Political Correctness, GOP-Style
When Juan Williams was ousted from NPR for (select one or both): a)speaking out of turn about Muslims; b)violating, repeatedly, NPR policy discouraging opinionated punditry on other news outlets, he responded, in part
Political correctness can lead to some kind of paralyses where you don't address reality.
When Rush Limbaugh, using the phrase itself, defended himself against criticism of his criticism of Rahm Emanuel's use of the phrase "f------ retarded," he contended
You know, they're the PC Police, and they hammer us outta office. They drive us out of our careers when we violate their speech codes.
When the rightist Conservapedia, which finds the fact-based Wikipedia too liberal, defined "political correctness," it noted
Political correctness or P.C. also means the alteration of ones choice of words in order to avoid either offending a group of people or reinforcing a stereotype considered to be disadvantageous to the group.
Notwithstanding the origin of the concept of political correctness in resistance to literature dominated by dead, white European males (DWEM), so much of the outrage toward political correctness is focused language. And so much of the right, which is mostly, though not exclusively, exorcised over "pc," use it as a lazy shorthand for "liberalism."
On a seemingly unrelated issue, Shahien Nasiripour writes in The Huffington Post:
The four Republicans appointed to the commission investigating the root causes of the financial crisis plan to bypass the bipartisan panel and release their own report Wednesday, according to people familiar with the commission's work.
The Republicans, led by the commission's vice chairman, former congressman and chair of the House Ways and Means Committee Bill Thomas, will likely focus their report on the explosive growth of subprime mortgages and the heavy role played by the federal government in pushing mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to purchase and insure them. They'll also likely focus on the Community Reinvestment Act, a 1977 law that encourages banks to lend to underserved communities, these people said.
The Republicans' report is expected to conclude that government policy helped inflate the housing bubble and that prices weren't expected to crash because the government pushed homeownership so aggressively. They say that the report will note that once the bubble burst, a financial panic followed because firms weren't adequately prepared.
Frustrated in part by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission's chairman, Phil Angelides, and the tenor of the panel's preliminary findings, the Republicans are choosing to ignore the five Democrats and lone independent and issue their document ahead of the commission's Jan. 15 release. Angelides is described as a demanding boss who's said to be difficult to work for. Both Thomas and Angelides pledged in January that they'd strive to reach bipartisan consensus.
The Republicans' move indicates that the highly-partisan nature of Washington has infiltrated the commission's work and threatens to derail it. With four commissioners now essentially going around the panel to describe their thoughts on the roots of the financial crisis, the public may not get the full picture when it comes to understanding how the actions of a few led to the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.
Instead, the public will receive a report that could be discredited as being partisan, and another that is expected to largely conform with a Wall Street-friendly view that blames government for the crisis.
And how best to pretend that it wasn't behemoth financial institutions which almost brought this country to its knees?
During a private commission meeting last week, all four Republicans voted in favor of banning the phrases "Wall Street" and "shadow banking" and the words "interconnection" and "deregulation" from the panel's final report, according to a person familiar with the matter and confirmed by Brooksley E. Born, one of the six commissioners who voted against the proposal.
Banish the words and phrases that are uncomfortable and voila! the problem vanishes. History vanishes. Reality vanishes. And with it, the interests of the middle class. Nasiripour explains:
The shadow banking system refers to the part of the financial system in which investors and other nonbanks like hedge funds and investment firms provide credit to borrowers, as opposed to more traditional banks. Interconnection refers to the links that bind financial institutions to one another, like derivatives, borrowings, and investments.
"I certainly felt, and I think the majority of the commission felt, that deleting those phrases would impair the commissioners' ability to give a full and fair and understandable report to the American people about the causes of the financial crisis," Born said.
"Certainly, it's hard to imagine Wall Street wasn't involved," she added.
Yea, kind of. It is perplexing, though: just as Republicans on the Hill were demonstrating that nothing- nothing- can come between them and tax cuts for the rich, we get mixed signals. If tax cuts come first, surely omnipotent corporations are nipping on their heels as beneficiaries of GOP dogma. Pharmaceutical companies, oil and gas firms, international bankers- does it matter? Where the wealthy and the powerful are, there the GOP is.
Showing posts with label Juan Williams. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Juan Williams. Show all posts
Friday, December 17, 2010
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Juan Williams Fired- Your Free Market At Work
Alex Pareene in Salon wrote in August
This is my favorite kind of Corner post. The ones that incoherently blame some private company or industry's (exaggerated or even imagined) idiocies on, somehow, liberals, political correctness, the gub'mint, etc.
He links to a post on National Review Online in which John Hood panned KFC for pushing grilled chicken and sandwiches based on, in the company's words, "extensive consumer research." "In both the public and private sectors," Hood argues, "far too many decisions are made on the basis of silly fads, partial glimpses of nebulous trends, a temptation to placate powerful interest groups, or a pathetic desire to be seen as enlightened." Unsurprisingly, he slams government and excuses the private sector in which, "subjected to the rigors of competition, these firms tend to pay the price over time and adjust their behavior accordingly. In the public sector, however, politicians don’t have to worry as much about losing ground to competitors. Their absurdities persist. Their pretensions multiply."
Ah, the rationalization of the right. Last year, multi-millionaire National Football League owners persuaded their parent company, the NFL, to reject Rush Limbaugh's bid to become part-owner of one of their divisions, the St. Louis Rams. Having previously made a racially polarizing statement, Limbaugh's involvement would, they believed, itself become divisive and eventually hurt their bottom line. True to form, Rush blamed rejection on the corporatist conservatives' favorite boogeymen: unions, black activists, the mainstream media, and Barack Obama. Surely, the private sector could not have done this to him (or to anyone of merit).
One year after Limbaugh is rejected by the multi-billion dollar National Football League and two months after National Review simultaneously condemns sensitivity and excuses it because it isn't government, Juan Williams is sacked by NPR. Mike Huckabee comments
While I have often enjoyed appearing on NPR programs and have been treated fairly and objectively, I will no longer accept interview requests from NPR as long as they are going to practice a form of censorship, and since NPR is funded with public funds, it IS a form of censorship. It is time for the taxpayers to start making cuts to federal spending, and I encourage the new Congress to start with NPR.
Obviously, Mike Huckabee wouldn't recognize censorship (prior restraint) if it smacked him in the face. But you would almost think that NPR (which changed its name from National Public Radio for a reason) is a government agency. Its funding, however, suggests otherwise, as the pie chart (from NPR) below indicates.
Good luck understanding this illustration. Tracing the source of NPR funding is fairly complicated. Although it receives no direct funding from the federal government, NPR's local stations, as blogger Andrew Phelps of Boston public radio explains
receive some funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, a taxpayer-funded, nonprofit, private corporation, created by Congress in 1967. (Think of it like the Red Cross.)
NPR does receive grants from CPB for special projects, but that funding is not included as part of the network’s operations budget.
According to The New York Times
Taxpayer money goes to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which apportions money for local radio and television stations across the country.
NPR gets no direct money from the federal government for its $161.8 million annual budget. It does receive some dedicated grants from Corporation for Public Broadcasting for projects like covering the country’s economic crisis; in fiscal years 2009 and 2010 combined, those grants totaled just over $5.2 million. NPR also gets occasional grants from from sources financed by the federal government. In all, NPR said those grants accounted for 1 to 2 percent of its income on average.
The biggest portion — about 41 percent in recent years — of NPR’s revenue comes from member station programming fees and dues. Those stations themselves receive $90 million in federal funds each year. On average, that accounts for about 10 percent of the stations’ income, according to NPR.
The remainder of NPR’s revenue comes from sponsors and, to a lesser extent, foundations, non-federal grants and investments.
But arguing that NPR's reliance on the federal government is understated, the conservative blog NewsBusters argues that the federal government finances 6-8% of the NPR budget. Thus, in defending elimation of federal funding, a right-wing site estimates that Washington's contribution may be as high as.... 8%!
Presumably, then, NPR relies on the federal government for something between 2% and 8% (inclusive) of its funding. The response of Mike Huckabee, as well as Jim DeMint and some other congressional Republicans, is to eliminate this huge source of income which, their supporters are to believe, will cut government broadcasting (which it is not) off at its knees (which it won't). The con is on.
But the more significant myth is the one highlighted by the KFC and the Limbaugh affairs. An angle that has received far less attention than it merits was discussed by Chris Matthews and Eugene Robinson on Friday's Hardball:
MATTHEWS: Is it because there are people call in who are liberals, liberal constituents of NPR, who complain, How dare you have your guy playing ball with those people?
ROBINSON: It could be that. They say that he`s supposed to be a political analyst, that he does, you know, commentary and goes off the reservation when he`s on Fox. They`re uncomfortable with that. You know, who knows?
Consider, then, the possiblity that listeners of NPR, who also provide much of the station's funding and generally are left-of-center, have been increasingly displeased about Juan Williams. As the station became increasingly dissatisfied with Williams' dual role, so did many of their these listener/contributors, who let NPR know of their displeasure. NPR, in this scenario, acted on behalf of their customers as corporations are expected to, moving to "adjust their behavior accordingly," as, presumably, John Hood would put it. It's the free market at work, in the manner in which we have been lectured by conservatives such as Huckabee, DeMint, and Sarah Palin.
NPR did not move against Juan Williams because of their (minimal, indirect) public funding. Nor did it act out of some governmental impulse toward political correctness, Michelle Malkin's characteristic confusion notwithstanding. It looked at its customer base and decided: this guy, appearing regularly on the nation's premier conservative media outlet, has been expressing himself too freely. Move along- nothing to see here, only the operation of a non-governmental entity operating rationally in a competitive media market. The free enterprise system at work.
They're a little late to the game, the Republican right. Protesting the dismissal of an employee because the employer wants to rid itself of him isn't a habit of theirs. And neither will it become a habit- their outrage here is convenient and largely unprincipled. It is situational, not unlike Justice Scalia writing in Bush v. Gore: only in this case, no precedent being established, obey our decision and then forget about it.
Alex Pareene in Salon wrote in August
This is my favorite kind of Corner post. The ones that incoherently blame some private company or industry's (exaggerated or even imagined) idiocies on, somehow, liberals, political correctness, the gub'mint, etc.
He links to a post on National Review Online in which John Hood panned KFC for pushing grilled chicken and sandwiches based on, in the company's words, "extensive consumer research." "In both the public and private sectors," Hood argues, "far too many decisions are made on the basis of silly fads, partial glimpses of nebulous trends, a temptation to placate powerful interest groups, or a pathetic desire to be seen as enlightened." Unsurprisingly, he slams government and excuses the private sector in which, "subjected to the rigors of competition, these firms tend to pay the price over time and adjust their behavior accordingly. In the public sector, however, politicians don’t have to worry as much about losing ground to competitors. Their absurdities persist. Their pretensions multiply."
Ah, the rationalization of the right. Last year, multi-millionaire National Football League owners persuaded their parent company, the NFL, to reject Rush Limbaugh's bid to become part-owner of one of their divisions, the St. Louis Rams. Having previously made a racially polarizing statement, Limbaugh's involvement would, they believed, itself become divisive and eventually hurt their bottom line. True to form, Rush blamed rejection on the corporatist conservatives' favorite boogeymen: unions, black activists, the mainstream media, and Barack Obama. Surely, the private sector could not have done this to him (or to anyone of merit).
One year after Limbaugh is rejected by the multi-billion dollar National Football League and two months after National Review simultaneously condemns sensitivity and excuses it because it isn't government, Juan Williams is sacked by NPR. Mike Huckabee comments
While I have often enjoyed appearing on NPR programs and have been treated fairly and objectively, I will no longer accept interview requests from NPR as long as they are going to practice a form of censorship, and since NPR is funded with public funds, it IS a form of censorship. It is time for the taxpayers to start making cuts to federal spending, and I encourage the new Congress to start with NPR.
Obviously, Mike Huckabee wouldn't recognize censorship (prior restraint) if it smacked him in the face. But you would almost think that NPR (which changed its name from National Public Radio for a reason) is a government agency. Its funding, however, suggests otherwise, as the pie chart (from NPR) below indicates.
Good luck understanding this illustration. Tracing the source of NPR funding is fairly complicated. Although it receives no direct funding from the federal government, NPR's local stations, as blogger Andrew Phelps of Boston public radio explains
receive some funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, a taxpayer-funded, nonprofit, private corporation, created by Congress in 1967. (Think of it like the Red Cross.)
NPR does receive grants from CPB for special projects, but that funding is not included as part of the network’s operations budget.
According to The New York Times
Taxpayer money goes to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which apportions money for local radio and television stations across the country.
NPR gets no direct money from the federal government for its $161.8 million annual budget. It does receive some dedicated grants from Corporation for Public Broadcasting for projects like covering the country’s economic crisis; in fiscal years 2009 and 2010 combined, those grants totaled just over $5.2 million. NPR also gets occasional grants from from sources financed by the federal government. In all, NPR said those grants accounted for 1 to 2 percent of its income on average.
The biggest portion — about 41 percent in recent years — of NPR’s revenue comes from member station programming fees and dues. Those stations themselves receive $90 million in federal funds each year. On average, that accounts for about 10 percent of the stations’ income, according to NPR.
The remainder of NPR’s revenue comes from sponsors and, to a lesser extent, foundations, non-federal grants and investments.
But arguing that NPR's reliance on the federal government is understated, the conservative blog NewsBusters argues that the federal government finances 6-8% of the NPR budget. Thus, in defending elimation of federal funding, a right-wing site estimates that Washington's contribution may be as high as.... 8%!
Presumably, then, NPR relies on the federal government for something between 2% and 8% (inclusive) of its funding. The response of Mike Huckabee, as well as Jim DeMint and some other congressional Republicans, is to eliminate this huge source of income which, their supporters are to believe, will cut government broadcasting (which it is not) off at its knees (which it won't). The con is on.
But the more significant myth is the one highlighted by the KFC and the Limbaugh affairs. An angle that has received far less attention than it merits was discussed by Chris Matthews and Eugene Robinson on Friday's Hardball:
MATTHEWS: Is it because there are people call in who are liberals, liberal constituents of NPR, who complain, How dare you have your guy playing ball with those people?
ROBINSON: It could be that. They say that he`s supposed to be a political analyst, that he does, you know, commentary and goes off the reservation when he`s on Fox. They`re uncomfortable with that. You know, who knows?
Consider, then, the possiblity that listeners of NPR, who also provide much of the station's funding and generally are left-of-center, have been increasingly displeased about Juan Williams. As the station became increasingly dissatisfied with Williams' dual role, so did many of their these listener/contributors, who let NPR know of their displeasure. NPR, in this scenario, acted on behalf of their customers as corporations are expected to, moving to "adjust their behavior accordingly," as, presumably, John Hood would put it. It's the free market at work, in the manner in which we have been lectured by conservatives such as Huckabee, DeMint, and Sarah Palin.
NPR did not move against Juan Williams because of their (minimal, indirect) public funding. Nor did it act out of some governmental impulse toward political correctness, Michelle Malkin's characteristic confusion notwithstanding. It looked at its customer base and decided: this guy, appearing regularly on the nation's premier conservative media outlet, has been expressing himself too freely. Move along- nothing to see here, only the operation of a non-governmental entity operating rationally in a competitive media market. The free enterprise system at work.
They're a little late to the game, the Republican right. Protesting the dismissal of an employee because the employer wants to rid itself of him isn't a habit of theirs. And neither will it become a habit- their outrage here is convenient and largely unprincipled. It is situational, not unlike Justice Scalia writing in Bush v. Gore: only in this case, no precedent being established, obey our decision and then forget about it.
Mike Huckabee Now Right, Somewhat
In June, former Arkansas governor and current GOP TV host Mike Huckabee, aghhast at the anti-Zionist remark of Helen Thomas (video below), remarked "Helen, I’ve got a suggestion: maybe it’s time for you to go home."
Huckabee could have limited his retort to the accurate "Helen, they are home. Read Genesis 15, Exodus 23, Numbers 34." But he didn't, perhaps because ignorance of geography and history is not a firing offense, and chose instead to issued a thinly-veiled (is there such a thing as "thickly-veiled"?) crack at Thomas's age- i.e., "time for you to go home."
Five months later, and Emma Mustich in Salon argues
Huckabee's rhetoric about free speech rings hypocritical in light of his reaction to White House reporter Helen Thomas' comments about Jews and Israel in June. After those comments, in which she said Jews should "get the hell out of Palestine," a huge media outcry -- with Huckabee one of the loudest voices -- prompted Thomas to resign.
Huckabee's current rhetoric does "ring hypocritical" because, well, it is hypocritical. Both Helen Thomas and Juan Williams made unjustified statements. one evincing little historical knowledge of the Middle East and the other of the likelihood that a terrorist would announce his/her presence by wearing traditional Muslim garb. But, arguably, neither remark was illegitimate (lacking in reasonableness) and Williams' fear is one probably held by a majority of Americans.
Nor was either remark unprovoked- Thomas was asked "any comments about Israel?"- and Williams offered his thoughts in the context of expressing a view about Muslims that, no doubt, was one more tolerant than Fox News viewers usually hear. They were both within their rights- legal, moral, professional, and in all ways- to make a statement. Alas, ignorance is not- or rather should not be- a firing offense.
So knock Huckabee for hypocrisy because he is deserving and because he's Mike Huckabee and deserves to be criticized most of the time. But he is right that Juan Williams should not have been fired- though wrong about the lesson to be derived from it, as will be explored in the next post.
In June, former Arkansas governor and current GOP TV host Mike Huckabee, aghhast at the anti-Zionist remark of Helen Thomas (video below), remarked "Helen, I’ve got a suggestion: maybe it’s time for you to go home."
Huckabee could have limited his retort to the accurate "Helen, they are home. Read Genesis 15, Exodus 23, Numbers 34." But he didn't, perhaps because ignorance of geography and history is not a firing offense, and chose instead to issued a thinly-veiled (is there such a thing as "thickly-veiled"?) crack at Thomas's age- i.e., "time for you to go home."
Five months later, and Emma Mustich in Salon argues
Huckabee's rhetoric about free speech rings hypocritical in light of his reaction to White House reporter Helen Thomas' comments about Jews and Israel in June. After those comments, in which she said Jews should "get the hell out of Palestine," a huge media outcry -- with Huckabee one of the loudest voices -- prompted Thomas to resign.
Huckabee's current rhetoric does "ring hypocritical" because, well, it is hypocritical. Both Helen Thomas and Juan Williams made unjustified statements. one evincing little historical knowledge of the Middle East and the other of the likelihood that a terrorist would announce his/her presence by wearing traditional Muslim garb. But, arguably, neither remark was illegitimate (lacking in reasonableness) and Williams' fear is one probably held by a majority of Americans.
Nor was either remark unprovoked- Thomas was asked "any comments about Israel?"- and Williams offered his thoughts in the context of expressing a view about Muslims that, no doubt, was one more tolerant than Fox News viewers usually hear. They were both within their rights- legal, moral, professional, and in all ways- to make a statement. Alas, ignorance is not- or rather should not be- a firing offense.
So knock Huckabee for hypocrisy because he is deserving and because he's Mike Huckabee and deserves to be criticized most of the time. But he is right that Juan Williams should not have been fired- though wrong about the lesson to be derived from it, as will be explored in the next post.
Friday, October 22, 2010
Wrong, And At The Wrong Time
Yesterday and today, the ever-thorough Glenn Greenwald posted on Salon pieces defending the termination by NPR of Juan Williams. Greenwald includes the obligatory (for him) remarks excoriating the United States for its foreign policy and Israel for its..... well, for being Israel. (Can there be a more brutal and oppressive force in the world than the Israeli government? Other than the nations inactively trying to terminate the country and its people and the terrorist groups they aid, actively attempting the same? Oh, never mind.)
But the thrust of Greenwald's argument is that the discharge of Juan Williams for expressing anti-Muslim sentiment helpfully runs counter to the "viewpoint-based firings" of Eason Jordan, Peter Arnett, Phil Donahue, Ashleigh Banfield, Bill Maher, Ward Churchill, Chas Freeman, Van Jones, "and so many others.". These actions "demonstrate how unequal and imbalanced our standards have become in determining which group-based comments are acceptable and which ones are not."
Van Jones was discharged partly because of statement(s) and partly because of behavior, Phil Donahue because of age. (Not officially, of course, but a report presented to MSNBC labeled him "a tired, left-wing liberal out of touch with the current marketplace." As against liberals like Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz, and others, who at least are not old and daily run 20 laps around 30 Rock to prove they are not tired.) But the others seem to have been fired, as apparently was Williams, for what they said.
In its statement (emphasis mine) announcing its move, NPR explained
Tonight we gave Juan Williams notice that we are terminating his contract as a Senior News Analyst for NPR News.
Juan has been a valuable contributor to NPR and public radio for many years and we did not make this decision lightly or without regret. However, his remarks on The O’Reilly Factor this past Monday were inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a News Analyst with NPR.
We regret these circumstances and thank Juan Williams for his many years of service to NPR and public radio.
I don't know what NPR's "editorial standards and practices" are; but in eschewing specificity, the organization appears to prefer that we understand Williams "undermined his credibility as a News Analyst with NPR."
Apparently, this occurred upon Williams remarking
I mean, look, Bill, I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the 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.
In an e-mail later sent to NPR stations, CEO Vivian Schiller maintained "In appearing on TV or other media.... NPR journalists should not express views they would not air in their role as an NPR journalist. They should not appear in shows.... that encourage punditry and speculation rather than fact-based analysis."
Schiller wrote "this isn't the first time we've had serious concerns about some of Juan's public comments" (despite)" many conversations and warnings over the years."
But NPR chose this occasion to fire Williams, and apparently not merely for having made one comment too many. Before recognizing her public relations blunder and apologizing, Schiller let the cat out of the bag, contending that Williams should have voiced his opinions only "to his psychiatrist or his publicist."
In his own statement, Williams couldn't help pursuing the race and gender angle, claiming "This is an outrageous violation of journalistic standards and ethics by management that has no use for a diversity of opinion, ideas, or a diversity of staff. (I was the only black male on the air.)" He cited his "honest statement" as "the basis for a charge of bigotry."
Williams' statement on The O'Reilly Factor about Muslims and their garb was honest; regrettably, the charge that NPR "has no use" for a diversity of staff" not nearly so. Nonetheless, the conclusion is nearly inescapable that Williams, who tried to disabuse O'Reilly and his listeners from the idea that ours is a war against undifferentiated Muslims, was fired for his opinion that Muslims boarding a passenger airline can be scary.
In that regard, Williams joins most of the others named by Greenwald as fired for expressing an unpopular view. Additionally, besides NPR hiding behind the curtain of "journalistic standards," it refuses even to criticize what the analyst said. Rather than accusing him of bigotry- a specific, debatable charge- the network contended that he "undermined his credibility as a News Analyst with NPR." Literally, then, Williams' offense was not uttering an inaccurate, or even prejudicial, statement, but one which had an unsettling effect on his audience.
Undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR. At issue was not action, but words; and not the content of those words but their impact upon others, upon which there is an increasing emphasis. If it chose to separate itself from Williams because it had warned him repeatedly about continuing his role on another network, NPR chose the wrong, and unjustified, time to do so.
Yesterday and today, the ever-thorough Glenn Greenwald posted on Salon pieces defending the termination by NPR of Juan Williams. Greenwald includes the obligatory (for him) remarks excoriating the United States for its foreign policy and Israel for its..... well, for being Israel. (Can there be a more brutal and oppressive force in the world than the Israeli government? Other than the nations inactively trying to terminate the country and its people and the terrorist groups they aid, actively attempting the same? Oh, never mind.)
But the thrust of Greenwald's argument is that the discharge of Juan Williams for expressing anti-Muslim sentiment helpfully runs counter to the "viewpoint-based firings" of Eason Jordan, Peter Arnett, Phil Donahue, Ashleigh Banfield, Bill Maher, Ward Churchill, Chas Freeman, Van Jones, "and so many others.". These actions "demonstrate how unequal and imbalanced our standards have become in determining which group-based comments are acceptable and which ones are not."
Van Jones was discharged partly because of statement(s) and partly because of behavior, Phil Donahue because of age. (Not officially, of course, but a report presented to MSNBC labeled him "a tired, left-wing liberal out of touch with the current marketplace." As against liberals like Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz, and others, who at least are not old and daily run 20 laps around 30 Rock to prove they are not tired.) But the others seem to have been fired, as apparently was Williams, for what they said.
In its statement (emphasis mine) announcing its move, NPR explained
Tonight we gave Juan Williams notice that we are terminating his contract as a Senior News Analyst for NPR News.
Juan has been a valuable contributor to NPR and public radio for many years and we did not make this decision lightly or without regret. However, his remarks on The O’Reilly Factor this past Monday were inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a News Analyst with NPR.
We regret these circumstances and thank Juan Williams for his many years of service to NPR and public radio.
I don't know what NPR's "editorial standards and practices" are; but in eschewing specificity, the organization appears to prefer that we understand Williams "undermined his credibility as a News Analyst with NPR."
Apparently, this occurred upon Williams remarking
I mean, look, Bill, I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the 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.
In an e-mail later sent to NPR stations, CEO Vivian Schiller maintained "In appearing on TV or other media.... NPR journalists should not express views they would not air in their role as an NPR journalist. They should not appear in shows.... that encourage punditry and speculation rather than fact-based analysis."
Schiller wrote "this isn't the first time we've had serious concerns about some of Juan's public comments" (despite)" many conversations and warnings over the years."
But NPR chose this occasion to fire Williams, and apparently not merely for having made one comment too many. Before recognizing her public relations blunder and apologizing, Schiller let the cat out of the bag, contending that Williams should have voiced his opinions only "to his psychiatrist or his publicist."
In his own statement, Williams couldn't help pursuing the race and gender angle, claiming "This is an outrageous violation of journalistic standards and ethics by management that has no use for a diversity of opinion, ideas, or a diversity of staff. (I was the only black male on the air.)" He cited his "honest statement" as "the basis for a charge of bigotry."
Williams' statement on The O'Reilly Factor about Muslims and their garb was honest; regrettably, the charge that NPR "has no use" for a diversity of staff" not nearly so. Nonetheless, the conclusion is nearly inescapable that Williams, who tried to disabuse O'Reilly and his listeners from the idea that ours is a war against undifferentiated Muslims, was fired for his opinion that Muslims boarding a passenger airline can be scary.
In that regard, Williams joins most of the others named by Greenwald as fired for expressing an unpopular view. Additionally, besides NPR hiding behind the curtain of "journalistic standards," it refuses even to criticize what the analyst said. Rather than accusing him of bigotry- a specific, debatable charge- the network contended that he "undermined his credibility as a News Analyst with NPR." Literally, then, Williams' offense was not uttering an inaccurate, or even prejudicial, statement, but one which had an unsettling effect on his audience.
Undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR. At issue was not action, but words; and not the content of those words but their impact upon others, upon which there is an increasing emphasis. If it chose to separate itself from Williams because it had warned him repeatedly about continuing his role on another network, NPR chose the wrong, and unjustified, time to do so.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Juan Williams And The Right
Sometimes a bad situation brings out the worst in almost everyone.
And so it was with Fox News enployee Juan Williams, newly fired from NPR. We'll begin with the entire transcrip (relevant exchange emboldened)- according to Think Progress- then move down the food chain.
***********************************************************************************
O’REILLY: Hi. I’m Bill O’Reilly. Thanks for watching us tonight.
The Muslim dilemma — that is the subject of this evening’s talking points memo. So, in case you just got back from Easter Island, I, your humble correspondent, am causing trouble once again.
Today on “The View,” the ladies addressed the shootout I had with them last Thursday when I said that building a mosque near Ground Zero is inappropriate because Muslims killed us there. That caused Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar to walk off the set.
Of course, what I said is absolutely true, but is insensitive to some. In a perfect world, you always say Muslim terrorists killed us, but at this point, I thought that was common knowledge. I guess I was wrong.
Anyway, the heated controversy continues and goes far beyond me and “The View” ladies. It has entered the fabric of America.
Barbara Walters said something interesting today. She said that the nation is very angry. Therefore, commentators must watch the rhetoric. OK.
But my question to Ms. Walters is this: Why is America so angry?
There are a number of answers to that question. One of them is that folks are fed up with politically correct nonsense. There is no question there is a Muslim problem in the world and if “The View” ladies will not acknowledge that, that’s their problem, because most Americans well understand the danger coming out of the Muslim world.
Ms. Walters went on to say that my statement about the Japanese attacking the USA in World War II is not a valid comparison.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WALTERS: I think that what Bill O’Reilly said was totally wrong. I also feel that on his program when he compared it to Germany and Japan, which he did, and said, well, you wouldn’t have been built monuments — countries, they were not religion.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O’REILLY: With all due respect to Barbara Walters, who has handled herself with dignity in this controversy, she is misguided.
American forces had to remove the Taliban government in Afghanistan because it supported the al Qaeda killers. The U.S. and many other countries are now desperately trying to prevent Iran from building a nuclear bomb because most everyone understands some crazy jihadists may use that bomb to ignite a holocaust. Right now the countries of Russia, China, the Philippines, many nations in Africa and Thailand are all fighting Muslim insurrections.
The Muslim threat to the world is not isolated. It’s huge! It involves nations and millions of people.
Yet, the left in America will not face that fact.
“Talking Points” has given President Obama has given a pass on his soft rhetoric towards the Muslim world, because he needs to get nations like Pakistan to cooperate with us. The president can’t afford tough rhetoric like the kind I’m giving you tonight. That is perfectly understandable.
In Germany, however, Chancellor Angela Merkel is getting tough. She told the world that attempts to build multi-cultural society in her country have, quote, “utterly failed.” Ms. Merkel has enormous problem with 5 million Muslims who are not assimilating into German society.
In France, the parliament there has outlawed burqas after that country endured rioting in Muslim areas that the police could not control.
Here in the USA, we are lucky. The vast majority of American Muslims are good citizens and deplore the extreme actions in the Muslim world. But they know there is a clash of civilizations in play.
Despite all that, Ms. Goldberg was deeply offended by my statement about 9/11. Here’s what she said this morning.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOLDBERG: When you say Muslims are responsible for 9/11, does that mean Muhammad Ali? Because Muhammad Ali is a Muslim. Does that mean Kareem Abdul-Jabbar?
To me, you need to be distinct when you say things like this because this is a volatile time. You cannot just throw stuff around like that in my opinion.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O’REILLY: Now, that statement is worth addressing. No sane individual thinks Muhammad Ali or Kareem Abdul-Jabbar is responsible for 9/11.
But the reality is that most Americans are uneasy with the Muslim world in general because moderate Muslims have not stepped up in a visible way to help combat the jihadists. Look at all the problems we’re having with Pakistan. We’ve sent that country billions of dollars hoping to motivate them to fight the Taliban and al Qaeda.
If Whoopi Goldberg doesn’t think there’s a Muslim problem, she ought to ask President Obama about it.
The cold truth is that in the world today, jihad, aided and abetted by some Muslim nations, is the biggest threat on the planet. If Iran gets a nuclear weapon, Israel and other countries are in grave danger.
So, I have had enough of the political correct nonsense and I condemn the far-left fanatics who label people with whom they disagree “bigots.” That’s what Joy Behar did again today, which is simply stunning because as Laura Ingraham pointed out last Friday, Ms. Behar’s anti- Christian analysis has been off the charts.
And then there is Rosie O’Donnell who used to host “The View.” Here’s what she said.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
ROSIE O’DONNELL, ACTRESS: Bill O’Reilly, you know, what does he do besides incite kind of hatred? What does he do besides that?
JANETTE BARBER, EXECUTIVE PRODUCER: To stand there and say Muslims killed us, I hope you didn’t take that wrong. I didn’t mean anything bad about them. It’s like I hate it when they lie within the same sentence, at least take a break before you lie.
O’DONNELL: But it’s like that’s what Bill O’Reilly does. Why would you book him?
(END AUDIO CLIP)
O’REILLY: Now, Ms. O’Donnell’s analysis reminded me of this –
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
O’DONNELL: Radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like America where we have a separation of church and state. We’re a democracy.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O’REILLY: Interesting. Nobody walked off the set of “The View” when Rosie O’Donnell said that. Did they?
As “Talking Points” stated on Friday, there is a reason behind the madness. Many in the Muslim world despise the United States because we are Israel’s biggest supporter. Any of the liberal precincts believe our support for Israel is wrong and that we have ignited Muslim anger. It is our fault that some Muslims hate us.
I don’t think the ladies on “The View” see it that way. But certainly, the far-left has held that opinion for quite some time.
Finally, wherever I went this weekend, people were high-fiving me. It was amazing. People yelling out windows, “O’Reilly, keep going,” that kind of stuff.
Are all these people bigots? Do they all hate Kareem Abdul-Jabbar?
That’s just nuts. This has nothing to do with theology and everything to do with politics. Americans are simply fed up with politicians and media people denying the obvious. There is a dangerous problem in the Muslim world and once again, I call for all peace-loving Muslims to join the United States and other conscientious nations to fight the jihadists to defeat radical Islam. And that’s the memo.
In a moment, Juan and Mary Katharine will tell me where I’m going wrong on all of this.
And later, how is the O’Reilly view Muslim controversy playing on talk radio? Right back with those reports.
O’REILLY: Continuing now with our lead story, danger from the Muslim world.
Joining us from Washington FOX analysts Mary Katharine Ham and Juan Williams.
So, Juan, I got to tell everybody, own up to this, that talking points memo was really written by Alan Colmes.
So, where am I going wrong there, Juan.
JUAN WILLIAMS, FOX NEWS POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, actually, I hate to say this to you because I don’t want to get your ego going. But I think you’re right. I think, look, political correctness can lead to some kind of paralysis where you don’t address reality.
I mean, look, Bill, I’m not a bigot. You know the kind of books I’ve written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the 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.
Now, I remember also that when the Times Square bomber was at court, I think this was just last week. He said the war with Muslims, America’s war is just beginning, first drop of blood. I don’t think there’s any way to get away from these facts.
But I think there are people who want to somehow remind us all as President Bush did after 9/11, it’s not a war against Islam. President Bush went to a mosque –
O’REILLY: Well, there isn’t any theology involved in this at all from my perspective, Juan. But you live in the liberal precincts. You actually work for NPR, OK?
WILLIAMS: Yes.
O’REILLY: And it’s not about — it’s about politics as I said. But — my analysis is that this Israel thing and that liberals feel that United states is somehow guilty in the world, of exploitation and backing the wrong side, and it makes it easier for them to come up with this kind of crazy stuff that, well, you can’t really say the Muslims attacked us on 9/11.
WILLIAMS: No, but what Barbara Walters said to you –
O’REILLY: Were they Norwegians? I mean, come on.
WILLIAMS: Wait a second though, wait, hold on, because if you said Timothy McVeigh, the Atlanta bomber, these people who are protesting against homosexuality at military funerals, very obnoxious, you don’t say first and foremost, we got a problem with Christians. That’s crazy.
O’REILLY: But it’s not at that level. It doesn’t rise near to that level.
WILLIAMS: Correct. That’s — and when you said in the talking points memo a moment ago that there are good Muslims, I think that’s a point, you know?
O’REILLY: But everybody knows that, Juan. I mean, what are, in 3rd grade here or what?
WILLIAMS: No, you don’t — but you got to be — this is what Barbara Walters was saying –
O’REILLY: I got to be careful, you just said it. I got to be careful. I have got to qualify everything 50 times. You know what, Juan? I’m not doing it anymore. I’m not doing that anymore.
WILLIAMS: OK. So, be yourself. Take responsibility.
O’REILLY: But I’m not going to say, oh, it’s only a few. It’s only a tiny bit. It’s not, Juan. It’s whole nations, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, whole nations.
Go ahead, Mary Katharine. You want to get in here. Go.
MARY KATHARINE HAM, FOX NEWS POLITICAL ANALYST: First of all — first of all, the left only thinks that you should be careful with rhetoric in dangerous times when it’s a right winger using the rhetoric. When they’re doing it themselves, when it deals with other issues, they don’t care. So there’s a double standard there.
Second of all, there’s a distinction worth making between moderate and extremism Islam as you have made that point in the talking points, because frankly, as a conservative, if anybody who believes in the mission in Iraq where you are building up a society of moderate Muslims to push back on extremists, you have to believe in that distinction. So, I think that’s important to make.
But, this whole getting up and running off set because you don’t use the distinction in every single sentence you say, I think, was ridiculous and immature and they stopped the conversation, not you. It was them freaking out about a conservative position and leaving the stage to stop the conversation.
O’REILLY: All right. But, look, here’s the deal. Angela Merkel, all right, in the politically correct nation of Germany — Germany has gone from being a militaristic society to a politically correct society in a generation. OK?
Angela Merkel comes out today and says, “You know what? This is out of control in our country. We can’t control it anymore.”
So, if it’s only a few, and a couple and just in the mountains of Pakistan, that’s all, why is Angela Merkel having such a hard time? Why are the French banning burqas? You know why –
(CROSSTALK)
O’REILLY: Come on.
WILLIAMS: Because — they have a problem because people have stopped emphasizing and she went on to say, this integration assimilation.
O’REILLY: Why, Juan? Why?
WILLIAMS: — to live side by side. That was wrong-headed and because she sees it as a threat. I think that she pointed out that two of every three or so children under the age of 5 in Germany is Muslim.
O’REILLY: Juan, who is posing a problem in Germany? Is it the Muslims who have come there or the Germans?
WILLIAMS: Absolutely.
O’REILLY: Who’s causing the problem?
WILLIAMS: I think — I think — no, no, wait. See, you did it again. It’s extremists. It’s people who refuse to –
O’REILLY: It’s not extremists.
WILLIAMS: It’s a German society. They are the ones causing that problem.
(CROSSTALK)
O’REILLY: But, Juan, Merkel — according to Merkel, it’s not extremists. It’s most of the 5 million Muslims who have come there aren’t assimilating. That’s the problem.
HAM: And also what happens, Bill — Bill, also what happens is that when moderate Muslims want to assimilate or want to stand up, they run the risk of being blown up by their co-religionist who are extreme. So, that is — that’s a threat that moderate Christians and Jews don’t think.
O’REILLY: But that doesn’t happen in America where most Muslim- Americans have assimilated.
HAM: Because our society demands that people assimilate. That’s what we demand and that’s why it works here.
WILLIAMS: But, Bill, here’s a caution point. The other day in New York, some guy cuts a Muslim cabby’s neck and says he’s attacking him or you think about the protest at the mosque near Ground Zero –
HAM: That guy works at a liberal –
O’REILLY: Yes, he was a crackpot.
(CROSSTALK)
O’REILLY: Look, Americans are smart enough to know, Juan.
HAM: But I don’t think — the point is the rhetoric was not pushing him to do that.
WILLIAMS: I don’t know what is in that guy’s head. But I’m saying, we don’t want in America, people to have their rights violated to be attacked on the street because they heard a rhetoric from Bill O’Reilly and they act crazy. We’ve got to say to people as Bill was saying tonight, that guy is a nut.
O’REILLY: He is a nut. And I said that about the guy in Florida — who wanted to burn the Koran. I came town on him like crazy.
WILLIAMS: Correct. There you go.
O’REILLY: But I’ll tell you what — if there was going to be a backlash against Muslims, it would happened after 9/11. It didn’t happen in this country.
WILLIAMS: It didn’t happen in this country.
O’REILLY: It did not happen here. So, we are smart enough to understand who the good Muslims are and who the bad Muslims are. But to diminish the whole thing as the left wants to do, very dangerous. I have got to go, guys, as always.
WILLIAMS: That would be hypocrisy.
O’REILLY: All right. Thank you very much.
*************************************************************************************
-Juan Williams:
The comment which got Williams fired apparently was "But when I get on the 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." Multiple choice: that is a) bigoted; b) insensitive; c) realistic; or d), stupid.
It is not bigoted or insensitive to indicate that oneself is nervous when boarding a plane with people "identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims." It is also not realistic- terrorists are not in the habit of announcing "hey, guys, detain and strip search me- I'm a Muslim!" Wearing "Muslim garb" would bring undesired attention to someone about to commit a terrorist attack. The correct answer is (d) stupid.
But Williams commented also "it's not a war against Islam," a point clearly lost on many conservatives. And he explained "Wait a second though, wait, hold on, because if you said Timothy McVeigh, the Atlanta bomber, these people who are protesting against homosexuality at military funerals, very obnoxious, you don’t say first and foremost, we got a problem with Christians. That’s crazy." Also not a point conservatives want to hear.
-Bill O'Reilly:
When Williams notes "there are good Muslims," O'Reilly responds "everybody knows that, Juan. I mean, what are, in 3rd grade here or what?"
Conservative Republicans may, down deep, believe there are "good Muslims." They just don't seem to.
Now for the extremists:
-Mike Huckabee:
Huckabee issued a statement in which he maintained "While I have often enjoyed appearing on NPR programs and have been treated fairly and objectively, I will no longer accept interview requests from NPR as long as they are going to practice a form of censorship, and since NPR is funded with public funds, it IS a form of censorship.”
Greta Van Susteren:
GOP TV's Van Susteren blogged: "Does a media outlet - protected by the First Amendment / Freedom of the Press and Speech - want to get in the censoring business? Let me remind everyone: the First Amendment is not there to protect agreement or to be part of a popularity contest. It was included in the Constitution for the opposite reason: to protect the UNPOPULAR opinion from the tyranny of the majority."
Why is it necessary, whenever a conservative is fairly or unfairly criticized, to remind conservatives that penalizing someone for something he or she said is not censorship? Censorship refers to prior restraint; allowing someone his say and then abruptly penalizing, punishing, or terminating that individual for what he said is not censorship, however noxious the remark might have been.
Sarah Palin:
There is little that occurs in society, except the domination of elections by wealthy and powerful interests, outsourcing or offshoring American jobs by corporations, environmental degradation by the oil industry, defrauding the homeowner by increasingly huge banks, or the continued decline of the American middle class, that is able to escape comment by the woman who couldn't handle the job of governor. Not surprisingly, then, she tweeted
NPR defends 1st Amendment Right, but will fire u if u exercise it. Juan Williams: u got taste of Left’s hypocrisy, they screwed up firing you.
As with censorship, much of the right, which constantly claims fealty to the United States Constitution, does not understand the First Amendment. The guarantee of freedom of speech protects the actor from government action, not private action. There is no First Amendment right to anger or offend an employer, and there is no First Amendment right involved with Juan Williams. Or do good conservatives like Palin prefer that any private or other non-governmental entity permit its employees to say whatever they want, whenever they want, about the employer?
And now for the best, Glenn Beck:
Characteristically, Beck ruminated
I just this is why I say know what you believe in because you are going to have to make decisions. Do you lose your job? Do you lose everything? Why do you think I've been begging you, please, 40 day and 40 night challenge, with firm reliance, not faith, with firm reliance on the protection of divine providence. What does that mean? It's beyond faith firm reliance. You know it to the core of your being, that you will get protection through divine providence.
Honest- this came close to the end of a segment about Juan Williams. But if he needs to channel Noah to satisfy his delusions of grandeur, Beck never promised his followers that "I was going to be rational. Not once. Not to you. Not to him."
Ever the rodeo clown.
Next Up: Was NPR reasonable (if it hasn't already rehired Williams)?
Sometimes a bad situation brings out the worst in almost everyone.
And so it was with Fox News enployee Juan Williams, newly fired from NPR. We'll begin with the entire transcrip (relevant exchange emboldened)- according to Think Progress- then move down the food chain.
***********************************************************************************
O’REILLY: Hi. I’m Bill O’Reilly. Thanks for watching us tonight.
The Muslim dilemma — that is the subject of this evening’s talking points memo. So, in case you just got back from Easter Island, I, your humble correspondent, am causing trouble once again.
Today on “The View,” the ladies addressed the shootout I had with them last Thursday when I said that building a mosque near Ground Zero is inappropriate because Muslims killed us there. That caused Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar to walk off the set.
Of course, what I said is absolutely true, but is insensitive to some. In a perfect world, you always say Muslim terrorists killed us, but at this point, I thought that was common knowledge. I guess I was wrong.
Anyway, the heated controversy continues and goes far beyond me and “The View” ladies. It has entered the fabric of America.
Barbara Walters said something interesting today. She said that the nation is very angry. Therefore, commentators must watch the rhetoric. OK.
But my question to Ms. Walters is this: Why is America so angry?
There are a number of answers to that question. One of them is that folks are fed up with politically correct nonsense. There is no question there is a Muslim problem in the world and if “The View” ladies will not acknowledge that, that’s their problem, because most Americans well understand the danger coming out of the Muslim world.
Ms. Walters went on to say that my statement about the Japanese attacking the USA in World War II is not a valid comparison.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WALTERS: I think that what Bill O’Reilly said was totally wrong. I also feel that on his program when he compared it to Germany and Japan, which he did, and said, well, you wouldn’t have been built monuments — countries, they were not religion.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O’REILLY: With all due respect to Barbara Walters, who has handled herself with dignity in this controversy, she is misguided.
American forces had to remove the Taliban government in Afghanistan because it supported the al Qaeda killers. The U.S. and many other countries are now desperately trying to prevent Iran from building a nuclear bomb because most everyone understands some crazy jihadists may use that bomb to ignite a holocaust. Right now the countries of Russia, China, the Philippines, many nations in Africa and Thailand are all fighting Muslim insurrections.
The Muslim threat to the world is not isolated. It’s huge! It involves nations and millions of people.
Yet, the left in America will not face that fact.
“Talking Points” has given President Obama has given a pass on his soft rhetoric towards the Muslim world, because he needs to get nations like Pakistan to cooperate with us. The president can’t afford tough rhetoric like the kind I’m giving you tonight. That is perfectly understandable.
In Germany, however, Chancellor Angela Merkel is getting tough. She told the world that attempts to build multi-cultural society in her country have, quote, “utterly failed.” Ms. Merkel has enormous problem with 5 million Muslims who are not assimilating into German society.
In France, the parliament there has outlawed burqas after that country endured rioting in Muslim areas that the police could not control.
Here in the USA, we are lucky. The vast majority of American Muslims are good citizens and deplore the extreme actions in the Muslim world. But they know there is a clash of civilizations in play.
Despite all that, Ms. Goldberg was deeply offended by my statement about 9/11. Here’s what she said this morning.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOLDBERG: When you say Muslims are responsible for 9/11, does that mean Muhammad Ali? Because Muhammad Ali is a Muslim. Does that mean Kareem Abdul-Jabbar?
To me, you need to be distinct when you say things like this because this is a volatile time. You cannot just throw stuff around like that in my opinion.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O’REILLY: Now, that statement is worth addressing. No sane individual thinks Muhammad Ali or Kareem Abdul-Jabbar is responsible for 9/11.
But the reality is that most Americans are uneasy with the Muslim world in general because moderate Muslims have not stepped up in a visible way to help combat the jihadists. Look at all the problems we’re having with Pakistan. We’ve sent that country billions of dollars hoping to motivate them to fight the Taliban and al Qaeda.
If Whoopi Goldberg doesn’t think there’s a Muslim problem, she ought to ask President Obama about it.
The cold truth is that in the world today, jihad, aided and abetted by some Muslim nations, is the biggest threat on the planet. If Iran gets a nuclear weapon, Israel and other countries are in grave danger.
So, I have had enough of the political correct nonsense and I condemn the far-left fanatics who label people with whom they disagree “bigots.” That’s what Joy Behar did again today, which is simply stunning because as Laura Ingraham pointed out last Friday, Ms. Behar’s anti- Christian analysis has been off the charts.
And then there is Rosie O’Donnell who used to host “The View.” Here’s what she said.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
ROSIE O’DONNELL, ACTRESS: Bill O’Reilly, you know, what does he do besides incite kind of hatred? What does he do besides that?
JANETTE BARBER, EXECUTIVE PRODUCER: To stand there and say Muslims killed us, I hope you didn’t take that wrong. I didn’t mean anything bad about them. It’s like I hate it when they lie within the same sentence, at least take a break before you lie.
O’DONNELL: But it’s like that’s what Bill O’Reilly does. Why would you book him?
(END AUDIO CLIP)
O’REILLY: Now, Ms. O’Donnell’s analysis reminded me of this –
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
O’DONNELL: Radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like America where we have a separation of church and state. We’re a democracy.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O’REILLY: Interesting. Nobody walked off the set of “The View” when Rosie O’Donnell said that. Did they?
As “Talking Points” stated on Friday, there is a reason behind the madness. Many in the Muslim world despise the United States because we are Israel’s biggest supporter. Any of the liberal precincts believe our support for Israel is wrong and that we have ignited Muslim anger. It is our fault that some Muslims hate us.
I don’t think the ladies on “The View” see it that way. But certainly, the far-left has held that opinion for quite some time.
Finally, wherever I went this weekend, people were high-fiving me. It was amazing. People yelling out windows, “O’Reilly, keep going,” that kind of stuff.
Are all these people bigots? Do they all hate Kareem Abdul-Jabbar?
That’s just nuts. This has nothing to do with theology and everything to do with politics. Americans are simply fed up with politicians and media people denying the obvious. There is a dangerous problem in the Muslim world and once again, I call for all peace-loving Muslims to join the United States and other conscientious nations to fight the jihadists to defeat radical Islam. And that’s the memo.
In a moment, Juan and Mary Katharine will tell me where I’m going wrong on all of this.
And later, how is the O’Reilly view Muslim controversy playing on talk radio? Right back with those reports.
O’REILLY: Continuing now with our lead story, danger from the Muslim world.
Joining us from Washington FOX analysts Mary Katharine Ham and Juan Williams.
So, Juan, I got to tell everybody, own up to this, that talking points memo was really written by Alan Colmes.
So, where am I going wrong there, Juan.
JUAN WILLIAMS, FOX NEWS POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, actually, I hate to say this to you because I don’t want to get your ego going. But I think you’re right. I think, look, political correctness can lead to some kind of paralysis where you don’t address reality.
I mean, look, Bill, I’m not a bigot. You know the kind of books I’ve written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the 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.
Now, I remember also that when the Times Square bomber was at court, I think this was just last week. He said the war with Muslims, America’s war is just beginning, first drop of blood. I don’t think there’s any way to get away from these facts.
But I think there are people who want to somehow remind us all as President Bush did after 9/11, it’s not a war against Islam. President Bush went to a mosque –
O’REILLY: Well, there isn’t any theology involved in this at all from my perspective, Juan. But you live in the liberal precincts. You actually work for NPR, OK?
WILLIAMS: Yes.
O’REILLY: And it’s not about — it’s about politics as I said. But — my analysis is that this Israel thing and that liberals feel that United states is somehow guilty in the world, of exploitation and backing the wrong side, and it makes it easier for them to come up with this kind of crazy stuff that, well, you can’t really say the Muslims attacked us on 9/11.
WILLIAMS: No, but what Barbara Walters said to you –
O’REILLY: Were they Norwegians? I mean, come on.
WILLIAMS: Wait a second though, wait, hold on, because if you said Timothy McVeigh, the Atlanta bomber, these people who are protesting against homosexuality at military funerals, very obnoxious, you don’t say first and foremost, we got a problem with Christians. That’s crazy.
O’REILLY: But it’s not at that level. It doesn’t rise near to that level.
WILLIAMS: Correct. That’s — and when you said in the talking points memo a moment ago that there are good Muslims, I think that’s a point, you know?
O’REILLY: But everybody knows that, Juan. I mean, what are, in 3rd grade here or what?
WILLIAMS: No, you don’t — but you got to be — this is what Barbara Walters was saying –
O’REILLY: I got to be careful, you just said it. I got to be careful. I have got to qualify everything 50 times. You know what, Juan? I’m not doing it anymore. I’m not doing that anymore.
WILLIAMS: OK. So, be yourself. Take responsibility.
O’REILLY: But I’m not going to say, oh, it’s only a few. It’s only a tiny bit. It’s not, Juan. It’s whole nations, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, whole nations.
Go ahead, Mary Katharine. You want to get in here. Go.
MARY KATHARINE HAM, FOX NEWS POLITICAL ANALYST: First of all — first of all, the left only thinks that you should be careful with rhetoric in dangerous times when it’s a right winger using the rhetoric. When they’re doing it themselves, when it deals with other issues, they don’t care. So there’s a double standard there.
Second of all, there’s a distinction worth making between moderate and extremism Islam as you have made that point in the talking points, because frankly, as a conservative, if anybody who believes in the mission in Iraq where you are building up a society of moderate Muslims to push back on extremists, you have to believe in that distinction. So, I think that’s important to make.
But, this whole getting up and running off set because you don’t use the distinction in every single sentence you say, I think, was ridiculous and immature and they stopped the conversation, not you. It was them freaking out about a conservative position and leaving the stage to stop the conversation.
O’REILLY: All right. But, look, here’s the deal. Angela Merkel, all right, in the politically correct nation of Germany — Germany has gone from being a militaristic society to a politically correct society in a generation. OK?
Angela Merkel comes out today and says, “You know what? This is out of control in our country. We can’t control it anymore.”
So, if it’s only a few, and a couple and just in the mountains of Pakistan, that’s all, why is Angela Merkel having such a hard time? Why are the French banning burqas? You know why –
(CROSSTALK)
O’REILLY: Come on.
WILLIAMS: Because — they have a problem because people have stopped emphasizing and she went on to say, this integration assimilation.
O’REILLY: Why, Juan? Why?
WILLIAMS: — to live side by side. That was wrong-headed and because she sees it as a threat. I think that she pointed out that two of every three or so children under the age of 5 in Germany is Muslim.
O’REILLY: Juan, who is posing a problem in Germany? Is it the Muslims who have come there or the Germans?
WILLIAMS: Absolutely.
O’REILLY: Who’s causing the problem?
WILLIAMS: I think — I think — no, no, wait. See, you did it again. It’s extremists. It’s people who refuse to –
O’REILLY: It’s not extremists.
WILLIAMS: It’s a German society. They are the ones causing that problem.
(CROSSTALK)
O’REILLY: But, Juan, Merkel — according to Merkel, it’s not extremists. It’s most of the 5 million Muslims who have come there aren’t assimilating. That’s the problem.
HAM: And also what happens, Bill — Bill, also what happens is that when moderate Muslims want to assimilate or want to stand up, they run the risk of being blown up by their co-religionist who are extreme. So, that is — that’s a threat that moderate Christians and Jews don’t think.
O’REILLY: But that doesn’t happen in America where most Muslim- Americans have assimilated.
HAM: Because our society demands that people assimilate. That’s what we demand and that’s why it works here.
WILLIAMS: But, Bill, here’s a caution point. The other day in New York, some guy cuts a Muslim cabby’s neck and says he’s attacking him or you think about the protest at the mosque near Ground Zero –
HAM: That guy works at a liberal –
O’REILLY: Yes, he was a crackpot.
(CROSSTALK)
O’REILLY: Look, Americans are smart enough to know, Juan.
HAM: But I don’t think — the point is the rhetoric was not pushing him to do that.
WILLIAMS: I don’t know what is in that guy’s head. But I’m saying, we don’t want in America, people to have their rights violated to be attacked on the street because they heard a rhetoric from Bill O’Reilly and they act crazy. We’ve got to say to people as Bill was saying tonight, that guy is a nut.
O’REILLY: He is a nut. And I said that about the guy in Florida — who wanted to burn the Koran. I came town on him like crazy.
WILLIAMS: Correct. There you go.
O’REILLY: But I’ll tell you what — if there was going to be a backlash against Muslims, it would happened after 9/11. It didn’t happen in this country.
WILLIAMS: It didn’t happen in this country.
O’REILLY: It did not happen here. So, we are smart enough to understand who the good Muslims are and who the bad Muslims are. But to diminish the whole thing as the left wants to do, very dangerous. I have got to go, guys, as always.
WILLIAMS: That would be hypocrisy.
O’REILLY: All right. Thank you very much.
*************************************************************************************
-Juan Williams:
The comment which got Williams fired apparently was "But when I get on the 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." Multiple choice: that is a) bigoted; b) insensitive; c) realistic; or d), stupid.
It is not bigoted or insensitive to indicate that oneself is nervous when boarding a plane with people "identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims." It is also not realistic- terrorists are not in the habit of announcing "hey, guys, detain and strip search me- I'm a Muslim!" Wearing "Muslim garb" would bring undesired attention to someone about to commit a terrorist attack. The correct answer is (d) stupid.
But Williams commented also "it's not a war against Islam," a point clearly lost on many conservatives. And he explained "Wait a second though, wait, hold on, because if you said Timothy McVeigh, the Atlanta bomber, these people who are protesting against homosexuality at military funerals, very obnoxious, you don’t say first and foremost, we got a problem with Christians. That’s crazy." Also not a point conservatives want to hear.
-Bill O'Reilly:
When Williams notes "there are good Muslims," O'Reilly responds "everybody knows that, Juan. I mean, what are, in 3rd grade here or what?"
Conservative Republicans may, down deep, believe there are "good Muslims." They just don't seem to.
Now for the extremists:
-Mike Huckabee:
Huckabee issued a statement in which he maintained "While I have often enjoyed appearing on NPR programs and have been treated fairly and objectively, I will no longer accept interview requests from NPR as long as they are going to practice a form of censorship, and since NPR is funded with public funds, it IS a form of censorship.”
Greta Van Susteren:
GOP TV's Van Susteren blogged: "Does a media outlet - protected by the First Amendment / Freedom of the Press and Speech - want to get in the censoring business? Let me remind everyone: the First Amendment is not there to protect agreement or to be part of a popularity contest. It was included in the Constitution for the opposite reason: to protect the UNPOPULAR opinion from the tyranny of the majority."
Why is it necessary, whenever a conservative is fairly or unfairly criticized, to remind conservatives that penalizing someone for something he or she said is not censorship? Censorship refers to prior restraint; allowing someone his say and then abruptly penalizing, punishing, or terminating that individual for what he said is not censorship, however noxious the remark might have been.
Sarah Palin:
There is little that occurs in society, except the domination of elections by wealthy and powerful interests, outsourcing or offshoring American jobs by corporations, environmental degradation by the oil industry, defrauding the homeowner by increasingly huge banks, or the continued decline of the American middle class, that is able to escape comment by the woman who couldn't handle the job of governor. Not surprisingly, then, she tweeted
NPR defends 1st Amendment Right, but will fire u if u exercise it. Juan Williams: u got taste of Left’s hypocrisy, they screwed up firing you.
As with censorship, much of the right, which constantly claims fealty to the United States Constitution, does not understand the First Amendment. The guarantee of freedom of speech protects the actor from government action, not private action. There is no First Amendment right to anger or offend an employer, and there is no First Amendment right involved with Juan Williams. Or do good conservatives like Palin prefer that any private or other non-governmental entity permit its employees to say whatever they want, whenever they want, about the employer?
And now for the best, Glenn Beck:
Characteristically, Beck ruminated
I just this is why I say know what you believe in because you are going to have to make decisions. Do you lose your job? Do you lose everything? Why do you think I've been begging you, please, 40 day and 40 night challenge, with firm reliance, not faith, with firm reliance on the protection of divine providence. What does that mean? It's beyond faith firm reliance. You know it to the core of your being, that you will get protection through divine providence.
Honest- this came close to the end of a segment about Juan Williams. But if he needs to channel Noah to satisfy his delusions of grandeur, Beck never promised his followers that "I was going to be rational. Not once. Not to you. Not to him."
Ever the rodeo clown.
Next Up: Was NPR reasonable (if it hasn't already rehired Williams)?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Party Of Deception The Huffington Post, gushing about the Kennedy memorial service in Boston last night, exclaimed that Senator Orrin Hatch...
-
In April, President Donald Trump asked French President Emanuel Macron "why don't you leave the EU?" The same month,...
-
This is not about the fraud that is Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi. Nor is it about the fraud which is Florida Governor Rick Sc...
