I don’t think a comment about NPR’s official status is “his usual act,” but I agree posters in this thread should stick to the issue of Juan Williams and NPR rather than branching off into yet another generalized discussion of conservatives and liberals.
Your opinion of most Americans is that low?
It’s not a distinction without a difference.
Here is a the full video of Williams on the show. He makes this comment pretty much right off the bat, and since I didn’t follow what happened with O’Reilly on The View, I don’t know if I’m missing some context.
It is a fact that NPR is non-partisan. Any perceived “liberal bias” is completely imaginary. If you beg to differ, please bring cites.
As I said upthread, I’d rather keep that (predictable) discussion separate from this one.
I was simply making a factual correction of an erroneous assertion. I am happy to move on.
Fair enough.
Here’s the backstory about what happened on the view.
I thought liberals were in favor of free speech? And it’s not like the guy is some big racist; the guy said something pretty reasonable in my opinion: certain strains of Islam preach destruction of infidels. They’ve done it before on our airplanes. This isn’t a crazy fear - it’s reasonable to be nervous. Remember, he did give the standard disclaimer that it’s not all Muslims.
Given the fact that he’s a squishy lefty, I think that gives even MORE credence to his comments as from the heart and honest. And let’s face it, lefties would hate muslims, if not for the terrorism and anti-west sentiments 
I think they were within their rights, but I think that, based on that statement alone, is going a bit too far. I think it’s entirely possible to have opinions about matters, as everyone does, and still provide object analysis. For a bit of a silly analogy, I can watch Troy Aikman do analysis of a Redskins/Cowboys game and generally take anything good he says about Cowboys or bad about the Redskins as being independant of an obvious personal bias toward the Cowboys.
The fact of the matter is people are judged based on their appearances, and sometimes those appearances clump people in with groups that have a stereotype, deservedly or not, for some undesirable behaviors. Walking a dark street at night, passing someone dressed in baggy clothes, wearing a bandana, sporting some tattoos, would you blame them in feeling perhaps a bit more nervous about being mugged than if they walked past someone wearing a suit? In the case referenced by Williams, if a person is wearing traditional Muslim clothing, I don’t think it’s terribly unreasonable to be a bit more nervous. Of course, that said, I personally think someone willing to dress as such is probably less likely to hijack a plane precisely because of that connection, but being aware of that stereotype, even believing myself that it’s not well justified, I can’t be particularly upset about it. Afterall, nervousness is just an emotion, it’s only really bad if it causes someone do do something bad.
However, like Marley mentions, I do take some issue with the latter part that the implication is that being Muslim and being American are somehow mutually exclusive. I think they’re almost entirely orthogonal, as one can be both a devout Muslim and a patriotic American. It’s no different than questioning the “Americanness” of someone else who openly expresses a strong devotion to any other belief.
Still, I don’t see how that necessarily undermines his credibility just because he was honest about how he felt about something, especially since it’s a view that I think is probably more common than not. If anything, I’m much more concerned about someone in a position that I expect balanced analysis from that secretly has a strong bias. So all this move really seems to do is loom over their employee’s heads that if you have a politically incorrect view, you have to keep it quiet, and so, this actually seems to have the opposite effect on the credibility of their reporting to me.
This firing has nothing to do with free speech. Free speech only applies to what the government can do. The government did not fire Juan Williams. There is nothing in the First Amendment that says you have a right to be on NPR.
Williams is not remotely a lefty, by the way.
PS: Saletan makes a very good case that the NPR firing of Juan is the same as the right wing getting Shirley Sherrod fired, through some imaginative editing and faked outrage.
Of course we are. When the government tells Juan Williams to stop saying mean things about Muslims, let us know, because that will be a free speech issue.
No, it’s not reasonable. Apart from anything else, if a Muslim is going to hijack a plane, do you really think he’s going to wear a kaffiyeh and a thawb that day?
ETA: What, exactly, do you understand the “snipped” addendum “**ut I think there are people who want to somehow remind us all as President Bush did after 9/11, it’s not a war against Islam” to mean? It doesn’t make his remarks any less or more offensive to me.
How would you have felt if it was a white guy saying that he felt nervous being alone on the subway and have a few young black men get on his car? Would it make any difference if he added that not all young black men are thugs?
Whenever I see somebody with a crucifix, that makes me nervous because they are identifying first and foremost as Christians, and I get worried. I get nervous. Christians kill doctors and blow up gay bars.
I think this is the right video.
Do we really have to have this stupid tolerating-intolerance debate for the eleventy billionth time? I’d rather gouge my eyes out. The Constitutional right to free speech does not guarantee Juan Williams a job at NPR. I think everybody in this thread would agree with that point. And I haven’t said he deserved to be fired. I do think the comment was objectionable and dumb. (Dubbing the whole affair “political correctness,” as always, is meaningless.) I think NPR can make a legitimate point that he compromised his standing as a commentator on the news, which would diminish their interest in having him work there. And first and foremost I think they got tired of him going on Fox and taking political positions there and elsewhere. That has more to do with his firing than what he said Monday.
It’s not really important, but Williams was also wrong to link Tim McVeigh to Christianity. McVeigh wasn’t a Christian, he was an agnostic. Some SDMB posters have also made that mistake over the years, although plenty of others got it right. I didn’t make a list of Williams’ other examples but I think they were more on point.
yeah, I figured you’d say that, because anyone not left of Howard Dean is a raving wingnut in your eyes. You’ll forgive if I (we?) come to the conclusion that you are so far out of the mainstream that discussion on what’s reasonable is probably pointless.
PS If NPR is 15% funded by the Feds (for now, can’t wait for that to get whacked), then isn’t it sort of the Government doing the firing?
I agree. NPR could fire him because they don’t like the color of suits he wears, assuming he doesn’t have a contract that says otherwise. That’s the employer’s right. But is it “Right”?
NPR saw the whole clip. They weren’t relying on a doctored clip as in the Sherrod story. Moreover, Williams’ qualification does not substantially change the bigoted nature of his statement. Sherrod told a story about having changed her mind. Williams did not say he’s changed his mind. He still thinks Muslims on planes are going to blow him up.
Seriously, do people really think that? Are there a lot of people who really see people in Muslim garb and become fearful and start peeing down their legs? Really? I cannot relate to that kind of irrational paranoia and cowardice.
No, that’s a silly argument. I don’t know NPR’s structure but he was presumably let go by NPR management or the management of the shows that he worked for. The government doesn’t run NPR.
I disagree. If the test is that no NPR ‘journalists’ (commentators?) can have a political opinion or slant, then why haven’t they whacked Gwen, or the other broad on FNS? They are both liberal as well, after all.
But where you and I completely agree is that NPR was just looking for an excuse to get rid of him. Again, because NPR slants way left and he contributes a lot to Fox News (not just FNS), which doesn’t agree with their political outlook.
You have absolute, rock solid proof that the organization that contributes 15% of your revenue had nothing to say about this incident, or the run-up where surely they were looking to whack him? You’d bet your child’s life on it?
*(Of course, all the more reason why ***no ***media ought to be owned/funded by the government.)