NPR Axes Juan Williams for Muslim comment

#2
#2
I would say that this is juuust a little proof that they hand out "talking points".
 
#5
#5
This is pretty sorry, even for NPR. This has much more to do with JW's ongoing relationship and appearances on FOX than it does with these particular comments. Juan stated his feelings, which just about anyone on a plane or other form of public transportation has thought about after 9-11, that is if they're being honest in admitting it.

NPR has a very open and easily noticeable left slant, the fact it is publicly funded is a travesty and corruption of the intent of its existence.
 
#7
#7
utvolpj said:
is this really a free speech issue?
Click to expand...

How is it not? Unless he has a clause in his contract about:

A) Going onto Fox News

-or-

B) Expressing personal thoughts about Muslims

I fail to see how NPR was justified in terminating him.
 
Last edited:
#8
#8
utvolpj said:
is this really a free speech issue?
Click to expand...

not really - it's about tolerance of divergent viewpoints IMHO.

NPR could have used the incident to have a dialogue on the topic but instead reacted in a way to stifle opposing views to their own.

In a note that the head of NPR sent out to affliliates she claims there had been a lot of complaints about JW. My guess is they were mostly from hard core lefties that didn't like some of the commentary JW made because it didn't align with their views.
 
#10
#10
volinbham said:
In a note that the head of NPR sent out to affliliates she claims there had been a lot of complaints about JW. My guess is they were mostly from hard core lefties that didn't like some of the commentary JW made because it didn't align with their views.
Click to expand...

this is the problem. she claimed it was a "last straw" type thing, yet mentioned no other transgressions.
 
#11
#11
I don't really have a problem with what he said as in context I think he was just admitting to how a lot of people feel and how we as a nation are going to come to grips with it.
 
#12
#12
DC Vol said:
How is it not? Unless he has a clause in his contract about:

A) Not going onto Fox News

-or-

B) Expressing personal thoughts about Muslims

I fail to see how NPR was justified in terminating him.
Click to expand...

I'm with PJ on this one. Free speech is a government focused right. The government can't do things to me because of what I say (theoretically although we all know otherwise).

NPR is a not-for-profit that seeks grants from foundations and the government. It's not really the government per se.

NPR has the right to fire JW. I just think they are hypocrites for doing so and we all have the right to tell them to suck it and not listen to their hush toned voices and crappy bumper music.
 
#13
#13
utvolpj said:
is this really a free speech issue?
Click to expand...

For a privately run and funded network, no. For a publcly funded one that gives a "serious" presentation of some of the most whacked out leftist views imagineable... Yes.
 
#14
#14
I'm not a fan of Juan, he's completely clueless about economics, but he shouldn't be fire for that.
 
#16
#16
droski said:
this is the problem. she claimed it was a "last straw" type thing, yet mentioned no other transgressions.
Click to expand...

She has in a public statement and a note sent to affiliates. She mentions some comment he made about Michelle Obama that is completely innocent but must have offended her sensibilities.

Her "argument" is that NPR "analysts" which JW was are not supposed to express any opinions or views that are not fact based (obviously he's the only one held to this standard) whether on NPR or elsewhere while using the NPR connection.

It's BS cover of course.
 
#17
#17
sjt18 said:
For a privately run and funded network, no. For a publcly funded one that gives a "serious" presentation of some of the most whacked out leftist views imagineable... Yes.
Click to expand...

so anyone working at a publicly funded company has absolute free speech?
 
#18
#18
utvolpj said:
so anyone working at a publicly funded company has absolute free speech?
Click to expand...

I agree - we don't want to go down this path. Employment contracts are employment contracts. Let JW sue if he things the firing was unjust. Actually, he wasn't an employee. He was a contractor and they terminated his contract.

I think they had the right to do so but were dumb and wrong to do so.
 
#19
#19
i'm glad they did this. it's about time there is a national debate about NPR and it's poltiics.
 
#20
#20
Like I said, I don't think his comments were so unusual as to warrant firing him. I gather there is more to it that we don't necessarily know about. Guess every outfit has its own internal politics, NPR included.
 
#23
#23
droski said:
i'm glad they did this. it's about time there is a national debate about NPR and it's poltiics.
Click to expand...

Yep. The irony is that NPR could have used this as an opportunity to explore the issue of what is bigotry/ what is not but instead put an ideological line in the sand.
 
#24
#24
volinbham said:
I'm with PJ on this one. Free speech is a government focused right. The government can't do things to me because of what I say (theoretically although we all know otherwise).

NPR is a not-for-profit that seeks grants from foundations and the government. It's not really the government per se.

NPR has the right to fire JW. I just think they are hypocrites for doing so and we all have the right to tell them to suck it and not listen to their hush toned voices and crappy bumper music.
Click to expand...

While you have a point, NPR should be facing a Wrongful Dismissal lawsuit. While it can be construed as ignorance, I fail to see grounds for legit dismissal.

"Freedom of Speech" was hyperbole on my part, but, given the nature of things on NPR I think that absolutely should be the point.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top