NPR has fired Juan Williams for comments he made as a contributor on Fox News Network. NPR is funded by us, the taxpayers. Some of us lean right. Some lean left. Some in the middle. Some don't care. This action by NPR is another blow for freedom of speech and validates the fact that public radio isn't for the entire public.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Juan Williams
- Thread starter Frank Ferreri
- Start date
Interestingly enough, this topic is not even (at least not yet) on the Public Radio board on this site.
In my opinion, NPR over-reacted. If I understand this correctly, from what I read in Tom Taylor's column, Juan Williams (and yes, he is a likeable person) mentioned that he feels uncomfortable in close proximity of a group of Muslems in their religious garb. I feel uncomfortable in that situation as well......... but that being said, I feel uncomfortable in close proximity to a group of Pentacostals speaking in tongues.
For whatever reason, if I were on a plane or in close proximity with nuns doing a Rosary I would not feel uncomfortable , even though I'm not Catholic.
Other than NPR and Juan Williams, the third major player in this seems to be Mike Huckabee, who is saying that Juan Williams had the right to say this under the first amendment and I have to agree with Mike Huckabee on that point....... but that being said, I have to wonder what Mike Huckabee would say, if Juan Williams (or anyone else on NPR) had indicated that they feel uncomfortable in close proximity to a group of Pentacostals speaking in tongues?
Juan Williams voice on the airwaves has not been silenced though as he is still a contributor to Fox News and I would imagine, he might be on Fox more now that he is not with NPR.
drt,
st.petersburg
In my opinion, NPR over-reacted. If I understand this correctly, from what I read in Tom Taylor's column, Juan Williams (and yes, he is a likeable person) mentioned that he feels uncomfortable in close proximity of a group of Muslems in their religious garb. I feel uncomfortable in that situation as well......... but that being said, I feel uncomfortable in close proximity to a group of Pentacostals speaking in tongues.
For whatever reason, if I were on a plane or in close proximity with nuns doing a Rosary I would not feel uncomfortable , even though I'm not Catholic.
Other than NPR and Juan Williams, the third major player in this seems to be Mike Huckabee, who is saying that Juan Williams had the right to say this under the first amendment and I have to agree with Mike Huckabee on that point....... but that being said, I have to wonder what Mike Huckabee would say, if Juan Williams (or anyone else on NPR) had indicated that they feel uncomfortable in close proximity to a group of Pentacostals speaking in tongues?
Juan Williams voice on the airwaves has not been silenced though as he is still a contributor to Fox News and I would imagine, he might be on Fox more now that he is not with NPR.
drt,
st.petersburg
It is time in my opinon for the Government to stop funding NPR with tax dollars. The dirty little secret is NPR stations sell a lot of advertising in
any market they are in. The advertising is called Underwriting credits, but in many cases, these credits are nothing more than commercials. They take ad dollars away from commercial stations, that can't get government funding. They also raise a lot of money with pledge drives. I know first hand that many NPR news people have a deep liberal lean, and I would guess the majority of staffers are democrats and liberals. Aside from the
political aspect, why should tax dollars pay for Public radio? Commercial radio, satellite radio and internet radio do not get this kind of funding.
any market they are in. The advertising is called Underwriting credits, but in many cases, these credits are nothing more than commercials. They take ad dollars away from commercial stations, that can't get government funding. They also raise a lot of money with pledge drives. I know first hand that many NPR news people have a deep liberal lean, and I would guess the majority of staffers are democrats and liberals. Aside from the
political aspect, why should tax dollars pay for Public radio? Commercial radio, satellite radio and internet radio do not get this kind of funding.
M
MsMusicRadio
Guest
What about a nun on a plane playing a guitar?
MsMusicRadio said:
NPR would have been similarly justified in canning Juan Williams if he had said "Being around Catholic priests makes me restless, they remind me of child rape". Even with the leeway afforded an opinionated commentator, that kind of statement will always be cited as a known cultural or religious prejudice against Catholic officials. And that's exactly what Williams did--express a well-defined prejudice. And saying "I'm not a bigot, but..." didn't make said prejudice any more palatable.
I know the talk radio righties will jump all over this, but they've never been seriously concerned about news credibility before. NPR apparently does care, and I have no problem with their termination of Williams.
My choice is to write to our representatives to stop funding NPR. Also, the action NPR took with Williams, unless he has a contract clause that he has violated, may be illegal. The man was fired for stating an opinion. Even at that, it was said on another outlet and not on NPR. A dear friend of mine works for a major company. In our conversation regarding marketing he mentioned that the company he works for is "buying" time on public stations. As noted by Quadman, NPR doesn't call it "advertising", yet in reality, they sell ads. NPR would have been better served NOT to take this action, mainly because many who are never exposed to their stations are now aware of their agenda. Regardless, what good, if any, do NPR stations do? What is their purpose? We need to stop funding and/or enforce rigid neutrality. Guess I just blew my chance of ever working for NPR and Ms. Music, don't call me Shirley. Nate, Catholic Priests never attacked our country and vow to take America down or put a bomb in a car in Times Square or in their underwear or shoot innocent soldiers at their base. Real bad analogy. Had Williams been molested by a preist and said he feels uncomfortable being around priests, no one would take offense. Fact is, his country was and is under attack by radical Muslims which, in turn, is an attack on him and his friends and family. The "talk righties" are not funded by taxpayers and their livlihood is determined by advertising and ratings. Commercial radio is a business pure and simple. If "righty" talk sells, you'll hear "righty" talk. If playing oboes and flutes works you'll hear oboes and flutes.MsMusicRadio said:
I'd expect Ferreri to know better than to repeat that old canard about NPR being funded by the government.
As is often pointed out, NPR gets about two percent of its funding from the feds. You know where much of the other 98 percent comes from -- pledges of various sizes. Liberals probably account for most of that $$, from the pledge-drivers all the way up to the late Joan Kroc, a McGovernite who left a gazillion bucks to back NPR news efforts. If anything, liberals support NPR more than NPR supports them. They've been fuming for years about Williams. So NPR IS listening to the people who really pay their salaries -- all those tweed-wearing lefties who send in $$$$.
The talk righties are on airwaves protected from competition by the federal government, which went out of its way to organize things so a handful of companies controlled the microphone. Advertising on their shows is also tax-deductible.
As is often pointed out, NPR gets about two percent of its funding from the feds. You know where much of the other 98 percent comes from -- pledges of various sizes. Liberals probably account for most of that $$, from the pledge-drivers all the way up to the late Joan Kroc, a McGovernite who left a gazillion bucks to back NPR news efforts. If anything, liberals support NPR more than NPR supports them. They've been fuming for years about Williams. So NPR IS listening to the people who really pay their salaries -- all those tweed-wearing lefties who send in $$$$.
The talk righties are on airwaves protected from competition by the federal government, which went out of its way to organize things so a handful of companies controlled the microphone. Advertising on their shows is also tax-deductible.
This is from Tom Taylor's column of 15 Oct 2010......:
NPR staffers – especially journalists – are reminded about avoiding political activity.
Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are putting together complementary Washington Mall rallies for October 30, and you can imagine more than a few NPR folks being tempted to drift down a few blocks from their Massachusetts Avenue HQ. But NPR chief Vivian Schiller and Senior VP/News Ellen Weiss caution staffers about the ethics guidelines and their responsibilities. For journalists particularly – no running for office, no endorsing candidates or “otherwise engaging in politics.” No contributing to candidates.
No marches or rallies “involving causes or issues that NPR covers” (which is pretty much “all things considered”). No signing of petitions. Ellen Weiss says “this restriction applies to the upcoming Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert rallies.” That’s not all – “you must not advocate for political or other polarizing issues online…this extends to joining online groups or using social media in any form (including your Facebook page or a personal blog) to express personal views on a political or other controversial issue that you could not write for the air or post on NPR.org.” There’s more – but you get the drift. Journalists need to stay (and appear) impartial. NPR president Schiller says even if a staffer’s not in the news division, “think twice about the message you may be sending about our objectivity before you attend a rally or post a bumper sticker or yard sign.”
----------------------------------
Mike Huckabee has called for a reduction in NPR funding; however, I have a hunch that may end up happening, whether or not this incident had happened.
I have a feeling, that we are just one step behind France and the UK in major funding cuts, not just for radio (NPR) but all types of programs.(social and non-social)
I know that BBC is taking some major cuts and will have to cut out some of their foreign language services and may have to shelve some of their programs on their World Service.
and to MsMusicRadio: Thank you for bringing some levity and humor to the topic! I don't want to see this topic bannished to TIO; which is almost as bad as being banished to Siberia!
btw- the movie
"Airplane" had a different title in Australia; believe it was relases as "Flying High" down under.
Last but not least: RIP Barbara Billingsly
drt
NPR staffers – especially journalists – are reminded about avoiding political activity.
Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are putting together complementary Washington Mall rallies for October 30, and you can imagine more than a few NPR folks being tempted to drift down a few blocks from their Massachusetts Avenue HQ. But NPR chief Vivian Schiller and Senior VP/News Ellen Weiss caution staffers about the ethics guidelines and their responsibilities. For journalists particularly – no running for office, no endorsing candidates or “otherwise engaging in politics.” No contributing to candidates.
No marches or rallies “involving causes or issues that NPR covers” (which is pretty much “all things considered”). No signing of petitions. Ellen Weiss says “this restriction applies to the upcoming Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert rallies.” That’s not all – “you must not advocate for political or other polarizing issues online…this extends to joining online groups or using social media in any form (including your Facebook page or a personal blog) to express personal views on a political or other controversial issue that you could not write for the air or post on NPR.org.” There’s more – but you get the drift. Journalists need to stay (and appear) impartial. NPR president Schiller says even if a staffer’s not in the news division, “think twice about the message you may be sending about our objectivity before you attend a rally or post a bumper sticker or yard sign.”
----------------------------------
Mike Huckabee has called for a reduction in NPR funding; however, I have a hunch that may end up happening, whether or not this incident had happened.
I have a feeling, that we are just one step behind France and the UK in major funding cuts, not just for radio (NPR) but all types of programs.(social and non-social)
I know that BBC is taking some major cuts and will have to cut out some of their foreign language services and may have to shelve some of their programs on their World Service.
and to MsMusicRadio: Thank you for bringing some levity and humor to the topic! I don't want to see this topic bannished to TIO; which is almost as bad as being banished to Siberia!
btw- the movie
"Airplane" had a different title in Australia; believe it was relases as "Flying High" down under.
Last but not least: RIP Barbara Billingsly
drt
M
MsMusicRadio
Guest
Thanks. Most times I make it worse :-[
Most times I make it worse :-[Thanks for the compliment, Smedge. I should know better. You nailed the funding right on the mark, however, a nice chunk of grant money does come from Uncle Sam. This really isn't all about Williams comments on O'Reilly the other night. It is about Williams simply being on Fox and this gave them a convenient way to make their big contibutors happy. Surely when George Soros wrote the check for a million something carried some weight. Let's see.....Beck is on Fox.
Yes, deregulation enabled 3 companies to own the majority of stations, however, can't see how that is protecting the "righty" talkers as any one of the groups would pull the plug in a heartbeat if it wasn't working. Regardless, Williams, NPR, Fox, O'Reilly, and the View are getting great and free publicity from all this. Somewhere Scott Robbins is loving this.
Yes, deregulation enabled 3 companies to own the majority of stations, however, can't see how that is protecting the "righty" talkers as any one of the groups would pull the plug in a heartbeat if it wasn't working. Regardless, Williams, NPR, Fox, O'Reilly, and the View are getting great and free publicity from all this. Somewhere Scott Robbins is loving this.
Smedge, I would love to know where you get your facts... I worked in Public radio and TV, I know how it works.. In most cases, at least 25% or
more of a Public Stations(and we are mixing stations with NPR- which is a network, no different than FOX NBC etc.. stations pay NPR to be
affiliaties),revenue comes from CPB, the corporation for Public Broadcasting, which is federally funded..about 25% or more comes from underwriting, and the rest from Pledge drives and other fundraisers.
Non commercial talk stations are not funded by anybody but advertisers. The stuff smedge said about Talkers sounds like it is straight out of the
Air America playbook... the facts are this ...the vast majority of Talk radio listeners want to hear conservative talk. Liberals don't listen to liberal
talk, that has been proven over and over. If they did, then the free market,which still exists, would put Lib talk on radio stations, so they could make money. To me, it is time for the Gov to get out of using our tax dollars, to support broadcasting for the elite, which is what Public Radio and
TV has become.
more of a Public Stations(and we are mixing stations with NPR- which is a network, no different than FOX NBC etc.. stations pay NPR to be
affiliaties),revenue comes from CPB, the corporation for Public Broadcasting, which is federally funded..about 25% or more comes from underwriting, and the rest from Pledge drives and other fundraisers.
Non commercial talk stations are not funded by anybody but advertisers. The stuff smedge said about Talkers sounds like it is straight out of the
Air America playbook... the facts are this ...the vast majority of Talk radio listeners want to hear conservative talk. Liberals don't listen to liberal
talk, that has been proven over and over. If they did, then the free market,which still exists, would put Lib talk on radio stations, so they could make money. To me, it is time for the Gov to get out of using our tax dollars, to support broadcasting for the elite, which is what Public Radio and
TV has become.
I only get nervous when I am on the plane with Frank or Juan Williams.
Frank Ferreri said:
First, NPR is not funded by the government.
Second of all, it has nothing to do with freedom of speech. If you work for a company (any company), and appear on a TV show as a representative of that company (which Juan was doing) and you say something controversial, your employer can fire you.
My view as a former journalist is that opinion is not journalism. Reporters should stick to reporting, and not state their personal views.
John..this is funny. Thanks!John Waywoods said:
We can go around and around on this one, however, NPR does receive government money. Agree, opinion is not journalism. The O'Reilly Factor is an opinion program and Williams was not representing NPR. So, let me get this straight. In the United States of America your employer may fire you if you say something that they THINK is controversial. Gee, sounds like a violation of freedom to me.TheBigA said:
Frank Ferreri said:
So does my grandmother. So do tobacco farmers. So does BP. Big deal. The small amout of fed money that goes to NPR does not go to programming or news. It goes to distribution.
Frank Ferreri said:
He was credited on the screen as an NPR analyst. So yes, he was representing them.
Frank Ferreri said:
Show me where it states that an employer may not violate "freedom." They do it all the time.
When I was at NPR, they had a pretty lengthy employee handbook that stated all the dos and don'ts. I bet their butt is covered.
I think it is disgraceful that NPR would fire Juan for saying what he said as most Americans probably feel exactly the same way.
However, businesses, not just in radio, but in industry also regulate what can be said on the job by their employees. Many large employers are very politically correct. If you're talking to someone, and a third person walks by and overhears something one of you said that offends that third person, who isn't invited to join the conversation, but overhears, they can report your conversation to management. If the wrong person is offended, your job could be at risk and depending on what you were saying, could even be construed as hate speech. So yes Political Correctness is alive and well in corporate America, not just radio.
Apparently Fox offered Juan a full time gig, so he'll still be around, but this whole episode makes NPR look bad. It wasn't like Juan used any racially sensitive language or slang names for that group of people which then might be justified. A thought, I wonder if Al Sharpton will come to Juan's defense? Probably not as NPR is a lib organization, if that had been Fox Sharpton would have been all over this getting himself plenty of media time. Ah yes, the double standard of the politically correct.
However, businesses, not just in radio, but in industry also regulate what can be said on the job by their employees. Many large employers are very politically correct. If you're talking to someone, and a third person walks by and overhears something one of you said that offends that third person, who isn't invited to join the conversation, but overhears, they can report your conversation to management. If the wrong person is offended, your job could be at risk and depending on what you were saying, could even be construed as hate speech. So yes Political Correctness is alive and well in corporate America, not just radio.
Apparently Fox offered Juan a full time gig, so he'll still be around, but this whole episode makes NPR look bad. It wasn't like Juan used any racially sensitive language or slang names for that group of people which then might be justified. A thought, I wonder if Al Sharpton will come to Juan's defense? Probably not as NPR is a lib organization, if that had been Fox Sharpton would have been all over this getting himself plenty of media time. Ah yes, the double standard of the politically correct.
M
MsMusicRadio
Guest
When I was an employee of the City or Richmond VA, I could not speak to the media about anything without express permission of the city manager. I never tested this out and I lasted there 30 years.
Thank you Big A for your comments. This has been interesting and you, having worked at NPR, bring something to the table. Just FYI, all businesses have a policy handbook that an attorney put together to avoid legal problems. The end result of all this is Williams comes out the winner. Fox gets great PR and NPR the loser.
- Status