National Public Radio fired Fox News contributor Juan Williams on Wednesday after a Monday night appearance in which Williams said that it makes him nervous to fly on airplanes with devout Muslims. Williams was terminated following a discussion with "O'Reilly Factor" host Bill O'Reilly on the dilemma between fighting jihadists and fears about average Muslims.

 

"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," Williams said.

 

"But when I get on a plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they're identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous," Williams said.

 

Williams also commented on remarks by Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad warning Americans that the fight is coming to the U.S.

 

 

"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," Williams said.

 

NPR issued a statement saying that it was "terminating" Williams' contract over the remarks.

 

"Tonight we gave Juan Williams notice that we are terminating his contract as a senior news analyst for NPR News," CEO Vivian Schiller and Senior Vice President for News Ellen Weiss said in a statement.

 

"Juan has been a valuable contributor to NPR and public radio for many years and we did not make this decision lightly or without regret. However, his remarks on 'The O'Reilly Factor' this past Monday were inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR," they said. "We regret these circumstances and thank Juan Williams for his many years of service to NPR and public radio."

 

Williams said Thursday he wasn't given the chance to have a face-to-face conversation with his superiors at NPR before he was let go.

 

Recalling a conversation with NPR's head of news, Williams said he was told, "This has been decided up the chain."

 

"I said, 'I don't even get the chance to come in and we do this eyeball to eyeball, person to person and have a conversation. I've been there more than 10 years. We don't have a chance to have a conversation about this.' And she said, 'There's nothing you can say that will change my mind. This has been decided above me and we're terminating your contract,'" Williams recounted to Fox News.

 

Williams said that he meant exactly what he said about his fears during his appearance on O'Reilly's show.

 

"I do a double take. I have a moment of anxiety of fear given what happened on 9/11. That's just a reality," he said, noting that when he told his former boss, she suggested that Williams had made a bigoted statement.

 

"It's not a bigoted statement. In fact, in the course of this conversation with Bill O'Reilly, I said we have an obligation as Americans to be careful to protect the constitutional rights of everyone in our country and to make sure that we don't have any outbreak of bigotry. but that there's a reality. You can not ignore what happened on 9/11 and you cannot ignore the connection to Islamic radicalism, and you can't ignore the fact of what has even recently been said in court with regard to this is the first drop of blood in a Muslim war in America."

 

The conversation on O'Reilly's show stemmed from a well-publicized argument the previous week between O'Reilly and "The View" hosts Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg, who walked off their own set when O'Reilly said, "Muslims killed us on 9/11."

 

The comment had been an explanation by O'Reilly why the majority of Americans don't want a mosque housed in an Islamic cultural center built near Ground Zero.

 

The women, who argued that Oklahoma City bomber Tim McVeigh wasn't a Muslim, returned after O'Reilly said that he was -- perhaps inartfully -- talking about Muslim extremists.

 

The conversation has been fodder for both shows. Goldberg appeared Wednesday night on "On the Record With Greta Van Susteren," and said when she cursed at O'Reilly on air -- a word that was bleeped for broadcast -- she knew she was beyond reason and had to leave.

 

"He wasn't thoughtful and he knew he wasn't thoughtful and once he said, 'if I offended someone I apologize' ... it showed me that he recognized it," she said.

 

"But he knew that for us it was not ok. ... He got what he wanted and I don't feel bad about doing it. Should I have sat and just bit my tongue? I don't think I could because it was too much like all the things I heard about black folks and women," Goldberg said, adding that she has no hard feelings and planned to appear on O'Reilly's show in a few weeks..

 

Williams, a liberal African American commentator who has written extensively on civil rights in America, previously got in trouble with NPR for comments he made while appearing on "The O'Reilly Factor" in February 2009. At that time, he described first lady Michelle Obama as having a "Stokely Carmichael in a designer dress thing going."

 

Carmichael was a black activist in the 1960s who coined the phrase "Black Power."

 

After the Carmichael quote, Williams' position at NPR was changed from staff correspondent to national analyst.

 

 

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/21/npr-fires-juan-williams-oreilly-appearance/

 

so what, we're censoring a valid slight anxiety now in favor of PC?

Juan responds

He didn't get fired for an opinion, he got fired because what he said sounded insensitive and people are too sensitive. In the media it's perception that's important more than fact and it was in the best interest in NPR as a business to fire him. This is the same as the firing of Shirley Sherrod, Rick Sanchez, and Helen Thomas (though the contents of the three were different). The right (and Fox News specifically) was the reason Sherrod had to resign, I can't see how they can be on that side yet defend Williams.

 

If it were up to me none of those people would have been fired, but that's what happened.

He didn't get fired for an opinion, he got fired because what he said sounded insensitive and people are too sensitive. In the media it's perception that's important more than fact and it was in the best interest in NPR as a business to fire him. This is the same as the firing of Shirley Sherrod, Rick Sanchez, and Helen Thomas (though the contents of the three were different). The right (and Fox News specifically) was the reason Sherrod had to resign, I can't see how they can be on that side yet defend Williams.

 

If it were up to me none of those people would have been fired, but that's what happened.

 

 

how do you figure? everyone I've seen including NPR listeners have attacked NPR for this decision. I've seen many comments from NPR listeners where they have withdrawn their support for the organization and said they weren't giving another dime to censorship. So can you explain to me how this was in NPR's best interest?

He didn't get fired for an opinion, he got fired because what he said sounded insensitive and people are too sensitive. In the media it's perception that's important more than fact and it was in the best interest in NPR as a business to fire him. This is the same as the firing of Shirley Sherrod, Rick Sanchez, and Helen Thomas (though the contents of the three were different). The right (and Fox News specifically) was the reason Sherrod had to resign, I can't see how they can be on that side yet defend Williams.

 

If it were up to me none of those people would have been fired, but that's what happened.

 

 

how do you figure? everyone I've seen including NPR listeners have attacked NPR for this decision. I've seen many comments from NPR listeners where they have withdrawn their support for the organization and said they weren't giving another dime to censorship. So can you explain to me how this was in NPR's best interest?

I've heard tons of people not complain about it, I've heard them commend it, I've heard Muslim groups come out against his statement. Advertisers are the main reason. Advertisers don't want to be withing breathing distance of someone accused of racism. Williams himself brought this up on Fox News today.

Did he really expect so say something like that and not get fired? I mean, come on. Anytime a member of the media says something offensive about a specific race or religion, chances are they'll get canned.

When you start favoring PC over how a person feels regardless of what it is your freedom is in jepoardy. A person once said "I do not agree with what you said, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

I like Andrew Sullivan's take on this.

 

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/10/fncrnc-doubles-down-on-juan-williams.html

 

So Roger Ailes doesn't fire Juan Williams for justifying associating anyone in Muslim garb with a Jihadist mass-murderer, he gives Williams a whopping raise:

 

Fox News Chief Executive Roger Ailes handed Williams a new three-year contract Thursday morning, in a deal that amounts to nearly $2 million, a considerable bump up from his previous salary, the Tribune Washington Bureau has learned. The Fox News contributor will now appear exclusively and more frequently on the cable news network and have a regular column on FoxNews.com.

 

The RNC/FNC's concerted campaign to turn American Muslims into the new "other" - while, of course, pandering to a Republican base that believes that the president is a Muslim (and therefore legitimately viewed as a potential terrorist) - is thereby ratcheted up a notch. Sarah Palin - a lynchpin of the RNC/FNC machine - jumps in:

 

Are we not allowed to say that Muslim terrorists have killed thousands of Americans and continue to plot the deaths of thousands more? Are we not allowed to say that there are Muslim states that aid and abet these fanatics? Are we not allowed to even debate the role that radical Islam plays in inciting this violence?

 

 

The answers to which are, of course, yes, yes, and yes, and if Juan Williams had said any of those things, there would be no controversy. But what he actually said is that anyone looking Muslim was legitimately viewed as a potential terrorist, despite the fact that no actual Jihadists attacking the US have worn "Muslim garb", and one of the most recent Jihadists was actually wearing the military uniform of the United States. He has every right to say this, and media organizations have every right to associate or disassociate themselves from those sentiments. What we now know is that Fox News wants to endorse and celebrate the idea that it is legitimate to fear that anyone dressed as a Muslim could be a mass-killer. And we know that NPR doesn't.

 

So if you say that all terrorists are Muslims (untrue), you're fine with Fox. If you blanketly conflate American Muslims with al Qaeda, as O'Reilly did on The View, you're a Fox star. And if you're a "liberal" hired by Fox to legitimize the bigotry of your paymasters and say it's legit to fear anyone wearing Muslim garb as a terrorist (also empirically ludicrous), you get a raise.

 

This is a political pre-election campaign to whip up anti-Muslim fears in order to smear even further the president, and now associate NPR with Islamist terror, and rally to defund it. And it is deeply counter to success in the war against Jihadism, by lumping every Muslim American and every non-Jihadist around the world with al Qaeda, exactly the way to lose this war in the long run, and not win it.

RANT ALERT:

 

 

I don't have a problem with someone believing what he said. Who can judge what is in someone's heart?

 

I think nerves and fear are natural, uncontrollable reactions for people to have, and you can't really criticize someone for having those fears.

 

What is an issue for me is expressing these fears in a context that perpetuates an idea that conflates Islam with terror without any qualifications. A Fox News talking head said over the weekend that "All terrorists are muslims," which IS a bigoted and flatly incorrect statement. Fox News mongers fear on this issue because that's what their audience wants, because that's what a large portion of the Republican party now believes. I'm not saying all Republicans associate Islam with terror, but when you look at the Park 51 debate, it's hard not to see that a large portion of our country, predominantly Republicans, do associate all Islam with terror, rather than the minor radical teachings of Islam that the terrorists subscribe to.

 

Juan Williams should be smarter than to express a belief like that on Fox News, but I think it's clear that he doesn't care. Believing what he does isn't bigoted. These prejudices can't be helped. What an intelligent, thoughtful, and reasonable person should do in his situation is to realize that your first reaction is not always your best, and perhaps think before giving voice to it. To give voice to that thought is to legitimize it, and that, to me, is where the issue arises.

 

I have prejudices and preconceived notions I am not proud of, but I try to look beyond those and work towards a deeper and more thoughtful understanding of people.

 

Juan Williams may not be a bigot, but he is doing less than nothing to work against the legitimization of bigotry in our society.

 

Seeing a person in Islamic garb and associating that with terrorism is, perhaps, an understandable prejudice, but every single instance of attempted terror in our nation by islamic terrorists has been carried out by Islamic radicals who made every effort to appear normal. It's not bigoted to feel what he said he does in that split second, he can't help it. But I do have an issue with him voicing that.

 

If Bill O'Reilly goes on TV and says "Everytime I walk down the street at night and see a young black man wearing baggy pants and a hoody, I get nervous", I don't think any serious person would defend him. But I'm sure that's a common prejudice as well. But it is defensible to some to say that about Muslims because there is a large portion of our population and a vocal portion of our political figures that don't think twice about associating Islam with terrorism. That's an issue, and I do think that is bigotry, because it's considered and thought out. What your brain decides in a split second is out of your control and largely based on your subconscious. What you write into a speech or say on TV is something you have thought about and decided consciously is right. This is the difference.

http://blogs.ajc.com/radio-tv-talk/2010/10/21/first-interview-with-nprs-vivian-schiller-on-juan-williams-firing/?cxntlid=thbz_hm

 

 

Call me lucky. I had a pre-scheduled interview this morning with NPR CEO Vivian Schiller this morning before her speech at the Atlanta Press Club Newsmakers luncheon at the 191 Club in downtown Atlanta.

 

So lo and behold, the entire Juan Williams firing blew up the past 24 hours. I happen to be the first person to talk to her about it. Here is an abbreviated Q&A:

 

Q: Okay. What happened?

 

A: Let’s state a couple of facts. Juan is not an employee of NPR. He’s an independent contractor. He’s not NPR staff. He’s an NPR analyst. We have a contract with him for analyst opinions to provide news analysis. He is not a columnist or commentator. He also has an on-going relationship with Fox News. Mara Liasson is also on Fox News and is a full-time staffer. We accept that’s a whole other issue. However, we expect our journalists, whether they are news analysts or reporters to behave like journalists.

 

Q: So did Juan really get fired over just those Muslim comments? [He said he was uncomfortable with Muslims dressed in traditional garb on airplanes during a Fox News telecast yesterday.]

 

A: There have been several instances over the last couple of years where we have felt Juan has stepped over the line. He famously said last year something about Michelle Obama and Stokely Carmichael. [The quote on Fox News last year: Obama "has this Stokely-Carmichael-in-a-designer-dress thing going" and that she'll be an "albatross" for President Obama.]. This isn’t a case of one strike and you’re out.

 

Q: So this is obviously not an isolated incident.

 

A: There’s so much misinformation on the blogosphere, it’s nuts. This has been an on-going issue. When he does that, when anybody does that, it undermines their credibility as a journalist or in Juan’s case, a news analyst for NPR. Those two things cannot go together.

 

Q: Have you done this before with other analysts or reporters?

 

A: It’s impossible to answer that. Every circumstance is different and would create false parallels.

 

Q: As you mentioned, Mara Liasson appears on Fox News. Is there an issue with Fox News?

 

A: No. She behaves on Fox as a journalists. I have no issues with anything she has said on Fox. This is not about Fox News. It’s not about a political agenda. This is not about even validating or invalidating [Williams'] feelings.

 

Q: Mike Huckabee is now saying NPR has discredited itself and should have federal funding revoked.

 

A: Yes, I heard that. This has become a political issue. My God, I’m shocked!

 

Q: Could NPR live without federal funding?

 

A: Let’s go on a sidebar. There’s a misperception about federal funding and public radio. There’s the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. They receive $90 million a year and a vast majority goes to member public radio stations. Those stations pull in more than $1 billion collectively a year. It’s significant and important but not even close to the lion’s share of revenues for public radio. NPR gets no allocation from CPB. Zero. We are a private 501©3. We’ve had journalists call up and ask what department of the government we report to. That’s laughable. Have you listened to our shows? We do apply for competitive grants from the likes of the Ford Foundation and the Knight Foundation. As a result, some money from CPB does come to us when we win grants. Depending on the year, it represents just one to three percent of our total budget.

 

Q: What is your annual budget?

 

A: $160 million a year from station fees and dues, corporate underwriting, philanthropic contributions from individuals and corporation and earned income and earnings from our endowment.

 

Q: How healthy are you?

 

A: We had some issues the last couple of years and went into deficits. But we’ve regrouped and we’re back on track.

He didn't get fired for an opinion, he got fired because what he said sounded insensitive and people are too sensitive. In the media it's perception that's important more than fact and it was in the best interest in NPR as a business to fire him. This is the same as the firing of Shirley Sherrod, Rick Sanchez, and Helen Thomas (though the contents of the three were different). The right (and Fox News specifically) was the reason Sherrod had to resign, I can't see how they can be on that side yet defend Williams.

 

If it were up to me none of those people would have been fired, but that's what happened.

 

 

 

I think I have a different take on why he was fired that gets beyond just the political correctness of what he said, and it comes from what NPR's CEO says in the interview I just posted.

 

He was paid by NPR to provide factual analysis of news stories and current events; by making such an emotional remark on O'Reilly's show, he compromises his ability to be taken seriously as an analyst and journalist; is what he saying fact or emotion? That's why they terminated his contract.

 

 

OMGQUADRUPLEPOST

Honestly, you cant tell people what they truly feel inside their minds.

 

He's not being a bigot. He's not being racist (or rather, he knows it's wrong to think that way but he cant help it). I'll be honest, it scares me too. I'm half middle eastern, and even if I were full, it would still scare me.

 

9/11 scarred many people. A sterotype like that is understandable. I mean, he should have clarified that it's wrong to think that way, even if you cant help it.

 

Or, better yet, he should've just not shared his opinion because obviously that's going to get you fired.

I love it when people begin a statement with "I'm not a rascist/bigot, but....."

 

and this: "Muslim garb, you know, they're identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous," Williams said.

 

 

Also funny for Juan Williams to say something like that, when I'm sure there are plenty of old white people who still get nervous when a black guy is walking behind them. I wish that he had followed it up with how he struggled with those feelings or something (or maybe he was fine with them).

 

Don't think I'd have fired him for it, but it's not really the kind of thing NPR likes to project.

 

I actually file this into the Rick Sanchez category. They probably wanted him out anyway, maybe the straw that broke the camel's back.

 

I also like Andrew Sullivan's take on it above.

Honestly, you cant tell people what they truly feel inside their minds.

 

He's not being a bigot. He's not being racist (or rather, he knows it's wrong to think that way but he cant help it). I'll be honest, it scares me too. I'm half middle eastern, and even if I were full, it would still scare me.

 

9/11 scarred many people. A sterotype like that is understandable. I mean, he should have clarified that it's wrong to think that way, even if you cant help it.

 

Or, better yet, he should've just not shared his opinion because obviously that's going to get you fired.

 

 

The issue with it all is that you can't find an example of a terror attack or attempted attack on Americans committed by someone in "full Muslim garb". Doesn't make any sense. A terrorist is going to try to blend in as best he can so that he can get away with it. It's completely irrational. Feeling that feeling is fine. Our psychosomatic nervous systems are designed to react like that. Like I said, I don't think Juan Williams is a bigot. But there's a lot of people out there who truly do believe Islam is a religion of evil and that all Muslims are a threat and by giving voice to that feeling, he legitimizes their fears, which he might not have intended to do but which he nevertheless did. And it says a lot about Fox News that they are rewarding him handsomely for legitimizing that fear.

When you start favoring PC over how a person feels regardless of what it is your freedom is in jepoardy. A person once said "I do not agree with what you said, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

 

 

NPR is a private company, not the government. They are driven by profits; but even if they weren't, what they do is not a threat to the freedom of the U.S. at large.

When you start favoring PC over how a person feels regardless of what it is your freedom is in jepoardy. A person once said "I do not agree with what you said, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

 

 

NPR is a private company, not the government. They are driven by profits; but even if they weren't, what they do is not a threat to the freedom of the U.S. at large.

 

No they are not a private company, they are a publicly funded organization by both government funds and donations. And yes, it can set a precedent.

No.

 

They are a 501©3 Tax exempt nonprofit organization, but they are not a a government run organization. They absolutely are a private organization. They receive a small portion of their funding from the Council for Public Broadcasting, most of which goes to the individual stations and not to NPR itself. A lot of their public financing also comes from grants, which are awarded on merit.

Explain to me in my comment where I said "government run"?

Ok. You were wrong, they are a private organization that is funded in large part by donations and in small part by government grants and an even smaller part by direct government funding.

 

Do you have no response to anything else I said?

Yeah I was suggest they violate what the IRS says qualifies as a 501©(3) organization. Specifically this line:

 

In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates

 

http://www.irs.gov/c...d=96099,00.html

 

NPR frequently advocates one side of the political spectrum that's why their viewership is through the roof on that side.

I like Andrew Sullivan's take on this.

 

So if you say that all terrorists are Muslims (untrue), you're fine with Fox.

 

 

This is my favorite part. It's almost like people are so afraid of the backlash of even uttering something politically incorrect that they can't wait until the next sentence to justify why they're saying it, and so they have to apologize as fast as possible.

Yeah I was suggest they violate what the IRS says qualifies as a 501©(3) organization. Specifically this line:

 

In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates

 

http://www.irs.gov/c...d=96099,00.html

 

NPR frequently advocates one side of the political spectrum that's why their viewership is through the roof on that side.

 

Allegations of liberal bias

 

from wiki:

 

A 2005 study conducted by researchers at UCLA and the University of Missouri found that NPR leans left. Its score is approximately equal to those of Time, Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report and its score is slightly more conservative than The Washington Post's."[28] It found NPR to be more liberal than the average U.S. voter of the time of the study and more conservative than the average U.S. Democrat of the time. Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, a progressive media watchdog group,[29] disputes the claim of a liberal bias.[30]

 

A liberal lean = campaigning for or against political candidates or supporting specific legislation? You are really reaching.

Sherrod: At most fear of the right got her fired, she was fired before anyone got to say anything about the clip, and much of the right defended her that night

 

Thomas: I think they were just waiting for an excuse to finally get rid of her

 

Sanchez: Sanchez is a douche, it was laughable that he even had a job at a major news organization. That aside, he was not talking about how things made him feel, he was presenting conspiratorial crap as fact, and it even would have applied to his own employers

 

Williams: an overreaction by NPR because he didn't perfectly fit their world-view. After the firing, NPR now has no African American on-air personalities, and he was fired for saying that something caused a gut reaction, but that we can't let fear of Muslims dictate our debate.

Williams: an overreaction by NPR because he didn't perfectly fit their world-view. After the firing, NPR now has no African American on-air personalities, and he was fired for saying that something caused a gut reaction, but that we can't let fear of Muslims dictate our debate.

 

 

 

Wow. I wasn't aware that National Public Radio was RACIST!

Sherrod: At most fear of the right got her fired, she was fired before anyone got to say anything about the clip, and much of the right defended her that night

 

 

Uh, a conservative blogger released the video as "proof" of the NAACP's racism, and Bill O'Reilly stated she should resign on his show, as did a number or prominent conserative bloggers. This is a gross mischaracterization of the situation.