Williams at odds with NPR over his dismissal

Judged:

2

2

Niether of the Above wrote:

<quoted text>
Perhaps I am the only one, but I was appalled at Maher's and Donahue's situation. I don't agree with either of them, just like I dislike Matthews and Obermann. NPR seems to the Hypocritical one here. They allow the comments of a white liberal woman wishing aids on a conservative's grandchildren or that of a white liberal wishing for the extinction of 4 million catholics, but have issues with a conservative black man who has an uneasy feeling about garbed Muslims at the airport. I am sure Mr. Williams was probably warned that his opinions, which is what he gets paid for, were falling outside the realm of NPR's culture, therefore the firing, perhaps should not have come as a big surprise. It is apparent, NPR is no longer the diverse, public radio it once proclaimed. They now become as credible as Fox and MSNBC

Judged:

2

2

1

Jim wrote:

It's a shame this kind if blatent institutional racism still goes on. All federal funding to NPR should be pulled immediatly. Kudo's to Fox News for promoting racial diversity, as well as diversity of thought & opinion. The other network and cable news outlets should follow suit.

Darwinian wrote:

<quoted text>
You may, in fact, be the only conservative who admits to being appalled at Maher's and Donohue's situations. As for the "comments of a white liberal woman wishing aids on a conservative's grandchildren or that of a white liberal wishing for the extinction of 4 million catholics," I'm not familiar with either of those issues, and I would need to know the context before I could comment on them.
Frankly, I do not think Juan Williams should have been fired for his comments, even though I have never found him to be an able reporter. In fact, the only part of his FOX comments I found disturbing was this: "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."
Williams claims that people who wear traditional garb are "identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims" - are we going to ban religious clothing, just for Muslims, or for all religions? Should Hasidic Jews be banned from wearing streimls, tzitzits and payis because that garb identifies their religious beliefs? Should nuns' habits be banned for the same reason?
Frankly, when I see a veiled woman, my first thought is not, "this is someone who identifies herself first and foremost as a Muslim;" I just think, oh, a Muslim woman. No big deal - I don't think Muslims wear religious garb to be provocative, I think they wear it because they are following their religious traditions, just as other religious people do.

Darwinian wrote:

<quoted text>
You do not understand the first amendment. Williams has the right to say what he thinks, and the government cannot stop him. He does not, however, have the right to violate his employer's speech policies and remain employed.
The outrage on the right seems rather hypocritical. Where, after all, was the outrage when Phil Donahue was fired for opposing the Iraq war? Where was the outrage when Bill Maher's Politically Incorrect was canceled? Where was the outrage when Helen Thomas was fired? The difference, of course, is that the right wing defends Islamophobia - the other opinions were not popular on the right, so, the rights of the speakers were not defended.

Talk wrote:

It's a shame a white NPR employee can wish AIDS on Jesse Helms but a black NPR employee is not free to state an opinion. NPR is obviously racist

Doc Savage wrote:

<quoted text>
Sparky...anytime you want to go toe to toe with me on this, say the word.....I can dump enough links in your lap showing that NPR is just as guilty of journalistic bias as FOX, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, etcetera.
....NPR is hardly wearing virginal white, though the Left seems to think its some kind of sacred cow.
As for the rest of the bias?...damn right its out there....and I think your delusional if you dont think the Right gets attacked by the Left for bias.
Not understand the 1st Amendment??? I served this Nation for 23 years in the Army so you could exercise your 1st Amendment right....dont presume to lecture me on subject that guided my career.

Darwinian wrote:

<quoted text>
Fox promotes diversity of thought and opinion? Don't make me laugh.

Darwinian wrote:

<quoted text>
Your military service apparently did not include instruction in the meaning of the First Amendment. The GOVERNMENT cannot abridge freedom of speech, but an employer certainly can. NPR is not an arm of the government, and so is not bound by the First Amendment. Yes, NPR gets federal funding, but, so do other institutions, such as universities, which are also not bound by the First Amendment. In fact, the 1982 Supreme Court decision, Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 US 830, established that getting grants and other benefits from the government does not make an institution a government actor:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case...

Darwinian wrote:

<quoted text>
Frankly, when I see a veiled woman, my first thought is not, "this is someone who identifies herself first and foremost as a Muslim;" I just think, oh, a Muslim woman. No big deal - I don't think Muslims wear religious garb to be provocative, I think they wear it because they are following their religious traditions, just as other religious people do.

Tired of BS wrote:

<quoted text>
Isn't it amazing that Rev Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton aren't backing Juan?