NPR Fires Liberal News Analyst For Non-PC Nervousness

[Lanyap]

wow! lol, that was quick!

For the right. LOL

 

[Infohawk]

That is not the way his employer saw it. They want objective journalists, not journalists who pass on objective news and information.

You're not really familiar with his work are you? Most of his work has been commentary / editorial / panel type stuff. NPR doesn't just have just-the-facts reporters. Like most outlets, it has the commentators too. Nice try though.

 

[nobodyknows]

How could anybody be scared of some nice fellows in traditional dress?

 

[wirelessenabled]

That's OK I'm not sending my $500 one.

Give me a break .... Right wing Hayabusa Rider tore up his $500 check to his local NPR station. What a bunch of BS. H.R is just inventing stuff to throw gasoline on the flames.

Hayabusa Rider is not the type to give $5 to NPR let alone $500.

This thread is just a bunch of partisan BS. Who do you think you are convincing? The partisans on the other side? Not likely. More like a big circle jerk.

 

[theeedude]

You're not really familiar with his work are you? Most of his work has been commentary / editorial / panel type stuff. NPR doesn't just have just-the-facts reporters. Like most outlets, it has the commentators too. Nice try though.

He's news analyst and expected to provide objective analysis, not editorial. Nice try though.

 

[Infohawk]

He's news analyst and expected to provide objective analysis, not editorial. Nice try though.

Not surprisingly you're just swallowing the NPR publicity statement without using your brain. And once again I can only conclude that you don't really know much about NPR or have much experience listening to it. I listen a lot. Their news analysts are there to give subjective viewpoints. Just like with a lot of other outlets.

And I'm not saying that NPR is slanted just like Fox is slanted. What I'm saying is that most news organizations have people who play different roles.

 

[BoberFett]

This thread is just a bunch of partisan BS. Who do you think you are convincing? The partisans on the other side? Not likely. More like a big circle jerk.

Yes, Democrats do seem to like jerking each other off. That whole gay thing must be catchy.

 

[soccerballtux]

Wow just wow isn't intelligent analysis but an attempt to subvert thinking with feeling. The wow factor is for folk who are interested in brainwashing others rather than communicating.

And O'reilly isn't a conservative and Williams isn't a liberal. Save your labeling for the superficial.

I am channeling my inner liberal. Don't make me cry.


:awe:

That's pretty good
I'm spending enough time on these forums to learn, too. Here I'll give it a go--
"In this HISTORIC event, NPR, host to one the largest talk radio shows in America, has expressed that they 'no longer support the 1st Amendment'".

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Give me a break .... Right wing Hayabusa Rider tore up his $500 check to his local NPR station. What a bunch of BS. H.R is just inventing stuff to throw gasoline on the flames.

Hayabusa Rider is not the type to give $5 to NPR let alone $500.

This thread is just a bunch of partisan BS. Who do you think you are convincing? The partisans on the other side? Not likely. More like a big circle jerk.

The local station has a lot of good programming and I've always been a fan of classical and other music found on public radio, so I guess you don't know my "type".

I know yours though:

 

[bamacre]

^ lol

 

[theeedude]

Not surprisingly you're just swallowing the NPR publicity statement without using your brain. And once again I can only conclude that you don't really know much about NPR or have much experience listening to it. I listen a lot. Their news analysts are there to give subjective viewpoints. Just like with a lot of other outlets.

And I'm not saying that NPR is slanted just like Fox is slanted. What I'm saying is that most news organizations have people who play different roles.

Not surprisingly you are reflexively bashing NPR as biased even though they just went as far as firing a guy who openly expressed his bias against a group of people.

 

[Lanyap]

Soros probably pushed the button on this decision. The left is bound and determined to lose big time in November.

After Williams's firing, NPR fears financial backlash

By Paul Farhi
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, October 23, 2010; A1


NPR faced fierce public and political reaction - most of it strongly negative - in the wake of its firing of commentator Juan Williams for comments he made on a Fox News program earlier in the week.

Even NPR's own staff expressed exasperation at the decision during a meeting Friday with NPR's president, Vivian Schiller. Several of those who attended said Schiller told employees that she regretted how she handled the episode.

The most serious issue facing NPR may be whether Williams's firing will cause lasting damage to public broadcasting's finances. Many conservative lawmakers and politicians - including House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.), Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and former House speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) - have called on Congress to curtail or eliminate federal subsidies for public broadcasting.

The threat of a funding cutoff is an old one among conservatives, who have long characterized NPR as a bastion of liberal bias. But some at NPR and in public broadcasting worry about the timing of the calls this time. The Williams controversy broke less than two weeks before a midterm election that may restore Republican control of the House and Senate.

While NPR receives only about 2 percent of its $154 million annual budget from federal sources, including the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and National Endowment for the Arts, its 800-plus member stations are much more reliant on tax subsidies. Some smaller stations receive as much as a third of their operating revenue from federal sources.

The firing drew thousands of e-mails and phone calls to NPR's downtown Washington headquarters, the majority of them expressing outrage. The deluge crashed the "Contact Us" form on NPR's Web site by Thursday afternoon, according to NPR ombudsman Alicia Shepard.

"They want NPR to hire him back immediately," Shepard wrote on NPR's site. "If NPR doesn't, they want all public funding of public radio to stop. They promise to never donate again. . . . It was daunting to answer the phone and hear so much unrestrained anger."

On an e-mail discussion group for public radio's station managers, Williams's firing drew both supportive and critical comments, but many questioned whether NPR could have avoided the public-relations firestorm with a different course of action.

NPR fired Williams late Wednesday after he told Fox News host Bill O'Reilly that he felt "nervous" when he boarded an airplane alongside people in "Muslim garb." Almost immediately after the firing, Fox News gave Williams a new contract worth nearly $2 million.

Washington-based NPR said the firing was the culmination of a long series of run-ins with Williams in which he was warned to stick to news analysis and not veer into personal opinions or inflammatory commentary. NPR executives have also said they have been concerned that Fox News has used Williams, an avowedly liberal analyst, to paint NPR itself as a liberal news organization rather than a nonpartisan one.

In a meeting with employees that had been scheduled before the Williams story broke, Schiller acknowledged that NPR didn't manage the firing well, but offered no specifics. She said NPR would conduct a "post-mortem" next week to review how the firing was handled, according to employees who attended the meeting, which was closed to the news media. Schiller didn't say who would handle the review or what the consequences of it might be.

An NPR spokeswoman, Dana Davis Rehm, said the review won't second-guess the decision itself, but would focus on how it was carried out. Schiller declined to comment.

Staffers said that at the Friday meeting, Schiller apologized again for telling an audience in Atlanta on Thursday that Williams should have kept his comments about Muslims between "himself and his psychiatrist."

"There wasn't anger" among NPR employees at the meeting, "but I did get a sense of despair and disappointment," said one NPR journalist, who asked not to be named because employees are not authorized to speak on the record about the matter. "I got the impression that [management] felt they had acted rashly and without deliberation. When [Schiller] made the psychiatrist crack, it just made matters much, much worse."

So far, Rehm said, the uproar over Williams's firing does not seem to have affected stations' ongoing pledge drives. In Washington, for example, public station WAMU-FM (88.5) was on track to surpass its goal of raising $1 million for the week.

Caryn Mathes, WAMU's general manager, declined to discuss the specifics of the Williams case, but said she supported NPR's effort to maintain consistent standards among its journalists. "News analysts and reporters and journalists and hosts are the lens through which our audiences view the world. When you make a very personal observation, it's almost like putting a big thumbprint on that lens. The next time the viewer looks through that lens, that's all he's going to see."

But Mathes said she hoped the controversy didn't translate into political action that could hurt all of public broadcasting. "I would hope that it reinforces how important it is for funding sources to be firewalled from editorial decisions. Whatever government funding a station gets needs to be protected from the vicissitudes of emotion and passion over a particular issue."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/22/AR2010102206639.html

 

[Lanyap]

Not surprisingly you are reflexively bashing NPR as biased even though they just went as far as firing a guy who openly expressed his bias against a group of people.

He expressed a personal fear for a brief moment of a specific situation with a group of people in context with discussing what they are experiencing. The events of 9/11 have been seered into every Americans minds so it is only natural to think about something like that, even for a few seconds, under that specific circumstance.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Washington-based NPR said the firing was the culmination of a long series of run-ins with Williams in which he was warned to stick to news analysis and not veer into personal opinions or inflammatory commentary. NPR executives have also said they have been concerned that Fox News has used Williams, an avowedly liberal analyst, to paint NPR itself as a liberal news organization rather than a nonpartisan one.

Yet they accept a 1.8 million dollar donation from a liberal extremist.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

He expressed a personal fear for a brief moment of a specific situation with a group of people in context with discussing what they are experiencing. The events of 9/11 have been seered into every Americans minds so it is only natural to think about something like that, even for a few seconds, under that specific circumstance.

He did more than that. He went into a conversation that clearly showed he was NOT in favor of persecuting Muslims, nor did he support the concept of Muslims being extremists. Save for admitting a bit of nervousness under that circumstance he did nothing but defend them.

I remember when Jessee Jackson said that there were times when he knew someone was nearby and was relieved to find it was a white man. Jesse Jackson. Hardcore conservative. Sure.

 

[Patranus]

Not surprisingly you are reflexively bashing NPR as biased even though they just went as far as firing a guy who openly expressed his bias against a group of people.

A fear is not a bias.
And if you actually went on to watch the rest of it you would know what he was trying to express.

 

[Patranus]

No, that's all part of an irrational fear, which supports bigotry. How can you ask people to treat Muslims as equal people with all the rights they have when they view them this way?

Ironic post coming from a guy why uses a sexual pejorative to describe a group of people who he also has an irrational fear of based on nothing.

 

[cumhail]

A fear is not a bias.
And if you actually went on to watch the rest of it you would know what he was trying to express.

Ok, so all of the following are perfectly acceptable fears to express...

"I mean, look, I'm not a bigot... But when I walk down a street, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Black urban clothes and I think, you know, they're identifying themselves first and foremost as Black, I get worried. I get nervous."

or

"I mean, look, I'm not a bigot... But when I am in a store, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Jewish garb and I think, you know, they're identifying themselves first and foremost as Jewish, I get worried. I get nervous."

or


"I mean, look, I'm not a bigot... But when I walk into a bathroom, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in gay-looking outfits and I think, you know, they're identifying themselves first and foremost as gay, I get worried. I get nervous."

or

"I mean, look, I'm not a bigot... But when I am at a playground, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Catholic clergymen's clothes and I think, you know, they're identifying themselves first and foremost as Catholic, I get worried. I get nervous."


I mean after all... they all started with "I'm not a bigot," so that proves I'm not.

 

[theeedude]

A fear is not a bias.
And if you actually went on to watch the rest of it you would know what he was trying to express.

Fear is a bias. If a journalist said "I fear the conservatives are going to ruin this country if elected," you'd say he's biased.

 

[PJABBER]

But Mathes said she hoped the controversy didn't translate into political action that could hurt all of public broadcasting. "I would hope that it reinforces how important it is for funding sources to be firewalled from editorial decisions. Whatever government funding a station gets needs to be protected from the vicissitudes of emotion and passion over a particular issue."

This business operation is funded by many different sources. Some of those sources, like George Soros, have a definite far left political agenda and they have demonstrated a specific media strategy that NPR is now identified as being part of.

It is hard to turn down those million dollar checks, but the price they bring is great indeed. When the money that is donated comes with politically attached conditions it should be rejected for the corruption it implies.

When your organization becomes distinctly political, as NPR management has, it is time for a serious re-assessment on the part of an outside board of directors and of those who provide funding specifically that it not be political.

Public affairs programming needs a very careful balance if it is to have any purpose, a purpose different than the advocacy easily found elsewhere.

I really enjoy some NPR programming, especially A Prairie Home Companion, Car Talk and World Cafe. I have donated directly to WXPN for their excellent new music programming. This kind of programming is unique but popular enough that I can, however, imagine that they could easily move to commercial radio. The classical and jazz shows can as well, though with some greater difficulty.

So what are we left with? A variety of talk and news shows that for the great part reflect a left of center character. No, these are not the haters of MSLSD, but their milquetoast cousins.

If such programming is going to air, and it does serve some purpose in the opinion-making cloud that is broadcast media, there must be a balancing or an emphasis on bringing forth reasonable voices as opposed to the harangue so easily found elsewhere.

That is the true problem for NPR - Juan Williams is one of only a few guys, proven over an accomplished lifetime, that provides a reasoned and liberal voice on the flow of news and events. He provides a balance that may tip left but it is valued for its insight.

To reject him because he offers the same in other forums that are more partisan (and I can argue that Fox is the only news and opinion forum that actually does provide full representation of both the partisan right and the partisan left) is ludicrous when so many are calling for a reduction in the stridency.

What is truly remarkable is how it is those of the right that have been most supportive of his continuing to be heard. Maybe it is because he can make his point and keep the discussion elevated. The left, on the other hand, is so narrow in focus that even appearing on Fox to argue for the liberal line is grounds for expulsion from the "progressive" club of uncompromising hatred, which I don't think he ever belonged to in the first place.

The real issue is a politically selfish "elite" liberal/progressive management team at NPR and CPB that should be fired for bringing their personal PC prejudices into such prominence that they have now imperiled the entirety of the enterprise.

In the business world that holds people accountable for their results they would be gone by now.

 

[theeedude]

Why is it surprising that those on the right will take any opportunity to bash NPR?

 

[PJABBER]

Ok, so all of the following are perfectly acceptable fears to express...

"I mean, look, I'm not a bigot... But when I walk down a street, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Black urban clothes and I think, you know, they're identifying themselves first and foremost as Black gangstas, I get worried. I get nervous."

I don't get nervous, I adjust my suit jacket to more easily get to my strong side carry Browning Hi-Power.

YMMV.

 

[Lanyap]

Why is it surprising that those on the right will take any opportunity to bash NPR?

This is not "any opportunity", it is a specific opportunity.

 

[Lanyap]

I don't get nervous, I adjust my suit jacket to more easily get to my strong side carry Browning Hi-Power.

YMMV.

Only the liberals get nervous. Conservatives have their CCW.

 

[bfdd]

the local station has a lot of good programming and i've always been a fan of classical and other music found on public radio, so i guess you don't know my "type".

I know yours though:

hhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha