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.

 

She was fired because she was "going to be on Beck', Beck defended her that night.

O'Reilly apologized the next night.

Hannity ducked the whole thing saying he needed to see more.

 

That is basically the prime-time conservative sphere. As an aside, this woman deserved significantly more of a benefit of the doubt because she isn't a media personality and thus her value is not based upon her public image. And she was still fired before anyone other than 1 idiot with an upload has said or done anything.

Characterizing Breitbart as 1 idiot with an upload is pretty false also. He has an enormous reach within the right wing.

 

I agree that her firing was an act of cowardice on the administration's part, but saying that they acted without any external pressure is flat out false, and if they don't fire her, I would bet that the full unedited version would not have come out and the outcry would have been enormous. They were trying to head it off at the pass because of how much they got killed for the Harvard Professor thing and the Black Panther discrimination lawsuit, and they acted without knowing all of the facts. They f***ed up, but it's an understandable reaction given the climate in our country and the mini-controversy going on at that time with the Tea Party and NAACP.

 

Let me state it again, they f***ed up. They dropped the ball. But to act like the right was going to defend her if they hadn't fired her requires a pretty big leap of faith.

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.

 

[Public] Schools, school yearbooks, and school proms take a much more significant portion of their income from the government. You can't defend their right to discriminate because they are "private" (which contention I disagree with, anyway), yet on the other hand, disagree with NPR's actions because you think they can set a precedent.

 

In fact, NPR is far less dependent on federal money than public schools/yearbooks/proms.

 

And if they violate the requirements of being a 501c, then they should lose that tax designation, but that's not in any way significant in this matter that I can see.

I like that the title of this thread implies there is something illegitimate about being fired for an opinion.

 

So if Bill O'Reilly calls Obama an uncle Tom, would you defend him because it's an opinion and he shouldn't be fired for an opinion?

I like that the title of this thread implies there is something illegitimate about being fired for an opinion.

 

So if Bill O'Reilly calls Obama an uncle Tom, would you defend him because it's an opinion and he shouldn't be fired for an opinion?

 

 

That's just a crude form of an opinion (or fact, really - depending on how you interpret uncle tom). O Reilly shouldn't be fired for saying Obama is black (which is actually a fact), or for saying that he's a terribly bad president. Just as this guy shouldn't have been fired for saying what he said. If O'Reilly calls Obama derogatory names, phrases 'Obama is a bad president' in a more insulting and unprofessional way then - yes - he should be fired. It's presumably like someone on this forum's opinion on some other user. Depending on how the express that opinion and with what words, banning may or may not be suitable.

My point is that the title implies there is something illegitimate about being fired for an opinion, regardless of what that opinion is.

 

NPR has every right to fire whoever they want for expressing an opinion they wish to not associate with.

My point is that the title implies there is something illegitimate about being fired for an opinion, regardless of what that opinion is.

 

NPR has every right to fire whoever they want for expressing an opinion they wish to not associate with.

 

 

Definitely. They have a right to fire whomever they wish to fire because, I assume, NPR is owned by people who have a right to do as they wish with something they own. I agree wholeheartedly, but I also reserve the right to criticize their reasoning. What really frustrates me is how Rand Paul got demonized for arguing that the federal government has no right imposing discrimination guidelines on private businesses, and how the NPR took a pretty substantial role in it. It actually really hurt a lot of people's feelings () . If we're going to dictate people's racial policies when it comes to operating their business, they should extend it further and protect people who believe certain things because otherwise you're secluding them. Honestly, there are racist people in the world and, while he may not be racist, his opinion is one that some racist people share. You can't just cast those people off and pretend they don't exist. People constantly bash racists but they're almost instantly casted aside and erased from the public eye or chastised when exposed. There isn't much dialogue between those two sides and when there is, its just a bunch of jokes and the racist person raging. Maybe you'd have less racist people if they were argued against extensively instead of hushing them ASAP or pretending that they're the only person who believes what they believe to keep people from having their feelings hurt. Racists are 99.9% of the time going to lose the argument in my opinion, but they'd be losing rather than just being quieted, which may open the eyes of some. This isn't a case of a doctor who believes witchcraft cures diseases- those people should be banned from practicing their trade - this is a matter of opinion, and an opinion that exists in this country substantially. Williams was as civil as he could've been with his expression of the opinion and so I don't really see much of a reason behind firing him. I guess you could argue that PR was one of them, but sh*t... Is this what our country has become?

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 really don't understand how you can compare this incident with Sherrod.

 

At first, the only part of the video released in the Sherrod case was the part with her saying that she discriminated against a white farmer. That action is against the law, while Juan Williams' statements aren't. People like Bill O'Reilly had only seen that part of the video when he called for her to resign, and then guys like O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, etc. all defended her the next day when the full video came out.

 

Not to mention that Williams' statements were mainly unprovoked. Andrew Brietbart, on the other hand, only released that video in response to the NAACP calling the Tea Party racist to try to prove that the NAACP had racist elements itself (since Sherrod was speaking at an NAACP event.)

 

Not exactly the same.

I said they overreacted and showed their true political colors. They have the authority to fire him and used it. The only person in the example list from above that I think got a legitimate (and actionable) raw deal was Sherrod. If it were up to me, the only person in the example list that should have been fired was Sanchez, but I wouldn't have hired that douchenozzle anyhow.

I said they overreacted and showed their true political colors. They have the authority to fire him and used it. The only person in the example list from above that I think got a legitimate (and actionable) raw deal was Sherrod. If it were up to me, the only person in the example list that should have been fired was Sanchez, but I wouldn't have hired that douchenozzle anyhow.

 

 

Does that mean you're anti-israel?

Is that a serious question, or are you trying to do a Stephen Colbert thing?

Is that a serious question, or are you trying to do a Stephen Colbert thing?

 

 

Why would I joke about that?

Why would that mean he's anti-Israel?

Juan Williams had been advised multiple times before this by NPR on different occasions that comments like the one he made the other day would no longer be tolerated, and they stood by that threat. I don't see anything wrong here. It's being painted as an 'overreaction' by NPR, but there is clear evidence that he was warned more than once about making these comments. NPR has very strict employment guidelines when it comes to their employees and these kinds of things, so I don't get why this is a surprise. God forbid they actually have some journalistic integrity.

 

It should also be noted that NPR receives less than 15% of their funding from the government. The rest comes from nonprofits and corporate advertisers.

 

I'm also not going to feel bad for a guy who gets a RAISE the next day on FOX News of $2 million for being a bigoted jackass. That and I'm really, really tired of Muslims being used as punching bags for our problems.

Why would that mean he's anti-Israel?

 

Don't even respond to that, I think he has a mental disorder or something. There's nothing in that quote that has even the slightest thing to do with Israel.

Juan Williams had been advised multiple times before this by NPR on different occasions that comments like the one he made the other day would no longer be tolerated, and they stood by that threat. I don't see anything wrong here. It's being painted as an 'overreaction' by NPR, but there is clear evidence that he was warned more than once about making these comments. NPR has very strict employment guidelines when it comes to their employees and these kinds of things, so I don't get why this is a surprise. God forbid they actually have some journalistic integrity.

 

It should also be noted that NPR receives less than 15% of their funding from the government. The rest comes from nonprofits and corporate advertisers.

 

I'm also not going to feel bad for a guy who gets a RAISE the next day on FOX News of $2 million for being a bigoted jackass. That and I'm really, really tired of Muslims being used as punching bags for our problems.

 

 

 

Yeah, they kind of lost their "journalistic integrity" a long time ago, since they are basically the radio version of MSNBC. This is unless you think wishing a United States Senator and his grandchildren would get AIDS and saying the death of four million Christians would be beneficial to the world are perfect examples of their "journalistic integrity."

 

Most of the outrage over this isn't because Juan William's has the right to say whatever he wants. It is because of the hypocrisy of NPR since they are known as a left-wing organization, and the fact that they receive federal funding.

Juan Williams had been advised multiple times before this by NPR on different occasions that comments like the one he made the other day would no longer be tolerated, and they stood by that threat. I don't see anything wrong here. It's being painted as an 'overreaction' by NPR, but there is clear evidence that he was warned more than once about making these comments. NPR has very strict employment guidelines when it comes to their employees and these kinds of things, so I don't get why this is a surprise. God forbid they actually have some journalistic integrity.

 

It should also be noted that NPR receives less than 15% of their funding from the government. The rest comes from nonprofits and corporate advertisers.

 

I'm also not going to feel bad for a guy who gets a RAISE the next day on FOX News of $2 million for being a bigoted jackass. That and I'm really, really tired of Muslims being used as punching bags for our problems.

 

 

I would've thought silencing someone's opinion or spinning it to offend less people would be counterproductive to the journalistic integrity you speak of. This isn't about Juan Williams being warned. He shouldn't have been warned if those previous incidents were like this one. If you take a look at what the guy says, you can see that he presented his opinion in a way that was not derogatory. Whether it was what you wanted to hear or not, or whether you agree with it is another thing - but he didn't attack anyone or insult anyone. It was an honest opinion. Sure, it may have offended some but sh*t, Affirmative Action and PETA greatly offend me.

 

It's pretty funny, because some of these so-called tolerant people look down on minorities and those being attacked rather than look at them as equals. It's the hypocritical antithesis to the religious far-right that many here despise. In fact, it's worse because they carry around college degrees and books with pride yet obviously gained nothing through that education they pretend to reflect on. People are human and human emotion is rarely rational; most of us aren't enlightened philosophs with minds of gold and idyllic hearts. I'm sure more people than some would like to admit would think the same way as Juan Williams if they were on a plane. It doesn't make you better than anyone else (or more tolerant, for that matter) to silence someone's opinion because it isn't politically correct.

 

People throw cute words like bigot around (here's another one you may use often: ignorant!) but don't think about what they really mean. It's almost like the pop definition of bigot is 'someone who offends.' Read all of what he said before you start crucifying him.

I said they overreacted and showed their true political colors. They have the authority to fire him and used it. The only person in the example list from above that I think got a legitimate (and actionable) raw deal was Sherrod. If it were up to me, the only person in the example list that should have been fired was Sanchez, but I wouldn't have hired that douchenozzle anyhow.

 

 

Does that mean you're anti-israel?

 

What?

Juan Williams had been advised multiple times before this by NPR on different occasions that comments like the one he made the other day would no longer be tolerated, and they stood by that threat. I don't see anything wrong here. It's being painted as an 'overreaction' by NPR, but there is clear evidence that he was warned more than once about making these comments. NPR has very strict employment guidelines when it comes to their employees and these kinds of things, so I don't get why this is a surprise. God forbid they actually have some journalistic integrity.

 

It should also be noted that NPR receives less than 15% of their funding from the government. The rest comes from nonprofits and corporate advertisers.

 

I'm also not going to feel bad for a guy who gets a RAISE the next day on FOX News of $2 million for being a bigoted jackass. That and I'm really, really tired of Muslims being used as punching bags for our problems.

 

 

 

Yeah, they kind of lost their "journalistic integrity" a long time ago, since they are basically the radio version of MSNBC. This is unless you think wishing a United States Senator and his grandchildren would get AIDS and saying the death of four million Christians would be beneficial to the world are perfect examples of their "journalistic integrity."

 

Most of the outrage over this isn't because Juan William's has the right to say whatever he wants. It is because of the hypocrisy of NPR since they are known as a left-wing organization, and the fact that they receive federal funding.

OK, you're going to have to give some context to random quotes before you start throwing them around like that.

Why would that mean he's anti-Israel?

 

Don't even respond to that, I think he has a mental disorder or something. There's nothing in that quote that has even the slightest thing to do with Israel.

 

Yeah, he just said that he thinks Helen Thomas who made anti-Israel remarks that got her fired should not have lost her job, other than that I have a mental disorder , that's right you hit the nail on the head. Jerk. It was a legitimate question.

 

 

 

 

I said they overreacted and showed their true political colors. They have the authority to fire him and used it. The only person in the example list from above that I think got a legitimate (and actionable) raw deal was Sherrod. If it were up to me, the only person in the example list that should have been fired was Sanchez, but I wouldn't have hired that douchenozzle anyhow.

 

 

Does that mean you're anti-israel?

 

What?

 

You said the only person in the example list that should have been fired was Sanchez, that means you don't think Helen Thomas should have been fired for her Anti-Israel and Anti-Jewish remarks, does that mean you agree with her and as a result are anti-Israel?

Never mind

What she said was anti-Zionist, not anti-Jewish, but to a lot of people there's no difference.

 

I don't agree with what she said, it was incredibly insensitive, but thinking she shouldn't have been fired does not mean you are anti-Jewish. She was fired for an opinion, just like Williams.

 

Anti-Zionism is not the same thing as anti-Semitism.

 

It's funny though that the people who criticize NPR for being too PC in their handling of the Williams issue are also the people who are overly sensitive when it comes to Israel.

It's funny though that the people who criticize NPR for being too PC in their handling of the Williams issue are also the people who are overly sensitive when it comes to Israel.

 

It drives me nuts. It's also impossible to have a pro-Palestinian view on anything, considering they're the ones truly suffering in all of this. I can't think of a single pundit or commentator on TV who actively talks about the fact that Palestinians are second class citizens. Even when Israel killed innocent civilians in the Gaza flotilla incident, the media at large pointed the blame at the protesters, even though they violated no laws. I mean, an American CITIZEN was killed in cold blood (a teenager no less), and nobody talked about it.

 

I don't understand why the media is completely incapable of drawing a distinction between legitimate criticism of Israel, and anti-semitism. Anyone with a position that isn't black and white is shouted down by supporters of Israel who apparently believe that their country (which they often have no connection with beyond being Jewish) can do no wrong.

 

Then again this is the same media which plays up the B.S. 'American exceptionalism' garbage that is nothing more than blind nationalism, and has no basis in reality.

You said the only person in the example list that should have been fired was Sanchez, that means you don't think Helen Thomas should have been fired for her Anti-Israel and Anti-Jewish remarks, does that mean you agree with her and as a result are anti-Israel?

 

 

No, it means that the only person who's words were an attack on his employer was Sanchez. He was also in tin foil hat territory.

 

Helen Thomas was just a creepy old bag, who is also an Arab, so she might have some favoritism towards the Arab cause, that is not a reason for dismissal. Though I admit that I am pleased that I never have to hear that screeching harpy any longer.

Juan Williams had been advised multiple times before this by NPR on different occasions that comments like the one he made the other day would no longer be tolerated, and they stood by that threat. I don't see anything wrong here. It's being painted as an 'overreaction' by NPR, but there is clear evidence that he was warned more than once about making these comments. NPR has very strict employment guidelines when it comes to their employees and these kinds of things, so I don't get why this is a surprise. God forbid they actually have some journalistic integrity.

 

It should also be noted that NPR receives less than 15% of their funding from the government. The rest comes from nonprofits and corporate advertisers.

 

I'm also not going to feel bad for a guy who gets a RAISE the next day on FOX News of $2 million for being a bigoted jackass. That and I'm really, really tired of Muslims being used as punching bags for our problems.

 

 

 

Yeah, they kind of lost their "journalistic integrity" a long time ago, since they are basically the radio version of MSNBC. This is unless you think wishing a United States Senator and his grandchildren would get AIDS and saying the death of four million Christians would be beneficial to the world are perfect examples of their "journalistic integrity."

 

Most of the outrage over this isn't because Juan William's has the right to say whatever he wants. It is because of the hypocrisy of NPR since they are known as a left-wing organization, and the fact that they receive federal funding.

OK, you're going to have to give some context to random quotes before you start throwing them around like that.

 

 

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/5920144/nprs_nina_totenberg_jesse_helms_or.html?cat=62

 

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/Andrei-Codrescu-juan-williams/2010/10/22/id/374538