Shout, shout, let it all out
These are the things I can do without
Come on, I'm talking to you, come on
--Tears for Fears
I've long regarded Juan Williams among the sharpest political and social analysts in media. From the get go, he earned my respect not only with keen insight, but with a balanced perspective and a candid, respectful demanor--a rare blend these days.
Yesterday NPR fired Williams for remarks he made on O'Reilly's show Monday nite.
This is a laughably sad move by NPR, an outlet that has squandered any modicum of equity that it was building w/ me.
I saw the O'Reilly segment live Monday nite. The segment was built on a thesis floated by O'Reilly that we, with emphasis on those on the Left, have evolved a culture of 'political correctness' that has gone too far. Routinely, people are being sanctioned for saying/writing things that are factually correct yet claimed as being offensive to some group or individual.
A motivator for O'Reilly's thesis was a recent appearance he made on a Leftist TV talk show where, during a 'conversation' (which resembled more like a 4 on 1 assault) with the hosts, O'Reilly stated that 'Muslims killed us on 9/11,' whereupon one of the hosts cursed at O'Reilly and joined another in walking off the set.
O'Reilly's statement, of course, was factually accurate. But it was deemed as 'offensive' to some.
Williams agreed with O'Reilly's thesis (which may have been the key issue with Leftist overseers). During his comments, Williams noted that after what transpired on 9/11, when he's on an airplane and he sees people in Muslim garb, 'I get worried. I get nervous.'
As this is a self-reported statement of how he behaves or feels, the issue can not be that this statement is not factual or sincere. Rather, it appears that Williams' reaction to the situation--i.e., being worried or nervous when being on a plane with Muslims post 9/11--is what offends some people. His statement were factual and sincere, but not politically correct.
While some claim Williams' remarks are those of an irrational bigot, his reaction can reasonably be framed as a rational response to threat. A properly functioning human mind encodes data from dangerous situations past, and brings those memories to bear when moving thru the present. Occaisionally, the mind recognizes patterns in present situations that resemble those from past dangers. A threat is signalled.
Patterns that motivate a threat signal might include an unlit street at night, dark alleys, high crime neighborhoods, cars with tinted windows and rumbling sub woofers, and, yes, people dressed in Muslim garb on airplanes post 9/11.
I feel exactly the same as Juan.
Another word that describes this pattern recognition process is 'profiling' which, naturally, has become associated with behavior deemed...not politically correct. In fact, objections to profiling have gotten so loud that we discourage police from saying that they profile when investigating criminal activity. Riiiiight.
I certainly hope Mr Williams does not get discouraged from this turn of events and that he does not change his ways. Pls stay the course, Juan.
Meanwhile, market strength of Left leaning media outlets continues to dwindle, while Fox's market power continues to grow. Leftists remain largely clueless in explaining this phenomenon.
In markets, supply follows demand. Perhaps demand for 'politically correct' is not as strong as the Left believes...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Matt,
You know I think NPR is wrong about this, but "politically correct" is really a term that trivializes the issue. There is no doubt in my mind that what Williams said is a bigoted comment. You can decide whether bigotry is ok or not.
I don't think he should have been fired for this, but I do have to say that what he did does violate NPR's Code of Ethics.
And, as you pointed out the other day, when you agree to work somewhere, you trade some things for other things.
Personally, I thought what he went on to say about the Times Square bomber was much more problematic. I also think O'Reilly didn't give him a chance to finish (as O'Reilly often does.)
So yes, NPR is wrong on this and I think that they will pay the price. But I hesitate to make huge generalizations here. I think you run the danger of selective bias.
-k
And I'm sure you know that the 9/11 terrorists weren't wearing "Muslim garb" so I'm not sure that it is a reasonable response to anything.
Ok, one more comment. Rather than disparaging the entire news organization, I'd like for you to take note of the fact that this has been front page news on NPR.org all day long. They are covering the conservative and liberal reaction to this as well as allowing thousands of comments. How can you disparage NPR for that? I think they are living up to their integrity by covering it.
As far as noting that Fox News' market is growing, I think that's because they have tapped into a need for people to find biased commentary that fits their own world view. That's nothing to crow about.
I am going to stop soon. Also, NPR's Ombudsman has criticized the firing, saying that Williams should have been given the choice to either give up the opinion shows like O'Reilly or give up the NPR contract. I totally agree that is how it should have been handled.
Hey, knock yourself out!
Would agree w/ your last comment based on my reading of NPR policy. Problem is that he's been doing these types of appearances on Fox and other networks for years. He's actually guest hosted for O'Reilly now and then.
To the extent that doing these type of shows is against stated policy, then an ultimatum or firing should have done many moons ago.
Doing it now raises obvious questions--not least of which is management competence.
Absolutely Matt. I think this was a bad decision. No doubt. However, I caution against disparaging the entire organization.
I think Williams should have been a commentator on NPR rather than a news analyst. They are provided a much bigger leeway. I am thinking that NPR has been wanting to get rid of him for awhile and is using this as an excuse.
I'm posting a link here - the Ombudsman made the observation last year that she thinks he receives the criticism not so much for what he says, but where he says it.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/ombudsman/2009/02/juan_williams_npr_and_fox_news_1.html
Williams' reply. And info about his $2Million contract.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/10/21/130717991/after-comments-about-muslims-npr-terminates-juan-williams-contract
Little freaked out that he's claiming racism...
Claiming racism seems no more contestable than claims of bigotry coming from others.
If NPR was motivated to take action based on *where* JW spoke, then it has even larger issues to address--as JW suggests in the link you provided.
Just finished reading JWs Fox article in its entirety for the 4th time. If you haven't done so you may want to.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/10/21/juan-williams-npr-fired-truth-muslim-garb-airplane-oreilly-ellen-weiss-bush/
NPR may have created one of those probs that compounds itself...
I guess I'm curious about something then. If you say his racism = cries of bigotry, why do you seem to only speak out about the bigotry claims?
Read the whole thing Matt. Again, I have reiterated that Williams should not have been fired. However, there are several things in the article that I think are ridiculous. I watched the segment and to say that it was a "sensitive" discussion with Ham and O'Reilly actually made me laugh.
Also to say that this is a violation of free speech is hyperbole at its finest. In fact, I think Williams proved with his new $2 million contract. No one denied him free speech and I don't think you can call what he did last night journalism.
That said, there are also several things I do agree with him about. He was trying to make the point that painting all Muslims as extremists is dangerous. I think you can just as well blame O'Reilly for not letting him finish those thoughts though. Instead, he decided to attack NPR to an audience of people who are very willing to lap that up.
Really hate that he tried to lay claim to his opinion being THE TRUTH. If he said that he was firing for voicing his opinion, I'd applaud. To say that he was fired for voicing THE TRUTH makes me roll my eyes.
A contestable claim is a statement that can be challenged--it cannot be accepted as 'fact'. Both bigot and racist claims are contestable-not just here but generally.
JW stated on O'Reilly that flying on planes w/ Muslims since 9/11 makes him worried and nervous. That is not opinion. That is a self-reported statement of he feels (as he notes in the article today). How is that not the truth?
There's a difference between speaking his truth and speaking THE truth. THE truth implies that it's universal. Williams is definitely smart enough to understand the difference.
Why do people keep calling him a liberal, by the way? I've never considered him a liberal and I'm guessing you haven't either.
Post a Comment