PDA

View Full Version : Juan Williams fired from NPR for anti Muslim comments.



zulater
10-21-2010, 09:31 AM
http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/npr-fires-analyst-juan-williams-for-saying-muslims-make-him-nervous/19683232?icid=main%7Cmain%7Cdl1%7Csec4_lnk2%7C1791 25

They couldn't have just suspeneded him?


This is the most blatant example of politcial correctness at its most hateful. A person admits to an honest emotion, and he is fired. They only killed 3000 people on September 11, but he isn't allowed to feel "worried". But the NPR lovers extracted their pound of flesh. This is what you get from the left, behavioral change based in fear of public condemnation.

This comment pretty accurately sums up my feelings on the matter.

stlrtruck
10-21-2010, 09:42 AM
So much for FREE SPEECH.

I guess it's true what they say:



Nothing is ever FREE and everything has a PRICE

JonM229
10-21-2010, 09:58 AM
Freedom isn't free

zulater
10-21-2010, 10:11 AM
Freedom isn't free

Neither is NPR.

Too bad I don't have the choice where my tax dollars go.

venom
10-21-2010, 01:08 PM
Breathing is free,,,,,,,,,,so far

7SteelGal43
10-21-2010, 01:21 PM
he'd still be employed if he'd made fear of and or anti Christian statements.

Wallace108
10-21-2010, 01:22 PM
I've said this many, many times, and I still find it ironic. The same people (liberals) who claim to be the greatest defenders of freedom of speech are the same people who brought us political correctness.

"Liberals will fight to their death for your right to agree with them."

7SteelGal43
10-21-2010, 02:15 PM
I've said this many, many times, and I still find it ironic. The same people (liberals) who claim to be the greatest defenders of freedom of speech are the same people who brought us political correctness.

"Liberals will fight to their death for your right to agree with them."

amen Wallace

Count Steeler
10-21-2010, 05:14 PM
"But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous," Williams said.

Juan you made the biggest mistake a liberal could make, you were being honest.

st33lersguy
10-21-2010, 05:14 PM
The worst about this situation is Juan Williams is a liberal. Atleast Juan works for a serious organization in the real news channel

BPS3akaWirels3
10-21-2010, 05:34 PM
Fox signed Williams to a multi-year deal for $2 mil today... I SUPPORT FOX NEWS 100%

Mach1
10-21-2010, 06:22 PM
Breathing is free,,,,,,,,,,so far

That will be taxed in the near future.


The worst about this situation is Juan Williams is a liberal. Atleast Juan works for a serious organization in the real news channel

The same one that George Soros put the million dollar bounty out on to silence.

GBMelBlount
10-21-2010, 08:18 PM
Neither is NPR.

Too bad I don't have the choice where my tax dollars go.

NPR is funded by tax payer dollars?

Wallace108
10-22-2010, 12:36 AM
NPR is funded by tax payer dollars?

Not entirely. But they do get some tax payer money. Oh, and it also gets a lot of funding from George Soros if that tells you anything.

zulater
10-22-2010, 12:43 AM
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/10/21/juan-williams-npr-fired-truth-muslim-garb-airplane-oreilly-ellen-weiss-bush/

Yesterday NPR fired me for telling the truth. The truth is that I worry when I am getting on an airplane and see people dressed in garb that identifies them first and foremost as Muslims.

This is not a bigoted statement. It is a statement of my feelings, my fears after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 by radical Muslims. In a debate with Bill O’Reilly I revealed my fears to set up the case for not making rash judgments about people of any faith. I pointed out that the Atlanta Olympic bomber -- as well as Timothy McVeigh and the people who protest against gay rights at military funerals -- are Christians but we journalists don’t identify them by their religion.

And I made it clear that all Americans have to be careful not to let fears lead to the violation of anyone’s constitutional rights, be it to build a mosque, carry the Koran or drive a New York cab without the fear of having your throat slashed. Bill and I argued after I said he has to take care in the way he talks about the 9/11 attacks so as not to provoke bigotry.

This was an honest, sensitive debate hosted by O’Reilly. At the start of the debate Bill invited me, challenged me to tell him where he was wrong for stating the fact that “Muslims killed us there,” in the 9/11 attacks. He made that initial statement on the ABC program, "The View," which caused some of the co-hosts to walk off the set. They did not return until O’Reilly apologized for not being clear that he did not mean the country was attacked by all Muslims but by extremist radical Muslims.

I took Bill’s challenge and began by saying that political correctness can cause people to become so paralyzed that they don’t deal with reality. And the fact is that it was a group of Muslims who attacked the U.S. I added that radicalism has continued to pose a threat to the United States and much of the world. That threat was expressed in court last week by the unsuccessful Times Square bomber who bragged that he was just one of the first engaged in a “Muslim War” against the United States. -- There is no doubt that there's a real war and people are trying to kill us. Mary Katharine Ham, a conservative writer, joined the debate to say that it is important to make the distinction between moderate and extreme Islam for conservatives who support the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq on the premise that the U.S. can build up moderate elements in those countries and push out the extremists. I later added that we don’t want anyone attacked on American streets because “they heard rhetoric from Bill O’Reilly and they act crazy.” Bill agreed and said the man who slashed the cabby was a “nut” and so was the Florida pastor who wanted to burn the Koran.

My point in recounting this debate is to show this was in the best American tradition of a fair, full-throated and honest discourse about the issues of the day. -- There was no bigotry, no crude provocation, no support for anti-Muslim sentiments of any kind.

Two days later, Ellen Weiss, my boss at NPR called to say I had crossed the line, essentially accusing me of bigotry. She took the admission of my visceral fear of people dressed in Muslim garb at the airport as evidence that I am a bigot. She said there are people who wear Muslim garb to work at NPR and they are offended by my comments. She never suggested that I had discriminated against anyone. Instead she continued to ask me what did I mean and I told her I said what I meant. Then she said she did not sense remorse from me. I said I made an honest statement. She informed me that I had violated NPR’s values for editorial commentary and she was terminating my contract as a news analyst.

I pointed out that I had not made my comments on NPR. She asked if I would have said the same thing on NPR. I said yes, because in keeping with my values I will tell people the truth about feelings and opinions.

I asked why she would fire me without speaking to me face to face and she said there was nothing I could say to change her mind, the decision had been confirmed above her, and there was no point to meeting in person. To say the least this is a chilling assault on free speech. The critical importance of honest journalism and a free flowing, respectful national conversation needs to be had in our country. But it is being buried as collateral damage in a war whose battles include political correctness and ideological orthodoxy.

I say an ideological battle because my comments on "The O’Reilly Factor" are being distorted by the self-righteous ideological, left-wing leadership at NPR. They are taking bits and pieces of what I said to go after me for daring to have a conversation with leading conservative thinkers. They loathe the fact that I appear on Fox News. They don’t notice that I am challenging Bill O’Reilly and trading ideas with Sean Hannity. In their hubris they think by talking with O’Reilly or Hannity I am lending them legitimacy. Believe me, Bill O’Reilly (and Sean, too) is a major force in American culture and politics whether or not I appear on his show.

Years ago NPR tried to stop me from going on "The Factor." When I refused they insisted that I not identify myself as an NPR journalist. I asked them if they thought people did not know where I appeared on the air as a daily talk show host, national correspondent and news analyst. They refused to budge.

This self-reverential attitude was on display several years ago when NPR asked me to help them get an interview with President George W. Bush. I have longstanding relationships with some of the key players in his White House due to my years as a political writer at The Washington Post. When I got the interview some in management expressed anger that in the course of the interview I said to the president that Americans pray for him but don’t understand some of his actions. They said it was wrong to say Americans pray for him.

Later on the 50th anniversary of the Little Rock crisis President Bush offered to do an NPR interview with me about race relations in America. NPR management refused to take the interview on the grounds that the White House offered it to me and not their other correspondents and hosts. One NPR executive implied I was in the administration’s pocket, which is a joke, and there was no other reason to offer me the interview. Gee, I guess NPR news executives never read my bestselling history of the civil rights movement “Eyes on the Prize – America’s Civil Rights Years,” or my highly acclaimed biography “Thurgood Marshall –American Revolutionary.” I guess they never noticed that "ENOUGH," my last book on the state of black leadership in America, found a place on the New York Times bestseller list.

This all led to NPR demanding that I either agree to let them control my appearances on Fox News and my writings or sign a new contract that removed me from their staff but allowed me to continue working as a news analyst with an office at NPR. The idea was that they would be insulated against anything I said or wrote outside of NPR because they could say that I was not a staff member. What happened is that they immediately began to cut my salary and diminish my on-air role. This week when I pointed out that they had forced me to sign a contract that gave them distance from my commentary outside of NPR I was cut off, ignored and fired.

And now they have used an honest statement of feeling as the basis for a charge of bigotry to create a basis for firing me. Well, now that I no longer work for NPR let me give you my opinion. This is an outrageous violation of journalistic standards and ethics by management that has no use for a diversity of opinion, ideas or a diversity of staff (I was the only black male on the air). This is evidence of one-party rule and one sided thinking at NPR that leads to enforced ideology, speech and writing. It leads to people, especially journalists, being sent to the gulag for raising the wrong questions and displaying independence of thought.

Daniel Schorr, my fellow NPR commentator who died earlier this year, used to talk about the initial shock of finding himself on President Nixon’s enemies list. I can only imagine Dan’s revulsion to realize that today NPR treats a journalist who has worked for them for ten years with less regard, less respect for the value of independence of thought and embrace of real debate across political lines, than Nixon ever displayed.

Juan Williams is now a full-time Fox News contributor. To send a message to Juan click on "Leave a Comment."

zulater
10-22-2010, 12:55 AM
NPR is funded by tax payer dollars?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/21/npr-seeks-defuse-uproar-williams-firing-critics-congress-defund-network/

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), the parent company of PBS and NPR, received $420 million in taxpayer funds in 2010 and has requested $608 million for the next funding cycle that begins in 2013.

As has already been stated, in part they are.

X-Terminator
10-22-2010, 02:42 AM
Tell the truth...lose your job.

Juan just found out the hard way what happens when you don't tow the party line.

GoSlash27
10-22-2010, 06:37 AM
Juan Williams got a raw deal. He didn't say anything that everyone wasn't already thinking, and he actually made a very good point.
He'll get picked up by somebody.

GBMelBlount
10-22-2010, 07:00 AM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/21/npr-seeks-defuse-uproar-williams-firing-critics-congress-defund-network/

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), the parent company of PBS and NPR, received $420 million in taxpayer funds in 2010 and has requested $608 million for the next funding cycle that begins in 2013.

As has already been stated, in part they are.

Thanks Zu. I wonder if a strong argument can be made against NPR receiving taxpayer funds because they appear to have political leanings?

smokin3000gt
10-22-2010, 08:19 AM
DON'T OFFEND THE MUSLIMS!! (we don't want hurt feelings now, do we?)

smokin3000gt
10-22-2010, 08:20 AM
Juan Williams got a raw deal. He didn't say anything that everyone wasn't already thinking, and he actually made a very good point.
He'll get picked up by somebody.

He's already been picked up by Fox

GBMelBlount
10-22-2010, 08:27 AM
.


I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF A STRONG ARGUMENT COULD BE MADE TO REMOVE NPR'S PUBLIC FUNDING?


Is their anyone on this board that doesn't understand why conservatives take issue with being forced to pay taxes to support groups / things like this?



In December 1995, Codrescu (OF NPR) said of the evangelical belief of the Rapture, in which Christ's faithful would miraculously ascend from the earth before the Second Coming: "The evaporation of 4 million who believe this crap would leave the world an instantly better place."

Belief in the Rapture is based on the fourth chapter of St. Paul's first epistle to the Thessalonians.

Tens of thousands of complaints from listeners were soon sent to NPR, much of whose funding comes from the taxpayers. NPR apparently never considered removing Codrescu from his regular on-air perch, and took three days to issue a qualified apology for his use of a "vulgar term," and for saying the world would be better without such believers.


http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/Andrei-Codrescu-juan-williams/2010/10/22/id/374538

Wallace108
10-22-2010, 10:41 AM
He's already been picked up by Fox

He's been at Fox since 1997. Imagine that! A liberal working for Fox!! Who would have thought that was even possible. :sarcasm:

Wallace108
10-22-2010, 10:48 AM
.I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF A STRONG ARGUMENT COULD BE MADE TO REMOVE NPR'S PUBLIC FUNDING?


Many conservatives are already calling for Congress to stop funding NPR.
----
WASHINGTON — Top US Republicans, including three possible White House contenders in 2012, pushed Friday to strip US public radio of taxpayer money for firing a news analyst over comments seen as anti-Muslim.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5imO7EuoTRwYnQD4TQGOpl8BK0Niw?docId=CNG.647e4 a8748e7b4936d32cd7376620e77.241

------
South Carolina Republican U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint planned to introduce legislation to end federal funding for NPR, his spokesman Wesley Denton confirmed Thursday night. Denton said the senator would expand upon his proposal in a statement on Friday.
http://www.vosizneias.com/66725/2010/10/22/washington-republican-sen-to-introduce-legislation-to-stop-funding-npr-for-axing-juan-williams

GodfatherofSoul
10-22-2010, 11:54 AM
I figured this topic would explode into hyperbole and myths.

* If you only watch Fox News or MSNBC, you've probably forgotten what straight up news coverage looks like. NPR is verifiably the best news coverage in this country, which is why it's so boring to most people. I'm a news junkie and even I have problems listening. Their audience regularly polls as the most *factually* informed of all news outlets.
* NPR only gets about $3 million a year from the government. I just read that's about 2% of their budget. They're donation funded.
* Juan Williams has a history of crossing the line. NPR has some strict regulations about what their employees can say or do on or OFF the job. There was a story last week that NPR prevented their employees from even attending the Jon Stewart rally (unless there to cover it) because of the mere appearance of a conflict of interest. So, one week after NPR sends down a warning about displays of biases, Juan Williams makes his comments? Stupid on his part.
* Stop calling this a free speech issue! Free speech has ZERO to do with what you can or cannot say as an employee. Am I free to call my boss an asshole to his face and keep my job?

If you've never listened to NPR, don't start on a "liberal bias" rant. Now, how the heck is Juan Williams supposed to cover a host of stories on NPR about the war and Muslims if we all know he's afraid of them? Any word that comes out of his mouth on any topic now has a taint to it because he looks at anyone with a turban as a potential terrorist.

There is a big difference between news and punditry/opinion. Juan Williams crossed the line in probably the most disciplined news outlet in the country. He's now free to pontificate with absolute freedom with $2 million more ducats in his britches.

Wallace108
10-22-2010, 12:24 PM
All excellent points, GFOS. I don't listen to NPR, so I can't comment on their news covereage, but let me ask you 2 questions:
1. Why wasn't Nina Totenberg fired for comments she made about Jesse Helms and his grandchildren?
2. Do you honestly believe Juan Williams would have been fired if he had said something negative about Christians or the Tea Party?

Juan has been a contributor at Fox since 1997, and I HAVE heard him say negative things about the Tea Party. So why wasn't he fired for saying how he feels in that case? (OK, that's 3 questions).


Now, how the heck is Juan Williams supposed to cover a host of stories on NPR about the war and Muslims if we all know he's afraid of them?
The same way the majority of mainstream anchors covered Bush even though it was obvious they hated him. :noidea:


There is a big difference between news and punditry/opinion. Juan Williams crossed the line in probably the most disciplined news outlet in the country.
Yes, there's a difference between news and opinion. But like I said, Juan has been doing this at Fox since 1997. But 99.9 percent of the time he espouses liberal views. The one time he says something that's not politically correct, he gets fired. So he's free to say whatever he wants, as long as they agree with it?

zulater
10-22-2010, 12:51 PM
I figured this topic would explode into hyperbole and myths.

* NPR only gets about $3 million a year from the government. I just read that's about 2% of their budget. They're donation funded.
.

Good, then they shouldn't have any problem compensating for the loss if public funding is pulled.

Bet that wouldn't be the case though. I guarantee you they'd squak like a wounnded duck if they ever thought their public funding was about to be pulled. In fact I'd wager to say that 2% figure is a product of creative accounting and the number is much larger.:tongue1:


* Juan Williams has a history of crossing the line. NPR has some strict regulations about what their employees can say or do on or OFF the job. There was a story last week that NPR prevented their employees from even attending the Jon Stewart rally (unless there to cover it) because of the mere appearance of a conflict of interest. So, one week after NPR sends down a warning about displays of biases, Juan Williams makes his comments? Stupid on his part.
* Stop calling this a free speech issue! Free speech has ZERO to do with what you can or cannot say as an employee. Am I free to call my boss an asshole to his face and keep my job?


If you've never listened to NPR, don't start on a "liberal bias" rant. Now, how the heck is Juan Williams supposed to cover a host of stories on NPR about the war and Muslims if we all know he's afraid of them? Any word that comes out of his mouth on any topic now has a taint to it because he looks at anyone with a turban as a potential terrorist.

Did you see his comments in context, and in their entirety? If you had perhaps you'd realize how that's an innaccurate depiction of the message Williams was trying to convey. He only admitted his prejudice in the context of disavowing it.



There is a big difference between news and punditry/opinion. Juan Williams crossed the line in probably the most disciplined news outlet in the country. He's now free to pontificate with absolute freedom with $2 million more ducats in his britches

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lachlan-markay/2010/10/21/nprs-glaring-double-standards-beg-question-juan-williams-next-shirle

But of course it's ok to "cross the line", just as long as you cross the correct line.

They're hypocrites, publicly funded ones at that. :nono:

zulater
10-22-2010, 12:53 PM
At NPR, you cannot admit your prejudices, even in the context of disavowing them. You can, however, suggest that a U.S. Senator and his grandchildren should be infected with the AIDS virus, claim the world would be a better place if everyone who believes in the Christian rapture did not exist, claim that Newt Gingrich seeks "a civil way of lynching people," and, as long as you are just a freelancer, call for Rush Limbaugh's death.

That is National Public Radio's editorial (double) standard. NPR fired analyst Juan Williams, an 10 year employee of the organization, for admitting that he gets "nervous" when he sees people in Muslim garb on an airplane. But NPR employees (and a freelancer in one case) have made each of those statements above without suffering the swift action brought against Williams.

Andrei Codrescu, who was on contract with NPR at the time, said in 1995 that "The evaporation of four million people who believe this crap [the Rapture] would leave the world an instantly better place." He later apologized, and NPR left it at that.



Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lachlan-markay/2010/10/21/nprs-glaring-double-standards-beg-question-juan-williams-next-shirle#ixzz136y83XPv

GodfatherofSoul
10-22-2010, 01:33 PM
I don't know the history of every comment made by every host on NPR. And, I see you're citing something from 1995 which would suggest that it's not that common for hosts to screw up. But, Juan Williams didn't get fired for ONE comment. He's had a history of getting himself into trouble for breaking NPR policies.

Let me try phrasing it another way. There are liberals who will never go on Fox News. There are conservatives who will never go on MSNBC. NPR's claim to fame is that they're a level playing field for all. If there was a 1,000,000 man transvestite march, their leader could go on NPR and speech frankly without being ridiculed. By Juan Williams making such an inflammatory mark, he's damaging the NPR brand. If you're saying you're afraid of Muslims, you're also saying that if 'm a Muslim leader and I go on your show, I'm not going to get a fair shake. And, he's been breaking the rules for a while.

zulater
10-22-2010, 01:54 PM
I don't know the history of every comment made by every host on NPR. And, I see you're citing something from 1995 which would suggest that it's not that common for hosts to screw up. But, Juan Williams didn't get fired for ONE comment. He's had a history of getting himself into trouble for breaking NPR policies.

NPR said in a statement that Williams’ “remarks on The O'Reilly Factor this past Monday were inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR."

Really? Sure looks like that's what they're saying here.

GodfatherofSoul
10-22-2010, 02:17 PM
NPR said in a statement that Williams’ “remarks on The O'Reilly Factor this past Monday were inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR."

Really? Sure looks like that's what they're saying here.

My point is there's a historical context. You might not be aware of it if you don't listen to NPR, but a lot of other hosts have been peeved at him because of the "double standard." If you screw up one account at work, you might not get fired for it. You screw up three or four, and your boss might can you for what happens in the last one. I wouldn't read their words so literally.

zulater
10-22-2010, 02:29 PM
My point is there's a historical context. You might not be aware of it if you don't listen to NPR, but a lot of other hosts have been peeved at him because of the "double standard." If you screw up one account at work, you might not get fired for it. You screw up three or four, and your boss might can you for what happens in the last one. I wouldn't read their words so literally.

I said on the OP that NPR had a right to discipline Williams, but I think firing him was a complete cave in to C.A.R.E. In context Williams statements were neither unreasonable or inflammatory. He should have at worst been suspended. But he wasn't even afforded the opportunity to clarify his comments, this after 10 years. Sorry but imo the situation was grossly mishandled and NPR is deserving of whatever critisism comes it's way over this.

GBMelBlount
10-22-2010, 03:08 PM
If you've never listened to NPR, don't start on a "liberal bias" rant. Now, how the heck is Juan Williams supposed to cover a host of stories on NPR about the war and Muslims if we all know he's afraid of them? Any word that comes out of his mouth on any topic now has a taint to it because he looks at anyone with a turban as a potential terrorist.



Because he's expressed concern when he sees muslims on a plane means he's can't report objectively?

That's absurd. As long as his content is factually based and comments are generally even handed IN HIS REPORTING, the only people who should have a problem are those that would have a problem anyway, imo.

Count Steeler
10-22-2010, 03:28 PM
Where is the ACLU?
Where is Jesse Jackson?
Where is Al Sharpton?

A black man has been fired because he told the truth. Where is all the normal defense and accusatory comments from the defenders of blacks and liberals?

Akagi
10-22-2010, 03:41 PM
I swore to myself that this time around I was going to avoid the political stuff, and what I want to add here isn't really political. So here goes.

The point that Williams was trying to make is that in order to defuse racism and biases, we have to confront them within ourselves. This is a very powerful, very important statement. And in order to illustrate it, he exposed and admitted his own biases and prejudices, expecting that people would realize that if he himself, a tireless and lifelong chronicler of injustice and crusader for equality, could admit to bias, then the message as delivered would carry even more weight, and cause each of us to look inside and perhaps agree.

Unfortunately, that didn't happen. And NPR will suffer because of it. And perhaps it should, but I'm not really qualified to decide.

And now I see around the 'net, places like HuffPo calling Williams "faux liberal".

Gee. I'm not going to switch sides or anything (I'm a Democrat), but that kind of disgusts me. Williams has pretty much just stood for what he thought was right; sometimes that means being conservative on an issue, sometimes that means being progressive. Sort of sounds like common sense to me, to understand that there are some pretty good positions in every part of the spectrum, and one shouldn't choose ideology over judgment.

And actually, I think that while William's firing is a travesty, his hiring by Fox is something we should celebrate. Face it, no one listens to NPR anymore. I used to, because there were no ads and the music was eclectic, but then I got XM and I got to skip the begging sessions. On Fox, his middle of the road, common sense, nuanced message will get heard by a lot more people, and that is the place to put such an approach; where it will get heard.

Count Steeler
10-22-2010, 03:44 PM
Juan has been on Fox News Sunday for years and I have always enjoyed hearing his opinions and views. He did not seem to be an idiot liberal.

GBMelBlount
10-22-2010, 03:50 PM
The point that Williams was trying to make is that in order to defuse racism and biases, we have to confront them within ourselves. This is a very powerful, very important statement. And in order to illustrate it, he exposed and admitted his own biases and prejudices, expecting that people would realize that if he himself, a tireless and lifelong chronicler of injustice and crusader for equality, could admit to bias, then the message as delivered would carry even more weight, and cause each of us to look inside and perhaps agree.



Thanks Akagi. Very well said. I completely agree with you on this.

zulater
10-22-2010, 04:09 PM
I swore to myself that this time around I was going to avoid the political stuff, and what I want to add here isn't really political. So here goes.

The point that Williams was trying to make is that in order to defuse racism and biases, we have to confront them within ourselves. This is a very powerful, very important statement. And in order to illustrate it, he exposed and admitted his own biases and prejudices, expecting that people would realize that if he himself, a tireless and lifelong chronicler of injustice and crusader for equality, could admit to bias, then the message as delivered would carry even more weight, and cause each of us to look inside and perhaps agree.

Unfortunately, that didn't happen. And NPR will suffer because of it. And perhaps it should, but I'm not really qualified to decide.

And now I see around the 'net, places like HuffPo calling Williams "faux liberal".

Gee. I'm not going to switch sides or anything (I'm a Democrat), but that kind of disgusts me. Williams has pretty much just stood for what he thought was right; sometimes that means being conservative on an issue, sometimes that means being progressive. Sort of sounds like common sense to me, to understand that there are some pretty good positions in every part of the spectrum, and one shouldn't choose ideology over judgment.

And actually, I think that while William's firing is a travesty, his hiring by Fox is something we should celebrate. Face it, no one listens to NPR anymore. I used to, because there were no ads and the music was eclectic, but then I got XM and I got to skip the begging sessions. On Fox, his middle of the road, common sense, nuanced message will get heard by a lot more people, and that is the place to put such an approach; where it will get heard.

Great post. :applaudit:

GodfatherofSoul
10-22-2010, 04:32 PM
I swore to myself that this time around I was going to avoid the political stuff, and what I want to add here isn't really political. So here goes.

The point that Williams was trying to make is that in order to defuse racism and biases, we have to confront them within ourselves. This is a very powerful, very important statement. And in order to illustrate it, he exposed and admitted his own biases and prejudices, expecting that people would realize that if he himself, a tireless and lifelong chronicler of injustice and crusader for equality, could admit to bias, then the message as delivered would carry even more weight, and cause each of us to look inside and perhaps agree.

Unfortunately, that didn't happen. And NPR will suffer because of it. And perhaps it should, but I'm not really qualified to decide.

And now I see around the 'net, places like HuffPo calling Williams "faux liberal".

Gee. I'm not going to switch sides or anything (I'm a Democrat), but that kind of disgusts me. Williams has pretty much just stood for what he thought was right; sometimes that means being conservative on an issue, sometimes that means being progressive. Sort of sounds like common sense to me, to understand that there are some pretty good positions in every part of the spectrum, and one shouldn't choose ideology over judgment.

And actually, I think that while William's firing is a travesty, his hiring by Fox is something we should celebrate. Face it, no one listens to NPR anymore. I used to, because there were no ads and the music was eclectic, but then I got XM and I got to skip the begging sessions. On Fox, his middle of the road, common sense, nuanced message will get heard by a lot more people, and that is the place to put such an approach; where it will get heard.

But, that's absolutely NOT the point he was trying to make. He starts out saying that political correctness leads to paralysis. Then talks about how he gets spooked by guys in "Muslim garb", then follows up with a reference to the Times Square bomber's comments about the beginning of a Muslim war. He wasn't trying to say we all have our weaknesses. He was trying to make a pro-profiling point! Note, his comments were an affirmation of what Bill O'Reilly had said prior to him.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAfGKVK8PyE

After seeing more of the surrounding context, that actually makes his comments *worse* to me.

Akagi
10-22-2010, 04:53 PM
Oh, man, GFoS. I'm at work, and I can't answer right away. I'll pick it back up around 9PM.

GoSlash27
10-22-2010, 05:35 PM
GFoS,
Your clip doesn't include the entire argument. You should find the rest of the statement and get back to us.

What he was getting at is that "tolerance" demands that we acknowledge our emotionally intolerant reactions and temper them with reason. There is no "tolerance" in denying our basic ingrained instincts.
He actually makes a very compelling argument for the progressive position if you hear the whole thing.

zulater
10-23-2010, 09:31 PM
GFoS,
Your clip doesn't include the entire argument. You should find the rest of the statement and get back to us.

What he was getting at is that "tolerance" demands that we acknowledge our emotionally intolerant reactions and temper them with reason. There is no "tolerance" in denying our basic ingrained instincts.
He actually makes a very compelling argument for the progressive position if you hear the whole thing.

What he said.

zulater
10-23-2010, 10:22 PM
http://bigjournalism.com/cbrim/2010/10/23/pbs-sends-senior-editor-as-presenter-to-cair-conference-on-defaming-islam/

LLT
10-24-2010, 07:42 AM
I figured this topic would explode into hyperbole and myths.

* NPR only gets about $3 million a year from the government. I just read that's about 2% of their budget. They're donation funded.


Since NPR recieved approximately 16 million from the government in 2009 as part of their 163 million dollar budget....can we assume your last comment is a myth?

GodfatherofSoul
10-25-2010, 09:22 PM
I couldn't find the article with the figures I cited. Here's the best I could do. You really think I'm so invested in NPR or Juan Williams that I'd lie about how much NPR gets from the government?:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20020383-503544.html


"NPR gets no allocation from CPB," Schiller said. "Zero. We are a private 501(c)3. We've had journalists call up and ask what department of the government we report to. That's laughable."



That amount doesn't appear to be huge, however: According to Christopher, roughly ten percent of member stations' budget comes from the federal government. Forty percent of NPR's budget, in turn, comes from station fees. So the percentage of NPR's budget that is made up of federal money coming via station fees would be relatively small.

Ten percent of 40% is 4%. Feel free to post contrary information if you've found it. I'd like to be corrected if I have the wrong info.

LLT
10-26-2010, 06:59 AM
From NPR's own website:

http://www.npr.org/about/images/aboutnpr/pub_radio_rev.jpg

5.6% NPR's money comes from Federal, State, and local government funds.

10.1% of their money comes from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting ...The CPB is a non-profit corporation largely funded by the United States Federal Government to promote public broadcasting.

http://www.cpb.org/stations/reports/revenue/2005PublicBroadcastingRevenue.pdf

GodfatherofSoul
10-26-2010, 10:13 AM
Again, you posted a link to the "member stations" financing. Here's the NPR financing graph on the same page. Member stations sometimes do pay for content from NPR, but you end up with a fraction of a fraction. So, at MOST you're talking 6% if you make some assumptions, which I'll guess are incorrect since I read 3%.

http://www.npr.org/about/images/aboutnpr/unrestricted_rev_by%20cateogry.jpg

LLT
10-26-2010, 11:26 AM
LOL.... thats a shell game!!!

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting would be disbanded in the court of public opinion if the gave their tax-fueled money directly to NPR...soooo they give the government money to individual radio stations around the country..... stations that happen to be using public facilities (a lot of them on state school campuses) ....and stations that are NPR broadcasting stations.



A rose by any other name....

NPR is the recipient of all the government money that I talked about...not just 3%.

venom
10-26-2010, 12:21 PM
Good Job LLT

GodfatherofSoul
10-26-2010, 01:48 PM
NPR is the recipient of all the government money that I talked about...not just 3%.

Wrong, you've got the national and local charts right there in your face. I can't explain the math much better than I just did.

I'm not sure if you know how NPR works. NPR is like any other syndicating network. Your local stations pay for some content from a content provider (NPR) while producing their own content as well. My local public radio station is maybe 50% nation content. If you look at your first chart, the local stations get at most 15.8% from federal government (probably less because that omits state and local contributions). Now, NPR gets 40% of their revenue from local stations. So, 15.8% of 40% is 6.32%. So, the theoretical max that NPR gets from the federal government is 6.32%. Of course, stations probably have separate funds so the money going to NPR might not even be coming out of their general revenues. So, I still think the 3% is probably true. And, EVEN IF IT'S NOT TRUE it's still theoretically only as much as 6.32%.

You can call it a shell game, but it's no more a shell game than saying my employer bought me beer last weekend.

zulater
10-26-2010, 01:50 PM
Like I said before if NPR was only getting 3% from the government then they shouldn't have any difficulty giving it up.

GodfatherofSoul
10-26-2010, 02:21 PM
NPR doesn't get the federal money, though. Local stations are syndicating content produced by NPR. If you're using that as the bar for "federally-funded"...

LLT
10-26-2010, 06:20 PM
Wrong, you've got the national and local charts right there in your face. I can't explain the math much better than I just did.



Wow.

you havent explained yourself at all....and your math is awful but I will get to that later.


I'm not sure if you know how NPR works. NPR is like any other syndicating network. Your local stations pay for some content from a content provider (NPR) while producing their own content as well.

You are correct in saying that one of us doesnt know how NPR works. NPR is a non-profit organization..to say that NPR is like ANY OTHER syndicating network is uninformed.

Not even NPR denies that CPB sends most of its radio money to member stations, and the member stations using public facilities pay dues to NPR....NPR ends up getting taxpayer money via member stations, in addition to the one to three percent it gets via grants. (Remember that part...its important)


My local public radio station is maybe 50% nation content. If you look at your first chart, the local stations get at most 15.8% from federal government (probably less because that omits state and local contributions). Now, NPR gets 40% of their revenue from local stations. So, 15.8% of 40% is 6.32%. So, the theoretical max that NPR gets from the federal government is 6.32%. Of course, stations probably have separate funds so the money going to NPR might not even be coming out of their general revenues. So, I still think the 3% is probably true. And, EVEN IF IT'S NOT TRUE it's still theoretically only as much as 6.32%.

Even using your numbers, the total would actual be 9.32% which is near perfect to my original estimation of the 10% that you continue to deny. You see..the 6.32% is just the percentage from the dues and doesnt include that 3% that NPR gets straight from the government.


You can call it a shell game, but it's no more a shell game than saying my employer bought me beer last weekend.


It is a shell game if they (or you) are trying to say that the federal money that NPR recieves through their member stations doesnt count. Please...The NPR board consists of seventeen directors, ten of whom are managers of NPR member stations and are elected to the board by their fellow member stations.

GodfatherofSoul
10-26-2010, 06:39 PM
15.8% of local station contributions is from ALL forms of government (state, local, federal)

40% of NPR revenue is from local station contributions (they don't get direct government money)

15.8% of 40 is 6.32%

I'm not sure where you're getting another 3% from. Note, my figures are theoretical maximums. It could well be that the local stations have difference revenue pools that can't be mixed, so the 3% figure I read last week is probably still true. I'm not going to debate middle school math with you if you disagree with me.

LLT
10-26-2010, 06:40 PM
NPR doesn't get the federal money, though. Local stations are syndicating content produced by NPR. If you're using that as the bar for "federally-funded"...

Since the board of NPR is made up of member station owners....yes its they are.

What is the "elusive" magic number that you are looking for that would justify federally funding?

2%...5%....10%?

You seem to be trying to justify their responses to the amount of money they accept from the goverment. Can they be hypocritical in their dealings if they go under this magic numer?

LLT
10-26-2010, 06:43 PM
15.8% of local station contributions is from ALL forms of government (state, local, federal)

40% of NPR revenue is from local station contributions (they don't get direct government money)

15.8% of 40 is 6.32%

I'm not sure where you're getting another 3% from. Note, my figures are theoretical maximums. It could well be that the local stations have difference revenue pools that can't be mixed, so the 3% figure I read last week is probably still true. I'm not going to debate middle school math with you if you disagree with me.

NPR admits that they recieve 3% in goverment grants outside of what they get from member stations.

Please follow along.

(and you are ignoring the points of the debate with a rabbit trail....please respond honestly)

GodfatherofSoul
10-26-2010, 09:26 PM
Well, there's the problem. You're adding the 3% I read about to the 6% theoretical max I calculated based on those pie charts. I'm not ignoring your debate points, I'm not going off onto every tangent you throw out. The question I responded to was how much NPR receives from the government. There's a widespread misconception that it's a government run, government funded entity. Anytime something happens with NPR or PBS that conservatives don't like, this "cut their funding" argument crops up again.

GBMelBlount
10-26-2010, 09:45 PM
I understand your point. Admittedly, funding is not as high (percentagewise) as I had thought. That being said, I still think government funding should be eliminated and you will have a difficult time convincing me otherwise. He should not have been fired imo. period.

zulater
10-26-2010, 10:04 PM
Well, there's the problem. You're adding the 3% I read about to the 6% theoretical max I calculated based on those pie charts. I'm not ignoring your debate points, I'm not going off onto every tangent you throw out. The question I responded to was how much NPR receives from the government. There's a widespread misconception that it's a government run, government funded entity. Anytime something happens with NPR or PBS that conservatives don't like, this "cut their funding" argument crops up again.

So if what they get from the government is such an inconsequential amount why do they continue to accept it knowing it leaves them vulnerable to the critisism of conservatives when they show any perceived bias?

My wife and I campaign a modest stable of thoroughbred race horses. If I have a small client that becomes a pain in the ass I jettison them asap. But if it's a bigger client sometimes I have to swallow some shit for a while because I need the income. See what I'm getting at here?

LLT
10-27-2010, 03:32 AM
Well, there's the problem. You're adding the 3% I read about to the 6% theoretical max I calculated based on those pie charts. I'm not ignoring your debate points, I'm not going off onto every tangent you throw out. The question I responded to was how much NPR receives from the government. There's a widespread misconception that it's a government run, government funded entity. Anytime something happens with NPR or PBS that conservatives don't like, this "cut their funding" argument crops up again.



Well there is your problem...you obviously didnt look at the link I sent you previously. NPR, by their own admission recieves somewhere between 1.5% -3% of their total budget from government grants. That is OUTSIDE of what they get from members stations.

And as I said before...NPR is receiving government money through these same member stations that they own.. using public facilities. If NPR truly wants to be regarded as an independent entity...... they should send back every dollar that's been set aside by Congress to support public broadcasting in this country......... Otherwise, NPR survives only through the generosity of the American taxpayer, and should act accordingly. Until then the public has a right to be outraged at their bias.

GodfatherofSoul
10-27-2010, 11:07 AM
Well there is your problem...you obviously didnt look at the link I sent you previously. NPR, by their own admission recieves somewhere between 1.5% -3% of their total budget from government grants. That is OUTSIDE of what they get from members stations.

What link?

LLT
10-27-2010, 11:15 AM
What link?

I tell you what... I will go back and find the link for you while you respond to the other half of my post that you conveniently ignored.


And as I said before...NPR is receiving government money through these same member stations that they own.. using public facilities. If NPR truly wants to be regarded as an independent entity...... they should send back every dollar that's been set aside by Congress to support public broadcasting in this country......... Otherwise, NPR survives only through the generosity of the American taxpayer, and should act accordingly. Until then the public has a right to be outraged at their bias.

GodfatherofSoul
10-27-2010, 11:43 AM
I don't think you have a link. Nice try, though.

LLT
10-27-2010, 12:05 PM
I don't think you have a link. Nice try, though.

So sad for you...it was in post #46 to be exact.

http://www.cpb.org/stations/reports/revenue/2005PublicBroadcastingRevenue.pdf


(But good job of avoiding the topic and content my last post.)

Sooooooooo lets try again!

Please respond to:


And as I said before...NPR is receiving government money through these same member stations that they own.. using public facilities. If NPR truly wants to be regarded as an independent entity...... they should send back every dollar that's been set aside by Congress to support public broadcasting in this country......... Otherwise, NPR survives only through the generosity of the American taxpayer, and should act accordingly. Until then the public has a right to be outraged at their bias.

Also I would ask you to answer the following...


Lets pretend you are correct in the amount. If NPR is taking 3% or 25%...how do YOU justify NPR violating the moral, if not legal, prohibition against spending tax money for partisan causes?


Seriously....The same people who think that NPR is fair and unbiased are usually those who consider Michael Moore a "documentary film maker".

LLT
10-27-2010, 12:17 PM
Just so that we dont have to go over this again...and you actually start defending your stance...

Outside of members fees:


Your taxpayer dollars: Federal grants provide $3.3 million — of NPR's $166 million annual budget.
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/10/npr-vivian-schiller-should-be-fired-for-offending-the-mentally-ill-end-taypayer-funding-for-biased-o.html


NPR receives taxpayer funding in two different ways. First, they receive direct government grants from various federal agencies, including the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Education, and the National Endowment for the Arts. Over the past two years this direct funding has totaled approximately $9 million. But NPR also receives taxpayer funds indirectly (through member fees)
http://www.pantanoforcongress.com/posts/youcut-do-you-believe-your-tax-dollars-should-fund-npr

And from the NPR's own site they verify this:

Grants from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) have made it possible for NPR to maintain its current programming and to launch new programs and initiatives
http://www.npr.org/about/aboutnpr/publicradiofinances.html


EDIT*
I have found about a dozen more links if you need them

zulater
10-27-2010, 12:29 PM
Just so that we dont have to go over this again...and you actually start defending your stance...

Outside of members fees:





And from the NPR's own site they verify this:

http://draftsteel.com/ff/images/smilies/chess_surender.gif

checkmate.

LLT
10-27-2010, 12:30 PM
http://draftsteel.com/ff/images/smilies/chess_surender.gif

checkmate.

....and he's gone.

GodfatherofSoul
10-27-2010, 04:20 PM
Not sure what happened to my last post, but I'll put it up again.

You're restating the same argument with the same misinterpretation of the same two graphs from NPR's site. Again, NPR doesn't get government money. There are stations that license NPR-produced shows that get government money (part of that 15.8% is local and state funding). Your "evidence" is comments in a blog post on a Libertarian site and a campaign site. All I want is for you to show me where NPR accepts or admits to accepting government money. I don't need 12 posts, I just need one. And, not a post were some blowhard regurgitates a myth. If I'm wrong, I'll gladly admit it.

And, again I'm not going off on another tangent.

LLT
10-27-2010, 04:57 PM
Not sure what happened to my last post, but I'll put it up again.

You're restating the same argument with the same misinterpretation of the same two graphs from NPR's site. Again, NPR doesn't get government money. There are stations that license NPR-produced shows that get government money (part of that 15.8% is local and state funding). Your "evidence" is comments in a blog post on a Libertarian site and a campaign site. All I want is for you to show me where NPR accepts or admits to accepting government money. I don't need 12 posts, I just need one. And, not a post were some blowhard regurgitates a myth. If I'm wrong, I'll gladly admit it.

And, again I'm not going off on another tangent.

Seriously????? (You are never going to back your stance ...are you?)

Lets do this again.....

FROM NPR'S OWN SITE

UNDER THE HEADING...NPR Finances

THEN UNDER THE SUBHEADING...Grants and Contributions

WHERE IT SAYS: Institutional Support

IT READS AS FOLLOWS:
Grants from institutions such as the Ford and MacArthur Foundations, and non-profits such as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) have made it possible for NPR to maintain its current programming and to launch new programs and initiatives. We've also expanded coverage of news topics such as the environment and economy. Many of these grants directly and indirectly benefit member stations too.
http://www.npr.org/about/aboutnpr/publicradiofinances.html



(NOW.....ABOUT THE CPB...FROM THEIR OWN WEB SITE.)

UNDER THE HEADING.....Federal Appropriation

IT READS AS FOLLOWS:
CPB submits an annual request for Federal funding of public broadcasting stations and programming. This request describes the numerous and varied services that public broadcasters provide to communities across America. The request highlights the construction and installation of digital equipment, the replacement of the public radio interconnection system, and a continued commitment to educational and instructional programming on traditional and emerging media.

The request is submitted to the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee and to the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

FOLLOW THE MONEY.....GOVERNMENT > CPB> NPR = SHELLGAME

This is how they get by with saying they recieve no DIRECT money from the Government.

If you dont understand it now...there is nothing else I can do.

Here...let me put the two main paragraphs together for you:

Grants from institutions such as the Ford and MacArthur Foundations, and non-profits such as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) have made it possible for NPR to maintain its current programming and to launch new programs and initiatives.

CPB submits an annual request for Federal funding of public broadcasting stations and programming.

LLT
10-27-2010, 05:23 PM
I used links to NRP's and CPB's sites only....sooooooooooo what is your response?

zulater
10-27-2010, 06:07 PM
I used links to NRP's and CPB's sites only....sooooooooooo what is your response?




http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:rPZP_I86BlBrYM:http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v99/smallestminority/HolyGrail021.jpg&t=1

"Stand still you coward, I'll bite your bloody kneecaps off."

GodfatherofSoul
10-27-2010, 09:53 PM
EDIT: I've never disagreed about the funds from the CPB. I'll cede your point based on some of the language not making the distinction between local radio stations and NPR.