NPR Should Reconsider The Firing Of Juan Williams

NPR fired longtime reporter Juan Williams on Oct. 20, 2010, after he said the following on Bill O'Reilly's television program two days prior:

 I mean, look Bill [O'Reilly], I'm not a bigot, you know the kind of books I've written on the civil rights movement in this country, but when I get on a 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. Now, I remember also that when the Times Square bomber was at court, I think this was just last week. 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. But I think there are people who want to somehow remind us all as President Bush did after 9/11, it's not a war against Islam.

For saying that, NPR fired him for being "inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR."

So you can be fired for inconsistency? And was Williams representing merely himself when he said those or words, or NPR in general? I think it's clear he was simply talking about himself and his own feelings. They further state that by saying what he felt, he became non-credible. Let's muse on this for a moment.

I am a free speech advocate. Some of the most difficult things Glenn Beck has said that seem to have directly resulted in violence, are abhorrent, but he's protected under the first ammendment. And here's what NPR needs to consider: while their programs are covered under the catch-all dislcaimer of "commentary," there is no doubt that there are many people who take the inflammatory language of the right wing noise machine as fact. The proof is simple; time after time mis-information doled out by the commentators have often re-entered the news cycle as if they were real in the first place. Williams hardly even encroached on that territory.

Glenn Beck has predicted blood covered streets as the only way for Americans to "take back" their government. All Juan Williams did was state that extremists make him nervous. Bit of a dichotomy there, eh?

This is a political move on NPR's part, to make sure the hyper liberal segment of their audience doesn't stop sending them dough. And this, my friends, are words coming from an NPR fan, who listens to several shows on the network every day. I'm not against NPR. I'm against this action.

But the bigger issue for me is this: I do not share Mr. William's feelings, but he is entitled to express them, and indeed to have them. Also, will this encourage other NPR reports to feel less free about expressing their views? What good would that do? I have already seen applause for the network's move popping up on blogs, and to those people who have, I ask them to consider the following. I have heard many liberals saying literally despicable things about George W. Bush and his administration. Violent rheroic that I was frankly shocked by. By the logic employed by NPR, if your boss didn't agree with your views, he'd have the right to fire you. Let's all take a deep breath and think about that.

The real snafu here is that later in the same interview, Juan Willams spoke of the neccessity for all citizens, regardless of their views, to be protected by Constitutional law. Hardly the ramblings of non-credible racist.

MIke Grefski