Muslims, Political Correctness, and the Juan Williams saga

[Deleted member 365]

He wasn't sayin them on NPR, but that's not important. What "types of statement" should he "not be saying," and why shouldn't he? Do you disagree with the resistance he is giving O'Reilly in this segment? Is he, as Eric may have suggested, being partial by supporting muslim rights and denouncing stereotyping. Should he refrain from uttering such opinions? If so, why?

He's employed by a news agency and has a standard set by his employer to live by.

NPR shouldn't have to give him a list of things that he can and cannot say. A few months ago my own employer sent out a letter warning us of the things that we tweet and post on facebook. It didn't go into any real specifics, but the warning was clear that we should stay away from even the appearance of saying anything racist, negative towards the company, or controversial.

If I felt that this was infringing upon my rights, I could do the 3 things I suggested in my previous post.

But while I'm an employee, I need to adhere to their rules and standards. Juan didn't, and is now paying for his consequences.

Isn't that what conservatives are constantly harpring on? Personal accountability?

It appears from what I'm getting from Hopper and Bill O'Reiley is that fox and conservatives want to take away the freedom from the employer, don't want Juan to be accountable for his personal decisions, and don't believe in the American Dream anymore. Interesting.

 

[Hopper]

He's employed by a news agency and has a standard set by his employer to live by.

I read this post, but have no comment on it.

 

[Deleted member 365]

I read this post, but have no comment on it.

How so? Because he violated NPR's standards?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Williams

He was a senior news analyst for National Public Radio (NPR) from 1999 until October 2010.

I couldn't agree w/Schiller more:

NPR terminated his contract on Wednesday, October 20, 2010, after he made remarks on The O'Reilly Factor two days earlier.[9] He commented, "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."[10] According to NPR, the remarks were "inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR." As to the reason for the termination of Williams' contract, NPR’s CEO Vivian Schiller offered the following comment, "News analysts may not take personal public positions on controversial issues; doing so undermines their credibility as analysts..."[11] On October 21, 2010, Schiller told an audience at the Atlanta Press Club that Williams' feelings about Muslims should be between him and "his psychiatrist or his publicist—take your pick."

If Juan or anyone has a problem w/this, then stop complaining, and start up your own business.

 

[Deleted member 365]

Furthermore:

NPR CEO Vivian Schiller defended her choice by asserting that Williams has a history of making controversial comments in violation of NPR's ethics policy with comments made on Fox News news and in print newspapers. Earlier, he had said of US First-Lady Michelle Obama "she's got this Stokely Carmichael in a designer dress thing going." [48][49] NPR's on-air contributors have been advised to limit their association with FOX. Williams had "been warned several times that [Bill] O’Reilly is a professional provocateur and to be careful."

This would essentially being like the Jazz telling Deron to not ski, and Deron then breaking his leg skiing. Would you really defend Deron in that case?

My own employer sent me a letter warning me of what I wrote on facebook. Could I really expect to thumb my nose at them and expect to have a job?

Juan Williams wanted to do whatever the hell he wanted. He did. And is now being held accountable for it.

I find it appalling (but not surprising) that you and Bill O'Reiley are defending this joke.

 

[One Brow]

Do I think it's "just a coincidence" that the whole liberal panel of "The View" (according to Goldberg) thought NPR was "totally wrong" in firing Williams?

I agree it is likely The View also inspired a lot of people who don't listen to NPR to call to complain.

What do you mean by "is it a co-incidence?"

I was referring to the size of the reacion, not the particulars of the individual reactions.

Do you think Fox is the ONLY source that reported this?

Of course not.

According to the Ombudsman, the responses were to NPR's own story, if I recall correctly.

Not in the quotes posted. Of course, it's much more convenient to rely on your memory than check prior posts in this thread.

Do Fox listeners frequent the NPR website as a matter of habit, ya figure?

Irrelevant, as anyone who goes to the site can send feedback, whether they frequent the site or not.

All of that occurred before any "angry segment," as you call it, appeared on Fox, according to the time frame given.

You mean before any segment you quoted? Or, di dyou montor Fox News, the View, etc. all that day?

I'm sorry, Eric, but I can't help but see the posts you are makin in this thread as being motivated by much other than a percieved duty to "toe" the party line and support whatever NPR does,

Thank you for claifying your inabilities.

You, on the other hand, try to suggest that all the negative reactions NPR got was ONLY (or at least mainly) from Fox listeners.

I am not so addled that I confused "all the negative reactions" with "volume of calls and emails to a particular location". I still don't see any reason to think the voume was primarily NPR listeners.

 

[One Brow]

I agree that Williams is not "impartial" on the muslim question. ... Is that the "partiality" that got him fired, ya figure?

This seems to be just your way of dodging, rather than justifying, your own quote:

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.

So, what is their opinion that they really meant for him to give, given that it is "apparent"?

 

[PearlWatson]

I think it's pretty clear that you can't stereotype a world religion and link it to terrorism.

Yes, you can.

 

[Hopper]

. Not in the quotes posted. Of course, it's much more convenient to rely on your memory than check prior posts in this thread.

You mean before any segment you quoted? Or, di dyou montor Fox News, the View, etc. all that day?

What are you talking about? What "quotes posted?" It seem pretty clear to me.

What do you mean "any segement?" Are you talking about the first video? Even that (which aired long before "the factor") quoted NPR's own reporter.

Again, it seems clear to me that the occurrences referenced by the ombudsman preceded the "angry segment." Do you have any basis for claiming otherwise? NPR made it's announcemnt Wednesday night and got 6800 emails in response before this ever hit fox news.

 

[sirkickyass]

I've asked this question a couple times but Hopper doesn't respond:

"If NPR no longer desires Williams services are they obligated to continue to put him on the air?"

 

[Hopper]

I've asked this question a couple times but Hopper doesn't respond:

"If NPR no longer desires Williams services are they obligated to continue to put him on the air?"

I don't know, Kicky, that would depend on the wording of their contract. As has been noted, he was an independent contractor for NPR, not a staff employee, and, as such, was not subject to their jurisdiction when working in other venues, per the NPR ombudsman.

But, let's leave that aside and say "Hell, no! He's an at-will employee and they have the right to fire him at any second for NO reason whatsoever, if they choose."

That's not the issue here, as I have said before. Why do you even ask it?

 

[sirkickyass]

I don't know, Kicky, that would depend on the wording of their contract. As has been noted, he was an independent contractor for NPR, not a staff employee, and, as such, was not subject to their jurisdiction when working in other venues, per the NPR ombudsman.

I think you're actually intepreting this wrongly. The independent contractor status gives him fewer legal protections (and more freedoms, like his Fox News appearances), not more. As you indicate though, that's neither here nor there. I only mention this because you've stated this as fact several times.

But, let's leave that aside and say "Hell, no! He's an at-will employee and they have the right to fire him at any second for NO reason whatsoever, if they choose."

That's not the issue here, as I have said before. Why do you even ask it?

Because it seems as if your analysis is entirely one-sided (which you accuse Eric of doing). The only true remedy would be for Williams to be un-fireable, in essence a tenure system. While you seem very intent on focusing on the rights of the individual to say whatever he wants regardless of how his employer will feel it affects his ability to do his job you seem to be according zero weight to the right of the organization to only employ (and pay) those whom they want representing the organization.

The question is designed to ask why you're giving zero weight to one side of the scale.

When I say that ombudsman's stance is reasonable what I mean is that she, in both posts, sets it up as a balancing test. While acknowledging that Williams brings good things to the table, at some point in time it has to be determined whether he's "more trouble than he's worth." I don't have to deal with him; NPR does and so I'm comfortable letting them determine at what point the scale tips one direction.

 

[Hopper]

The independent contractor status gives him fewer legal protections (and more freedoms, like his Fox News appearances), not more. As you indicate though, that's neither here nor there. I only mention this because you've stated this as fact several times.

That statement, as a blanket claim, is WRONG. I only mention this because it's inaccurate.