NPR fires Juan Williams for Muslim remarks on Fox

The bottom line is that NPR actions is an attack on freedom of speech.
REGARDLESS of what you think of Juan Williams or what he said, he was merely stating how he FELT, and being HONEST about those feelings. I assume NPR would have been happy if he had LIED about his feelings?!

Political Correctness is the ENEMY of FREE SPEECH. May political correctness die a quick death.

Fear and anxiety are what you get when the government of an entire nation demonizes an entire ethnic and religious group.

In a world where phobias of all sorts run rampant, Mr. Williams is justified in his fear of certain people. I've once seen a person who was fearful of doorknobs, and people need to use those in order to get inside of places or leave places.

Originally posted by inforeal
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

So what is your point? Muslims are evil because the current trend is that “Muslims” are the terrorist in today’s events. Even though CHRISTIANS have murdered abortion doctors--RECENTLY, blown up buildings-- RECENTLY [Tim Mckvey] Murdered black people [Ku Klux Klan and Nazis]

Nice straw man. No one said Muslim were evil. Did you even read my post? I was pretty clear in how I felt, personally, about he Muslim population.

I might say ALL THE DRUG MURDERS ARE LATIN FROM MEXICO.

And you would be wrong. You might say all sorts of things. But if the facts of the matter are against you.

Regarding McVeigh, people have stigmatized folks like that. The "Freemen" are viewed with disgust by the average American. But regardless, you are throwing up a one off situation, trying to use it to compare to my point that there are examples of attack after attack commited by muslims, not Tim McVeigh.

In the next decade that may change. Remember in the 60’’s and 70’s the terrorists were European communist.

It may. And when it does, i will be on the lookout for the folks who are blowing stuff up at that time. Until then, it is all about risk mitigation, delicate sensibilities be damned.

The Baadr Meinof Gang FROM EUROPE.

When the Irish Republican Army was fighting Britain THEY WERE THE TERRORISTS.[

When the Vietcong were fighting the US Army in Vietnam THEY WERE THE TERRORISTS.

What is wrong with you don’t you understand History and trends of political upheaval

I do understand this. Why do you not understand the simple concepts of risk mitigation? It isn't about hate. It is about being wary and staying alive.

AT ONE POINT IN THE 1700’S THE AMERICAN REVOLUTIONARIES WERE THE TERRORISTS

THINK MAN!

edit on 21-10-2010 by inforeal because: (no reason given)

And I likely would have gotten nervous getting on the airplane with them, were I a British subject.

You seem to confuse peoples desire to live, with a bigots desire to hate. They may reach a similar conclusion, but they are entirely different phenomena.

So if the Americans went over to the muslim community
and decided to start blowing stuff up
OMG were already doin that..
Nevermind that
OK so if awww forget it

In our politically correct society all it takes is to speak ones mind. He spoke what he thought and is now paying for it. He didn't say anything wrong he just spoke what a lot of people think.

reply to post by Rede2go


It's one thing to think it and another thing to speak it. Now, he decided to speak his mind, practice his freedom of speech. And he was well within his rights to do so. But... the inverse to this is when someone speaks their mind, they better be able to handle the consequences, which in this case resulted in the individual losing his job over it.

Adding further to this, people like the ones in this thread noticed how the NPR made a dick move in firing Juan Williams, and might decide to boycott NPR. Which is well within the rights of the listeners.

Originally posted by Josephus23
reply to post by centurion1211

 

You are very correct.
Thank you for pointing that out to me.

I have been trying to say the same thing concerning anti-semitism but i have yet to see anyone thank me for correcting them.

I would of if I'd seen you post that (and given you a star).

reply to post by Hefficide


Wou;ld he get fired if he said their was a "Christian dilema"? or it it that these idiots actually FEAR the Muslims?

This is bad, thanks too our lack-their of government, people are going to have to suffer!

I stopped listening to NPR some time ago. I don't particularly care Juan Williams politics, but he has a valid point. I live in a rural area so I don't see many Muslims. When I do, I don't think "terrorist" right away. Most of the Muslim people I see look like farmers. I feel kind of sad about it all.

Here is Juan Williams response to his firing by NPR. I included it all as I thought is was very relevant to the thread. Mods feel free to trim it, I won't cry.

www.foxnews.com... nion/2010/10/21/juan-williams-npr-fired-truth-muslim-garb-airplane-oreilly-ellen-weiss-bush/

Yesterday NPR fired me for telling the truth. The truth is that I worry when I am getting on an airplane and see people dressed in garb that identifies them first and foremost as Muslims.

This is not a bigoted statement. It is a statement of my feelings, my fears after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 by radical Muslims. In a debate with Bill O’Reilly I revealed my fears to set up the case for not making rash judgments about people of any faith. I pointed out that the Atlanta Olympic bomber -- as well as Timothy McVeigh and the people who protest against gay rights at military funerals -- are Christians but we journalists don’t identify them by their religion.

And I made it clear that all Americans have to be careful not to let fears lead to the violation of anyone’s constitutional rights, be it to build a mosque, carry the Koran or drive a New York cab without the fear of having your throat slashed. Bill and I argued after I said he has to take care in the way he talks about the 9/11 attacks so as not to provoke bigotry.

This was an honest, sensitive debate hosted by O’Reilly. At the start of the debate Bill invited me, challenged me to tell him where he was wrong for stating the fact that “Muslims killed us there,” in the 9/11 attacks. He made that initial statement on the ABC program, "The View," which caused some of the co-hosts to walk off the set. They did not return until O’Reilly apologized for not being clear that he did not mean the country was attacked by all Muslims but by extremist radical Muslims.

I took Bill’s challenge and began by saying that political correctness can cause people to become so paralyzed that they don’t deal with reality. And the fact is that it was a group of Muslims who attacked the U.S. I added that radicalism has continued to pose a threat to the United States and much of the world. That threat was expressed in court last week by the unsuccessful Times Square bomber who bragged that he was just one of the first engaged in a “Muslim War” against the United States. -- There is no doubt that there's a real war and people are trying to kill us.

Mary Katharine Ham, a conservative writer, joined the debate to say that it is important to make the distinction between moderate and extreme Islam for conservatives who support the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq on the premise that the U.S. can build up moderate elements in those countries and push out the extremists. I later added that we don’t want anyone attacked on American streets because “they heard rhetoric from Bill O’Reilly and they act crazy.” Bill agreed and said the man who slashed the cabby was a “nut” and so was the Florida pastor who wanted to burn the Koran.

My point in recounting this debate is to show this was in the best American tradition of a fair, full-throated and honest discourse about the issues of the day. -- There was no bigotry, no crude provocation, no support for anti-Muslim sentiments of any kind.

Two days later, Ellen Weiss, my boss at NPR called to say I had crossed the line, essentially accusing me of bigotry. She took the admission of my visceral fear of people dressed in Muslim garb at the airport as evidence that I am a bigot. She said there are people who wear Muslim garb to work at NPR and they are offended by my comments. She never suggested that I had discriminated against anyone. Instead she continued to ask me what did I mean and I told her I said what I meant. Then she said she did not sense remorse from me.

I said I made an honest statement. She informed me that I had violated NPR’s values for editorial commentary and she was terminating my contract as a news analyst. I pointed out that I had not made my comments on NPR. She asked if I would have said the same thing on NPR. I said yes, because in keeping with my values I will tell people the truth about feelings and opinions.

I asked why she would fire me without speaking to me face to face and she said there was nothing I could say to change her mind, the decision had been confirmed above her, and there was no point to meeting in person. To say the least this is a chilling assault on free speech. The critical importance of honest journalism and a free flowing, respectful national conversation needs to be had in our country. But it is being buried as collateral damage in a war whose battles include political correctness and ideological orthodoxy.

I say an ideological battle because my comments on "The O’Reilly Factor" are being distorted by the self-righteous ideological, left-wing leadership at NPR. They are taking bits and pieces of what I said to go after me for daring to have a conversation with leading conservative thinkers. They loathe the fact that I appear on Fox News. They don’t notice that I am challenging Bill O’Reilly and trading ideas with Sean Hannity. In their hubris they think by talking with O’Reilly or Hannity I am lending them legitimacy. Believe me, Bill O’Reilly (and Sean, too) is a major force in American culture and politics whether or not I appear on his show.

Years ago NPR tried to stop me from going on "The Factor." When I refused they insisted that I not identify myself as an NPR journalist. I asked them if they thought people did not know where I appeared on the air as a daily talk show host, national correspondent and news analyst. They refused to budge.

This self-reverential attitude was on display several years ago when NPR asked me to help them get an interview with President George W. Bush. I have longstanding relationships with some of the key players in his White House due to my years as a political writer at The Washington Post. When I got the interview some in management expressed anger that in the course of the interview I said to the president that Americans pray for him but don’t understand some of his actions. They said it was wrong to say Americans pray for him.

Later on the 50th anniversary of the Little Rock crisis President Bush offered to do an NPR interview with me about race relations in America. NPR management refused to take the interview on the grounds that the White House offered it to me and not their other correspondents and hosts. One NPR executive implied I was in the administration’s pocket, which is a joke, and there was no other reason to offer me the interview. Gee, I guess NPR news executives never read my bestselling history of the civil rights movement “Eyes on the Prize – America’s Civil Rights Years,” or my highly acclaimed biography “Thurgood Marshall –American Revolutionary.” I guess they never noticed that "ENOUGH," my last book on the state of black leadership in America, found a place on the New York Times bestseller list.

This all led to NPR demanding that I either agree to let them control my appearances on Fox News and my writings or sign a new contract that removed me from their staff but allowed me to continue working as a news analyst with an office at NPR. The idea was that they would be insulated against anything I said or wrote outside of NPR because they could say that I was not a staff member. What happened is that they immediately began to cut my salary and diminish my on-air role. This week when I pointed out that they had forced me to sign a contract that gave them distance from my commentary outside of NPR I was cut off, ignored and fired.

And now they have used an honest statement of feeling as the basis for a charge of bigotry to create a basis for firing me. Well, now that I no longer work for NPR let me give you my opinion. This is an outrageous violation of journalistic standards and ethics by management that has no use for a diversity of opinion, ideas or a diversity of staff (I was the only black male on the air). This is evidence of one-party rule and one sided thinking at NPR that leads to enforced ideology, speech and writing. It leads to people, especially journalists, being sent to the gulag for raising the wrong questions and displaying independence of thought.

Daniel Schorr, my fellow NPR commentator who died earlier this year, used to talk about the initial shock of finding himself on President Nixon’s enemies list. I can only imagine Dan’s revulsion to realize that today NPR treats a journalist who has worked for them for ten years with less regard, less respect for the value of independence of thought and embrace of real debate across political lines, than Nixon ever displayed.

I watched Mr.Williams on O'Reilly tonight. I was struck by one thing. Mr.Williams is extraordinarily pissed about this. His facial expression and body language said it all.

He is a man very upset with his former employer over a public firing and he now has $2,000,000 in his pocket from a new Fox contract.

Anyone want to bet this isn't over....

I've always been a huge fan of Juan Williams. He's always struck me as a man who speaks to his beliefs and not from some liberal script. He rarely uses the buzz-words of the left, preferring to speak his own mind.

In the last two years, Juan has been savaged by the far-left and sad to say he is getting a crash course in the take-no-prisoners tactics of the left. Either you quote the liberal agenda chapter and verse or you will be destroyed.

These same kinds of people tried to destroy me when I was a graduate student because even when I thought I was a liberal, I was shouted down for trying to interject my own experience into the discussions. They tried to destroy my academic career, but they could not succeed against my will.

NPR is a predatory entity that has destroyed countless university radio stations by commandeering their boards of directors and having their programs eclipse whatever local programming that used to make these stations such assets to their communities. I witnessed this as an undergraduate in New Orleans.

And what is worse, they have the warm and cuddly, avuncular air of kinship that fools young minds into believing that they are the only source of truth. I listened religiously to their programming for a complete decade before I saw through their drivel and became disgusted with the way they destroyed my college's radio station.

I hope Mr. Williams will take all this to heart and learn from them and continue to speak his conscience. He is a great journalist and he will triumph over these Marxist buffoons at NPR.

Good luck, Juan.

reply to post by PETROLCOIN


I thought you people believed that the media was controlled by the Jews?

It looks NPR is owned by the Muslims.

Out of all the whiny-piny groups in the world, the Muslims have got to be the worst.

It's too bad the guy got fired for expressing his "concern" over people, who happen to wear outdated, religious garb, which may well be a good place for hiding "items" meant to harm or injure people. I personally would be "nervous" and rightfully so. (HELLO! That's why there are BODY SCANNERS at the airport to provide SECURITY and SAFETY for airline passengers and personnel). His comments, I'm sure, are not meant to instill fear among Muslims. He just had to be the guy to say it: It's about time to stop being so politically correct once, folks! Brouhaha! Way to go Juan!

My apologies if this has been posted already (if it was, I missed it)

NPR Internal Memo On Juan Williams

The following is an internal memo sent on behalf of NPR President and CEO Vivian Schiller:

Dear AREPS,

Thank you for all of your varying feedback on the Juan Williams situation. Let me offer some further clarification about why we terminated his contract early.

First, a critical distinction has been lost in this debate. NPR News analysts have a distinctive role and set of responsibilities. This is a very different role than that of a commentator or columnist. 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. As you all well know, we offer views of all kinds on your air every day, but those views are expressed by those we interview – not our reporters and analysts.

Second, this isn’t the first time we have had serious concerns about some of Juan’s public comments. Despite many conversations and warnings over the years, Juan has continued to violate this principal.

Third, these specific comments (and others made in the past), are inconsistent with NPR’s ethics code, which applies to all journalists (including contracted analysts):

“In appearing on TV or other media . . . NPR journalists should not express views they would not air in their role as an NPR journalist. They should not participate in shows . . . that encourage punditry and speculation rather than fact-based analysis.”

More fundamentally, “In appearing on TV or other media including electronic Web-based forums, NPR journalists should not express views they would not air in their role as an NPR journalist.”

Unfortunately, Juan’s comments on Fox violated our standards as well as our values and offended many in doing so.

We’re profoundly sorry that this happened during fundraising week. Juan’s comments were made Monday night and we did not feel it would be responsible to delay this action.

This was a tough decision and we appreciate your support.

Thanks,

Vivian

Vivian Schiller

President & CEO, NPR

*added to this thread for future reference

reply to post by LadySkadi


LadySkadi,

Thank you so much for posting that! I have sort of lost track, but I think it's new!

~Heff

Juan Williams is a good man who spoke his mind and was a representative of an uber liberal politically correct news outlet... since his mind disagreed with their collective politik, he got canned. Sad and ultimately telling of their agenda, but true... it's no more complicated than that.

As far as the rest of you people who insist that anyone who gives someone on an airplane a double take when they're wearing traditionally Muslim Garb is a bigot I will simply say this; tell me I should be perfectly safe and free from persecution walking through a predominantly black neighborhood sporting a rebel flag on a t-shirt and I'll agree with your treatise... say otherwise and you're a hypocrite that needs to STFU.

Whether it's a real or perceived threat via MSM, the fact is the only people who've been painted as targeting mass air travel as a means of propogating destruction and fear have claimed radical Islam as their primary benefactors.

to the people saying he was "just expressing what heaps of people were thinking", that doesn't mean it should be said. The company wants to keep an image of itself as a non-prejudiced company, and this remark was clearly prejudiced. All of this slandering of all muslims based on the actions of a few must stop. It just leads to more prejudice. No doubt a lot of you (if you're from the states) would call for someone to be fired if they were saying things like "every time i see an american, i feel like they are going to throw up on me, because americans are fat and eat too much".

In saying that, perhaps affirmative action needs to be taken to raise the tolerance level of people towards muslims? There has been (and still is) obvious negative propoganda spread about muslims (whether it is intentional propoganda or not is irrelevant). It seems to me that this is the modern version of White vs Black, the states needs a muslim MLK