Watched the response on FOX tonight, and found it interesting that a number of liberals were defending Juan, noting that he was expressing his own personal feeling, not encouraging others to be suspicious of Muslims. Further, the president of NPR seriously crossed the line in her statements about Juan, stating that his feelings on this topic should be shared with "his psychiatrist."

It was also noted that NPR would likely have had no problem with Juan had he remarked that he was suspicious of Tea Party members. That's obviously a subjective view, and others may not share it.

An objective fact pointed out by a number of commentators was that NPR recently accepted 1.8 million dollars from George Soros. Knowing what we know about Soros and his agenda, it's disturbing that he wishes to donate to NPR (must believe that doing so will further his agenda), and even more disturbing that NPR accepted a donation from such a blatantly partisan individual.

Our tax dollars fund NPR, obviously, and it's a disservice to American tax payers to have a publicly funded entity utilizing these funds to push a specific ideology or philosophy. I have always supported NPR until 2008, when so many its representatives seemed to actively and publicly support Obama. I used to think that the conservatives who slammed NPR frequently were over the top. Now, I'm not so sure.

The Muslim issue could be debated indefinitely with no real resolution. I was talking with a friend tonight who thoughts I agreed with. He noted his disagreement with characterizing all Muslims as terrorists, but found the lengths to which many in media go in defending them, almost searching for something about which to be reactionary, to be somewhat absurd. PC on steroids.

People of Muslim faith have been characterized by many in this country as terrorists. No doubt, that's unfair. But, the fact is they certainly are not the only group unfairly judged and criticized. Yet, rarely do other religions and groups receive the same level of protection and concern. I didn't hear anyone defending the Wiccan religion when all manner of fun was being poked at O'Donnel when she stated that she had been associated with witchcraft in the past. Liberals are every bit as prejudiced against some religions as are conservatives. They ridicule the Christian Right mercilessly, considering themselves to be intellectually superior.

I, personally, don't care if people worship jelly beans. Not my business, nor of any interest to me. But, I'm damned sick of the hypocrites on both the left and the right who consider themselves guardians of a particular group, while functioning as persecutors of another. Both are wrong.

As far as Iraq claiming Christians are killing them is concerned. Yes, I guess they could say that. I'm sure some of those who have fought in Iraq are Christians. The real issue, IMO, is that when nations are theocracies, and they do violent acts in the name of their religion or their god, it's not terribly surprising that individuals who are of that particular nationality and religion might be perceived to be accepting of the violence. Separation of church and state is an excellent concept.

We are all judged by the actions of the groups of which we are members.

While we're on the subject of Islam, I'll have to admit that I find little to defend about it. The way in which they view and treat women is deplorable and indefensible. The same can be said of some of the Fundamental Christian religious groups, as well. I find it so objectionable that anyone would be so arrogant and evil as to proclaim that their god condones, even commands subjugation of and violence toward women, that it invalidates any potentially positive things about their religion.

Regarding NPR, education is a fine goal. I don't particularly want them or anyone else to use my tax money to support any particular point of view - not even ideals most people would embrace such as multi-culturalism. It's too easy to cross the line into gray areas in which a state funded entity has no business involving itself. Just the facts, ma'm. That's all I want, and all I believe is appropriate.

NPR is majorly into "tolerance" in society.  Choice of a dress does not make one into an extremist.

Here is someone wearing a muslim garb.  Does she look scary to you?

(My garb didnt even have a shawl and I wore an all American blck leggings and red top of this kind with short sleeves). I have a real bob cut. Nothing scary!  Why would people interpret that as scary?

So, it cannot be just dress.. I certainly dont know what religion she follows. Is it then the color of her skin and hair? Wow! 

Steriotyping on the basis of dress and skin color and also religion must stop.  There are misguided people in every color, skin and cloth as we very well know from McVeigh and the priests that have given hell to children.  That does not make every priest bad, nor any cult bad as a whole.


I feel for Juan Williams at a personal level... I kind of know what he is saying and based on my own experience, I even understand what he is saying given the backdrop of experiences in this country. Frankly, I like the guy, and am surprised he made that remark about being hit with pang at the look of a dress; what a way to support O'reilly's rant on The View! It is that combination for someone who is a spokesman for a channel that promotes mutual tolerance in society that was really off. Well, he got a new expanded contract, with FOX News. So, we will see him and hear more of his views going forward.


On NPR and funding:

NPR receives no direct funding from the federal government (source: Wikipedia), but it is a nonprofit with many for profit member radio companies. 


Yes, it would be good if our taxes did not go into supporting political agendas.  A lot of nonprofits have political agenda... and almost all of them get tax dollars, and do not pay taxes on their net revenue, while enjoying major provisions for lower cost on many of their purchases and expenses, including lower price and tax exemptions.  There is a whole big gig out there. 



I think mutual tolerance in society is a good agenda to have.

Now, religions in their basic purpose to provide good moral footing so people can distinguish between right and wrong, what is hurtful or not, what is just/unjust, and its second purpose, to give a sense of meaning and closure when no explanation is possible so the mind does not go into infinite loop on questions.. those are what a religion is supposed to provide.  And, yes, who cares if someone worships jelly beans as long as they get as much from their religion.  We follow plenty of religions in this country including wiccan culture already in just another two weeks on Halloween. 

It would be good to simply get along rather than assess people's motives and intention based on their choice of dress for the day, much less their color of skin, or which book they read for finding peace in their head and heart or place of worship they go to for peace and quiet to get themselves recentered in their lives.


-- Edited by Sanders on Friday 22nd of October 2010 12:44:45 PM

NPR receives government funds through The Corporation for Public Broadcasting. This literacy grant alone is $72 million. I'm sure there is funding for other projects, but haven't researched further.

Obviously, we all are entitled to our own opinions. Our views and opinions are obviously, shaped by our own experiences. Sanders, with all due respect, I think that by "Muslim garb" Juan probably was referring to hijabs and other traditional head coverings utilized by people of Muslim faith.

As I said in an earlier post, my belief is that NPR seeks to influence public opinion to the left. My personal view is that this should not be allowed to take place in view of the fact that NPR does receive some federal funding.



The Corporation for Public Broadcasting and PBS Receive Ready To Learn Grant Funding from the U.S. Department of Education
- Grant to Provide Funding for Math and Literacy Content for Young Children -

Press Release Source: PBS On Friday October 15, 2010, 9:22 am EDT

WASHINGTON, Oct. 15 /PRNewswire/ -- The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) and PBS received notification today of a Ready to Learn grant for nearly $72 million from the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Innovation and Improvement. CPB and PBS submitted a joint application in June in response to an RFP designed to fund research, development and deployment of transmedia content to improve the math and literacy skills of children ages 2-8, especially those living in poverty.

The grant, which provides the organizations nearly $15 million annually from 2010 to 2015, will allow CPB and PBS to advance pioneering work on behalf of the next generation of children – digital natives who will use media across many technology platforms – in partnership with local PBS stations, leading children's producers, educational technologists, university and community partners and researchers. This is the fourth Ready To Learn grant received by CPB and PBS since 1995. These funds have historically been leveraged with additional financial support from CPB and PBS.


yahoo.com

rachel wrote:

---

I agree with a lot of what you say sanders, but the whole thing about tolerence is, is that we can't just tolerate views or opinons  that we are comfortable with we have to tolerate views  that we may not be comfortable with or that we feel are wrong.  If Juan had made a statement like Bill I could see it, but Juan didnt suggest that people should all have that feeling or that we should be looking out for people in muslim dress or that he was even right in feeling that way, he just stated that was the way he felt, and then his bosses comments after that certainly make it seem like they had it out for him.  He will be all right in the end, but its a shame.

---

Yes, I agree. Tolerance does require that we accept contrary views in the society.

Let me see if I can splice what might have come across as disagreeing with Juan. I don't!

• I accept that view from the PERSON in Juan Williams  [who I really like, you would not know that if you read this thread!]
• I accept that view from the person who went on FOXNews show even though he was there to be the liberal voice in that particular segment balancing against Mary Ham; it is ok for him to reinforce the Oreilly.  He was a guest on the show giving a PERSONAL perspective.
• I do not accept it from his ROLE as NPR's News Analyst.  Actually, it really reduces his credibility in that role for THAT organization because NPR's stated goal is to promote a harmoneous diverse society; in fact they looked to Juan to be a key contributor to that goal which he was doing historically.
• I feel sad for the (professional) contracting person in Juan who lost the contract with NPR and did not get a chance to go in and discuss.  NPR handled that poorly.
• I feel glad for the (professional) new expanded role of Juan in FOX News.

When any service provider's combination of skills/viewpoint/passions/(immediate and long-term) goals begin to intersect less and less with the needs/drive/goals of the organization to which they provide service, they are likely to distance themselves from that organization.  That is what happened to Juan.   It needed to be handled better by NPR.  But his role is so visible that it would have all come out into open anyway given the extent of viewing both The View and The Factor have.

• I feel sad for NPR that they have lost a great analyst who at least thus far given great service to them... and I understand that his credibility in his role got shaky
• I feel sad that the leaders of NPR did not have the spirit of INCLUSION to respect the PERSON in the Contractor in Juan to give him that in-person audience.  They are not being good exemplar organization as a modicum of society that they are working to promote. They seriously could have done better on this.
• I am struck with surprise that the CEO makes such poor statement, but accept her apology.  People do reveal more than they intend to at times, but I am glad she had and took the opportunity to apologize.
• I wish Juan had received both the opportunity to apologize/correct his viewpoint in an in-person session but I understand that the damage done to one's credibility on a show like The Factor may be too big to undo.

Ten years of sitting with FOXNewss.... It is possible that overtime Juan got a bit of the conservativism bug.


On the topic of muslims..
The real problem with the middle eastern countries is that despite their riches, they have not progressed socially and culturally; their issues compounded seriously by the harshess of their weather as well as the history of their land.  The long-term and even the near-term solution is for the U.S. society to leverage technologies (Internet) to educate the women in mddle east.  Change in the middle east necessarily will need to come from within.  And in the meanwhile, jealousy of more advanced countries, and their progress or how their women behave... is not a benefical emotion that will help the middle east in their inevitable and ongoing social change... This is what we as a country and as a society need to communicate to muslims.  Not aversion to/scare at sight of muslims/middle easterners.  Aversion or scare is the extreme reaction that will fetch us nothing in return... but it is a normal human reaction given the backdrop of the national experience. 

Beyond just tolerance...  Inclusion:
On the subject of Tolerance..  For a SUCCESSFUL DEMOCRACY, we will need to go even beyond tolerance to INCLUSION.   That means involving those with contrary viewpoint in decision-making. Getting their input. Asking for and getting their input on how best to achieve COMMON goals.  It is a tall order... It is a big challenge and it is achievable.  We as a society were closer than ever to being a successful democracy in the 1990's and have gotten into this "touch-me-not" mode which in combination with the increasing cocooning aided by the Internet, our society has become increasingly fragmented.

We just have to keep bigger goals in mind, given who we are as a country and society.  U.S. is indeed the melting pot.. and as more metals melt in the melting pot, the resulting alloy will invariably change overtime... hopefully for the better.  Our children will marry each other in the coming generations.. and there will be less and less silos hopefully... Meanwhile, I hope people learn to RESPECT each other for both HUMANNESS and alternate PERSPECTIVES/REACTIONS, and despite differences, INCLUDE each other and drive towards COMMON GOALS.  That is what success in democracy looks like - mutual respect and co-existence with shared goals, yet individuality enough to live each to their own life.  Until we get there, U.S. will remain that grand experiment in democracy... and that grand claim of democracy without commitment.


-- Edited by Sanders on Saturday 23rd of October 2010 12:55:33 AM

yes freespirit, I understand what you are saying about equal application of corporate policy by NPR. 

I sure hope NPR arbitrates their internal contract decisions by the same yardstick regardless of who it is and how much they go against the goal of the organization. That said, it is always the extent of exposure that determine the extent of damage to a person's professional role.

If they had been presented wth similar comments by Juan on a different channel with  broad audience it would have done equal damage to his credibility and effectiveness.  His statement would be out there to discredit his standing as a "fair and balanced" analyst and representer who is inclusive given NPR's stated goals.

Current heightened sensitivity is about

• muslims (their relationship to and nation's reaction to 9/11, the wars and the more recent terrorist activities within the country and the Christmas event on the plane),
• blacks (a history of oppression, history of civil war, the POTUS is 'black', and the incredibly unusually extensive unemployment blacks as a segment are facing, the perks and provisions they have in a highly competitive economy), and also
• Jews (peace efforts in progress.... given the Israel-Palestinian talks under way and the catalyst role that U.S. is playing in that).

Recently, Hearst Newspapers ended their contract with Helen Thomas immediately following her derisive remarks about Jewish people. Hearst is a for-profit corporation.

Recently, Rick Sanchez lost his employment with CNN when he belittled Jews as a minority group (that's what he did in his derisive laugh indirectly even though the immediate target was Jon Stewart and CNN management) -- and it didnt matter that Jon Stewart was not offended; Rick lost his credibility as an anchor/spokesman on a media that purports to promote equality.

I sure hope NPR treats offenses against any of these groups the same way, especially if the person has no contrition even after they are given time to think through their words.

I think he would have lost his contract with NPR in a jiffy if he said he didnt like to spend time with people who want to burn any kind of holy book - Qu'ran or bible.

Actually, if you read the written words of what he said on Oreilly, Juan's words dont sound as bad as when you hear him... It is the extent to which he really did not screen himself and all his emotions come rushing through in that unbridled comment with which he supports Oreilly's appearance on The View.  That is what happens when a person's bias spills through.  But if one is given a chance to reflect, usually, they amend their statement; he did not amend nor apologize. Fine. He is entitled to his feelings as a human being as well as to voice his views as a citizen with rights; the government cannot shut his voice as a reporter because of the freedom of the press, but a corporation can shut their contractors and employees.  It is neither First Amendment matter nor a Free Speech matter...


NPR has been historically blamed as biased towards liberals, biased towards conservatives - seems about equal. They have been blamed as biased againt Jews.  I have not seen that.. and I am an avid listener to NPR - my radio is parked on that channel most of the time, and I read them regularly.  Dont know if you came across anything that is bias on Jews. 

As to controversies of the kind that we have seen in Juan Williams case... the only other one that I read about was Andrei Codrescu  - NPR had to apologize for his insensitive statement about a segment of Christians. Thanksfully there is not a history of civil war or an ongoing war or a peace effort with that subsect, or I am sure he would have lost his job/contract also.


I always wondered about the delicate balance that Juan Williams and Mara Lliasson balanced their appearance on Fox news with their role in NPR.  when you have a public role as the one they both did on NPR, it is difficult to remove the robe of that role in a public way and voice personal opinion contrary to the goals of your public role. They have both been on constant watch for this for quite some time.  My understanding is that BOTH of them had been talked with by NPR management.  I was hoping that both would stay above the fray with their personal remarks.  But the platform in FOXNews was one ripe for personal remarks... Sunday show where they are panelists was much less so... and Mara Lliasson is on that mostly. I hope she remains on both NPR and Fox panels (I honestly feel that she serves a very good service in both roles, as did Juan) but perhaps best not to go in as guest opinionators on shows... or if they do, keep in mind that they have a public role as well in another contract.

As to the CEO of NPR... I am no longer offended by what she said as a listener of NPR who expects better from one of their people.. [but the real target was Juan and it is for him to assess her apology]. My issue with that statement was that it was not congruent with the spirit of what NPR promotes. Apologizing on that quickly and fully without reserve indeed is.  Sure, it has already undermined her credibility in her role with NPR, and it increasingly appears that the extent of that damage was also quite significant. She did cross the line of taste and tolerance in her remarks especially towards people who may be getting psychological treatment or be in need of psychological treatment. So, yes, it is possible that she has offended a much larger segment of society that I had realized.  What I don't know is if her apology made broad enough repair of the damage she caused to her professional  image vis-a-vis the stated goals of NPR as an organization, especially given that she is the CEO. So, it is for the Board of NPR to assess and handle the situation.  In the end it is NPR's credibility and the damage reduction goals that will drive any action in that regard. Yes, NPR is a corporation -- albeit non-profit -- so, technically, they can do whatever they want, but they risk is of tarnishing their brand. Image does matter especially when it has to do with something so core as the Corporate Value of Mutual Respect and Tolerance. NPR has touted commitment to providing commentary with taste and tolerance.  Although she was not providing commentary, it was offensive at a personal level and inappropriate at a professional level for a CEO and that yardstick of taste and tolerance ought to apply to the CEO in all their public appearances, especially professional, and perhaps also personal if there is any references to their professional role.


All of these taken together teaches all of us to not get on a big mic be it on TV or at a conference podium or in the downtown public square with local media interviewing us and writing articles about us if we are making statements that are orthogonal to the goals of our employers and clients. It is not very smart nor very mature to do so.  If you do, you need to be prepared to fall on the sword and take responsibility as you stand by your words.  Just how things work in all corporate life; media is no exception.


-- Edited by Sanders on Saturday 23rd of October 2010 03:16:29 AM

I just came across a good additional dialog on this on "Tell Me More" segment of NPR.  Both Prof.Watson and Prof.Nomani have valid perspectives they discuss quite rationally in this radio interview on NPR.

Read/listen to the full how at NPR at this link:

NPR Fires Juan Williams, Journalists React

(Emphasis added below)


[SNIP]

Prof. WATSON: As I understand management's position, he was fired on a basis of professional ethics. As a news analyst, he's in a position very, very closely aligned with a news reporter in the sense that his comments have to based in accord with the fundamental prime directive of journalism, which is provide the people with information they can rely on in making decisions about issues that are important. If the bearer of these messages indicates a bias, any information she or he provides really can't be relied on.

MARTIN: So you think it was a legitimate firing.

Prof. WATSON: If it was purely based on ethics, I see it as a legitimate basis for some sort of punitive or corrective action.

MARTIN: Asra, what about you?

Prof. NOMANI: Well, you know, I see Juan Williams' firing as a window into a larger problem we have in America right now in our conversation about Islam. We've seen it from this summer's coverage of the, quote, unquote, "ground zero mosque" controversy, the Quran burning story. You know, we are a nation that still doesn't know how to talk about Islam.

What I believe Juan Williams did was express, unfortunately, the position of many Americans in their distrust of Muslims. I am Muslim. My father's name has Muhammad in it. We would be profiled if we go through airports because, you know, I buy tickets at the last minute and I fall into the classic profile that you have.

But I got to tell you, when I went to Great Falls Park the other day, and I saw a woman in an full-face veil and her husband had a little leather bag that wasn't looking like a picnic basket, I felt a little nervous. And there was a park ranger behind me who clearly was on their tail.

What Juan Williams expressed, I believe, is the sentiment of many people and including Muslims. Muslims profile each other all the time. When you walk into a mosque and you see other Muslims, you say, oh look, he looks like a Jihadi. Or, that's a niqab, a woman who wears a full-face veil. It doesn't mean, you know, that we need to go to the point of civil liberties, you know, offensive or anything like that.

But Juan Williams was basically, I think, having a commentary that is very true in America today. And I believe, unfortunately, that NPR short circuited a conversation that we really need to be having.

MARTIN: Richard Prince, what do you say? Now, and you have a very detailed account, not just of this incident in your public issue, but also a broader look at Juan Williams' career on your site. So, based on that, what do you say?

Mr. PRINCE: I say that this whole incident is not just about what he said on FOX's O'Reilly show, it's the fact that I think why had become a headache that NPR didn't need anymore. This is not the first time something like this has happened. And they decided, you know, look, we're in the middle of a pledge drive for our local affiliates. People are deciding whether to give money. We don't need this.

And as John pointed out, we have distinctions between news analysts and opinion people. And as Vivian Schiller, the CEO said, Juan is not supposed to be giving opinions even - well, not on NPR - and when he does it on other networks, it reflects on us. So we don't need this. We have our other priorities. We've got a pledge drive to conduct. We have other things to talk about.

MARTIN: But where's the line, though? Where's the line? I mean my commentary is on Monday, Can I Just Tell You...

Mr. PRINCE: Yes.

MARTIN: ...I very often use the first person singular. I talk about how things strike me. You know, I don't believe I engage in sort of bigoted speech, but I do put my own views - it is labeled as commentary. But I have to say, O'Reilly's program is clearly commentary.

Mr. PRINCE: Right.

MARTIN: So, what's the line?

Mr. PRINCE: Well, your show is not - you're not in the same category as a reporter would be for NPR, who has to go out and, you know, and give the illusion of objectivity. So I wouldn't put that in the same category.

MARTIN: But why isn't he in the same category as me?

Mr. PRINCE: As Juan?

MARTIN: Yeah. Why isn't he essentially doing what I do, but full time? I mean I am conveying information. I'm inviting guests. I'm discussing their views. I'm trying to offer them platforms to do so. Why isn't he doing the same thing I'm doing, only doing it in other places?

Mr. PRINCE: Well, the last part, in other places, is very important. He's doing it on FOX News, which encourages a different kind of environment that NPR does. When, you know, when being loud and argumentative and all that is encouraged in one venue and discouraged in another, then you've got sort of a split personality and that's what caused the problem. You can't serve two masters, basically, and that's what happened in Juan's case.

MARTIN: But why can't you, as a journalist? Is it because the character of these institutions is so different? I mean I must say that NPR objects vehemently to the notion that it is a liberal outlet per se. And FOX News, you know, considers itself as we all know, fair and balanced even though I think many people believe that it has a profound right word tilt in its coverage, and certainly in its analysis and its opinion pages. But why can't a person who's an honest broker perform in any venue? Maybe John Watson, perhaps you'd like to take that question.

Prof. WATSON: I don't see a two-level distinction among people who participate in the mass media. I see news journalists, news reporters. I see news analysts and then I see commentators. Okay. And there is a separate set of ethical directives for all three. Analysts and news-based journalists pretty much follow the same ethical principles.

Commentators are different significantly because they are permitted and encouraged to show a bias or a position. Okay, so confusing a commentator with an analyst is incorrect because different ethical principles apply. As I understood it, Juan Williams was a news analyst. And as a news analyst, your bias[] if it appears publicly, is unethical. Whereas if you're a commentator, your bias is what you trade on.

MARTIN: So, how do you think race played a role in this? I mean, Juan seems to feel that he is under a particular spotlight because he's an African-American male. And I have to tell you, he's a very polarizing figure within the building and every place he's ever worked, in part because he's been extremely supportive of many of the young African-Americans. He's a very highly visible figure as an African-American. Sometimes he's the only African-American male on the air.

On the other hand, there are people who feel that he's very manipulative in these matters. I think that that's not a secret that he's a very polarizing figure. That they feel that he speaks one way in one venue and another way in another. So, what is your view of that?

Mr. PRINCE: Well, my view of that is that if there were more African-American males at NPR on the air, Juan would not have been such a big issue. But because he was the only one for such a long time, NPR's now hired another African-American male journalists, he stands out so much. And it does become - he does become an example of - a representative of African-American men. And that makes race an issue.

Continues
===================

People with opinion that then are unafraid to express invariably get viewed as polarizing.  It does not make them correct or incorrect, just opinionated and loudmouthed about it.  I think his personal nature was inconsistent with the role he was in at NPR as an analyst.  Due to the nature of the organization, NPR does not have a commentator type of role, or if they did, they should have moved Juan to such a role.

If the above is true, it wood seem that Juan and others at NPR have been stepping on each others toes for a while.  Given his, I had wonder how and why Juan's tenure lasted quite as long as it had.... and this actually answers it for me.  He was one of few or the only black 'journalist' left in at NPR for a while.   And, that tells me that NPR as an organization has a lot more problem both in recruiting and implementing policies uniformly.