NPR Fires Analyst Over Comments on Muslims

[xiinfaniin]

October 20, 2010

NPR Fires Analyst Over Comments on Muslims

 

By BRIAN STELTER

 

NPR has terminated its contract with Juan Williams, one of its senior news analysts, after he made comments about Muslims on the Fox News Channel.

 

NPR said in a statement that it gave Mr. Williams notice of his termination on Wednesday night.

 

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.

 

NPR said in its statement that the remarks “were inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR.”

 

The public radio organization said it thanked him for many years of service. Mr. Williams did not immediately respond on Wednesday night to an e-mail seeking comment.

 

Mr. Williams’s contributions on Fox raised eyebrows at NPR in the past. In February 2009, NPR said it had asked that he stop being identified on “The O’Reilly Factor” as a “senior correspondent for NPR,” even though that title was accurate.

 

Alicia C. Shepard, the NPR ombudswoman, said at the time that Mr. Williams was a “lightning rod” for the public radio organization in part because he “tends to speak one way on NPR and another on Fox.”

 

Ms. Shepard said she had received 378 listener e-mails in 2008 listing complaints and frustrations about Mr. Williams.

[xiinfaniin]

I know Juan is not a bigot, but his repeat of neocon, racist talking points on picking on defenseless minority fits NPR’s punishment.

 

I applaud NPR. Give to NPR, participate the pledge month.

[Gheelle.T]

The firing of him is well deserved. It's hard to believe someone who wrote countless articles about civil rights and what his people have gone through, would say something like that. And the assumption he made that Muslims dress certain ways and can be picked up from crowd. Did the 19 hijackers wear Kufiyah and Khamiz? What a Id10t.

[Che -Guevara]

Funny thing some people will feel uncomfortable seeing Juan in dark alley or late at night.

[Mr. Somalia]

I can't say I cared much for what Juan Williams usually has to say, but if NPR fired him for this reason alone, which was simply expressing his opinion regarding being uncomfortable around people wearing Muslim garb, then I think that they've taken political correctness to a whole new level, and personally, I think it is rather small-minded of them.

[Peace Action]

Atlantic:

Muslim wearing things

 

A Tumblr classic. But it also shows, of course, an implication in Juan Williams' comments. In them, he says that Muslims wearing Muslim garb are somehow more scary to him than Muslims not wearing such garb. Apart from the fact that this makes no logical sense when it comes to Jihadist terrorists (who all try to look as un-Muslim as they can), it also sends a signal to Muslim-Americans that there are appropriate ways to dress publicly if you are not to provoke fear. I don't like the implications of that.

 

Would someone say that Jews should not wear yarmulkes in public, because it presents them "first and foremost" and Jewish? Or that gays should never appear effeminate? Or that African-Americans should always wear suits and ties - because a different appearance can legitimately provoke nervousness or discomfort? Where does this stop?

 

One thing that distresses me about the plain meaning of Williams' remarks, and his justification of them by his own record of writing about the civil rights struggle for African Americans, is that he is implying that this other minority has to abide by standards of public appearance that his own minority doesn't. He wasn't invoking his civil rights journalism to stand against stigmatizing minorities based on appearance, he was invoking it to allow him to stand for their stigmatization. He was creating a new other - not by endorsing removal of constitutional rights, of course (leave that to Marty Peretz) - but by defending the legitimacy of being scared because someone is obviously "the other".

[Amistad]

Its a problem in America and he simply stated a common fear, nothing he should have been fired for. He does this to open discourse for the American Public to learn more about it and to try to open up understanding through debate and educating folks.

 

The point is nobody should be afraid of anybody because of the way one dresses, Muslim, Martian`s or Swahilis.

[Jacpher]

^His employer saw the comments as negative to the news agenda. For that they ended his contact.

 

Michael Moore: Juan Williams Is Right: Political Correctness About Terrorists Must End

 

An Open Letter to Juan Williams

 

Dear Juan,

 

Sorry to hear you got fired by National Public Radio for saying on Fox that you get nervous when you see Muslims on a plane with you. It was dumb to say such a thing, but I don't think saying one dumb thing should be a firing offense. (I DO think an NPR journalist wanting to take money from Fox News to be a regular commentator should be a firing offense, but that's another story).

 

But there's more to this -- and some important things that everyone is missing.

 

For instance, what you said about Faisal Shazad, the Pakistani immigrant who wanted to bomb Times Square. When he was being sentenced this month, he claimed, according to you, that his attempted attack was just "the first drop of blood." We can't let political correctness blind us to this, you explained.

 

I guess Shahzad made a big impression on you, because after being fired you went back on Fox and told them, "You can't ignore the fact what has recently been said in court with regard to 'this is the first drop of blood in a Muslim war against America.'"

 

Sadly for you (and this is also why you shouldn't be working for a real news organization like NPR), Shahzad never said that. If you were a real journalist, you would have quoted him accurately. What he actually said was that he was the "first droplet of the flood," not blood. But I know how easy it is to mishear things when scary Muslims are talking. And I guess it's not a huge difference anyway.

 

What really matters is that you're 100% right: We shouldn't let political correctness stop us from paying close attention to what people like Shahzad say. The problem is you just haven't taken it far enough.

 

So Juan, I'm asking you to join me on a crusade -- whoops! scratch that, let's call it a "mission" -- to publicize these statements by Faisal Shahzad as widely as possible. Because most of the media have not spent much time on what he had to say.

 

Here's what he said at his recent sentencing (after talking about being a droplet in a flood):

 

"[saladin] liberated Muslim lands ... And that's what we Muslims are trying do, because you're occupying Iraq and Afghanistan...So, the past nine years the war with Muslims has achieved nothing for the U.S., except for it has waken up the Muslims for Islam. We are only Muslims trying to defend our people, honor, and land. But if you call us terrorists for doing that, then we are proud terrorists, and we will keep on terrorizing until you leave our land and people at peace."

 

And this is what Shahzad said when he pled guilty back in June:

 

"I want to plead guilty, and I'm going to plead guilty 100 times over, because until the hour the U.S. pulls its forces from Iraq and Afghanistan, and stops the drone strikes in Somalia and Yemen and in Pakistan, and stops the occupation of Muslim lands, and stops killing the Muslims, and stops reporting the Muslims to its government, we will be attacking U.S., and I plead guilty to that.''

 

Then there's email that Shahzad sent to a friend in 2006:

 

"Everyone knows the current situation of Muslim World... Friends with peaceful protest! Can you tell me a way to save the oppressed? And a way to fight back when rockets are fired at us and Muslim blood flows? In Palestine, Afghan, Iraq, Chechnya and else where."

 

And then there's what Shahzad was telling friends and relatives even before that:

 

Mr. Shahzad had long been critical of American foreign policy. "He was always very upset about the fabrication of the W.M.D. stunt to attack Iraq and killing non-combatants such as the sons and grandson of Saddam Hussein," said a close relative. In 2003, Mr. Shahzad had been copied on a Google Groups e-mail message bearing photographs of Guantánamo Bay detainees, handcuffed and crouching, below the words "Shame on you, Bush. Shame on You."

 

So what do you say, Juan? Now that you have a new $2 million contract with Fox, let me come on with you for some in-depth discussions about the terrorists' real motivations. We can't let another day go by letting the PC brigade stop us from telling the truth: Terrorists aren't trying to kill us because they hate our freedom. They're killing us because we're in their countries killing them.

 

Yours,

 

Michael Moore

 

P.S. If you want to understand suicide bombings, be sure to read the new book that studied every instance of it for the past 30 years. It's been used by many groups of many religions, not just Arabs and not just Muslims. And almost all such terrorism has one motivation in common: occupation by foreign militaries.

 

 

P.P.S. Here's something else that I'd sincerely love to talk about with you: what do you think when you see rich middle-aged white men talking on TV about how they get nervous around African Americans on the street? And then they explain that we can't let political correctness stop us from talking about black-on-white crime?

 

 

Does it drive you crazy that they say this without even being conscious of the history of far greater violence by white people toward blacks? And do you maybe understand now how those middle-aged white guys get it so wrong?

 

UPDATE: Juan, you probably remember in 1986 when the Washington Post Magazine ran a Richard Cohen column defending jewelry store owners who wouldn't buzz in young black men. It caused such a big controversy that the New Republic ran a bunch of responses to it, including one by you. You might find it interesting to go back and read what you wrote then -- for instance, "Racism is a lazy man's substitute for using good judgment ... Common sense becomes racism when skin color becomes a formula for figuring out who is a danger to me."

[The Zack]

^Moore is right on it as usual. Juan, as a black man, should be the last person to stereotype. NPR rocks!

[Peace Action]

P.P.S. Here's something else that I'd sincerely love to talk about with you: what do you think when you see rich middle-aged white men talking on TV about how they get nervous around African Americans on the street? And then they explain that we can't let political correctness stop us from talking about black-on-white crime?

 

He was not an employee but a contractor and NPR probably have had it with his appearance on Fox and this was the last straw that broke the camel's back. He should have been fired a long time ago. He is laughing all the way to the bank with $2 million contract from FOX and sold his soul to the devil of hate of minories,immigrants and of course Muslims.