Juan Williams Should Have Been Removed As NPR News Analyst–But Not For These Remarks

Juan Williams was fired as a news analyst by NPR for comments taken as anti-Muslim while appearing on Bill O’Reilly’s show:

The move came after Mr. Williams, who is also a Fox News political analyst, appeared on the “The O’Reilly Factor” on Monday. On the show, the host, Bill O’Reilly, asked him to respond to the notion that the United States was facing a “Muslim dilemma.” Mr. O’Reilly said, “The cold truth is that in the world today jihad, aided and abetted by some Muslim nations, is the biggest threat on the planet.”

Mr. Williams said he concurred with Mr. O’Reilly.

He continued: “I mean, look, 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.”

Mr. Williams also made reference to the Pakistani immigrant who pleaded guilty this month to trying to plant a car bomb in Times Square. “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,” Mr. Williams said.

There has already been considerable debate on line over these comments. Taken by themselves there is a lot of room for discussion and disagreement, but if we are solely looking at these comments alone I personally do not believe they were sufficient to fire Mr. Williams.

Things get more complicated when looking at the specific duties of Williams’ position and the long history of problems. Williams really should have been removed as a news analyst long ago. If he had an show where it was more appropriate for a host to express their own opinions it would be a different matter, but a news analyst should be held to a higher standard. I believe Williams should have been removed as a news analyst long ago, just as I agreed with NBC in removing Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews as anchors of debate and election coverage. Williams should not appear on Fox for the same reasons other NPR correspondents have been instructed that they should not attend Jon Stewart’s upcoming rally.

At best Williams is a second rate journalist and his removal will be to NPR’s benefit. Williams cannot reliably serve as an objective news analyst if he also works for Fox. Fox has repeatedly been exposed as an operation formed to promote extremist right wing views and support the Republican Party and is not a legitimate news outfit. Williams’ work at Fox has long been an issue at NPR. It was naive to think that Williams could fill his roles at both networks. Williams was moved from correspondent to analyst due to the credibility problems raised by his work at Fox but such bias is not appropriate for either position. NPR should have given Williams the choice long ago of either discontinuing his work at Fox or leaving his role as a new analyst at NPR.

It was a mistake to fire Williams over specific comments as opposed to the overall problems created by Williams working for both a legitimate news organization and a right wing propaganda outfit. I might feel  sorry for Williams if his career and livelihood had been ruined over these comments alone but his income will actually increase tremendously from both an expanded role at Fox and potentially elsewhere in the right wing noise machine.

Unfortunately most of the discussion has centered on Williams’ latest comments as opposed to his overall suitability to remain at NPR. The reasons are better clarified in this memo to the stations:

Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 12:05 PM Subject: Juan WilliamsDear AREPS,

Thank you for all of your varying feedback on the Juan Williams situation. Let me offer some further clarification about why we terminated his contract early.

First, a critical distinction has been lost in this debate. NPR News analysts have a distinctive role and set of responsibilities. This is a very different role than that of a commentator or columnist. News analysts may not take personal public positions on controversial issues; doing so undermines their credibility as analysts, and that’s what’s happened in this situation. As you all well know, we offer views of all kinds on your air every day, but those views are expressed by those we interview – not our reporters and analysts.

Second, this isn’t the first time we have had serious concerns about some of Juan’s public comments. Despite many conversations and warnings over the years, Juan has continued to violate this principal.

Third, these specific comments (and others made in the past), are inconsistent with NPR’s ethics code, which applies to all journalists (including contracted analysts):

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

More fundamentally, “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.”

Unfortunately, Juan’s comments on Fox violated our standards as well as our values and offended many in doing so.

We’re profoundly sorry that this happened during fundraising week. Juan’s comments were made Monday night and we did not feel it would be responsible to delay this action.

This was a tough decision and we appreciate your support.

Thanks,

Vivian

Vivian Schiller
President & CEO, NPR

President Obama To Appear On The Daily Show

In light of the Tea Party culture of ignorance which is dominating politics this year, Jon Stewart is trying to respond to apathy among the rational portion of the electorate. He is holding his “Rally to Restore Sanity” on the National Mall on October 30th. It has now been announced that Barack Obama will appear on The Daily Show three days before the event:

President Obama plans to appear on Comedy Central’s “Daily Show” shortly before the midterm elections, a senior White House official tells CBS News, in what will be his first appearance on the show since becoming president.

The appearance will be on Wednesday October 27th. It comes shortly before both the November 2nd midterm elections as well as host Jon Stewart’s “Rally to Restore Sanity” on the National Mall on October 30th.

The president has been trying to rally the sort of young voters who watch Stewart’s show to come out to vote in the midterm elections amid signs that they are less enthusiastic than they were two years ago. Democrats are trying to hold the House and Senate amid predictions of a potential wave election for Republicans, and among his campaign stops in the midterm cycle have been appearances at college campuses.

While he has appeared on the show as a candidate, this will be Obama’s first appearance as president.

GOP Denialism On Climate Change Is Bad For America And Bad Politics

Republican denialism regarding climate change is not only bad for the United States (and world). It might also be bad politics according to an item from The Hill on Climate-Change Witchcraft:

Republican Senate candidates may or may not agree on the science behind witchcraft, but they are united in disbelief in the overwhelming science that demonstrates manmade causes to global climate change. Increasingly, these candidates are doing their best to boil a witch’s stew of doubt by attacking the veracity of science and scientists.

Emerging from the campaign trail is the notion that vulnerable House Democrats are “losing” their races due mostly to their vote in favor of the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES). Let’s ignore the fact that the election isn’t over yet and drill down on the false pretense that the ACES vote or support for addressing our energy security and climate change is unpopular with voters.

More and more, Americans are viewing climate change as a matter of national security. Earlier this year, the Department of Defense declared climate change a “threat multiplier,” and just this week The New York Times reported on Department of Defense efforts to develop biofuels for our ships, tanks and planes to reduce our dependence on oil. According to an Army report cited by the Times, in Iraq and Afghanistan, “for every 24 fuel convoys that set out, one soldier of civilian engaged in fuel transport was killed.” (If you have a minute, check out “The Daily Show’s” hilarious send-up of the great irony of the military leading the way on clean energy — segments starts at 3:35.)

Yet, inexplicably, Republican leaders — and many Democrats in Washington — continue to block action on clean energy and climate legislation. Their excuse is that the American people don’t want action. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Without exception, every credible public poll on the issue has demonstrated overwhelming public support for Congress to address climate change and to create a national energy policy that creates jobs, reduces our dependence on oil and cuts pollution.

The post proceeds to provide some examples.

Fire a Bigot Day

It must be fire a bigot day–or perhaps fire an anti-Semite and a homophobe.

The first story involves a bizarre situation here in Michigan which has been going on for a while but which started receiving national attention this week. Michigan Assistant Attorney General Andrew Shirvell has been publicly harassing University of Michigan student body President Christopher Armstrong. This includes claiming in blog posts that Armstrong has been pushing a radical homosexual agenda and Shirvell has gone to Michigan Student Assembly events  holding signs  that have a rainbow with a swastika drawn on it.

Shirvell is being investigated by campus police and Armstrong is requesting a restraining order. There have also been calls to fire Shirvell, including from Governor (and former Attorney General) Jennifer Granholm via Twitter. Earlier today there were news reports that Shirvell was suspended or  fired, but updates say he took a voluntary leave of absence. I wonder if it was voluntary in the sense that if he did not take the leave he would have been fired.

The second, more high profile case involves Rick Sanchez of CNN and Jon Stewart of a more reliable news organization. Sanchez lashed out at Stewart,  who has often made fun of him. Sanchez called Stewart a bigot and when it was pointed out that Stewart is a minority had this response:

I’m telling you that everybody who runs CNN is a lot like Stewart, and a lot of people who run all the other networks are a lot like Stewart, and to imply that somehow they, the people in this country who are Jewish, are an oppressed minority? Yeah.

CNN responded:

“Rick Sanchez is no longer with the company. We thank Rick for his years of service and we wish him well.“

Michigan Attorney General might use this as a template for his next public comment on Andrew Shirvell.

Jon Stewart Taking on Fox

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
Bernie Goldberg Fires Back
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

Comedy Central responded to their upcoming competition from Conan O’Brien at 11:00 p.m. on TBS by extending the contracts of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert through 2013. Even more importantly than helping maintain Comedy Central’s ratings, the two help provide a counter to Fox’s right wing propaganda disguised as news shows. Criticism of Fox’s overt bias has become a common target for Stewart, as is seen in the above clip. Additional  clips of Stewart mocking Fox have been posted here and here. The New York Times has a report today on Stewart taking on Fox:

“Stewart does a great job of using comedy to expose the tragedy that is Fox News, and he also underscores the seriousness of it,” said Eric Burns, the president of Media Matters.

The segments about Fox are often replayed hundreds of thousands of times on blogs and other Web sites, amplifying their significance. “Media criticism has become part of his brand,” said Mark Jurkowitz, the associate director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, who noted that Mr. Stewart had also dissected CNN and CNBC in lengthy segments in the past.

It is true that the often-left-leaning “Daily Show” deals with a wide array of topics, but Fox is one that Mr. Stewart is overtly passionate about; he said on the show this week that he criticizes the network a lot because it is “truly a terrible, cynical, disingenuous news organization.”

According to “The Daily Show” Web site, thedailyshow.com, Fox News has been a subject of 24 segments so far this year, including eight in the month of April. The lower-rated news channel CNN, by contrast, has been a subject of five segments this year.

In many of the segments, Mr. Stewart questions Fox’s journalistic practices. He noted that Fox had hired former Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska to be a political analyst in a January segment he called “News of the Weird.” But he wasn’t laughing when he asserted that Fox is “functioning as her de-facto rapid response media arm, and they’re paying her for the privilege of doing it.”

In February he noted that Fox News had stopped showing President Obama’s widely praised meeting with Republican leaders while CNN and MSNBC had carried it start to finish. Mimicking a Fox anchor, Mr. Stewart said, “We’re gonna cut away because” — humorous pause — “this is against the narrative that we present.”

In March he ridiculed the news anchor Megyn Kelly for lining up guests who were opposed to the Democratic health care overhaul and citing polls that claimed the American people were opposed to it. Then he played a clip from October 2008, when Mr. Obama was leading in most polls, of Ms. Kelly’s saying “don’t trust the polls.”

Conservatives Gone Mad

Marc Ambinder is wondering about something which most of us noticed quite a while ago in asking, Have Conservatives Gone Mad? He provides some examples:

It is absolutely a condition of the age of the triumph of conservative personality politics, where entertainers shouting slogans are taken seriously as political actors, and where the incentive structures exist to stomp on dissent and nuance, causing experimental voices to retrench and allowing a lot of people to pretend that the world around them is not changing. The obsession with ACORN, Climategate, death panels, the militarization of rhetoric, Saul Alinsky, Chicago-style politics,   that TAXPAYERS will fund the bailout of banks – these aren’t meaningful or interesting or even relevant things to focus on. (The banks will fund their own bailouts.)

There are far more examples. For example, climategate is just one example of the rejection of science by many conservatives (accompanied by a conspiracy theory based upon their creative misinterpretation of stolen email). There’s also their rejection of evolution, along with cosmology or any other branch of science which conflicts with a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible.  Plenty of other conspiracy theories, along with rejection of science, are also popular on the far right, especially if we extend to the Ron Paul crowd. At least the Paul supporters don’t accept the beliefs still held by many on the right that Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attack and that Iraq had WMD at the start of the war.

Hatred of Obama has brought about a new set of reliefs which are unteathered from reality, from the claims that he was born outside of the United States to the claims he is a Muslim or a Marxist. Of course this is nothing new. The current bogus claims about Obama are as absurd as the discredited claims of the Swift Boat Liars. Right wingers continue to base conspiracy theories upon claims that both John Kerry’s war records and Barack Obama’s birth certificate are being kept secret. It is hardly a secret when both documents  have been posted on the internet.

Ambinder speculates as to the causes of this insanity:

Conor Friedersdorf thinks the problem lies with the conservative movement’s major spokespeople  – its radio/net news nexus — and the “overwhelming evidence that their very existence as popular entertainers hinges on an ability to persuade listeners that they are “‘worth taking seriously as political and intellectual actors.’” That is why the constant failures of these men to live up to their billing is so offensive, destructive, and ruinous to conservatives. There are plenty of women, too, is all I’ll say.

The right wing noise machine is certainly responsible for much of the problem. In many cases it isn’t even clear if the clowns who spread their insane beliefs even believe what they are saying, or are just doing this because it is an easy way to make a good living. Scott Adams has speculated about this and written, “I find it mind boggling that anyone believes a TV talk host is expressing his own true views.” We’ve had Glenn Beck say “I could give a flying crap about the political process.” Beck has also described himself as “a rodeo clown” and conceded, “If you take what I say as gospel, you’re an idiot.”

Unfortunately there are a lot of idiots who actually believe the things that people like Glenn Beck say, regardless of how much evidence there is that he makes it up. Ambinder has a suggestion for the media as to how to respond:

I think this sensibility is pervasive throughout the smart media — old and new. I think it’s one reason why, say, Jake Tapper and other good reporters are very keen about direct fact-challenging — why the media is reasserting itself as gatekeepers. (CNN might want to think about branding themselves here, even at the risk (well, the reality) of calling out Republicans more.) I think it’s because there’s so much misinformation out there — most of it spread by the conservative echo-chamber. With the advent of Fox News and the power of that echo-chamber, complaints about liberal media bias are quite irrelevant — the reaction to it being like lupus’s reaction to the body, as Jon Stewart correctly noted.

It would certainly be useful to have Jake Tapper of ABC, CNN, and others devote more time to fact checking. The far right will just write off the facts as liberal bias but maybe having the facts out there more will do some good. Fact checking will definitely play into the belief that CNN is a liberal counterpart to Fox which is absurd when you look at how many Republicans they have hired in recent years  since the network was sold by Ted Turner. There is no doubt that they will have far more to fact check with Republican than Democratic statements, plus the Republican falsehoods are much further from reality than the errors coming from the Democrats.

Jon Stewart Shows That If Obama Is A Muslim, Fox News Supports Nazis

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
A Farewell to Arms
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

Fox managed to devise yet another right wing conspiracy theory with claims that the nuclear summit logo was a secret message from Barack Obama to the Muslim nations. Actually the logo is based upon the Rutherford-Bohr Model of the atom, not the Muslim flag as Fox believes. Jon Stewart mocked this by using their logic to show the similarities between the Fox logo and World War II logos used by Japan and Nazi Germany. You can come to your own conclusions from this.

Jon Stewart Explains The Big Bang Treaty

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
The Big Bang Treaty
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

Jon Stewart provides a much more accurate report on Barack Obama’s policy on nuclear weapons than Fox, which is hardly a surprise. As Stewart pointed out:

We’re at the point now that the by far No. 1-ranked news network in this country no longer feels the need to accurately report what a policy document says in black and white. And once you free yourself from the fetters of fact shackles — or fackles — in the present day, you’d be amazed at what you can do to the facts from the past.

Or, as Crooks and Liars puts it:

He then goes on an extended riff pointing out that what Obama’s trying to achieve is precisely in line with what Ronald Reagan said he hoped to achieve as well — while the Foxheads trot out Reagan as proof of Obama’s weakness.

Jon Stewart Takes On Glenn Beck Again

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
Conservative Libertarian
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political Humor Health Care Reform

John Stewart has once again mocked Glenn Beck (video above). He previously mocked Glenn Beck’s interest in gold (video here) and another parody of Beck in November (video here).

Barack Interested in Stewart But Not Colbert; Michelle on Huckabee’s Show

Barack Obama has been on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno and  Late Night with David Letterman. Michael Scherer of Time asked White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs whether Obama would appear on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart:

“I think the President would love to, just maybe not Colbert.” He went on to explain:”I have yet to see a politician best Stephen Colbert in an interview on his show,” Gibbs said, laughing. “I mean, he’s really, really good.”

So there you have it. My role as matchmaker is now complete. Jon Stewart, you should make a phone call. Gibbs is on the record. The President of the United States wants to do your show.

As for Stephen Colbert, tough luck. But I wonder, Stephen, are you just going to sit there and take that sort of treatment from the commander in chief?

Obama actually did previously appear on Colbert’s show by satellite in June (video here).

Michelle Obama has a planned television appearance on Fox with Mike Huckabee to discuss child obesity.