Muslims, Political Correctness, and the Juan Williams saga

[Hopper]

Let's see here...

"NPR’s initial story garnered more than 6,800 comments, many supporting Williams...

Hundreds wrote or called demanding that NPR fire Williams or at least discipline him...

["hundreds," eh?]

At noon, the deluge of email crashed NPR’s “Contact Us” form on the web site.

The overwhelming majority are angry, furious, outraged. They want NPR to hire him back immediately. If NPR doesn't, they want all public funding of public radio to stop. They promise to never donate again. They are as mad as hell, and want everyone to know it. It was daunting to answer the phone and hear so much unrestrained anger."

Well, that seems to answer the question about how the majority of listeners feel, anyway, eh?

 

[Hopper]

I saw Williams give a summary of a conversation he had with someone at NPR in which she said he made a "bigoted statement."Is that what you mean?

Yeah, that's what I mean.

That's not calling him a bigot personally.

Because "bigotted statements" are made by non-bigots, that the idea?

 

[sirkickyass]

Yeah, that's what I mean.

Then no one at NPR called him a bigot. Williams didn't say that.

Because "bigotted statements" are made by non-bigots, that the idea?

Someone can make a bigoted statement without being a bigot in totality. Individual statements don't define a person in totality.

Williams did not represent that as a quote though. He was giving his impressions and summarizing a conversation he had. It is improper for you to take it farther than he did and claim that NPR called him a bigot.

So your CNN quote is improperly attributed. Your NPR quote isn't a quote. And your quote about some talk show guy is so vague as to barely qualify as a quote.

I'm not certain this meets the journalistic standards of the board.

 

[One Brow]

Williams gets derogatorily called a "happy negro" by CNN. A "bigot" by NPR. A "porch monkey" by some radio talk show guy. His psychological stability is called into question by NPR. Why? Because they don't agree with what he says?

In the videos in your first post, no person from NPR calls Williams a bigot or questions his psychological stability. Those are second-hand summaries which may or may not be accurate. Yes, I listened to them.

NPR has different standards than Fox, CNN, and MSNBC. This was not the William's first dance at this party. You have to wonder why he seemed surprised.

 

[One Brow]

"NPR’s initial story garnered more than 6,800 comments, many supporting Williams...
....
Well, that seems to answer the question about how the majority of listeners feel, anyway, eh?

How do we know that? Do you mean the majority of Fox news listeners?

By the way, what does this have to do with supposed political correctness? What's the connection?

 

[Hopper]

How do we know that? Do you mean the majority of Fox news listeners?

Look at the source, Eric, which Kicky posted in full. It's from NPR (their omsbudsman).

 

[Hopper]

Heh, the NPR Babe in charges says William's personal feelings are between him and his psychiatrist or his book publisher, take your pick. She is certainly suggesting that he is either psychologcially unstable (all the more reason for tolerance, if so, aint it?) or a calculating, greedy deceiver who says things to generate a book, not from sincerity.

Argue all you want that this is not an attack. She apologized, says O'Reilly, but why should she? Of course she didn't apologize to Williams, he says. Why should she? He said they had now made it personal, so obviously he took it personally. But why bother apologizin to him? I spect she apologized to others who didn't like her insinuations, and was tryin to mollify them, not Williams.

 

[Hopper]

Then no one at NPR called him a bigot. Williams didn't say that.



Someone can make a bigoted statement without being a bigot in totality. Individual statements don't define a person in totality.

By that reasoning nobuddy could ever possibly be a bigot, because that could never be the "totality" of a person.

Furthermore, if you understand what a "bigot" is, then you should know that no "bigoted statement" could emanate from anyone who didn't have a bigoted mindset. Bigotry is a subjective quality, not an objective one.

 

[Safetydan]

By that reasoning nobuddy could ever possibly be a bigot, because that could never be the "totality" of a person.

Furthermore, if you understand what a "bigot" is, then you should know that no "bigoted statement" could emanate from anyone who didn't have a bigoted mindset. Bigotry is a subjective quality, not an objective one.

So if I say that you said something funny once, does that make you a funny person? Just wondering

 

[franklin]

That's not really the same situation though. Juan Williams activities "outside of work" were in the same sphere as his work activities. He was being a news commentator on NPR and also on Fox News. That's why NPR had to ask Fox not to identify him as an NPR employee on their programs in the first place: there was a significant risk of confusion as to which "hat" he was wearing.

Your hypo is about an NPR host "behaving badly" in activities that are in a different sphere. No one could reasonably confuse going to nightclubs as being part of the official duties of an NPR host.

I understand what you're doing, but the hypo isn't the slam dunk you think it is because you've changed too many variables.

Your basically arguing it's the conflict of interest that is important here. This is obvious grounds for termination on a case-by-case basis. My hypothetical may be too extreme to consider, but I still think it hits on a point which was alluded to but avoided throughout this thread. That is, should we allow employers to dismiss employees based on a conflict of interest? This is even more sensitive when the conflict involves meeting a company image standard. Can we reasonably expect society to avoid discriminating on these ground? Or will we unfairly enforce the standard based on PC?


BTW, your last sentence was highly assumptive and an example of why I have a hard time taking you sincerely.

 

[Hopper]

...should we allow employers to dismiss employees based on a conflict of interest?

I know ya aint axxin me, Frank, but I'll throw in my two cents worth on your question anywaze. Hell, yeah. As a general rule, employers should be allowed to dismiss employees on virtually any grounds the choose, even if it's because they don't like the way they part their hair. What "we" think we want to "allow" is irrelevant. We aint payin the guy. It aint our bidnizz.

That said, a couple of other observations:

1. A "contractual employee" is not a regular employee, and provisions in the contract may give the "employee' (contractor) certain rights that he bargained for. In this case, NPR's own omsbudman said NPR was "in a bind" if they tried to breach their contract because, as a contract consultant, they did not have the right to govern his outside activities. The contract could just as easily have had a "non-competition" or "avoiding conflict of interest" provision in it, had they so agreed, but apparently they didn't.


2. Even though you say the "conflict of interest" issue has been "avoided," NPR has, to my knowledge, never stated that they fired Williams due to a "conflict of interest" (although it seems some listeners asked that he be fired for that reason).

 

[franklin]

I know ya aint axxin me, Frank, but I'll throw in my two cents worth on your question anywaze. Hell, yeah. As a general rule, employers should be allowed to dismiss employees on virtually any grounds the choose, even if it's because they don't like the way they part their hair. What "we" think we want to "allow" is irrelevant. We aint payin the guy. It aint our bidnizz.

I'm going out of character and disagreeing with you based on religious reasons. I'm sure the liberal side is going to lambaste me for considering God in my decision making, but here goes. That terrible book of old manuscripts now called The Bible has gotten me concerned with usury. Some of these employers have people in a tight spot where once they're hired on and comfortable, are able to nearly get away with murdering their firstborn. I'm not too modern libertarian to say there's a problem with that and something should be done about it. However, this isn't cart blanche support of forcing employers to do anything the mob decides they should.

 

[Hopper]

NPR has different standards than Fox, CNN, and MSNBC. This was not the William's first dance at this party. You have to wonder why he seemed surprised.

What is this supposed to mean, Eric? Are you suggesting that he should have known they would find some reason to fire him if he didn't quit appearing on Fox?

 

[One Brow]

Look at the source, Eric, which Kicky posted in full. It's from NPR (their omsbudsman).

I acknowledge NPR was contacted, and in volumes unknown to their history. What makes you think the people doing the contacting were NPR listeners?

Heh, the NPR Babe in charges says William's personal feelings are between him and his psychiatrist or his book publisher, take your pick. She is certainly suggesting that he is either psychologcially unstable (all the more reason for tolerance, if so, aint it?) or a calculating, greedy deceiver who says things to generate a book, not from sincerity.

EVeryone who sees a psychiatrist is "psychologically unstable"? Everyone who says controversial deliberately on Fox news is a "a calculating, greedy deceiver who says things to generate a book, not from sincerity"? I find those conclusions atypical of what I would expect from you.

I spect she apologized to others who didn't like her insinuations, and was tryin to mollify them, not Williams.

People suspect all kinds of things for no reason.

 

[Hopper]

I acknowledge NPR was contacted, and in volumes unknown to their history. What makes you think the people doing the contacting were NPR listeners?

Because they said they would quit donating, and wanted him back on the air so they could listen to him, mebbe? I see you point though. I've changed my mind. I think all the callers demanding his immediate rehiring were muslims. Why not? Could be anybody, anybody at all. Except that an average NPR listener who enjoyed William's radio shows wouldn't call NPR, probably.

 

[One Brow]

What is this supposed to mean, Eric? Are you suggesting that he should have known they would find some reason fire him if he didn't quit appearing on Fox?

He wasn't fired for appearing on Fox News, according to NPR. He was fired for, as it seems to me, not maintaining a firmly neutral stance as a journalist.

As for what I meant, the given history is that Williams not apprached a few times about the nature of his statements on Fox News, and their incompatibility with NPR's stanmdards. I have every expectation that if someone regularly appeared on Olbermann's show and said that he was afraid of Chistians ooutside of abortion clinics, after receiving a few similar requests, would have also been removed.

 

[One Brow]

Because they said they would quit donating, ...

All of them?

Except that an average NPR listener wouldn't call NPR

They never have in those numbers.

 

[Hopper]

He wasn't fired for appearing on Fox News, according to NPR. He was fired for, as it seems to me, not maintaining a firmly neutral stance as a journalist.

"As a journalist?" Was he a journalist at Fox? Did he say things on NPR, "as a journalist" that they forbade?

As for what I meant, the given history is that Williams not apprached a few times about the nature of his statements on Fox News, and their incompatibility with NPR's stanmdards. I have every expectation that if someone regularly appeared on Olbermann's show and said that he was afraid of Chistians ooutside of abortion clinics, after receiving a few similar requests, would have also been removed.

I think there's some typos in this post, but I think I know what you're tryin to say. Again, Kicky has made a couple of citations to articles by NPR's omsbudsman. I didn't see anything about "regularity" althougth I did see one part where Williams said he could see, from the tone, how people might have thought he was "opining," as opposed to "analyzing" what Michelle Obama affect on the race might be. Mebbe you know a lot more about Williams' "history" at NPR than I do (which is nuthin beyond what's been posted in this thread).

All that said, what do NPR's standards have to do with Fox? Did you read what the omsbudsman said about NPR being "in a bind" if they tried to breach their contract with him on such grounds?

 

[Hopper]

They never have in those numbers.

Well, mebbe they never fired one of the listeners' favorite personality for questionable reasons before, eh? If you watched the videos, then you know that all of the hosts on that T.V. show where Goldberg appears strongly disapproved of what NPR did. Are they "fox listeners," ya figure?

There ya have rabid liberals callin out NPR on national T.V., so I guess they thought it was important enough to comment on (in front of millions). And, as far as I know, they've never criticized an NPR firing before on their TV show.

 

[Hopper]

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

...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...

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.

Selectively quotin from that, just in case you missed it, Eric.

They say he is paid to "give his opinion," even at NPR. But apparently they really mean give "their" opinion, if they don't like his.