Juan Williams Fired From NPR - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-22-2010, 05:25 PM   #46
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 12:20 AM
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?

__________________

__________________
deep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2010, 05:27 PM   #47
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,994
Local Time: 03:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamond View Post
"most random"



<>
"red eye reduction"



Oh well, at least it wasn't a pic of you and Bono
__________________

__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2010, 07:55 PM   #48
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 01:20 AM
they say ppl w the most red eye in photos have that cos their spirits radiate the most compassion.
__________________
diamond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2010, 08:05 PM   #49
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,238
Local Time: 02:20 AM
__________________
Diemen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2010, 08:22 AM   #50
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,994
Local Time: 03:20 AM


Funniest..post..ever

I was wondering what I would do for entertainment when Mad Men was over
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2010, 11:43 AM   #51
has a
 
kramwest1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Not a toliet wall
Posts: 6,939
Local Time: 02:20 AM
__________________
Bread & Circuses
kramwest1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2010, 09:29 PM   #52
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 03:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kramwest1 View Post
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.
__________________
maycocksean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2010, 12:00 AM   #53
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 01:20 AM
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

<>
__________________
diamond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2010, 01:18 AM   #54
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Canadiens1131's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,363
Local Time: 04:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamond View Post
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.
__________________
Canadiens1131 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2010, 02:18 AM   #55
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 01:20 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1131 View Post



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.

<>
__________________
diamond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2010, 02:57 AM   #56
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,271
Local Time: 02:20 AM
*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
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2010, 03:09 AM   #57
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 01:20 AM
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.

<>
__________________
diamond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2010, 04:49 AM   #58
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,271
Local Time: 02:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamond View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by diamond View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by diamond View Post
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)?

Quote:
Originally Posted by diamond View Post
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
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2010, 06:30 AM   #59
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Canadiens1131's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,363
Local Time: 04:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamond View Post
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.
__________________
Canadiens1131 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2010, 07:15 PM   #60
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 03:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamond View Post
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.
__________________

__________________
anitram is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:20 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com