Influential U.S commentator fired for Muslim comments

[Alan]

The big controversy of the day is that award-winning and Pulitzer Prize-nominated author and journalist Juan Williams had his contract terminated by NPR (National Public Radio) yesterday, two days after he made a statement about Muslims on The O’Reilly Factor:

“Political correctness can lead to some kind of paralysis where you don’t address reality. I mean, look Bill [O'Reilly], I’m not a bigot, you know the kind of books I’ve written on the civil rights movement in this country, but when I get on a plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.”

A statement by NPR said the remarks were “inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR.”

The controversy over Williams’ first amendment rights versus our increasingly politically correct society is, to me, academic. Sure, Williams has the right to say pretty much whatever he wants. That said, NPR has the right to terminate his contract, assuming the terms of the contract allow for that sort of thing. End of story, right? Not exactly.

There’s a bigger issue here. If anyone takes the time to look at this highly accomplished guy’s body of work, I mean, it’s sort of overwhelming … this man is so not a bigot:

* He writes for the Washington Post, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Fortune, The New Republic, The Atlantic Monthly, Ebony, Time, and GQ.
* He’s received honorary doctorates from a whole bunch of universities.
* He had an extraordinary 23-year career with the Washington Post, including numerous awards for investigative journalism and opinion columns.
* He was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize.
* He received an Emmy Award for writing a television documentary.
* He’s written a number of acclaimed books, including several on the American Civil Rights movement.
* He’s been the host of several successful TV and radio programs and a regular on many others.

By his actions, including an extraordinary body of work, this man is a civil rights advocate. But one statement, an honest statement, and one that may simply have given voice to the way many Americans truly feel, seems to be more important than decades of actions.

That brings me to what I think is the big issue here. In our media-overload, gadget-crazy, sound-bite-centric culture, do words now speak louder than actions?

Assuming the answer is yes, then what effect does that have on our society’s ability to hold our political and business leaders accountable for their actions? If a lifetime of virtuous actions don’t count as much as a sound-bite, that would seem to indicate that it doesn’t matter what you do, as long as you say all the right things. What message does that send to our leaders? And what effect will it have on our children, our leaders of tomorrow?

Ironically, the first part of Williams’ controversial statement frames the situation pretty well: “Political correctness can lead to some kind of paralysis where you don’t address reality.”

What do you think? Was Williams right? And do words now speak louder than actions?

You gotta feel sorry for Juan Williams.

He gets fired from politically correct NPR for admitting a basic truth,

When he gets on airplanes and sees people dressed in Muslim garb he gets nervous.

If he said he didn't I'd know he was lying.

The human condition is such that we measure fight or flight risks all the time.

It is how we evolved as any Darwinian will tell you.

Seeing Muslims in garb on planes connects us viscerally back to 9/11 and what happened.

It is unfair and we are able to overcome it by applying rational thought to it.

But does that mean that instinctively we don't feel a momentary tension and a flashback to 9/11 when a Muslim in full garb boards a plane?

Of course not but NPR wants us to believe their perfect species of human beings would never allow such an errant thought through their perfect brains.

Bull****.

I was Irish in London in the 1970s and I remember the stares when I spoke after an IRA bomb atrocity.

Honestly I could not blame people for being a little concerned. Crazy killers were blowing up men, women and children in pubs in Birmingham and Guildford.

It was a very human reaction.

As was that of Juan Williams and everyone else I suspect.

Except the pluperfect people at NPR.

http://www.irishcentral.com/story/n...lling-the-truth-by-perfect-npr-105442328.html

No surprise to see political correctness has gone bonkers in the age of the Obamasiah :erm:

 

[manesan]

http://www.irishcentral.com/story/n...lling-the-truth-by-perfect-npr-105442328.html

No surprise to see political correctness has gone bonkers in the age of the Obamasiah :erm:

So this is Obama's fault?

 

[Vrotappel]

Political correctness can lead to some kind of paralysis where you don’t address reality.

So true. This country is a prime example.

 

[cenredash]

Not that I'm saying this isn't a good guy ... but sometimes you make a mistake ... I see Irish Central didn't add this to his bio:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Williams#Public_admission_of_verbal_harassment_of_women

 

[WilD_CaT]

In my opinion, Bush was very much in favour of using fear and "national security" to justify the "police state" measures put in place. It is not just Obama.

As whether or not he was wrong or right and thus if he should've been fired or not.

If I was to hire someone to speak on behalf of my company, I would make certain rules or guidelines to follow. After all you are representing my company. If you broke the rules I get to fire you.

Now the radio station in question is obviously got a few things to consider, does the views of Williams represent the station, its audience, does it potentially open the station up to lawsuits (It is America)... I think they just chose the safe option. Fire the guy, apoligise and you can't get sued.

Williams too had a choice, lie and keep his job, be honest and face the consequences. I don't agree with his views but good for him for being honest, even if he did get fired.

 

[JustAsk]

Just for being a token contributor to Faux should've been enough to fire him imo.

I was wondering when you'll post this.Old news now.

 

[ponder]

So this is Obama's fault?

Leave him, he's on a crusade.

 

[Fazda]

http://www.irishcentral.com/story/n...lling-the-truth-by-perfect-npr-105442328.html

No surprise to see political correctness has gone bonkers in the age of the Obamasiah :erm:

Oh for Pete's sake it has sweet stuff all to do with Obama and you bloody well know it.

We can thank the likes of Bush and his cronies for instilling as much anti Muslim paranoia as they could in the States.

 

[Guest 20221009]

So this is Obama's fault?

+1

 

[Alan]

Pre election thumping twitchyness from the faithful. It's got everything to do with the blanket of PC coming from the top. Where terrorist bombings are now "man made disasters"....

After all he banned terms like`Islam` and `jihad` from U.S. security documents.

In my opinion, Bush was very much in favour of using fear and "national security" to justify the "police state" measures put in place. It is not just Obama.

As whether or not he was wrong or right and thus if he should've been fired or not.

If I was to hire someone to speak on behalf of my company, I would make certain rules or guidelines to follow. After all you are representing my company. If you broke the rules I get to fire you.

Now the radio station in question is obviously got a few things to consider, does the views of Williams represent the station, its audience, does it potentially open the station up to lawsuits (It is America)... I think they just chose the safe option. Fire the guy, apoligise and you can't get sued.

Williams too had a choice, lie and keep his job, be honest and face the consequences. I don't agree with his views but good for him for being honest, even if he did get fired.

Problem is the station gets federal funding.

 

[Fudzy]

After all he banned terms like`Islam` and `jihad` from U.S. security documents.

For good reason.

President Barack Obama's advisers will remove religious terms such as "Islamic extremism" from the central document outlining the U.S. national security strategy and will use the rewritten document to emphasize that the United States does not view Muslim nations through the lens of terror, counterterrorism officials said.

The change is a significant shift in the National Security Strategy, a document that previously outlined the Bush Doctrine of preventative war and currently states: The struggle against militant Islamic radicalism is the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/obama-bans-terms-islam-and-jihad-from-u-s-security-document-1.909

 

[Fudzy]

Another interesting read from none other than the reliable Fox News:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...am-jihad-national-security-strategy-document/

To deliver that message, Obama's speechwriters have taken inspiration from an unlikely source: former President Ronald Reagan. Visiting communist China in 1984, Reagan spoke to Fudan University in Shanghai about education, space exploration and scientific research.

He discussed freedom and liberty. He never mentioned communism or democracy.

"They didn't look up to the U.S. because we hated communism," said Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes, Obama's foreign policy speechwriter.

Like Reagan in China, Obama in Cairo made only passing references to terrorism. Instead he focused on cooperation. He announced the United States would team up to fight polio with the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, a multinational body based in Saudi Arabia.

Didn't ever think I'd source a Fox News story... I feel dirty.

 

[Alan]

Well it's not Fox it's an AP article

Anyway what is the politically correct term for Islamic extremism?

 

[undesign]

Anyway what is the politically correct term for Islamic extremism?

Explosive convictions?

 

[grayston]

Well it's not Fox it's an AP article

Anyway what is the politically correct term for Islamic extremism?

Religious extremism, I believe. Although that would exclude extremism exercised by other terrorist groups such as ETA and the Tamil Tigers, who I believe have no religious affiliations at all but can be just as violent as Muslim terrorist groups.


EDIT: Looks like they beat the Tamils in 2009! Hurrah! Only took 26 years...

 

[Alan]

Explosive convictions?

Perhaps.

Like the Foot Hood killings. A guy named Nidal Malik Hasan goes on a rampage shouting "Allah akbar", further investigation reveals.....

Hasan attended the Dar Al-Hijrah mosque in Falls Church, Virginia, in 2001, at the same time as Nawaf al-Hazmi and Hani Hanjour, two of the hijackers in the September 11 attacks.[46][47] A law enforcement official said that the FBI will probably look into whether Hasan associated with the hijackers.[48] A review of Hasan's computer and his multiple e-mail accounts has revealed visits to websites espousing radical Islamist ideas, a senior law enforcement official said.[49]

Once, while presenting what was supposed to be a medical lecture to other psychiatrists, Hasan instead talked about Islam, and stated that non-believers would be sent to hell, decapitated, set on fire, and have burning oil poured down their throats. A Muslim psychiatrist in the audience raised his hand, and challenged Hasan's claims.[50] According to Associated Press, Hasan's lecture also "justified suicide bombings."[51]

but it's not "Islamic extremism" so what is it Fudzy?

Rather than call the attack "Islamic terrorism" or just plain "terror," the White House took a careful approach and news reporting did so as well. That all changed during the Fort Hood Memorial service Nov. 10. ABC "World News with Charles Gibson" anchor Charles Gibson said Obama was "unambiguous in judgment" about the attack, but that wasn't accurate. Obama never used the term "terror" and made no mention of Hasan's religion. But he did hint at it and that was enough for the media.

# etworks Decide Attack Wasn't Terror: 85 percent of the broadcast stories didn't mention the word "terror." ABC, CBS, and NBC evening news referenced terrorism connections to the Fort Hood attack just seven times in 48 reports.
# ABC, CBS, NBC Follow White House Line: Before Obama's Nov. 10 speech, 93 percent of the stories had ignored any terror connection. But after Obama hinted at what ABC called "Islamic extremist views," all three networks mentioned terrorism.
# Alleged Attacker's Muslim Faith Not Important Either: Slightly more than one-fourth (29 percent) of evening news reports mentioned that Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was a Muslim. Of those, half (7 out of 14) defended the religion or included experts to do so.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/caroly...muslim-connection-ft-hood-attac#ixzz13SHRWhen

 

[Fudzy]

but it's not "Islamic extremism" so what is it Fudzy?

"I did recommend that, in my judgment, it's unfortunate because of the way it's heard. We ought to avoid the language of religion," Hughes said. "Whenever they hear 'Islamic extremism, Islamic jihad, Islamic fundamentalism,' they perceive it as a sort of an attack on their faith. That's the world view Osama bin Laden wants them to have."

From the AP article. SFT, Bush made a couple of faux pas with terms like "crusades" etc.

 

[Alan]

From the AP article. SFT, Bush made a couple of faux pas with terms like "crusades" etc.

That's not an answer is it. What do you politically correct plebs call somebody like Nidal Malik Hasan?

 

[Fudzy]

He was a homicidal maniac.

 

[Alan]

Just another random common criminal then.

9/11 attackers too?

No link between them at all

Back to topic:

In New York last week everybody – and I mean everybody, not just the self-obsessed media crowd – was talking about the sacking of Juan Williams by National Public Radio. The significance of this saga seemed to encapsulate all the major points of contention in the political commentary wars which have become such a feature of American public life.

Mr Williams is an engaging, black liberal broadcaster who has been a pillar of NPR’s left-of-centre journalist tradition. In addition to the day job, he appeared regularly as a panellist on Fox News discussions, representing the left-liberal opposition to the channel’s more rightwing commentators. It is widely suspected that this established connection with Fox had something to do with the bizarre vindictiveness with which he was summarily dismissed by his bosses at NPR. Officially, Mr Williams’s sacking offence was to have declared (on a Fox News programme, as it happened) that he felt uneasy when he entered an airplane and encountered Muslims in tradtional religious dress.

That was it. He did not expand this comment into an anti-Islamic diatribe or make any hostile remarks about Muslims or their religious beliefs. But NPR felt that this was sufficient cause for terminating his employment (of many years’ standing) without further notice. Whereupon, virtually every sentient being of every political persuasion from Whoopi Goldberg on the left to Bill O’Reilly on the right, condemned NPR – whose knowledge of the constitutional right to free speech seemed surprisingly inadequate considering that it is exists by virtue of government subsidy - and Fox News immediately offered him a contract worth a reported $2 million.

So for Mr Williams, the story has had a reasonably happy ending – although he was clearly personally devastated by the sacking, believing that it cast doubt on both his character and the nature of his views. But the larger issue is one that strikes a chord here in Britain: how far should a publicly-funded broadcasting organisation such as NPR or the BBC be permitted to exercise what is nothing less than censorship in the name of what it regards as acceptable opinion? Who decides in the name of the taxpayer or the licence fee payer, what may be uttered over the airwaves? And, to put it bluntly, just how dangerous is the mindlessly smug self-righteousness which can develop in an outfit in which everybody who is hired subscribes to the same left-liberal assumptions?

In the US now, it is not only Republicans who are demanding that NPR be stripped of its subsidy, and that it be forced to find funding on the open market just as other broadcasting organisations must. Given that it has forfeited any claim to impartiality in one of the most controversial areas of public opinion, and made clear that it will not broadcast dissenting views, how can it justify its receipt of tax dollars? What makes it any different from the cable news channels (such as Fox and MSNBC) which have frank political biases?

What NPR would claim presumably is the same defence that is offered by the BBC: we do not have “biases”, we simply represent the mainstream views of what society now regards as rational and acceptable. And like the BBC, NPR is discovering that what is regarded as “rational and acceptable” inside your own self-selecting, self-satisfied club may look to the outside world like a very small spectrum of admissable opinion.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/janetdaley/100060821/us-liberal-media-stamps-on-free-expression/