NPR Fires Juan Williams

[PLAYER57832]

Political activity is one of those big no nos for a non profit charitable organization. Has NPR crossed the line? Well that is hard to say. I don't think so but I'm sure someone is going to say they did.

I see, so now we have descended to the point where condemning an entire group of people, based on the clothes they wear, NEVERMIND that this is NOT LINKED TO TERRORISM (despite your claims to the contrary, EVERY ONE of those convicted wore purely western dress... particularly the more recent ones).

Yep, we HAVE been there before. See, I lived in Mississippi for a while. And I cannot count the number of times I was assured that it was "perfectly reasonable" and "OK" to think that any black who showed up at my garage sale was a thief to not rent to a black, etc.

[Night Strike]

I can virtually gaurantee there were clauses in his contract limiting what he could say in public. As a reporter, he is not just "any other citizen". He did not have to take that job. Having taken that job, he was obligated to abide by the terms.

Then why does Nina Totenburg still have a job? She publically stated that she wished that a someone (or their grandchild) would get infected and die.

Why isn't the CEO fired for suggesting that Juan is crazy?

Don't give me this shit about "as a reporter" ... oh wait ... he was an analyst, not a reporter. FAIL.

Links and context. All I hear are inuendos.

bradley, I haven't even been reading your feud with woody because all you're doing is clogging up my thread with crap. Take it to PMs or another thread please.

I read through the rest of this thread and was struck but by a rather ironic though, which I'll explain in a moment. First, a point of clarification: NPR is not supported by the Federal Government or by your tax dollars. Approximately 2% of their budget comes through grants that indirectly come from the Government. The other 98% of their funding comes from private donations. They are a private non-profit organization. Here's the irony: The people in this thread that are unhappy with NPR are by and large the ones that would consider themselves the friends of private businesses. NPR made a business decision here. I read in one of the various news articles discussing the issue that the Council for American Islamic Relations was extremely upset with Mr. Williams' comments and complained to the board of NPR. I'm pretty sure CAIR is a pretty big supporter of NPR, so NPR made a decision that was in the best interests of their bottom line. The free market works!

You got that 2% number straight off an uncited comment on wiki (because I just read it). I think someone in this thread (or in a quote piece) said public funding was 5.8%, but I don't have the exact stat off hand. Either way, any public funding is absurd for a media group that does not promote free speech. They still have two people on their staff who said extremely offensive comments by wishing that a Senator or his grandchildren would get AIDS and another who said it will be better when 4 million Christians who believe crap leave the Earth. You can read about other NPR bias here: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/21/brief-history-nprs-intolerance-imbalance/

[PLAYER57832]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/21/brief-history-nprs-intolerance-imbalance/[/url]

[/quote]

Actually, you nicely prove my point with that link. I am surprised you cited it.
Let's take this first paragraph:

From calling Tea Party members “Tea Baggers,” to saying that "the evaporation of 4 million" Christians would leave the world a better place, to suggesting that God could give former Sen. Jesse Helms or his family AIDS from a blood transfusion, NPR's personalities have said some pretty un-PC things in the past. A look at the record reveals no shortage of intolerant statements and unbalanced segments on the publicly sponsored network's airwaves.

Tea baggers -- used by Tea Party members themselves, so hardly a slur. (though apparently there is a vulgar association, someone recently pointed out)
The rest... exactly what I mean by accusations without context. Though I listen to NPR faithfully, I have frankly never heard anyone say that "'the evaporation of 4 million' Christians would leave the word a better place". I DO remember something along the lines of suggesting Jesse Helms or his family should get AIDS, BUT it was not just "I hope you get AIDs" it was in the context of his virulant statements about people with AIDs, and the full statement was more like "maybe he or his family should get AIDs, then his opinion might change". I am not going to say that is the nicest statement, but hardly how Fox tries to paint it up.

This :

-- In June, the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) said it was easy to see why some refer to NPR as "National Palestine Radio" following a June 2 segment hosted by Tom Ashbrook on the Gaza flotilla incident. The segment featured five guests -- none of whom defended Israel's actions.

Among the five guests, Janine Zacharia, a Middle East correspondent for The Washington Post, was the only one who did not overtly criticize Israel. She also did not defend its actions, CAMERA officials said.

"So there you have it -- five perspectives and not one voice to present the mainstream Israeli perspective," they said in a June 17 press release. "That's Ashbrook's and NPR's version of a balanced discussion on Israel."

Technically correct, in that this one story was slanted toward one perspective BUT, what Fox ignores is that NPR then followed up with stories that gave primarily the other perspective. (or maybe they gave the Israeli perspective first, I cannot remember, just that there were a whole series of stories covering many perspectives) EACH STORY is not necessarily unbiased. Because going in depth in to EACH side, as NPR does takes time. So, instead of, say one 10 minute long story, they will air 2, 5 minute stories. OR, more accurately, often air more like 4-5 stories from not just 2 perspectives, but many perspectives. The BIG problem here is not that NPR covered it in a "biased manner", but that Israel really did not have much of a position.


This:

-- Last week, Newsbusters, a conservative media watchdog group, claimed that NPR's "Fresh Air" spent most of its hour insinuating that the Republican Party was dangerously infested with extremists.

NPR's Terry Gross hosted Princeton professor Sean Wilentz, who has written that President George W. Bush practiced "a radicalized version of Reaganism," Newsbusters' Tom Graham wrote.

Yep, absolutely. I posted links to this very interview. What Fox ignores is that this show is NOT A NEWS BROADCAST. It is an interview show, a topic show that makes no pretense about presenting each side to every story. The Host talks with various personalities, controversial people you don't necessarily hear everywhere and interviews them. They spend half hour, 45 minutes or so discussing their view. The host will challenge and critique, to a point. However, this is not an antagonistic attack show. -- more "Oprah" than "60 minutes". Each interviewer is allowed to present their own position as they see it. What IS diverse, though, again, are the subjects covered. Yes, often the subjects are more left than right. However, I have heard interviews with one of the men who dropped the original atomic bomb, etc. Again, it is NOT A NEWS SHOW.

OK, here is the Christian comment:
-- NPR issued an apology in 2005 for a commentator's remark on the return of Christ following a complaint by the Christian Coalition that the comment was anti-Christian.

On "All Things Considered," the network's afternoon drive-time program, humorist Andrei Codrescu said that the "evaporation of 4 million [people] who believe" in the doctrine of Rapture "would leave the world a better place."

Codrescu, who was on contract with NPR but not a full-time employee, later told The Associated Press he was sorry for the language, but "not for what [he] said."

NPR apologized for the comment, saying, it "crossed a line of taste and tolerance" and was an inappropriate attempt at humor. I see, so Fox equates pure humor with news? Interesting!
As I said above, within context, while not exactly a wonderful comment, it was not the horror it was made out to be either. AND, NPR APOLOGIZED! Specifically said it was "inappropriate", etc. The comedien did not back off, but he was not & us not a news reporter and so not subject to the same rules as Juan.

-- Also in 2005, NPR apologized to Mark Levin, author of "Men in Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America," after a broadcast of its program "Day to Day" falsely accused him of advocating violence against judges. Levin accepted the apology, but said the broadcast was "illustrative of a smear campaign launched by the Left to try and silence" his criticisms of judicial activism.

-- In 2002, the head of NPR issued an apology six months after a report linking anthrax-laced letters to a Christian conservative organization. -- Also in 2002, during an interview with the Philadelphia City Paper, NPR host Tavis Smiley said he strived to do a show that is "authentically black," but not "too black."
Interesting that Fox sees fit to quote the apologies as evidence that they are biased. Even the best-intentioned reporters DO get things wrong on occasion. Each of these was caught and corrected.

Furthermore, this is apparently the best Fox can do over the course of a decade (did omit the last few from the late 90's). compare that record with misstatements made by Fox.... sorry, the list would be too long to even begin to list.

[Nobunaga]

.... Yep, absolutely. I posted links to this very interview. What Fox ignores is that this show is NOT A NEWS BROADCAST. It is an interview show, a topic show that makes no pretense about presenting each side to every story. The Host talks with various personalities, controversial people you don't necessarily hear everywhere and interviews them. .... Again, it is NOT A NEWS SHOW.

... That's an interesting point, as FOX's Hannity and others make no pretense at being news, yet FOX is blasted continuously for their association.

... Interesting because if it's NPR it is "perfectly acceptable".

...

[PLAYER57832]

.... Yep, absolutely. I posted links to this very interview. What Fox ignores is that this show is NOT A NEWS BROADCAST. It is an interview show, a topic show that makes no pretense about presenting each side to every story. The Host talks with various personalities, controversial people you don't necessarily hear everywhere and interviews them. .... Again, it is NOT A NEWS SHOW.

... That's an interesting point, as FOX's Hannity and others make no pretense at being news, yet FOX is blasted continuously for their association.

... Interesting because if it's NPR it is "perfectly acceptable".

...

Did you catch the part where I said this was an INTERVIEW show? Terry Gross, herself, is not out there giving specific opinions. She interviews other people with a variety of perspectives, opinions that are specifically not her own nor NPRs, and identified in that way. Hannity presents his OWN OPINIONS. Opinions that were so ourageous that even Fox, findally could no longer tolerate them.

The difference is not the station, the difference is between giving voice to other people's controversial opinions and voicing controversy oneself.

[Woodruff]

Tea baggers -- used by Tea Party members themselves, so hardly a slur. (though apparently there is a vulgar association, someone recently pointed out)

There's no question that this term is typically used with vulgar intent and is absolutely a slur, in my opinion. None of the folks I know personally that consider themselves Tea Partiers would use that term to refer to themselves at all.

The rest... exactly what I mean by accusations without context. Though I listen to NPR faithfully, I have frankly never heard anyone say that "'the evaporation of 4 million' Christians would leave the word a better place". I DO remember something along the lines of suggesting Jesse Helms or his family should get AIDS, BUT it was not just "I hope you get AIDs" it was in the context of his virulant statements about people with AIDs, and the full statement was more like "maybe he or his family should get AIDs, then his opinion might change". I am not going to say that is the nicest statement, but hardly how Fox tries to paint it up.

IF those statements are true (and I also haven't seen verification of it, but I wouldn't be particularly surprised if it is there, particularly the statement regarding Helms...because it does sound very familiar), then those people absolutely should be fired.

"So there you have it -- five perspectives and not one voice to present the mainstream Israeli perspective," they said in a June 17 press release. "That's Ashbrook's and NPR's version of a balanced discussion on Israel."Technically correct, in that this one story was slanted toward one perspective BUT, what Fox ignores is that NPR then followed up with stories that gave primarily the other perspective. (or maybe they gave the Israeli perspective first, I cannot remember, just that there were a whole series of stories covering many perspectives) EACH STORY is not necessarily unbiased.

I agree with this. So long as both sides are presented (and they almost always are, on NPR), that is sufficient.

OK, here is the Christian comment:
-- NPR issued an apology in 2005 for a commentator's remark on the return of Christ following a complaint by the Christian Coalition that the comment was anti-Christian.
On "All Things Considered," the network's afternoon drive-time program, humorist Andrei Codrescu said that the "evaporation of 4 million [people] who believe" in the doctrine of Rapture "would leave the world a better place."
Codrescu, who was on contract with NPR but not a full-time employee, later told The Associated Press he was sorry for the language, but "not for what [he] said."
NPR apologized for the comment, saying, it "crossed a line of taste and tolerance" and was an inappropriate attempt at humor. I see, so Fox equates pure humor with news? Interesting!

I don't care if that guy is a humorist and intended his comment as humor, it is still extraordinarily offensive.

As I said above, within context, while not exactly a wonderful comment, it was not the horror it was made out to be either.

I must disagree. It is a terribly offensive statement.

AND, NPR APOLOGIZED! Specifically said it was "inappropriate", etc.

The apology would carry real weight if the individual no longer worked for NPR.

The comedien did not back off, but he was not & us not a news reporter and so not subject to the same rules as Juan.

Sure, he wouldn't be fired...but he certainly could be taken off the list of "participants" or whatever that they invite to their shows.

Interesting that Fox sees fit to quote the apologies as evidence that they are biased. Even the best-intentioned reporters DO get things wrong on occasion. Each of these was caught and corrected.

There's a vast difference between getting a detail of a story wrong and making statements that are simply offensive.

Furthermore, this is apparently the best Fox can do over the course of a decade (did omit the last few from the late 90's). compare that record with misstatements made by Fox.... sorry, the list would be too long to even begin to list.

Yes, I would have to agree with this.

[PLAYER57832]

Tea baggers -- used by Tea Party members themselves, so hardly a slur. (though apparently there is a vulgar association, someone recently pointed out)

There's no question that this term is typically used with vulgar intent and is absolutely a slur, in my opinion. None of the folks I know personally that consider themselves Tea Partiers would use that term to refer to themselves at all.

The article, though was not an NPR article. It was by a right wing group.

Per the rest... I would have to see the context. I just don't remember hearing anything like that in a way I found offensive...and my "offend radar" tends to be pretty high for anti-religious (particularly Christian) type slurrs. But... I do miss more than a few broadcasts.

[tzor]

Good thing I edit my posts in Word, the first attempt failed.

I see, so now we have descended to the point where condemning an entire group of people, based on the clothes they wear, NEVERMIND that this is NOT LINKED TO TERRORISM (despite your claims to the contrary, EVERY ONE of those convicted wore purely western dress... particularly the more recent ones).

There you go again Player, taking everything out of context in order to get your politically correct shock-gasm. Perhaps it is indeed true that you have reached nirvana and have become the divine Vulcan Buddha, where all human emotions are under control. Congratulations, but as of this moment 6,876,986,678 other people have not. People still have emotions, associations, irrational fears, and everything. I know this wonderful co-worker who is afraid of spiders, and bugs, and other crawly things.

So if someone like Juan feels nervous when people are dressed in full Islamic garb on a plane, one does not take the opinion that admitting this fault is somehow a gross violation of some unwritten code. That is how he feels, just like my co-worker (who is currently expecting another child) has a very strong negative feeling about spiders. Don’t give me this old (not all spiders were responsible for biting your toe as a child) routine or that she personally blames all spiders for some event, because that is not true and that is indeed a false straw man.

If you liberals can honestly say that if you saw a man with a Roman Collar next to a young boy you would not be “nervous” then I suppose you might be a Vulcan Buddha. If you think this is different, then you are just showing your selective liberal bias against Christians and for anything that ain’t Christian. (Which, ironically Islam is.)

Some things do make me nervous, because past experiences are hard to erase in the mind. If that makes me less than perfect, so be it. Let he or she who is perfect be the one to cast the first stone.

[tzor]

Links and context. All I hear are inuendos.

Ask and you shall see; seek and you shall find; Google and the link will be opened up for you.

What Won't Get You Fired From NPR: With U-Tube of the actual words from Nina's own mouth. As for "retributive justice" if she recalls the Old Testament, the best puinishment is the one you give to others applying to you (as was the case with Pharaoh ordering the death of every first born Hebrew child only to have it bounce off them and stick on all Egyptian children).

[Woodruff]

If you liberals can honestly say that if you saw a man with a Roman Collar next to a young boy you would not be “nervous” then I suppose you might be a Vulcan Buddha.

I can say with certainty that I would not feel "nervous" or "fearful" for a boy sitting next to a Catholic priest. I don't think that makes me emotionless at all...I think that makes me aware of the very small number of Catholic priests who have molested young boys.

[Phatscotty]

I read through the rest of this thread and was struck but by a rather ironic though, which I'll explain in a moment. First, a point of clarification: NPR is not supported by the Federal Government or by your tax dollars. Approximately 2% of their budget comes through grants that indirectly come from the Government. The other 98% of their funding comes from private donations. They are a private non-profit organization. Here's the irony: The people in this thread that are unhappy with NPR are by and large the ones that would consider themselves the friends of private businesses. NPR made a business decision here. I read in one of the various news articles discussing the issue that the Council for American Islamic Relations was extremely upset with Mr. Williams' comments and complained to the board of NPR. I'm pretty sure CAIR is a pretty big supporter of NPR, so NPR made a decision that was in the best interests of their bottom line. The free market works!

Those that have seen my comments in the past likely know that I consider myself a libertarian-minded conservative. I find NPR to provide the most balanced coverage out of any of the news organizations. MSNBC and CNN have blatant liberal biases. Fox is just as blatantly conservative. The 2008 presidential election is what convinced me of the later - especially the anti-Ron Paul bias and the way they managed to denigrate Obama in rather underhanded ways ("Obama: 'Don't diss my baby-momma'" or "Fist bump? Gang symbol? Terrorist fist jab?"). NPR was the one news network that actually treated Ron Paul (and Dennis Kucinich for that matter) with respect and was willing to let him speak his message without twisting it to pieces. Anyway. I disagree with NPR on this firing, but they made a business decision they felt was in their best interests. I'll continue listening to them and will likely donate to them in the future.

the anti-Paul stuff was most atrocious, and I will remind peeps for a long time to come of all the dirty tricks Mike Huckabee and Rudy Guliani pulled also. ATROCIOUS.

[PLAYER57832]

Good thing I edit my posts in Word, the first attempt failed.

I see, so now we have descended to the point where condemning an entire group of people, based on the clothes they wear, NEVERMIND that this is NOT LINKED TO TERRORISM (despite your claims to the contrary, EVERY ONE of those convicted wore purely western dress... particularly the more recent ones).

There you go again Player, taking everything out of context in order to get your politically correct shock-gasm.

What context am I ignoring?

If you liberals can honestly say that if you saw a man with a Roman Collar next to a young boy you would not be “nervous” then I suppose you might be a Vulcan Buddha.

In fact, my son does spend time with a Roman Catholic priest on almost a daily basis. And no, I am not afraid. I trust my instincts and have taught him to trust his. Nothing is 100%, but living a life in fear is the greater harm.

Some things do make me nervous, because past experiences are hard to erase in the mind. If that makes me less than perfect, so be it. Let he or she who is perfect be the one to cast the first stone.

This is not about failing to be perfect. This is about admitting one's imperfections versus pushing them under the rug or even trotting them out as if they were not imperfections. All of us have innate prejudices. We acknowledge and try to work around them. We don't try to justify them as "excusable".

[Night Strike]

Tea baggers -- used by Tea Party members themselves, so hardly a slur. (though apparently there is a vulgar association, someone recently pointed out)

You have to provide a source for that outlandish statement.

OK, here is the Christian comment:
-- NPR issued an apology in 2005 for a commentator's remark on the return of Christ following a complaint by the Christian Coalition that the comment was anti-Christian.

On "All Things Considered," the network's afternoon drive-time program, humorist Andrei Codrescu said that the "evaporation of 4 million [people] who believe" in the doctrine of Rapture "would leave the world a better place."

Codrescu, who was on contract with NPR but not a full-time employee, later told The Associated Press he was sorry for the language, but "not for what [he] said."

NPR apologized for the comment, saying, it "crossed a line of taste and tolerance" and was an inappropriate attempt at humor. I see, so Fox equates pure humor with news? Interesting!
As I said above, within context, while not exactly a wonderful comment, it was not the horror it was made out to be either. AND, NPR APOLOGIZED! Specifically said it was "inappropriate", etc. The comedien did not back off, but he was not & us not a news reporter and so not subject to the same rules as Juan.

But NPR did not fire him and his comments were on their own show. Juan Williams was not even on an NPR show when he made his comments, and his contract specifically stated that what he says on other programs is not affiliated with NPR (so they broke contract by holding him responsible for those comments). Their apology means nothing if they keep the guy on their show. Furthermore, there were 40,000 complaints against this guy's comments, but nothing was ever done by NPR ("NPR replies to 40,000 complaints about Codrescu broadcast". Washington, D.C.: [[Current (newspaper)|]]. 1996-05-27.). There were 60 comments to NPR about Juan and he was fired. And these complaints were led by the extreme group of CAIR (as exposed by Megyn Kelly).

[PLAYER57832]

Tea baggers -- used by Tea Party members themselves, so hardly a slur. (though apparently there is a vulgar association, someone recently pointed out)

You have to provide a source for that outlandish statement.

The very article cited above as a mistaken example of how NPR distorted the origins of the Tea Party is a pretty good source. It was not an NPR article nor even a liberal source.

OK, here is the Christian comment:
-- NPR issued an apology in 2005 for a commentator's remark on the return of Christ following a complaint by the Christian Coalition that the comment was anti-Christian.

On "All Things Considered," the network's afternoon drive-time program, humorist Andrei Codrescu said that the "evaporation of 4 million [people] who believe" in the doctrine of Rapture "would leave the world a better place."

Codrescu, who was on contract with NPR but not a full-time employee, later told The Associated Press he was sorry for the language, but "not for what [he] said."

NPR apologized for the comment, saying, it "crossed a line of taste and tolerance" and was an inappropriate attempt at humor. I see, so Fox equates pure humor with news? Interesting!
As I said above, within context, while not exactly a wonderful comment, it was not the horror it was made out to be either. AND, NPR APOLOGIZED! Specifically said it was "inappropriate", etc. The comedien did not back off, but he was not & us not a news reporter and so not subject to the same rules as Juan.

That is just excerpts of his comments, no context. Context does matter.

But NPR did not fire him and his comments were on their own show. Juan Williams was not even on an NPR show when he made his comments, and his contract specifically stated that what he says on other programs is not affiliated with NPR (so they broke contract by holding him responsible for those comments).

I don't justify those comments. I just refuse to comment specifically without seeing the FULL context, which you have not provided. That said, Codrescu is not tasked with interviewing people of various perspectives to give a balanced view of the news. His role is humor, and absolutely biased humor (though it should be said that bias can be pointed in many directions). Its like saying that a show with the Cable Guy (or Jeff Foxworthy) is supposed to have the same standards as the evening news.

I have not seen Juan Williams contract, but most news organizations, particularly NPR DO have policies that forbid news reporters from taking stances on serious controversial subjects in public. That it did not represent NPR is obvious, but his ability to act as an objective observer is now tainted. Also, the more I hear about this, the more I believe there were actually other issues.. maybe just plain issues of who has editorial control and so forth. No manager likes to be countermanded in a public way. If the personalities clashed (not saying for sure, just guessing here), then it would not take much to get him fired.

Their apology means nothing if they keep the guy on their show. Furthermore, there were 40,000 complaints against this guy's comments, but nothing was ever done by NPR ("NPR replies to 40,000 complaints about Codrescu broadcast". Washington, D.C.: [[Current (newspaper)|]]. 1996-05-27.). There were 60 comments to NPR about Juan and he was fired. And these complaints were led by the extreme group of CAIR (as exposed by Megyn Kelly).

NPR listens to comments, but the editorial board makes decisions on what to keep and what not to keep. It could be that Juan will be invited back. As I said above, I strongly suspect there were other issues involved here. Personality issues, etc.

However, the point of argument/discussion here is whether NPR had the right to take this action. They did. AND whether the conservative outcry is hypocritical or more hypocritical than NPRs. I would say it most certainly is, and is a reflection of the lack of most real liberal viewpoints in so many media outlets today.

NPR only looks like a "flaming liberal station" when put up against what truly are very, very right wing views expressed so often now as "middle of the road".

[Night Strike]

Tea baggers -- used by Tea Party members themselves, so hardly a slur. (though apparently there is a vulgar association, someone recently pointed out)

You have to provide a source for that outlandish statement.

The very article cited above as a mistaken example of how NPR distorted the origins of the Tea Party is a pretty good source. It was not an NPR article nor even a liberal source.

The only article you've referenced is the one I posted, and there are no actual citations that a Tea Party organization referred to themselves as "Tea Baggers". All there is is an a claim.

That is just excerpts of his comments, no context. Context does matter.

Funny how the context immediately preceding Juan's plane and Muslim garb comment is completely ignored yet you cry for it now. He specifically opened the statement by saying how he has an extensive record of fighting against bigotry.

I have not seen Juan Williams contract, but most news organizations, particularly NPR DO have policies that forbid news reporters from taking stances on serious controversial subjects in public. That it did not represent NPR is obvious, but his ability to act as an objective observer is now tainted. Also, the more I hear about this, the more I believe there were actually other issues.. maybe just plain issues of who has editorial control and so forth. No manager likes to be countermanded in a public way. If the personalities clashed (not saying for sure, just guessing here), then it would not take much to get him fired.

You're right, reporters aren't supposed to take a stance on issues (although they do ALL the time). Good thing Juan Williams was NOT a reporter. He was first a Senior Correspondent and then reassigned to be a News Analyst. Since when are either of those positions supposed to keep their personal views out of the issues? Their JOB is to provide an opinion/interpretation of the news.

By the way, there ARE other issues that went into firing Juan: he made frequent appearances on Fox News and George Soros made a $1.8 million donation to NPR. When Soros also made a $1 million donation to Media Matters to purposefully go after Fox News, it's not hard to link that donation with Juan's firing (no matter how much NPR will deny it).

[tzor]

Tea baggers -- used by Tea Party members themselves, so hardly a slur. (though apparently there is a vulgar association, someone recently pointed out)

You have to provide a source for that outlandish statement.

It gets "complicated." (In other words well above the minds of most liberals to understand .. heck "hope" and "change" were difficult as it is.) In order to understand this you need to realize that the so called "tea party" movement was actually several movements in parallel, all feeding off of each other. The original Tea Party movement started from a comment from a infamous CNN stock reporter and was confined to recreating the tea party of the 18th century which was during the age of loose tea. (Note that most teabags have only the ground leavings of the tea leaves and are not whole leaves.) This was paralleled by two other movements. The first is the 912 project, which remains to this day. The second was a movement to mail tea bags to the White House and Congress and to have a couple of tons of tea bags at the Washington Mall. It was during the course of this that one member of the tea bag movment joked about "tea bagging" Barney Frank. That is the only origin of the term by conservatives. The rest was the liberal media who took this and in true Bevis and Butthead manner, ran with it.

[tzor]

This is not about failing to be perfect. This is about admitting one's imperfections versus pushing them under the rug or even trotting them out as if they were not imperfections. All of us have innate prejudices. We acknowledge and try to work around them. We don't try to justify them as "excusable".

STOP RIGHT THERE. Jaun was fired for the part I just bolded. He never tried to "excuse" them. He simply acknowledged them. And for that he was fired, by National Soros Radio.

[Juan_Bottom]

I can't participate in this thread. Too many "Juan's" being tossed about. I'll be in the fora.

[PLAYER57832]

Tea baggers -- used by Tea Party members themselves, so hardly a slur. (though apparently there is a vulgar association, someone recently pointed out)

You have to provide a source for that outlandish statement.

The very article cited above as a mistaken example of how NPR distorted the origins of the Tea Party is a pretty good source. It was not an NPR article nor even a liberal source.

The only article you've referenced is the one I posted, and there are no actual citations that a Tea Party organization referred to themselves as "Tea Baggers". All there is is an a claim.

Yes, but since you posted it and it was a right wing source, I assumed you considered it credible. Moreover, it is absolutely not an idictment of NPR.

The NPR references I have seen speak of "the Tea Party" or "members of the Tea Party", etc.

That is just excerpts of his comments, no context. Context does matter.

Funny how the context immediately preceding Juan's plane and Muslim garb comment is completely ignored yet you cry for it now. He specifically opened the statement by saying how he has an extensive record of fighting against bigotry.

In that case, the comment is not enough to outweigh what he then said. Its similar to the old joke about "I am not a bigot... my best friend is black." Whether he worked against bigotry or not is just irrelevant. The statement, and particular his attempts to claim it was "justified" and "not racist", etc are indications of bigotry.

I have not seen Juan Williams contract, but most news organizations, particularly NPR DO have policies that forbid news reporters from taking stances on serious controversial subjects in public. That it did not represent NPR is obvious, but his ability to act as an objective observer is now tainted. Also, the more I hear about this, the more I believe there were actually other issues.. maybe just plain issues of who has editorial control and so forth. No manager likes to be countermanded in a public way. If the personalities clashed (not saying for sure, just guessing here), then it would not take much to get him fired.

You're right, reporters aren't supposed to take a stance on issues (although they do ALL the time). Good thing Juan Williams was NOT a reporter. He was first a Senior Correspondent and then reassigned to be a News Analyst. Since when are either of those positions supposed to keep their personal views out of the issues? Their JOB is to provide an opinion/interpretation of the news.[/quote]
On NPR, the jobs are not divided the way they are on Fox. An analyst is supposed to be generally objective, even if they have varied experiences, backgrounds and approaches.

By the way, there ARE other issues that went into firing Juan: he made frequent appearances on Fox News and George Soros made a $1.8 million donation to NPR. When Soros also made a $1 million donation to Media Matters to purposefully go after Fox News, it's not hard to link that donation with Juan's firing (no matter how much NPR will deny it).

Not going to deny anything. It is irrelevant to my comments.

[tzor]

This is getting bizzare ... let's go back to the video tape and look at the prime reference.

Tea baggers -- used by Tea Party members themselves, so hardly a slur. (though apparently there is a vulgar association, someone recently pointed out)

That's my comment, nothing to do with NPR at all. Tea Bagging was used by the Tea Bag movement, not the Tea Party movement. And as for a conservative reference ... if you are asserting that conservatives used a term, the only primary sources are conservative, DUH. Every liberal source is second hand (and not admissable in court as it is heresay evidence).

[tzor]

P.S. Player, you really need to work on quote tags. No really. This isn't rocket science. You just gave the appearance of arguing with yourself.

[Woodruff]

This is getting bizzare ... let's go back to the video tape and look at the prime reference.

Tea baggers -- used by Tea Party members themselves, so hardly a slur. (though apparently there is a vulgar association, someone recently pointed out)

That's my comment, nothing to do with NPR at all. Tea Bagging was used by the Tea Bag movement, not the Tea Party movement.

I have never heard of "the Tea Bag movement".

P.S. Player, you really need to work on quote tags. No really. This isn't rocket science. You just gave the appearance of arguing with yourself.

Yes to this. It's very consistently...bad.

[PLAYER57832]

This is not about failing to be perfect. This is about admitting one's imperfections versus pushing them under the rug or even trotting them out as if they were not imperfections. All of us have innate prejudices. We acknowledge and try to work around them. We don't try to justify them as "excusable".

STOP RIGHT THERE. Jaun was fired for the part I just bolded. He never tried to "excuse" them. He simply acknowledged them. And for that he was fired, by National Soros Radio.

No. He did much more than acknowledge them and YOU are doing much more than simply "acknowledging" them. You have gone off on several tirades attempting to "explain" how justified those comments were. They were bigoted and inappropriate for a news person.

[tzor]

I have never heard of "the Tea Bag movement".

Google is your friend, especially on movements that are only a few years old.

Send A Teabag To Washington Posted on 03.10.09 by K. Daniel Glover @ 5:01 pm

On April 1, 2009, all Ameicans are asked to send a teabag to Washington, DC. You do not have to enclose a note or any other information unless you so desire. Just a teabag. Many cities are organizing protests. If you simply search “New American Tea Party,” several sites will come up. If you aren’t the “protester” type, simply make your one voice heard with a teabag. Your one voice will become a roar when joined with millions of others that feel the same way. …

Huffington Post: Just so I can use a liberal new source to back me up. Tea Bag Terror: Protests Causing Scares, Evacuations At Congressional Offices

A recent email to hundreds of thousands of conservatives exhorted them to "Send a Tea Bag to Washington, D.C. for $1." Other activists have organized local efforts to mail tea bags to the offices of their members of Congress.

...

Local reports indicate that the practice of mailing actual tea bags to legislators has repeatedly raised security concerns, and sometimes forced the evacuation of congressional offices in anthrax-like scares.

1 Million Tea Bags, But No Place to Dump

WASHINGTON -- It was a great idea, really. Take a million tea bags and dump them in Lafayette Park to protest government spending. Hip, hip, hoo-ray!

But a funny thing happened en route to a visually pleasing Tax Day protest. The National Park Service said the tea party protesters didn't have the proper permit to dump their bags.

So instead of a raucous visual demonstration, all that was left were images of the tea party packing up their boxes of tea on a cold, soggy day in D.C.

[tzor]

No. He did much more than acknowledge them and YOU are doing much more than simply "acknowledging" them. You have gone off on several tirades attempting to "explain" how justified those comments were. They were bigoted and inappropriate for a news person.

I'm only going to say this once. Please sit down and do not post another post until you have had one good cup of tea. Drink several. Please do not drink any coffee. One of the many good qualities of tea is that it allows the mind to be more open to the world around it. I saw that clip, not once, but ad nauseum and there is no fucking way you can make a claim that it was anything more than acknowlement.