juan williams firing - fucked up or not?

[prole]

Even Whoopi Goldberg is calling bullshit on this firing.

 

Fuck! I'm going to have to rethink my whole position on this. What's Bristol Palin say?

[prole]

Whoopi Goldberg? Is she a journalist too now?

[j_b]

Employers can hire and fire whoever they want, IMO. As long as the state isn't fining, incarcerating, or dispossessing someone for their voicing their opinions it's not a free speech issue IMO.

 

ewwww, stinky, and what a surprise! Only the state can deny free speech according to the service libertarian.

 

I think they didn't like having someone on board who also appeared on Fox, and they were looking for a pretext to get rid of the guy for a while, and they spotted an opening here. They have that right.

 

only because his appearing repeatedly with the extreme right on FOX damaged his professional credibility.

[Nitrox]

Whoopi Goldberg? Is she a journalist too now?

 

Is Juan Williams a Journalist now?

 

 

[prole]

Whoopi Goldberg? Is she a journalist too now?

 

Is Juan Williams a Journalist now?

 

 

No, which is why he was fired from a news organization and given a new contract by Fox.

[kevbone]

What's Bristol Palin say?

 

Face down and ass up, that's the way I like to F$@%

[Hugh Conway]

What's Bristol Palin say?

 

Face down and ass up, that's the way I like to F$@%

 

 

mama taught her well

[prole]

Trig's patty-cake song...

[Off_White]

Employers can hire and fire whoever they want, IMO. As long as the state isn't fining, incarcerating, or dispossessing someone for their voicing their opinions it's not a free speech issue IMO.

 

ewwww, stinky, and what a surprise! Only the state can deny free speech according to the service libertarian.

 

Actually, Jay is just agreeing with the pundits over at The Nation who opine: "as to Williams' First Amendment rights, a citizen generally only has free speech rights in regard to government action. If a private employer wants to fire someone for a something offensive they say they generally can. If the government fires someone for their speech there is a much higher standard involved. While NPR is called National "Public" Radio, the reality is that only a small amount of their funding comes from government sources. About 16% of NPR's funding comes from local, state, and federal government sources. Much of that funding comes from government grants which NPR applies for as part of a competitive process. Just like a private company which applies for a tax credit, or for a government grant, NPR does not lose the rights to hire and fire people like a normal employers simply because they receive some government funding. "

[billcoe]

So are you saying that they should have just cut his hours 84% (private) so he worked 16 % (gov't pay) of the time?

 

make joke heh heh

[Off_White]

How long do you think Bill O'Reilly would last at Fox if he started effusing about what a good job Obama is doing for the country?

[Off_White]

No silly Billy, I'm just trying to rile Jay_B up by implying that he's in agreement with the folks over at The Nation.

[j_b]

Actually, Jay is just agreeing with the pundits over at The Nation who opine: "as to Williams' First Amendment rights, a citizen generally only has free speech rights in regard to government action. If a private employer wants to fire someone for a something offensive they say they generally can. If the government fires someone for their speech there is a much higher standard involved. While NPR is called National "Public" Radio, the reality is that only a small amount of their funding comes from government sources. About 16% of NPR's funding comes from local, state, and federal government sources. Much of that funding comes from government grants which NPR applies for as part of a competitive process. Just like a private company which applies for a tax credit, or for a government grant, NPR does not lose the rights to hire and fire people like a normal employers simply because they receive some government funding. "

 

That's a pretty minimalist interpretation and a dangerous restriction on freedom of speech. States like California understand that and acknowledge free political speech for employees of the private sector as well (or even on private property used for public gathering like malls)

[MtnHigh]

Williams on the O'Reilly Show

 

[video:youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAfGKVK8PyE&feature=aso

[Buckaroo]

""And Fox doesn't boot people for expressing their view point.""

 

bull ffing sh*t

 

No, they just never hire anyone to the left of Attila the Hun in the first place, or they cut their mic if they get past the screeners.

 

and what happened to Colmes? He was a pretend liberal and they couldn't even handle that, and where's his replacement?

 

 

 

[Buckaroo]

N ational

P etroleum

R adio

[billcoe]

"Political correctness can lead to some kind of paralysis where you don't address reality. "

LOL!

 

Great Slate version talking over the full meal deal:

 

"Shirley Sherrod, meet Juan Williams.

 

Three months ago, right-wingers clipped a video of Sherrod to make her look like a racist. They circulated the video on the Internet, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture fired her.

 

Now it's happening again. This time, left-wingers have done the editing. They clipped a video of Juan Williams, a commentator for Fox News and NPR, to make him look like an anti-Muslim bigot. They circulated the video on the Internet, and last night, NPR fired him.

 

According to NPR and the New York Times, the termination of Williams' contract was based on the following comments, delivered by Williams on The O'Reilly Factor Monday night:

 

I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country. 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. Now, I remember also that when the Times Square bomber was at court, I think this was just last week. He said the war with Muslims, America's war is just beginning, first drop of blood. I don't think there's any way to get away from these facts.

 

In its statement announcing Williams' termination, NPR said: "His 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." (You can read NPR's full statement here.)

 

The passage quoted by NPR and the Times is a dead ringer for a video clip of Williams, branded and distributed by Think Progress. The clip, which cleverly isolates the offending comment, has circulated among left-wing Web sites, just as the Sherrod clip circulated among right-wing sites. (The Washington Post also directs readers to the clip.) But the full transcript of Williams' appearance on The O'Reilly Factor, like the full video of Sherrod's speech to the NAACP, tells a much more complicated story.

 

On the program, Williams was responding to host Bill O'Reilly, who had gotten into trouble for comments about Islam and terrorism. In his initial answer, Williams said exactly what the video excerpt shows: that he worries when he sees passengers in Muslim garb, and that the Times Square bomber declared a U.S. war with Muslims.

 

Williams is right about the bomber. When Faisal Shahzad pled guilty in the Times Square plot, he told the court: "Brace yourselves, because the war with Muslims has just begun. Consider me only a first droplet of the flood that will follow me." That isn't a legitimate basis for judging all Muslims. But it is, as Williams said, a fact. And Williams' confession that he fears religious Muslims isn't necessarily an endorsement of bigotry. Remember what Jesse Jackson said 17 years ago: "There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery—then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved." Sometimes a confession of prejudice is part of a larger reflection on the perils of prejudice. That was true of Sherrod. And it's true of Williams.

 

The damning video clip of Williams, like the damning clip of Sherrod, cuts off the speaker just as he's about to reverse course. According to the full transcript, immediately after saying, "I don't think there's any way to get away from these facts," Williams continues: "But I think there are people who want to somehow remind us all as President Bush did after 9/11, it's not a war against Islam." That continuation has been conveniently snipped from the excerpt.

 

A few seconds later, Williams challenges O'Reilly's suggestion that "the Muslims attacked us on 9/11." Williams points out how wrong it would be to generalize similarly about Christians:

 

Hold on, because if you said Timothy McVeigh, the Atlanta bomber, these people who are protesting against homosexuality at military funerals—very obnoxious—you don't say first and foremost, "We got a problem with Christians." That's crazy.

 

Williams reminds O'Reilly that "there are good Muslims." A short while later, O'Reilly asks: "Juan, who is posing a problem in Germany? Is it the Muslims who have come there, or the Germans?" Williams refuses to play the group blame game. "See, you did it again," he tells O'Reilly. "It's extremists."

 

Williams warns O'Reilly that televised statements about Muslims as a group can foment bigotry and violence. "The other day in New York, some guy cuts a Muslim cabby's neck," Williams reminds him. "Or you think about the protest at the mosque near Ground Zero … We don't want, in America, people to have their rights violated, to be attacked on the street because they heard rhetoric from Bill O'Reilly."

 

I'm not saying Williams is the world's most enlightened guy. He's wrong, for example, about the proposed Islamic Center near Ground Zero. And it's certainly unsettling to hear him admit that he worries when he sees Muslims in distinctive dress. But admitting such fears doesn't make you a bigot. Sometimes, to work through your fears, you have to face them honestly. You have to think through the perils of acting on those fears. And you have to explain to others why they, too, should transcend their anxieties or resentments and treat people as individuals.

 

That's what Shirley Sherrod did in her speech to the NAACP. It's what Juan Williams did in his interview on Fox News. It was wrong of conservatives to take Sherrod's remarks out of context. It's just as wrong of liberals to do the same to Williams. The USDA, after reviewing Sherrod's remarks in their entirety, offered to rehire her. Now it's your turn, NPR."

 

Here: http://www.slate.com/toolbar.aspx?action=print&id=2271931

[Crux]

N ational

P etroleum

R adio

 

And all this time, I thought it was National Prepublican Radio, you know, like an internship place for right-wing wannabes.

[JayB]

No silly Billy, I'm just trying to rile Jay_B up by implying that he's in agreement with the folks over at The Nation.

 

I'm always delighted and surprised in equal measure when contemporary "liberals" lose their bearings and stray into the ideological terrain that's always belonged to classical liberals.

 

I suspect that the folks at the Nation will soon realize they've lost all of their bearings and signposts and flee back to the familiar territory of illiberal statism when it suits them.

[AlpineK]

I don't see a problem. Juan got a pay raise, and the controversy will boost his FOX viewer score. Win, win.

[prole]

No silly Billy, I'm just trying to rile Jay_B up by implying that he's in agreement with the folks over at The Nation.

 

I'm always delighted and surprised in equal measure when contemporary "liberals" lose their bearings and stray into the ideological terrain that's always belonged to classical liberals.

 

I suspect that the folks at the Nation will soon realize they've lost all of their bearings and signposts and flee back to the familiar territory of illiberal statism when it suits them.

 

Nice "liberalism" you got there that upholds the denial of First Amendment rights for most people during the majority of their waking hours (while at work). Add to that the "right" of property owners to censor speech while on their property and you've effectively restricted speech to people's cars and homes. Funny kind of freedom...

Edited October 23, 2010 by prole

[Nitrox]

No silly Billy, I'm just trying to rile Jay_B up by implying that he's in agreement with the folks over at The Nation.

 

I'm always delighted and surprised in equal measure when contemporary "liberals" lose their bearings and stray into the ideological terrain that's always belonged to classical liberals.

 

I suspect that the folks at the Nation will soon realize they've lost all of their bearings and signposts and flee back to the familiar territory of illiberal statism when it suits them.

 

Nice "liberalism" you got there that upholds the denial of First Amendment rights for most people during the majority of their waking hours (while at work). Add to that the "right" of property owners to censor speech while on their property and you've effectively restricted speech to people's cars and homes. Funny kind of freedom...

 

You mean like this forum where you're free to say what you want so long as it doesn't break the owners rules?

 

 

 

[prole]

Are the consequences of getting fired the same as getting kicked off this board? Didn't think so.

[Nitrox]

Are the consequences of getting fired the same as getting kicked off this board? Didn't think so.

 

You're changing the subject.

 

You said:

Add to that the "right" of property owners to censor speech while on their property and you've effectively restricted speech to people's cars and homes. Funny kind of freedom...

 

You are not free to say anything you want when the medium in which you're saying it is owned by someone else. The consequences may change but the fact is that no one is required to allow you to say anything you want on their private property.

 

However, if Juan and NPR's contract stated that they could terminate him if he said anything that was counter to the image they wanted portrayed than it certainly was within their right to let him go. Liberal or Conservative, it makes no difference. That said, they obviously wanted him gone and this was their opportunity.

 

 

[j_b]

I'm always delighted and surprised in equal measure when contemporary "liberals" lose their bearings and stray into the ideological terrain that's always belonged to classical liberals.

 

I suspect that the folks at the Nation will soon realize they've lost all of their bearings and signposts and flee back to the familiar territory of illiberal statism when it suits them.

 

Nice "liberalism" you got there that upholds the denial of First Amendment rights for most people during the majority of their waking hours (while at work). Add to that the "right" of property owners to censor speech while on their property and you've effectively restricted speech to people's cars and homes. Funny kind of freedom...

 

When the veneer comes off the "liberty" rhetoric, it becomes clear that only the right to private property should be enforced according to regressives. To think these people claim ownership to the main current of thought coming out the enlightenment is rather laughable.