Boo Friggin' HOO: NPR didn't talk to Juan Williams before tossing his worthless ass

[Amerigo Vespucci]

Run time: 04:59 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIOBYsVuuFs   Posted on YouTube: October 21, 2010 By YouTube Member: johnnydollar01 Views on YouTube: 340   Posted on DU: October 21, 2010 By DU Member: Amerigo Vespucci Views on DU: 1284

 

[Xipe Totec]

1. I can understand his fear. After all, the 9/11 attackers were dressed in Muslim garb

Oh wait, no they weren't.

They were dressed in western clothing to blend in.

I think I should be frightened when I see somebody board a plane dressed in western clothing.

:scared:

[Grassy Knoll]

2. .......

[hedgehog]

3. NPR had already given him more than fair warning:

"Second, this isn't the first time we have had serious concerns about some of Juan's public comments. Despite many conversations and warnings over the years, Juan has continued to violate this principal.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/10/21/130728202/npr-ceo-williams-views-of-muslims-should-stay-between-himself-and-his-psychiatrist

[Tx4obama]

4. But NPR did talk with him

At the 3:05 minute mark he says in the video that he talked to Ellen Weiss, she asked him what he meant by what he said and he told her.

[asjr]

5. I suppose Juan thought he had tenure.

[zehnkatzen]

16. If so, he wouldn't be the first conservative to love the idea of tenure ...

... well, as applied to himself, anyway.

[Beams1969]

6. I know this won't be popular, but....

Freedom of speech is meant for everyone. As far as I can tell he expressed honestly what his involuntary response was, whether "right or wrong". I prefer people be able to express themselves freely so we can decide what those ideas are.

[ProfessorPlum]

7. people on corporate payrolls don't have freedom of speech

when they are acting as representatives of those corporations, as Williams was when he represented himself as an NPR correspondent on Faux news.

[Beams1969]

8. Well, he was on National Public Radio as a journalist/commentator

Which in my book means that he also enjoys freedom of press, even if it isn't popular. I don't like what the guy said, but I think he does have a right to say it, especially in his line of work. Can there be lines crossed? Yes, of course. But as I understand the story now, I don't think he crossed it.

I just think it is a bad road to go down to curtail free speech. If we can't handle a discussion about it, what can we handle?

[ProfessorPlum]

23. "we" can certainly handle a discussion of how JW is afraid of

Muslim-looking people. However, he broke the conditions of his contract with NPR, and apparently they took the opportunity to fire him. In my opinion, he should have been fired years ago for his double-appearances on Faux, so antithetical to what NPR is (supposed to be) all about.

[GETPLANING]

9. The 1st Amendment

Protects citizens from censorship BY THE GOVERNMENT. That's it. That's the only protection it gives. Juan Williams is free to say whatever he wants, and NPR is free to fire him. Juan Williams will still be free to say whatever he wants. Now, if goons from NPR HANDCUFFED him and DETAINED him on a bench, or imprisoned him, THAT would be in violation of the 1st Amendment. Right, Joe Miller?

[Beams1969]

10. I understand your legal arguments.

I still think that NPR, a publicly funded organization, should have more tolerance for really stupid views. I am arguing that stupid, unpopular speech should be tolerated, even welcomed, especially if it is honest.

[mazzarro]

11. How Much Tolerance?

If he had been warned several times about his commentaries on Faux Noise, then it behooves him to adhere to the terms of his contract or be fired!

[ProudDad]

12. I wouldn't mind so much if actualy rational speech

from anyone to the left of the DLC were regularly presented on public radio and television...

But it's not...

[zehnkatzen]

17. We've put up with teh stupid for almost ten years now ...

... maybe people have an inherent right to be stupid. But when does my right to have teh stupid consigned to obscurity where it belongs begin.

I'm tired of putting up with well-paid commentators and analysts who don't have to enable their internal censor, and it remains all right for them.

[ProudDad]

13. And the 4th and especially the 14th Amendment... (n/t)

[Turborama]

21. Thanks for saving me the effort

It's getting very tiresome having to repeatedly educate what the 1st Amendment actually says.

[Xipe Totec]

14. Nobody is stopping him from saying whatever he wants

He just has to do it somewhere else.

[zehnkatzen]

15. The problem with Juan Williams wasn't that he had a stupid opinion

The problem was framed rather well by NPR when they expressed, over his firing, that his statements compromised his credibility as a news analyst.

I realize that people have biases. I do, we all do. But to expect me to trust Juan Williams as an analyst with insight is a bit much now that I know that he doesn't have the brains or the maturity not to start soiling his britches whenever he sees someone in "Muslim dress".

And "Muslim dress"? Whatever the hell is that supposed to be? There are some Muslims who live down the street from me. They wear so-called "Western" (or is that better expressed "Christian" in the Williams-informed paradigm?) clothing.

I can't really comprehend whatever posessed NPR to contract with him anyway. For all his polish, he really seems quite ignorant and sure of his misperceptions ... which works fine on FOX, nobody expects anything apt out of them, but on NPR? It's about time the set the bar higher for themselves.

And I wouldn't worry about ol'Juan missing any meals or his mortgage payment, now that he's an official FOX cause celebre. Poor fellah. We should all work out so unlucky as that. Juan'll be all right.

Yeah, there's free speech in America all right, but there should be some penalty for pretending to be informed when you're actually quite ignorant. And just because the government isn't allowed to control what the people say and what the papers print (that's what <i>freedom of speech</i> actually means) doesn't mean I have to feel sympathy for an apparently adult and educated man who, in reality, doesn't know better.

[Turborama]

22. Excellent response! I wish we could bookmark people's replies

I'm going to have to resort to bookmarking your blog instead, lol. :thumbsup:

[zehnkatzen]

24. Much obliged. Thanks for the kudo!

FWIW, I just added it to my journal here.

[SemperEadem]

18. freedom of speech

is for everyone, yes. The government cannot infringe upon it, but why don't you go read your employment contract really closely and see what kind of free speech you've signed away when you took the money. You cannot just say anything you wish if your company has a policy against certain speech on their premises with their equipment and you've signed your name to a contract saying you will adhere to and obey the rules laid out in your employment contract.

Dissemination/broadcast/cablecast of said speech is not a right.

Violating the terms of your contract and facing no consequences for it after being talked to repeatedly is not a right.

you can hear his ideas any time he is on fux noose--he hasn't been silenced by any stretch of the imagination.

Williams can go stand out on Mass Ave at North Capitol NW in front of the post office and have all the free speech his little heart desires.

[emilyg]

19. You and I are

in the minority here. Agree with you.

[Life Long Dem]

20. NPR reports the news.

Not a reporters opinion. And this is why they fired him. It's as simple as that.