# Juan Williams Fired from NPR



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Poor Bugger.

He should have said "Racist White ten gallon hat wearing Tea Party bigots make me nervous!!" 

Stick to the script next time will you?? :teacha:


----------



## DoghouseReilly (Jul 25, 2010)

So true. He has been the target of some racial remarks himself. I imagine that guy still has his job.

Link


----------



## beherethen (Jun 6, 2009)

*It is time to drop government funding for that Commie rattrap. :devil:*


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

beherethen said:


> *It is time to drop government funding for that Commie rattrap. :devil:*


You leave the U.N. out of this!!


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Well, so much for Juan William's first amendment rights! Having endured the clearly partisan comments of several of the main stream media talking heads (particularly during the last presidential election cycle) and not seeing them get slapped down for raising questions concerning their journalistic credibility, I am left to conclude this is just one of many un-touted "soft-handed" Islamic jihadi attacks against this beloved Republic of ours! The public nature of this assault against Mr. Williams is perhaps an indication of just how deeply the Islamic Extremists have infiltrated the inner workings of just one of the components of our national news media structure. Must we all fully and firmly embrace political correctness, or face termination? Who might be next? :teacha:


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> Well, so much for Juan William's first amendment rights!


To be fair, JW's speech is not impeeded by the Government which would be a 1st amendment issue.

What NPR did was unseemly, but disciplining one's employees is not a Constitutional Crisis!!

I expected more from them than acting like Whoopi or Joy.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
LOL. Indeed, and tomorrow we shall learn that the shadowy leadership of the NPR is provided by none other than "Osama Bin Hide-in!" But isn't the NPR as bound by our Constituional freedoms as we are? Those damned extremist infidels.


----------



## PatentLawyerNYC (Sep 21, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> To be fair, JW's speech is not impeeded by the Government which would be a 1st amendment issue.
> 
> What NPR did was unseemly, but disciplining one's employees is not a Constitutional Crisis!!
> 
> I expected more from them than acting like Whoopi or Joy.


I know *very* little about NPR, but it may be at least a quasi-government entity. In which case there can be a constitutional issue.

Legal issues aside, this reminds me of some folks I went to law school with: they identified themselves as "liberal" but were tolerant only of ideas with which they agreed. Manners prevent me from commenting further on that group......


----------



## ctt (Dec 24, 2008)

One academic's opinion on the constitutional issue...

https://volokh.com/2010/10/21/is-npr-bound-by-the-first-amendment-in-its-hiringfiring-decisions


----------



## JerseyJohn (Oct 26, 2007)

I'm pretty liberal (well, OK, I don't actually drive a Volvo, eat muesli or go in for aromatherapy, but I believe in evolution and accept global warming ... ) and I support NPR , but this is the kind of thing that makes us liberals look like over-politically-correct morons.

Then again, if he worked for Fox News, he'd have been fired for saying he _likes_ Muslims ... albeit a lot more quietly.:icon_smile_big:


----------



## catside (Oct 7, 2010)

Stop global whining!


----------



## jean-paul sartorial (Jul 28, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> What NPR did was unseemly, but disciplining one's employees is not a Constitutional Crisis!!


Agreed. I have never liked NPR, and their reasoning for firing Juan Williams while still retaining NIna Totenberg is completely hypocritical but let's not blow this all out of proportion.

Why do certain conservatives always have to make it like some big conspiracy is out trying to screw them out of their constitutional rights? For Pete's sake. It's your tax money. You can just vote not to fund NPR any time you want. You don't need to drag the constitution into this. Besides, it doesn't even benefit conservatives to make that argument. One of the major reasons things like NPR exist is because it's a liberal cause that conservatives are easily willing to back in exchange for certain concessions. They give Clear Channel a monopoly on frequencies so I can get innundated with Rush Limbaugh all day long under the condition that they reserve a few frequencies for non-profit broadcasting. Out of those frequencies, Trinity Broadcasting typically takes one and NPR gets another. Conservatives are not getting a raw deal out of this at all. You start complaining about NPR Federal funding, you put that whole delicate balance in question.


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

It's becoming evident that there is nothing on the face of the earth more bigoted than a Liberal. Plus, they seem to make the perfect bureaucrat.

The Juan Williams matter is one of a series of events that seem designed to "constructively infringe" our right to free expression. Not so much a 1st Amendment issue, but a social movement designed to render the 1st Amendment immaterial.

White people, particularly males, have been subject to similar sanctions for expressing opinions for years now. The Williams affair is unique in that now the Establishment has extended the control over a minority.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
Be very careful my fellow conservatives...it was just a few weeks back that we expressed our sympathies with the 9/11 survivors who were coming out in opposition to the building of an Islamic shrine near Ground Zero and, right here in "River City," we were castigated as being un-American for expressing such sympathies. Say what you will about the constitutionality of the NPR's actions against Juan Williams but, the ongoing, left-wing extremist attempts to enforce political correctness do act as infringements on free speech! :idea: Just keep in mind, in a bit less than two weeks, we will have a grand opportunity to begin administering the cure. :teacha:


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

JerseyJohn said:


> I'm pretty liberal (well, OK, I don't actually drive a Volvo, eat muesli or go in for aromatherapy, but I believe in evolution and accept global warming ... ) and I support NPR , but this is the kind of thing that makes us liberals look like over-politically-correct morons.


Speaking of the CEO of NPR, did you see the presser with her "explaining" the firing??

When describing Williams' remarks, she said "that's between him and... his psychiatrist or publicist..."

The expression is, "it's between him and his maker" or God.

But she just can't bring herself to say "God" she had to pause and self edit!!


----------



## jean-paul sartorial (Jul 28, 2010)

Give me a break. Are you really so deluded as to think it's a mere coincidence that almost every talking head on that station leans decidedly right? Oh right, Alan Colmes. You can bet that if Alan Colmes ever decided to really start acting like a liberal he'd be fired in a flash.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

jean-paul sartorial said:


> Give me a break. Are you really so deluded as to think it's a mere coincidence that almost every talking head on that station leans decidedly right?


I have to admit that O'Reilly is the only show I can stand watching on FNC.

Williams has a lot to do with that as well as regular guests and commentators that deliver opposing views. (No matter how lame!!)


----------



## DoghouseReilly (Jul 25, 2010)

beherethen said:


> *It is time to drop government funding for that Commie rattrap. :devil:*


Why does the government have a radio station, anyway?



jean-paul sartorial said:


> Give me a break. Are you really so deluded as to think it's a mere coincidence that almost every talking head on that station leans decidedly right? Oh right, Alan Colmes. You can bet that if Alan Colmes ever decided to really start acting like a liberal he'd be fired in a flash.


Huh? Alan Colmes hasn't had a full time spot on Fox News for more than a year. And when he was on, it was on an opinion show. Fox has plenty of opinion shows, but they also have actual prime-time news shows. I don't think other stations can say that. They also just hired Juan Williams to a 3 year contract and he's a liberal.

Fox provides a good counterbalance to the rest of the cable news stations. How come liberals have a problem with that? Maybe it's because the lowest performing show on Fox destroys all other shows on all other cable news stations in the ratings. It's almost sad. More Americans get their news from Fox. They trust Fox. Studies show it (I can find them if you like). Get over it.


----------



## jean-paul sartorial (Jul 28, 2010)

I don't have a problem with Fox. At least not the way you think I do. And you have me misread. I'm more-or-less a centrist and don't really feel that the government's role in the economy and various other things matters as much as people think it does, so long as the government is freely elected and representative of the people. I have my own views on various issues, of course but I don't think it's the end of the world if I get outvoted, or that anyone who feels differently must be evil or mad.

I think Beck is crazy, and O'Reilly yells too much, and I agree with very little of what Limbaugh says. So I just don't watch Fox as a matter of personal choice, which is my right just as they have a right to speak their opinion. Fox bothers me as much as say, Glee, or Two and a Half Men or Oxygen channel. It's just something on TV/Radio that I don't care for and if others do, that's fine with me. If it helps, I dislike MSNBC for much the same reasons as I dislike Fox, and I absolutely loathe NPR. 

I'm just making the point that I highly doubt Nina Totenberg or Cokie Roberts are going to be hosting Fox shows any time soon. Fox has every right not to hire them or if hired, to fire them based on their opinions which are not in line with their conservative audience or their own agenda. And so does NPR. Fox is not "fair and balanced" by a long shot. They are conservative. WSJ also conservative, but less so. NYT, NPR, and Washington Post are liberal. I have no problem with any of theses stations either intentionally or unintentionally having a political viewpoint, but let's be upfront. It's not a constitutional crisis if Spike TV fires someone for trying to show "Sisterhood of the Travelling Pants," it's not a crisis if Fox won't hire Nina Totenberg, and it's not a constitutional crisis if NPR fires Williams. 

What bothers me about conservatives right now is not their viewpoint (as I am somewhat conservative myself, at least fiscally), but more their mood. Fox is a media outlet, and Fox is #1. So how can the media be left-wing? You can hear Beck et al. in any major media market in the country, or you can go to a Tea Party rally, or you can read The Washington Times, or you can go to any number of conservative websites, or you can go to Yahoo! and leave a comment about how much you hate liberals so everyone can read it. So where is the censorship of conservative political viewpoints? People are allowed to disagree with you vehemently, even to personally dislike you. They are allowed to criticise you and write angry letters trying to get your show taken off the air or whatever. That's what they are supposed to do. It's not censorship. 

Conservatives are nowhere near as picked upon or cheated as they'd like to believe. They lost the election fair and square. After having the political upper-hand for quite some time (and bungling it fairly badly, at least politically). You would think that would be good news. You can fix things. Get out and vote for some people with plans and smarts and who will work hard. Don't vote for some idiot that tells you that you are cheated out of jobs because of illegal immigrants, that you are entitled to your Social Security and Medicare (it's funny, didn't that used to be what conservatives loathed about liberals?), and that the only reason the budget isn't balanced and the economy isn't great is because some evil conspiracy to screw you over. Take personal responsibility and seize control. Remember when conservatives stood for that? It's a shame that many of the people who will lose office are not the awful liberal monsters, but rather the more moderate and sensible Democrats and quite a few less-radical Republicans.

Too many conservatives are telling people the only reason they don't have the world on a plate is because the evil left is trying to personally screw them.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

jean-paul sartorial said:


> I don't have a problem with Fox. At least not the way you think I do. And you have me misread. I'm more-or-less a centrist and don't really feel that the government's role in the economy and various other things matters as much as people think it does, so long as the government is freely elected and representative of the people. I have my own views on various issues, of course but I don't think it's the end of the world if I get outvoted, or that anyone who feels differently must be evil or mad.
> 
> I think Beck is crazy, and O'Reilly yells too much, and I agree with very little of what Limbaugh says. So I just don't watch Fox as a matter of personal choice, which is my right just as they have a right to speak their opinion. Fox bothers me as much as say, Glee, or Two and a Half Men or Oxygen channel. It's just something on TV/Radio that I don't care for and if others do, that's fine with me. If it helps, I dislike MSNBC for much the same reasons as I dislike Fox, and I absolutely loathe NPR.
> 
> ...


I agree that NPR has every right to fire someone because they do not toe its lefty pc line. But that is not what it said it did. It offered up two hilariously phony pretense instead. Fox seems to tolerate Williams just fine, even though he is lefty rather than righty. Interesting contrast there.


----------



## jean-paul sartorial (Jul 28, 2010)

Yeah, absolutely. NPR's excuse was laughable, especially given some of the things Nina Totenberg has said. They have lost a ton of credibility, and rightly so. 

As for Fox hiring Williams, I don't see them as "tolerating" a liberal view so much as getting a golden opportunity to stick it to NPR. They would be idiots not to take advantage.

Williams has become increasingly conservative over the years, which is one reason NPR had been trying to shove him out the door even before this. However, he has in the past taken stances that are definitely at odds with the views typically espoused on Fox. It will be interesting to see if continues to do so, but I'd lay the odds of that happening at 1 in 100.


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

National Propaganda Radio's timing couldn't be worse.

Our local public radio station was in the middle of the first week of the Fall fund drive and it's now been hit by a boycott.

The station manager sent our a plaintive email with all the usual nonsense about the station actually having a diversity of views, etc., that NPR actually has high standards, blah, blah, blah. 

I have a feeling that's the end of their fund drive unless they drop all NPR programming from the station.

One of my friends is on the board, and I told her years ago I refused to listen to the station because of all the propaganda (and poor quality of classical music as a second reason--they spend all their money on NPR programming). 

I'd rather listen to KDFC San Francisco on my computer. KDFC.com . Great classical music and none of the leftist ideological nonsense.


----------



## jean-paul sartorial (Jul 28, 2010)

But KDFC is well-known for refusing political and even non-political advertising if they don't agree with it. For example they refused paid ads for a gay dating service and anti-Proposition 8 ads while running ads for heterosexual dating services and pro-Proposition 8 ads.

As a private commercial station, it's their right to do that, and your right to listen to and support what you wish. Given the religious beliefs of the owners, I completely understand and support their desire to run a station in accordance to their ethical beliefs.

Still, what you're really saying is you object to left wing propaganda and don't object to right wing propaganda.


----------



## beherethen (Jun 6, 2009)

The only time I *ever* listen to NPR, is if the cab driver (usually someone from the third world.) has it on. I then make it a point to give the exact change with no tip. If the total is $15.90, I'll give him $16 and wait for the dime change.
It annoys me to no end that our government is spending tax dollars on this crap.:devil:


----------



## Gnslngr (Dec 2, 2008)

In 1986, Juan Williams participated in a forum in The New Republic regarding a column by The Washington Post's Richard Cohen, who had justified the practice of D.C. jewelry store owners who would "admit customers only through a buzzer system, and some store owners would use this system to exclude young black males on the grounds that these people are most likely to commit a robbery". Defending this race-based exclusion, Cohen argued that "young black males commit an inordinate amount of urban crime," and that "black potential victims as well as white ones often act on this awareness, and that under certain circumstances, the mere recognition of race as a factor . . . is not in itself racism."

Responding to Cohen's argument, Williams said: "In this situation and all others, common sense in my constant guard. *Common sense becomes racism when skin color becomes a formula for figuring out who is a danger to me.*"

This needs not commentary - Juan makes my point quite nicely.


----------



## jean-paul sartorial (Jul 28, 2010)

Williams' comments could easily be interpreted as perhaps more ill-advised than bigoted. And really it's the interview as a whole rather than the remark about muslim garb on a plane that make it seem so pointed.

Religion is a choice, and race is not. And religoius dress is yet another choice. Moreover, your personal reactions to situations need not be consistent with your policy viewpoints. He just said that flying in a plane full of people in muslim garb makes him nervous, not that muslims should be kicked off planes. It's an irrational fear, but many fears are. It sounds like at times he tried (poorly) to draw the line between what he was saying and O'Reilly's thoughts.

Unfortunately, all some of that subtletly was lost (as such things usual are) in all the yelling and interrupting that O'Reilly does. Plus, the knee jerk reactions of conservatives and liberals everywhere. But then again, Williams does this for a living and should have known this would happen, so either he was trying to be sly and get away with it or he is amazingly clueless. 

But anyway, the point to me is why should Williams' words carry any weight in the first place? If he were speaking on a policy issue he had researched or giving some kind of "Insider" view of Washington, then perhaps he has qualifications we don't. But you don't need him to form an opinion on whether muslims are good or bad. 

It reminds of me when Christopher Hitchens first made the rounds. He'd go on the conservative shows and talk bad about islam and this was seen as a huge coup for conservatives because here was this "liberal" who agreed with them. But after doing this for some time, he eventually stopped getting painted as a liberal and instead became lumped in with the neo-cons. Then he went on some liberal shows and talked bad about christianity and that was a coup because here was this neo-con talking bad about the christian right.

The truth is that Hitchens is strongly opposed (bigoted really) against organized religion of any kind, and he likes money. He will happily appear on whatever show you wish to insult whatever religion you wish. I don't know why anyone would take either him or the shows that have him seriously.


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

You mean KDFC's policy of only having family-appropriate advertising is now right-wing? I didn't realize listen to ads about buying pianos and taking German lessons was so controversial.


----------



## jean-paul sartorial (Jul 28, 2010)

I have a hard time understanding why pro-Proposition 8 ads are acceptable for young children but anti-Proposition 8 ads are not. Either way, you're discussing gay marriage.


----------



## Saltydog (Nov 3, 2007)

Gnslngr said:


> In 1986, Juan Williams participated in a forum in The New Republic regarding a column by The Washington Post's Richard Cohen, who had justified the practice of D.C. jewelry store owners who would "admit customers only through a buzzer system, and some store owners would use this system to exclude young black males on the grounds that these people are most likely to commit a robbery". Defending this race-based exclusion, Cohen argued that "young black males commit an inordinate amount of urban crime," and that "black potential victims as well as white ones often act on this awareness, and that under certain circumstances, the mere recognition of race as a factor . . . is not in itself racism."
> 
> Responding to Cohen's argument, Williams said: "In this situation and all others, common sense in my constant guard. *Common sense becomes racism when skin color becomes a formula for figuring out who is a danger to me.*"
> 
> This needs not commentary - Juan makes my point quite nicely.


And Jesse Jackson famously opined that he had to admit when he was walking alone down a dark street and heard footsteps behind him, he was relieved when he saw that they belonged to white people instead of young black men. This in a discussion about how statistically/proportionally more crimes were committed by young African-American men than whites. Would anyone then accuse Rev. Jackson of being a racist toward blacks? I think not. It would seem that the instinct for self preservation is stronger than the instinct for political correctness. If that is a crime--then most of the human race is guilty.


----------



## Gnslngr (Dec 2, 2008)

Saltydog said:


> And Jesse Jackson famously opined that he had to admit when he was walking alone down a dark street and heard footsteps behind him, he was relieved when he saw that they belonged to white people instead of young black men. This in a discussion about how statistically/proportionally more crimes were committed by young African-American men than whites. Would anyone then accuse Rev. Jackson of being a racist toward blacks? I think not. It would seem that the instinct for self preservation is stronger than the instinct for political correctness. If that is a crime--then most of the human race is guilty.


That each of us generalizes about people unlike us is not news. That a news analyst publicly admits to bigotry (isn't judgement based solely upon appearance nothing more than bias and bigotry?) when he has previously called such judgement racism is abhorrent. Mr. Williams has no place in a serious news organization.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

What a hilarious thread. Good to see the days of a bunch of guys standing in a circle, patting each other on the back and agreeing with each other isnt completely dead out here.

The first amendment has NOTHING to do with this issue. Juan Williams (or any of us for that matter) is employed at the pleasure of his company....and they can fire him for almost any reason. Come on, you free market - small government guys know should know this better than anyone. 

As for the republican party getting their panties in a bunch....NPR gets 2% of their operating budget from the government. I am sure they will survive just fine without it. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Gnslngr said:


> That each of us generalizes about people unlike us is not news. That a news analyst publicly admits to bigotry (isn't judgement based solely upon appearance nothing more than bias and bigotry?) when he has previously called such judgement racism is abhorrent. *Mr. Williams has no place in a serious news organization.*


Yea to that. And what was really pewkable was the night following Williams' firing when O'Reilly ducked under his desk so Williams could actually _host the entire show_, talk incessantly about his NPR axing and, I kid you not, actually mouth all the O'Reilly trade marks: _the spin stops here, we're looking out for you, etc._. NPR must have suspected he was a Foxee all along and pounced on the Muslim Snakes On A Plane thing to finally blow his ass out of there. Juan. Gone. So long. (And you, Gnslngr, post more.)


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Liberty Ship said:


> It's becoming evident that there is nothing on the face of the earth more bigoted than a Liberal.


"YOU ARE BIGOTS FOR CALLING US BIGOTS." How many times have I heard this before?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

I just hope Juan can now afford some decent jackets that aren't overpadded and protrude 6 inches or so past his shoulders!!


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Mike Petrik said:


> I agree that NPR has every right to fire someone because they do not toe its lefty pc line. But that is not what it said it did. It offered up two hilariously phony pretense instead. Fox seems to tolerate Williams just fine, even though he is lefty rather than righty. Interesting contrast there.


 If you believe Williams is "lefty" you've fallen for the scam. It's the same scam that claims Eleanor Clift represents the "left" on the McLaughlin Group, or Alan Colmes is something other than a lobotomy patient. They're perfect examples of how utterly, pathetically marginalized political debate has been intentionally made in our country. Even AP now is nothing more than a corporate tool.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

The only people who think that Williams is not a liberal are those so far left that they think Obama is a moderate.


----------



## jean-paul sartorial (Jul 28, 2010)

If he's a liberal on Fox News does it somehow make his opinion more valid? Or shouldn't it be LESS valid since he's a liberal and they are all full of crap?

Or maybe we should focus on the message and not the messenger... in which case Fox hardly needs to pay Williams to deliver the same message that's already being delivered by every other Fox talking head.

Not a single person is going to change their minds about terrorism based on what Williams said. They're either going to feel vindicated or get outraged or both at once, based on views they already had. That's how these shows get ratings. And in this case it looks like everyone's going to end up a winner.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Mike Petrik said:


> The only people who think that Williams is not a liberal are those so far left that they think Obama is a moderate.


So far Obama has proven to be a Carter-esque wimp who's far more interested in trying to appease the unappeasable than leading our country. Hopefully, if Dems hold Congress, they'll finally grow a pair after the midterm elections.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> So far Obama has proven to be a Carter-esque wimp who's far more interested in trying to appease the unappeasable than leading our country. Hopefully, if Dems hold Congress, they'll finally grow a pair after the midterm elections.


Yes, he is all of that and a liberal too. And if you think the Dems have any chance at all of holding Congress, you are even more out of touch than I thought.


----------



## catside (Oct 7, 2010)

Mike Petrik said:


> The only people who think that Williams is not a liberal are those so far left that they think Obama is a moderate.


Yes he is! And wears one size big, what's with that?


----------



## catside (Oct 7, 2010)

FrankDC said:


> So far Obama has proven to be a Carter-esque wimp who's far more interested in trying to appease the unappeasable than leading our country.


Yes he is, and wears one size big, what's with that?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Mike Petrik said:


> Yes, he is all of that and a liberal too. And if you think the Dems have any chance at all of holding Congress, you are even more out of touch than I thought.


As of right now the senate looks secure for the D's. Personally I hope the Republicans get the house back, at least Obama will have something to play his windbag off of.


----------



## Andy (Aug 25, 2002)

You can give NPR a piece of your mind as I just did here:

https://help.npr.org/npr/includes/customer/npr/custforms/contactus.aspx


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Andy said:


> You can give NPR a piece of your mind as I just did here:
> 
> https://help.npr.org/npr/includes/customer/npr/custforms/contactus.aspx


I couldn't access the link, but I hope you also gave JW's taylor a lashing for their crimes aginst a natural shoulder!!


----------



## Andy (Aug 25, 2002)

I got this resonse to my message:

Dear Andy,

Over the past few days, we've been hearing from many listeners and others about our decision to end Juan Williams' contract. Convictions about whether the decision was right or wrong are strongly held. We hear both views and respect your perspective.

Juan Williams' comments on Fox News on October 18 were the latest in a series of deeply troubling incidents over several years. In each of those instances, he was contacted and the incident was discussed with him. He was explicitly and repeatedly asked to respect NPR's standards and to avoid expressing strong personal opinions on controversial subjects in public settings, as that is inconsistent with his role as an NPR news analyst. After this latest incident, we felt compelled to act. Reasonable people can and do disagree about the timing: whether NPR should have ended our relationship with Juan earlier, on the occasion of other incidents; or whether this final episode warranted immediate termination of his contract.

We stand by this decision. At the same time, we deeply regret the process that followed it - including not meeting with Juan Williams in person. NPR President and CEO Vivian Schiller has taken personal responsibility for the way the termination of his contract was handled.

Some listeners have also asked for more details about our funding. You can find a detailed overview of our funding on our website in our "About" section: https://www.npr.org/about/aboutnpr/ NPR, Inc. has received no direct operating support from the federal government since 1983, though about 2% of our annual budget typically comes from competitive grants that are federally funded. 

I recognize that this decision has sparked a strong debate in the blogosphere and elsewhere, and that you have a firm position on the matter. While we stand by our decision, we also regret that we were compelled to take the actions that we did.

Sincerely

Dana Davis Rehm

Senior Vice President, Marketing, Communications, and External Relations​


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Andy said:


> NPR's standards


Link~
*III. Statement of principles*
Our coverage must be fair, unbiased, accurate, complete and honest. At NPR we are expected to conduct ourselves in a manner that leaves no question about our independence and fairness. We must treat the people we cover and our audience with respect.
"Fair" means that we present all important views on a subject. This range of views may be encompassed in a single story on a controversial topic, or it may play out over a body of coverage or series of commentaries. But at all times the commitment to presenting all important views must be conscious and affirmative, and it must be timely if it is being accomplished over the course of more than one story. We also assure that every possible effort is made to reach an individual (or a spokesperson for an entity) that is the subject of criticism, unfavorable allegations or other negative assertions in a story in order to allow them to respond to those assertions.
"Unbiased" means that we separate our personal opinions - such as an individual's religious beliefs or political ideology - from the subjects we are covering. We do not approach any coverage with overt or hidden agendas.

BBBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAhhahahahhahhahaha!!

Oh Brother!!

That's rich!!

BTW~No word on JW's wardrobe??


----------



## Saltydog (Nov 3, 2007)

Welcome my friends to the show that never ends!!!!!


----------



## chamjoe (Oct 26, 2009)

this will all be forgotten in two weeks.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
Perhaps but, that is exactly why travesties such as this most recent one committed by NPR, will continue to occur!


----------



## Bermuda (Aug 16, 2009)

NPR wanted Williams gone because he appears on FOX NEWS.....so they made this their reason for firing him


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Who cares. He got a promotion and a raise from Fox....all is well with Juan. Now he can let his racist BS rip whenever he feels like getting a little bump in salary.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
The comments that got Juan fired were not racist, in the slightest degree. You sir, are simply propagating a myth! I can think of several Afghan villages in which, today, you would not consider walking down even the middle of 'Main Street" at high noon and with all sorts of witnesses present, due to the threat you perceived from the indigenous population! Does that make you a racist or just a prudent traveler, aware of their surroundings...you know sort of like to what Juan was referring?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> I can think of several Afghan villages in which, today, you would not consider walking down even the middle of 'Main Street" at high noon and with all sorts of witnesses present, due to the threat you perceived from the indigenous population!


Even I think that analogy needs honing!!

But what of Gwen Ifill of PBS gushing all over Obama in '08??

Perhaps PBS has different "journalistic standards" than NPR??

From post 46~

*III. Statement of principles*
Our coverage must be fair, unbiased, accurate, complete and honest. At NPR we are expected to conduct ourselves in a manner that leaves no question about our independence and fairness. We must treat the people we cover and our audience with respect.
"Fair" means that we present all important views on a subject. This range of views may be encompassed in a single story on a controversial topic, or it may play out over a body of coverage or series of commentaries. But at all times the commitment to presenting all important views must be conscious and affirmative, and it must be timely if it is being accomplished over the course of more than one story. We also assure that every possible effort is made to reach an individual (or a spokesperson for an entity) that is the subject of criticism, unfavorable allegations or other negative assertions in a story in order to allow them to respond to those assertions.
"Unbiased" means that we separate our personal opinions - such as an individual's religious beliefs or political ideology - from the subjects we are covering. We do not approach any coverage with overt or hidden agendas.

I'd like to read her book; The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama 
after it's all over.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^


WouldaShoulda said:


> Even I think that analogy needs honing!!


LOL. Well...not really. Juan Williams opined that when boarding an aircraft and seeing Muslims in traditional Arabic garb, he felt a bit nervous. I merely suggested that if mrkleen were strolling through a typical Afghan village. knowing what he does about the present political climate in that country, he might understandably be feeling a bit uneasy as he observed villagers, wearing garb not significantly unlike that worn by Taliban fighters, find himself offering an observational opinion not unlike that offered by Mr Williams. Our opinions are generally formed from our past learning/experiences!


----------

