Juan williams fired from NPR

[Ziggurat]

So it's true that "Christians" like to kill abortion doctors? Really?

No, Tranewreck. Saying that Christianity is related to killings of abortion doctors is not the same thing as saying that Christians like to kill abortion doctors. What Williams said was equivalent to the former statement, NOT the latter statement.

What do you want me to refute? That there's a "muslim" problem in the world?

Yes.

What percentage of the more than billion muslims on the planet are terrorists?

Something small. And?

It's right there in the quote above. He says it's "reality."

Nice attempt at rhetorical slight-of-hand. The "it" you refer to here (that we should be afraid of muslims in traditional garb) is not what Williams said was a reality.

I think the vast majority of our troops are Christian and a great many of them think they're fighting a holy war over there.

That wasn't my question. You have avoided answering it in order to avoid having to support or disown your prior statements.

If we use O'Reilly logic: the fact that there exist some US troops who think they're fighting a holy war in the name of Christianity makes it so that all members of the US army who are Christian must be suspected of fight a holy war in the name of Christianity.

No, Tranewreck, that isn't O'Reilly's logic at all. Can you not understand the difference between some members of an organization possibly having particular views (and you've presented no actual evidence that anyone actually has them) and the organization being founded on and directed by a particular view? I guess you can't.

Because the vast majority of US forces are Christian, this means that all Iraqis and Afghanis should behave as though every AMerican soldier they meet wants to wipe their religion off the face of the Earth.

You have chosen to conflate Williams statements about what he THINKS with actual BEHAVIOR. That way lies thought crimes.

But if the sight of people walking around with crosses made an Iraqi nervous, I would be neither surprised nor offended.

How'd I do?

Pretty damned poorly.

Sure, but now you've shifted from "muslims" to "Al Qaeda." A none too subtle action that gives us little to work with.

Hmm... what might the connection be between muslims and Al Qaeda... I'm sure I just can't possibly figure it out.

 

[Ziggurat]

"Cause they killed us on 9-11."

You're inventing quotes. That appears nowhere in your clip. What he said (at 2:09) is "Muslims killed us on 9/11". And that's true.

Associating ALL muslims with the 9-11 hijackers is bigoted.

You're upset that he didn't properly qualify his true statement in a manner which would prevent people from drawing the wrong inferences. And guess what: that's exactly what Williams argued in the segment he got canned for. How's that for irony? But you can't actually demonstrate that what he said was wrong, because it isn't. It's true.

The Community Center was built by a moderate leader who worked with the FBI and State Department on counter-terrorism issues. It is insulting beyond words to oppose his right to build a Community Center because people of the same broad religious group committed a terrorist act.

And yet, as I have told you repeatedly but you STILL haven't figured out, that opposition is not what earned him a walkout on The View. The hosts were fine just disagreeing with him on that point, but when he said, "Muslims killed us on 9/11", which is true, Goldberg and Berhart (sp?) couldn't take it.

 

[TraneWreck]

All right, this is two posts from being unbelievably petty.

Nice attempt at rhetorical slight-of-hand. The "it" you refer to here (that we should be afraid of muslims in traditional garb) is not what Williams said was a reality.

O'Reilly, in defending the stance he took on the View as well as other places, says that there's a "muslim" problem in the world. Wiliams says this is "reality."

This "reality" is why he's afraid of muslims who self-identify as such by wearing muslim garb.

That wasn't my question. You have avoided answering it in order to avoid having to support or disown your prior statements.

I think our effort in the Middle East is motivated by Christianity to almost the same degree that Muslims support terrorism. In both cases, small minorities of those religious factions are committing violence because of their religion.

Just like it's inappropriate to treat Christians poorly based on this fact, it's inappropriate to treat Muslims poorly. One way of treating muslims poorly is to deny them their free expression. O'Reilly's opinion on the Community center would have done just that.

No, Tranewreck, that isn't O'Reilly's logic at all. Can you not understand the difference between some members of an organization possibly having particular views (and you've presented no actual evidence that anyone actually has them) and the organization being founded on and directed by a particular view? I guess you can't.

You cannot honestly be that staggering ignorant about our military.

I'm not going to document this in depth, if you're interested we could start a new thread, but Christianity is an ESSENTIAL aspect of the vast majority of troops in our army. Just because the official protocol is secular, that doesn't mean the actual people aren't highly motivated by religion.

Here's a letter from a disgruntled soldier discussing the problem:

http://malcontends.blogspot.com/2010/10/troop-on-coercive-christian-us-military.html

And here's a company that was putting Bible verses on guns:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/secret-bible-verses-guns-marines-concerned/story?id=9602030

How would O'Reilly react to Americans being killed by weapons with verses from the Qu'ran on them? I'm guessing he would see no problem.

But the larger point is that O'Reilly is suggesting that we should treat Moderate Muslims engaged in actively fighting against radicals as though they are radicals just because they happen to be Muslim. There is no other reason to oppose that community center.



You have chosen to conflate Williams statements about what he THINKS with actual BEHAVIOR. That way lies thought crimes.

But if the sight of people walking around with crosses made an Iraqi nervous, I would be neither surprised nor offended.

Pretty damned poorly.

The mayor of Florence criticized David when he first saw it, said the nose was wrong. Michelangelo took a handful of dust, pretended to touch up the nose as he dropped the dust, and the mayor was satisfied.

Hmm... what might the connection be between muslims and Al Qaeda... I'm sure I just can't possibly figure it out.

Same as the connection between my Grandma's bridge club and the KKK.

 

[Cicero]

I'm reminded on another quote similar to what Williams got fired for:

"I hate to admit it, but I have reached a stage in my life that if I am walking down a dark street late at night and I see that the person behind me is white, I subconsciously feel relieved."

Any guess as to the bigot who said this?

Jesse Jackson?

And we have a winner!

"I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother - a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe."

Good thing neither J.J. nor Stanley Ann Dunham Obama Soetoro had an on-air gig at NPR. Considering the NPR PC guidelines, where any expressions of feelings not being the feelings of Vivian Schiller and Ellen Weiss, they would be sent their pink slips RQS.

 

[AlBell]

Oooh! I know this game! Here: yes, I did.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

I think I'll go with 'tough guy, too smart to be a cop, cc permit'. I doubt your rap makes it down in the 'hood.

 

[Ziggurat]

O'Reilly, in defending the stance he took on the View as well as other places, says that there's a "muslim" problem in the world. Wiliams says this is "reality."

Yes. And it's a reality you haven't actually tried to refute.

I think our effort in the Middle East is motivated by Christianity to almost the same degree that Muslims support terrorism. In both cases, small minorities of those religious factions are committing violence because of their religion.

Al Qaeda acts out of their belief in Islam. Not just some individuals within the organization, but the organization as a whole, from top to bottom. The US military does not act out of its belief in Christianity. The US military, as an organization, has no belief in Christianity, even if individuals within it do, and it takes its orders from the President, who is motivated by a great many things besides religion.

Can you honestly not understand the difference? Or do you simply choose to pretend that it doesn't exist? This is precisely the sort of reality that Williams was saying that political correctness leads to denying.

And here's a company that was putting Bible verses on guns:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/secret-bible-verses-guns-marines-concerned/story?id=9602030

Those aren't verses. Those are numbers which refer to verses. There was never anything secret about it, the verses all refer to light in reference to the fact that they're on rifle sights. The maker thought it a nice touch to add to the serial numbers, but it's got nothing to do with why the army is using them.

But the larger point is that O'Reilly is suggesting that we should treat Moderate Muslims engaged in actively fighting against radicals as though they are radicals just because they happen to be Muslim.

Once again: that's NOT what Williams was defending, and in fact he specifically warned against taking such an interpretation.

Same as the connection between my Grandma's bridge club and the KKK.

Really? The KKK is populated exclusively with members of your Grandma's bridge club?

Because if it's not, then it isn't the same connection.

 

[TraneWreck]

Yes. And it's a reality you haven't actually tried to refute.

I don't know how to refute it other than pointing out that the vast majority of Muslims are not violent or dangerous.

There's a problem with radical Muslims, but there's no justification for treating ALL muslims as though their radicals, which is what would have happened if the center had been moved as O'Reilly wished.

Al Qaeda acts out of their belief in Islam. Not just some individuals within the organization, but the organization as a whole, from top to bottom. The US military does not act out of its belief in Christianity. The US military, as an organization, has no belief in Christianity, even if individuals within it do, and it takes its orders from the President, who is motivated by a great many things besides religion.

Can you honestly not understand the difference? Or do you simply choose to pretend that it doesn't exist? This is precisely the sort of reality that Williams was saying that political correctness leads to denying.

You've just got the analogies wrong:
US Military=Muslims
Subset of military there killing people in the name of Jesus=Al Qaeda

It's as wrong to treat the US military as a whole based on the actions of a subset of extremists as it is to treat all Muslims as though they're AQ members.

And as you say, the US military is united by a shared goal that "Muslims" are not, making there LESS justification for the generalization in the case of AQ and muslims.

Those aren't verses. Those are numbers which refer to verses. There was never anything secret about it, the verses all refer to light in reference to the fact that they're on rifle sights. The maker thought it a nice touch to add to the serial numbers, but it's got nothing to do with why the army is using them.

Why did they demand their removal then?

They used abbreviations of Bible passages:

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsme...on_rifle_scopes_in_iraq_and_afghanistan_f.php

And it's not the only instance.

This is hardly the first time the Pentagon has come under fire for using religious messages in the course of conducting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. GQ reported last May on Donald Rumsfeld's presidential briefing folders that were peppered with Biblical quotes ("Behold, the eye of the Lord is on those who fear Him...To deliver their soul from death.") printed on images of war.

Once again: that's NOT what Williams was defending, and in fact he specifically warned against taking such an interpretation.

I've quoted his words and explained the context.

Really? The KKK is populated exclusively with members of your Grandma's bridge club?

Because if it's not, then it isn't the same connection.

The connection between AQ and muslims is "Islam," a religion. The connection between my Grandma and the KKK is "Protestantism," a religion.

Is it that tough?

 

[Ziggurat]

I don't know how to refute it

Yup.

There's a problem with radical Muslims, but there's no justification for treating ALL muslims as though their radicals

Nobody advocated that.

which is what would have happened if the center had been moved as O'Reilly wished.

That's quite the fanciful interpretation.

Why did they demand their removal then?

Because some people got upset about it, and it's not a fight the military has any interest in fighting.

I've quoted his words and explained the context.

You got the context wrong.

The connection between AQ and muslims is "Islam," a religion. The connection between my Grandma and the KKK is "Protestantism," a religion.

Is it that tough?

It's wrong. Every member of Al Qaeda is a muslim. Not every member of the KKK is in your Grandma's bridge club. That's a major and important difference, one which you have chosen to ignore. That is willful blindness and a denial of reality.

If you had said that the connection between the KKK and Protestants is the same as between Al Qaeda and Muslims, you'd be closer to the truth, but you didn't.

 

[Piggy]

Fund funding aside, why is this target market relevant to the firing of Williams? He's middle-aged, high-income, a college grad, and white collar. He's not white, but surely you're not suggesting this had anything to do with why he was fired, are you?

There wasn't any issue over his age, income, or education, or the model car he drives for that matter, so that's not important. No one's gonna say, "Yeah, but he's a rich boomer."

If they're worried about their donors, which they have to be since the affilliates are running 98% on public and corporate donations, then they're going to (and should) hire correspondents that their listeners like, drop the ones they don't like.

So if the specific content of his statements was a factor in the decision to apply the policy, I can't say I blame them, if they felt it cost him credibility with their audience. The policy's there for a reason, I mean, they don't write those things up on the backs of napkins.

So if he's in violation, and it hurts his popularity with listeners, well, adios. And something tells me he's not crying in his beer over this.

 

[Mycroft]

I understand what you are saying and my inclinition is to agree. However, if I have received correct information, he was doing something that his employer had asked him not to do. That in itself creates a problem for him. If he wanted to feel free to say anything he wanted and if NPR asked him to tone it down or cease and desist, he should have either done as asked or resigned and gone elsewhere.

Well, if the very act of being a commentator on Fox was against policy, then that's a different issue. The reports are he was hired for the views he expressed.

That first. But, I still think such comments are inflammatory in this day. There is too much danger around us form hot-heads. We need a few cool heads to lower the temperature.

See, in my opinion cool heads should be able to express these thoughts without being condemned for them. Isn't that what democracy is about?

 

[TraneWreck]

Yup.

Really, we're going to get this petty?

Nobody advocated that.

Except Bill O'Reilly via his Community Center argument.

That's quite the fanciful interpretation.

Nope, we went over this in the relevant threads: there is no non-bigoted reason to oppose that center.

Because some people got upset about it, and it's not a fight the military has any interest in fighting.

Yes, people were offended so they exposed it. Had those people not exposed it, it would still be happening because a significant portion of the military thought it was awesome.

You got the context wrong.

No, you tried to ignore the context. I explained it in full and discussed the earlier quote that people ignore. He made a stupid statement that was not serious enough to justify his firing.

It's wrong. Every member of Al Qaeda is a muslim. Not every member of the KKK is in your Grandma's bridge club. That's a major and important difference, one which you have chosen to ignore. That is willful blindness and a denial of reality.

If you had said that the connection between the KKK and Protestants is the same as between Al Qaeda and Muslims, you'd be closer to the truth, but you didn't.

You asked this: "...what might the connection be between muslims and Al Qaeda..."

The religion of Islam. What do my grandma and David Duke share in common? The religion of christianity.

If you wanted your example to be more specific, you should have made it so.

Al Qaeda is a specific group all of which are Muslim. THe KKK is a specific group, all of which are Christian.

Fearing "Christians" because of the KKK or saying there's a "Christian" problem is silliness. Same with muslims.

 

[portlandatheist]

Fearing "Christians" because of the KKK or saying there's a "Christian" problem is silliness. Same with muslims.

You would have a point if the KKK were killing thousands of people each year. As it stands now, a very small but significant minority of Muslims are killing lots of people each and every year, a number that far exceeds any other extremist groups by an order of magnitude.

 

[TraneWreck]

You would have a point if the KKK were killing thousands of people each year. As it stands now, a very small but significant minority of Muslims are killing lots of people each and every year, a number that far exceeds any other extremist groups by an order of magnitude.

Sure, but that's just historical coincidence and the non-radical muslims bear no responsibility.

"Christians" weren't responsible for the violence in Ireland in the 80's. It was a group of radical Christians.

"Christians" weren't responsible for slavery and a hundred years of segregation, it was a subset of Christians in America's South.

Right now, radical Islamic nations are behaving very violently. Fortunately for us, that violence is almost exclusively directed at other Muslims. They don't even kill our troops in great numbers compared to the amounts of other muslims they've killed or the amount of them we've killed.

But we're killing them for a good reason. What was that again?

 

[Neally]

If they're worried about their donors, which they have to be since the affilliates are running 98% on public and corporate donations, then they're going to (and should) hire correspondents that their listeners like, drop the ones they don't like.

So if the specific content of his statements was a factor in the decision to apply the policy, I can't say I blame them, if they felt it cost him credibility with their audience.

Except that it has backfired big time:
http://www.bostonherald.com/business/media/view.bg?articleid=1290822&srvc=business&position=recent

Another PR debacle working in favor of the GOP.

 

[marplots]

Are you saying Islam shouldn't be identified in any way with terrorism? That'll be news to bin Laden.

It is politics. The difference is that in that part of the world, politics and religion are strongly bound together. You cannot have a political policy without claiming it follows some religious precepts. All the factions justify their actions as flowing from Islam.

I don't think anyone is disputing that there are terrorists who are Muslim. I didn't dispute that some of the IRA were Catholic. The problem you are left with if you wish to lay their actions at the foot of Islam is explaining why the vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists.

Can I claim that the reason we haven't been overrun with terrorist attacks is because Islam is a peaceful religion and it's followers are not violent? Surely, the numbers would bear this up. Can I use your logic to say that Islam protects me from the many, many terrorist acts that would otherwise occur?

Here is how the Christians do the PR bit. When one of their own goes off the reservation into violent or wacky action, they simply claim, "Well, he's not a Christian." This works pretty well. So, Bin Laden is not a Muslim. How do I know? He supports the killing of innocent people. This is not a Muslim tenet and therefore, Bin Laden is not a Muslim.

As far as this being religiously motivated, that would work except you have a lot of terrorism directed by Muslims at other Muslims. If you'd like to make a sect distinction, then say, "Sunni terrorists" or something. Or, if you want to use the broad brush, try, "Arab terrorists".

The point is that the adjective "Muslim" adds nothing as a descriptive. What it does do is incite people to fear a religion. It serves as a sort of 'code word' among folks who are either unwilling or unable to make a distinction. I'd put it in there with the adjective "Democrat" as in, the Democrat party instead of "Democratic" (which is the name). That's used as a little dig, a code-word meant to appeal to our lower natures.

If you truly think Muslim is relevant, we should ban the religion or go full on holy war against them. But I don't think you do believe this. Let's get past the smarmy and disingenuous digs. Or, we could just start logging how many terrorist attacks are prevented because of someone's religious beliefs.

 

[davefoc]

You can't be seriously suggesting that NPR should be making hiring/firing decisions based on another network's stereotypes rather than its own policies and target market.

Well, I guess I am (sort of).

Almost everything in this world has a political element about it and NPR is no exception. It needs to win friends and influence people to stay viable and playing into the hand of an entity that routinely criticizes it was against its self interest.

But I think in general NPR probably should follow its established policies with regard to personnel matters. In this case, I doubt that it had a policy in place that required that Juan Williams be fired and if it did have I think it should change that policy. I also would suspect that in net over the long term firing Juan Williams was harmful to the size of its audience and as such was a bad idea if the target market was taken into consideration.

 

[Just thinking]

99.9% of Muslims are moderate and mainstream... the only exceptions are the governments/people of Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Afghanistan, and Pakiststan ... who for 20 years haven't quite gotten around to turning over Osama Bin Laden.

...and Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi was just a lone wolf... it's not like he's received a ticker-tape parade for his deeds. And certainly no one lionizes Palestinian terrorists... or cheers in the streets after 3,000 Americans are killed...

I believe you also left out the riots that ensued for days over some pen and ink drawings of someone with a bomb-like turban in some comic strip. (France, right?) Just how much overall moderation was displayed there?

 

[Piggy]

Except that it has backfired big time:
http://www.bostonherald.com/business/media/view.bg?articleid=1290822&srvc=business&position=recent

Another PR debacle working in favor of the GOP.

What would NPR's decision have to do with how it affected GOP or Dem talking points?

Here's how the article wraps up:

In a lengthy column at NPR.org, [NPR Ombudswoman Alicia] Shepard defended the decision to fire Williams, wondering how Williams, who is black, would have reacted if another analyst had admitted nervousness at the sight of “an African American male in Dashiki with a big Afro.”

But Shepard said of NPR’s over-the-phone dismissal, “a more deliberative approach might have enabled NPR to avoid what has turned into a public relations nightmare.”

Doesn't sound to me like they think they flubbed the decision, just the execution.

You might think they did, but all I'm saying is they make the call, just like any other enterprise.

It's like Abercrombie has a clause that their store staff (who they call "models") have to wear A&F clothes, so if you get too big you're out the door. That's just the way they want to run things.

NPR wants to have its no-pundit policy, and if they thought that JW was developing a pundit image, then he goes and says something that they believed would sound stupid to most of their audience (because it was stupid), then letting him go is their call, I suppose.

Seems that Shepard is regretting the way they axed him, which was just like giving him the hook. She's saying, well, we could have done it in a way that didn't piss so many people off.

 

[Piggy]

Well, I guess I am (sort of).

Almost everything in this world has a political element about it and NPR is no exception. It needs to win friends and influence people to stay viable and playing into the hand of an entity that routinely criticizes it was against its self interest.

But I think in general NPR probably should follow its established policies with regard to personnel matters. In this case, I doubt that it had a policy in place that required that Juan Williams be fired and if it did have I think it should change that policy. I also would suspect that in net over the long term firing Juan Williams was harmful to the size of its audience and as such was a bad idea if the target market was taken into consideration.

I've been scrounging around in some of the aftermath, and it looks to me like the parting of ways was inevitable. He was moving into a different (and wider-audience) mode of journalism, but he would have no reason to quit NPR. I think it just got to where being let go wasn't a negative. He's already signed his new contract.

When he said that, someone at NPR went "Oh ****" and figured there was a potential problem on their hands, and suddenly it was time to enforce the pundit ban.

They didn't consider the fallout, sure enough.

I'm not saying this is going to work out for them. Just that I don't see a problem with their decision to do it in the first place. One way or another, JW and NPR were soon to diverge in a wood.

 

[Hazel]

What would NPR's decision have to do with how it affected GOP or Dem talking points?

Here's how the article wraps up:



Doesn't sound to me like they think they flubbed the decision, just the execution.

You might think they did, but all I'm saying is they make the call, just like any other enterprise.

It's like Abercrombie has a clause that their store staff (who they call "models") have to wear A&F clothes, so if you get too big you're out the door. That's just the way they want to run things.

NPR wants to have its no-pundit policy, and if they thought that JW was developing a pundit image, then he goes and says something that they believed would sound stupid to most of their audience (because it was stupid), then letting him go is their call, I suppose.

Seems that Shepard is regretting the way they axed him, which was just like giving him the hook. She's saying, well, we could have done it in a way that didn't piss so many people off.

In what other way could they have done it? Encourage him to "resign", I suppose, but what if he refused to resign?

Just curious about that.