Juan Williams Fired From NPR

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
That was a low blow. Real professional.

Juan Williams: 'I Don't Have a Psychiatrist'; NPR CEO 'Low' - George Stephanopoulos' Bottom Line


October 22, 2010 8:38 AM


Juan Williams was not surprised that NPR fired him this week – he said they wanted a reason to get him off the air—and told me the CEO's comments that he should talk to a "psychiatrist" was a low blow.

“I think they were looking for a reason to get rid of me. That they were uncomfortable with the idea that I was talking to the likes of Bill O’Reilly or Sean Hannity,” he told me on "GMA."

“I knew about their antagonism towards Fox. And I knew that they really didn’t like it, and as I said I have been there more than 10 years and I have seen managers come and go and who dealt with this issue. This current crew was really getting vicious,” Williams said.

NPR let Williams go after he said on Fox News that he becomes nervous when at an airport he sees “people who are dressed in Muslim garb and I think they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims.”

Vivian Schiller, NPR’s CEO, said that Williams’ comments should have been “between him and his psychiatrist or his publicist” but she later apologized. Williams – who was clearly still upset when he watched Schiller’s comments this morning -- said that was too personal.

“I don’t understand why she has to get that low. You know she has an argument to make that I somehow violated some journalistic ethics that were values of NPR, make the case,” he said. “I think it is a very weak case.”

Williams -- who said he does not have a psychiatrist –-questioned why if NPR thought he “was such an erratic character” that this didn’t come up long ago.

“This is the most ridiculous thing because then, the people at NPR and others, they take this one statement and they somehow make it out that I am a bigot,” Williams said. “I mean it's unbelievable to me given the books that I’ve written, the things I have done in my life. And now all of a sudden I’m a bigot.”

Williams admitted he could have taken the extra step to clarify his statement by saying he knew those fears were irrational – but given the context of the six minute interview he didn’t think it was necessary.

“It is visceral, it’s a feeling. And I don’t say 'I’m not getting on the plane,' I don’t say 'you must go through additional security.' I don’t say I' want to discriminate against those people.' No such thing occurs. So to me it was admitting that I have this notion, this feeling in the immediate moment,” he said.

Williams – who just got a $2 million deal for three years with Fox News – said it is making him rethink his previous beliefs about the left wing.

“I’ve always thought the right wing were ones that were inflexible and intolerant and now I’m coming to realize that the orthodoxy at NPR, its representing the left,” he said.
 
Wow, he's really positioning himself in line with his new bosses already.

They're all out to get you, Juan! :shifty:
 
PalinWilliams.jpg


Right-Wingers All Rush To Say Craziest Thing About Juan Williams Firing
 
I love how the most random thread here can be six degrees separation from a self posted diamond pic

:laugh: Eerie the connections we can make here, isn't it, MrsSpringsteen :D?

I got a real kick out of this quote in your bit there about him working at Fox News:

“He’s an honest man whose freedom of speech is protected by Fox News on a daily basis.”

Hm. Yeah.

Are we really becoming this naïve , in the age of Facebook and little expectation of personal privacy, to be surprised that saying something stupid in a public forum, when employed in a very public job, gets someone fired? :crack:

I still stand by my original statements, but you do make a very good point here. It is amazing that public figures nowadays get shocked when stuff they say or do gets broadcast on all forms of media. That is the price you pay for being in the public eye. Don't like it? Then you have a choice: be careful what you say or do, especially if you know full well your words will get a reaction, or go ahead and freely say what you want anyway-you certainly have the right and I'll defend your right to say such things, but be prepared for the fallout.

What's that old saying-"Better to keep quiet and let people think you're a fool than to open your mouth and prove it"?

By the way, this incident is the very first I've ever heard of this Juan Williams guy. Funny the things that'll get people to notice you sometimes.

Angela
 
Whenever I get too frustrated with US politics I just make a couple strong drinks and read this:
Fuck the South

I've never seen that before. That's some funny shit.

and that doesn't help either, 'cause i think hardcore liberals are just as big a bunch of douchebags as hard core conservatives are.

Us "moderates" are trapped between a douche and a dickbag. That's why I like the rent is too damn high guy. I don't pay rent, never actually have, but I like his gumption.
 
I am a public radio financial supporter, and I agree with NPR's firing of Juan. I know his appearances on Fox News have been an issue for a while, and I think this was just an easy out for NPR. Well, it should have been an easy out, but wow, did they handle it poorly.

It still amazes me how many people love to consume corporate-owned media. NPR (and PBS) is the closest thing we have to an independent media in the U.S.
People have been bullshitted by corporate media for so long, they don't even know what real journalism is.

I think NPR should go balls out and give up their 2 percent funding from the CPB and the NEA. Like it has been said, it is only loosely government money, and I think NPR execs are smart enough to make a 2 percent cut work within the organization.
Hell, I'd be willing to write another check today for NPR just to wave it in Jim DeMint's face and tell him to focus on the real issues facing our country FFS.
 
over the last 24 - 48 hours
I have had 2-3 different opinions based on the amount of information I have reviewed concerning this event.
along with my personal bias

right now, I believe this event is a net loss for NPR and the left,
many on the left are not supportive of this firing
also, the flippant remarks by the NPR representative, about Williams and his psychiatrist were a mistake.

a net win for Fox and the right


also, bottom line if one takes the time to look into Williams complete statement, he was not supporting the profiling Muslims
that was my first impression, that Williams was shilling for O'Reilly, that was not the case.

NPR should have put him on suspension, and had him come in to clarify his remarks if they believed they were that troubling.

This is a bit like the knee jerk firing of that HUD, Department black woman because there was that youtube of her saying she did not like White Farmers.


Is NPR going to fire Mara Liason, next?

images
 
they say ppl w the most red eye in photos have that cos their spirits radiate the most compassion.
 
I am a public radio financial supporter, and I agree with NPR's firing of Juan. I know his appearances on Fox News have been an issue for a while, and I think this was just an easy out for NPR. Well, it should have been an easy out, but wow, did they handle it poorly.

It still amazes me how many people love to consume corporate-owned media. NPR (and PBS) is the closest thing we have to an independent media in the U.S.
People have been bullshitted by corporate media for so long, they don't even know what real journalism is.

I think NPR should go balls out and give up their 2 percent funding from the CPB and the NEA. Like it has been said, it is only loosely government money, and I think NPR execs are smart enough to make a 2 percent cut work within the organization.
Hell, I'd be willing to write another check today for NPR just to wave it in Jim DeMint's face and tell him to focus on the real issues facing our country FFS.

This pretty much sums up my views on the subject. NPR was looking for an excuse to sack him and they took his comments as the excuse. I highly doubt he was fired ONLY because of his remarks. I think Juan Williams walks away from all this pretty good. He makes a bunch of money on Fox and gets a much higher profile then he had on NPR.
 
At the end of the day, he should not have been fired. He should have been reprimanded for making a bone headed comment.
NPR did jump the gun and now they look stupidier then Juan now.

And NPR is Left of center.

I think the reason they don't reject certain monies is so that they can maintain the right to claim they are "Public Radio"..when most ppl in the States see them as LWR-

Left
Wing
Radio

<>
 
At the end of the day, he should not have been fired. He should have been reprimanded for making a bone headed comment.
NPR did jump the gun and now they look stupidier then Juan now.

And NPR is Left of center.

I think the reason they don't reject certain monies is so that they can maintain the right to claim they are "Public Radio"..when most ppl in the States see them as LWR-

Left
Wing
Radio

<>
You know I do agree they are slightly left of centre, but at the end of the day they are a much more pleasurable listening alternative, if not the last refuge of the sane, compared with the rest of talk radio across the dial.

Everything else is very urban-centric with issues that are TOO local, or of the super right-wing, Glen / Rush variety.

The NPR CEO did a really classless thing with those comments re: Williams, and unfortunately it's now reflecting badly on the organization.
 
Everything else is very urban-centric with issues that are TOO local, or of the super right-wing, Glen / Rush variety.n.


I don't like anything shrill, whether it's Right or Left. Granted I can tolerate a shrill or obnoxious Right leaning talking head for a couple of seconds longer then Left, but I can't watch Glenn, Sean or Ed or Keith for any length of time.

I like listening to this guy, Dennis Prager.
Level headed, logical, calm, and conservative:

YouTube - Dennis Prager talks with a liberal about the environment

Listen to how the caller gets all worked up and Dennis is pragmatically calm.
What's even more amazing is that this was in 2007 when everyone was still on board with global warming, unlike today since the emails have surfaced and many scientists have since changed their minds.

So Dennis=the man.

<>
 
*Blinks* Uh. 'Kay. Yeah, he's very calm, which is nice, I'll grant him that.

But what the HELL was with the "heterosexual AIDS" thing? WTF? And the "Marxism" comment confused me, too. Kind of hard to take someone seriously, regardless of how calm or frothing at the mouth they are, when they spew out incoherent stuff like that.

As for global warming, um, last I checked there's still plenty of scientists who do acknowledge and accept it. I haven't heard of a mass shift in scientists changing their tune on that issue. There may be some, but "many"? Not so sure.

Angela
 
Angela-

When AIDs initially hit the USA, many scientists and some M.D.s came out and said that it would be an epidemic the same way it is for IV drug users and gay men-for straight men in the USA. They predicted that the American heterosexual male would have the same rate of infection as gay American male, it never happened. Every straight guy was paranoid and protected themselves to the hilt. Guess what gay American men kept getting AIDS-while straight American men did not.

Re Global Warming:

Global warming is so unpopular now to majority of Americans that the Democrats running this cycle aren't even mentioning it on the campaign trail.

The tide has shifted immensely on global warming, that's why intially they tried to change the term to "climate change", and then the scientists couldn't get those numbers to work, now they're like wtf? The tide has and is continuing to shift on the questionable science of global warming and rightfully so.

So in the end, Dennis is closer to correct, while the shills have been closer to wrong.

<>
 
Angela-

When AIDs initially hit the USA, many scientists and some M.D.s came out and said that it would be an epidemic the same way it is for IV drug users and gay men-for straight men in the USA. They predicted that the American heterosexual male would have the same rate of infection as gay American male, it never happened. Every straight guy was paranoid and protected themselves to the hilt. Guess what gay American men kept getting AIDS-while straight American men did not.

So, you're saying straight men aren't getting AIDS? Or that they are, just not in the same numbers gay people are (aren't there straight IV drug users? Isn't Magic Johnson straight?)? Or what?

Sorry, the guy still sounds ignorant based on that comment.

Re Global Warming:

Global warming is so unpopular now to majority of Americans that the Democrats running this cycle aren't even mentioning it on the campaign trail.

Or, it could be that the economy's the most important, pressing concern and so they're focusing on that instead of a multitude of other issues right now.

The tide has shifted immensely on global warming, that's why intially they tried to change the term to "climate change", and then the scientists couldn't get those numbers to work, now they're like wtf? The tide has and is continuing to shift on the questionable science of global warming and rightfully so.

Global warming is an aspect of climate change. It affects other parts of the climate. Climate deals with more than just the temperature. The problem is that most of society doesn't understand the terms and the difference between the two things. You are aware that we're kinda falling behind other parts of the world in science (and math)?

So in the end, Dennis is closer to correct, while the shills have been closer to wrong.

<>

No, he still sounds like he doesn't know what he's talking about. I fully agree the shrill hysterics of those who accept climate change and global warming doesn't help their cause, just as it doesn't help any other cause, but it doesn't automatically mean they're any less wrong in what they're saying. It just means it's harder for people to want to listen to what they have to say. Though, then again, this guy was calm, and it was still hard to understand him, so...

Apologies if this is derailing the thread.

Angela
 
I don't like anything shrill, whether it's Right or Left. Granted I can tolerate a shrill or obnoxious Right leaning talking head for a couple of seconds longer then Left, but I can't watch Glenn, Sean or Ed or Keith for any length of time.

I like listening to this guy, Dennis Prager.
Level headed, logical, calm, and conservative:
Prager seems decent enough, but the caller is one of the reasons why I don't listen to much commercial talk radio, and tend to listen to NPR. NPR's formatting really avoids this "Us vs. Them" caller / host banter. Yes, they have a ham or two as national radio hosts, and they are indeed left-leaning, but I feel like their news programming does a fair job at examining important issues instead of stonewalling or offering opinion falsely-labelled as "analysis" one way or the other.

I find that a lot of people listen to talk radio to have their opinions validated or to leer at wacky callers who are completely out of it, like that idiot in the Prager clip above. Prager may be a decent guy with well thought-out, conservative opinions, but if he's been placed in a context like obnoxious commercial radio, then he's of no use to me.

As someone who listens to the radio fairly frequently to try to inform myself better about national issues, I feel that NPR does a more comprehensive, less obnoxious, and more in-depth job than their other counterparts on the radio dial.

I think the current radio environment reflects our Reality TV culture, where we like to feel validated and laugh at the village idiot. It's mirroring the slow, depressing slide that cable news took in the 00s toward shouting morons like Olberman and Hannity, and away from news.
 
Angela-

When AIDs initially hit the USA, many scientists and some M.D.s came out and said that it would be an epidemic the same way it is for IV drug users and gay men-for straight men in the USA. They predicted that the American heterosexual male would have the same rate of infection as gay American male, it never happened. Every straight guy was paranoid and protected themselves to the hilt. Guess what gay American men kept getting AIDS-while straight American men did not.

What a ridiculous commentary, for a number of reasons.

Not the least of which is that fact that gay men have sex with, and thus infect, other gay men, which then increases the rate of infection among, you guessed it - gay men. While straight men are out there infecting straight WOMEN, whose rate of infection is calculated separately.

Truly somewhere a statistics professor weeps.

This is to say nothing of the fact that the vast majority of all HIV positive and AIDS sufferers across the world are heterosexual.
 
Back
Top Bottom