PC Monitor

We tried to speak between lines of oration
You could only repeat what we told you
Your axe belongs to a dying nation
They don't know that we own you
--The Who

Interesting interview with Juan Williams on the Diane Rehm show today which, of course, is an NPR program.

During the first half of the program, Williams largely fielded questions about the situation surrounding his firing. During the second half of the program, the discussion veered inward toward NPR issues in the wake of things. This segment a bit less objective to me and, at one point, it seemed like Diane Rehm was trying to facilitate a peace treaty between Williams and NPR management. Juan didn't seem receptive.

When the story first broke last week I noted that Williams' candor had previously made a mark w/ me. Since then, his demeanor continues to impress. Not sure I could maintain clarity of mind and consistency like he has over the past week. I certainly do not agree with him on lots of issues, but the way he conducts himself is admirable from my perspective.

Since I have probably heard him recount the situation at least a half dozen times over the past week, many of the remarks he made on today's radio program were 'repeats.' However, a few nuggets of newness were unearthed during the interview.

At ~10 mins, Ms Rehm challenged Williams over a comment he made back in 1986 regarding a situation where black shoppers were excluded from entering a jewelry store on the grounds that they deemd likely to commit robbery. Williams said at the time that "common sense becomes racism when skin color becomes a formula when figuring out who is the danger to me."  Rehm asked whether the same line of thought can be applied to 'Muslim garb.'  Williams said yes, but that it is important to separate the feeling from the action.

When, for example, an individual encounters people perceived as linked to a demographic with a history of crime (his examples included being followed by a group of young black men dressed thuggishly, or a group of skin heads), then it is human nature to feel threatened. (As noted previously, the process of pattern recognition that helps discern conditions of threat is oten referred to as 'profiling.') Such feelings, as Williams noted, surface as "matter of being aware of your environment."

However, such feelings should not be the basis for pre-emptive action against the profiled group (e.g., prohibiting Muslims from boarding plances, extra security checks, etc.). Profiling and subsequent feelings are human nature, perhaps even instinctive. But action is a choice, totally within our control.

During the listener Q&A, there was a question from a journalism student (~ 35 mins) asking whether journalists could operate in an truly unbiased manner. Williams said no, that we all have biases that influence us, and that credibility would actually be enhanced if an audience understood exactly how a journalist thinks if it is pertinent to the discussion at hand.

His comment reminded me that Minyanville has a policy that requires contributors to disclose any positions that they have in securities discuss in a missive. This policy helps readers separate valuable insight from someone who is 'talking his/her book.' Similarly, it seems that Williams is suggesting that a journalist who operates in a manner that makes it easy for the audience to understand his/her biases is more trustworthy, and less likely to deceive someone when talking his/her book.

Finally, just before the end (~50 min), Diane Rehm asked whether we've reached a point of political correctness in this country that's no longer tolerable. This was, of course, exactly the issue that O'Reilly raised last Mon nite.

Williams responded that if it becomes difficult to see reality and not raise issues out of fear of offending someone, then it is difficult to have honest discussions about important issues. "I don't think that's healthy," he said. "I don't think that's American. I don't think that's in keeping with the idea of, again, allowing all sides an ability to speak."

One of my largest personal biases is an unshakeable belief in liberty and the value of a free society. That bias certainly attracted me toward O'Reilly's topic last Mon and has kept me following ensuing events with interest. In the paragraph above, Juan Williams articulates the linkage between political correctness and freedom much better than me.

In general form, the proposition might read: Taken to extremes, politically correct behavior reduces honesty and willingness to face hard issues, which over time leads to a less free society.