Nervous about Muslims? Shhh...Follow

I'd read about this. I listen to NPR all the time and had no beef with Juan. I guess I can see where NPR is coming from, but it just seems like everyone is simply too hyper-sensitive these days. I hope that Juan wasn't canned for a first time offense (though it kinda sounds that way). I know NPR goes out of it's way to attempt to appear bi-partisan....while totally supporting the liberal cause.

Huckabee is known is be crazy, I'm not surprised he called for that. I was surprised to hear that federal funding only makes up 1-2% of their budget, however.

I guess the next controversy is that when explaining his firing, Williams' boss said that his feelings on Muslims should be discussed between him and his psychiatrist. Observant readers are pointing out that if Williams was fired for speaking his opinion, the CEO Vivian Schiller should be fired for the same, by implying his views require psychiatric care.

That's exactly what NPR is arguing. They said that by stating his opinion he violated their code of ethics, as he has done several times before, and thus they fired him.

My issue is that he didn't do it on NPR's time, nor did he do it in any NPR-related faculty. Unlike folks like O'Reilly (or Rick Sanchez), Williams did not try and present his personal opinion as fact. See the difference between saying "Muslims are trying to kill Americans" and "When I see traditionally-dressed Muslims on airplanes, my first reaction is nervousness." Furthermore, the CEO of NPR seemingly violated the same code of ethics with her snappy retort.

It makes NPR look bad all over, and frankly, they seem in the wrong. Many commentators in the news have condemned Williams' sacking, from both sides of the political aisle.

First of all, it was if he had a heart attack. Second of all, she never worked for NPR:

Link





Edited, Oct 22nd 2010 4:03pm by Belkira

First off, it was a poor example anyway. There are dozens of better and more directly relevant ones available. But to be fair, it's almost splitting hairs to argue that she doesn't work for "National Public Radio" (NPR), but rather works for an "independent" radio station that is funded from the same pool of public money specifically to operate as an outlet to broadcast NPR programming. It's like saying that the principal of a public school doesn't represent the "public school system" because even though his school is funded from the same dollars and he ultimately has to teach to the curriculum that said public funding requires, he's "technically" employed by some district government entity instead of a state or federal government entity.


Or... perhaps it's more like insisting that an employee of KBR doesn't really work for Halliburton, so his actions don't reflect on the larger organization at all. I'm pretty sure that wouldn't fly so far with most posters on this forum.


Oh. And Joph's response is dead on. It's a bad example, and her employment connections aren't the real issue. There are much better ones out there of statements made by NPR analysts (William's position) making statements of opinion repeatedly without anyone ever getting fired for it. Let's stop pretending it was because he expressed an opinion. It's because they didn't like the opinion he expressed.

Edited, Oct 22nd 2010 3:32pm by gbaji

Okay. Let's put it in terms that gbaji can understand.

A store carries a stock of a certain product, say, an apple. The owner of the apple orchard said hate "hates white people and white culture." The store, deciding that they didn't like the owner of the orchard's opinions, even though that opinion has nothing to do with apples, chooses to terminate their contract with the owner of the orchard and go get their apple supply from someone else.

For that matter, this is NOT the first NPR has expressed their dismay at Williams going on Fox News, which is in technical terms a business rival. This really was the straw that broke the camel's back, as they felt he was ill-representing them.

You know what means you work for McDonald's? When our paycheck says McDonald's.




I made no judgment on whether or not it was a good example. I was just trying to explain to Varus what he got wrong. Which was just about everything.

Are you seriously going to claim that if we pulled into a McDonalds and ordered a couple Big Macs, and some pimply faced kid wearing a McDonalds uniform took our money and handed us our order, you would only think he worked for McDonalds if he were to show us a payslip that said McDonalds on it? You'd only think he represented the McDonalds "image" if he could prove this? You wouldn't at all blame the McDonalds company if this guy was smocking crack on the job and blew his nose in your burger, right? Nope. You'd ask to see his paycheck to make sure he worked directly for corporate headquarters before hitting that toll free number to complain.

Lol. Right...

KCRW also broadcasts independent programming created in house and rebroadcasts off the PRI feed. They don't exist solely as a conduit for NPR programming.

This is turning into one of those situations where you're just wrong and will continue to dig yourself in deeper and deeper before throwing a hissy fit that we're talking about it and not the "larger point". Everyone is already expressing skepticism at the validity of NPR's claim regarding Williams. No reason to embarass yourself here by refusing to admit you're wrong and cut bait on this particular line.

You fell off the rails of your point there. I was comparing a corporate employee to a franchise employee. Both would wear the same uniform and serve the same food. One "technically" works for an independent boss who just happens to have a license to sell McDonalds food with the McDonalds trademarks. Kinda like a radio station which has a license to broadcast NPR feed.

But thanks for failing so utterly. ;)


Um... And Joph? I didn't say it was "incorrect". I said it was "splitting hairs". When people think of NPR, they are thinking of "National Public Radio". Yes. There is a specific organization which exists to create content and holds that specific name, but most people think of the entire "publicly funded radio system" as just parts of the same whole (which they kinda are if you stop and think about it). In the same way that people just think of someone as "working for McDonalds" and don't think in terms of which specific legal entity they are directly employed by. Saying "But the public radio system funds one group called NPR which generates content, and another which broadcasts that content nationally and also generates some of their own locally" is precisely what I mean by "splitting hairs".



The broader point is the perception that the entire publicly funded media system is blatantly and strongly liberal biased and has been for some time. Arguing that one group is just one part of that larger system and not another is kinda meaningless. I agree that blaming NPR for not firing that producer is a silly argument. In the same way I'd argue that blaming the corporate McDonalds entity for not firing the guy who blew his nose in my burger would be. I'd expect his boss to do the job. Same deal.


However, if my argument is "McDonalds burgers are bad for you", it's just as legitimate whether I'm talking about the burgers sold at the franchise or the corporate stores. Similarly, if my argument is "Publicly funded radio is liberal biased", my argument is just as legitimate whether I'm talking about the people working for NPR or the people working for a public radio station which airs NPR feeds (as well as their own content). While that point is not wholly irrelevant to the issue at hand, it's not directly applicable to the point Varus was replying to.

That's more a flaw in Varus' own thought processes than the legitimacy of the comparison in a broader sense. While we can sit here and focus on just this one analyst and the decision by NPR to fire him, and the inconsistency of their stated reason for doing so, it's also valid to explore the larger (and more strongly held) argument that many conservatives have about publicly funded radio as a whole. It's too liberal. It's paid for with our tax dollars. It amounts to a publicly funded propaganda tool for the left. This recent example is just one case of a larger issue. And in that context, the point about the producer at a local radio station is absolutely legitimate.

Edited, Oct 22nd 2010 6:10pm by gbaji

No, it's just wrong. The whole point of the manufactured outrage is that supposedly NPR is imposing a different standard upon Williams as they are upon Spitz. But NPR has jack all to do with Spitz so throwing a fit over her remarks is just asinine. It's not "splitting hairs", it's like getting outraged that your dentist handled something differently from a hospital across the country both and acting as though the dentist is somehow part of the hospital program because both get grants from the Dept of Health.


Agreed that people who just want to whine and cry about things don't need to worry about actual facts in order to throw a hissy fit and wave their arms around. Why worry about understanding something when you can just grab random stuff and pretend it's all related under the umbrella of your pet complaint?


Wow, you just don't get it. No, this would be like expecting Dell to fire a Best Buy employee on the basis of both companies getting a tax break from the state of Florida and Best Buy having some Dell products in their inventory. Completely nonsensical and it only shows a lack of understanding to keep trying to argue any connection.

As I said, feel free to stop embarassing yourself by just admitting that you were completely wrong. I know you won't but the offer is out there.

Yes. I get that you're completely and totally wrong, and you don't understand (yet again) why your analogy is completely flawed and not accurate.

The McDonald's franchise is a part of McDonald's. Spitz's radio station is not a part of NPR. You not understanding that is not my problem. It's a functional issue you should deal with on your own.