NPR fires Juan Williams.

[amadeus]

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?

Yes, because they're clearly putting on unpopular left-leaning talk show hosts in time slots where a right-leaning host could get at least 10x the audience.

 

[MobBoss]

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?

Well, first of all, there are some errors in your thinking...to wit, many conservative radio programs have significant numbers of liberal that listen to them and call in simply in order to vent their frustration with the host or format. Michael Medved for instance, actually prefers to have liberal listeners call him to disagree with him, and there is not shortage of them responding.

Secondly, as the overall common perception of NPR is indeed that it is quite liberal (even Wolf Blitzer of CNN has mentioned this) in its delivery of programming (i.e. bias) its largest program would have to be quite liberal indeed. So which of the 4 programs meets that criteria?

Thirdly, I again dont agree that using viewship as an indication of bias is in any way accurate. If only 1 show out of 4 is conservative, then 3/4ths of the programming is indeed liberal. Who wouldnt call a station that has 3/4ths of its programming liberal or left leaning?

Seriously, your logic train on this is traveling far afield.

And let’s not forget. This group did their analysis on the 4 top programs.

I dont know if this is true or not, and havent seen any data to actually support the premise. Do you have something that indicates those 4 shows are their most popular?

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?

Trying to prove a negative? We have already seen some factual examples of fairly extreme liberal bias in some of those other shows. It could be indicative of a general trend, or it may not be.

But I dont agree with your premise that the inclusion of the other programs would result in no change to the data...

 

[Lord of Elves]

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"?

I think the point that is attempting to be made is that the real issue isn't so much that what the man said was bigoted (which admittedly it was) but that it was "against the brand". What he said was something you would expect from a FOX pundit, and I think to NPR it constituted going over to the enemy, more than the man simply being a bigot who didn't have the sense to keep his mouth shut.

 

[JollyRoger]

Free Octavia Nasr, Helen Thomas, Rick Sanchez, Eason Jordan, Peter Arnett, Phil Donahue, Ashleigh Banfield, Bill Maher, Ward Churchill, Chas Freeman, and Van Jones

 

[caketastydelish]

This forum is very politically correct, but a lot of people (americans anyway) aren't.

Even liberals such as myself find this firing of him disgusting. They were showing on the news that on the website showing his firing, people were univerally outraged.

This guy will probably be rehired as a result. What was NPR even thinking?

And for the record: I do not approve of his comments about Muslims, but I think firing the guy was a bit much, especially in the manner they did it in.

 

[Traitorfish]

politically correct

I wish people would stop using this term like it actually means anything of substance.

 

[dosed150]

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.

saw a group of girls wearing veils at uni, swearing so much, a sort of funny image of moderate islam,
have a friend who first year of uni didnt drink because he was muslim, yet he smoked weed and slept around, everyone was mystified

 

[BSmith1068]

I dont know if this is true or not, and havent seen any data to actually support the premise. Do you have something that indicates those 4 shows are their most popular?

Did you actually read the links I posted earlier? There is a chart in each – for Fall 2009 and Spring 2010 – listing the show’s Arbitron ranked number of listeners.

But I dont agree with your premise that the inclusion of the other programs would result in no change to the data...

The point is that you don’t know if there would be a change to the data either. And so far you have provided no evidence (other than anecdotal) supporting your position that NPR has a liberal bias.

 

[Berzerker]

And here I was simply thinking 'bench warrant'. I guess our courts are doing it wrong.

And you dont think violence is backing up bench warrants?

Uhm. Why resist at all. Why not just pay your dang ticket and call it good? Even those typically brought in on a bench warrant still get a chance to just pay the dang fine and walk...

You're not telling me laws aint backed up by violence, you're telling me how to avoid the violence. Some people dont wanna pay fines, so ask them why... Nothing you said changes the fact that laws are enforced with violence (or the threat thereof). Isn't that obvious?



and Cutlass, I have no idea what you're talking about

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Oh yeah, and has anyone ever seen that eleusive "moderate Muslim", that everyone talks about?

The doctor that fills in when my regular doctors away. Theres also other doctors in town. As far as Im aware Ive never heard of terrorists in nova scotia. I googled that and got nigeria.

 

[Cutlass]

and Cutlass, I have no idea what you're talking about

riginally Posted by Berzerker View Post
But you want laws - violence, or the threat thereof - to make people hire and fire based on what you deem unfair. Isn't that why Rand Paul is taking heat? And when you say or imply "we" - libertarians - dont care about hiring practices, you are ignoring our argument - consumers' regulation of the free market - for non-violence in favor of your argument in favor of violence.

That's choosing to fail. Because it's not true that in a market without regulations that consumers matter much to seller decisions.

 

[JollyRoger]

I guess a consumer without a recourse in the law will always remain non-violently passive. But give him access to the courtroom and someone is going to get hurt.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I think the point that is attempting to be made is that the real issue isn't so much that what the man said was bigoted (which admittedly it was) but that it was "against the brand". What he said was something you would expect from a FOX pundit, and I think to NPR it constituted going over to the enemy, more than the man simply being a bigot who didn't have the sense to keep his mouth shut.

Then I would completely disagree with that premise. I certainly don't think Williams was fired because he violated their "liberal" brand because I don't think it really exists. They aren't the unofficial representatives of the Democratic Party as Fox News is for the Republicans.

He was fired because he repeatedly made stupid remarks on Fox News, and quite probably elsewhere. That is why NPR told him to no longer mention his affiliation with them on Fox News long before he was fired.

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.c...liams-was-fired-because-of-ethics-guidelines/

NPR’s Schiller Says Juan Williams Was Fired Because of Ethics Guidelines

By BRIAN STELTER

The timing might not have been perfect. But firing Juan Williams was the right decision, the NPR chief executive, Vivian Schiller, said in an interview Friday.

NPR found itself under fire on Friday for the decision, including from many conservatives who have resurrected their war against public broadcasting, The New York Times reports in Saturday editions.

Mr. Williams’ dual employment at NPR and Fox News Channel had long been a source of tension at NPR, and it came to a head when he said on Fox on Monday that people identifying themselves “first and foremost as Muslims” made him nervous when he flew. He was fired on Wednesday.

In a telephone interview Friday, Ms. Schiller defended the decision to dismiss Mr. Williams and said it was not the product of political or financial pressures.

When asked why Mr. Williams was fired, she said:

The reason that we terminated his contract is because of our news ethics guidelines.

The guidelines are based on the same news ethics guidelines of the Society of Professional Journalists, and are very similar to that of The New York Times and many other news organizations.

He had several times in the past violated our news code of ethics with things that he had said on other people’s air. I’m not aware of any problem with any things he has said on our air. In each of those instances, we called him on it; we had a discussion; we asked him not to do it again. It happened several times. What happened a few days ago was the latest in a series of incidents.

I can’t characterize that this was better or worse or less egregious or more egregious than any other time. The point is, this was the latest in a series of incidents.

You give people second chances — we’re big believers in that and we do it all the time — but it happened again and again. And so we made the decision at this point that we had to draw the line somewhere.

A reasonable person could say, “Well why didn’t you make the decision last time this time or the time before?” Or, “Why didn’t you wait until the next time?” Fair enough.

We made the decision here because, at a certain point, if someone keeps not following your guidance, you have to make a break. And that’s what we did. And that is the sole reason.

Ms. Schiller added a moment later, “This is not a First Amendment issue. We terminated his contract according to the terms of his contract.”

Many supporters of Mr. Williams have sought to frame his firing as a First Amendment issue.

Asked about that, she reiterated, “This is not a First Amendment issue.”

“We are a news organization that exists to serve the First Amendment,” she said. “The issue, again, was, Juan Williams, on several occasions — with the thing that happened earlier this week being only the most recent — violated our news code of ethics, to which he is beholden as a news analyst. And it happened again and again. And this time, we decided that enough was enough. That is not a First Amendment issue.”

Asked who made the decision to terminate Mr. Williams’ contract, Ms. Schiller said, “I’m the C.E.O., so ultimately the buck stops with me. I’m not trying to pass it on to anyone else. But I’ll tell you, there was no daylight between me and the senior news team at NPR, the top management of news. We all discussed this at length. We don’t take these actions lightly. We didn’t take this action lightly.”

Some critics of the firing have questioned whether NPR caved in to pressure from the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR for short. The group, which advocates for Muslims, released a statement on Wednesday calling on NPR to address Mr. Williams’s comments on Fox, and a few hours later the termination decision was announced.

“I have actually not seen the statement from CAIR,” Ms. Schiller said Friday evening. “We don’t make decisions like this based on influence. We don’t make decisions based either on political pressure or financial pressure. That’s not the way we make decisions like this. They’re based on own ethics and our own news values at NPR.”

Some critics have also tried to connect the dots between the firing and a recent donation to NPR by the Open Society Institute, which was founded and is supported by the liberal billionaire George Soros, a favorite target of conservatives. Ms. Schiller called that idea “nonsense.”

She said: “Look, we’re very fortunate in that we have many supporters of all political persuasions. I’m happy to report that people support us and we get grants at regular intervals.” Referring to the Open Society Institute grant, she said, “To suggest that we got this grant in this timing is really, it’s nonsense — it’s nonsense to suggest that there was any correlation between the two.”

NPR is regularly criticized by conservatives as being biased in favor of liberal points of view. Since exiting NPR, Mr. Williams has been strongly critical of the organization, writing in a FoxNews.com column that his firing was “evidence of one-party rule and one-sided thinking at NPR that leads to enforced ideology, speech and writing.”

Ms. Schiller was audibly bothered by his claim of “one-party rule and one-sided thinking.” She said:

We have 34 million people that tune into NPR member stations every week. We’ve done survey after survey of our audience. They come from red states, blue states, urban areas, rural areas. Survey after survey shows that they span the political divide.

I don’t think that our audience would be growing 60 percent — six zero percent — in the last two years, while other news organization are dropping double digits, if that were the case.

I have more respect for the intelligence and the curiosity and the common sense of our listeners than to comment on that. It’s ridiculous. And anyone who listens to us knows that to be true.

Ms. Schiller said NPR is sometimes accused of catering to the right wing as well as the left wing.

Referring to the current criticism of the organization, she said “The volume and the vitriol is higher than it has been in the past, there’s no question.”

Mr. Williams also said in his FoxNews.com column that NPR has “no use” for “a diversity of staff,” adding, “I was the only black male on the air.”

Ms. Schiller said that was true “for a little while; we recognized that that was an issue; and we’ve been rectifying that situation so he is now not the only black male voice on the air.”

On Thursday, Ms. Schiller was asked by an interviewer about Mr. Williams’s comments about Muslims, and she answered that the comments should have stayed “between him and his psychiatrist or his publicist.”

Mr. Williams said on Fox News, “I don’t understand why she has to get that low.”

Asked about it on Friday, Ms. Schiller apologized and called it “a very thoughtless remark on my part.”

She also said she regretted that the firing had become a “distraction” for local stations during a preplanned pledge drive week.

“I feel badly about that. I hate that it happened this week when stations are in pledge drive,” she said. “It is a distraction that I wish they didn’t have to deal with.”

That said, there were no indications on Friday that it was influencing fund-raising.

Asked about the intense media coverage of Mr. Williams’s firing, especially on Fox, Ms. Schiller said:

The overwhelming response to this has been, I have to say, quite extraordinary. I’ve had Fox News crews follow me from my home. I’m getting messages on my home voicemail insinuating threats against my children.

Do I think that is an overreaction to a termination of a contract of a news analyst who violated our code of ethics? Yes, I would have to say that that’s quite a bit of an overreaction.

It’s a personnel decision. I don’t see how that warrants threats against my children.

Ms. Schiller indicated that the board of NPR had expressed its “full support” for the firing of Mr. Williams, but that “we need to evaluate the processes of how we handled it.”

“We’re all looking forward to doing a post-mortem on the process,” she said, calling it “something I’m eager to do.”

Before joining NPR in January 2009, Ms. Schiller was the senior vice president and general manager of NYTimes.com.

Fox News camera crews following her around? Threats against her children?


Link to video.

What a bunch of bigoted idiots. This is their next ACORN debacle.

 

[amadeus]

Fox News camera crews following her around? Threats against her children?

You'd think she was running for president of Brazil or something.

 

[DinoDoc]

This is their next ACORN debacle.

So the Corporation for Public Broadcasting really is gonna be defunded?

 

[.Shane.]

Bigoted is the wrong word. Prejudiced is the right one.

 

[Thoughtful Thug]

Assume this... assume that...

Have you guy ever assume maybe he got fired for the reason because there may be Muslim American working there? I hate political correctness as much as a lot of people, but if there are Muslim Americans working there, would anyone find it appropriate in any workplace to make a comment like he did?

 

[MobBoss]

Did you actually read the links I posted earlier? There is a chart in each – for Fall 2009 and Spring 2010 – listing the show’s Arbitron ranked number of listeners.

Again, I humbly submit that its not listenership that makes a station have a liberal bias, but its overall content...

The point is that you don’t know if there would be a change to the data either. And so far you have provided no evidence (other than anecdotal) supporting your position that NPR has a liberal bias.

Then can we agree that only canvassing 4 of the 11 programs listed for news/talk, while not even considering the other dozen or so programs in addition to that on NPR, it simply not enough of a dataset to truely determine liberal bias or the lack thereof?

I could go with that.

And you dont think violence is backing up bench warrants?

Not really, no. You might have an occasional act of violence because someone resists arrest, but its certainly the exception, and not the norm. Most bench warrants are reconciled without any violence what-so-ever.

You're not telling me laws aint backed up by violence

No, I am telling you that the majority of cases dont result in violence of any kind. Sorry to bust your ideal of jack-booted police cracking heads, but seriously, the vast majority of cases are handled without any violence what-so-ever.

you're telling me how to avoid the violence.

Well thats an easy one. Comply with whatever the cop tells you and you dont get beat upon. Fairly simple concept.

Some people dont wanna pay fines,

Some people are stupid. /shrug.

so ask them why... Nothing you said changes the fact that laws are enforced with violence (or the threat thereof). Isn't that obvious?

Violence is the last recourse, not the first option. Thats my point. You make it sound like violence is a given...it isnt.

Bigoted is the wrong word. Prejudiced is the right one.

I could go with that.

 

[.Shane.]

Assume this... assume that...

There's no longer a need to make assumptions. They stated it was very clear, he had violated their standards policies (each news staff has its own ethical standards) and this was the last straw.

There is way more molehill here, than mountain.

I could go with that.

A bigot is intentional and hateful. Prejudice is a pre-judgment. He was admitting to a prejudice, as several people have done in this threads, if memory serves.

In and of itself, not horrific, but given his work track record of policy violation and the nature of his job and the firing becomes more understandable.

 

[MobBoss]

A bigot is intentional and hateful. Prejudice is a pre-judgment. He was admitting to a prejudice, as several people have done in this threads, if memory serves.

In and of itself, not horrific, but given his work track record of policy violation and the nature of his job and the firing becomes more understandable.

I also tend to think that simple prejudice rather more tolerable than outright bigotry. Dont you?