Get Brooklynian.com by Email! 
Grab the Feed (RSS)Brooklynian » Forum » Brooklyn Politics »
-
This was a DUMB move by the head honchos at NPR. They put their collective head on the block when they did this. Now Williams is going to make the rounds on Fox, and the anointed ones are going to look like absolute idiots. And the fact that he's a brother isn't going to win any hearts in the mezzanine level either. This reads like a 'thoughtcrime' straight out of Orwell's 1984. If NPR had a device that monitored WIlliam's creed-o-meter, then it would have alarmed the day he had that experience on the aeroplane. He would have gotten a phone call the moment the plane landed that indicated his termination for having a PERCEPTION of another person.
-
what makes you think that NPR is different than anyother media? ....just because a few of the directors drive Volvos doesn't mean they can't use Raiser's Edge (a donor database) to see who will be offended by such a firing and who won't be. "Let's see, who donates more to us ....those who like this guy, or those who don't care about him...."For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor.
-
I didn't say that NPR is different than any other medium. I said that their firing of him makes NPR, an outwardly tolerant public entity, seem not so. If firing Williams was a choice made out of pragmatism, then that is actually worse than firing him because of any sentiment the management board of NPR themselves have.
-
Whew, glad you don't idealize NPR. I hought you might have a cloth bookbag there for a moment. Anyway- In medialand, one's continued employment is directly related to one's thoughts which is directly related to how much money those thoughts bring in. At Fox, its an inverse relationship. The fewer thoughts you have, the more viewers you attract, which in turns brings in advertisers (aka money).For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor.
-
Williams already made the rounds on Fox. Frequently. In fact a couple years ago NPR told him he had to stop using NPR's name in his title on Fox. Williams is another bigot who lumps all Muslims together. Fox News is precisely where he belongs.Spend a buck, light a number for one the 400,000 victims in Darfur: darfurwall.org
-
completely agree ^^^^For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor.
-
....So he's a bigot if he feels a little unsettled when a Muslim gets on an airplane?
-
It's a bigoted view to have. Whether that makes him a bigot is a matter of semantics. Here's Andrew Sullivan arguing the point better than I can:
Malkin Award Nominee 20 Oct 2010 10:09 am [quote]"Bill, 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," - Juan Williams.
No, Juan, what you just described is the working definition of bigotry. What if someone said that they saw a black man walking down the street in classic thug get-up. Would a white person be a bigot of he assumed he was going to mug him? What percentage of traditionally garbed Muslims - I assume wearing a covered veil or some other indicator and being of darker skin - have committed acts of terror? And, of course, the 9/11 mass-murderers were in everyday attire, to blend in. So was the Christmas Day undie-bomber. The Fort Hood murderer was in US military uniform, for Pete's sake. The literal defense of anti-Muslim bigotry on Fox is becoming endemic. It's disgusting.[/quote] Glenn Greenwald with more:The bottom line here is that equating Muslims with Terrorism -- which is exactly what Williams did -- is definitively bigoted (not to mention demonstrably false).
Spend a buck, light a number for one the 400,000 victims in Darfur: darfurwall.org -
didn't we have this conversation recently? http://www.brooklynian.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=58921&start=0For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor.
-
Refresh my memory. hahahaSpend a buck, light a number for one the 400,000 victims in Darfur: darfurwall.org
-
the movie Groundhog Day.For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor.
-
I too go into defense mode when faced w/a young urbanite in their home territory + will cross the street if I feel the threat is that imminent And I too, just for a moment before logic kicks in, get a little tense when I see what appears to be a Muslim boarding my (or pretty much any) flight It's silly to posture as though people have become so tolerant that they're able to completely quell their natural instincts. I think in this age of unreasonably high political correctness & sensitivity Juan said a stupid thing, but I don't think what he said was wrong. I mean how far are we gonna go? It's like people in the media are contestants on a reality show in which he who feigns the most tolerance, no matter how unrealistic, wins. C'mon now this is getting ridiculous. Liberals have shown their true colors here[
Mamacita said:
I <3 CTK
-
The issue isn't whether anyone agrees (or disagrees) with what Juan Williams said, but that he was fired for saying it! How is the American public going to have a serious conversation about sensitive issues if public figures fear this kind of backlash? Juan Williams said something that millions of Americans think (including CTK who has the courage to admit it publicly). Firing Williams is just going to contribute to the denouement of our media and flame the extreme political polarization in this country.Very un- "sivilized".
-
Juan was correct and had every right to voice his opinion. If he said that about Christians they would have given him a raise. I hope he sues their ass big time. The dumb bitch who made the comment about Juan's psychriatrist needs to go first. Funny how this happened 36 hours after his remarks and after anti American george soros just gave NPR one million dollars as well as to huffington and media matters. NPR fired the only black man on air. Bunch of racists. Defund NPR now.
-
eggcream » Juan was correct and had every right to voice his opinion. If he said that about Christians they would have given him a raise. I hope he sues their ass big time. The dumb bitch who made the comment about Juan's psychriatrist needs to go first. Funny how this happened 36 hours after his remarks and after anti American george soros just gave NPR one million dollars as well as to huffington and media matters. NPR fired the only black man on air. Bunch of racists. Defund NPR now.
You're becoming a parody of yourself. -
Does NPR get public funds anymore? Aren't they a stand alone non profit at this point?For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor.
-
whynot_31 » Does NPR get public funds anymore? Aren't they a stand alone non profit at this point?
Yes and no. -
If it is funded by donations from the public, corporations and foundations, how would you go about "defunding" it? .....seems voluntary by it's listenersFor better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor.
-
Wow, CTK and I are in agreement. I too have boarded a plane and seen some Muslim brothers get on, and it was enough to make me to furrow my brow for awhile. I recall two instances where it occurred, and there were on both instances some Muslim women in full covering and also veiled. Similarly, I recall a polemic from Jesse Jackson where he said walking down the street and coming in his direction were a group of young Black men, hats turned backwards and jeans sagging, and he had a moment of trepidation about the whole thing. Like CTK, I too have had this experience. I don't think the word 'bigot' is appropriate to describe these pre-judgments. A bigot is something else. I resent the usage of strong words to describe everyday common mis-perceptions about reality. As an addendum, I've had the same sense of trepidation in Crown Heights walking on Eastern Parkway and seeing a group of young Hasidic men coming in the opposite direction. Having heard of and read about confrontations between Hasidic men and Black men, when I see these situations, there is a moment of unease. Two days ago a young lady was walking 4 dogs, one of which was a very muscular male pit bull. As I got nearer I got more anxious and I walked into the street to avoid having to walk by her with all of those dogs. She stopped me and asked me why, and I told her because I don't trust pit bulls. I've heard too many stories about them. She said, 'that's understandable' but the irony is that you put yourself in more danger walking in the street than you do walking by the dog. I smiled. What I didn't tell her is that I would rather trust the judgment of a driver who must now share the road with me than a 100 pound woman walking 4 sizable dogs, who did not have to pass a test to get their teeth. We prejudge all the time, and we usually do it for plausible reasons. As a Black man who often has tried to catch a cab and have them go right by me, I am terribly frustrated by the prejudice of the drivers, but sadly, I know that their prejudice is often buttressed on some qualified experience: They were robbed by Black men, or know someone who was, or because of their experience are inclined to think if they get robbed more than likely the perpetrator will be Black, and male. Juan Williams should not have lost his job for this. Andrew Sullivan is projecting his knee jerk reaction to alleged 'homophobia' on to Juan Williams here. I don't buy his rationale. And just because Andrew Sullivan thinks it's bigotry doesn't make it bigotry.
-
I don't think the kneejerk, temporary, internal hesitant reaction to any group of people is bigoted. I agree with yall that its natural and needs to be recognized and managed. What's bigoted about Williams was his overall fear of Muslims period, and his hinting at something many people on Fox News and elsewhere believe, namely that all terrorists are Muslims, and that America is at war with Islam. Edited to add: As Glenn Greenwald says better than I can:
Williams began by telling O'Reilly that he was "right" in his view on Muslims. I don't think there's anything wrong with candidly admitting that he gets nervous when he sees Muslims on airplanes -- even though those feelings reflect some highly distorted thoughts -- as we all have irrational reactions to various situations. But Williams was not condemning his own reaction; to the contrary, he went on to justify it by saying that people who wear "Muslim garb" are "identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims," and that "the war with Muslims" (quoting Faisal Shahzad) is one of those "facts we can't get away from." All of those comments were prefaced with the standard defense of bigotry: "political correctness can lead to some kind of paralysis where you don't address reality." What "reality" are we supposedly all afraid to address? The full context makes clear that he is not only agreeing with O'Reilly's perspective on Muslims and Terrorism, but defending the linkage between the two.
As GG argued, the reason Williams needed to lose his job over this, is because the mainstream media has established precedent before, but usually only if you criticize America, our Armed Forces, Israel, and other "good guys", as defined by the mainstream media or conservatives.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17462-2005Feb11.html » firing of executive Eason Jordan in 2004[/url] for observing -- correctly -- that the U.S. military had repeatedly attacked war journalists; and CNN's 2003 firing of Peter Arnett for criticizing the Iraq War; and MSNBC's demotion and firing of Ashleigh Banfield after criticizing media coverage of American wars, or the same network's firing of Phil Donahue for being too anti-war; or, for that matter, the University of Colorado's dismissal of Ward Churchill for arguing that the World Trade Center was a legitimate target to retaliate against American foreign policy. If you only object to speech-based firings when you agree with the ideas being expressed, then you don't actually believe in the principles you claim to support.
And finally, GG:I'm not someone who believes that journalists should lose their jobs over controversial remarks, especially isolated, one-time comments. But if that's going to be the prevailing standard, then I want to see it applied equally. Those who cheered on the firing of Octavia Nasr, Helen Thomas and Rick Sanchez -- and that will include many, probably most, of the right-wing polemicists predictably rushing to transform Juan Williams into some sort of free speech martyr sacrificed on the altar of sharia censorship -- have no ground for complaining here.
I searched back through the archives and I couldn't find a post by eggcream or anyone else expressing outrage at the "overzealous political correctness" in the cases of Nasr, Thomas or Sanchez. Similarly I missed the public comments by half-term quitter Sarah Palin supporting these others who were fired for saying something deemed inappropriate.Spend a buck, light a number for one the 400,000 victims in Darfur: darfurwall.org -
"But Williams was not condemning his own reaction; to the contrary, he went on to justify it by saying that people who wear "Muslim garb" are "identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims," and that "the war with Muslims" (quoting Faisal Shahzad) is one of those "facts we can't get away from." Exactly. Williams is being disingenous. He IS NOT SIMPLY being honest about a fear of Muslims, which many people have. He is defending a prejudiced view that you can guess at a Muslim's LOYALTY by how they dress. Saying "Muslims scare me" is honest. Implying that Muslims who wear Muslim garb are more loyal to Islam than to America and further implying we're in a "war with Muslims" is DISHONEST. He's trying to pass that off as a-gee-whiz-I'm-just-being-honest-everyone-thinks-this. I am so sick of people going "I'm not a racist BUT...." as a justification to spout something racist. Talk to Muslims in Brooklyn, and ask if they're scared about people physically hurting them or their families. I know of at least one Muslim woman (living in Astoria) who stopped wearing the hijab recently. Why? Because other New Yorkers started trying to touch her scarf and flick their cigarette ashes at her as a hostile gesture, because she's wearing Muslim garb. Those scarves are flammable. She's scared. She's lived here a long time and never experienced that hostility from fellow New Yorkers until these recent months. Because of what, do you think? What's changed in recent months? What are people bashing now that we're in election season? MUSLIMS! Scary MUSLIMS! People get nervous when they hear stuff like this because, as they say on Avenue Q "everyone's a little racist.... maybe even you." And no one wants to be judged for what they can't help. I include myself in that category -- I am not color-blind, I put people into categories without really knowing them. But I have a conscience about blasting my opinions about a group of people when it can actually hurt them, and I acknowledge my own ignorance about many things. I don't hunker down and start defending my ignorance. Free speech does not mean you get to yell FIRE in a crowded theatre, or say racial slurs. Or abdicate your responsibility to others. Don't conflate regular "soft racism" that most of us have with plain old bigotry of the sort that Williams and his ilk spout on air. Bigotry that they make money off of.
-
Finally someone else who has seen Ave Q. nice post chuleta....For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor.
-
Chuleta's on the money. I've got Muslim neighbors & seen the nasty little things the sometimes have to deal with. Juan Williams seems to think it's OK to encourage people to fear The Other for no good reason. (I don't remember that any of the 9/11 perps were wearing hijab, or shalwar kamis, or jelabahs, or keffiyahs, or...) His comments are part of this politics of fear - Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid - even if it makes you look like an ill-educated rube. That then qualifies you for a multi-million $ deal with Fox ASAP; sure pays more than NPR. We've got a new motto for our times - Be Afraid and Make Money At the Same Time! Dude, where's my country? Land of the free and home of the afraid?
-
whynot_31 » Does NPR get public funds anymore? Aren't they a stand alone non profit at this point?
Not sure if anyone answered, but they get about 2% of their funding from federal dollars. -
Ishtar » [quote="whynot_31"]Does NPR get public funds anymore? Aren't they a stand alone non profit at this point?
Not sure if anyone answered, but they get about 2% of their funding from federal dollars.[/quote] That's what I thought. ....it kinda makes Eggcream's "defund NPR" crusade a little more complicated. He'd have to change the minds of millions of donors, as opposed to that of a few government representatives. ....and I like a lot of their programming. It is pretty intelligent.For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor. -
whynot_31 » ....and I like a lot of their programming. It is pretty intelligent.
I think part of that is because they really do make an effort to remain impartial. It's almost my sole source of news from the main stream media. -
I think their news reports are quality for two reasons: 1. they're not ad-based revenue, which means they don't have advertisers to appease and they don't have to break up their programs into 30 second sound bites 2. they frequently run longer-item reports where you actually have to listen and focus for more than 30 seconds. It means you get a lot more out of the broadcast. It seems impossible to me to be a decent news outlet and rely on ad-based-revenue.Spend a buck, light a number for one the 400,000 victims in Darfur: darfurwall.org
-
yes. ....although they do accept large donations from Foundations and the like, they seem to be the more moderate ones. I can't remember the last time I watched CNN, MSNBC or Fox.For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor.
-
It seems as though for most on this thread there is consensus that Juan Williams' statement was bigoted and also for many that, given this statement and others, he is a bigot. Was it acceptable then for NPR to fire him for this?Very un- "sivilized".
-
It was. A news organization should be unbiased and objective. His bigotry threw NPR's objectivity into question.
-
A news organization is completely free to associate with whoever they want. If they don't like what Williams claims publicly, they don't have to keep employing him.Spend a buck, light a number for one the 400,000 victims in Darfur: darfurwall.org
-
a study in contrasts, both media people: Helen Thomas v Juan Williams Remember her?
wikipedia » Comments on Israel and Jews Thomas retired abruptly on June 7, 2010, following negative reaction to comments she had made about Israel, Jews, and Palestine during a brief interview with Rabbi David Nesenoff of RabbiLive.com.[1][47][48][49][50][51] Nesenoff was on the White House grounds for an American Jewish Heritage Celebration Day, and he questioned Thomas as she was leaving the White House via the North Lawn driveway:[50][52][53][54] Nesenoff: Any comments on Israel? We're asking everybody today, any comments on Israel? Thomas: Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine. Nesenoff: Oooh. Any better comments on Israel? Thomas: Remember, these people are occupied and it's their land. It's not German, it's not Poland ... Nesenoff: So where should they go, what should they do? Thomas: They go home. Nesenoff: Where's the home? Thomas: Poland, Germany and America and everywhere else[55] Nesenoff: So you're saying the Jews go back to Poland and Germany? Thomas: And America and everywhere else. Why push people out of there who have lived there for centuries? See? —May 27, 2010, RabbiLive.com [50] A one-minute excerpt of the May 27, 2010 interview was posted on Rabbi Nesenoff's site on June 3, 2010. On June 4, Thomas issued a statement on her personal web site: I deeply regret my comments I made last week regarding the Israelis and the Palestinians. They do not reflect my heart-felt belief that peace will come to the Middle East only when all parties recognize the need for mutual respect and tolerance. May that day come soon.[56][57][58] In October 2010, while being interviewed by Ohio radio station WMRN-AM, Thomas acknowledged that her controversial comments had touched a nerve, but that they were "exactly what I thought." She said she realized soon afterward she would be fired, stating, "I hit the third rail. You cannot criticize Israel in this country and survive." Thomas added that she issued an apology because people were upset but that ultimately she "had the same feelings about Israel's aggression and brutality."[59] [edit] Repercussions Thomas's agency, Nine Speakers, Inc., dropped her as a client because of her remarks.[60][61] Craig Crawford, who co-authored Listen up, Mr. President, said "I ... will no longer be working with Helen on our book projects.”[62] Her scheduled delivery of a commencement speech at Walt Whitman High School in Bethesda, Maryland, was canceled by the school.[63] The White House Correspondents' Association, over which she once presided, issued a statement calling her remarks "indefensible".[64] On June 7, Thomas abruptly tendered her resignation from Hearst Newspapers.[65]
-
Freedom of speech is not covered by the employer - employee contract. It's called At Will Employment. Here's how it is expressed in NYS: http://www.labor.ny.gov/workerprotection/laborstandards/faq.shtm#14
Q: Can an employee be fired without due cause? A: Yes. New York State is an "employment-at-will," state. Without a contract restricting termination (such as a collective bargaining agreement) an employer has the right to discharge an employee at any time for any reason. This also protects the employee's right to resign. An employer may fire an employee for "no reason" - or even for a reason that might seem arbitrary and unfair -- and the employee is equally free to quit at any time without being required to explain or defend that decision. There are a few exceptions to "employment-at-will." The most significant of these are laws, enforced by the New York State Division of Human Rights, which prohibit discrimination based upon race, creed, national origin, age, handicap, gender, sexual orientation or marital status. For additional information about how the New York State Division of Human Rights proceeds against unlawful forms of discrimination, go to: http://www.nysdhr.com. Other exceptions to the doctrine of "employment-at-will" exist under § 201-d and § 215 of the New York State Labor Law. Section 201-d prohibits an employer from firing an employee for political or recreational activities outside of work, for legal use of consumable products outside of work, or for membership in a union. Section 215 prescribes that no employer shall penalize any employee for making a complaint to the employer, to the Commissioner of Labor, or to the Commissioner's representative, about any provision of the Labor Law. Violation of § 215, can bring a civil fine and separate civil action by the employee. To obtain the text of these statutes, go to: http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/menugetf.cgi?COMMONQUERY=LAWS
General whats-his-face got fired by Obama for talking to Rolling Stone. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65K4W220100623 Whynot_31 gets regularly repremanded by his employers for speaking his mind. ...its just part of life. Sometimes you get told you are not in charge.For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor. -
According to half-term quitter Sarah Palin, the first amendment is guaranteed by society, not by the constitution. She believes this because she loves the constitution so dern much.Spend a buck, light a number for one the 400,000 victims in Darfur: darfurwall.org
-
Boygabriel, I see the merit of your point. It's still marinating in my mind..... I focused on the 'Avenue Q' aspect of William's point, and not the '...they are identifying themselves as Muslims' part.... Because implicit in William's statement is that to be a Muslim is to essentially be 'against America'; and that America is at war with Islam... Hmmmm, jingoism in embittered effect... Still thinking...
-
booklaw » It was. A news organization should be unbiased and objective. His bigotry threw NPR's objectivity into question.
I think qualifying his statement as bigotry is questoinable at best given the context There's a strange analog between PCists and certain members of the hip hop community that's been equally destructive to their constructs These days in hip hop if you don't like a certain piece of music or an artist, for any reason, valid or not, you're written off as a hater. As you can imagine, such a barrier in front of constructive & insightful criticism has opened the floodgates for mediocre work, to the point that mediocre is the new good. Likewise over-PCism turns a reasonable statement of a sensitive subject into bigotry. Same deal as those super conservatives screaming "any criticism of our gov't is anti-patriotic". As a society our fringe groups are finding more and more ways to stifle productive dialogue....[Mamacita said:
I <3 CTK
-
Okay CTK, but what of the implications of Williams idea that what troubles him about individuals who are easily identifiable as Muslims (i.e. the manner of dress etc.) being somehow un-American? Should we construe followers of orthodox Islam as un-American? And I say this with a bitten lip and gritted teeth myself, as I have BIG problems with Islam's treatment of women, and I do find it deeply troubling to see women in Hijab dress in the U.S. I don't think it's anti-American, but I do think that the second class designations of women is definitely anti-American. Now, would this prevent me from hiring a Muslim man or woman? Definitely not. Would I attempt to deny someone the pursuit of happiness and access to the rights and privileges all human beings should be afforded? Absolutely not. But, I do think where the laws of this land clash with the laws of Islam, the law of the land should triumph. This means in real terms that if women who are Muslims want to cover their heads, then sure, by all means do that, as it's not against the law to wear a hat; if you want to wear a tent because you fear the lustful gaze of men, then sure, by all means do that, as it's not against the law to wear ill fitting clothing; but if you want to cover your face -- NO, that's against the law and should not be allowed. I grow near apoplectic what I see that.
-
MHA, I think across the globe in Western societies there is just a growing problem regarding the integration of the rules and regulations of the Muslim faith and living in a Western society. Initially I was more understanding, and to a degree I think I still am... but ultimately it's tough, because as you mention, you can't live in America and not show your face. Living in America means giving up certain things, and the super PCists are making it difficult to even acknowledge that simple fact. So I don't know what the solution is. But I do know that stifling dialogue on the situation as NPR did with this move is not the answer.[
Mamacita said:
I <3 CTK
-
booklaw » It was. A news organization should be unbiased and objective. His bigotry threw NPR's objectivity into question.
I'm inclined towards this view as well: that a news organization should be unbiased and objective. Except that I don't think it's possible for an organization set up by human beings. As an example, even the selection of stories that are "newsworthy" requires bias. The so-called world news headlines are a lot different on CNN than on the BBC or on Al Jazeera (English, never mind the Arabic channel). So, what does unbiased reporting look like? For a long time, as Ishtar says, I thought it looked more like NPR than any other news outlet. That's why this whole incident is upsetting me. As MHA states initially, I think it is the result of liberals coming down hard on somebody who won't stay within the terms they've set for the conversation. Just as I think that the same forces were in play during the Helen Thomas incident that pitu cites - although I think that Helen Thomas' remarks were more extreme than Juan Williams'. Maybe the problem is this: while NPR has the relative edge on unbiased news, many of their hosts and analysts consistently throw in their personal commentary and viewpoints. (Jack Beatty on "On Point" comes to mind.) Maybe as a society we've grown used to this. We've come to expect our "talking heads". But, judging from this incident, it seems that we also want the ability to control what comes out of their mouths. Should we insist again on unbiased reporting (even given that it is an unattainable ideal). Or would people just stop listening?Very un- "sivilized". -
Echoing CTK's point, and fusing it with Krowonhill's query (about whether or not we expect a semblance of objectivity from reporters), I think it's more interesting when a reporter has an obvious opinion, yet does not allow that opinion to stifle dialogue... I think Juan William's argument about 'Muslims representing themselves as first Muslim and then second Americans' is controversial and in need of disassembling. It's a compact statement that requires at least three questions that all begin with, " Juan, what do you mean by...?" NPR needs to explain more clearly the rationale behind the firing of Juan Williams. They do appear tarnished in my eyes. No doubt Dinesh DeSouza is sharpening his literary knives as we speak; he's the first person I ever heard use the term 'illiberal liberalism'. But I REALLY think Williams has a point between the conflict between Islam and the U.S. -- Independent of the gory capitalist endeavors occurring in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and all the other places where there is oil and pipeline. There is a deep philosophical divide between Islam and the West. And, I really think Islam has to take a step back. If Juan had followed up with, 'Yo, you can't treat women that way in the U.S.; we won't be tolerant of that...', in my mind, that would have clarified his point. I really want to hear more from Williams at this point, other than his polemic on Fox T.V. about the lack of (not-for-profit) corporate due process afforded to him by the high priests of NPR-dom.
-
Cool The Kid » MHA, I think across the globe in Western societies there is just a growing problem regarding the integration of the rules and regulations of the Muslim faith and living in a Western society. Initially I was more understanding, and to a degree I think I still am... but ultimately it's tough, because as you mention, you can't live in America and not show your face. Living in America means giving up certain things, and the super PCists are making it difficult to even acknowledge that simple fact. So I don't know what the solution is. But I do know that stifling dialogue on the situation as NPR did with this move is not the answer.
But in the U.S. we were enjoying by a wide margin the most harmonious integration of muslims into our society of any Western nation. And now because of race baiters and fear mongers (such as many personalities on Fox News, and people who think it's legitimate to judge a Muslim by their dress, which seems to include Williams), we're actually regressing on Muslim integration. And I'm not sure what you meant by, "you can't live in America and not show your face." Of course you can.Spend a buck, light a number for one the 400,000 victims in Darfur: darfurwall.org -
MHA » There is a deep philosophical divide between Islam and the West
Your premise is flawed by virtue of grouping all of Islam together as some monolithic force of culture and morality.Spend a buck, light a number for one the 400,000 victims in Darfur: darfurwall.org -
True... I also grouped 'the West' as well however. I wrote in broadbrush. If you are saying that I shouldn't do that, then I guess there is no point to describe a reality, which is that there IS a deep philosophical divide between Islam and the West.
-
MHA » Echoing CTK's point, and fusing it with Krowonhill's query (about whether or not we expect a semblance of objectivity from reporters), I think it's more interesting when a reporter has an obvious opinion, yet does not allow that opinion to stifle dialogue...
So we should demand from a reporter what we demand from a good professor? i.e. As a result of the material they publish, we know that professors have strong viewpoints ....but a good school quickly cans their sorry ass if they don't fairly teach both sides of the issue. The minature educrat in me says that it is more than the Dean who keeps such professors in check; it is the donors, the accreditation people, the alumni, etc. How would we implement such a system to keep the press similarly "fair"? ....FAIR and the other media watchdogs clearly aren't making the necessary impact. http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=100For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor. -
It's more art than anything, and people have a higher regard for those who make the effort to do so. Regardless of what Juan Williams said, NPR is tarnished as result. There would have been more regard for NPR if there was a very vigorous dialogue that occurred as result. I was listening to WNYC and they mention the issue sporadically, and only David Brooks so far has voiced a sadness about what NPR did. I have yet to hear an NPR talking head say what NPR did was wrong. Now, if THAT happens, then NPR regains goodwill. The absence of that means that they are reluctant to offend the high priests of NPR orthodoxy (NPR fundamentalists?).
-
Education has tenure, which allows folks to speak out against their employer to a certain extent. But lately, tenure seems to have a negative connotation. Tenure for reporters? Contracts that stipulate you can be a jerk and not get fired? (how do I get one of those?)For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor.
-
MHA » There is a deep philosophical divide between Islam and the West.
I disagree. There is nothing inherent to Islam that makes it incompatible with Western ideals. What we now think of as the West is a result of the Enlightenment when the widely-held precepts of Christianity came under assault. Our Constitution with its separation of Church from State resulted and inspired European nations in turn. Regarding Christianity's patriarchy, I still remember learning as a child during the gospel readings at church that it was my duty to submit to my father and to my husband. The contemporary practice of Islam looks very different in Beruit, Lebanon - where women choose what type of covering to wear, if any - v.s. in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, the center of Wahibism - where women are forced publicly into full-body and face covering by custom. As a woman, I'd rather be practicing Islam in Beruit today than practicing Christianity in pre-Enlightenment Europe, trust me.Very un- "sivilized". -
When I'm on an airplane I only get nervous if I see the pilot in Muslim garb.
-
For the record, these are some of the 9/11 hijackers in their "Muslim garb." -
Williams was probably turfed because of other incidents that had annoyed the upper echelon. I don't think it was a decision that was made quickly, despite the speed at which NPR announced his disappearance. I think that if you view the entire segment in context it gives a whole new meaning to what Williams said. The 10 second soundbite doesn't give that. On NPR he's a contributor, a journalist. On Faux he's a commentator and there's a difference in roles and expectations. Obviously, NPR didn't like Williams' role as a Faux commentator defiling their image of a contributor/journalist. As far as NPR being liberal, even the rabid rightie in moderate's clothing, David Brooks, gave NPR a grudging pass by saying they had been a down the line centrist organization for many years.Take the u out of neighbour.
Welcome! Please log in to post, or register a new account!