Should longtime NPR analyst Juan Williams have been fired for comments he made on O'Reilly?

[Ludovic]

@Enuma_Elish

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.

Definitely. At least the open-minded, honest Fox News is still employing him. I know that they would never allow the silencing of an opinion. Their discourses are always civil.

[Kevbo]

The problem isn’t totally what Williams said in this instance. The problem is that Williams has been lending, by proxy, NPR’s credibility to Fox’s right wing, xenophobic rhetoric:

“Look, even a black, latte sipping liberal, NPR guy agrees with us 'bout them evil muslims!”

In this case, I personally think Williams was trying to make the point that his fears were irrational and misplaced, but O’Reilly was talking over him to the point that he never got there. That is par for the course with WO’R, and should have been anticipated by Williams. He could have made this point BEFORE giving voice to his fears, or just declined to engage with Fox and/or O’Reilly.

That and any person of color who doesn’t know what to expect to hear after “I’m not a bigot but…” really hasn’t been paying attention.

NPR should have waited a couple days, then let Williams go without explanation beyond “Your services are no longer required. This security officer will watch while you remove personal effects from your office. Don’t let the door bang your ass on the way out.”

[Enuma_Elish]

@Ludovic

Definitely. At least the open-minded, honest Fox News is still employing him. I know that they would never allow the silencing of an opinion. Their discourses are always civil.

Um, what does Fox News have to do with anything? I haven’t watched Fox News, CNBC, or CNN for a couple of years. I thought Williams was employed by NPR.

[Starving_Artist]

@Whack-a-Mole

From NYT:

Not a lot of a cite but found this (bolding mine):In an interview on Friday, Vivian Schiller, NPR’s chief executive, defended the decision to dismiss Mr. Williams and said it was not the product of political or financial pressures.

His contract was terminated, she said, because “he had several times in the past violated our news code of ethics with things that he had said on other people’s air.”

On one such occasion last year, Mr. Williams said on Fox that Michelle Obama has “got this ‘Stokely Carmichael in a designer dress’ thing going,” an allusion to a leader of the black power movement of the 1960s.

In each instance, Ms. Schiller said, “We called him on it, we had a discussion, we asked him not to do it again.” NPR’s ethics code states that journalists “should not express views” in other outlets, like TV shows, that “they would not air in their role as an NPR journalist.”

People deserve second chances, Ms. Schiller said, but “we made the decision here because, at a certain point, if someone keeps not following your guidance, you have to make a break. And that’s what we did.”

One can only wonder if NPR would have gotten in such a snit over the bolded part had the critique been of Sarah Palin or Christine O’Donnell’s style of dress…though I think we all know the answer.

[godix]

@Whack-a-Mole

Not a lot of a cite but found this

I was unaware of that comment. Thanks for digging it up.

[Gyrate]

@Starving_Artist

One can only wonder if NPR would have gotten in such a snit over the bolded part had the critique been of Sarah Palin or Christine O’Donnell’s style of dress…though I think we all know the answer.

You think the issue with the “Stokely Carmichael in a designer dress” comment was the “designer dress” part? :dubious:

[Mr_Smashy]

I hate to bump this thread, but Slate today has an excellent piece on why Juan’s fears were completely normal and justified (even if illogical). For anyone interested in this topic, I highly recommend you read it.

A snippet

But Williams’ association between innocent Muslims and the perpetrators of the 9-11 attacks was less about bigotry—at least, bigotry conventionally defined—than about his mind working normally. To live in America in the post-9/11 age and not have at least some associations between Muslims and terrorism means something is wrong with you.

I am not suggesting that associating ordinary Muslims with terrorists is either rational or right. It’s neither. But the association arises via a normal aspect of brain functioning, which is precisely why so many people entertain such beliefs—and why those beliefs have proved so resistant to challenge.

The left is wrong to wish the association away only by pointing out how unfair it is, because that denies the reality of how our minds work. The right is wrong to believe the association must be accurate merely because it is widespread.

[Bosstone]

If they’re illogical, how can they be justified?

ETA: I looked at the article after posting this, and the very title says thinking in that way is unjust. So no, it’s not justified. It may be normal in the sense that a lot of people are having those fears, but they need to get over them.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

I don’t have any associations between Muslims and terrorism. I recognize that for the retarded bullshit that it is. If having a brain in my head makes me abnormal, so be it.