If Prejudice is Juan, Then I Don't Want to Be White

Scott Hardie | October 22, 2010
This week's controversy over NPR firing Juan Williams, being stirred by Fox News now that they've hired him, strikes me on the surface as another sad case of PC censorship out of control. If this man, who has built a long and distinguished career in civil rights and race relations, cannot make a simple remark about some of the lingering prejudices that even he feels and knows are wrong, then there seems to be absolutely zero room for anybody anywhere to have any kind of honest conversation about race and the prejudices that we need to move beyond together. Is there truly no one who is above suspicion of bigotry? The more I read about the story, the more there seems to be to it, such as Williams being warned in the past about these kinds of contractual violations (appearing as a pundit instead of analyst), which makes more sense I guess. Still, whether Williams was a case of it or not, I look forward to the day when kneejerk terminations over even the slightest insensitivity are no longer the norm.

Steve Dunn | October 22, 2010
I'm not so sure. Why exactly is it OK for major media personalities to openly declare their prejudices? Would a comment like this be acceptable if made about any other minority, or just Muslims?

Mike Eberhart | October 22, 2010
It was NPR!!! He's probably happy to be out of there. Plus, no one listens to it... Unless you're listening for some Schwetty Weiner or Schwetty Balls, great around Christmas time....

Scott Hardie | October 22, 2010
If the comment is made in the context of honestly acknowledging that we still have prejudices that we shouldn't have, then it should be understandable and acceptable. A similar comment could be made about other groups: A white person walking through the inner city who comes across a group of young black or Latino men - or a black or Latino person walking through the deep south who comes across a group of young white men - if they happen to feel some fleeting apprehension in their heart, they should be able to acknowledge it after the fact in a conversation about race, even as they understand that it's unfair to those people they met. Major media personalities should indeed be held to higher standards than average people, but if a figure this esteemed is not above being punished for expressing an honest feeling, then it's a sad sign that our national discourse continues to conform to ridiculously rigid standards, even in this day and age.

Steve Dunn | October 22, 2010
If the comment is made in the context of honestly acknowledging that we still have prejudices that we shouldn't have, then it should be understandable and acceptable.

Perhaps, but I don't think that is what happened here. He's even had a chance to reflect and explain and he's still not making a great case for himself.

Jon Berry | October 22, 2010
How about this for bias. If he had been fired for making a PRO-Muslim comment or for having a pro-Muslim bias, Fox News would condemn him and praise NPR.

As cynical as it is to say, probably the only reason they are rolling with this is that it happens to fit into their narrative.

Do I think the guy should have been fired? Not really, stating ones opinion, as long as it isn't grossly offensive, is usually accepted on radio. What he said isn't that bad, to be honest. You hear much worst daily from other people.

I disagree with what he said, but I also disagree with the fact he was fired, from the context that was given.

But he should have made an effort to clear any doubt or offense after, which it seems he has not.

Scott Hardie | October 23, 2010
Definitely, Jon - he's a hero if you agree with him, and a bigot if you don't. Fox News is as guilty of that reaction as anybody.

You're both right that he should have taken time afterwards to clarify. But I suspect that $2 million contract he signed with Fox is probably affecting what he says about it now.

Two pretty good analyses: James Poniewozik on the specifics of this incident, and Michael Sigman on what it means for journalism.

Tony Peters | October 23, 2010
the thing is he was working for both Fox news and NPR. NPR knew this...like the firing of Shirley Sherrod liberals jump conclusions and make the quick PC decision trying to look strong instead actually thinking.

for the record I don't disagree with what he said...nor do I think there was anything wrong with it I think we as a country need to stop being so apologetic about stating the obvious....the same goes for BillO I think his logic was flawed concerning the supposed ground zero mosque but the fact of the matter is Muslims were responsible for 9/11 and no amount of political correctness is going to change that

Samir Mehta | October 24, 2010
[hidden by request]

Jon Berry | October 24, 2010
I do agree, Samir. I think when educated people in a public position fail to make the very specific distinction of these specific terrorists, they do a disservice.

Is Bill O'Reilly wrong when he says "Muslims attacked us on 9/11"? Of course not, but he's simplifying the issue to the most extreme degree. Terrorists of a very specific Muslim sect, almost all with Saudi Arabian backing did the attack. To simply label them as "Muslim" is about as dangerous term for all the innocent Muslims all of a sudden represented by this minority.

Any terrorist is dangerous and deserving of scorn, regardless of race or religion. I don't think public figures shouldn't be allowed to express their opinion, as long as the public has a right to discern the facts equally, which is partially why I find what Juan said (a very personal opinion), whilst his own and something I disagree with, not as potentially disruptive as what BIll O'Reilly says and stands by.

It's true, but it's an over simplified truth for an educated man as himself.

Samir Mehta | October 24, 2010
[hidden by request]

Jackie Mason | October 29, 2010
[hidden by request]

Steve Dunn | October 29, 2010
the same goes for BillO I think his logic was flawed concerning the supposed ground zero mosque but the fact of the matter is Muslims were responsible for 9/11 and no amount of political correctness is going to change that

No amount of political correctness is trying to obscure this obvious fact. The question, I think, is what is the purpose of emphasizing this formulation?

Consider an analogous (and equally true) statement:

"Black people killed Eve Carson!"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Eve_Carson

Or here's an oldie but a goodie:

"The Jews killed Jesus."

Therefore.... what?

Jon Berry | October 29, 2010
Exactly, it's oversimplification of the facts to the point of being dangerous.

Jon Berry | November 6, 2010
In a similar, albeit different situation, Keith Olbermann has been fired from NBC for donating 2,000 dollars to three Democratic candidates. Their position is that he didn't get approval to make any donations.

Steve West | November 6, 2010
Since he donated to liberals he'll probably have to go a good 2 - 3 minutes without pay.

Scott Hardie | November 6, 2010
Meanwhile, Rupert Murdoch donates millions to Republicans, and his anchors follow suit without controversy. I get why people like Fox News, but I may never get why it's considered legitimate journalism. Take today's news about Obama spending $200 million per day to travel to India, which CNN debunked, among others. Fox News included the standard objections from the White House in their coverage, but check out the first six paragraphs. How can anyone call that objective or balanced? It's not even being subtle about its bias. I guess this sort of thing stopped being a surprise a long time ago, but its widespread acceptance hasn't stopped mystifying me.

Steve West | November 6, 2010
He'll be taking with him every single person who voted for him, and they'll all be staying in five-star accommodations with an open bar, except Joe Biden, who'll be staying at the Mumbai Red Roof Inn. Also accompanying Obama will be the entire U.S. Navy. That isn't too expensive for the Mumbai visit, but the side trip to New Delhi will get a little expensive because New Delhi is something like 600 miles from the nearest port, so millions of workers will be paid premium rates to dig an enormous canal for the American warships. Oh, those will be Indian workers, so the president will create no jobs for Americans. Oh, and by the way, that canal will be lined with gold. Gold, I tells ya!

- Various crap (liberally paraphrased) from the lunatic rantings of the violently insane Republican Congresswoman, Michelle Bachmann.

Tony Peters | November 6, 2010
Fox is certainly taking advantage of (much like MSNBC did to a lesser extent) the Secret Services and the US Navy's policy (law) to not dscuss the movements of the president or any US Navy ships....seriously they are making stuff up because they know that no one in power can legally refute it until long after it happens. And the fact that Michelle Bachman is quoted only makes it more believable to the moronic right

Scott Hardie | November 17, 2010
For what it's worth, I do recognize bias on this site too. The recent goo of conservative Steve King portrayed his comments as outrageous. The recent goo of liberal Markos Moulitsas had a neutral tone, even though his comments are also often controversial. I don't spend much time thinking about most clues, usually just writing down the first thing that comes to mind, and in this case that wasn't fair: When I think of Steve King, I think of the several times he has been lampooned on The Daily Show, so it's no wonder the goo wound up portraying him as loony. I don't know whether I should bother trying to overcome this bias (does objectivity matter here?), but for now I can at least acknowledge it.

Jon Berry | November 18, 2010
To be fair though, The Daily Kos's position of power vs Steve King's is pretty drastic. There will always be a bias, I don't think that's an issue, but for what it's worth, I think most people here are sensible enough to realize hell, different opinions make life more interesting etc.

The only time I'd be bother would be if a personal bias made the clue more beneficial to someone with the similar outlook and put someone else at a disadvantage. But so far, your clues have been helpful for both sides (I'm sure) of the political spectrum.

But when it comes down to it, at least in popular media, I prefer it when someone accepts their bias. Which is why I'll always respect Bill Maher before anyone on Fox, because he doesn't state he's offering "fair and balanced" news, which most people have realized has nothing to do with Fox. I guess it's their stubbornness to proclaim their lack of bias that comes off very manipulative considering their approach to the "news".

Samir Mehta | November 19, 2010
[hidden by request]

Scott Hardie | November 19, 2010
Ted Koppel just wrote a simple but fair assessment of how news became so partisan: (link) Spoiler: He thinks it has something to do with profit.

Jon Berry | November 19, 2010
1. Deny Bias
2. Claim moral high ground.
3. ???
4. Profit!