X. Benedict Posted October 28, 2010 Share Posted October 28, 2010 NPR is doing more harm than good. People still have to trust their gut. For personal safety great, maybe....but are you making a distinction for public journalism? If hunches, instincts and dead reckoning are to drive newsrooms, news-reporters and commentary before evidence ...that's asinine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 28, 2010 Share Posted October 28, 2010 For personal safety great, maybe....but are you making a distinction for public journalism? If hunches, instincts and dead reckoning are to drive newsrooms, news-reporters and commentary before evidence ...that's asinine. Why? So newsrooms should be removed from what the people are thinking? Why not know your "community?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted October 28, 2010 Share Posted October 28, 2010 Why? So newsrooms should be removed from what the people are thinking? Why not know your "community?" a non-seq but anyways..... Juan Williams lives in your community? By sharing his folksy, shucks I think ****ty things about muslims sometimes too, homespun banter....the news suddenly becomes self-referential in that its cycle has nothing to do with evidence or the community; and we have Oberman reporting on what O'Reilly says, and O'Reilly deconstructing Couric, Couric reporting on and so on...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted October 28, 2010 Author Share Posted October 28, 2010 For personal safety great, maybe....but are you making a distinction for public journalism? If hunches, instincts and dead reckoning are to drive newsrooms, news-reporters and commentary before evidence ...that's asinine. No, you are ignoring the context in which it was said. His point that he was making, which must of went right over your head or purposely are ignoring is that we should try to practice more restraint when it comes to these matters. Here's what everyone seems to be taking out of context: 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 a plane, I've got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they're 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 is just last week – he said the war with Muslims, America’s war with – is just beginning. First drop of blood. I don't think there’s any way to get away from these facts. What he said reflects upon his natural visceral feeling. It isn't as if he is trying to convince anyone of how they should feel, but more of a personal admission of his thought process. He then goes on to say But I think there are people who want to somehow remind us all, as President Bush did after 9/11, it’s not a war against Islam. This is a clear pivot, and the foundation of the context of what he was communicating was coming into play. What I believe he is trying to say here is that we as a country have to learn to get over it. To me it's clear that this is what he is saying. Because if you said, wait, Timothy McVeigh, the Atlanta bomber, these people who are protesting against homosexuality at military funerals - very obnoxious - you don't say first and foremost we got a problem with Christians. That’d be crazy. Obviously he is trying to analogize anti-Christian bigotry which we all know the right loathes. Again, it's clear to me that he is trying to convince OReilly that "Hey, you wouldn't want to hear the left demonize christians because of McVeigh would you?" If you go on to read the transcript or listen to the rest of the interview the whole point he was trying to make was that we as a society should learn to practice more tolerance. The whole message was distorted by some paste and copy editing, similar to what happened to Shirley Sherrod. You are insinuating that his "hunches, instincts or dead reckonings" was in order to "drive newsrooms", and that simply wasn't the case. Now that is asinine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted October 28, 2010 Share Posted October 28, 2010 (edited) No, you are ignoring the context in which it was said. His point that he was making, which must of went right over your head or purposely are ignoring is that we should try to practice more restraint when it comes to these matters. Here's what everyone seems to be taking out of context: What he said reflects upon his natural visceral feeling. It isn't as if he is trying to convince anyone of how they should feel, but more of a personal admission of his thought process. He then goes on to say This is a clear pivot, and the foundation of the context of what he was communicating was coming into play. What I believe he is trying to say here is that we as a country have to learn to get over it. To me it's clear that this is what he is saying. Obviously he is trying to analogize anti-Christian bigotry which we all know the right loathes. Again, it's clear to me that he is trying to convince OReilly that "Hey, you wouldn't want to hear the left demonize christians because of McVeigh would you?" If you go on to read the transcript or listen to the rest of the interview the whole point he was trying to make was that we as a society should learn to practice more tolerance. The whole message was distorted by some paste and copy editing, similar to what happened to Shirley Sherrod. You are insinuating that his "hunches, instincts or dead reckonings" was in order to "drive newsrooms", and that simply wasn't the case. Now that is asinine Well...that ends it now, doesnt it? Good work. Edited October 28, 2010 by RkFast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted October 28, 2010 Share Posted October 28, 2010 (edited) I wonder how outraged the ultra-tolerant crowd, who can not sink so low as to tolerate the possibly vaguely intolerant comments of Juan Williams, was when Obama ignorantly stereotyped blue collar white people as angry bitter crackers clinging to their bibles and guns with antipathy to brown people. (I'm paraphrasing here). Edited October 28, 2010 by Rob's House Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted October 28, 2010 Share Posted October 28, 2010 (edited) No, you are ignoring the context in which it was said. His point that he was making, which must of went right over your head or purposely are ignoring is that we should try to practice more restraint when it comes to these matters. Here's what everyone seems to be taking out of context: What he said reflects upon his natural visceral feeling. It isn't as if he is trying to convince anyone of how they should feel, but more of a personal admission of his thought process. He then goes on to say This is a clear pivot, and the foundation of the context of what he was communicating was coming into play. What I believe he is trying to say here is that we as a country have to learn to get over it. To me it's clear that this is what he is saying. Obviously he is trying to analogize anti-Christian bigotry which we all know the right loathes. Again, it's clear to me that he is trying to convince OReilly that "Hey, you wouldn't want to hear the left demonize christians because of McVeigh would you?" If you go on to read the transcript or listen to the rest of the interview the whole point he was trying to make was that we as a society should learn to practice more tolerance. The whole message was distorted by some paste and copy editing, similar to what happened to Shirley Sherrod. You are insinuating that his "hunches, instincts or dead reckonings" was in order to "drive newsrooms", and that simply wasn't the case. Now that is asinine Really? I have no problem with his making public commentary (I imagine that you think I do). And I have no problem with NPR firing Williams either. What I was/am refering to specifically is the blurring of his editoral role in conflicting personas the guy had between networks, and how one role compromises the other. I really do "get" that "sharing his personal visceral feelings" became news. So now we are talking about Juan Williams true "feelings." That in no way undermines his editorial voice? I think it does. Is that really such an asinine position? Edited October 28, 2010 by X. Benedict Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted October 28, 2010 Author Share Posted October 28, 2010 Really? I have no problem with his making public commentary (I imagine that you think I do). And I have no problem with NPR firing Williams either. What I was/am refering to specifically is the blurring of his editoral role in conflicting personas the guy had between networks, and how one role compromises the other. I really do "get" that "sharing his personal visceral feelings" became news. So now we are talking about Juan Williams true "feelings." That in no way undermines his editorial voice? I think it does. Is that really such an asinine position? But you see that is it. Your focus once again is honed in on his "feelings" rather than the actual message. The message was one of tolerance and that we as a nation have to move on from this incident. It would be one thing if he was defending this fear and trying to impose his "feelings" upon others, but that simply isn't the case. Now in regards to the conflicting personas between networks, well that is another matter. Obviously this is the root reason why he was ousted, but that isn't their purported reasons for letting him go. First it was because of his perceived bigoted view which they quickly changed because they knew that wasn't the message he was conveying. Then they said well, he is an analyst and he shouldn't be providing opinions, well of course as hypocritical as that was knowing that many of their commentators, analysts constantly give their liberal slanted views (see Totenberg) they stepped away from this reason of dismissal. Now they are saying that they constantly warned Juan for actions they didn't believe was appropriate of their journalistic standards. In other words, "Hey, get with the program, you can only give liberal views but once you begin to pander (from our POV) to FOX viewers (which we hate) then you are in deep **** buddy." That is the reality, they know that his appearances on FOX coupled with their listeners views regarding the news channel causes lots of anxiety within their station. I imagine that they get many complaints through emails, calls and blogs every time he appears on FOX, and when you couple that with who their donors are (who are footing the bill, which in effect makes them beholden to their interests) Juan had to go. This is all about FOX and continued support from liberal donors. Also, I asked this question to birdog, what is your opinion on Totenberg. Should she have been fired for her vicious opinion regarding Helms and his grandchild? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted October 28, 2010 Share Posted October 28, 2010 But you see that is it. Your focus once again is honed in on his "feelings" rather than the actual message. The message was one of tolerance and that we as a nation have to move on from this incident. It would be one thing if he was defending this fear and trying to impose his "feelings" upon others, but that simply isn't the case. Now in regards to the conflicting personas between networks, well that is another matter. Obviously this is the root reason why he was ousted, but that isn't their purported reasons for letting him go. First it was because of his perceived bigoted view which they quickly changed because they knew that wasn't the message he was conveying. Then they said well, he is an analyst and he shouldn't be providing opinions, well of course as hypocritical as that was knowing that many of their commentators, analysts constantly give their liberal slanted views (see Totenberg) they stepped away from this reason of dismissal. Now they are saying that they constantly warned Juan for actions they didn't believe was appropriate of their journalistic standards. In other words, "Hey, get with the program, you can only give liberal views but once you begin to pander (from our POV) to FOX viewers (which we hate) then you are in deep **** buddy." That is the reality, they know that his appearances on FOX coupled with their listeners views regarding the news channel causes lots of anxiety within their station. I imagine that they get many complaints through emails, calls and blogs every time he appears on FOX, and when you couple that with who their donors are (who are footing the bill, which in effect makes them beholden to their interests) Juan had to go. This is all about FOX and continued support from liberal donors. Also, I asked this question to birdog, what is your opinion on Totenberg. Should she have been fired for her vicious opinion regarding Helms and his grandchild? I believe you mean NPR and continued support from donors.... If NPR had dismissed Totenberg it would have been perfectly justified at the time. She could have gone on to a shrill at MSNBC without the conflict of being a legal reporter. Williams now has the same liberty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delete This Account Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 (edited) He just needs to be around for one of wawrow's 4 am, "just finished my 10th tequila shot at the Crocodile", screeds. jeezus christian. tequila? son of a B word, canadian whiskey (wiser's) is my drink of choice, aside from a few diversions toward Mr. Jameson. you people really lack taste and facts for that matter. good god, i've been slandered, and i intend to immediately consult with my crack legal staff to consider my, what seems to be, vast legal options. you are all put on notice. jw Edited March 5, 2011 by john wawrow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 jeezus christian. tequila? son of a B word, canadian whiskey (wiser's) is my drink of choice, aside from a few diversions toward Mr. Jameson. you people really lack taste and facts for that matter. good god, i've been slandered, and i intend to immediately consult with my crack legal staff to consider my, what seems to be, vast legal options. you are all put on notice. jw You got tiger blood, Wawrow. With a capital T, and that rhymes with D, and that stands for... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 jeezus christian. tequila? son of a B word, canadian whiskey (wiser's) is my drink of choice, aside from a few diversions toward Mr. Jameson. you people really lack taste and facts for that matter. good god, i've been slandered, and i intend to immediately consult with my crack legal staff to consider my, what seems to be, vast legal options. you are all put on notice. jw I, think, you, need, to, use, a, few, more, commas. Seems there's a reason you're a writer, not an editor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 jeezus christian. tequila? son of a B word, canadian whiskey (wiser's) is my drink of choice, aside from a few diversions toward Mr. Jameson. you people really lack taste and facts for that matter. good god, i've been slandered, and i intend to immediately consult with my crack legal staff to consider my, what seems to be, vast legal options. you are all put on notice. jw Assuming you're on the East coast this was posted at 4.40 AM. Looks it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 Assuming you're on the East coast this was posted at 4.40 AM. Looks it. Wow, you are an investigative reporter on par with your spelling skils<sic>. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 (edited) Wow, you are an investigative reporter on par with your spelling skils<sic>. How many fights going on at once do you need to be happy? Edited March 6, 2011 by Jim in Anchorage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 How many fights going on at once do you need to be happy? +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 If Fox extended Willams in the spirit of not stifling free speech for political correctness, why didn't they hire veteran White House correspondent Helen Thomas after she was fired by Hearst Newspapers for her views on Israel? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwBBYLr_1bU Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 Because Fox is TV and she's horribly ugly and sounds like she has no teeth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 jeezus christian. tequila? son of a B word, canadian whiskey (wiser's) is my drink of choice, aside from a few diversions toward Mr. Jameson. you people really lack taste and facts for that matter. good god, i've been slandered, and i intend to immediately consult with my crack legal staff to consider my, what seems to be, vast legal options. you are all put on notice. jw Hey don't be disparaging the blue agave nectar. It's the only thing that will keep you alive after 2012. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 If Fox extended Willams in the spirit of not stifling free speech for political correctness, why didn't they hire veteran White House correspondent Helen Thomas after she was fired by Hearst Newspapers for her views on Israel? Kimberly Guilfoyle Megyn Kelly Julie Banderas Helen Thomas Sing it with me...One of these things is not like the other... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 Kimberly Guilfoyle Megyn Kelly Julie Banderas Helen Thomas Sing it with me...One of these things is not like the other... lol ... one of them is like this one Greta Van Susteren Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 lol ... one of them is like this one Greta Van Susteren And had a nose job. Coincidence? Fox doesn't hire female journalists, they hire from the Ford Modeling Agency. That's common knowledge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 And had a nose job. Coincidence? Fox doesn't hire female journalists, they hire from the Ford Modeling Agency. That's common knowledge. Just nose? Her skins as tight as a rubber glove. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 And had a nose job. Coincidence? Fox doesn't hire female journalists, they hire from the Ford Modeling Agency. That's common knowledge. Nose and I think she had something done with her eyes. I remember way back in the day when she was on CNN and had this weird squinty eye thing going on. It was like watching a pirate or something arrrrgggh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 lol ... one of them is like this one Greta Van Susteren And yet if I could only watch one segment of Fox, it would be her, (right after Brett Baier.) She gets great interviews on both sides, asks great questions, and doesn't give a crap what people think. I repeat one of my favorite Dennis Miller lines: "Janet Napolitano is what you get when you add water to Helen Thomas." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 And yet if I could only watch one segment of Fox, it would be her, (right after Brett Baier.) She gets great interviews on both sides, asks great questions, and doesn't give a crap what people think. I repeat one of my favorite Dennis Miller lines: "Janet Napolitano is what you get when you add water to Helen Thomas." That new role. She used to be exclusively murders and kidnapings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 Because Fox is TV and she's horribly ugly and sounds like she has no teeth? Well, there is that, and also that she's an anti-Semite racist bigot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 6, 2011 Author Share Posted March 6, 2011 I repeat one of my favorite Dennis Miller lines: "Janet Napolitano is what you get when you add water to Helen Thomas." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 Well, there is that, and also that she's an anti-Semite racist bigot. According to Joe that deserves a national platform. After all Juan Williams gets nervous in airports when he sees Muslims and they put him on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 (edited) jeezus christian. tequila? son of a B word, canadian whiskey (wiser's) is my drink of choice, aside from a few diversions toward Mr. Jameson. you people really lack taste and facts for that matter. good god, i've been slandered, and i intend to immediately consult with my crack legal staff to consider my, what seems to be, vast legal options. you are all put on notice. jw I may be wrong about the drink, but not the timestamp of your post...."Posted 05 March 2011 - 04:40 AM". Check it. So there. Are you really on the West Coast, or was I exactly right, and did you blast in from the croc and reply? Btw, I drink it all, love it all. The only thing I don't like is Jaeger...but that doesn't mean I will turn one down if you are buying. Also, please tell birdog that you are a wickedly biased liberal member of the media. He seems to think you don't exist. You, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny...all myths! Also, also, how funny is it that you dredged up this thread a few days ago, and NPR gets seriously punked a few days later? I think that's weird, and hysterical. Hey wawrow: one last thing, "How's that calling the T.E.A. party racist working out for you?" Think you'll make that your central strategy in 2012? Edited March 10, 2011 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Juan giving NPR some shiit. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/03/09/juan_williams_npr_is_an_all_white_operation.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts