NPR Fires Liberal News Analyst For Non-PC Nervousness

[Hayabusa Rider]

Well, I rummaged through a bunch of youtube clips on Williams' commentaries. His being a personal long-time friend of O'Reilly and the consistent underlying themes that was broadcast any time those two got together on Fox clearly shows how Williams either got exploited by Fox in propagandizing their agenda or Williams knowingly participated in advancing Fox's agenda.

Isn't it obvious that Fox will not waste any air time and expense (William's wages and benefits) if Williams, for whatever reason, cannot be manipulated into pushing Fox's agenda?

Wether he lent Fox a false air of legitimacy in forwarding their agenda, or wether William's sold his soul out of greed like O'Reilly, Hannity an
d Beck, Fox's message rings loud and clear no matter what talking face they put up on the screen, including Williams.

Williams sold out his integrity. He cashed in. He whored himself to Fox just like so many others that appear on their network, and now he's got a nice hefty raise in pay to show for it.

We get it. You don't like Fox. A good many of us who object to NPRs action don't like them either. It's sad to learn that despite their more complete stories their supposed higher standards are ideologically driven. The facade of objectivism has vanished.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

What if Juan Williams said "The Jews control the media."?

What if Obama said he wanted to gas the Jews?

 

[Corn]

What if Juan Williams said "The Jews control the media."?

What if you had a functioning brain?

Tell you what, when Mr. Williams says such a thing, we'll discuss it.

 

[her209]

What if Obama said he wanted to gas the Jews?

What does that have to do with the question at hand? I'm trying to see which ways of firing Juan Williams is NPR considered left leaning and which ways aren't.

 

[her209]

What if you had a functioning brain?

Tell you what, when Mr. Williams says such a thing, we'll discuss it.

He didn't. It was a hypothetical.

 

[Thump553]

In recent years I've seen or heard Juan Williams a whole lot more on Fox News than on NPR, and I spend a lot more time on NPR than Faux. Frankly I've always thought Williams was exploiting his NPR respectibility into cash in his pocket from Faux, and personally I'm glad they finally let him go.

I'm surprised to see so many self-preceived conservatives bending their "standards" to place higher restrictions upon employers that they philisophically disagree with.

 

[werepossum]

Amazingly not a single one of you water boys would defend Helen Thomas and were without exception:

I certainly was. Of course, I can see a difference between advocating religious cleansing, the destruction of Israel, and sending Jews back to the countries that massacred them on the one hand, and a news analyst commenting that Muslims in the garb worn only by the most fundamentalist of them made him personally a little nervous on airplanes on the other hand. Had Williams commented that Muslims should "get the hell out of" America and go back to the Middle East, then you would have a point. (I mean, other than the one atop your head obviously; no one can take that one away from you.)

 

[Craig234]

Here's an example of the history with Williams - from an article Feb 2009: http://mediamatters.org/blog/200902130007

Isn't Juan Williams violating NPR's code of ethics?

February 13, 2009 11:28 am ET by Eric Boehlert

As CF highlighted yesterday, NPR management has finally taken steps to stem the damage that NPR's Juan Williams routinely does with his appearances on Fox News. NPR's ombudsman Alicia Shepard wrote:

n the end, NPR must decide -- as it apparently already has -- whether giving its listeners the benefit of Williams' voice is worth the cost of annoying some listeners for his work on Fox. As a result of this latest flap, NPR's Vice President of News, Ellen Weiss, has asked Williams to ask that Fox remove his NPR identification whenever he is on O'Reilly.

Frankly, that's not enough and here's why. As I noted back in 2007, when Williams again embarrassed NPR via his conduct on Fox News, and specifically, on an appearance he made on The O'Reilly Factor:

Real damage is being done to NPR by having its name, via Williams, associated with Fox News' most opinionated talker. In fact, Williams' recent appearance on The O'Reilly Factor almost certainly violated NPR's employee standards, which prohibit staffers from appearing on programs that "encourage punditry and speculation rather than fact-based analysis" and are "harmful to the reputation of NPR."

To add fuller context, the NPR code of ethics clearly states:

9. NPR journalists must get permission from the Vice President for their Division or their designee to appear on TV or other media. It is not necessary to get permission in each instance when the employee is a regular participant on an approved show. Permission for such appearances may be revoked if NPR determines such appearances are harmful to the reputation of NPR or the NPR participant.

10. 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. They should not participate in shows electronic forums, or blogs that encourage punditry and speculation rather than rather than fact-based analysis.

Yet here it is in 2009 and NPR finds itself answering angry listener emails because Williams said something stupid on The O'Reilly Factor; something I cannot imagine Williams would ever say on an NPR program. Isn't Williams clearly violating NPR's own standards by appearing on that program; a program that quite obviously encourages "punditry and speculation rather than fact-based analysis" and more importantly is "harmful to the reputation of NPR"? (If the show is not harmful to NPR's reputation than why don't more NPR staffers appear on it?)

Or put another way, how is Williams not violating the code of ethics by appearing on The O'Reilly Factor? And yes, I read the part where Shepard noted Williams is no longer on-staff and that he's paid by NPR to be an independent contractor:

Last spring, NPR's management put him on contract with the title "news analyst" largely to give him more latitude about what he says.

She later added:

[NPR managers] 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.

But here's how NPR's code of ethics defines who is covered by its rules:

This code covers all NPR journalists - which for the purposes of this code includes all persons functioning in the News, Programming and Online Divisions as reporters, hosts, newscasters, writers, editors, directors, photographers and producers of news, music or other NPR programming. It also covers all senior News, Programming and Online content managers. It does not cover administrative or technical staff from News, Programming or Online. The code also applies to material provided to NPR by independent producers, member station contributors and/or reporters and freelance reporters, writers, news contributors or photographers.

And what if a non-staff contributor violates the code of ethics? NPR has the option of simply stop using that person in the future:

Because contributors in this category are not NPR employees, the remedy for dealing with a conflict of interest or other violation of the principles of this code is rejection of the offered material.

According to the NPR standards, written to "to protect the credibility of NPR's programming by ensuring high standards of honesty, integrity, impartiality and staff conduct," there are three relevant guidelines that, in this situation, seem to apply to Williams:

1. Don't appear on programs that promote punditry.

2. Don't appear on programs that are harmful to NPR's reputation.

3. Don't say things on non-NPR programs that the journalist would not say on NPR.

It seems that NPR either needs to rewrite its standards, or it needs to take more forceful action regarding Williams' appearances on The O'Reilly Factor.

 

[IGBT]

npr is a political org. Now who doesn't know that??

 

[trenchfoot]

We get it. You don't like Fox. A good many of us who object to NPRs action don't like them either. It's sad to learn that despite their more complete stories their supposed higher standards are ideologically driven. The facade of objectivism has vanished.

I would have hoped you'd have gotten more out of my post than that. Do what I did. Go through Youtube's clips on Williams' commentaries at Fox. The Fox message is there, it's consistent, and it's insidiously delivered.

If it was obvious to me, it surely was obvious to NPR's staff what Williams was up to at Fox.

I'm not arguing the point that Williams' firing was justified or PC. We can only suspect what really went on behind closed doors. All I did was follow my nose and this is what turned up.

It's more than obvious to anyone looking at this situation from an objective point of view that Fox is what it is: a propaganda outlet for the repubs. That is an inarguable known fact. Applying this to William's situation gives credence to NPR's decision to fire him.

IMHO, Williams tried to play on both sides of the fence, and as Thump553 mentioned, he used whatever reputation he gained elsewhere to his and Fox's advantage at the expense of ruining his now-former-reputation as an honest commentator. He is now owned by Fox. His loyalty lie with them now. In my eyes, he is no better than O'Reilly, Hannity and Beck. Whatever words come out of his mouth from here on in is now tainted by the riches Fox has bestowed on him.

 

[Corn]

Here's an example of the history with Williams - from an article Feb 2009: http://mediamatters.org/blog/200902130007

"MediaMatters" and "article". LOL

 

[Craig234]

To review werepossum's useful commentary on Thomas, first when she was forced out:

Finally, a small (very small) taste of consequences.

She has been dropped by her speaking agent - though I suppose Hamas could still contract directly with her.

There's the pointless ad hominem:

In fairness to journalism's crazy old aunt in the attic, she was in Palestine and had a very rough time when the Jews seized it - from the Canaanites. Plus Moses carved something lame in her yearbook.

Or the bringing her name up out of nowhere for an insult where she wasn't the topic:

That is simply an asinine position better suited to Helen Thomas than to a sane person.

Or the more direct comments. In response to a poster actually defending her:

Just a few things to say, Helen Thomas is a reporter and not a politician, and as such she is used to asking well thought out questions, rather than being interviewed and ambushed by being asked some total out of left field question.

His response:

Same old same old. Call the "good Jews" Eichmanns and the "bad Jews" soap. I don't think the "good Jews" will go for it this time - and I KNOW the "bad Jews" won't. Massacre us once, shame on you . . .

Or his 'defense' of Thomas in his ugly attack on her as an elderly woman, lacking any class, calling her 'the troll', not the internet provocateur type:

Funny, Squirrel Dog. Also funny how the White House Corespondents Association issued a statement that they "don't censor" the free speech of reporters, yet they are just now (a decade after the fact) having a meeting to discuss whether or not "a columnist" deserves a front row seat. Looks like the troll forgot to read the "Things we all believe but can't say on camera" chapter of her liberal media handbook.

Or his post above where he tries to spin her as calling for the massacre of Jews - another lie - while misrepresenting what Williams said, given that she expressed her opinion that the Western world - whose member Germany had committed the Holocaust after other Western nations refused to allow Jews to emigrate from Germany - forcing the taking of land from Palestinians to create Israel was wrong, in contrast to Williams spreading the irrational hate and fear that he views all Muslims as terrorist threats, legitimizing that reaction and fueling the bigotry against Muslims, even while he was acknowledging that not all Muslims are to blame. But Williams doing so on Bill O'Reilly's show, in violation of his agreement with NPR.

 

[shiner]

To review werepossum's useful commentary on Thomas, first when she was forced out:

 

[jhbball]

We get it. You don't like Fox. A good many of us who object to NPRs action don't like them either. It's sad to learn that despite their more complete stories their supposed higher standards are ideologically driven. The facade of objectivism has vanished.

God, you're such a drama queen.

 

[theeedude]

NPR has the highest standards. Williams had to go. He's still good enough for Fox News.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I would have hoped you'd have gotten more out of my post than that. Do what I did. Go through Youtube's clips on Williams' commentaries at Fox. The Fox message is there, it's consistent, and it's insidiously delivered.

If it was obvious to me, it surely was obvious to NPR's staff what Williams was up to at Fox.

I'm not arguing the point that Williams' firing was justified or PC. We can only suspect what really went on behind closed doors. All I did was follow my nose and this is what turned up.

It's more than obvious to anyone looking at this situation from an objective point of view that Fox is what it is: a propaganda outlet for the repubs. That is an inarguable known fact. Applying this to William's situation gives credence to NPR's decision to fire him.

IMHO, Williams tried to play on both sides of the fence, using whatever reputation he gained elsewhere to his and Fox's advantage at the expense of ruining his now-former-reputation as an honest commentator. He is now owned by Fox. His loyalty lie with them now. In my eyes, he is no better than O'Reilly, Hannity and Beck. Whatever words come out of his mouth from here on in is now tainted by the riches Fox has bestowed on him.

It is most likely within NPRs right to terminate Williams for most any reason. Just don't use high minded justifications. Vivian said everything. No more is needed.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

NPR has the highest standards. Williams had to go. He's still good enough for Fox News.

Highest standards of hypocricy perhaps.

Speaking of that, has anyone notice that some who are loudly critical of Williams express only a fraction of that disapproval regarding Obamas support for strengthening the Patriot Act?

 

[werepossum]

LOL! Well, clearly I didn't touch his mind, that was gone long before I encountered him. And I am unanimous in that.

 

[bfdd]

It's quite surprising to me how many of you guys straight up ignore the "left" leaning of NPR, especially after this. They might put out higher quality stories, but there is a bias there and only a fool couldn't see it.

 

[theeedude]

Highest standards of hypocricy perhaps.

Speaking of that, has anyone notice that some who are loudly critical of Williams express only a fraction of that disapproval regarding Obamas support for strengthening the Patriot Act?

Do you listen to NPR?

 

[bfdd]

Do you listen to NPR?

You obviously haven't paid any attention to this thread you feel like commenting in multiple times as he's already answered that and no one even had to ask him.

 

[Craig234]

Highest standards of hypocricy perhaps.

Why yes, because Totenberg regularly violates the rules for employees. Her frequent guest spots on Fox (or Mike Malloy) continue unpunished!

You're irrational in this thread.

Speaking of that, has anyone notice that some who are loudly critical of Williams express only a fraction of that disapproval regarding Obamas support for strengthening the Patriot Act?

No. But I notice that there are fewer defenders of Obama on the Patriot Act needing responses correcting them here than there are needing correction on Williams.

You're conflating, for no valid reason, the issues with Williams violating the terms of working with NPR, and a civil rights issue. Nonsense.

 

[theeedude]

It's quite surprising to me how many of you guys straight up ignore the "left" leaning of NPR, especially after this. They might put out higher quality stories, but there is a bias there and only a fool couldn't see it.

Juan Williams is a left winger. The only fools are people who see bias here.

 

[trenchfoot]

It is most likely within NPRs right to terminate Williams for most any reason. Just don't use high minded justifications. Vivian said everything. No more is needed.

Ok, thank you for dismissing me.

 

[Craig234]

It's quite surprising to me how many of you guys straight up ignore the "left" leaning of NPR, especially after this. They might put out higher quality stories, but there is a bias there and only a fool couldn't see it.

No, you have the bias.

'Bias' is in the eye of the beholder. The KKK often sees a pro-minority bias in everything. Evangelical Christians often see an atheistic bias in everything. PETA sees a lack of respect for animals in many things. And so on. Sometimes, these biases are accurate, and sometimes, they're not. Blacks who claimed anti-black bias back in the civil rights movement were actually right, but most Americans were not ready to hear it, and so it looked to them like it was the civil rights movement that was biased.

This is why ending discrimination against gay marriage is viewed by the anti-gay crowd as a 'gay agenda' that is an 'attack on marriage and family values'. The bias is with gays.

It's why the overwhelmingly powerful Christians in the US claim they're the victims of things like a 'war on Christmas' when there are any limits for enforcing equality.

If you have a radical right-wing view, then 'facts have a liberal bias'.

The thing is, it's hard to resolve these disputes - it takes two sides being somewhat rational, and that's not common unfortunately.