NPR = morons

[mtnairlover]

my answer to both your (IMO -weak) points:
http://www.cosportbikeclub.org/forum...&postcount=150

My point? That article does not mention what those NPR employees say when they state their opinions. So, you are basing your opinion on conjecture? Are you inferring that the other employees also commented the same way that violate NPR ethics? Are you inferring that they have been warned by NPR as Williams was warned repeatedly before he was fired?

There is not enough info in that article. We can all assume things, but to make a judgment based on so very little fact is just as bad as making a slanted statement on a news outlet.

[TinkerinWstuff]

How about his peers and affiliate stations who said it was not a just firing? I'd say they're far more informed that you or I.

I deleted my unnecessary comment - apologies.

I think it's all right here:
Quote:
Executives at NPR affiliate stations across the United States have begun publicly voicing discontent in the aftermath of the network's dismissal of news analyst Juan Williams, with several station managers openly questioning the actions and judgment of NPR President and CEO Vivian Schiller.

Some station executives said Williams should not have been fired, while others said the firing should have been more professionally handled. Still others questioned whether NPR is fairly administering its own ethics rules, and suggested Williams was fired purely because he appears on Fox News.

Quote:
Among the issues with which Schiller has been confronted in recent days was why NPR has not sought to make any change to the status of other NPR journalists - such as longtime legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg - who, like Williams, have appeared regularly on other TV outlets, freely dispensing opinions. NPR told Fox News late Friday no change was being considered in the status of Totenberg or Mara Liasson, NPR's national political correspondent, who, like Williams, is also a Fox News contributor.

In telephone interviews with Fox News this week, general managers of several stations affiliated with NPR spoke sharply about Schiller's performance in the episode. Janet Campbell, general manager at Kansas station KANU, said she did not believe Williams should have been fired at all, and that she "absolutely" saw a double standard at work in the network's treatment of Williams and Totenberg.

Maybe the other people haven't been warned because the managers at public radio, using public funds, "like" their opinions better?

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

Yes, NPR was justified. Read the last paragraph...

http://www.radiosurvivor.com/2010/10...appropriately/

"Regardless, although Williams is obviously entitled to his personal beliefs (free speech issue aside) he still shouldn’t have made his comment publicly. Yet Williams chose to make his comment on an extremely ideological television show on a borderline extremist news network, publicly proclaiming his (in the very least) prejudices against a group of people that, not coincidentally, have been the large focus of news in this country since 9/11. This sort of behavior is simply not acceptable for an objective network, and Williams, an individual with a large amount of experience in the industry, should have known that."
This is the writers PERSONAL opinion, and is of course no more valid than Juans. Since we do NOT know the details of Juans contract with NPR with regards to what he can and cannot do and/or say, to say the firing was justified because it fits in with yet another persons personal opinion, well..... We might see how the courts interpret this, as they WILL have access to his contract. A person's freedom of speech is not to be trifled with, even by a gov't-funded radio.

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

Do we need to go around and around with this again??

The fucking animal liberation front isn't going to blow me up on a plane or a train.

Yeah, I thought I'd made that pretty clear from culling the indisputable FBI stats.......

But, I guess if people are REALLY worried that some tree-hugging "terrorist" is going to key their Hummer with a "save the earth" message, well, then, maybe they ARE our greatest threat, eh?

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

You mean, GIVE IN to the terrorists?!?!

Never. I mean by deprogramming them to NOT hate everything else. If that doesn't work, there's always the fallback plan of "nuke & pave".

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

You want to stop terrorism?

Get informed...

Domestic Terrorist organizations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesti..._United_States

* 2.1 Animal Liberation Front
* 2.2 Alpha 66 and Omega 7
* 2.3 Army of God
* 2.4 Aryan Nations
* 2.5 Black Liberation Army
* 2.6 The Covenant, The Sword, and the Arm of the Lord
* 2.7 Earth Liberation Front
* 2.8 Jewish Defense League
* 2.9 Ku Klux Klan
* 2.10 May 19th Communist Organization
* 2.11 The Order
* 2.12 Phineas Priesthood
* 2.13 Symbionese Liberation Army
* 2.14 United Freedom Front
* 2.15 Weathermen

Notable attacks associated with domestic terrorism

* 3.1 Bath, Michigan Bombings
* 3.2 Ludlow Massacre
* 3.3 Bombing of Los Angeles Times building
* 3.4 Attacks by the Jewish Defense League
* 3.5 Wall Street bombing
* 3.6 Unabomber attacks
* 3.7 Oklahoma City bombing
* 3.8 Centennial Olympic Park bombing
* 3.9 Columbine High School massacre
* 3.10 2001 anthrax attacks
* 3.11 Holocaust Memorial Museum shooting
* 3.12 Austin IRS attack

Know what the terrorists look like, ie. they look like you and me...

American couple nabbed by FBI for terrorist plots. The husband had turned to radical Islam. No one even suspected this couple.
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul...sts-20100723-1


http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/dt

The national terror alert response center says this about identifying terrorists...
http://www.nationalterroralert.com/suspicious-activity/

"It is impossible to identify a terrorist by

* Appearance
* Nationality
* Language

You CAN only identify a terrorist threat by observing or hearing about suspicious activity that may lead to a criminal act."

Stopping terrorism takes a whole lot more than freaking people out about another group of people. It takes getting to know others...not immediate judgmental responses. The only thing that comes from judgmental responses is a polarization of people...as has happened here.

I'm sorry, what was the total death toll of all the stated groups vs. JUST the 9/11 attacks again?

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

Ok, we'll relate this in motorcycle terms:

For the radical Christian threat, we'll relate that to 10,000 drops of rain spread out on your ride from P2P to Estes.

For the radical islam threat, we'll say it's 100 drops of unseen oil in the middle of an 80+mph decreasing-radius corner with a cliff on the outside of the turn.

Yep, the rain is the major threat, RIGHT?

[Sarge]

[TinkerinWstuff]

I'm out. Traveling for work this week and I've grown weary of this anyway. In summary, my position is Juan shouldn't have been fired. It's evident that NPR doesn't enforce it's own policy uniformly with regard to other employees who moonlight as opinion jockeys. Just because some percentage of population may not agree with his opinion, doesn't make terminating his employment appropriate action.

His opinion is mirrored by a significant number of people and dialog about the topic is important rather than hiding in the sand if we're ever to get past this. There are significant statistical information to support the fact that the most likely group to try to hide a bomb or hijack a plane (in recent years) would be someone affiliating themselves as Muslim.

Many people had connections with people lost in 9/11 and everyone watched it on T.V. Boarding a plane is like no other place where you put yourself completely at the mercy of others. Many irrational fears show up in people while on a plane even though it's statistically the safest method of travel. Terrorists don't wear signs identifying them as a bad guy just like rapists don't wear rapists hats and yet a woman may get nervous in a dark alley crossing paths with some big man.

Juan's firing was unjustified and that's my take. That's my last word here and I'm unsubscribed.

[mtnairlover]

How about his peers and affiliate stations who said it was not a just firing? I'd say they're far more informed that you or I.

I deleted my unnecessary comment - apologies.


Maybe the other people haven't been warned because the managers at public radio, using public funds, "like" their opinions better?

Apologies accepted.

I understand you are done with the topic...I'm pretty much done, too...well, 'cept for some last thoughts.

Williams got himself a nice fat $2mil contract with FOX after being let go from NPR. Here's my thought...maybe he kept poking at NPR's ethics rules so that he could move on to FOX? One way to get out of a contract is to get fired. And then covering your tracks by pitching a fuss helps not only Juan, but boosts FOX's ratings for a little while, while the hubbub is still floating around.

The other things I found out about NPR contracts, etc. were these...

• depending on your role, ie. journalist, analyst, etc., you are bound by certain conditions
• Juan's role was as an analyst. Analysts analyze fact...that's all. Their role is not as political pundit. So, violating the contract terms anywhere, on any other media outlet will get you in trouble.
• The other employees were not hired as analysts. They dispensed opinions elsewhere and got in trouble. I only read the bio on one of them and she mentioned having to write apology letters for a 1995 opinion statement she made...back in '95. Since that time, I don't know that she had violated her contract.

Either way...Juan has a heftier load in his pockets...lol...and FOX's ratings go up, yielding them more money.

NPR's public funding is 16% of their overall funding...the rest comes from elsewhere.

Hmmm...I think that's about it.

[TinkerinWstuff]

Another "ethics" violation costing someone their job while exercising free speech.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/11/05...est=latestnews

NEWARK, N.J. -- A former New Jersey train conductor fired two days after publicly burning pages from the Koran on Sept. 11 is expected to file a lawsuit Friday seeking reinstatement and monetary damages.

NJ Transit's code of ethics requires employees to give notice to an ethics liaison officer before participating in political activities. An employee can then participate in political activities so long as state or federal law or agency rules don't explicitly prohibit them and "the activity doesn't conflict with the employee's official duties."

[Aphrodite]

Humn, free speech is no longer free speech.

[TinkerinWstuff]

you can say what you want, if you ask permission first.

Add to the list Keith Olbermann who was also suspended today for ethics contract rules. Donating to Democratic party candidate campaigns. Also requires permission. In his case/situation, I almost understand. But I always thought of Keith as being an opinion jockey like Hannity or Mathews and not a "journalist". I would be shocked if you told me he didn't donate money.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...tic-campaigns/

[Aphrodite]

I would rather not have to ask X employer or anyone for permissions to say my opinion away from work especially, if it is unrelated to work and I don't tell the people I an giving my opinion too that I work for X.

I Went to work for a company here in Denver 8 years ago and they hired me knowing I was dating a guy with in the company and then they handed me a no fraternization form, I was like WTF??? The lady I spoke with basically told me it ment nothing, it was just if things got dramatic it could be mean of termination for both of us. A week later he was asked to quit supposedly not knowing he was dating me, which somehow I think was the game they were playing to hire me to get rid of him, They then terminated me a week later after that due to "Conflict of Interest." Another week after that we split because of the whole situation.

My point is that is just leverage for the any/company for them to use if they choose to do so. All BS till they want to enforce it.

[mtnairlover]

Another "ethics" violation costing someone their job while exercising free speech.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/11/05...est=latestnews

I think when you look at the business and their ethics guidelines, then you need to realize that once a contract is signed to work for someone if you violate that contract, then you are in jeopardy of also losing your job. Business ethics and the 1st Amendment may tend to collide...maybe a tad...but, American businesses still acknowledge and abide by the law to the point that as long as the free speech does not insight violence and is done not on their time, or the company is not identified in that speech, then all bases are covered.

But, this is a really gray area it seems as far as what I've looked at...

Let me make it a tad personal and ask you why you did this...

I deleted my unnecessary comment - apologies.

I think that's the same idea as corporations are trying to get across and the law is trying to get across to the masses. As long as the speech does not insight violence (there are other catches within the law as well, I just don't remember all of them), then the speech is protected by the 1st Amendment. I mean, all you have to do is look at the incident that I had posted about the African American being mistaken for a Muslim and you can see how a crowd of people can get stupidly unruly...it's completely ridiculous if you ask me and completely uncalled for. But...I do realize that each ethics violation needs to be looked at separately to make the determination of whether or not one law or another was truly violated.

By the way...at first, I was gonna come back with something just as witty and then I too, muffled my speech...it wasn't necessary.

[TinkerinWstuff]

Looks like a review of the firing by NPR management is in agreement; the firing of Juan Williams was WRONG.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...liams-resigns/

[Mel]

Pretty certain this thread died (as it greatly needed to) back in November. Let's not start about battle about who is and isn't a terrorist.

[salsashark]

Pretty certain this thread died (as it greatly needed to) back in November. Let's not start about battle about who is and isn't a terrorist.

But Mel, if people don't argue pointlessly on the interwebz, the terrorists will win!

[TinkerinWstuff]