NPR Fires Liberal News Analyst For Non-PC Nervousness

[sandorski]

Yeah thats it, Fox News contacted their good buddies NPR and they cooked up this stunt. Then again you live in a country where unelected commissions can determine what speech is acceptable so I don't expect you to have much understanding of free speech.

If you can't see it, well, that's Fail.

 

[DesiPower]

What do you mean, "they?"

Talk of the Nation had plenty of commenters on there talking about how Arizona is simply enforcing their current law, and federal law. I felt that I came away with a much broader sense of the situation, and much more from Arizona's perspective.

Odd how we can hear two completely different stories.

Were you listening to Glen Beck's interpretation of their reporting?

That was after a backlash from their listeners, they themselves at one point read their enraged listener's letters and then slowly softened.

NPR is still the most unbiased media outlet out there but its far from having "no bias"

 

[Craig234]

Fox News PR Stunt. What's that saying? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on you. Fool me thrice, shame on you....I will be Fooled again.

I don't think this was a Fox PR stunt, or planned by the right. It was just a set of events caused by Williams' choosing Fox over NPR, so that he ignored their warnings and rules and milked it while they gave him latitude, until they didn't, and then Fox reacted predictably, attacking 'the left', playing the victim, etc. It was a bad situation Williams put them in, and better it's done.

Fox gets to declare war on NPR, NPR isn't allowed to declare war on Fox.

 

[werepossum]

What doctrine are you talking about? He was talking about his involuntary reaction to Muslims, that probably every non-Muslim American has.

The doctrine of toeing the progressive line. To wit: 9/11 was perpetrated by extremists who do not practice the Islamic faith, and any comment that indicates that anyone who DOES practice the Islamic faith (even if they profess the exact same religious principles as those "extremists") might have any possible connection to those extremists is anathema and cause for excommunication.

An employee of NPR may say any defamatory thing he or she wishes about Christianity, conservatism/conservatives, Republicans, traditional values, or white people (as long as those white people are not also gay, disabled, etc.) without any fear whatsoever of being terminated or otherwise pushed out of the NPR family. He or she is perfectly free to appear on/in Al Jazeera, the Democrat Underground, or the Huffington Post. He or she may make excuses for actual terrorists. What is NOT allowable is any appearance on FoxNews (what originally caused Juan Williams to be moved from staff member to "contributor" was his refusal to stop appearing on FoxNews) or any comment that could be considered as less than totally supportive of protected groups.

 

[Throckmorton]

This



Also during the presidential elections they would bring in all kinds of politicians on their shows and ppl like Diane Rehm would literally admonish the republicans and right wing ppl where as treat the lefties like Masaya. again, far far away from having "no bias"

Do you even listen to NPR?

Diane Rehm is the only show I can think of where the host has a clear bias, but she is fair to her guests. If the show is on a political issue, she'll have both liberals and conservatives on.

 

[Fern]

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:

In 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.

I think this pretty clearly shows that NPR had an explicit policy in place about the propriety of their reporters engaging in personal commentary on other news/opinion outlets. And it's clear that Williams was in violation of these rules. I venture to guess that if NPR had fired one of their reporters for making a LEFT-wing statement on, say, CNN (for example, saying something like, "The seething rage of many members of the Tea Party makes me very nervous; what kind of intelligent decisons can anyone make when the world is viewed through a red haze? Of course, I fully support the rights of Tea Partyers to be angry."), we wouldn't have heard a word of protest from ATPN conservatives (and, in fact, they'd probably protest if the firing didn't occur fast enough).

Par for the course on ATPN, I'm afraid.

You and Craig234 seem to want delve into the details to excuse NPR for firing Juan, but if so you need to actually look at the details and get it right (assuming Craig's quoted piece is accurate).

Note the underlined above. As an independeant contratcor NPR rules apply only to material submitted to them by the independant contractor.

Under the rules Juan was free to say what he wanted elsewhere.

These rules cannot be used as basis to justify his firing.

Moreover, NPR admits to changing his contract status to that of independant contratcor for the explicit purpose of providing him more leeway. To then fire him for using the leeway they provided him is inexplicable. To then call him,or infer that he's, a bigot and needs psychiatric care is grossly unfair and irresponsible.

Fern

 

[DesiPower]

Diane Rehm is the only show I can think of where the host has a clear bias, but she is fair to her guests. If the show is on a political issue, she'll have both liberals and conservatives on.

Neal Conan has a bias too, the other day he brought on the writer of a book about Glenn Beck and tea party, this author was a Princeton university prof of something and was obviously an extreme leftie, he had that attitude - I am a Ivy League porf, I know everything, those insignificant uneducated ppl done know anything, I will tell them whats right and what wrong. You never see an extreme rightie author on their show and thats OK, thats not the biggest issue, the issue is Neal's attitude, he was all gaga with the author, moking all righties and having a good time with the author ridiculing everyone... No bias you say?

 

[Fern]

They should make George Soros masks for Halloween. What a monster, spending for helping mankind against the corruption of the right, for things like democracy and human rights.
-snip-

That's pretty funny coming from you, what with all your "OMGZ the Koch Bros" threads and stuff.

Fern

 

[trenchfoot]

Agenda's really do get in the way of the pursuit of truth. But I guess for some the truth will dispel their agenda, so out it goes, and in with the talking points from Propaganda Central. lol

 

[Fern]

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

I think his list of supporters in this would be much smaller.

But Juan doesn't say those types of things, that's precisely why he has so many supporters from both sides.

I'm sure some Repubs are piling on against NPR simply because they can. But I think many support Juan because he was respected for how he argued his positions.

We often hear how we need more "moderates". I agree but certainly not in the sense it is meant. I don't think we need policticans that are wishy-washy in their positions. Instead we need more people like Juan who are able to represent their positions in a more 'moderate' fashion. On the one hand we have people like Keith Olbermann who are sneering, dismissive, insulting and take every opportunity to deride their opponent. OTOH we have Juan, while I don't like or agree with his positions, I do respect how he represents them.

He seems a genuinely decent fellow, no one likes to see someone like taht treated poorly.

And I would say the same about Mara Liasson too.

Fern

 

[werepossum]

I think his list of supporters in this would be much smaller.

But Juan doesn't say those types of things, that's precisely why he has so many supporters from both sides.

I'm sure some Repubs are piling on against NPR simply because they can. But I think many support Juan because he was respected for how he argued his positions.

We often hear how we need more "moderates". I agree but certainly not in the sense it is meant. I don't think we need policticans that are wishy-washy in their positions. Instead we need more people like Juan who are able to represent their positions in a more 'moderate' fashion. On the one hand we have people like Keith Olbermann who are sneering, dismissive, insulting and take every opportunity to deride their opponent. OTOH we have Juan, while I don't like or agree with his positions, I do respect how he represents them.

He seems a genuinely decent fellow, no one likes to see someone like taht treated poorly.

And I would say the same about Mara Liasson too.

Fern

Well said, and I totally agree. It's also worth noting that Juan said he got nervous around Muslims in traditional Muslim clothing within the context of telling O'Reilly that we need to guard against discrimination against innocent Muslims.

 

[Craig234]

That's pretty funny coming from you, what with all your "OMGZ the Koch Bros" threads and stuff.

Fern

You're not such an idiot that all giving of money is the same to you regardless of what it's given for, though you try to make a convincing case.

Money for democracy and human rights is not the same as money for a radical libertarian ideology and growing a group hoping to influence it to support the 'right to pollute'.

 

[mcmilljb]

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/39796836/ns/today-entertainment/?GT1=43001

[NPR CEO Vivian] Schiller said Thursday that whatever feelings Williams has about Muslims should be between him and "his psychiatrist or his publicist — take your pick." In a post later on NPR's website — where comments were heavily against Williams' firing — she apologized for making the "thoughtless" psychiatrist remark.

Mmm integrity at it's finest. Sounds like she thought highly of his work for the NPR. Maybe she should keep her personal opinions to herself (or her psychologist) instead of becoming the news... oh wait.

"Ms. Schiller is a pinhead," said O'Reilly.

In case anyone wondered what Bill O'Reilly said Thursday.

Even more interesting stuff.

Fox announced it had re-signed Williams , who has been with the network since 1997, to a multiyear deal that will give him an expanded role — and that Williams will host O'Reilly's show on Friday.

 

[ayabe]

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.)

Do you ever come into a discussion honestly? That is NOT what she said or what she meant.

You only see a difference when you invent one.

Muslims aren't a protected group afterall.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I think many support Juan because he was respected for how he argued his positions.

My concern is that this was an ideological firing. NPR is a corporation and one thing that they have are codes of conduct which are most often used to eliminate an unwanted employee. They are rarely applied uniformly.

Found this.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/nina-totenberg-next_511512.html

Certainly Totenberg has expressed controversial opinions, like the one with AIDs and Helems grandkids, like they ever did anything to her. Of course her viewpoints aren't at issue to those who agree with her, but others? If they don't match the editorial bias THEN the rules come into play.

Her most partisan comment came when Charles Krauthammer pointed out that 31 Democrats in the House had written to Nancy Pelosi to call for extending the Bush tax cuts, Totenberg wished them out of the party. “When a party actually has a huge majority, it has a huge diversity. And that is part of the problem that Democrats have. But would I like it to be otherwise? Of course.”

She wants a litmus test to enter the Big Tent and she wouldn't have it any other way.

What a joke.

 

[bfdd]

My concern is that this was an ideological firing. NPR is a corporation and one thing that they have are codes of conduct which are most often used to eliminate an unwanted employee. They are rarely applied uniformly.

Found this.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/nina-totenberg-next_511512.html

Certainly Totenberg has expressed controversial opinions, like the one with AIDs and Helems grandkids, like they ever did anything to her. Of course her viewpoints aren't at issue to those who agree with her, but others? If they don't match the editorial bias THEN the rules come into play.



She wants a litmus test to enter the Big Tent and she wouldn't have it any other way.

What a joke.

Doesn't George Soros give millions in support to the NPR? I could of swore I just read an article saying something as such. Why would George Soros support an institution that employs a woman like Totenberg who is so obviously against democracy?

 

[BoberFett]

You're not such an idiot that all giving of money is the same to you regardless of what it's given for, though you try to make a convincing case.

Money for democracy and human rights is not the same as money for a radical libertarian ideology and growing a group hoping to influence it to support the 'right to pollute'.

LOL. Craig. What a joke.

 

[irishScott]

I think he should've been disciplined and maybe even fired. I applaud NPR for not wanting to become like Fox News where Fox employs the most xenophobic and bigoted people they can find and gives them as big a bigoted voice as possible. If they perhaps went a bit too far, it's better than letting their employees become anywhere near close to Fox. Especially seeing how Fox is one of the prime forces ruining this country.

Right, this isn't about NPR. It's all about Fox News. If any article anywhere blames any part of the media for being liberal, it's all good because "they're just trying not to be Fox News".

Hell even liberal-ass Family Guy addressed this pretty fairly.

Lois: Where'd you hear that?
Chris: Fox News.
Lois: Then it's a lie.
Chris: But this one's true mom. You saw it with your own eyes and then reported it on Fox News.
Lois: Even true things once said on Fox News become lies.

 

[theeedude]

Moral of story is, if you want to work at NPR, keep your biases to yourself.

 

[bfdd]

Moral of story is, if you want to work at NPR, keep your biases to yourself.

Since when does fear mean bias?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Moral of story is, if you want to work at NPR, keep your biases to yourself.

Why does Totenberg have a job again? She has a decided bias and isn't afraid to show it. Objectivity isn't something she values.

 

[theeedude]

Since when does fear mean bias?

Fear is a bias to see someone as a threat.

 

[theeedude]

Why does Totenberg have a job again? She has a decided bias and isn't afraid to show it. Objectivity isn't something she values.

Does that excuse Williams?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Does that excuse Williams?

What it does is condemn NPR for having two standards. One for it's own bias and one any other. Remember they are the ones who claim to set the standard for objectivity and integrity. Not bloody likely.

As far as Williams saying what the majority of Americans feel? I know if I saw a Saudi in traditional garb I'd look at him twice. We're programmed for survival and it's not unreasonable to feel uncomfortable when confronted with something that reminds us of something unsettling. That is a far cry from acting on it. One's mind overcomes it and moves along. Note that Williams did NOT say that he refused to board a plane with Muslims and that he didn't agree with the "all muslims are extremists" line of O'Reilly.

Williams great sin wasn't breaking "the rules" but by not conforming to the bias of NPRs brass.

Personally I would have been wary of crossing corporate ideology, but perhaps Williams thought better of them than they deserve.

 

[theeedude]

What it does is condemn NPR for having two standards. One for it's own bias and one any other. Remember they are the ones who claim to set the standard for objectivity and integrity. Not bloody likely.

As far as Williams saying what the majority of Americans feel? I know if I saw a Saudi in traditional garb I'd look at him twice. We're programmed for survival and it's not unreasonable to feel uncomfortable when confronted with something that reminds us of something unsettling. That is a far cry from acting on it. One's mind overcomes it and moves along. Note that Williams did NOT say that he refused to board a plane with Muslims and that he didn't agree with the "all muslims are extremists" line of O'Reilly.

Williams great sin wasn't breaking "the rules" but by not conforming to the bias of NPRs brass.

Personally I would have been wary of crossing corporate ideology, but perhaps Williams thought better of them than they deserve.

I see, so it's biased for NPR to fire someone who is paid to be objective but goes and openly admits his bias on national TV. That's some great newspeak right there.