 40% of NPR revenues come from the fees it charges member stations to receive programming. Typically, NPR member stations raise funds through on-air pledge drives, corporate underwriting, and grants from state governments, universities, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. In 2009, member stations derived 6% of their revenue from direct government funding, 10% of their revenue from federal funding in the form of CPB grants, and 14% of their revenue from universities.[14][15] NPR receives no direct funding from the federal government.[16] About 1.5% of NPR's revenues come from Corporation for Public Broadcasting grants.

During the 1970s and early 1980s, the majority of NPR funding came from the federal government. Steps were taken during the 1980s to completely wean NPR from government support, but the 1983 funding crisis forced the network to make immediate changes. More money to fund the NPR network was raised from listeners, charitable foundations and corporations instead.
Click to expand...


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPR#Funding
 
Sirkickyass said:
Well, having four times as many complaint letters as any other NPR personality probably isn't a good start.
Click to expand...


Heh, 56 complainers out of thousands, perhaps millions of listeners, eh? I should have know that your total justification would be someone (and even ONE would indeed suffice for you, I spect) complained. That explains it all, sho nuff.
 
Well Hopper, do you believe that NPR was under some sort of an affirmative obligation to continue to employ and use Mr. Williams regardless of their feelings about what he would bring to his broadcasts given his public statements?
 
You love chomsky, doncha, Kicky? You agree with his assessment? "Parameters of debate are conciously curtailed?" "The network feels the need to consider what kind of dissenting opinions are acceptable?"

"Allegations of elitism and the status quo

A 2004 FAIR study concluded that "NPR’s guestlist shows the radio service relies on the same elite and influential sources that dominate mainstream commercial news, and falls short of reflecting the diversity of the American public."[36]

Noam Chomsky has criticized NPR as being biased toward ideological power and the status quo. He alleges that the parameters of debate on a given topic are very consciously curtailed. He says that since the network maintains studios in ideological centers of opinion such as Washington, the network feels the necessity to carefully consider what kinds of dissenting opinion are acceptable. Thus, political pragmatism, perhaps induced by fear of offending public officials who control some of the NPR's funding (via CPB), often determines what views are suitable for broadcast, meaning that opinions critical of the structures of national-interest-based foreign policy, capitalism, and government bureaucracies (entailed by so-called "radical" or "activist" politics) usually do not make it to air."

From your (wiki) source.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top