NPR fires Juan Williams

[birdog1960]

Give me a break. Sounds like you've never been around a reporter, because nearly every story is flavored by their personal beliefs. If you don't think so, ask anyone who's been interviewed and then read a story for which that interview took place and see if the two are consistent. You can also take a hint from the way the reporter is asking the question. Only the very good ones won't tip the story by the question. Most are hacks who give away their POV at first breath.

 

NPR is as guilty as anyone, as they are much more endearing to the guests they like vs guests they don't like.

 

Here's a stupid, simple analogy - should Sal Marioana be fired from the Bills beat because in one of his reports he doubts that Aaron Maybin will be an effective football player. It is after all, an opinion that flavors his objective coverage of the football team.

sorry, disrespecting a football player that nearly everyone considers a bust with objective data to support that contention and disrespecting an entire religion based on personal, emotional feelings are 2 very different things.

[IDBillzFan]

As someone who works with the media, I back this up- most reporters have their opinions show in their work. It is nearly unavoidable. We want reporters to be perfect, but they are as imperfect as we are.

Most people never pick up on the little journalistic nuances that find their way into stories. While it's been years since I was a journalist, some things never change. You need look no further than people always referencing how "almost 3000" people were killed on 9/11. Rounding numbers to make a point takes place every day, in virtually every story that has a number in it.

 

Not to mention phrases like "Tea party protesters are overwhelmingly white."

 

Overwhelmingly? Really? What does that make an NFL team?

 

To be honest, I have no idea why birdog keeps picking this battle. Outside of the Huffington Post, you can count the number of people who believe NPR did the right thing on the hand of a bad woodshop teacher.

Edited October 26, 2010 by LABillzFan

[OCinBuffalo]

Yeah, but theres that brown water at the top and then the murky stuff in the middle.

 

Thats everyone.

 

Then there is the **** at the bottom, so thick it can NEVER be pulled out. Its just a mix of thick, 'industrial-strength' hardened ****, dried puke and used tampons.

 

That's conner.

Thanks for that image.

Maybe a little dark for this thread but conner-bashing is getting a bit tired.

It's hard to believe, but he deserves every bit of it. Look, I used to feel like you do. Your apprehension to the repeated public humiliation of another human being is a perfectly natural first response. But in time you will get over it, trust me.

[GG]

sorry, disrespecting a football player that nearly everyone considers a bust with objective data to support that contention and disrespecting an entire religion based on personal, emotional feelings are 2 very different things.

 

It's nice to see that there is one person in this world who does not instinctively prejudge a situation.

[RkFast]

sorry, disrespecting a football player that nearly everyone considers a bust with objective data to support that contention and disrespecting an entire religion based on personal, emotional feelings are 2 very different things.

 

Hows this for "objective data" to support Williams' and pretty much everyone's apprehension about Muslims on airplanes?

 

[birdog1960]

Hows this for "objective data" to support Williams' and pretty much everyone's apprehension about Muslims on airplanes?

 

and i could cite a video of a an ira bombing or the oklahoma city bombing or a hate group rally or lynching (but i won't since that would be in bad taste). i don't believe that showing those would make the point that everyone should be wary of christians anymore than this video justifies the fear of muslims.

[RkFast]

and i could cite a video of a an ira bombing or the oklahoma city bombing or a hate group rally or lynching (but i won't since that would be in bad taste). i don't believe that showing those would make the point that everyone should be wary of christians anymore than this video justifies the fear of muslims.

 

No you cant. You most certainly cannot use a regional, almost now defunct group like the IRA, a single terror event carried out by a single man and lynchings from the 50's for your "moral equivalency."

 

Pretty much the ONLY thing you can use to justify any "fear of Christians" is that they might force you to get a crazy 80s haircut like Joel Osteen and to speak in tounges. Thats it.

 

And for EVERY SINGLE ONE of your "examples" of Christians using terror, Ill raise you FIVE examples of my own of Muslims using it. So dont even try to go there. Its a big loser for you..

Edited October 27, 2010 by RkFast

[erynthered]

No you cant. You most certainly cannot use a regional, almost now defunct group like the IRA, a single terror event carried out by a single man and lynchings from the 50's for your "moral equivalency."

 

Pretty much the ONLY thing you can use to justify any "fear of Christians" is that they might force you to get a crazy 80s haircut like Joel Osteen and to speak in tounges. Thats it.

 

And for EVERY SINGLE ONE of your "examples" of Christians using terror, Ill raise you FIVE examples of my own of Muslims using it. So dont even try to go there. Its a big loser for you..

 

 

Here's some crumbs for you. They estimate that there are around 1.5 billion Muslims in the world. There are also estimates that there are between 1 and 3% of them that would be considered Muslim extreamists. So thats anywhere between 15 to 45 million Muslims terrorists in the world. I wonder how the IRA or the Christians whack jobs numbers stack up to these?

[Rob's House]

No you cant. You most certainly cannot use a regional, almost now defunct group like the IRA, a single terror event carried out by a single man and lynchings from the 50's for your "moral equivalency."

 

Pretty much the ONLY thing you can use to justify any "fear of Christians" is that they might force you to get a crazy 80s haircut like Joel Osteen and to speak in tounges. Thats it.

 

And for EVERY SINGLE ONE of your "examples" of Christians using terror, Ill raise you FIVE examples of my own of Muslims using it. So dont even try to go there. Its a big loser for you..

You're fighting a losing battle here. Until 100% of any group commits to a cause, birdog will be outraged that you have the audacity to identify trends and probabilities based on the protected criteria. He's the kind of guy who thinks you should not so much as notice a heightened threat by 5 minority males in thug attire approaching you on a dark deserted road. If you perceive them any differently than you would 5 nerdy white guys in suits, you are morally depraved, according to this all heart no brain philosophy.

 

Here's some crumbs for you. They estimate that there are around 1.5 billion Muslims in the world. There are also estimates that there are between 1 and 3% of them that would be considered Muslim extreamists. So thats anywhere between 15 to 45 million Muslims terrorists in the world. I wonder how the IRA or the Christians whack jobs numbers stack up to these?

It's not even comparable. They're grasping at straws to justify their hyper-sensitivity to any racial/ethnic distinction one might use to infer risk. To take people out of the equation (thus divorce ourselves of prejudice) Let's use dogs as an example: They're essentially saying it's ridiculous to be on heightened alert in the presence of a pit bull, because even though the chances of you being attacked by a pit bull are exponentially higher than that of other breeds, most pit bulls don't attack and some other breeds of dog have attacked people on occasion. Therefore, to be nervous in the presence of an unknown pitbull makes you ignorant. And racist.

[birdog1960]

You're fighting a losing battle here. Until 100% of any group commits to a cause, birdog will be outraged that you have the audacity to identify trends and probabilities based on the protected criteria. He's the kind of guy who thinks you should not so much as notice a heightened threat by 5 minority males in thug attire approaching you on a dark deserted road. If you perceive them any differently than you would 5 nerdy white guys in suits, you are morally depraved, according to this all heart no brain philosophy.

 

 

It's not even comparable. They're grasping at straws to justify their hyper-sensitivity to any racial/ethnic distinction one might use to infer risk. To take people out of the equation (thus divorce ourselves of prejudice) Let's use dogs as an example: They're essentially saying it's ridiculous to be on heightened alert in the presence of a pit bull, because even though the chances of you being attacked by a pit bull are exponentially higher than that of other breeds, most pit bulls don't attack and some other breeds of dog have attacked people on occasion. Therefore, to be nervous in the presence of an unknown pitbull makes you ignorant. And racist.

so now you're comparing all muslims to pit bulls and thugs in a back alley. yup, i'd consider that racist. no idea where you'd get 1-3% extremist number but i guess it would depend on your definition of extremist. if "known to have participated in terrorism" was a qualification then this is a gross overestimate. and if the definition means "fundamentalist" i would bet that at least 1-3% of american christians would fit that definition.

[Rob's House]

so now you're comparing all muslims to pit bulls and thugs in a back alley. yup, i'd consider that racist. no idea where you'd get 1-3% extremist number but i guess it would depend on your definition of extremist. if "known to have participated in terrorism" was a qualification then this is a gross overestimate. and if the definition means "fundamentalist" i would bet that at least 1-3% of american christians would fit that definition.

How did I know some moron would come back with that garbage response. "Oh, so muslims and blacks are dogs?" Give me a f'n break, I qualified it very clearly. It's called an analogy, look it up doc. You're the one taking an extreminst view on this issue anyway, how about defending it instead of attacking my metaphor with your race baiting retardation.

 

I have a modicum of respect for you, because even though the meladramatic bs you splatter across these pages is devoid of any logic or objectivety, you seem to genuinely believe your own hot air. This crap, however, really wears on my nerves and causes me to question this assumption.

Edited October 27, 2010 by Rob's House

[Magox]

If one wants to truly understand birdogs logic, all he has to do is see that he believes that it was OK for Juan Williams to be fired because of his feelings towards fear of flying with muslims in traditional garb, in which of course the context of the whole discourse that evening had to do with the exact opposite of NPR's original view of bigotry on Juan's part, in which if one would take the time and listen to what was being said he urged viewers to practice more tolerance. On the other hand birdog believes it was ok of NPR to not fire Totenberg for her view of wishing that a standing senator should contract aids along with his grandchildren.

 

 

The stench of hypocrisy is foul and it sickens me that there are people who share his views.

[erynthered]

If one wants to truly understand birdogs logic, all he has to do is see that he believes that it was OK for Juan Williams to be fired because of his feelings towards fear of flying with muslims in traditional garb, in which of course the context of the whole discourse that evening had to do with the exact opposite of NPR's original view of bigotry on Juan's part, in which if one would take the time and listen to what was being said he urged viewers to practice more tolerance. On the other hand birdog believes it was ok of NPR to not fire Totenberg for her view of wishing that a standing senator should contract aids along with his grandchildren.

 

 

The stench of hypocrisy is foul and it sickens me that there are people who share his views.

 

Well he did take an oath of Hypocricy didnt he?

[Rob's House]

If one wants to truly understand birdogs logic, all he has to do is see that he believes that it was OK for Juan Williams to be fired because of his feelings towards fear of flying with muslims in traditional garb, in which of course the context of the whole discourse that evening had to do with the exact opposite of NPR's original view of bigotry on Juan's part, in which if one would take the time and listen to what was being said he urged viewers to practice more tolerance. On the other hand birdog believes it was ok of NPR to not fire Totenberg for her view of wishing that a standing senator should contract aids along with his grandchildren.

 

 

The stench of hypocrisy is foul and it sickens me that there are people who share his views.

I'm with you. I'm at a loss to understand the workings of a mind that sees the essence of evil in a man's assertion that he has a semi-rational fear response to hypothetical man dressed in muslim attire on a plane, but is ok with someone wishing AIDS on specific real life children.

[Adam]

I'm with you. I'm at a loss to understand the workings of a mind that sees the essence of evil in a man's assertion that he has a semi-rational fear response to hypothetical man dressed in muslim attire on a plane, but is ok with someone wishing AIDS on specific real life children.

Is either really a good thing? If Mr. Williams is truly afraid, then he can find another mode of transportation.

[RkFast]

Is either really a good thing? If Mr. Williams is truly afraid, then he can find another mode of transportation.

 

 

He didnt say he was "truly afraid."

 

This is !@#$ing rich...not even a few months after the left got batshit over some low-level govt worker being taken out of context in a Breitbart clip, they are DELIBERATELY TRYING to take Williams out of context.

 

ANYTHING to help the agenda.....ANYTHING at all.

[Adam]

He didnt say he was "truly afraid."

 

This is !@#$ing rich...not even a few months after the left got batshit over some low-level govt worker being taken out of context in a Breitbart clip, they are DELIBERATELY TRYING to take Williams out of context.

 

ANYTHING to help the agenda.....ANYTHING at all.

Hey- I am going from what I read about it here- I don't listen to NPR. From what I read, I don't think he should have been fired, but I don't know what else the guy has done. People jump to conclusion way too much today and that may be the case with this, but the islamophobics are idiots

[birdog1960]

I'm with you. I'm at a loss to understand the workings of a mind that sees the essence of evil in a man's assertion that he has a semi-rational fear response to hypothetical man dressed in muslim attire on a plane, but is ok with someone wishing AIDS on specific real life children.

wow, i guess you're on the email list for conservative talking points. i hadn't noticed that an event from 1995 was dredged up. reading npr's rebuttal from yesterday and reading the transcript, it's apparent that she didn't wish aids on helm or his grandchildren. she was trying to make the point (admittedly, awkwardly) that helm's opposition to aids research could cause "innocent" (read nongay) people to become infected. she later apologized (i don't believe williams ever has). apparently during the discussion conservative commentators including the late tony snow joined in criticizing helms for his stance.

[RkFast]

Hey- I am going from what I read about it here- I don't listen to NPR. From what I read, I don't think he should have been fired, but I don't know what else the guy has done. People jump to conclusion way too much today and that may be the case with this, but the islamophobics are idiots

 

 

Thats fine. But there is nothing "islamophobic" about what Williams was speaking of. What he was talking about was a RATIONAL, innate human reaction, based on a recent real world event and even more, showing how that fear plays out in an already tense situation.

Edited October 27, 2010 by RkFast

[Adam]

Thats fine. But there is nothing "islamophobic" about what Williams was speaking of. What he was talking about was a RATIONAL, innate human reaction, based on a recent real world event and even more, showing how that fear plays out in an already tense situation.

My problem is that the terrorists wanted to create an atmosphere of distrust, fear and animosity between people, based on stereotypes and ignorance. They have succeeded. By default, what does that mean we have done?

 

There is nothing wrong with fear, but when it controls us, there is a problem- and I am going past whatever Williams said on this.....