The political stupidity of the public firing of Juan Williams (CPB - NPR)

Joined
May 18, 2002
Posts
36,253
WHY IT IS STUPID FOR NPR TO HAVE FIRED JUAN WILLIAMS​
*You must remember this:

Juan Williams is/was a fixture at National Public Radio. He is a fiscally conservative and socially liberal 0bama supporter. He is a black man. There are black liberals, black conservatives and guys like Williams who, although outspokenly Christian, is a moderate. As a moderate, he may appeal to members of the black community who have become weary of myopic firebrand in-your-face angry political rants but who are not ready to abandon the Democrat Party and move toward what to many might appear to be the Social Darwinism of right black politics. Also, he is a amicable, likable guy -- whether you enjoy his politics or not, he expresses his viewpoints clearly and in a measured manner. So what?

Well, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting receives both public and private funding. While NPR does not have on board any conservative hosts at present (that I know of), it presents many points of view more deeply analyzed than most talk radio shows sharing the same time slots. It presents more of an in-depth analysis of political matters and, if you don't mind the fact that its presentation is biased and as inaccurate as right wing talk radio's counterparts, it's entertaining.

Republicans will take control of the U.S. House of Representatives next term (January 2011). It can be argued, rather effectively I suspect that, in these tough times, cutting or substantially reducing the amount of tax money paid to the CPB is more likely when NPR fires someone because he expresses a point of view on a current matter of public interest -- a point of view shared by (some claim) as much as 70% of the American population, to wit: There is a problem with radical Islam that is not being adequately addressed by moderate U.S. Muslims. Whether you agree with that sentiment or not, publicly funded entities ought not fire people because of their points of view when, during the next funding cycle, the charge can be made by those opposing continued funding of the CPB that doing so in NOT in "the public interest." The rejoinder to that will be that NPR provides a necessary counterbalance to right wing talk radio. But when an entity that receives federal funds fires someone because he expressed (not on NPR but on a separate show) his personal viewpoints, it is a very stupid mistake. Why?

Because it can be the toggle switch to force those who support continued CPB funding to abandon their support for such things as the so-called fairness doctrine -- essentially putting them in the position of saying that it is okay to censor (read: chilling effect) off-camera / microphone viewpoints using a politically correct and dysfunctional content-based benchmark. It will be nearly impossible to support that position in the next Congress and, as a result, NPR stupidly snarls and prepares to bite the hand that once fed them. Better get ready for a lot more marathon fund-raising drives. CPB is, essentially, membership based. People in the private sector don't have to rally in the streets; they merely have to not renew their membership.

Last, but not least, just as the unjustified labeling of a person as a "racist" is likely to create one where none had previously existed, taking an honorable guy like Juan Williams and labeling him a bigot pushes him and those who share his points of view to the right -- away from National Public Radio and onto Fox News.

That is NOT how good hardball is played. Only NPR would tear down the goalposts before their own field goal attempt. But these people never ran a business so they figure someone will come fix it for them. They must remember this?

* Random, unrelated link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyki7G1uEeU
 
Oh wait. Did the filthy monkey try to say something? Iggy!

Unread Today, 02:27 PM

This message is hidden because AntiBacterial is on your ignore list.
 
[reprint]

It's "rational" to believe every Muslim on an airplane wants to blow it up?

blah blah blah -- whatever....

See? That's how you can recognize a member of the Pro-Terrorist Party: They can't argue with what Juan Williams actually said, so they change it into something else. He never said all Muslims on the plane want to blow it up, but the truth is very inconvenient for the Pro-Terrorists.

These are the same people who went around telling everyone that Crystal Palin's baby's father was Todd Palin. That's how they work.

Funny how they are being thrown out of office....

Make a note: re-examine universal suffrage.....
 
"Moderates" don't go on bigoted-rants.

He's a LINO.

hahahah

He didn't go on a bigot rant. He said what a lot of people think.

As for me: I don't much care for my fellow airline passengers wearing terrorist robes. It makes me uncomfortable. Does that mean that mean I think they are all terrorists? No. But the ones who want to kill us and the ones who become mute on the subject do, indeed, wear the terrorist robes.
 
See? That's how you can recognize a member of the Pro-Terrorist Party: They can't argue with what Juan Williams actually said, so they change it into something else. He never said all Muslims on the plane want to blow it up, but the truth is very inconvenient for the Pro-Terrorists.

These are the same people who went around telling everyone that Crystal Palin's baby's father was Todd Palin. That's how they work.

Funny how they are being thrown out of office....

Make a note: re-examine universal suffrage.....
Don't forget, "I can see Russia from my house." :rolleyes:
 
He didn't go on a bigot rant. He said what a lot of people think.

As for me: I don't much care for my fellow airline passengers wearing terrorist robes. It makes me uncomfortable. Does that mean that mean I think they are all terrorists? No. But the ones who want to kill us and the ones who become mute on the subject do, indeed, wear the terrorist robes.

In that case, "a lot" of people are bigots.
 
He didn't go on a bigot rant. He said what a lot of people think.

As for me: I don't much care for my fellow airline passengers wearing terrorist robes. It makes me uncomfortable. Does that mean that mean I think they are all terrorists? No. But the ones who want to kill us and the ones who become mute on the subject do, indeed, wear the terrorist robes.
The nineteen hijackers of 9/11 were dressed like Americans, clean shaven and hatless.
 
Do we really need another fucking thread about this subject?
 
Do we really need another fucking thread about this subject?

I saw two (2) such threads.

The other one was about the news story itself.

This thread was about the wisdom of NPR taking the action it took, considering the fact that doing so will more than likely terminate their public funding. When you consider the amount of money the local stations have to kick back to NPR for participation, it ads up to a lot of money. Adding to that the fact that both the Left and the Right (and any number of African Americans) will non-renew their CPB memberships....
 
"Christians scare me" gets you a pat on the back from fellow liberal illuminati.

"Muslims scare me" gets you fired.
 
"Christians scare me" gets you a pat on the back from fellow liberal illuminati.

"Muslims scare me" gets you fired.

Saying that you hope someone's grandchildren get AIDS gets you promoted on National Progressive Radio.

They have receive their last U.S. tax dollar -- and several states are cutting them out as well. Losing 47 million dollars in taxpayer funded largess in exchange for satisfying George Soros (he doesn't like it when one of his porch creatures strays from his party line) shows why they would never succeed as a business.
 
WHY IT IS STUPID FOR NPR TO HAVE FIRED JUAN WILLIAMS​
*You must remember this:

Juan Williams is/was a fixture at National Public Radio. He is a fiscally conservative and socially liberal 0bama supporter. He is a black man. There are black liberals, black conservatives and guys like Williams who, although outspokenly Christian, is a moderate. As a moderate, he may appeal to members of the black community who have become weary of myopic firebrand in-your-face angry political rants but who are not ready to abandon the Democrat Party and move toward what to many might appear to be the Social Darwinism of right black politics. Also, he is a amicable, likable guy -- whether you enjoy his politics or not, he expresses his viewpoints clearly and in a measured manner. So what?

Well, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting receives both public and private funding. While NPR does not have on board any conservative hosts at present (that I know of), it presents many points of view more deeply analyzed than most talk radio shows sharing the same time slots. It presents more of an in-depth analysis of political matters and, if you don't mind the fact that its presentation is biased and as inaccurate as right wing talk radio's counterparts, it's entertaining.

Republicans will take control of the U.S. House of Representatives next term (January 2011). It can be argued, rather effectively I suspect that, in these tough times, cutting or substantially reducing the amount of tax money paid to the CPB is more likely when NPR fires someone because he expresses a point of view on a current matter of public interest -- a point of view shared by (some claim) as much as 70% of the American population, to wit: There is a problem with radical Islam that is not being adequately addressed by moderate U.S. Muslims. Whether you agree with that sentiment or not, publicly funded entities ought not fire people because of their points of view when, during the next funding cycle, the charge can be made by those opposing continued funding of the CPB that doing so in NOT in "the public interest." The rejoinder to that will be that NPR provides a necessary counterbalance to right wing talk radio. But when an entity that receives federal funds fires someone because he expressed (not on NPR but on a separate show) his personal viewpoints, it is a very stupid mistake. Why?

Because it can be the toggle switch to force those who support continued CPB funding to abandon their support for such things as the so-called fairness doctrine -- essentially putting them in the position of saying that it is okay to censor (read: chilling effect) off-camera / microphone viewpoints using a politically correct and dysfunctional content-based benchmark. It will be nearly impossible to support that position in the next Congress and, as a result, NPR stupidly snarls and prepares to bite the hand that once fed them. Better get ready for a lot more marathon fund-raising drives. CPB is, essentially, membership based. People in the private sector don't have to rally in the streets; they merely have to not renew their membership.

Last, but not least, just as the unjustified labeling of a person as a "racist" is likely to create one where none had previously existed, taking an honorable guy like Juan Williams and labeling him a bigot pushes him and those who share his points of view to the right -- away from National Public Radio and onto Fox News.

That is NOT how good hardball is played. Only NPR would tear down the goalposts before their own field goal attempt. But these people never ran a business so they figure someone will come fix it for them. They must remember this?

* Random, unrelated link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyki7G1uEeU



Cite your post. Or are you just plagiarizing in the absence of your own thought?
 
Back
Top