NPR fires Juan Williams.

[MobBoss]

Didn't he say that he gets nervous when he sees Muslims?

"I get nervous when I see a black person on the street"
"I get nervous when I see a Christian"
"I get nervous when I see Jews, they could steal my money"

That's pretty dumb and bigoted, dude.

So your basically saying everyone is bigoted to some degree. I would agree with that.

But I only see that as slightly bigoted. Surely there are responses there that could be far more bigoted in delivery, dont you agree? Like "I carry a gun becasue I am afraid of X", or 'I dont go into that part of town at all because of X", or 'I wont go into that bathroom because of X"....

Being a little nervous isnt that bad. Hell thats normal, and literally everyone does it in some circumstance. So why dont we really save the big BIGOT word for actions that truly are bigoted and let the little stuff go, eh?

So let me get this straight – you just finished poo-pooing the use of “liberal” websites as sources to actual data, and then link to Fox News as a source to bolster your argument?

So your alleging that the facts of the Foxnews story are false? That those things didnt occur on NPR?

Please note I didnt say what Form linked was factually incorrect, I said it was misleading for the simple reason it cherry picked its data set along lines it choose. The Foxnews story just gives a few highlights from other news/talk shows that werent covered in that study.

So tell me again, which part of the Foxnews story is actually false.

Once again, AFAIK, nope. Got any actual evidence other than a commentary by those individuals which may have appeared there once or twice?

Well, they were mentioned on the wiki about it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commondreams

Are you saying the wiki is in error?

Actually, I don't. But that is obviously their audience. Would you disgree with that assessment? Or are you just trying to use ludicrous personal attacks instead of addressing the issues?

To be honest, I wouldnt profess to know either way.

Because they felt that was enough? Why don't you ask them to defend themselves against absurd attacks on their credibility instead of me? Why won't you discuss the issues instead?

You trotted out the data set as proof of something, so you defend it. I just pointed out the holes in how the data was presented.

In this case I am indeed discussing the issue - i.e. the data you linked. By your waffling here it seems obvious you cant defend the decision to only include 4 of their 11 talk/news shows they offer. And thats ok. I think we can both agree if all 11 of their shows were tracked in a similar manner the data presented would be somewhat different...

Actually, I have never watched the show, while you admitted in this forum to having done so yourself.

Yeah, Its caught my eye while channel surfing a few times. Never watched it from beginning to end, but every once in awhile if I see something unusual on there I might watch a few minutes. I can only take so much of Joy Behar tho. ugh.

 

[BSmith1068]

So your alleging that the facts of the Foxnews story are false? That those things didnt occur on NPR?

How you construed my comments to imply that I was making a value judgment either way on the article is beyond me.

Please note I didnt say what Form linked was factually incorrect, I said it was misleading for the simple reason it cherry picked its data set along lines it choose. The Foxnews story just gives a few highlights from other news/talk shows that werent covered in that study.

And Fox didn’t cherry pick the comments along lines it chose? Come on Mobby – let’s be fair here.

So tell me again, which part of the Foxnews story is actually false.

It doesn’t matter. I’m not interested in debating the finer points of what sentence was false and what sentence was true.

What I would like to see happen is an end to the automatic dismissing of sources simply based on what the source is. Read the content and provide a critical analysis of that content. Don’t dismiss out of hand simply because of the source. If a bias is present in that content, then by all means highlight it and use it as part of your counter argument, but don’t just dismiss it out of hand.

This goes both ways mind you. I consider the knee jerk reaction to Fox News by lefties in the same way as reactions to Huffington Post and other left leaning sources by righties. It is specifically why I chose to use this example.

 

[warpus]

So your basically saying everyone is bigoted to some degree. I would agree with that.

Uh, no. I am not made nervous when I see someone on the street, just because they are a member of a particular religion, race, or sexual orientation.

Sure, if they look suspicious or have a weapon in their hand, or SOMETHING, but just because they are Muslim.. or Jewish.. or whatever? Seriously?

 

[MobBoss]

It doesn’t matter.

Rofl, of course it does. You trying to deny that it does makes it matter even more...

I’m not interested in debating the finer points of what sentence was false and what sentence was true.

Probably because it wouldnt go well for you, so I understand your unwillingness to go there.

What I would like to see happen is an end to the automatic dismissing of sources simply based on what the source is. Read the content and provide a critical analysis of that content.

Havent I done that to Forms source by pointing out it only covers 4 of the 11 programs offered?

 

[Murky]

Uh, no. I am not made nervous when I see someone on the street, just because they are a member of a particular religion, race, or sexual orientation.

Sure, if they look suspicious or have a weapon in their hand, or SOMETHING, but just because they are Muslim.. or Jewish.. or whatever? Seriously?

Same here. If I see a guy just wearing a typical Arabic outfit, I don't automatically assume he's a terrorist. If he is carrying an AK-47, that's a different story.

I used to share an office with a guy from Pakistan who dressed in traditional clothing. He wasn't scary at all.

There's just so much fear and ignorance surrounding Muslims since 9/11. Most it is unfounded, but right-wing commentators just keep stirring it up, playing on people's fears.

 

[BSmith1068]

Rofl, of course it does. You trying to deny that it does makes it matter even more...
…
Probably because it wouldnt go well for you, so I understand your unwillingness to go there.

Get out of the weeds and actually read what I said. I was not debating the specifics of what one article or another says in this specific situation, but your overall tactic in deflecting true debate.

Havent I done that to Forms source by pointing out it only covers 4 of the 11 programs offered?

It’s a start. But take a closer look and you’ll see that those 4 programs have a VAST majority of the listeners to NPR. While the actual number of programs seems low, if you look at the big picture you’ll see that these make up almost 80% of total listeners.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/gofigure/2...are-against-the-top-shows-on-commercial-radio

http://www.npr.org/templates/archives/archive.php?thingId=125885971

 

[DinoDoc]

Several possibly unrelated or contradictory thoughts.

1. I'm gonna guess NPR hated having its reputation sullied by having this guy repeatedly appear on Fox's opinion shows. Goes against the image they cultivate of sober in depth reportage

So saying stupid damages NPR's credibility?

Nina Totenberg:

On Jesse Helms: “I think he ought to be worried about what’s going on in the Good Lord’s mind, because if there is retributive justice, he’ll get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it.”

On Sam Alito: “I think that’s right. You know, they picked a woman, probably a nice woman, a woman you might hire if you were in a corporation but who had no constitutional law experience whatsoever and did things in successive weeks that each time made her look less and less qualified. And then, of course when she gets dinged, then we go back, as Ruth Marcus said, to some white guy.”

On the Bush administration: “People in administrations make short-term decisions, and I think the one to sort of go on the offensive publicly against Fox was not too bright. Now, the Bush White House did that, it just cut people dead, it froze them out, you know it froze whole institutions out, didn’t talk about it. It was much more like the Mob. When you talk about it, you diminish your influence.”

On the Tea Parties: “Well, you know, I don’t know whether this really has any legs are not. You have to remember that at almost any given time any cockamamie proposition in America will have at least 25 percent of those polled supporting it. It was a good stunt. Whether the stunt really is more than a stunt remains to be seen. Obviously there are people who don’t like paying taxes, among them, probably some people at this table and certainly a certain individual whom I share a bed with doesn’t like paying taxes at all.”

On the Bush tax cuts: “Well, there are some relatively minor tax cuts and fixes in the first part of the week and then came the big benefit for investors in capital gains and all of that. Now, you know, I would benefit from that. Probably everybody here would benefit from that, but I just think it’s immoral to do that, not to mention fiscally irresponsible, when you’re cutting people who have nothing — from children off of Medicaid and mothers who depend on childcare losing the childcare and can’t work. And then what do they do? Go back on welfare? I mean, it is, it’s, I just think it’s immoral.”

Andrei Codrescu:

"The evaporation of four million people who believe this crap [the Rapture] would leave the world an instantly better place."

Sunni Khalid:

I think there's a big difference when people told Father Aristide to sort of moderate his views, they were concerned about people being dragged through the streets, killed and necklaced. I don't think that is what Newt Gingrich has in mind. I think he's looking at a more scientific, a more civil way of lynching people.

None of these people were fired.

 

[MobBoss]

It’s a start. But take a closer look and you’ll see that those 4 programs have a VAST majority of the listeners to NPR. While the actual number of programs seems low, if you look at the big picture you’ll see that these make up almost 80% of total listeners.

Its not the number of listeners that give NPR its liberal bias, it would be the programming. Who listens to the program is actually immaterial in ascertaining that. Surely you can agree to that.

 

[Formaldehyde]

None of these people were fired.

So you are an advocate of firing people for expressing commonly held opinions which aren't bigoted in the least, but which you merely disagree?

 

[JollyRoger]

Funny to see the righties all of sudden concerned about an employer making a decision at the expense of an employee.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Want to see another good candidate for their "fair and balanced" treatment:

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertai...rick_sanchez_during_comedy_centrals_dail.html

Jon Stewart poked fun big time at the fired CNN host who called him a bigot.

"The Daily Show" host mocked Rick Sanchez for his comments about Jews in the media and Stewart's upbringing on Monday night.

"I think Jon Stewart's a bigot," Sanchez said on the taped replay of the now infamous radio clip.

"Oh my god!" Stewart exclaimed on his Comedy Central show. "Rick Sanchez knows my name!"

The funnyman then replayed another excerpt from the Sirius XM radio's "Stand Up!" with Pete Dominick where Sanchez lamented, "I'm so glad that (Stewart) grew up in a suburban middle-class New Jersey home with everything that you could ever imagine."

Stewart said Sanchez "really nailed what it was like growing up in central Jersey in the early '70s, the fortunate son of a single mother in the education field."

Stewart isn't the only one mocking the anchor. Sanchez was also blasted on David Letterman's "Late Show" Top 10 List, where the comedian joked that Sanchez's hate-filled rant was an audition for Fox News.

According to Sanchez's wife, the anchor has since called Stewart to apologize.

"Rick apologized to Jon Stewart today," Suzanne Sanchez wrote on her Facebook wall. "They had a good talk. Jon was gracious and called Rick, ‘thin-skinned." His wife also said that Sanchez "feels horrible that in an effort to make a broader point about the media, his exhaustion from working 14 hr days for 2 mo. straight, caused him to mangle his thought process inartfully."

During his show, Stewart also relayed a segment of the interview where Sanchez questioned whether Jews should be considered a minority. Stewart, who is Jewish, said that comment had made him angry because the show, which doesn't tape on Fridays couldn't lampoon Sanchez until Monday—"and there's no way this cat survives the weekend at CNN"

The comedian was right. Soon after the radio show, CNN announced that Sanchez had been canned from his job.

Stewart then played a montage of clips that compared Sanchez to Steve Carell's foolishly endearing character Michael Scott from television show "The Office."

"Carell is leaving `The Office' (after this year), NBC is looking to replace him," declared Stewart. "Sanchez is available!"

 

[Ajidica]

Where was Fox News complaining about the intolerant NPR when Helen Thomas was fired?
Oh Yeah.......

 

[Mr. Dictator]

I think this all amounts to the fact that NPR, like it or not, is a brand. Juan Williams does not fit that brand when he says stuff like that.

 

[Formaldehyde]

If by "brand', you mean it would be like a Fox News talking head not engaging in propaganda techniques and sensationalism. How long would someone like that last in that environment, even if they were one of the token "liberals"?

 

[DinoDoc]

So you are an advocate of firing people for expressing commonly held opinions which aren't bigoted in the least, but which you merely disagree?

I actually advocate consistency wrt NPR's stated reason for firing Williams: News analysts may not take personal public positions on controversial issues; doing so undermines their credibility as analysts

 

[JollyRoger]

Consistency in employment practices? Next thing we know, you all will be chanting "Union Yes."

 

[Mr. Dictator]

misread, apologies.

 

[BSmith1068]

Its not the number of listeners that give NPR its liberal bias, it would be the programming. Who listens to the program is actually immaterial in ascertaining that. Surely you can agree to that.

I think taking the relative popularity of the programs out of the equation is a poor choice in making a balanced decision on if the programming of a station is biased on one way or another.

Let’s take this hypothetical:

Station X has 4 programs of various perspectives.

Program 1 is a very far right leaning program. Programs 2-4 are all left leaning. The programs have the following number of listeners:

Program 1 – 15,000,000
Program 2 – 450,000
Program 3 – 200,000
Program 4 – 400,000

Do you seriously believe that this station would be perceived as a left leaning station?

And let’s not forget. This group did their analysis on the 4 top programs. It didn’t do the analysis on the others. Who is to say that the end result of the study would not be the same for the others?

 

[Formaldehyde]

I actually advocate consistency wrt NPR's stated reason for firing Williams: News analysts may not take personal public positions on controversial issues; doing so undermines their credibility as analysts

Aren't those individuals commentators instead of news analysts?

 

[DinoDoc]

Aren't those individuals commentators instead of news analysts?

Nina Totenberg and Sunni Khalid are news correspondents for NPR which gives them less room to opine than Williams had. You are correct that Andrei Codrescu is/was a commentator though.