PDA

View Full Version : NPR fires Juan Williams



infoshare
October 23rd, 2010, 02:03 PM
"What is freedom of expression? Without freedom to offend, it ceases to exist."
Salman Rushdie

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/williams-fires-back-npr-signs-expanded-role-fox/story?id=11954997

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/21/npr-fires-juan-williams-oreilly-appearance/

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20101021/cm_yblog_upshot/npr-fires-juan-williams-for-muslim-remarks-on-fox

infoshare
October 23rd, 2010, 02:09 PM
Politico excerpt -

NPR fired political analyst Juan Williams on Wednesday night over his statement on Fox News that he gets "nervous" whenever he sees people in “Muslim garb” boarding a plane.

“I mean, look, Bill, I’m not a bigot,” Williams said on the "The O'Reilly Factor" Monday. “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.”


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43951.html#ixzz13CsAYyPs

ZippyTheChimp
October 23rd, 2010, 02:26 PM
All of the 09/11 terrorists wore "western clothing."

I wonder how Juan Williams would react if I stated that while riding in an empty subway car late one night, I "got nervous" when he got on.

TREPYE
October 23rd, 2010, 03:24 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.”


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43951.html#ixzz13CsAYyPs

So what garb is acceptable, Juan, the one you wear....



bigot (ˈbɪɡət) http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html)— n a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race

.....and rhymes with idiot.

infoshare
October 23rd, 2010, 04:04 PM
So what garb is acceptable, Juan, the one you wear....


I see the bigot point. However, in my view, the fear Juan Williams has is not completely "idiotic"; somewhat 'irrational' perhaps - but not idiotic.

ablarc
October 23rd, 2010, 04:49 PM
At NPR, first as host of "Talk of the Nation" and later as news analyst, Juan Williams always made sense. He still does, and I'm sorry he was hounded off NPR for voicing a thought that I'm sure most frequent fliers have felt --even those who congratulae themselves with phony political correctness. Unfortunately, this means I'm going to have to start watching Fox News, which till now I've studiously avoided.

infoshare
October 23rd, 2010, 06:07 PM
Unfortunately, this means I'm going to have to start watching Fox News, which till now I've studiously avoided.

That not so unfortunate: unless your asking George Soros that is. (LOL)

I enjoy watching the Fox news pundits; all-in-all they are just less bad than the likes of Maddow, Olberman, ect. And besides, it is undeniably good practice to get input from all sides: unless your given to 'confirmation bias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias)' - you will surely learn something.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Fabrizio
October 23rd, 2010, 06:44 PM
How dumb of Williams. He should not be concerned about fellow air passengers wearing "Muslim garb".

After all, they've most likely been given even more scrupulous screening before entering the plane than the other passengers .

Hey wait a minute: now why would I assume air passengers wearing Muslim garb would be given more scrupulous screening?

-----

212
October 23rd, 2010, 06:56 PM
From NPR's ombudsman:
"NPR's Firing of Juan Williams Was Poorly Handled" (http://www.npr.org/blogs/ombudsman/2010/10/21/130713285/npr-terminates-contract-with-juan-williams)

lofter1
October 23rd, 2010, 07:47 PM
... I'm sorry he was hounded off NPR for voicing a thought that I'm sure most frequent fliers have felt -- even those who congratulae themselves with phony political correctness.

Williams recently was running afoul of his higher ups at NPR by touting himself on Fox and elsewhere using his NPR credentials, which he'd been asked not to do when appearing as a pundit outside of NPR.

An examination of Williams' personal thoughts on judging folks by what they wear HERE (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/10/juan-williams-busted.html)

ZippyTheChimp
October 23rd, 2010, 08:02 PM
Fox News, the antidote for "Confirmation Bias."

LOL

I would think it's more the prescription.



From NPR's ombudsman:
"NPR's Firing of Juan Williams Was Poorly Handled" (http://www.npr.org/blogs/ombudsman/2010/10/21/130713285/npr-terminates-contract-with-juan-williams)Neatly encapsulates the NPR-Williams situation. It's been building for some time. The incident on O'Reilly almost seems orchestrated, except for the hypothetical incident I posted and the link provided by Lofter.

I'm guessing that Williams regrets what he said on Fox.

Fabrizio
October 23rd, 2010, 08:19 PM
... regreting it all the way to the bank:

"Within 24 hours, Juan Williams lost his job as an analyst at NPR, only to sign a lucrative $2 million contract with Fox News."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/fox-news-offers-juan-williams-2-million-contract

Fabrizio
October 23rd, 2010, 08:27 PM
I wonder why the entire transcript has not been in the news?

What Juan Williams actually said:

WILLIAMS: I mean, look, Bill, 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.

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. President Bush went to a mosque -

O'REILLY: Well, there isn't any theology involved in this at all from my perspective, Juan. But you live in the liberal precincts. You actually work for NPR, OK?

WILLIAMS: Yes.

O'REILLY: And it's not about - it's about politics as I said. But - my analysis is that this Israel thing and that liberals feel that United states is somehow guilty in the world, of exploitation and backing the wrong side, and it makes it easier for them to come up with this kind of crazy stuff that, well, you can't really say the Muslims attacked us on 9/11.

WILLIAMS: No, but what Barbara Walters said to you -

O'REILLY: Were they Norwegians? I mean, come on.

WILLIAMS: Wait a second though, wait, 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.

O'REILLY: But it's not at that level. It doesn't rise near to that level.

WILLIAMS: Correct. That's - and when you said in the talking points memo a moment ago that there are good Muslims, I think that's a point, you know?

O'REILLY: But everybody knows that, Juan. I mean, what are, in 3rd grade here or what?

WILLIAMS: No, you don't - but you got to be - this is what Barbara Walters was saying -

O'REILLY: I got to be careful, you just said it. I got to be careful. I have got to qualify everything 50 times. You know what, Juan? I'm not doing it anymore. I'm not doing that anymore.

WILLIAMS: OK. So, be yourself. Take responsibility.

entire transcript: http://www.scpr.org/programs/madeleine-brand/2010/10/21/npr-fires-juan-williams/

hbcat
October 23rd, 2010, 11:19 PM
Williams has real credentials as a print journalist (The Washington Post) and as a major voice on NPR for many years. He may have orchestrated this for a big payday -- and he got it -- but I wonder how he will get on at Fox given his years of thoughtful journalism. Who knows? Maybe he's just tired and looking for a retirement nest egg. He doesn't come off looking good this way.

As for the freedom of expression complaint: NPR fired an employee. He's free to express his opinions elsewhere. In this case, he's gone from one of the more modest national formats to the loudest and most garish.

hbcat
October 23rd, 2010, 11:31 PM
Christian Science Monitor

NPR vs. Fox News: Juan Williams firing reveals deeper media fight (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Election-2010/Vox-News/2010/1023/NPR-vs.-Fox-News-Juan-Williams-firing-reveals-deeper-media-fight)

NPR’s firing Juan Williams comes just as controversial figures connected to NPR and Fox News – philanthropist George Soros and commentator Glenn Beck– are in a harsh rhetorical fight.

NPR headquarters in Washington, DC. Public radio's firing of Juan Williams highlight's NPR's contentious relationship with Fox News.
By Brad Knickerbocker, Staff writer / October 23, 2010

NPR's firing of news analyst Juan Williams couldn’t come at a worse time for public radio.

Not only did it occur in the midst of on-air fund-raising by many public radio stations, it also happened just as controversial figures connected to NPR and Fox News – liberal philanthropist George Soros and conservative commentator Glenn Beck– are engaged in a harsh rhetorical fight.

Fox News is Mr. Williams’ other employer and the place where he made his controversial statement about Muslims. Mr. Soros recently donated $1.8 million to NPR, seen by conservative critics (and certainly by Mr. Beck) as proof (a) that NPR is a liberal mouthpiece and (b) that billionaire Soros pressured NPR to get rid of Williams.

“Up until then, opinions by NPR correspondents and analysts had been expressed in abundance, but Williams' statement on Fox, because it was expressed on Fox, amounted to apostasy,” editorializes Investor’s Business Daily. “The firing sends a message that Fox is beyond the pale and must be silenced.”

The fall-out from William’s dismissal has been sharp and swift, and it’s likely to continue.

On NPR’s web site, ombudsman Alicia Shepard reported that thousands of comments had caused the organization’s “Contact Us” form to crash.

“The overwhelming majority are angry, furious, outraged,” she wrote. “They want NPR to hire him back immediately. If NPR doesn't, they want all public funding of public radio to stop. They promise to never donate again. They are as mad as hell, and want everyone to know it. It was daunting to answer the phone and hear so much unrestrained anger.”

In addition to his gift to NPR, Soros also recently gave $1 million to Media Matters “to hold Fox News accountable for the false and misleading information they so often broadcast.” Media Matters is the progressive media watchdog which has been pressuring advertisers to drop their business with Fox News because of Beck’s alleged “hate speech leading to violence.”

Specifically, Beck’s dozens of comments attacking the Tides Foundation are being linked to the attempt by a heavily-armed man to assassinate employees at the San Francisco-based foundation, which funds environmental, human rights, and other progressive projects. The attack in July was thwarted in a shoot-out with police in which two officers were wounded.

Beck and his supporters insist that he does not condone violence. On his highly-popular Fox News show, Beck has turned around the accusation of violence, charging that Soros' $1 million contribution to Media Matters is a "wanted dead or alive poster" and a "million dollar bounty" on himself.

In the midst of all this comes the Juan Williams controversy.

Williams is an accomplished journalist and an expert on the civil rights era. But his on-air comments had become more openly opinionated in recent years, and this was why in 2008 his job title was changed from “news correspondent” to “news analyst.” On Fox, however, he was expected to be a pundit, performing alongside such provocative figures as Bill O’Reilly. There, the format is more likely to be shoot-from-the-lip.

NPR’s reaction to the current episode is likely to prolong the controversy, certainly among fans of Fox and its most successful personality, Glenn Beck.

Writes NPR ombudsman Shephard: “This latest incident with Williams centers around a collision of values: NPR's values emphasizing fact-based, objective journalism versus the tendency in some parts of the news media, notably Fox News, to promote only one side of the ideological spectrum.”

ZippyTheChimp
October 24th, 2010, 12:27 AM
Pictures of Muslims Wearing Things (http://muslimswearingthings.tumblr.com/)

lofter1
October 24th, 2010, 02:02 AM
Mr. Williams' Faux Nose style punditry:



In early 2009, Williams said on O'Reilly of Michelle Obama: "She's got this Stokely Carmichael-in-a-designer-dress thing going. If she starts talking . . . her instinct is to start with this blame America, you know, I'm the victim. If that stuff starts to coming out, people will go bananas and she'll go from being the new Jackie O. to being something of an albatross."

Williams gave the world that news about 18 months ago.

Some other news (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1320581/Michelle-Obama-beats-President-Barack-Obama-approval-ratings.html) from last week ...



More popular than the president: Michelle Obama beats Barack in the approval ratings (hers is 65%, his is 45)

More from Vivian Schiller, the NPR CEO, on why Williams was fired (http://www.thirdage.com/news/stokely-carmichael-juan-william-has-made-inappropiate-comments-about-activist-past-npr-says_10-):



Schiller insisted that the firing of Williams wasn’t a “case of one strike and you’re out” ...

Schiller also added that Williams was an independent contractor, not an NPR employee, and had asked Williams previously to stop using NPR’s name when he appeared on Bill O’Reilly’s show.

“He also has an ongoing relationship with Fox News," she said. "Mara Liasson is also on Fox News and is a full-time staffer. We accept that’s a whole other issue. However, we expect our journalists, whether they are news analysts or reporters, to behave like journalists."

Punditry and Journalism are two different animals. But nowadays many folks don't differentiate; often opinions and facts carry equal weight.

hbcat
October 24th, 2010, 06:25 AM
I find it hard to believe that 1000s of people are phoning in and emailing NPR in outrage over Williams's firing. Is this being fairly represented? Are most NPR listeners also cross-over FOX viewers? Something is odd about that ombud's report.

Fabrizio
October 24th, 2010, 08:15 AM
I only know Juan Williams from during the Obama campaign and election on Fox News.

I found him to be a lightweight and not too bright. And he always seems to express himself in a clumsy, halting way. I don't understand why NPR would want such a mediocre commentator in the first place. I don't think it's any loss for NPR.

But what Juan Williams said here is ok. Spoken poorly, but in context I don't see the problem. And it wasn't a speech. It was part of a conversation and you have to take into consideration the whole exchange.

That people might be disturbed by what he said, I see as a lack of sophistication.

----

And what should NPR do about Nina Totenberg?

"In light of the recent firing of Juan Williams by NPR for comments related to his personal opinion; an opinion concerning Williams' nervousness, or apprehension at seeing Muslims clothed in Islamic garb boarding his airplane, and an opinion considered inflammatory by the CEO of NPR, Vivian Schiller, and according to her, in violation of NPR's editorial code of ethics, Totenberg's past comments concerning Helms from 1995 drew new intense scrutiny. At that time in 1995, while on air, Totenberg had offered an inflammatory personal opinion to the host of Inside Washington, stating that if there was “retributive justice” in the world, then Jesse Helms would “get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it.” Questions arose as to whether the same policies that apparently resulted in Williams' firing would be enforced with regard to Totenberg, with Schiller stating that no change regarding Totenberg's contract as an NPR correspondent was being considered. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nina_Totenberg

hbcat
October 24th, 2010, 08:34 AM
As has been noted, Williams wasn't fired for this one incident but because of relatively long-standing disagreements with management. If Tottenburg were the sort of commentator who was prone to such offensive remarks, she would have been gone long ago. However, she's proven herself to be intelligent (or at least fluent in the English language which seems to be enough these days)) and has served NPR listeners well and respectably for decades.

What should NPR do about an incident that reportedly occurred fifteen years ago? Nothing.

Fabrizio
October 24th, 2010, 08:47 AM
As has been noted, Williams wasn't fired for this one incident but because of relatively long-standing disagreements with management.

Perhaps but not according to their original statement about the firing.

According to that he was fired because of the comments on Reilly. And that's it. And he was praised by them as a contributor.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130712737

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thisisnpr/2010/10/21/130719481/npr-statement-on-the-termination-of-juan-williams-contact

---

hbcat: about Totenberg.... agreed.

Even though her comments were far worse. At least she could have had the humanity to leave Helms' grandchildren out of it.

hbcat
October 24th, 2010, 09:03 AM
I checked into the Totenberg story, which is apparently being dug up after all these years. The source from the Wikipedia article, above, leads to a dead link from The Washington Examiner. A fifteen second quotation from the TV interview has been playing on Youtube for two days. Here it is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7msrF1V4NeY

Here is what she says: "I think he [Helms] ought to be worried about what's going on in the good Lord's mind because if there is retributive justice, he'll get AIDs from a transfusion or one of his grandchildren will get it."

Since the quotation is taken out of context, we do not know what was said before or after this, but she is obviously mocking Helms's opinions about AIDs.

Here's the sort of thing Helms was saying about AIDs in 1995:

>>><<<

Senator Jesse Helms: Cut AIDS Funding

The Associated Press - 5 Jul 95

NEW YORK (AP) -- Sen. Jesse Helms says the government should spend less money on people with AIDS because they got sick as a result of "deliberate, disgusting, revolting conduct," The New York Times reported Wednesday.
Helms, who has often spoken of his disgust for homosexuals, spoke to the Times as the Senate considers whether to renew a federal program for the care and treatment of AIDS patients.

"We've got to have some common sense about a disease transmitted by people deliberately engaging in unnatural acts," Helms told the Times.

The Republican from North Carolina argued that AIDS gets a disproportionately large amount of funding for medical research despite being only the ninth-leading cause of death in the United States.

Actually, Public Health Services statistics show that heart disease receives the most federal funding, at $36.3 billion annually, followed by cancer, $16.9 billion, and AIDS at $6 billion, the Times said.

Furthermore, AIDS is the leading cause of death among both men and women from 24 to 44, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Times said.

The $880 million Ryan White Care Act of 1990, named for an Indiana teen-ager who died after contracting AIDS through a blood transfusion, expires at the end of September.

A reauthorization bill has yet to reach the Senate floor, and in the House, the measure is stalled in committee. Helms denies he has tried to stop the bill.

"I'm going to try to get some equity for people who have had heart trouble," said the senator, who underwent open heart surgery in 1992.

Copyright 1995/The Associated Press. Reproduced with permission. Reproduction of this article (other than one copy for personal reference) must be cleared through the Permissions Desk, The Associated Press, 50 Rockefeller Plaza, New York, NY 10020.

>>><<<

Totenberg's comment sounds off-the-cuff and poorly thought through (even allowing that I do not know what she might have said in the next few minutes of that interview), but equating her sarcastic remark with Williams's doesn't seem even-handed in the least. Someone is grasping at straws.

Fabrizio
October 24th, 2010, 09:19 AM
^ What you are doing is looking for the entire statement by Totenberg to put it in context.

And that's good. And agree with him or not Williams deserves the same.

You are also excusing her with the "off-the-cuff" and the "poorly thought through"... As I do with Williams.

And I agree with you that 15 years is way past the expiration date. But the remarks were made.

Personally I do not equate her remarks with Williams'. IMHO her's are worse. But c'mon. We're adults.

In the end, Williams cannot hold a candle to her. He is not of her calibre. And I think he fits in better at Fox.

MidtownGuy
October 24th, 2010, 10:49 AM
Love Zippy's link in post 16. All that scary Mulim "garb". Boo!

...and thanks to hbcat for clarifying the context of Totenberg's comment. Grasping at straws indeed.

hbcat
October 24th, 2010, 10:55 AM
@ Fabrizio: Fair enough. I don't think Williams's should be fired for one moment of poor judgement, if that's what has happened. But I don't think that is exactly what happened: he was fired due to several years's worth of disagreements with NPR management.

In that case, the internal review -- that the firing had been handled poorly -- is correct. Those in charge at NPR should have come out and said it clearly from the start. I don't have access to Fox News (except through their websites) where I am so I will not pay him any heed one way or the other.

hbcat
October 24th, 2010, 11:01 AM
Pictures of Muslims Wearing Things (http://muslimswearingthings.tumblr.com/)

Where's London Lawyer? He needs to see this: "Huma Abedin. Muslim and Vogue chic." She is hot!

BTW, this site seems to be getting regular updates. It's quite fun and worth a second look, or more, even if you see what the people behind it are getting at from the start.

infoshare
October 24th, 2010, 02:24 PM
Let not change the subject. Here is the issue; PC is BS. With this episode it has once again been clearly demonstrated just how totalitarian ‘liberals’ actually are: not at all the open-minded thoughtfull people they pretend to be – the PC crowd is just full of baloney.

I respectfully advise Mr. Williams to use his new post at Fox to remind us all of this simple fact: people need to just ‘wake up’ – events like this NPR firing help sound the alarm, and ultimately do more good than harm.

Fabrizio
October 24th, 2010, 03:42 PM
Hbcat: Agreed.

Handled poorly if his firing is due to a range of issues.

In the meantime: that comment alone was benign. Especially in the context of the entire conversation.

Still for me, Juan Williams remains a lightweight... uninteresting... a dim bulb.

Why NPR would employ him of all people is what is surprising to me.

--


PC is BS[/I]. With this episode it has once again been clearly demonstrated just how totalitarian ‘liberals’ actually are: not at all the open-minded thoughtfull people they pretend to be – the PC crowd is just full of baloney.


Often very true.

ZippyTheChimp
October 24th, 2010, 06:22 PM
Let not change the subject..Nothing in this thread changes the subject.

hbcat
October 24th, 2010, 08:30 PM
Let not change the subject. Here is the issue; PC is BS. With this episode it has once again been clearly demonstrated just how totalitarian ‘liberals’ actually are: not at all the open-minded thoughtfull people they pretend to be – the PC crowd is just full of baloney.


Actually, you're the one who's drifting off topic. The rest of us have been having a civilized discussion, with minor disagreements, about a minor news story concerning the media.

NPR is totalitarian? Please don't toss this term around so casually. I've lived in a totalitarian state, and now live in the shadow of another. Trust me, you may not like NPR, but it is not totalitarian. Even as hyperbole your statement rings false.

lofter1
October 25th, 2010, 02:24 AM
... it has once again been clearly demonstrated just how totalitarian ‘liberals’ actually are: not at all the open-minded thoughtfull people they pretend to be – the PC crowd is just full of baloney.


Repeat it often enough?

Second verse same as the first (http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23759&p=337511#post337511), third and thirty eighth ;)

btw: Does irrational conflation of one group to another = 'open-mindedness'?

Ninjahedge
October 25th, 2010, 08:45 AM
Listening to him express himself later it seems like things may have been taken out of context.

The irony being, that that all depends on how wide you take that context to be. Let me explain.

1. Taken at face value, that 30 second snippet it not a good representation of religious neutrality. It comes right out and says that he is prejudiced against muslims in muslim garb.

2. When you go a bit further and listen to what he is saying and how he said it, it seems like he is admitting his own fault and his own error in judgement. I got the impression that he was saying "hey, I feel fear when I first see these guys, but then I think for a second and realize my fear is irrational and has no real basis. I still DO feel fear though.". Although this is not something to be commended for, this irrational fear, it is probably what a LOT of people feel when they see this (partially due to the fear mongering that Fox et all have been doing). Admitting that it is there, but then also accepting the fact that there is no basis for it is a good first step.

Simply saying you should not feel somethnig is easy to say, but difficult to do. Admitting you feel a way and admitting it is wrong is the first step in many cases.

3. As has been said here by several of you, it seems like he has done things like this a few times. And using your "NPR" tag when jumping over to a widely known and openly biased opinion news program is a bit self serving. I did not know that about him and thought this may have just been a one-time appearance. Hearing that stuff like this has happened before, albeit less controversial, makes me smell money.


So whatever. I never heard of the guy before this, so maybe his plan is working...

hbcat
October 25th, 2010, 09:03 AM
Tempest in a teapot.

ZippyTheChimp
October 25th, 2010, 10:04 AM
^
Exactly.

NPR has been at odds with Fox News for some time; if they were not pleased with one of their employees appearing on Fox, they should have waited and announced that his contract wasn't going to be renewed. Instead, they viewed the O'Reilly interview as an opportunity, which backfired.

As for Williams, he can say what he wants, but he would have to be an idiot not to realize that the venue made all the difference.

The tone of the original post and the reference to 'totalitarian liberals' makes it appear that Williams was fired because of public pressure from 'the pc crowd.' That's not what happened. The interview didn't become major news until after he was fired.

Whatever one thinks of NPR, depicting them as the mirror-image of Fox (or worse, Fox as the reasonable alternative) is absurd.

mariab
October 25th, 2010, 04:08 PM
Caught this link surfing thru MSN. I would be "guilty" of this post-9/11, no matter what garb they were wearing . The person who wrote this expresses what many of us, including myself, are not good at articulating verbally or in writing, but we know how we feel about it, illogical or not. The people who feel this way, during many conversations post-9/11, are Fox watchers, CNN watchers, NYT readers, & big-three watchers (CBS,NBC,ABC). If you still think it's wrong then there's nothing more I can say, because this article best articulates for me the crux of the issue. I think Juan, during these ridiculous quick back & forths, when everyone waits to talk instead of listens, & tramples over the end of each others' sentences, meant to say any person who looks middle-eastern, post-9/11, although I can't speak for him. That's just the feeling I got. Take from it what you will. Note: It is a 2 page article. Belive it or not, I am interested in the opposite side's opinion.

http://www.slate.com/id/2272262/?GT1=38001

Fabrizio
October 25th, 2010, 04:26 PM
^ IMHO excellent article

ZippyTheChimp
October 25th, 2010, 04:44 PM
@mariab:

Nothing wrong with you, Juan Williams, or anyone else having that view. But Williams was on a venue that, more than other news agencies, uses news almost exclusively to push a political viewpoint.

He was aware of the conflict between NPR and Fox, and his part in that conflict.


The person who wrote this expresses what many of us, including myself, are not good at articulating verbally or in writing, but we know how we feel about it, illogical or not.So what did his articulating do for you, make it logical?

The crux of that article:
The left is wrong to wish the association away only by pointing out how unfair it is, because that denies the reality of how our minds work. The right is wrong to believe the association must be accurate merely because it is widespread. What Fox News validates, and many of their supporters pursue, are policies in response to this irrational, illogical fear.

You might feel anxiety if a Muslim boarded the plane you were on, but would you support a policy that forced them to use Muslim-Only flights? Sort of the same thing going on here (http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23759&page=98).

Fabrizio
October 25th, 2010, 05:16 PM
But Williams was on a venue that, more than other news agencies, uses news almost exclusively to push a political viewpoint.

He was aware of the conflict between NPR and Fox, and his part in that conflict.


It should be noted though that Williams had been with FoxNews nearly 3 years before being hired by NPR. I would think they knew what they were getting into by hiring a FoxNews contributor.




You might feel anxiety if a Muslim boarded the plane you were on, but would you support a policy that forced them to use Muslim-Only flights?

I doubt that even Pamela Geller would support that. But on second thought.... well maybe she would.

mariab
October 25th, 2010, 05:33 PM
@ZippyTheChimp
That's just it; It would seem illogical to some people, or even irrational, getting nervous when seeing middle-easterners on a commercial jet post-9/11. A lot of people feel the opposite, but are not bigots. It's not what Juan is articulating. Really, I'd only heard of the guy's name before this whole thing blew up. It's what The Slate article brings up. Very good points on both sides subconscious & conscious without a full-fledged psyche report. However, I don't think the article was about which side was correct. It is not making those feelings logical, or, more important, valid. To me anyway. On a much smaller scale, think of the female who is instinctually distrustful of males, because she's been abused verbally and/or physically by some or even 2 or 3 of them. She will have a natural knee-jerk reaction to any male who may try to make her acquaintance, right or wrong. A white person will have a knee-jerk reaction to a young black male on a deserted subway car at night. A black person will have a distrustful reaction to a white person who tells them "I'll put your application at the top of the pile". While, as supposedly intelligent, evolved humans, we are supposed to see logically, a good deal of the time we use our animal instinct to protect us from some perceived danger. I do agree that many news agencies, no matter the medium, are very slanted & hold a lot of sway with their viewers. One need only read the colorful headlines of NY papers sometimes to realize that. I think it's that way on both ends of the spectrum. Myself, I read between the lines to get the facts & try to figure things out for myself, though I didn't always think that way. Once things get soapboxy, I usually turn the page/close the window/change the channel, even if that person is 100% correct, as illogical as that may sound. Unfortunately, a lot of us don't want to see the forest for the trees. THis article isn't the be-all end-all of human prejudice. It's just one of many viewpoints that seems to express why we think the way we do, a little better than others I've read. Excuse me if I seem wordy. I get distracted a lot.

lofter1
October 25th, 2010, 06:35 PM
The final lines from the linked article:



The fact that so many of us subscribe to illusory correlations can be blamed on our unconscious minds. The fact so few of us challenge our unconscious minds? That's on us.

Seems the point is this: Does one give in to what is reasonably illogical (conflating the actions of a small number to the possible actions of an entire group)? Or does one sort through it all, try to reach a more logical point (where one tries to "challenge our unconscious minds" and consider the small dangers everywhere and then weigh the actual chance that such dangerous situations will occur) and finally come out the other side understanding that those fears most often need to be overcome?

The other option ("to subscribe to illusory correlations") is to respond to the fear by segregating all those things that make one nervous, uncomfortable and / or defensive -- whether or not that which causes the fear is offering any real or substantive danger. This choice results in a bunker mentality.

As the author says it's up to the individual to figure it out and make a choice.

Labeling it as "PC" -- whether done by the PC-iphile or the PC-aphobe -- is really just mental laziness.

Ninjahedge
October 26th, 2010, 10:00 AM
Bottom line is this.

When you over-categorize and label anything remotely resembling another as a common threat you stifle any kind of development and growth. You may be, in many cases, safer, but that comes at the aforementioned cost.

Think of it this way, if we had avoided fire because your third brother Ugh was burned alive after lightning struck a tree outside the two family cave in suburban Mesopotamia, we never would have had Pizza.