Juan Williams Loses Job At NPR For Telling The Truth

[Angelhair]

George Soros must be a racist!!!!

George Soros’ Millions Buying ‘Political Reporters’ for NPR - Big Journalism

George Soros can be anything he wants - he is a MILLIONIARE - or is he a BILLIONIARE???

 

[Foxfyre]

George Soros must be a racist!!!!

George Soros’ Millions Buying ‘Political Reporters’ for NPR - Big Journalism

George Soros can be anything he wants - he is a MILLIONIARE - or is he a BILLIONIARE???

He's a multi billionaire who supports some of the sleaziest and most dishonest media attack groups in the country. If I was NPR I would be embarrassed to admit that they have become another of his tools. And it should raise everybody's antenna that a federally supported media source, however small the subsidy is, intended to represent all, will now have reporters in all states that have been bought and paid for by a politically active, highly partisan, ideologically radical citizen.

Yep. Time to defund NPR and let them sink or swim on their own merits with the others now.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It was posting here I think, months ago. The top 4 talk radio programs in America are:

1. Rush Limbaugh
2. "All Things Considered" (NPR)
3. "Morning Edition" (NPR)
4. Sean Hannity

Rush has 25 million so the 34 million claim is an outright lie.

According to Wiki, nothng on NPR makes the top list:

The Rush Limbaugh Show – 15+ million
The Sean Hannity Show – 14+ million
Glenn Beck Program – 10+ million
The Mark Levin Show – 8.5+ million
The Savage Nation – 8.5+ million
The Dave Ramsey Show – 8+ million
The Dr. Laura Program – 8+ million
The Neal Boortz Show – 6+ million
The Laura Ingraham Show – 6+ million

And among television news casts, the NEWS HOUR is the only PBS program that made the list up to 2004. I'm still looking for something more recent:

That's a commercial radio list.

All Things Considered

 

[Toro]

Rush has 25 million so the 34 million claim is an outright lie.

According to Wiki, nothng on NPR makes the top list:

The Rush Limbaugh Show – 15+ million
The Sean Hannity Show – 14+ million
Glenn Beck Program – 10+ million
The Mark Levin Show – 8.5+ million
The Savage Nation – 8.5+ million
The Dave Ramsey Show – 8+ million
The Dr. Laura Program – 8+ million
The Neal Boortz Show – 6+ million
The Laura Ingraham Show – 6+ million

And among television news casts, the NEWS HOUR is the only PBS program that made the list up to 2004. I'm still looking for something more recent:

That's a commercial radio list.

All Things Considered

The audience for NPR's daily news programs, including "Morning Edition" and "All Things Considered," reached a record last year, driven by widespread interest in the presidential election, and the general decline of radio news elsewhere. Washington-based NPR will release new figures to its stations today showing that the cumulative audience for its daily news programs hit 20.9 million a week, a 9 percent increase over the previous year. ...

While almost every news organization saw its audience spike during the political campaign last year, NPR's surge continues a trend that goes back to at least the fall of 2000, when the organization began aggregating audience data from hundreds of affiliated public stations across the country. NPR saw a big audience increase after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and has added listeners since. Its audience has grown 47 percent since 2000, according to figures from Arbitron.

Good News for NPR: Its Most Listeners Ever - washingtonpost.com

NPR rocks.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Rightwingers who wish NPR didn't even exist,

crying over the firing of Juan Williams from NPR.

The irony, once you think about it, is too much.

 

[DiveCon]

Rightwingers who wish NPR didn't even exist,

crying over the firing of Juan Williams from NPR.

The irony, once you think about it, is too much.

no one is crying, moron

 

[boedicca]

Rightwingers who wish NPR didn't even exist,

crying over the firing of Juan Williams from NPR.

The irony, once you think about it, is too much.

No. We're not calling for NPR not to exist. We never cared that Williams appeared on both NPR and Fox. It was you leftwing moonbats who couldn't handle the freedom he had to be on both.

Except for the fact that we have to pay for NPR's ability to attack us, we wouldn't even pay attention to their pathetic, low ratings organization.

How about those of you who like it support it with your money and quit picking our pockets?

 

[Immanuel]

Rightwingers who wish NPR didn't even exist,

crying over the firing of Juan Williams from NPR.

The irony, once you think about it, is too much.

Rightwingers who wish NPR didn't even exist,

crying over the firing of Juan Williams from NPR.

The irony, once you think about it, is too much.

no one is crying, moron

Nor do I recall anyone in the over 1,000 posts on this thread say that they wished NPR did not exist. Comments I remember are that conservatives do not believe the American Taxpayer should be required to fund NPR which makes sense to me.

Immie

 

[DiveCon]

Rightwingers who wish NPR didn't even exist,

crying over the firing of Juan Williams from NPR.

The irony, once you think about it, is too much.

Rightwingers who wish NPR didn't even exist,

crying over the firing of Juan Williams from NPR.

The irony, once you think about it, is too much.

no one is crying, moron

Nor do I recall anyone in the over 1,000 posts on this thread say that they wished NPR did not exist. Comments I remember are that conservatives do not believe the American Taxpayer should be required to fund NPR which makes sense to me.

Immie

exactly

 

[Charles_Main]

Rightwingers who wish NPR didn't even exist,

crying over the firing of Juan Williams from NPR.

The irony, once you think about it, is too much.

Left wingers like you who constantly misstate Right wingers intentions are funny.

Please name the Right wingers that are wishing NPR did not exist. All I see is Right wingers wanting them to not get 3% of their money from tax dollars if they are going to continue to favor one Political point of view on their shows.

Mean while I have seen Many left wingers wish FOX off the air. A network that does not get any Federal Tax dollars.

Can you ever be honest with your assertions about what the right wants?

 

[JamesMorrison]

So, Juan Williams just happens to make some remarks offensive to Muslims, on Fox, gets himself fired from NPR, and then just happens to have a fat contract with Foxnews fall out of the sky into his lap, almost within hours.

There's a certain more-than-meets-the-eye to this whole drama.

Perhaps, but let's note some well known facts and apply Occam's razor. The trend in America in political thought has been ever leftward since the beginning of 20th century. Hell, even Teddy Roosevelt had a somewhat leftward domestic streak (his foreign policy was a different story). W. Wilson injected more of the Academics left leanings into the chief executive but it was the terms of FDR that really got the ball rolling for the left. Additionally the establishment of the Republican Party has increasingly adopted a 'Go along to Get along' mentality simply to stay relative and win some elections. This in spite of some of the best GOP victories were when they ran on their party's stated principles, but I digress. A good example of this establishment GOP strategy we just heard a few days ago when Rep. Daryl Issa (R-CA) mentioned in a statement about governing and the 112th congress that the GOP would consider "compromises" in forming legislation (time is short so I won't even address how wrong headed this would be). I would submit that the American left is so ensconced in its beliefs it can no longer understand conservative values let alone tolerate them.

Accordingly, we see that the left has continually used the race card, class warfare, and now Political Correctness and name calling, in general, to cow any type of free speech (like Mr. Williams') that they disagree with. Looking at Juan's comments in question we see a painful awareness of this on his own part where he tries to shield himself: "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." This, of course, was all to no avail. In this present day and age we can now all identify with this. They (NPR) were gunning for Juan and admit to that in their own statement re his shoddily handled dismissal.

Simply put: NPR feels Mr. Williams is not sufficiently to the left. The proof is Nina Totenberg's continued employment by NPR. Given Mr. Williams past opinions and Ms. Totenberg's and given NPR's treatment of both we now know who NPR agrees with and it is not Mr. Williams' moderate liberal/progressivism. Further proof is found when looking at NPR's acceptance of opinions from correspondent Totenberg and rejection of those from Analyst Williams. NPR accepts those opinions from an entity that is supposed to be unbiased (Just the Truth M'am) while rejecting the work product of another that's very purpose is to come to conclusions and then so voice his opinion.

You must agree that fair and balanced FOX would be foolish not to double down on Juan.

Conclusion: NPR feels Juan is a liability, FOX found an excellent opportunity to burnish its "Fair and Balanced" credentials, after all, Mr. Williams was already working for FOX.

Sadly NPR CEO Vivian Schiller exhibited some symptoms of 'foot in mouth' disease when she added that Juan Williams should have kept his feelings, if not to himself, then between himself and "his psychiatrist or his publicist". So the left had no problem calling him crazy, now he knows how those in the Tea Party feel. Perhaps, he might be a bit angry also?

JM

 

[Charles_Main]

So, Juan Williams just happens to make some remarks offensive to Muslims, on Fox, gets himself fired from NPR, and then just happens to have a fat contract with Foxnews fall out of the sky into his lap, almost within hours.

There's a certain more-than-meets-the-eye to this whole drama.

Roflmao I was wondering how long the left would wait to start the Conspiracy theories on this one

 

[JamesMorrison]

Why would you want to go back to the Bush Administration's way of doing things? The republican agenda of the Bush Era is the reason our country is in such dier straits right now. Change does not happen over night and you surely see that you must give Obama a chance to accomplish his goals.
Being opposed to everything he stands for is counterproductive. The two parties have, at times, worked across party lines, but I have never seen the nasty division that I am seeing now. Obama is a good man and deserves to be heard. He has accomplished so much in his two years in office and I don't believe that the republicans are going to be as victorious as they think come November. The people paying for all the negative ads this time around are the wealthiest people on the planet and they don't care about the common person...only themselves and assuming more power and control over you, and me. Time for all to wake up and take back our power.

Well, yes the "republican agenda". Actions of those elected to government office after Reagan has not been much different then that of those in the Democratic party overall. But proto-Tea Partiers did rail against such expansion of our government during GW's administration also. They were ignored because most of the public has been conditioned to the small but incremental advance, year after year (from T. Roosevelt and W. Wilson onward) of the left in U.S. government. NCLB (no child left behind) and Medicare Part D are viewed just as badly as Obamacare by true conservatives.

However, placing the entire blame on a 'Bush era' Republican party is woefully inadequate finger pointing, at best. The financial downturn of recent years has its roots firmly entangled amongst many factors. Starting with the Carter era CRA (Community Reinvestment Act 1977) its use as an extortion tool by community groups such as ACORN during the Clinton administration through Alan Greenspan's Fed policy of cheap money and the resultant "irrational exuberance" as a contributing factor to the housing bubble through Barney Franks willingness to eschew the G.W. Bush administration's efforts to pare back Fannie and Freddie so he could "roll the dice" and have the U.S. taxpayer underwrite the future failure of those GSE's to a present day Rep. Frank who now admits he was in an 'ideological fog' of sorts when he set the stage for the housing debacle that continues to be one of the main causes of the present state of our financial affairs. The common thread that runs through all the above is central government meddling, is it not? Further, given past evidence, would it be too much to note that forgoing future government meddling (and eliminating much of that of the present) in the private economy might be just the ticket to pull us out of our present financial funk?

This brings us to your observation that "Change does not happen over night...". Indeed, given the subject, it does not. But given your hope for an Obama solution, and the fact President Obama has governed for the better part of two years at what point are we to consider the "night" to be over? When are we to notice the Obama magic taking effect?

Except for Cape and Trade ("...the rise of the oceans began to slow...") he has already established two out of three of his Main goals; health care and financial reform. “Two out of three ain't bad" rightly says Meatloaf. Problem is none of this is what the majority of our citizens really want which is...jobs and an economy that actually looks like its coming back.

Being opposed to everything he stands for is counterproductive

Not if you believe everything he stands for is wrong and, more importantly, everything he has done so far has been woefully unsuccessful in bringing this country back from the financial abyss. As for the "nasty division" you observed, get used to it. The country has reached a turning point. People have been self educating as to their rights and power as citizens. They have seen Greece and, now, France implode. They have witnessed Angela Merkel state that the PC multiculturalism in Europe is just not working. They have seen an apologetic Obama agenda that will soon give us the biggest sponsor of state terrorism, Iran, a nuclear bomb. They are not going to tolerate an Obama administration or its leftist enablers whose goal is increasing statism in America. The mindset is now to fight back. Compromise just means more of the same. Really, how good are one’s principles if they are whittled away by ‘compromise’?

The question really is: At what point will you reach Thelma Hart's position where you, too, are "... exhausted. Exhausted of defending [Obama], defending [Obama's] administration...]? When will your dark "night" end?

JM

Just to emphasize one of the major flaws in this analogy: Nowhere in the Community Reinvestment Act 1977 did it force banks to make bad loans...it "requested" that banks make the SAME type of loans available to minorities that it makes to the majority.

I defy anyone to show me the language in the Act that stated otherwise. Not someone's opinion, but the actual language.

It was the BANKS that made the bad loans, then bundle them with good loans and parlayed that on the open market, selling the "packages" to other banks.

Eventually this caused the problem we have today.

Not to nit pick, but it was not analogy it was a general statement of facts. Also your attribution in your first paragraph is incorrect. I did not say the CRA forced banks to make "bad loans". In fact, after the mention of the CRA, I qualified how its
"use as an extortion tool by community groups such as ACORN during the Clinton administration" was one of many in a string of government actions. ACORN, and community groups like it were able to use this well intentioned Act as a club to force banks to loan to minorities that were of dubious creditworthiness. If the banks balked these groups would threaten DOJ action and also picket various branches of the bank. Banks are very conservative businesses and abhor such PR. Admittedly this is a simplistic version of the process, but it only describes part of it.

So we need to address another of your post:

It was the BANKS that made the bad loans, then bundle them with good loans and parlayed that on the open market, selling the "packages" to other banks.

Eventually this caused the problem we have today

This reminds me of the logical simplicity of South Park's Underwear Gnomes' business model:

1. Obtain underwear
2. Dum Di Dummmm....
3. Profit!

First, do you have a link I may visit to convince me that the banks mixed the 'good' loans in with the 'bad' loans? I recall one of the other problems was those few rating agencies the government, essentially, allowed to have monopolistic control (there's really only four) over rating these financial instruments (your "packages") fumbled the ball and over rated the packages especially the packages known as sub-prime mortgages. More government meddling.

You bring up an extremely important point, which is that banks then sold off the MBS (Mortgage Backed Securities) to other companies. You seem to agree that the banks made bad loans. But why would they do so? How did they make money? As you imply they made their money by collecting a fee for originating the loan and then passing on the bad debt by selling the problem to another company. You are correct, of course. Mozila's firm Countrywide did exactly this and made tons of money...before (later in this scenario) they were forced to sell out to BOA.

But who would be so foolish as to buy Alt-A or 'liar loans' labeled as sub-prime? Would anyone buy Sub-Prime beef for their beloved family? The answer is Barney Frank and Chris Dodd in the ultimate form of the GSE's Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But where did Barney and Chris get all this money? Well, us, the U.S. taxpayer. Barney decided to "roll the dice" on our dime. GW said no Barney said yes, and Bush went 'moderate' on us and we all payed the price. Whatever would we do without our wise government?

JM

 

[edthecynic]

Which proves the axiom? If you place a flaming bag of bullsqueeze at a Statists' doorstep? They go way out of their way to step in it.

It was Mike Huckabee who has called for de-funding NPR. Now when the Republicans get the House and the Senate and are faced with budget cuts.. it may come time to put NPR on the shelf or let the libtards fund it on their own dime. then,, as Air America went so goes NPR.

No question. It needs to go. The taxpayers should not be forced to fund PC crap funded by their dollar that is intolerant of opposing views.

Rightwingers who wish NPR didn't even exist,

crying over the firing of Juan Williams from NPR.

The irony, once you think about it, is too much.

Left wingers like you who constantly misstate Right wingers intentions are funny.

Please name the Right wingers that are wishing NPR did not exist. All I see is Right wingers wanting them to not get 3% of their money from tax dollars if they are going to continue to favor one Political point of view on their shows.

Mean while I have seen Many left wingers wish FOX off the air. A network that does not get any Federal Tax dollars.

Can you ever be honest with your assertions about what the right wants?

That's Right, Only Right-Wingers are allowed to misstate Left-Winger's intentions.

And make no mistake about it, EVERY CON$ervative wants NPR "to go."

 

[DiveCon]

It was Mike Huckabee who has called for de-funding NPR. Now when the Republicans get the House and the Senate and are faced with budget cuts.. it may come time to put NPR on the shelf or let the libtards fund it on their own dime. then,, as Air America went so goes NPR.

No question. It needs to go.The taxpayers should not be forced to fund PC crap funded by their dollar that is intolerant of opposing views.

Rightwingers who wish NPR didn't even exist,

crying over the firing of Juan Williams from NPR.

The irony, once you think about it, is too much.

Left wingers like you who constantly misstate Right wingers intentions are funny.

Please name the Right wingers that are wishing NPR did not exist. All I see is Right wingers wanting them to not get 3% of their money from tax dollars if they are going to continue to favor one Political point of view on their shows.

Mean while I have seen Many left wingers wish FOX off the air. A network that does not get any Federal Tax dollars.

Can you ever be honest with your assertions about what the right wants?

That's Right, Only Right-Wingers are allowed to misstate Left-Winger's intentions.

And make no mistake about it, EVERY CON$ervative wants NPR "to go."

thats talking about the FUNDING, you fucking moron

 

[WillowTree]

It was Mike Huckabee who has called for de-funding NPR. Now when the Republicans get the House and the Senate and are faced with budget cuts.. it may come time to put NPR on the shelf or let the libtards fund it on their own dime. then,, as Air America went so goes NPR.

No question. It needs to go. The taxpayers should not be forced to fund PC crap funded by their dollar that is intolerant of opposing views.

Rightwingers who wish NPR didn't even exist,

crying over the firing of Juan Williams from NPR.

The irony, once you think about it, is too much.

Left wingers like you who constantly misstate Right wingers intentions are funny.

Please name the Right wingers that are wishing NPR did not exist. All I see is Right wingers wanting them to not get 3% of their money from tax dollars if they are going to continue to favor one Political point of view on their shows.

Mean while I have seen Many left wingers wish FOX off the air. A network that does not get any Federal Tax dollars.

Can you ever be honest with your assertions about what the right wants?

That's Right, Only Right-Wingers are allowed to misstate Left-Winger's intentions.

And make no mistake about it, EVERY CON$ervative wants NPR "to go."

We just want them de nutted.

 

[FlyingReganite]

The tolerable Left at it's finest once again.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Rightwingers who wish NPR didn't even exist,

crying over the firing of Juan Williams from NPR.

The irony, once you think about it, is too much.

Left wingers like you who constantly misstate Right wingers intentions are funny.

Please name the Right wingers that are wishing NPR did not exist. All I see is Right wingers wanting them to not get 3% of their money from tax dollars if they are going to continue to favor one Political point of view on their shows.

Mean while I have seen Many left wingers wish FOX off the air. A network that does not get any Federal Tax dollars.

Can you ever be honest with your assertions about what the right wants?

NPR is National PUBLIC Radio. It is National PUBLIC Radio because it receives PUBLIC funding. You want to take away the PUBLIC funding, therefore it would no longer be National PUBLIC Radio, therefore National PUBLIC Radio would no longer exist.

thus, you wish it did not exist.

BTW, why do you want to punish the entire organization for what at the very worst is the fault of ONE person, i.e., the person who fired Juan Williams? Well, I guess people who want to punish all Muslims for the wrongdoing of a few just think that way generally.

I'm guessing though, that there wouldn't be much call for punishing all of Foxnews if one individual did something you thought was wrong.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The tolerable Left at it's finest once again.

Why are you broadbrushing 'the left'? Are you mentally retarded?

 

[NYcarbineer]

So, Juan Williams just happens to make some remarks offensive to Muslims, on Fox, gets himself fired from NPR, and then just happens to have a fat contract with Foxnews fall out of the sky into his lap, almost within hours.

There's a certain more-than-meets-the-eye to this whole drama.

Perhaps, but let's note some well known facts and apply Occam's razor. The trend in America in political thought has been ever leftward since the beginning of 20th century. Hell, even Teddy Roosevelt had a somewhat leftward domestic streak (his foreign policy was a different story). W. Wilson injected more of the Academics left leanings into the chief executive but it was the terms of FDR that really got the ball rolling for the left. Additionally the establishment of the Republican Party has increasingly adopted a 'Go along to Get along' mentality simply to stay relative and win some elections. This in spite of some of the best GOP victories were when they ran on their party's stated principles, but I digress. A good example of this establishment GOP strategy we just heard a few days ago when Rep. Daryl Issa (R-CA) mentioned in a statement about governing and the 112th congress that the GOP would consider "compromises" in forming legislation (time is short so I won't even address how wrong headed this would be). I would submit that the American left is so ensconced in its beliefs it can no longer understand conservative values let alone tolerate them.

Accordingly, we see that the left has continually used the race card, class warfare, and now Political Correctness and name calling, in general, to cow any type of free speech (like Mr. Williams') that they disagree with. Looking at Juan's comments in question we see a painful awareness of this on his own part where he tries to shield himself: "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." This, of course, was all to no avail. In this present day and age we can now all identify with this. They (NPR) were gunning for Juan and admit to that in their own statement re his shoddily handled dismissal.

Simply put: NPR feels Mr. Williams is not sufficiently to the left. The proof is Nina Totenberg's continued employment by NPR. Given Mr. Williams past opinions and Ms. Totenberg's and given NPR's treatment of both we now know who NPR agrees with and it is not Mr. Williams' moderate liberal/progressivism. Further proof is found when looking at NPR's acceptance of opinions from correspondent Totenberg and rejection of those from Analyst Williams. NPR accepts those opinions from an entity that is supposed to be unbiased (Just the Truth M'am) while rejecting the work product of another that's very purpose is to come to conclusions and then so voice his opinion.

You must agree that fair and balanced FOX would be foolish not to double down on Juan.

Conclusion: NPR feels Juan is a liability, FOX found an excellent opportunity to burnish its "Fair and Balanced" credentials, after all, Mr. Williams was already working for FOX.

Sadly NPR CEO Vivian Schiller exhibited some symptoms of 'foot in mouth' disease when she added that Juan Williams should have kept his feelings, if not to himself, then between himself and "his psychiatrist or his publicist". So the left had no problem calling him crazy, now he knows how those in the Tea Party feel. Perhaps, he might be a bit angry also?

JM

NPR has conservative commentary on all the time so your premise is false.