NPR Fires Political Analyst Juan Williams Over Muslim Comments

[TampaYankee]

Juan Williams FIRED: NPR Sacks Analyst Over Fox News Muslim Comments Huffington Post | Jack Mirkinson First Posted: 10-21-10 12:31 AM | Updated: 10-21-10 10:22 AM

NPR announced late on Wednesday night that it has terminated the contract of longtime analyst Juan Williams over his comments on Fox News that, when he is on a plane with Muslims, "I get nervous."

NPR's media reporter David Folkenflik broke the news on Twitter.

Williams' comments came during a discussion with Bill O'Reilly on Monday's "O'Reilly Factor." O'Reilly asked Williams if he had been in the wrong during his now-infamous appearance on "The View" last week. (There, O'Reilly's statement that "Muslims killed us on 9/11" caused Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg to walk off the set in anger.)

Williams replied that he thought O'Reilly had, in fact, been right. He continued:

"I mean, look, Bill, I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous."

See more of the story at:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/21/juan-williams-fired-npr_n_770901.html

[RA1]

NPR seems to be very left leaning and liberal and has the rep of not firing anyone unless they actually are convicted of murder. Therefore, someone making a "conservative" remark is going to come under increased scrutiny and, in this case, be fired. Was he representing NPR and his "job" there when he made these remarks? Is he not entitled to his personal opinion? The answer to those questions is not so easy, but he seems to be on firm consitutional grounds with his remarks. That does not mean he cannot be fired for same.

Many US citizens are nervous about riding on the airlines with Muslims, rightly or wrongly. It also seems correct without a doubt that the terrorists who perpetrated the 911 murders were Muslims. However, that does not make all Muslims "guilty" but, apparently, it does make them suspect.

This will be a continuing question that the citizens and leadership of the US will have to deal with for some time to come.

Best regards,

RA1

[TampaYankee]

NPR seems to be very left leaning and liberal and has the rep of not firing anyone unless they actually are convicted of murder. Therefore, someone making a "conservative" remark is going to come under increased scrutiny and, in this case, be fired.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NPR, formerly National Public Radio,[1][2] is a privately and publicly funded non-profit membership media organization that serves as a national syndicator to 797 public radio stations in the United States of America.[3]

Just like broadcast and cable TV and radio are influenced by advertisers, NPR is influenced by private funding sources. I suspect they have been threatened with loss of contributions over Juan at Fox for sometime. This no doubt was the straw that broke the camel's back.

Was he representing NPR and his "job" there when he made these remarks?

No he was on Fox in his paid role as an analyst. Fox was forbidden from representing Juan's NPR affiliation on Fox shows.

Is he not entitled to his personal opinion? The answer to those questions is not so easy, but he seems to be on firm consitutional grounds with his remarks. That does not mean he cannot be fired for same.

Sure he is entitled, just like the Geico spokesman that voiced his thoughts about Fox and lost his job over it. Any program or business driven by advertisers/ratings or customers is subject to pressure from those sources. It is easier to replace a spokesman than big advertisers or lots of customers.

He has no consitutional guarantee of keeping his job. The First Ammendment applies only to government restricting speech. Almost no one seems to appreciate that fine detail of the law.

[RA1]

I don't understand your comment about representing NPR or not.

You seem to agree that he has the right to his opinion even though it might get him fired.

Best regards,

RA1

[TampaYankee]

I don't understand your comment about representing NPR or not.

You seem to agree that he has the right to his opinion even though it might get him fired.

Best regards,

RA1

He was employed by NPR as analyst (talking head) but he did not represent NPR as an intstution on Fox. NPR had pressured Fox to make sure there was no confusion. Many of these 'talking heads' work for more than one news outlet. Most dont care if their analyst is identified with outlet A while appearing on outlet B. Sort of free advertising. NPR did object to highlighting that connection on Fox appearances.

Yes, it is true that he does have the right to his opinion and that it can get him fired. I had the same restrictions on my employment. If my actions or expressions ever cast a shadow on my employer it was grounds for dismissal. I'm sure NPR adopted the view that these remarks cast a shadow on his objectivity, real or apparent, that impaired his contributions to their broadcasts. You or others may disagree but it is their decision.

Such happens not infrequently. Fox fired some talking heads for not toeing the line with sufficient ardor. Nothing new. One case invovled Eric Burns who used to host one of the Saturday shows about happendings in the press the previous week. He was dismissed without comment at contract renewal time. His transgression it seemed to me was that he tried to be too even handed. Neil Gabler the true liberal on the panel got the ax unceremoniously. A little time later another panelists on the show, GW professor Jane Alexander I believe her name was, was not renewed. She was the moderate sometimes-contrarion on the otherwise coservative panel.

No one argued that Fox couldn't fire them for speaking their mind which did not fit into the mold Fox wanted for the show.

[caeron]

Juan was a reporter, not a commentator. His job was to be neutral and report the facts. He got fired because he didn't respect that job requirement. At least some news organizations still strive for objectivity. I was listening to Rush rant about this earlier today and he read an internal letter about the firing which said that Juan had been crossing the line repeatedly while told not to.

The New York Times is liberal. NPR, at least to this listener, isn't particularly. The problem is that most people that scream about the liberal media think Fox is a little too far left. Your mileage may vary, but I don't see anything wrong with a news organization telling its reporter to shut his or her mouth and respect the need for objectivity.

[KYTOP]

Many US citizens are nervous about riding on the airlines with Muslims, rightly or wrongly. It also seems correct without a doubt that the terrorists who perpetrated the 911 murders were Muslims. However, that does not make all Muslims "guilty" but, apparently, it does make them suspect.

This will be a continuing question that the citizens and leadership of the US will have to deal with for some time to come.

Best regards,

RA1

A couple of years ago I was waiting in the airport in Montreal Canada to return to the US. A man of obvious Arab or Muslim descent was also waiting across from me for the same flight. Two uniformed Canadian officers approached him, asked for his passport, and then escorted him away from the waiting area. After awhile they returned with him and allowed him to board the flight. You will also see some of this in Europe. I think it is not just a US thing. Right or wrong it is part of the world we live in and I don't know why it is so taboo to at least have a discussion about how people feel about this.

I always enjoyed Juan William's on NPR and Fox News. He is definitely no conservative. I watch Fox News' Sunday morning talk show with Chris Wallace and Juan always adds a balance to that show. It is also reported that some other NPR reporters have stated negative opinions about Christians and the Tea Party and yet they were not fired. Double standard????

[RA1]

Every employer has the right to fire anyone for any reason, so long as that reason in NOT PI (politically incorrect); therefore I am not blaming NPR for exercising their perogatives, just their publically announced reasons for doing so. The Congress seems upset about this also, or, at least some members thereof, who have stated, why are we funding NPR when they act this way?

I have not seen this, but I have heard that there was more to the "report" than the sound bites so far reported. Later, he seemingly made it clear that he was not in favor of a "knee-jerk" reaction to Muslims and was only stating what many in the public seemed to think.

Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? Only the Shadow and I am not personally acquainted with this gentleman (although I would like to be).

There may be more to come.

Best regards,

RA1

[Guest Scorpio]

Juan was a reporter, not a commentator. His job was to be neutral and report the facts. He got fired because he didn't respect that job requirement.

According to NPR's own reporting on this story, Juan has not been a correspondent (i.e. reporter) since April 2008. Quoting from the NPR story, "His status was earlier shifted from staff correspondent to analyst after he took clear-cut positions about public policy on television and in newspaper opinion pieces."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130712737&ps=cprs

The NPR Ombudsman described Juan's position as: "After other inflammatory comments on Fox, in April 2008 NPR changed Williams' role from news correspondent (a reporting job) to news analyst. In this contract position, he was expected to report, think quickly and give his own analysis – while carefully choosing his words on any given subject."

http://www.npr.org/blogs/ombudsman/2010/10/21/130713285/npr-terminates-contract-with-juan-williams

Apparently, NPR thought JW was not analyzing correctly.

[Guest Scorpio]

No he was on Fox in his paid role as an analyst. Fox was forbidden from representing Juan's NPR affiliation on Fox shows.

None of the stories I've read (including the HuffPo piece you linkedd) support the "forbidden" comment. As I understand it, some time in 2009, NPR requested that FOX no longer state Juan's NPR affliliation when he appeared on Fox shows and that since that agreement was made FOX has honored it.

[Guest epigonos]

As far as I’m concerned Vivian Schiller, CEO of NPR, should be fired immediately for gross stupidity and incompetence. All she had to do is call Juan Williams into her office and inform him that she had decided that his serving two masters, NPR and Fox, was no longer in the best interest of NPR and that she would like him to decide which SINGLE master he would like to serve in the future. She would them have put the ball in his court and he would have been forced to make a choice. Instead she bungled the entire situation by firing him and creating a major controversy in a midst of a major NPR funds raising week. She also managed to create an incident right in the middle of an extremely important election which certainly isn’t going to do the liberal cause much good. THE WOMAN IS AN IDIOT!!!!!

[Lucky]

Epigonos, you sound like an Orange County Republican! A little misogynistic here...

[Guest epigonos]

Ok Lucky here we go:

1. On the first charge, that of being an Orange County Republican I have NO defense and am, without apology, definitely guilty as charged

2. Now as far as the second charge is concerned, that I am a misogynist I am definitely not guilty as charged. I spend all of my professional life working in secondary public education. During that time I worked successfully an enjoyably with female and male colleagues as well as female and male department chairs, vice principals, principals, assistant superintendents and superintendents. Some of both genders were competent and some of both genders were incompetent. I made no gender distinction in arriving at that evaluation. I current spend six weeks every spring as testing directors at a local high school and am supervised by two females. Both are incredibly competent.

I would have been equally critical had the CEO of NPR been a male as I was of Vivian Schiller. I DO NOT suffer stupidity with forbearance and grace. Vivian Schiller handled the situation stupidly and that has absolutely NOTHING to do with her gender.

[Lucky]

On point 2, I am not calling you a misogynist. I am saying your remark is a bit misogynistic. "The woman is an idiot." There is some difference there. The fact that the person making the decision is a woman should really have no bearing on your opinion of what she did. That's the misogynistic part, or so I think. It just doesn't sound right when you phrase it like that.

Here's a report on the case from a non-FOX viewpoint:

NY Times

Of the thousands of complaints that have saturated NPR in the wake of Juan Williams’s firing earlier this week, some of the most telling have been from callers describing themselves as long-time “viewers” of NPR who warn that they are going to “stop watching.”

NPR, of course, does not have viewers, it has listeners. But the public radio organization has come under severe criticism — largely from people who are not listeners, it believes — for having fired Mr. Williams, an analyst who was employed by both NPR and Fox News when he said on Fox that he felt fearful when he saw people in “Muslim garb” on an airplane.

Some have said his comment was bigoted, but others have rallied to Mr. Williams’s defense, and many conservatives have seized on his firing to resurrect their war against public broadcasting.

In an interview on Friday, Vivian Schiller, NPR’s chief executive, defended the decision to dismiss Mr. Williams and said it was not the product of political or financial pressures.

His contract was terminated, she said, because “he had several times in the past violated our news code of ethics with things that he had said on other people’s air.”

On one such occasion last year, Mr. Williams said on Fox that Michelle Obama has “got this ‘Stokely Carmichael in a designer dress’ thing going,” an allusion to a leader of the black power movement of the 1960s.

In each instance, Ms. Schiller said, “We called him on it, we had a discussion, we asked him not to do it again.” NPR’s ethics code states that journalists “should not express views” in other outlets, like TV shows, that “they would not air in their role as an NPR journalist.”

People deserve second chances, Ms. Schiller said, but “we made the decision here because, at a certain point, if someone keeps not following your guidance, you have to make a break. And that’s what we did.”

“And that is the sole reason,” she added. “This is not a First Amendment issue.”

[TampaYankee]

IMO Juan is no big loss to NPR but a big gain for Fox.

I knew of Juan 35 years ago as a talking head on weekly DC/PBS Poltics gabfests. Back then he was mediocre at best and hasn't improved one iota IMO. Thus no big loss for NPR. Others may differ in opinion.

However, having a high profile black journalist on the Fox payroll permits Fox to continue the sham 'fair and balanced' now enriched with the melodrama of 'a black journalist censored by the liberal elite media'.

It has worked out very well for Juan too, with that new Fox contract. Good for him. He is finally getting paid commensurate with the benefit he brings to Fox.

[Guest epigonos]

Lucky if the CEO of NPR had been a man would it have been acceptable, in your eyes, for me to have written, “The man is an idiot” because that is exactly what I would have done? The fact that she is, in my opinion, an idiot has absolutely nothing to do with her gender. If, indeed, it would have been acceptable for me to call a man an idiot BUT not a woman then you are espousing a form of “political correctness” that I find ridiculous, absurd, and offensive.

[Lucky]

LOL...do you remember telling me that you liked it when people challenged you? I was just giving you what you want!

[KYTOP]

As far as Im concerned Vivian Schiller, CEO of NPR, should be fired immediately for gross stupidity and incompetence.

I agree epigigonos but think she should fire herself for saying the following about Juan Williams after firing him:

"whatever feelings Williams has about Muslims should be between him and his psychiatrist or his publicist take your pick." She did later apologized for the remark.

It is also very appropriate for Lucky to reference a NYTimes piece on the subject since Ms Schiller left the NYTimes in 2008 to head up NPR.

[Guest epigonos]

YES Lucky I do remember and I love every minute of it especially when I am able to challenge back. I have often felt that one of the things this site lacks is some good old fashions controversy and confrontation. A steady diet of sugar gets mighty boring a little bit of vinegar now and then adds spice.

[lookin]

I have often felt that one of the things this site lacks is some good old fashions controversy and confrontation. A steady diet of sugar gets mighty boring a little bit of vinegar now and then adds spice.

Interesting thought, and may be worth testing. We could declare the first week in November Nasty Poster Week and take off the gloves.

We'd have to truss up the moderators of course or, better yet, convert them to the cause.

At the end of the week, we could do a tally and see if the numbers are up and we've got the site we want.

Let me know, though, as I'll need to lay in some supplies.

[RA1]

lookin'-

I think you need to lay in a large supply. Apparently there is a large demand for this product and the price can only go up.

Best regards,

RA1

[MsGuy]

I DO NOT suffer stupidity with forbearance and grace.

Peas in a pod.

Don't worry, lookin, these two will get along just fine.

[lookin]

Don't worry, lookin, these two will get along just fine.

No worries here! I was only half-joking in my earlier post. I could see having fun splashing some vinegar around as Epigonos suggested, or even a spritz or two of sulfuric acid should the need arise. While I don't feel that good-natured posts necessarily have to be boring, I do understand that others may enjoy a little bloodletting from time to time, and would increase their participation were it more prevalent.

I never joined the all-mean all-hateful all-the-time websites and would avoid them like the plague, but it might be fun to toss around a few good insults and engage in the odd bit of character assassination every once in a while.

Given the range of personalities here, combined with the limited subtlety of text-based posting, it probably wouldn't be easy to get the right balance between entertainment that would bring some folks in and downright snarkiness that would drive others away. But it might be fun to try.

That's why I suggested a one-week trial period providing a chance to see if we could get it right, and giving it an over-the-top name that would remind people that it was all in fun. My hunch is that a few feathers, I say a few feathers!, might get ruffled. But there's also a chance that another rooster or two might be drawn into the henhouse.

Maybe it would be possible to devote a separate forum to the nasty posts, and folks could choose to go there or not. With props to both Epigonos and Edward Gorey, I'll suggest calling it The Vinegar Works, then standing by to see who drops in.