Juan williams fired from NPR

thaiboxerken said:
This is a very ironic complaint by Conservatives, given the many number of times they've called for the firing of people who've said things that THEY didn't like.
Click to expand...

It isn't just "Conservatives" questioning NPR's selective interpretation of those who they feel violate their rules for news analysts and reporters. Had NPR fired Cokie Roberts and Nina Totenberg along with Juan for the same offense, NPR might still have a shred of legitimacy left as a public radio station.
 
Roadtoad said:
Williams can say what he wants. What he can't lay claim to is the medium, nor can he lay claim to the venue. NPR has every right to hire and fire whom they choose for whatever reason they choose. Don't agree with PBS's or NPR's decision? Don't watch or listen.
Click to expand...

Except that the problem doesn't end there, because NPR and PBS still get to take tax money from me, even if I don't watch. NPR and PBS cannot expect to operate with complete independence, doing whatever they like, as long as they're taking taxpayer dollars. If they stop doing so, then not watching them is indeed a sufficient response, but that's not the case right now. I would argue that for precisely this reason, to give them justifiable independence, they shouldn't be taking tax dollars.
 
Ziggurat said:
Except that the problem doesn't end there, because NPR and PBS still get to take tax money from me, even if I don't watch. NPR and PBS cannot expect to operate with complete independence, doing whatever they like, as long as they're taking taxpayer dollars. If they stop doing so, then not watching them is indeed a sufficient response, but that's not the case right now. I would argue that for precisely this reason, to give them justifiable independence, they shouldn't be taking tax dollars.
Click to expand...
Perhaps so, if what we see here is "complete independence,dong whatever they like" in their operation, programming and policy, but does the taking of taxpayer dollars mean that they are entitled to no hiring and firing policy of their own at all, or no discretion in how it's applied? Should a case like the Williams firing be put to a referendum? Sent to congress? Is this the condition placed on other entities that get federal subsidies or tax breaks (which amount to a subsidy)?
 
Ziggurat said:
Except that the problem doesn't end there, because NPR and PBS still get to take tax money from me, even if I don't watch. NPR and PBS cannot expect to operate with complete independence, doing whatever they like, as long as they're taking taxpayer dollars. If they stop doing so, then not watching them is indeed a sufficient response, but that's not the case right now. I would argue that for precisely this reason, to give them justifiable independence, they shouldn't be taking tax dollars.
Click to expand...

My tax dollars go to the military which, among other things, still employs a discriminatory policy, DADT, that I find offensive and am politically opposed to, should their funding be eliminated?

Go down the line: our tax dollars go to judges we disagree with, politicians we didn't vote for, Rush Limbaugh plays on armed forces radio...and on and on.

NPR made a dumb move here, obvious overreaction, but tax dollars are irrelevant. It's a miniscule fraction of their budget anyway. Far less in real dollars, by the way, than oil and coal companies receive from the federal government. They then employ those funds to finance massive ad campaigns aimed at fomenting skepticism about global warming.
 
Just goes to show you....don't insult the religion of mass murder I mean genocyde I mean homocide I mean peace.
 
bruto said:
Perhaps so, if what we see here is "complete independence,dong whatever they like" in their operation, programming and policy, but does the taking of taxpayer dollars mean that they are entitled to no hiring and firing policy of their own at all, or no discretion in how it's applied?
Click to expand...

The problem is that there is no good answer as long as they're taking taxpayer money. Zero independence from government turns them into a tool of the state. Total independence leads to decisions which conflict with the interests of taxpayers who have to foot the bill. You can try to balance somewhere in the middle, but it won't work in the long run: you'll still face one or even both of those problems. Which is why I think the problem should be avoided by not taking public money in the first place.
 
TraneWreck said:
My tax dollars go to the military which, among other things, still employs a discriminatory policy, DADT, that I find offensive and am politically opposed to, should their funding be eliminated?
Click to expand...

Do you want it eliminated? Or do you want DADT changed?

You have a say in the matter, through your vote. If you don't get your way, it's because other people in this democracy voted differently than you. But you have no say in the matter of NPR's hiring and firing policies. Your vote isn't outweighed, it's never even considered.
 
Ziggurat said:
Do you want it eliminated? Or do you want DADT changed?

You have a say in the matter, through your vote. If you don't get your way, it's because other people in this democracy voted differently than you. But you have no say in the matter of NPR's hiring and firing policies. Your vote isn't outweighed, it's never even considered.
Click to expand...

Same is true of Rush playing on Armed Services radio. I have no control over that, my tax dollars pay for it.

Protest NPR's decision, push for a new policy on hiring and firing, but just defunding them because they made a decision that you politically disagree with is going too far.

On the whole NPR is by far the most reliable mainstream news source in the Country. It would be terrible to destroy it over something this stupid.

I'm all for a strenghtening of journalistic ethics, both for reporters and the agencies they work for, but it has to be reasonable reform not born of over-zealous reaction.

A bar-exam for journalists and an ethics board with teeth would be a good place to start.
 
TraneWreck said:
Protest NPR's decision, push for a new policy on hiring and firing, but just defunding them because they made a decision that you politically disagree with is going too far.
Click to expand...

That's not why I want federal funding removed. I want it removed because I don't want to care at all about what they do.

On the whole NPR is by far the most reliable mainstream news source in the Country. It would be terrible to destroy it over something this stupid.
Click to expand...

Removing federal funding wouldn't destroy it. They get most of their money from elsewhere already.
 
PhantomWolf said:
So this is how freedom of speech ends, not in fire, but through multiple complaints to media stations.
Click to expand...

Ironically, it's the iron-clad guarantee of freedom of speech in the First Amendment that's responsible for the whiny-you-hurt-my-feelings encroachings into censorship the past few decades.

It's why I bring up that the purpose of speech is to influence others' behavior, and that includes hurting their feelings and embarrassing them.
 
TraneWreck said:
My tax dollars go to the military which, among other things, still employs a discriminatory policy, DADT, that I find offensive and am politically opposed to, should their funding be eliminated
Click to expand...

Take it up with your Congressman. Oh wait, they have no balls on the issue. n/m


Go down the line: our tax dollars go to judges we disagree with, politicians we didn't vote for, Rush Limbaugh plays on armed forces radio...and on and on.
Click to expand...

Good luck getting Rush off those airwaves because you don't want him there. I highly doubt it would exactly be the thing the Democrats need this election.


NPR made a dumb move here, obvious overreaction, but tax dollars are irrelevant. It's a miniscule fraction of their budget anyway.
Click to expand...

Then let this...symbolic...event occur.
 
TraneWreck said:
My tax dollars go to the military which, among other things, still employs a discriminatory policy, DADT, that I find offensive and am politically opposed to, should their funding be eliminated?
Click to expand...

The military is discriminatory in many ways. Even with a draft, each branch of the service decides whom to let in. You do not have a Constitutional right to join the military. But the federal government's chief responsibility is the protection of the nation.

NPR made a dumb move here, obvious overreaction, but tax dollars are irrelevant. It's a miniscule fraction of their budget anyway.
Click to expand...

Then NPR won't miss the financial aid.
 
TraneWreck said:
My tax dollars go to the military which, among other things, still employs a discriminatory policy, DADT, that I find offensive and am politically opposed to, should their funding be eliminated?

Go down the line: our tax dollars go to judges we disagree with, politicians we didn't vote for, Rush Limbaugh plays on armed forces radio...and on and on.

NPR made a dumb move here, obvious overreaction, but tax dollars are irrelevant. It's a miniscule fraction of their budget anyway. Far less in real dollars, by the way, than oil and coal companies receive from the federal government. They then employ those funds to finance massive ad campaigns aimed at fomenting skepticism about global warming.
Click to expand...

Not that it works. Most people still think it's happening. (And, it's more global climate change, but that's a finer point, even if it's an obvious one.)

My problem, Trane, is that the military isn't sufficiently discriminatory, and where they are, (though we're in agreement on DADT.) They will take people who have no business being in uniform, myself included, and in the end, lives are ruined for it. They will take in thugs and neanderthals, promote them to leadership, then wonder why we have people committing atrocities in the name of Liberty. It's the tip of the iceberg, but it's what you can't see that sinks you.

Thing is, the military is required under the Constitution. NPR is not.
 
Cicero said:
The military is discriminatory in many ways. Even with a draft, each branch of the service decides whom to let in. You do not have a Constitutional right to join the military. But the federal government's chief responsibility is the protection of the nation.
Click to expand...

You also have a constitutional right to not be discriminated against in employment situations based on your sexuality, which is why DADT is getting stomped in the courts.


Cicero said:
Then NPR won't miss the financial aid.
Click to expand...

Possibly, but it's not a good precedent. Going after funding based on political grudges (vs. legitimate concerns) will only lead to more pettiness in our already very petty system.
 
Roadtoad said:
Not that it works. Most people still think it's happening. (And, it's more global climate change, but that's a finer point, even if it's an obvious one.)

My problem, Trane, is that the military isn't sufficiently discriminatory, and where they are, (though we're in agreement on DADT.) They will take people who have no business being in uniform, myself included, and in the end, lives are ruined for it. They will take in thugs and neanderthals, promote them to leadership, then wonder why we have people committing atrocities in the name of Liberty. It's the tip of the iceberg, but it's what you can't see that sinks you.

Thing is, the military is required under the Constitution. NPR is not.
Click to expand...

Sure, I agree with your point on the military. I was trying to make a slightly different argument, namely that going after funding for federal programs based on political grudges would lead to very bad results.

The military certainly needs reforming on a wide range of issues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom