PDA

View Full Version : NPR is a joke



SoonerNate
10/21/2010, 01:09 PM
They fired Juan Williams over something that even Al Sharpton has said?

Gotta love the left and their never ending political correctness. :rolleyes:

soonerhubs
10/21/2010, 01:25 PM
I listen to NPR almost daily. I find myself disappointed in their decision to fire Juan Williams, and I should probably email them to inform them of my discontent.

3rdgensooner
10/21/2010, 01:33 PM
They fired Juan Williams over something that even Al Sharpton has said?

Gotta love the left and their never ending political correctness. :rolleyes:
Is Sharpton on NPR's payroll?

Serge Ibaka
10/21/2010, 01:34 PM
Still: when did Al Sharpton become some sort of authority for liberal discourse about race?

Most lefties even think he's a joke, right?

Harry Beanbag
10/21/2010, 01:34 PM
So what did he say?

3rdgensooner
10/21/2010, 01:35 PM
So what did he say?http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/39774756/ns/today-entertainment/

MR2-Sooner86
10/21/2010, 01:39 PM
When I get on a 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.

Can we get some vagisil for the vaginas he offended. Give me a ****ing break :rolleyes:

OklahomaTuba
10/21/2010, 01:42 PM
Is Sharpton on NPR's payroll?No, but NPR appears to be on George Soro's payroll these days.

Fired for a thought crime! liberal fascism at its best.

SoonerNate
10/21/2010, 01:42 PM
Such entertainment they bring. Are they ever not whispering on that program? I think SNL's parody of schwetty balls is spot on with those tools.

3rdgensooner
10/21/2010, 01:55 PM
People get fired for seemingly lame reasons all the time. Heck, OK is an at-will state.

KABOOKIE
10/21/2010, 02:11 PM
People get fired for seemingly lame reasons all the time. Heck, OK is an at-will state.

Good point. Maybe we should fire all gays and democrats at work? :rolleyes:

TUSooner
10/21/2010, 02:52 PM
That's pathetic. I thought NPR was a bit more steadfast in the free speech department. But no, they fire a guy for making an honest (and duly qualified) statement about how he feels. He wasn't even saying he was right to feel that way! What kind of open society can you have where people like that get punished for being candid. NPR, you suck.

OklahomaTuba
10/21/2010, 02:54 PM
Hopefully, starting next year, NPR will officially Join the free-market capitalist system!

Make them earn their $450,000 per year pay.

SbOrOiNaEnR
10/21/2010, 03:22 PM
98.9 KISS-FM fired Ron Williams?!?!?!? How could they????? :mad:










;)

SoonerNate
10/21/2010, 05:16 PM
So I'm going to play their game and call NPR racist for this move. Add to that he has a hispanic name, so they must hate hispanics as well.

reflector
10/21/2010, 05:17 PM
I don't listen to NPR.

PDXsooner
10/21/2010, 05:49 PM
I listen to NPR and find it to be the deepest of any "mainstream" outlet. It is a great network.

However, this is an outrage. Political correctness gone awry. I am disgusted about this.

SbOrOiNaEnR
10/21/2010, 07:14 PM
Here's what's getting lost in all of this: the dude violated the terms of his employment set out by his employer.

From the NPR Ethics Code (http://www.npr.org/about/aboutnpr/ethics/ethics_code.html#outside):


V. Outside work, freelancing, speaking engagements

10. In appearing on TV or other media including electronic Web-based forums, NPR journalists should not express views they would not air in their role as an NPR journalist. They should not participate in shows electronic forums, or blogs that encourage punditry and speculation rather than fact-based analysis.


Juan Williams was employed as a journalist...and for those of you who are employed as journalists, or suffered through J-School, what's rule #2, after "Seek the Truth and Report It?" "Maintain Objectivity.". Williams let a personal opinion and bias creep into his commentary on Fox News, which in turn violated his contract with NPR.

Imagine that...when your boss tells you not to do something, and you do it anyway, they fire you. Funny how things work out in a free-market, right-to-work environment.

KABOOKIE
10/21/2010, 07:35 PM
Um, he did maintain objectivity. I'm also failing to see the connection that what he said on FOX is something he would have not said at NPR?

AlbqSooner
10/21/2010, 07:43 PM
NPR is only a free speech advocate when they agree with your speech.

TUSooner
10/21/2010, 08:22 PM
I'm REALLY disappointed because I REALLY thought NPR was above that chicken ****. Really.

Jerk
10/21/2010, 08:58 PM
Defund.

Whet
10/21/2010, 09:38 PM
For the past several months, Juan Williams has been critical of Obama and his Democrats in Congress. Combine Williams' criticism and Soro's infusion of $1.8 million, just in time for the mid-term elections, it was inevitable THEY would want to get rid of Williams. THEY previously changed his job, as a journalist, to that of a "news analyst."

Are we really surprised THEY fired Juan Williams???

Blue
10/21/2010, 09:46 PM
PC America. The backlash is coming.

Boarder
10/21/2010, 10:29 PM
What was Juan Williams on? I listen to NPR all the time, but it's shows like Diane Rehm, Forum, Radio Times, etc. I don't remember hearing his name. All of the shows I listen to are as fair as humanly possible.

Chuck Bao
10/21/2010, 11:49 PM
Now come on people, think about it. It is almost as bad as saying on air that you don't feel comfortable sitting next to a young African-American male on a public bus in the inner city. It was a really stupid thing to say, especially if his contract with NPR expressly prohibited it.

SoonerNate
10/21/2010, 11:51 PM
Now come on people, think about it. It is almost as bad as saying on air that you don't feel comfortable sitting next to a young African-American male on a public bus in the inner city. It was a really stupid thing to say, especially if his contract with NPR expressly prohibited it.

Have you heard some of Nina Totenberg's comments? How about when she hoped that Jesse Helms and / or his grandkids contracted AIDS?

Did she get fired?

A Sooner in Texas
10/21/2010, 11:59 PM
Here's what's getting lost in all of this: the dude violated the terms of his employment set out by his employer.

From the NPR Ethics Code (http://www.npr.org/about/aboutnpr/ethics/ethics_code.html#outside):



Juan Williams was employed as a journalist...and for those of you who are employed as journalists, or suffered through J-School, what's rule #2, after "Seek the Truth and Report It?" "Maintain Objectivity.". Williams let a personal opinion and bias creep into his commentary on Fox News, which in turn violated his contract with NPR.

Imagine that...when your boss tells you not to do something, and you do it anyway, they fire you. Funny how things work out in a free-market, right-to-work environment.

As ridiculous as the firing sounds, you're exactly right about the duties of journalists. I get asked my opinion quite often and defer with a "As a reporter, I have no opinion."

NPR's ethical code should be adopted by more media outlets. And with all the whining about the "biased media" these days, it seems as though such strict adherence to maintaining objectivity would be welcomed.

It may sound as though Mr. Williams' free speech rights were violated with his firing, but his employer set the rules and he violated them.

Leroy Lizard
10/22/2010, 01:00 AM
Have you heard some of Nina Totenberg's comments? How about when she hoped that Jesse Helms and / or his grandkids contracted AIDS?

Did she get fired?

Or when she said “I hope he’s not long for this world” about Lt. Gen. Boykin.

Well, Chuck?

Blue
10/22/2010, 01:13 AM
Now come on people, think about it. It is almost as bad as saying on air that you don't feel comfortable sitting next to a young African-American male on a public bus in the inner city. It was a really stupid thing to say, especially if his contract with NPR expressly prohibited it.

Bull****. It's how he felt. And why wouldn't he? Who blows up planes? ****ing Muslims do. Who robs people in the inner city? Poor ****ing blacks 90% of the time thats who.

The PC **** has gone way too far. Not everyones gonna like you or agree with you. Deal with it.

Edited bc arguing on this board is stupid.

Leroy Lizard
10/22/2010, 01:18 AM
And for the record I think sticking your **** in another mans *** is perverted, deviant, and unnatural.

:gary:

Blue
10/22/2010, 01:22 AM
I'm just trying to make a point.

Certain people can rail all day about what's right, but when the other opinion pops up, they're labeled intolerant, racist, ignorant, etc.

It's BS.

Leroy Lizard
10/22/2010, 01:26 AM
I'm just trying to make a point.

Certain people can rail all day about what's right, but when the other opinion pops up, they're labeled intolerant, racist, ignorant, etc.

It's BS.

I'm not disagreeing. I'm just saying that it is bound to get a bit interesting in here. After all, we have one resident gay poster here and a bunch that like soccer.

Blue
10/22/2010, 01:32 AM
So its ok to expouse their beliefs and morality, but not mine?

;) I got it. I think Americas getting it. And we're starting to send it back.

In no way was i trying to call out any one poster.

I will go back to ignoring the SO. It won't end well.

SanJoaquinSooner
10/22/2010, 02:06 AM
Here we got an annointing of Juan Williams with victimhood status.

SoonerNate
10/22/2010, 02:29 AM
As ridiculous as the firing sounds, you're exactly right about the duties of journalists. I get asked my opinion quite often and defer with a "As a reporter, I have no opinion."

NPR's ethical code should be adopted by more media outlets. And with all the whining about the "biased media" these days, it seems as though such strict adherence to maintaining objectivity would be welcomed.

It may sound as though Mr. Williams' free speech rights were violated with his firing, but his employer set the rules and he violated them.

Yes, I used to be in journalism myself. Newsflash: That whole "objective" thing that they taught both you and I is but a mere collegiate standard. It no longer exists.

Are you still in school? No offense, but it sounds like it. Objective journalism as you or I or academia once knew it at least in this country was shot with Obama's election. Political correctness took precedence over the laws of journalistic objectivity and now no readers even believe in any semblance of objectivity- nor should they.
The profession is dead. At least any semblance of objective journalism is dead. The profession has rightfully taken a hit larger than accounting after Enron.

Fraggle145
10/22/2010, 02:35 AM
It no longer exists.

Maybe it should... :pop:

SoonerNate
10/22/2010, 02:40 AM
Phuck em

Sooner5030
10/22/2010, 04:23 AM
If your organization receives any kind of funding from .gov I’d advise you to stay out of the news for a little while. NPR should not seek publicity like this…….if their concern was Williams they could have had a sit down and counseled him out or convince him to leave on his terms. Problem solved without reminding the taxpayers that you receive some taxpayer money. Now you’ve created a motivation for thousands of pissed off folks to data mine through every FOIA or available document to find something negative about NPR or CPB.

CPB alone received over $450 million (pg 3) in appropriations for FY09. (http://www.cpb.org/annualreports/2009/images/stories/docs/CPB2009financialsFINAL.pdf)

KABOOKIE
10/22/2010, 06:36 AM
Now come on people, think about it. It is almost as bad as saying on air that you don't feel comfortable sitting next to a young African-American male on a public bus in the inner city. It was a really stupid thing to say, especially if his contract with NPR expressly prohibited it.

So you agreed it was the right thing for Shirley Sherrod to get fired for saying she doesn't help white people as much as her kind?

OnlyOneOklahoma
10/22/2010, 07:40 AM
So you agreed it was the right thing for Shirley Sherrod to get fired for saying she doesn't help white people as much as her kind?

Wow this is just plain wrong. Do we have to register context and how the crazy right wing journalist didn't provide any?

The two situations are not remotely the same, and to suggest otherwise is to be intellectually dishonest.

TUSooner
10/22/2010, 07:52 AM
What was Juan Williams on? I listen to NPR all the time, but it's shows like Diane Rehm, Forum, Radio Times, etc. I don't remember hearing his name. All of the shows I listen to are as fair as humanly possible.

I have never been an NPR basher. NPR is generally fair; and I listen a lot and will keep listening. Williams usually reported on All Things Considered, and he was good & fair reporter.

So anyway, I can see that Williams may technically have violated his terms of employment, but I suspect others have done worse and lived to not tell about it - especially if they criticized conservatives, fairly or not. What bugs me is the big picture, where people are losing their jobs just for saying things - usually in a civil manner in an unguarded moment - that may be incorrect or unpopular. This kind of severe sanction cuts off the kind of open dicussion that makes free speech valuable. (Contrary to what some people think, the 1st Amendmen was not written just to protect sleazy p*rn-mongers like Larry Flynt. :rolleyes: )

How can we have this supposedly essential "dialiogue" about race and other touchy issues if people with even mildly eccentric or "distasteful" views are stifled from the get-go? The famous "African-American Studies" guru, Cornell West, has almost certainly said many stupid things about race, but he gets a pass, as he should. Same for Tweddle-Dum Sharpton and Tweddle-Dee Jackson who sully the once-noble Civil Rights movement with their sham indignation over every colorable slight of any black person.

When people candidly express views that that are disagreeable or demonstrably incorrect, like Jimmy the Greek back in the day, or Rush when he was on the NFL show, the proper response should be more speech -- correction and criticism but not squelching. Free speech means the right to be wrong - not without consequence, but without censorship.

And yes, I know that Juan Williams will still be free to say whatever he wants, probably on Fox, but other people who get clobbered for non-malicious comments about race, culture, or religion don't have the luxury of quasi-celebrity status. I just think this move was well below the standards I have come to expect from NPR.

SanJoaquinSooner
10/22/2010, 08:17 AM
I don't see how this is a free speech issue TU. The govt is not threatening to charge Juan with a criminal or civil offense for what he said. This is an employer-employee issue. Generally employers have a right to fire employees for behavioral issues. They can't fire one for their race or gender or religion.

If you are a bank VP and you go on a TV show and say you get nervous when an X walks in the bank lobby then the bank should have the right to fire you.

If you are a principal at a school and you go on a TV show and say you get nervous when an X walks in the principal's office, then the school board should have the right to fire you.

Employers should have the right to hire and fire.

Even if I personally disagree with the reason for a firing, I support employers' rights.

TUSooner
10/22/2010, 08:30 AM
I don't see how this is a free speech issue TU. The govt is not threatening to charge Juan with a criminal or civil offense for what he said. This is an employer-employee issue. Generally employers have a right to fire employees for behavioral issues. They can't fire one for their race or gender or religion.

If you are a bank VP and you go on a TV show and say you get nervous when an X walks in the bank lobby then the bank should have the right to fire you.

If you are a principal at a school and you go on a TV show and say you get nervous when an X walks in the principal's office, then the school board should have the right to fire you.

Employers should have the right to hire and fire.

Even if I personally disagree with the reason for a firing, I support employers' rights.

From a legal point of view, you are exactly right, it is not a free speech issue. Nor do I say that employers are outside their legal rights to fire people for being insolent, insubordinate, stupid, or even just annoying.
But my argument is meant to be a cultural argument, even a moral one. As we know, not everything that is legal is necessarily moral or right. Hypocrisy stinks, and I smell some when it comes to the so-called open dialogue on some issues.

OklahomaTuba
10/22/2010, 08:43 AM
From a legal point of view, you are exactly right, it is not a free speech issue.So your saying an employer (and a tax support one at that!) can terminate an employee, and then slander that employee by calling them nuts on national TV for expressing a personal opinion? Interesting.

Veritas
10/22/2010, 08:45 AM
So your saying an employer can terminate an employee, and then slander that employee by calling them nuts on national TV for expressing a personal opinion? Interesting.
That's not what he's saying at all there. Jeebus.

C&CDean
10/22/2010, 08:49 AM
NPR is for neocrats. The only times I've ever listened to that POS is on a couple of Saturday mornings when some comedian dude was on from Minnesota, and a couple of blues/jazz deals.

I've got a loose-knit oversized sweater and birkenstock wearing neighbor who moved to the country to grow organic veggies. He's the one who told me where NPR is on the dial (I don't remember it though). He listens to it 24/7. I can't complain about him too much though. He lets me cut hay on his pastures and keep the hay, so I can't complain too much.

OklahomaTuba
10/22/2010, 08:49 AM
That's not what he's saying at all there. Jeebus.Well he said that an employer is within their rights to do this. If so, how is this not a free speech issue??

Does this mean we only have protected free speech if you don't work for someone???

King Barry's Back
10/22/2010, 08:55 AM
Here's what's getting lost in all of this: the dude violated the terms of his employment set out by his employer.

From the NPR Ethics Code (http://www.npr.org/about/aboutnpr/ethics/ethics_code.html#outside):



Juan Williams was employed as a journalist...and for those of you who are employed as journalists, or suffered through J-School, what's rule #2, after "Seek the Truth and Report It?" "Maintain Objectivity.". Williams let a personal opinion and bias creep into his commentary on Fox News, which in turn violated his contract with NPR.

Imagine that...when your boss tells you not to do something, and you do it anyway, they fire you. Funny how things work out in a free-market, right-to-work environment.

That's not really the issue. NPR admitted that others had violated their thought police policie...I mean speech code, and had not been fired. They even admitted that Juan Williams himself had toed the line before and not been fired.

So it's definitely not a zero tolerance policy -- which makes it a judgement call. I guess I'd have to say that NPR appears to have the legal right to fire him, but I just think it was unwise, unproductive and anti-free speech for them to do so.

TUSooner
10/22/2010, 09:00 AM
So your saying an employer (and a tax support one at that!) can terminate an employee, and then slander that employee by calling them nuts on national TV for expressing a personal opinion? Interesting.

COME ON, Tuba. Cool it with your knee-jerk indignation over things you don't even try to understand.

I'm not making any legal argument, and I especially refuse waste my law school education deciphering and responding to your string of dubious presuppositions. (That's kinda what I do for a living with people who write from prison.) Did you even read anything else of what I said?

OklahomaTuba
10/22/2010, 09:03 AM
COME ON, Tuba. Cool it with your knee-jerk indignation over things you don't even try to understand.
And why don't you cool it with your knee jerk asshat ****** reaction to a basic question??? Jeebus how about some civility for once???

All i'm asking is that do you believe an employer is within their rights to do this. you seemed to indicate that yes, they are.

If so, how is this not a free speech issue??

Just a simple question.

King Barry's Back
10/22/2010, 09:04 AM
Now come on people, think about it. It is almost as bad as saying on air that you don't feel comfortable sitting next to a young African-American male on a public bus in the inner city. It was a really stupid thing to say, especially if his contract with NPR expressly prohibited it.

Two points:

1. A significant share of African Americans riding buses in the inner city are not actively trying to kill us all right now at this very moment.

2. If Mr Williams stated that Americans SHOULD feel uncomfortable if Muslims are on a plane, dressed as extremists, and that anybody who feels comfortable is a bad American, or a loser or *****, or whatever -- he probably should go. But to my ear, it sounded like he was stating a fact (not an opinion), was not advocating for others to follow his lead, and seemed wishful that that wasn't the case. But honestly, isn't that discomfort what we've been asked to do? When entering a plane, aren't we supposed to watch for suspicious characters so we can be ready if/when they try something? Remember, several of them HAVE tried something. ANd their fellow passengers were quoted as saying "I couldn't believe it was the guy that actually looked so much like a terrorist."

King Barry's Back
10/22/2010, 09:06 AM
deleted. inaccurate.

Veritas
10/22/2010, 09:12 AM
Hey, you know what, I feel comfortable sitting next to a young black kid on a public bus in the inner city. But I'm 6'4" 250, nobody starts **** with me. My wife on the other hand, I wouldn't want her in that situation.

When I see an Arab in an airport or on my flight, I'm not going to whine about it or skip out on the flight, but I'm watching you mother****er.

And when I see an Asian driving a car, I'm staying way ahead or way behind them.

Maybe this makes me a racist from someone's perspective, I dunno.

TUSooner
10/22/2010, 09:14 AM
Well he said that an employer is within their rights to do this. If so, how is this not a free speech issue??

Does this mean we only have protected free speech if you don't work for someone???


And why don't you cool it with your knee jerk asshat ****** reaction to a basic question??? Jeebus how about some civility for once???

All i'm asking is that do you believe an employer is within their rights to do this. you seemed to indicate that yes, they are.

If so, how is this not a free speech issue??

Just a simple question.


Believe me, Tuba, employment law and First Amendment law can be complicated, especially when they cross paths. I lack the immediate knowledge, or the time, or the patience, to examine the situation and to explain how the law might apply to it. [deleted uncivil stuff ;) ]

King Barry's Back
10/22/2010, 09:19 AM
So you agreed it was the right thing for Shirley Sherrod to get fired for saying she doesn't help white people as much as her kind?

IF she had actually said that, then it would be absolutely necessary to fire her, and probably to prosecute her. To discriminate based on race, as a federal employee, is strictly prohibited in both law and regulation. It is an outrageous abuse of power, and against everything that the US government stands for in serving the people and providing equal access to its services for all.

The fact that she didn't actually abuse her power makes her summary firing, without due processde, by the Obama Administration, a ridiculous and embarrassing charade for all Americans.

Hmmmmmm. Juan Williams was fired by the Obama Administration w/o due process, and for actions that were not abuses of power.

Guess your clever example doesn't apply here.

King Barry's Back
10/22/2010, 09:22 AM
I don't see how this is a free speech issue TU. The govt is not threatening to charge Juan with a criminal or civil offense for what he said. This is an employer-employee issue. Generally employers have a right to fire employees for behavioral issues. They can't fire one for their race or gender or religion.

If you are a bank VP and you go on a TV show and say you get nervous when an X walks in the bank lobby then the bank should have the right to fire you.

If you are a principal at a school and you go on a TV show and say you get nervous when an X walks in the principal's office, then the school board should have the right to fire you.

Employers should have the right to hire and fire.

Even if I personally disagree with the reason for a firing, I support employers' rights.

They need to drop the "P" in their name, go private, get out of the government business, and then they don't have to worry about Constitutional rights.

Frozen Sooner
10/22/2010, 09:23 AM
Jeebus how about some civility for once???


That's pretty goddamn rich.

TUSooner is one of the most civil people posting here.

You wouldn't know how to be civil to people on the internet if someone hit you in the face with Judith Martin.

King Barry's Back
10/22/2010, 09:24 AM
Hey, you know what, I feel comfortable sitting next to a young black kid on a public bus in the inner city. But I'm 6'4" 250, nobody starts **** with me. My wife on the other hand, I wouldn't want her in that situation.

When I see an Arab in an airport or on my flight, I'm not going to whine about it or skip out on the flight, but I'm watching you mother****er.

And when I see an Asian driving a car, I'm staying way ahead or way behind them.

Maybe this makes me a racist from someone's perspective, I dunno.

I'm curious how many African Americans have ever felt uncomfortable among a bunch of white people that they don't know? I bet its quite a few. And I don't blame them. I feel uncomfortable around a whole bunch of anybody that I don't know. It's a little ridiculous that a person can not express that they experience such a commonly felt experience.

Sooner98
10/22/2010, 09:26 AM
I am walking along a poorly-lit street at night when I see a block ahead of me a tricked-out low rider, with a group of young black men wearing what appear to be gang colors. Instead of walking toward them, I cross the street and continue on the other side.

Question: Am I...

A) A bigoted racist, or

B) A sane, rational person who recognizes potential danger, and doesn't acquiesce to the ever-increasingly nutty religion of liberal political correctness?

Veritas
10/22/2010, 09:30 AM
I'm curious how many African Americans have ever felt uncomfortable among a bunch of white people that they don't know? I bet its quite a few. And I don't blame them. I feel uncomfortable around a whole bunch of anybody that I don't know. It's a little ridiculous that a person can not express that they experience such a commonly felt experience.
I've asked my brother in law, who is Sudanese-black about this. He grew up in Montana, now he lives in Nebraska. He said he grew up that way and it's never bothered him, but he also said that nobody's ever treated him like an "other" except for once in Abercrombie & Fitch when some bitch salesperson made a snotty comment about him and my sis being a biracial couple.

On the other hand I have a friend from Dallas who's black and gay and he said he feels like an "other" no matter where he goes.

TUSooner
10/22/2010, 09:30 AM
I am walking along a poorly-lit street at night when I see a block ahead of me a tricked-out low rider, with a group of young black men wearing what appear to be gang colors. Instead of walking toward them, I cross the street and continue on the other side.....

Even Jessie Jackson once said he'd feel uncomfortable in a similar situation.

TUSooner
10/22/2010, 09:33 AM
***You wouldn't know how to be civil to people on the internet if someone hit you in the face with Judith Martin.

I'd pay money to see that! :D

Yes, Tuba, your complaining about civility - as if you were suddenly allergic to sarcasm - was irony written large. But it was not a excuse for any incivility from me.

Frozen Sooner
10/22/2010, 09:44 AM
Just to throw some frames around things being thrown out there:

1. Yes. A private employer may fire someone for something they said without implicating Constitutional issues. There may be statutory issues, but the Constitution is silent.
2. NPR may or may not be a state actor for the purposes of Constitutional analysis. While they receive some funding from the government, the vast majority (or so I've heard) of their funding comes from private donations. If that's the case, they're likely not a state actor, and the Constitution is not implicated.
3. Shirley Sherrod was not denied procedural due process, because as an at-will employee she did not have a property interest in her job. In order to get a property interest in a job, you must be working under either an express or implied contract. Regardless, even were she working under a contract, the harm was cured when she was offered reinstatement almost immediately.
4. Juan Williams WAS working under a contract, so if he were fired without due process by a state actor, he would have a Constitutional claim. However, it appears that he violated the terms of his contract fairly explicitly. No due process claim.

Just framing up some of the legal issues.

If Williams were fired solely because he said something I personally find stupid, yeah, that's probably not super-cool by NPR. Then again, I don't listen to NPR, and if I spent my life being outraged by actions of groups the government gives some funding to I'd, well, spent a lot of time being outraged.

Frozen Sooner
10/22/2010, 09:46 AM
OK, just looked it up because I was curious. 5.8% of NPRs funding comes from Federal, State, and Local governments. Another 13.6% comes from universities, some of which are obviously public.

Ike
10/22/2010, 09:56 AM
OK, just looked it up because I was curious. 5.8% of NPRs funding comes from Federal, State, and Local governments. Another 13.6% comes from universities, some of which are obviously public.

So does that mean that somewhere between 5.8% and 19.4% of the first ammendment applies? ;)

Sooner5030
10/22/2010, 10:03 AM
OK, just looked it up because I was curious. 5.8% of NPRs funding comes from Federal, State, and Local governments. Another 13.6% comes from universities, some of which are obviously public.


Correct me if I am wrong but 42% comes from member stations which get their funding from CPB (Corporation for Public Broadcasting) which receives its funding from federal appropriations.

TUSooner
10/22/2010, 10:12 AM
So does that mean that somewhere between 5.8% and 19.4% of the first ammendment applies? ;)

LOL. That reminds me of this: Groucho Marx was told he would not be admitted to a country club (with swimming pool) because he was Jewish. He replied, "My daughter is only half Jewish. Can she go into the water up to her knees?" This is the same situation in which Groucho made the famous comment, "I don't want to belong to any club that would have be as a member."

And now back our regularly scheduled programming.

Frozen Sooner
10/22/2010, 11:01 AM
Correct me if I am wrong but 42% comes from member stations which get their funding from CPB (Corporation for Public Broadcasting) which receives its funding from federal appropriations.

Ah. Good point. Only 10.2% comes from CPB though. At least according to NPR's budget numbers from 2008.

Leroy Lizard
10/22/2010, 11:21 AM
OK, just looked it up because I was curious. 5.8% of NPRs funding comes from Federal, State, and Local governments. Another 13.6% comes from universities, some of which are obviously public.

I suggest we make that 0% from governments.

StoopTroup
10/22/2010, 11:28 AM
I suggest we increase the funding to 51% and require everyone who works at NPR to wear Burkas

Frozen Sooner
10/22/2010, 11:30 AM
So does that mean that somewhere between 5.8% and 19.4% of the first ammendment applies? ;)

No bright line rule. There's a test for determining whether an entity is a state actor, but it's all kinds of fuzzy and fact-specific. I don't really have an opinion on whether NPR is a state actor or not.

KABOOKIE
10/22/2010, 12:52 PM
It's ****ing funny here that liberal losers would say the Shirley Sherrod firing was completely different to what happened to Jaun Williams.

Both instances were liberal PC knee-jerk reactions to an out-of-context discussion on improving racial issues. But, hey one was a (D) and the other instance is a (D) who spreads propaganda at the hands of FOX. So, yea I guess they're different. :rolleyes:

It's amazing the hypocrisy from the party of tolerance.

TUSooner
10/22/2010, 12:54 PM
Off the point again....I generally listen to NPR for jazz or classical music and sometimes the news, because it's more in depth than other radio news and it's generally calmly and fairly presented (I keep my BS detector turned on). But I hate that my local station has too many news and talk shows. I especially despise "Fresh Air" with Terry Gross. I swear.... If you have ever plucked a guitar or set foot on a stage or in front of a a camera and you have some sort of addiction or mental problem, she'll have you on her show and tout you as a "troubled artistic genius", even if you never did anything worth a **** or that anybody ever liked. And I don't recall ever hearing her interview a guest that could be called conservative abouty anything, (though I could be wrong about this since I don't listen to her any more). She's the soul of uber-hip pretension, and she fosters that vice in others. I may vomit on my keyboard just thinking about her right now. ULLLK !!

OUthunder
10/22/2010, 02:05 PM
Hey, you know what, I feel comfortable sitting next to a young black kid on a public bus in the inner city. But I'm 6'4" 250, nobody starts **** with me. My wife on the other hand, I wouldn't want her in that situation.

When I see an Arab in an airport or on my flight, I'm not going to whine about it or skip out on the flight, but I'm watching you mother****er.

And when I see an Asian driving a car, I'm staying way ahead or way behind them.

Maybe this makes me a racist from someone's perspective, I dunno.

And don't forget the white bitch in the mini van with two kids and a phone to her ear on the highway. I let them bitches pass right by me. They're ****ing nutso and scare the **** outta me.

SanJoaquinSooner
10/22/2010, 03:06 PM
[:cry:]Fox News offers Juan Williams $2 million contract[/:cry:]

SanJoaquinSooner
10/22/2010, 03:07 PM
I suggest we make that 0% from governments.

And what's your percentage?

Leroy Lizard
10/22/2010, 07:25 PM
I suggest we increase the funding to 51% and require everyone who works at NPR to wear Burkas

They probably already do. (Or Mao jackets.)

Leroy Lizard
10/22/2010, 07:26 PM
And what's your percentage?

About 100%. And? (You have a point in there somewhere, I suppose.)

Edit: It used to be. Not so sure what the percentage is anymore.

Leroy Lizard
10/22/2010, 07:28 PM
Off the point again....I generally listen to NPR for jazz or classical music and sometimes the news, because it's more in depth than other radio news and it's generally calmly and fairly presented (I keep my BS detector turned on).

And what year is your Prius? (Or is it a Subaru?)

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
10/23/2010, 12:35 AM
...When people candidly express views that that are disagreeable or DEMONSTRABLY INCORRECT(haha), like Jimmy the Greek back in the day, or Rush when he was on the NFL show,...Your first 3 paragraphs were well written and correct. The above is a doozy, however.

SoonerNate
10/23/2010, 03:01 AM
NPR is about as objective as the 700 club is. The fact that Soros gave them $1.9 million is enough proof to me that we need to cut them off from public funding. Isn't Soros the same guy that pals with that communist in Venezuela? Yea, they're objective. Give me a break.

The Soros' and Buffett's bottom feeding billionaires that continue to make fortunes shorting our currency? I bet that's just a coincidence. Look, it pays some huge dividends (typically the ulta wealthy) to see this nation and our currency to fail and they make millions off of it. That is how they invest. That is how Buffett made his fortune. Soros has made his ridiculous fortunes worldwide (predominantly in Europe) by using his influence to make millions off of shorting currencies.. That's his investing shtick. Now he pays a certain side millions to influence public policy. Just a coincidence????????

Ask yourself, why would he be so interested in our fiscal policy?
He suddenly believes in 'hope and change?' GTFO.

He makes his fortune by shorting currencies!!!!!!!

Wake up idiots. Please!!!!

pphilfran
10/23/2010, 09:58 AM
NPR is about as objective as the 700 club is. The fact that Soros gave them $1.9 million is enough proof to me that we need to cut them off from public funding. Isn't Soros the same guy that pals with that communist in Venezuela? Yea, they're objective. Give me a break.

The Soros' and Buffett's bottom feeding billionaires that continue to make fortunes shorting our currency? I bet that's just a coincidence. Look, it pays some huge dividends (typically the ulta wealthy) to see this nation and our currency to fail and they make millions off of it. That is how they invest. That is how Buffett made his fortune. Soros has made his ridiculous fortunes worldwide (predominantly in Europe) by using his influence to make millions off of shorting currencies.. That's his investing shtick. Now he pays a certain side millions to influence public policy. Just a coincidence????????

Ask yourself, why would he be so interested in our fiscal policy?
He suddenly believes in 'hope and change?' GTFO.

He makes his fortune by shorting currencies!!!!!!!

Wake up idiots. Please!!!!

I am not so sure about Buffet...but George "Broke the Bank of England"...

tommieharris91
10/23/2010, 10:02 AM
NPR is about as objective as the 700 club is. The fact that Soros gave them $1.9 million is enough proof to me that we need to cut them off from public funding. Isn't Soros the same guy that pals with that communist in Venezuela? Yea, they're objective. Give me a break.

The Soros' and Buffett's bottom feeding billionaires that continue to make fortunes shorting our currency? I bet that's just a coincidence. Look, it pays some huge dividends (typically the ulta wealthy) to see this nation and our currency to fail and they make millions off of it. That is how they invest. That is how Buffett made his fortune. Soros has made his ridiculous fortunes worldwide (predominantly in Europe) by using his influence to make millions off of shorting currencies.. That's his investing shtick. Now he pays a certain side millions to influence public policy. Just a coincidence????????

Ask yourself, why would he be so interested in our fiscal policy?
He suddenly believes in 'hope and change?' GTFO.

He makes his fortune by shorting currencies!!!!!!!

Wake up idiots. Please!!!!

Socialist. :rolleyes:

A Sooner in Texas
10/23/2010, 11:23 AM
Yes, I used to be in journalism myself. Newsflash: That whole "objective" thing that they taught both you and I is but a mere collegiate standard. It no longer exists.

Are you still in school? No offense, but it sounds like it. Objective journalism as you or I or academia once knew it at least in this country was shot with Obama's election. Political correctness took precedence over the laws of journalistic objectivity and now no readers even believe in any semblance of objectivity- nor should they.
The profession is dead. At least any semblance of objective journalism is dead. The profession has rightfully taken a hit larger than accounting after Enron.

Nate, I'm a managing editor at a daily newspaper in the fastest-growing county in Texas, with 500,000 residents and no slowdown in sight. When I say I'm objective, I am. I have very definite opinions about everything, but they don't go into print. I'm also a reporter, and I have to cover everything.
Journalistic objectivity may sound like a pipedream in this day and age, but it can be done. It just takes a little more work, and a whole lot more ethics.

Leroy Lizard
10/23/2010, 05:16 PM
Nate, I'm a managing editor at a daily newspaper in the fastest-growing county in Texas, with 500,000 residents and no slowdown in sight. When I say I'm objective, I am. I have very definite opinions about everything, but they don't go into print. I'm also a reporter, and I have to cover everything.
Journalistic objectivity may sound like a pipedream in this day and age, but it can be done. It just takes a little more work, and a whole lot more ethics.

Can I guess: You're a liberal?

Sooner Eclipse
10/24/2010, 01:02 PM
Nate, I'm a managing editor at a daily newspaper in the fastest-growing county in Texas, with 500,000 residents and no slowdown in sight. When I say I'm objective, I am. I have very definite opinions about everything, but they don't go into print. I'm also a reporter, and I have to cover everything.
Journalistic objectivity may sound like a pipedream in this day and age, but it can be done. It just takes a little more work, and a whole lot more ethics.

I used to live in Conroe, and I've read your paper. You don't think its biased, but it is from a conservative POV. Granted you are not obvious about it or possibly even conscious of it. If you were obvious about it, the community in Conroe would boycott that paper faster than you could comprehend whats happening to you. The problem is left leaning libs have monopolized that form of media and only hire like types. You have no one in the office to offer counterpoint and wouldn't heed it if you did. Racial profiling in the workplace is verboten, but political profiling is a common practice in the journalism profession. Those in conservative communities are subtle about it. Those in liberal communities are blatant about it because there are no consequences.

SanJoaquinSooner
10/24/2010, 01:08 PM
I used to live in Conroe, and I've read your paper. You don't think its biased, but it is from a conservative POV. Granted you are not obvious about it or possibly even conscious of it. If you were obvious about it, the community in Conroe would boycott that paper faster than you could comprehend whats happening to you. The problem is left leaning libs have monopolized that form of media and only hire like types. You have no one in the office to offer counterpoint and wouldn't heed it if you did. Racial profiling in the workplace is verboten, but political profiling is a common practice in the journalism profession. Those in conservative communities are subtle about it. Those in liberal communities are blatant about it because there are no consequences.

I had always read that pubs owned a majority of newspapers. Is that no longer the case?

can you give an example of said bias for which she* would not be conscious?


*on edit:)

A Sooner in Texas
10/24/2010, 01:17 PM
I used to live in Conroe, and I've read your paper. You don't think its biased, but it is from a conservative POV. Granted you are not obvious about it or possibly even conscious of it. If you were obvious about it, the community in Conroe would boycott that paper faster than you could comprehend whats happening to you. The problem is left leaning libs have monopolized that form of media and only hire like types. You have no one in the office to offer counterpoint and wouldn't heed it if you did. Racial profiling in the workplace is verboten, but political profiling is a common practice in the journalism profession. Those in conservative communities are subtle about it. Those in liberal communities are blatant about it because there are no consequences.

I don't think you've read it in a number of years, since it's actually a quite conservative newspaper. Unless of course you are one of those conservatives who read liberal "bias" into everything, including a nearly 100 percent endorsement rate of Republican/conservative candidates/positions/etc.
Our county is one of the most conservative in Texas, and our paper reflects that. And I do have some liberal leanings (just to answer your "question," Leroy...but I always vote for some Republicans as well, particularly on the local level. Otherwise, I might not get to vote. ;) I've had many Repubs and conservatives tell me they appreciate my fair reporting; I keep my political beliefs to myself in this community. The Dems here probably don't appreciate our overwhelming coverage of Republicans here, but that's their own fault because they can't find any viable candidates.

And on a side note to San Joaquin Sooner: I'm of the female persuasion. :)

Sooner Eclipse
10/24/2010, 02:09 PM
I have no copies to share. Just offered my opinion of the paper and haven't lived in Montgomery Co. for a year and 1/2. You could see a somewhat slanted viewpoint in the writing but was not blatant.(don't know if it was your writing or not) My point remains. Your opinion of your own objectiveness is irrelevant. Your readers opinions are. I think the majority of the citizens In Mont.Co. would say that the views expressed in the paper are left of their personal views. Again, not blatant, but still there.

Sooner Eclipse
10/24/2010, 02:18 PM
I had always read that pubs owned a majority of newspapers. Is that no longer the case?

Name by state the largest or second largest paper. With few exceptions it is not a conservative leaning paper regardless of who owns it.

A Sooner in Texas
10/24/2010, 04:19 PM
I have no copies to share. Just offered my opinion of the paper and haven't lived in Montgomery Co. for a year and 1/2. You could see a somewhat slanted viewpoint in the writing but was not blatant.(don't know if it was your writing or not) My point remains. Your opinion of your own objectiveness is irrelevant. Your readers opinions are. I think the majority of the citizens In Mont.Co. would say that the views expressed in the paper are left of their personal views. Again, not blatant, but still there.


And I will continue to disagree with you, because it's a very conservative newspaper. And my opinion of my own objectiveness is not irrelevant, because I have to continue to be as objective as possible; if I detect any iota of bias in my stories (or other reporters' stories) then the offending material is edited out or the story is rewritten or, at times, doesn't even run.
To say that my opinion is irrelevant makes no sense since I work there and have to improve the paper's quality however I can. If I get relevant complaints of bias, I do everything I can to correct that. So my opinion is just as valid as anyone's.
And do you actually know the majority of the 500,000 residents in Montgomery County? Probably not, so why do you try to speak for them?

SanJoaquinSooner
10/24/2010, 04:35 PM
I have no copies to share... My point remains

Eclipse, if you have no evidence, then could you at least make up a hypothetical example of how an editor may unconsciously make a story biased to the left.

Leroy Lizard
10/24/2010, 04:58 PM
Our county is one of the most conservative in Texas, and our paper reflects that. And I do have some liberal leanings (just to answer your "question," Leroy...but I always vote for some Republicans as well, particularly on the local level. Otherwise, I might not get to vote. ;) I've had many Repubs and conservatives tell me they appreciate my fair reporting; I keep my political beliefs to myself in this community. The Dems here probably don't appreciate our overwhelming coverage of Republicans here, but that's their own fault because they can't find any viable candidates.

In other words, you're a liberal.

Liberals always claim they are the most unbiased, objective, fair people on the planet.

And guess who they rely on to tell them that they are fair and unbiased? Themselves and their liberal cronies.

tommieharris91
10/24/2010, 05:01 PM
Name by state the largest or second largest paper. With few exceptions it is not a conservative leaning paper regardless of who owns it.

The Chicago Tribune and LA Times have always been considered right-leaning papers.

A Sooner in Texas
10/24/2010, 06:57 PM
In other words, you're a liberal.

Liberals always claim they are the most unbiased, objective, fair people on the planet.

And guess who they rely on to tell them that they are fair and unbiased? Themselves and their liberal cronies.

Wrong again, Liz. I vote for a lot of Republicans. And I don't need your uneducated opinions about me or my job to tell me how to do it, since I have plenty of conservatives who tell me I'm doing it right.

Leroy Lizard
10/24/2010, 07:51 PM
Wrong again, Liz. I vote for a lot of Republicans. And I don't need your uneducated opinions about me or my job to tell me how to do it, since I have plenty of conservatives who tell me I'm doing it right.

Heh. "I have voted for a lot of Republicans." It's like claiming you have a lot of Black friends. :P

Next you will tell us that you used to be a Republican, but the party no longer represents your views and so you are now an "Independent."

Did I get it right?

Leroy Lizard
10/24/2010, 07:55 PM
The Chicago Tribune and LA Times have always been considered right-leaning papers.

LA Times endorsed Obama.

Come to think of it, so did the Chicago Tribune.

EDIT: LA Times has also endorsed Jerry Brown and Barbara Boxer. But it's right-leaning, right?

Sooner Eclipse
10/24/2010, 08:37 PM
Eclipse, if you have no evidence, then could you at least make up a hypothetical example of how an editor may unconsciously make a story biased to the left.

What part of " I lived there and read that paper for years" don't you understand..... I have an opinion of her paper that she does not share. I did not save the last 8 years of the paper in anticipation of this argument. :rolleyes: The problem is most reporters are so accustomed to leaning that way they don't realize their "mean" is not that of the general public.

Sooner Eclipse
10/24/2010, 08:50 PM
The Chicago Tribune and LA Times have always been considered right-leaning papers.

You're making my point for me. See Lizards post above.

SanJoaquinSooner
10/24/2010, 09:11 PM
What part of " I lived there and read that paper for years" don't you understand..... I have an opinion of her paper that she does not share. I did not save the last 8 years of the paper in anticipation of this argument. :rolleyes: The problem is most reporters are so accustomed to leaning that way they don't realize their "mean" is not that of the general public.
You can't even make up a single example? yeah, I understand clearly:

"I state the rag is biased, therefore it is biased. QED"

Sooner Eclipse
10/24/2010, 09:15 PM
You can't even make up a single example? yeah, I understand clearly:

"I state the rag is biased, therefore it is biased. QED"

You got me. It's kinda like my opinion of you. :rolleyes:

Leroy Lizard
10/24/2010, 10:01 PM
I had always read that pubs owned a majority of newspapers. Is that no longer the case?

can you give an example of said bias for which she* would not be conscious?


*on edit:)

It boils down more to what they choose to report and what they do not.

Republican politician attending gay bars -- "We must investigate! The people have a right to know!"

Democrat politician attending gay bars -- "This is a private matter that doesn't concern our readers. I doubt they would really care. We need to investigate the issues."

rainiersooner
10/25/2010, 03:18 AM
Yeah that liberal media should have done a better job reporting on Bill Clinton's sexual relationship with his intern.

SanJoaquinSooner
10/25/2010, 07:44 AM
It boils down more to what they choose to report and what they do not.

Republican politician attending gay bars -- "We must investigate! The people have a right to know!"

Democrat politician attending gay bars -- "This is a private matter that doesn't concern our readers. I doubt they would really care. We need to investigate the issues."

I would fully expect a media outlet who strives to be unbiased to expose hypocrisy from both ends of the political spectrum. e.g., exposing politicians whose signature issue is protecting the environment and their behavior contradicts their public positions, .... or a proclaimed conservationist who has outlandish water and electric bills (my newspaper did such a story on city council members).... or a politician who publicly blasts Evil Corporation X but actually is a shareholder.

Leroy Lizard
10/25/2010, 10:30 AM
Yeah that liberal media should have done a better job reporting on Bill Clinton's sexual relationship with his intern.

IIRC, the media tried to bury it initially.


I would fully expect a media outlet who strives to be unbiased to expose hypocrisy from both ends of the political spectrum. e.g., exposing politicians whose signature issue is protecting the environment and their behavior contradicts their public positions, .... or a proclaimed conservationist who has outlandish water and electric bills (my newspaper did such a story on city council members).... or a politician who publicly blasts Evil Corporation X but actually is a shareholder.

That's a weak excuse, and it isn't really happening anyway. You pretty much have to tune into Fox to uncover the hypocrisy on the Left. (Not saying that Fox reports on the hypocrisy on the Right in a fair manner -- Fox is biased too.)

The very fact that a newspaper, which purports to be fair and balanced, would endorse any candidate is evidence of bias.

"We are fair and balanced, but we really want Obama to win." Sounds pretty contradictory.

Leroy Lizard
10/25/2010, 10:59 AM
BTW, just to highlight how difficult it is for people to gauge the fairness of the media, note that we were already told that the LA Times was a right-leaning newspaper.

Never mind that it endorsed Obama and currently endorses Boxer and Brown. To the Left, it is a right-leaning newspaper.

So, if the Left considers the LA Times a right-wing outlet, can you imagine what their ideal is for a centrist newspaper?

It boils down to this: People call newspapers (and other media outlets) "fair" and "objective" when the news gets reported the way they want it reported. And how do they want it reported? Well, they don't want to hear bad news about those they voted for and love to hear bad news about their opponents.

It's just human nature.

Sooner_Havok
10/25/2010, 05:17 PM
Revisionist history is fun

OnlyOneOklahoma
10/25/2010, 06:45 PM
Revisionist history is fun

Profitable too. Just ask Glenn Beck, Hannity, or Maddow.