Abigail Chase: "You're treasure hunters, aren't you?"
Benjamin Franklin Gates: "We're more like treasure protectors."
--National Treasure
One of the biggest ironies of the Juan Williams situation last wk is that it stemmed from a thesis floated by Bill O'Reilly that the culture of 'politically correct' has gone over the edge. O'Reilly posited that people routinely want to level sanctions on others when something is said that they don't agree with. Fear of being sanctioned is limiting freedom of speech.
Williams, who was a participant in that discussion, winds up getting canned because he said something that his employer (and likely some of the employer's resource providers) did not agree with.
Since the incident, I've heard a number of folks opine that 'politically correct is now on the run.'
Perhaps we are rediscovering the First Amendment. Which would be a positive step toward rediscovering the Constitution.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/gold/t24_au_en_usoz_2.gif)
16 comments:
You know why there's a Second Amendment? In case the government fails to follow the first one.
~Rush Limbaugh
Can I guess that those opinions all come from one television station?
I think you're falling into selective bias here.
Williams firing had nothing at all to do with freedom of speech. No where in the Constitution does it guarantee that you can exercise your freedom of speech without consequence.
Here's a person who was let go by npr a few years ago. You might find her POV interesting.
http://www.faraichideya.com/what-everyone-is-missing-about-nprs-williamsgate/
As much as you might like Williams, he was trying to live in two worlds. I still think the handling was wrong, but I don't think it was possible for him to live up to his NPR contract while appearing on a network that has a very different approach to journalism. I think it was bound to happen. Judging by his $2 million contract, I don't think NPR could compete financially.
Here's another interesting take on this issue.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2010/oct/22/usa-npr-juan-williams-first-amendment
Point is that O'Reilly's thesis that 'PC has gone over the edge' is validated when a journalist at a news organization that professes 'balance' is fired for expressing his feelings about...political correctness.
Escalation of this phenomenon is most certainly on collision course w/ 1st amendment.
My 'bias' is toward liberty. Few media outlets want to take the PC issue on. Those that do have my attention. The more aggressive, the better.
Matt, that's just not true. He was not fired for expressing his "un pc" opinion. He was fired because he repeatedly violated the terms of his contract.
There is another side to this Matt, if you choose to see it.
Here's an hour with NPRs Ombudsman on the topic.
http://www.onpointradio.org/2010/10/juan-williams-npr-news-debates
It's funny, as I'm listening to this show (link above) and Williams was actually defending what you would call "political correctness" on the O'Reilly program that night.
Few media outlets want to candidly debate the PC issue. O'Reilly and others at Fox are among the few 'market makers' for such a candid debate. That's why I was watching last Mon nite.
I happen to think this is a worthy issue, so I'm a 'buyer.'
I watched the program. There was no candid debate, Matt. It was a 12 minute segment that involved three people shouting. Every time Williams tried to make a point, O'Reilly interrupted him.
I think it's possible that you happen to agree with O'Reilly, so you watch him for affirmation. Outside of the right wing, there is no talk of Political Correctness, not because it is a big secret, but because I think a whole lot of people see it as a non-issue.
Did you hear Williams go on to say that O'Reilly needs to take responsibility for what he says so people don't go out an commit crimes because of something they hear on his show?
I can't imagine you agree with that.
I've said it before, but political correctness is a pejorative term that is only used by the right wing.
...as a wedge issue, I should add.
Here I go again.
Let's say in my blog I start talking about how I think feminism is the worst thing that's ever happened to America. Let's say I call feminists names and speculate about what they need to have done to them to shake them of their beliefs. Let's say I start talking about how women belong in the kitchen.
I work for a feminist organization. While it espouses tolerance, I would not be the slightest bit surprised if I were fired for my statements on feminism. It doesn't fit in with the goals of the organization.
If I was fired, that wouldn't be a violation of my right to free speech, despite the fact that it wasn't a direct work related incident. The fact is that people know me and know where I work and my continued employment there would be an affront to the organization's value.
That's just me suffering the consequences of exercising that right.
Your argument is grounded in private property rights which hopefully by now you know I fully respect. Indeed, an organization has a right to fire an employee who is not obeying valid policy.
As we've noted previously, however, NPR's problem is that they have not consistently enforced this policy with JW and perhaps others in the past. Doing so now implies either mgt incompetence or influential outsiders pulling the strings based on what was said in this particular case.
I believe there may even a legal case arguing in part that NPR ceded rights to enforce these policies after failure to enforce them in the past (altho I hope it doesn't go this route).
-------------
'Politically correct' can be defined as altering one's behavior so as to avoid reprisal or sanction from a group that would been 'offended' from the unaltered behavior.
O'Reilly's thesis last Mon was that our PC culture has gone too far, and that the Left in particular likes to enforce PC behavior.
And, as the orginal post behind all these comments noted, the irony is that during a debate about this PC thesis, one of the discussants said something deemed 'out of line' and gets canned by a Left leaning organization.
Chalk up a data point in the affirmative...
------------
If indeed those on the Left value PC behavior, then is that not a plausible reason why folks like you see it as a 'non-issue?' Which also helps explain why Fox alone is running w/ it...
------------
While some detest O'Reilly's style, I'm ok w/ it. Yes, sometimes he interrupts too much. There are many, many points on which I disagree w/ him. But he asks good questions and he keeps on point. Stated another way, he's not PC :-)
But who is PC Matt, and what makes them PC? If I say that a group of Muslims on a plane DOESN'T make me nervous, you can assume that I am being PC, but I may just be honest. I fear that your seeking out of PC turns into it's own orthodoxy, saying that we must blab out every little unpleasant thought on our mind in order to be authentic.
You define PC as altering your behavior out of fear of reprisal.
Isn't that what we all do every day of our lives. Are you saying that if you so desired, you should be allowed to run through the halls of your building shouting the N-word and expect that no action be taken against you?
If you listen to that interview with the Ombuds, she explains that it was a long-standing personnel issue that has been addressed with Williams on several occasions. NPR shouldn't have to explain that to me or you or anyone. That's between him and NPR. But Fox seems to have been presenting this as a single case issue.
What I see as irony is that Williams was actually suggesting that O'Reilly dial his rhetoric back. Isn't that something you'd call PC?
One more, then you're in luck because it will be time to watch The Wire.
I hope I've made is clear that I think NPR was wrong here. They may very well have management problems. I just don't buy that this is a violation of free speech, that there is a liberal media plot or that this is indicative of some sort of "leftist" plot to control what's coming out of your mouth.
When taken to extreme (which is the argument of O'Reilly et al), politically correct behavior is likely to suppress honesty and frank debate-among other things.
These are characteristics of authoritarian rather than free society.
Back once again to the original point of the missive: JW's firing can be seen as supporting this thesis.
You, of course, are free to see it any way you want.
Post a Comment