Juan Williams Fired From NPR

[BVS]

Facts do not apply in the world of <>

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Bill Cosby liberal? Puddin


NPR President Vivian Schiller apologized on Sunday for the network's handling of the Juan Williams controversy.

In a statement which was released Sunday, and was first seen by Politico, Schiller stood by the decision to fire Williams for his comments about Muslims on Fox News. But she apologized for NPR's hasty response to the controversy surrounding his remarks:

"I regret that we did not take the time to prepare our program partners and provide you with the tools to cope with the fallout from this episode...the process that followed the decision was unfortunate - including not meeting with Juan Williams in person - and I take full responsibility for that."

Schiller also wrote, however, that the ultimate decision was the right one. Reiterating a statement she released last Friday, she called Williams' comments "the latest in a series of deeply troubling incidents over several years," and said that he had been repeatedly asked to "avoid expressing strong personal opinions on controversial subjects in public settings...after this latest incident, we felt compelled to act."

The controversy surrounding Williams' firing has continued through the weekend. On Sunday, Williams appeared on "Fox News Sunday" and again blasted NPR for its decision. Fellow panelist Brit Hume also slammed the network, saying it did not support Williams because he was a "Bill Cosby liberal."

 

[yolland]

^ Ah, so now they're publically acknowledging that this wasn't a spur-of-the-moment decision. Well, I certainly do condemn Schiller's wholly unprofessional swipe at Williams earlier; that in itself reflected poorly on NPR.

I don't really have strong feelings one way or the other about NPR's decision to fire Williams, but I am bothered a bit by the number of (for lack of a better phrase) otherwise reasonable people who've defended him by suggesting that his comments were benign "in context." From the transcript (which deep helpfully linked to in the Sanchez thread):

(WILLIAMS) ...But I think you're right. I think, look, political correctness can lead to some kind of paralysis where you don't address reality. I mean, look, Bill, I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous. Now, I remember also that when the Times Square bomber was at court, I think this was just last week. He said the war with Muslims, America's war is just beginning, first drop of blood. I don't think there's any way to get away from these facts.

... Wait a second though, wait, hold on, because if you said Timothy McVeigh, the Atlanta bomber, these people who are protesting against homosexuality at military funerals, very obnoxious, you don't say first and foremost, we got a problem with Christians. That's crazy.

(O'REILLY) But it's not at that level. It doesn't rise near to that level.

(WILLIAMS) Correct. That's--and when you said in the talking points memo a moment ago that there are good Muslims, I think that's a point, you know?

It seems to me this line of thinking--that voicing one's own private, emotional responses to the sight of people in "Muslim garb" boarding a plane (before a national audience, as if it were a respect-worthy contention), just shows that you're keeping it real, righteously resisting PC "paralysis" and addressing "reality"--itself emerges from buying into perhaps the most problematic aspect of O'Reilly's position: that such feelings are fundamentally rational, grounded in a considered response to facts, and therefore if any mis-fit occurs between what reason tells you and what your gut tells you, integrity demands that you share it. But of course, that's not how prejudice works, and Williams knows it in spite of himself ("I'm not a bigot, but..."). We've been exposed for decades now, certainly not just since 9/11, to a steady diet of highly negative images of (otherwise unfamiliar) Muslims: the requisite "angry Arab street" clip when Middle East events make the news; the "Death to America!" sequence when Iran makes the news; the merciless mujahideen story when Afghanistan makes the news, etc. When you're living in an environment where you have what's perhaps in some ways the luxury of all this seeming quite remote, then it doesn't necessarily affect your gut reactions to everyday social situations. But when a 9/11 occurs, something which causes us to feel threatened in a far more immediate way, the 'conclusions' drawn from those images can readily sync with that fear, enabling precisely the kinds of associative leaps that--as Williams himself points out--we wouldn't make with entities that seem familiar, trusted. The resulting emotions aren't based on reasoned evaluations of how statistically likely a given individual is to constitute a meaningful threat, and addressing them adequately isn't a simple matter of saying, Oh, okay, so my math was off in that case.

O'Reilly was looking for validation following the controversy over his remarks on The View, and Williams delivered quite a bit of it--along with the heft granted by his professional reputation (and by extension, that of his longtime employer). Effectively, he came across as saying: Hey, it's okay to have these suspicions, I mean look what's happened; just don't go overboard, is all!

I can understand the criticism that NPR would've done better simply to reprimand Williams and demand an apology/'clarification' instead. Then again, his own voluntarily offered 'clarifications' since his firing suggest to me that he still doesn't really grasp (or accept) why what he said was problematic.

 

[BonosSaint]

Good to have you back.

 

[maycocksean]

^Yes!

 

[diamond]

I can understand the criticism that NPR would've done better simply to reprimand Williams and demand an apology/'clarification' instead. Then again, his own voluntarily offered 'clarifications' since his firing suggest to me that he still doesn't really grasp (or accept) why what he said was problematic.

Rev. Jesse Jackson condemns Williams firing - James Hohmann - POLITICO.com

And Jesse Jackson disagrees w you love.

<>

 

[coolian2]

oh snap.

 

[diamond]

Maybe if Juan would have said what he said in NPR's break room while at work instead of on FOX News things would have been different for him.

..but it was the place he said it- and NPR's reaction which exposes NPR's character-they hated Juan looking or appearing imperfect on their nemesis' channel- and had a collective melt down.
I won't try and connect the rest of dots for you.

At least Jesse Jackson almost gets it.
<>

 

[yolland]

Good to have you back.

^Yes!

Jesse Jackson disagrees w you

 

[diamond]

what kills ppl here is:

One man:Juan Williams > NPR.





a crushing blow.

<>

 

[BVS]

what kills ppl here is:

One man:Juan Williams > NPR.





a crushing blow.

<>

How is this "killing" anyone in here?

You don't even seem to understand the situation...

Even Juan on NPR stated this situation does not equal NPR.

 

[diamond]

Juan is too large for NPR.

 

[BVS]

It's not nice to make fun of people.

 

[diamond]

?