I’ve heard this claim floating around, but I have yet to see any cites. Without citing what the specific case those previous warnings were over, the claim could very well be totally BS. Considering this excuse originated from the same leadership that just made insulting, inflammatory, and totally unprofessional remarks about Williams and his psychologist, I’m not inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt here. So I want cites. Now when I say cite, I don’t mean a vague ‘he was warned’ link. I want quotes. If this is not the first incident of him saying something NPR felt reflected poorly on them, please quote exactly what he said in the previous incidents. Include what programs it was on, air dates, and if possible a full transcript of these claimed statements of bigotry he was warned over.
I’d never heard of Juan Williams before now and don’t have a strongly formed opinion about the incident itself.
BUT, NPR’s Forum program this morning had a discussion of this issue itself with a wide range of views represented (David Frum was one of the guests), many of them very critical of NPR, and quotes from NPR’s Ombudsman admitting that they’d handled the whole issue very badly.
Every organization makes mistakes. The question is how they handle it next.
This is fallacious. NPR officially and publicly calls itself non-partisan, and its content backs it up. There is no evidence that NPR is lying about its neutrality discrnable in its content. As always with right wingers, the “liberal bias” they see is simply what lack of right wing bias looks like.
That’s right. It’s irrational, as brief bouts of nervousness often are. Juan Williams himself would probably agree with that.
This does not, however, excuse misrepresenting what Mister Williams said. These protestations of “His fear is irrational!” do not justify exaggerating the nature of his candid confession.
Not talking about World of Warcraft here. You know that, right?
I notice them when people like you bring it up. Otherwise ,it is normal as hell. But when people quake in fear because of how some people dress, I start to think about how people are dressed. But I am sure you could figure that out.
Can you provide a link to the actual study?
Looks like this might be it (PDF).
I agree cites would be nice but unless NPR made previous instances of their displeasure over what Willams has said overtly public (which I seriously doubt they did for reasons below) we will never get those cites.
Generally internal dealings with employees stay internal and are not ever for public consumption. Pretty sure there are laws about such things. I could be wrong and I would like to see backup for it but not holding my breath expecting it.
I am slightly inclined to believe NPR because I would be shocked if they really went to this level over that one comment. If they did they are frighteningly gunshy.
Shit, offer me two million bucks to switch sides, I’d make **Starving Artist **look like Noam Chomsky!
I’ve never commented on a post of yours before, but I always thought you were above an appeal to motive. 
I doubt I’ll get cites for the reasons you said. Still, if this wasn’t the first time that Williams said something racist on TV, there should at least be video of it somewhere even if we can’t be sure that’s exactly what NPR talked to him about. So far the only thing close to offensive I’ve seen floating around in the specific case he was fired for.
Although I did catch an interview with him earlier. According to him, and I realize he has no more cites than NPR, the issue was he went on Fox at all. NPR felt that was ruining their good name. So he made an agreement with the management of NPR that he would not be identified as a NPR employee or mention NPR at all if they would let him speak on whatever program he wished.
From what I can tell via previous writings of others, etc. this is probably true. I know there’s at least a Politico article written before this incident pretty much saying the same thing. The cardinal sin that he was warned about was that he dared talk to Bill Reilly at all, not what he said there. Combine that with the moronic psychologist comment, their generally inept handling of this to begin with, and that the management stated their biggest regret was not mishandling it, but that it happened during pledge week and I’m not exactly getting a reason to believe NPR managements take on this case.
After thinking about this a bit I have to say I have no inherent problem with an NPR prohibition on its employees from going on FOX.
NPR’s approach to journalism is diametrically opposed to FOX’s approach. They are oil and water and I think NPR could easily make a case prohibiting its employees from appearing on FOX without express, written consent from NPR management.
As I noted earlier FOX has such prohibitions in their contracts with their personalities (they do not specify NPR but rather their talking heads cannot go on anything without management’s consent).
NPR would however need to be upfront about that prohibition. If it is the case that Williams’ prime offense was breaking a secret rule about appearing on FOX that no one else knew about well…we see the results now and they aren’t good for NPR.
FWIW here are the 9/11 hijackers in their “Muslim” garb: http://i.imgur.com/ic4ae.jpg
No, NPR’s bias is an established fact. This is not an opinion you can disagree with, it is a known and proven fact. If you claim otherwise, you are wrong by definition.
I don’t know what you mean. We are discussing, in part, why NPR fired Williams. I don’t see how we can avoid an analysis of motive.
As I said, it can’t be opposition to bigotry, because Williams’ statement wasn’t bigoted, and also because other bigoted statements did not cause NPR to fire their employees for making them. And we have Mr. Smashy’s cite that Williams was fired because he was on Fox. And, possibly, because Soros gave them money to hire reporters and NPR wanted to get rid of a reporter who was not 100% committed to their point of view.
Regards,
Shodan
Geesh, that just goes to show that NPR will censor any speech that violates their far-left agenda! Unlike the fair and balanced Fox.
This sounds like simple antagonism of another poster. Is it a nitpick that bias is unavoidable in reality so therefore NPR is biased? If so that is really neither here nor there.
If you are alleging a liberal bias to NPR please define what constitutes a liberal bias and then show NPR is guilty of that bias.
No, Mr. Williams shouldn’t have been fired. At worst, he should have been given a 2 hour forum with Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Satanists, chronic masturbaters, Minnesota Viking fans, rapists, polygamists, terrorists, Californians, the new head of Korea, the president of Iran, the Pope, the Eastern Orthodox Pope, random celebrities, Snookey, the ghost of Bob Guccione, a random Frenchman, two Yemeni waiters, and the 10 most powerful people in China, (and I’m sorry if I missed anyone.) to explain his comments.
Why? Because that would make more sense than firing him for just stating a personal feeling/opinion without giving him a chance to explain. No-one advances culturally, racially, or societally without an honest open discourse. NPR should be ashamed for not allowing ne demanding such a discourse.
Not a lot of a cite but found this (bolding mine):
It may be, and probably is, true that Williams was fired for just cause - that there was a clear guidance regarding their talent’s other media’s personas that he had disregarded on multiple occasions. I honestly think that such is likely the case. If it was a normal corporation he probably would already have had the formal warning meeting with a signed action plan to set up the grounds for termination if his behaviors persisted. I doubt however that they did that. NPR brass handled this badly, very badly, and the negative effects to the organization and to many individual public radio stations whose involvement is merely that they purchase services from NPR, will be significant. Williams on the other hand, has a nice gig at Fox.