Thursday, October 21, 2010

Keep Fear Alive

Juan Williams said this:

I mean, look, Bill (O'Reilly, of course), I’m not a bigot. You know the kind of books I’ve written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the 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.

Now, I remember also that when the Times Square bomber was at court, I think this was just last week. He said the war with Muslims, America’s war is just beginning, first drop of blood. I don’t think there’s any way to get away from these facts.
"I'm not a bigot, but any one of THOSE PEOPLE could be a terrorist. AMIRIGHT? I mean, c'mon now."

Well the difference between NPR and Fox News is that NPR has a problem with people encouraging unreasoned fear and they have terminated Mr. Williams' services. As it happens Williams retains his contract with Fox News, which pays about a gazillion times more. He will flourish there just as Alan Colmes did. Congratulations on the increased respect you will receive there as a minority and "liberal" Mr. W! Maybe they'll give you your own hour-long!

25 comments:

Publius said...

I know, right? I mean why does everyone ignore all the Christian bombers, and the Buddhist bombers, the Jewish bombers, and the Mormon bombers out there? WHY does everyone just keep talking only about the Muslim bombers?

Danielk said...

Know any high school boys? Aren't you afraid they'll pull a shotgun and take you out like Harris and Klebold? Are you frightened of Tea Party members because they are just like Tim McVeigh?

I was mugged by a black kid in New York once and to this day I'm a little frightened of Juan Williams. Look, I'm just sayin'.

wamk said...

Is it okay that NPR has accepted almost $2 million from George Soros?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/18/business/media/18npr.html?_r=1&src=busln

So what Williams said wasn't okay, but 100 new Soros-funded reporters are?

Also, since NPR exists because of overwhelmingly being funded by the Government, isn't the Government infringing on Williams' free speech rights?

Danielk said...

Fair questions.

1. If NPR never interviews Juan Williams after this (or at least offers him interviews) then that argument might hold water. But even so, Juan Williams is free to say whatever he likes at his other, better-paying gig. He's not being censored any more than Alan Colmes was.

In fact the problem at NPR is Williams was employed as a News Analyst rather than a commentator. A commentator can give those kinds of opinions but in an analyst it's prejudicial. If Williams had said on Fox News, "I worry that all the teabaggers are nuts" he'd probably have been fired from both networks.

$2 million could potentially buy a lot of influence. Just ask this guy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Waleed_bin_Talal

In 1997, Time Magazine reported that bin Talal owned about 5% of News Corporation,[6] Rupert Murdoch's company which is now the parent company of Fox News. By 2010 Alwaleed's stake in News Corp. was about 7% stake at worth $3 Billion noted the 2010 News Corp. $70 million (9%) investment in Al-Waleed's Rotana Group, the Arab World's largest entertainment company.

Of course I can understand your concern because George Soros is a socialist who wants to destroy the country, while Al-Waleed just throws a little money to the Taliban now and again. Besides, nobody even watches Fox News, but the nation is glued to the News Hour every night.

wamk said...

In your opinion, do you think Williams would have been canned if he made those comments to Charlie Rose, instead of O'Reilly? I don't.

And if $2 million doesn't buy any influence, why are people prevented from donating that much to individual politicians?

Obviously, you don't mind the Soros money, because it furthers your agenda.

I find it funny that the Left is imploding, having to enforce it's own politically correct views. A Leftie organization has to fire a Leftie employee because he exercised his right of free speech.

Couldn't come at a better time for the Right, so close to the elections. The casual viewer will see a guy losing his job for a statement that probably isn't too far from what many of them also believe. Makes the Left look even more crazy and out of touch.

Thanks, NPR and Mr. Soros!

Just wondering, do any other NPR employees over any kind of political analysis on other Networks?

You didn't really answer my question either. Do you have a problem with NPR accepting money from George Soros?

Danielk said...

Oh I get it! You are saying that George Soros fired Juan Williams! Spit it out, man!

Danielk said...

The Jean Kroc foundation donated $225 million to NPR and that doesn't worry me either, even though I think MacDonald's food isn't good for you. $2 million is pretty small in comparison.

I wonder now if you worry that every decision at Fox News is filtered through the $3 billion dollar OWNERSHIP STAKE of Al-Waleed. Why doesn't that creep you out at all? Again, 3 billion and he OWNS the network. He's building a Mosque at ground zero, you know.

Good to have you back, by the way! I missed you this week.

wamk said...

So your answer is "no", you don't find a problem with NPR taking money from a far-Left billionaire with an agenda, but you do have a problem with a center-Left analyst exercising his right to free speech.

It is good to be back. Spent a few days at Corporate for some meetings, and had little time for blogging/commenting. Many business trips over the last 6 weeks, with another coming up on Wednesday.

Anonymous said...

Oh yeah, if you got fired from your job, and then your boss said you were crazy, and your boss was paid largely from taxpayer funds, should that person get fired?

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/10/21/130728202/npr-ceo-williams-views-of-muslims-should-stay-between-himself-and-his-psychiatrist

Or is your former boss protected by free speech rights?

Danielk said...

Please explain why I SHOULD have a problem with NPR accepting money from a billionaire with an agenda. Be specific.

In answer to your anonymous question, I wouldn't demand the boss be fired, but I would ask for a public apology. I suspect one is coming shortly. But the dude has a point; admitting to an irrational fear is kind of a cry for help. If a guy says he's with the Tea Party, I don't automatically assume he's going to blow up the Federal Building. I wait to see what he does next. THAT'S rational.

wamk said...

How was his reaction irrational?

After the Tea Party guy blows up that Federal building (and we all know he's going to, right?), will you kick yourself for standing by when you knew something bad was going to happen? What will then happen the next time you see a Tea Party guy next to a Federal Building? Will you stand down again, or will you be concerned?

Again, you don't mind Soros' agenda, because it follows yours. Don't be ashamed to dance around the answer, just say "no, I don't mind" like we all know you want to.

Danielk said...

Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols WERE Tea party guys, before there was a tea party.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing#Timothy_McVeigh

I don't mind Soro's agenda, but I also don't think he has nearly the clout at NPR as you think he does, or the clout that our Saudi friend that you haven't addressed has at Fox. Soros is small potatoes at NPR.

Danielk said...

And to further clarify, all muslims aren't terrorists for the same reason that all tea partiers aren't bomb planters. Because almost nobody plants bombs, no matter what group they belong to.

wamk said...

Please explain why I SHOULD have a problem with Fox News accepting money from a billionaire with an agenda. Be specific.

Does AW have "clout" at Fox, and if so, what kind, and how much?

Soros also donated $1 million to Media Matters. Will his donation carry any clout with the folks over there?

Danielk said...

You shouldn't have a problem with either millionaire, especially because as a Republican you have faith in the benign nature of all such people. Somehow all rich people are Mother Teresa to you guys except for Soros, who is a combination Moriarty/Fu Manch.

I can't imagine what difference in editorial policy will be wrought by Soros giving money to Media Matters. Ar you worried that it may develop a liberal bias?

Wamk said...

So you can't give me a specific reason why AW is a problem investing in Fox News then?

Does AW have any clout at Fox, and if so, how much?

You acknowledge that Soros has a liberal bias with Media Matters, yet you feel his liberal influence will change nothing at NPR?

100 new NPR reporters will owe their job to George Soros. You don't think any of them will feel a certain obligation to Soros for that?

The news industry is in the tank, it's not like those reporters have lots of places to go for jobs.

Soros knows what he is getting with his donation to MM, he's helping to fund the effort against Fox. Why is giving money to NPR?

Danielk said...

NPR fires reporters who display too much bias. There was something in the news about that recently.

wamk said...

We also know that NPR fires opinionated black men that speak their minds. Does that prove NPR is racist?

Danielk said...

You guys want to IMPEACH an opinionated black person who speaks his mind. Is THAT racism?

wamk said...

I have been meaning to ask you a question on your comment in #2.

Do you think after Columbine (or Paducah, or any other school shooting), there were students in other schools that may have looked at some of their classmates as Klebold or Harris "wannabees"?

If so, do you think their suspicion was/is irrational?

wamk said...

You think that the reason that some people want Obama impeached is because of what he says, or for how he has overstepped the limits of his office?

I'd love to see some of the examples of how people are calling for his job, based on his words. Feel free to post as many links as you can, I'll read them all.

If there were/are examples of other NPR employees appearing outside of NPR, and offering their opinions, should they be terminated as well?

Danielk said...

Good couple of questions!

Harris and Klebold, no. To apprehend all kids who dress in overcoats, or all troubled teens, or whatever common trait you want to find in these kids, would be to unfairly demonize them. Additionally it would grind education to a standstill. About all you can do is try to be sympathetic to the troubled ones and know that campus shootings are very, very rare.

As rare, in fact, as Muslim extremists.

I'm not sure I can say what Obama has done that oversteps the bounds of his office. If it's something that Bush didn't also do before him, or if someone is calling for the impeachment of both men for it, then I'll concede that it's not motivated by racism.

wamk said...

I didn't say that nervous schoolkids wanted anyone wearing black ovecoats taken into custody, this is what I asked you:

Do you think after Columbine (or Paducah, or any other school shooting), there were students in other schools that may have looked at some of their classmates as Klebold or Harris "wannabees"?

If so, do you think their suspicion was/is irrational?


Would that type of behavior be called irrational? It's a simple "yes" or "no" question.

wamk said...

I stand corrected, you did answer "no" right at the beginning.

Danielk said...

Wow, that may be the first time I've ever seen "I stand corrected" comin' from you. If I've forgotten a time, I'll stand corrected.