NPR fires Juan Williams.

[jmig]

I hope I don't have to close this thread for getting too political. However, I have always admired and respected Juan Williams. He is a man I could have and would have loved to sit down with and discuss real issues.

As a white man, I have always felt that most Blacks hold their real feelings and thoughts from white people. I see this as bad for both races. Juan is a man with whom I think I could have sat down with and asked, "What is it really like to be Black." I think he would have been honest with me and we would have had real dialog. Both of us would have walked away more knowledgeable and empathetic.

It saddens me that NPR would fire such a man for being honest. I have just written to my local NPR station to tell them they will not be receiving my annual $100 contribution. I know that I am being unfair to them, but they are the only way I have of letting NPR know what I think of their management decision. Maybe if enough NPR stations complain, NPR management will get the message?

[brad kaste]

jmig,.........You couldn't have stated it any better.......http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/images/icons/icon14.gif

[Roadburner440]

I too am aggrivated with the way Juan was treated. I do not think he said anything inflammatory, or anything that none of us have thought as well. I mean I would have expected them to do something like this to Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh given the chance, but never would of thought it would of happened to Juan for saying that statement. I have heard way, way worse from people (in particular Ed Shultz comes to mind), and nothing happens.. At least he is going to be retained by Fox News, so it is not a total loss.

[safn1949]

It really is a shame that PC has got to this point,Juan and I may disagree on our political views but he is by all accounts a decent and thoughtful man.Thumbs down to NPR.

[stansdds]

Juan really got the short end of the stick on this one. He is very much in the left wing, makes no bones about it, and is very honest in what he says. It appears to me that NPR cannot tolerate this level of honesty. Last night I was watching Fox News. It seems that in the past two of NPR's people have made statements against Christianity, but they were not even reprimanded. Juan makes a statement regarding his own feelings about Muslims and gets fired. Definitely a double standard is in play at NPR.

If Juan wished to do so, I think he could sue for wrongful termination and slander. Anyone hear what NPR CEO Vivian Schiller said Thursday? She said that whatever feelings Williams has about Muslims should be between him and "his psychiatrist or his publicist — take your pick." So basically she implied, in public, that Juan has a serious medical problem.

Two things I do not willingly support, but I'm forced to support through my tax dollars; NPR and PBS.

[Eoraptor1]

I can't remember the last time I listened to NPR; I avoid talk radio while driving. I used to listen to science Fridays regualrly, but it's been a while. My point is, I have no idea what their contractual policy is towards their employees behavior. I have no idea what they're thinking, if they're thinking at all. My big example is the Tobacco industry; where in the 70s you could tell the simple truth: nicotine is addictive, cigarettes cause cancer, and the company knew both - and not only be fired, but liable for civil suit for sharing trade secrets. Quite frankly, I feel much worse for a Wal-Mart employee making minimum wage, whose family lives in a motel at weekly rates, and can be fired for saying "hell" or "damn" than I do for Juan Williams. I'd be willing to be Rupert Murdoch is going to give him a nice salary bump and stock options. I also have a feeling if I went on television and talked about how many average Americans get fired because something they did in their personal lives embarassed the company, and how much dictatorial power corporations have over the 1st Amendment rights of their employees, I'd immediately be accused of creeping neo-Marxism. I should stop there, if I start talking about cable news, the thread will be closed. If I start talking about religion, the thread will be closed, and if I behaved like I thought the whole linear Left vs. Right paradigm was sane, I'd be lying.

I have no problem with the concept of political correctness; only with the pretense that it's a new phenomenon. I'll argue that point to a nub with any and all comers.

JAMES

[oakfloor]

P.C. strikes agian. I enjoy our local classical music station on my stereo, but it seems the NPR news only comes out of the left channel..

[Emil Frand]

I think he'll weather through this, he landed a 2 million buck gig on Fox..............

[Gibbons]

Every commentator on Fox, and almost all of their 'news' is nothing but opinion, does not allow their guests to speak freely. They speak over them whenever the guest gives an opinion that the show's host doesn't like, or isn't in line with Fox's right wing agenda.

If Juan's contract prohibited him from making such statements then his firing is legal. If not, he'll have a day in court. But as pointed out in an earlier post, corporations are free to fire their people for just about anything. And there have been a number of people fired where I work for what they've said about the company. The company has also issued warnings to employees not to speak to the media.

Freedom of speech? Where.

[traindriver98]

I think some people are missing the point. Juan Williams made the statement that got him fired on another outlet, not on NPR. He stated that this was how he felt and these were his feelings. NPR did not fire him untill after a Muslim Rights Group demanded that they take action. I also am one that does not always agree with Mr. Williams, but he belives in what he says. As for those who say that there are no 1st amendment rights while working for the big corps., think again. Most of these companies have code of conduct clause. You go against the code, you get fired. For those that have not served in the military, ask someone who has about what can happen to them when they talk like this while in uniform. Somethings just cannot be talked about in a public forum while in uniform, and we all knew it. NPR just showed it's true colors when they fired Mr Williams. You can bad mouth Christains, just not Muslims.

[TeaSea]

I too have always enjoyed Juan.

Now, that being said, a commercial news outlet is free to dismiss anyone they want. I've no issues with that. The 1st Amendment applies to government restriction of speech, not private restriction. A point some folks tend to forget. So if Helen Thomas or Rick Sanchez say something stupid and get fired, oh well....too bad. They shouldn't say stupid things.

However, the fact that NPR, through Public Broadcasting Corporation, was established through legislation, receives government funding, and obtains access through registration free use of the public airwaves (something commercial vendors do not receive) changes the dynamic.

It will be interesting to see what happens next. I do believe It is time to review the whole justification for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. The environment it was created to address no longer exists.

[Kiwikat]

Every commentator on Fox, and almost all of their 'news' is nothing but opinion, does not allow their guests to speak freely. They speak over them whenever the guest gives an opinion that the show's host doesn't like, or isn't in line with Fox's right wing agenda.

W00t! The truth hath been spoken. :jump::jump::jump:

[johnh_049]

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Gibbons http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/showthread.php?p=497805#post497805)
Every commentator on Fox, and almost all of their 'news' is nothing but opinion, does not allow their guests to speak freely. They speak over them whenever the guest gives an opinion that the show's host doesn't like, or isn't in line with Fox's right wing agenda.


W00t! The truth hath been spoken. :jump::jump::jump:

are the mods just ignoring this political ranting? if so why.

[Kiwikat]

are the mods just ignoring this political ranting? if so why.

That's not a rant. I'm not going to rant about politics here. Just because you don't agree with us doesn't make it a rant.

Besides, this political thread was started by a moderator... :mix-smi:


ANYONE who starts a political themed thread here at the outhouse should expect opinions from ALL sides to show up. Not just the "popular" opinion.

[oakfloor]

W00t! The truth hath been spoken. :jump::jump::jump:
Hogwash

[djscoo]

Much ado about nothing. He's not going to be sleeping on the streets any time soon. Fox is just making a big deal about it because they will jump at any chance they get to attack NPR. The 1st amendment argument is a poor one. He's not getting arrested or imprisoned, and NPR isn't preventing him from making prejudicial statements, they are just not allowing him to do so as a representative of their name.


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
(was that political enough?)

[beana51]

Silence one of us, and you silence all of us! ..The start of CENSORSHIP?? all tax payer money should not support narrow political views held by anyone!!.........


I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
-- Voltaire,

[deathfromafar]

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Gibbons http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/showthread.php?p=497805#post497805)
Every commentator on Fox, and almost all of their 'news' is nothing but opinion, does not allow their guests to speak freely. They speak over them whenever the guest gives an opinion that the show's host doesn't like, or isn't in line with Fox's right wing agenda.

Kiwikat
W00t! The truth hath been spoken. :jump::jump::jump:If that isn't the pot calling the kettle black, I do not know what else could be more so.

The thread was fairly neutral politically up to the point shown above. But while on the subject, I suppose the other 95% of the so called "News Media" being ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and nearly all the printed and net news outlets don't have a left wing rubber stamp agenda either huh? I guess not having control over the other 5% to silence the "opposition" just kills their egos. When people like those behind NPR and similar outlets do things as they did to Juan Williams, it saps away whatever minuscule amount of credibility and integrity they may have once had. Shame on them!!!

[Kiwikat]

I'm not going to refute any of your guys' arguments on here. It isn't worth it. No good was going to come out of this thread to begin with, as sort of suspected by jmig in his first post. The second someone said something contrary to what the popular opinion here is, the thread may as well had been locked.

I'm not asking any of you to agree with our point of view. A little bit of tolerance goes a long ways though. :wavey:


All of these political threads as of late certainly haven't been good for the overall morale here. It is one of the reasons I took a few months off.

[Eoraptor1]

If that isn't the pot calling the kettle black, I do not know what else could be more so.

The thread was fairly neutral politically up to the point shown above. But while on the subject, I suppose the other 95% of the so called "News Media" being ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and nearly all the printed and net news outlets don't have a left wing rubber stamp agenda either huh? I guess not having control over the other 5% to silence the "opposition" just kills their egos. When people like those behind NPR and similar outlets do things as they did to Juan Williams, it saps away whatever minuscule amount of credibility and integrity they may have once had. Shame on them!!!

Two deathly serious questions questions: 1) How does a single linear relationship (Left to Right) describe a country of 300 million people, representing a staggering number of beliefs, whose anscestry comes literally from all over the world, except by the criteria of the public relations industry? I personally perceive that as a set of total strangers who've given themselves the divine right to dictate my identity to me without a care as to whether I live or die, and I know I'm not alone in this. My name is JAMES, not "liberal" or "conservative". There is no network I perceive as my proxy advocate. 2) Where do the percentage points come from, and what criteria were used?

JAMES

[deathfromafar]

Two deathly serious questions questions: 1) How does a single linear relationship (Left to Right) describe a country of 300 million people, representing a staggering number of beliefs, whose anscestry comes literally from all over the world, except by the criteria of the public relations industry? I personally perceive that as a set of total strangers who've given themselves the divine right to dictate my identity to me without a care as to whether I live or die, and I know I'm not alone in this. My name is JAMES, not "liberal" or "conservative". There is no network I perceive as my proxy advocate. 2) Where do the percentage points come from, and what criteria were used?

JAMES

Well James, the first part of your question is too "Staggeringly Inane" to answer. The second part is rather easy. As I am old enough to have witnessed a lot of "trends and leans" in this nation a long time now and having lived over a good bit of the landscape, I draw my own conclusions from 4 plus decades of watching & reading news. Being that I am a businessman, I am well schooled on such things as percentages and how to assess what I see.

Kiwikat, I am going to agree with you on one premise and that is it's better to leave the politics out here altogether. That way we can avoid stepping on eachother's toes and enjoy and share better, happier things.
:ernae:

[Kiwikat]

Kiwikat, I am going to agree with you on one premise and that is it's better to leave the politics out here altogether. That way we can avoid stepping on eachother's toes and enjoy and share better, happier things.
:ernae:

I've already sent a PM to jmig. Hopefully he'll read it tomorrow morning and chime in. Newshawks used to be a happy place! :jump:

[deathfromafar]

I've already sent a PM to jmig. Hopefully he'll read it tomorrow morning and chime in. Newshawks used to be a happy place! :jump:

That's cool man! The key to keeping things on a happy level is to avoid adding salt in the sugar in the first place. We are all human, we all have differences, our qualities and our failings too. So be it.

With regards to Jmig's original intent here on this post regarding Juan Williams, this entire matter has drawn outrage in many quarters. I've personally seen people on far ends of either political spectrum say truly objectionable things and often with little sense or validity and get away with it. What Mr. Williams said through his full remarks raised very sensible and valid questions and was not at all intended or generally perceived as offensive. I can tell ya Kiwi and believe me or not, if you or any other person here were treated in such a way or lost your job in a such context when I and anyone else knew you were a straight up and honorable person and acting accordingly, I would be equally as angry over it and I would defend you regardless of your beliefs.

That's a fact!

[spotlope]

Just in case this gets closed soon, I wanted to weigh in because I've been thinking about this particular issue a lot today. I am an NPR listener and supporter, and one of the things I've always enjoyed about them is the genuine sense of impartiality they bring to the reporting of news. It seems to me that although this might have been a hasty decision on the part of their management, they're simply erring on the side of caution. If I had to bet, I'd say they've been profoundly uncomfortable with Mr. Williams's dual presence on NPR and Fox for some time now, so they were hyper-sensitive to anything he might say that could be perceived as biased - even if taken out of context.

Was it the right decision? Honestly, I don't know. What I do know is that journalism is, if not endangered, then most certainly threatened in the US right now by the forces of infotainment masquerading as reporting. Fox isn't the only news outlet guilty of this, but their hands are far from clean. It seems to me that Juan's dismissal is consistent with the standards to which NPR hold themselves, even if a bit stringently at times. Call it a reaction to the current trends in the rest of the American media. They're drawing a line in the sand, and I respect them for it.

[deathfromafar]

It seems to me that Juan's dismissal is consistent with the standards to which NPR hold themselves, even if a bit stringently at times. Call it a reaction to the current trends in the rest of the American media. They're drawing a line in the sand, and I respect them for it. Those so called standards they claim to uphold don't seem to apply to some within that organization, especially the upper echelon. Vivian Schiller herself doesn't mind bending the rules of journalism and then incredulously moving the goal line to suit her own views. She demonstrated that quite while co-heading the NY Times. She also suffers from "hoof in mouth" disorder.

[johnh_049]

.

I'm not asking any of you to agree with our point of view. A little bit of tolerance goes a long ways though. :wavey:

was just as news thread to start with...

[Kiwikat]

was just as news thread to start with...

This thread was NOT news to start with. It was jmig's opinion about what happened.

[aris2747]

Anyone who thinks that NPR is non-political and "genuine sense of impartiality they bring to the reporting of news" has been drinking too much kool-ade. They are even more biased than the MSM. Just my opinion.

[Terry]

Anyone who thinks that NPR is non-political and "genuine sense of impartiality they bring to the reporting of news" has been drinking too much kool-ade. They are even more biased than the MSM. Just my opinion.

Agreed, The government needs to get their nose out of the news business! If a network is any good they will make money and survive on their own!

[Navy Chief]

I would like to see the funding of NPR stopped, period.

NC

[EasyEd]

Hey All,

Respect.

We can sit in relative anonymity on our computers and quote the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America or the Fundamental Freedoms expressed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or other similar documents until He!! freezes over but without respect and the willingness to abide by the obligation placed upon each and every one of us who professes to be an American or Canadian or any other nationality who professes these freedoms these historic documents and the wisdom they contain are meaningless.

Freedom of speech means only that you have the right to express your beliefs - you have no right to be heard nor do you have any right for what you express to be so. Without respect no one is heard because no one truly listens and as a result there is no communication, there is no compromise and there is ultimately no peace or freedom.

Once you lose respect for the opinions of others you simply adopt "hardline" positions where a dissenting opinion is to be "shouted down" not explored and discussed. Commonly but not always loss of respect for a dissenting opinion and the adoption of a "hardline" position turns into loss of respect for the individual. What comes next? I bet it isn't more peace and freedom.

I think everyone here and everyone in America needs to think about where they (and those with whom they associate, listen to and "respect") sit along the spectrum ranging from respectful discussion to "hardline" diatribes and the level of respect they have for individuals with opposing viewpoints.

I think today the importance of discussion about the future of America is more important than ever while at the same time the "ability" to have a meaningful discussion that actually explores the core beliefs of differeing viewpoints is less than I've ever seen it. Why is a whole nother discussion!

-Ed-

[spotlope]

Freedom of speech is a pillar of democracy, and I'm 100% in favor of it (even on these forums ;)), but there's an gray-area overlap where personal expression meets journalism. This issue falls right into that crack, and as such isn't cut-and-dried by any means. Again, I'm not saying they made the right decision, but I fully understand their motivation. I'm not even against Juan Williams. I used to really enjoy listening to him during his brief stint on Talk of the Nation.

I may be in the minority, but I think non-commercial media is a great idea. It's one way to ensure that advertisers have little sway over the message being presented. I can think of a great many other things that my tax dollars support that are vastly less worthy.

What we need more of is old-fashioned, hard-hitting investigative journalism. That's something that's been relegated to the fringe and needs to be brought back into the middle. Corruption and deceit need exposing, no matter what entity is perpetrating it. What we need considerably less of is rah-rah partisanship, screaming, and gut-based infotainment that values ratings over rationality. I've always found far more of the former and less of the latter on NPR.

[Eoraptor1]

Well James, the first part of your question is too "Staggeringly Inane" to answer. The second part is rather easy. As I am old enough to have witnessed a lot of "trends and leans" in this nation a long time now and having lived over a good bit of the landscape, I draw my own conclusions from 4 plus decades of watching & reading news. Being that I am a businessman, I am well schooled on such things as percentages and how to assess what I see.

Since you didn't answer my question, I take your pronouncement on my "Inanity" to mean you didn't think about what I said, and didn't want to. I don't automatically accept the veracity of contemporary political rhetoric, as I believe it's primary function is to restrict inquiry, and that it does not serve this country. If that doesn't sit with you, well, I have this quirk; I insist upon my own identity. I'm not the first American to be disgusted with partisan politics. I drew my missive largely from a speech made by a gentleman of note. When I was in grade school, they told me he never told a lie. If you want specifics GO HERE: http://wilstar.com/holidays/farewell.htm

Furthermore, I didn't ask as to your mastery of percentages; I had already gathered from your pervious postings you were an educated man. I asked where the 95% figure came from, and with what criteria. What was the methodolgy other than opinion? I had thought you might be refering to a published media survey. If you find that line of questioning inane, there's very little I can do about it.

As for me, back when circumstances still allowed me to do such things, I freakish found myself in a number of executive skyboxes, old plantation houses, and hotel suites speaking with lobbyists and politicians, who due to my wearing the right piece of plastic, foolishly thought I was someone whose opinion might someday matter to them. [Music fans, I was once at an ASCAP reception with various members of Congress. I wouldn't have known, if I hadn't look into the gift basket] What those experiences did do was make me a deep skeptic as to what forensic analysts call "The Vocabulary of Motive" for which I do not apologize.

Good day to you, sir. I sincerely wish you and your family every good thing.

JAMES

[Snuffy]

A little something about the First Amendment ...

eeVrzrmgitQ

[beana51]

Reading all this convinces me Democracy is alive and well....lIKE THE PARABLE OF THE 10 BLIND MAN THE ELEPHANT...ALL HAS A PIECE OF THE ELEPHANT, AND ALL ARE WRONG IN DESCRIBING WHAT AN ELEPHANT IS..NO AN ELEPHANT IS NOT A FLYSWATTER,OR IS IT A TREE TRUNK, NOT A FAN,CERTAINLY NOT A SERPENT...ALL CAN BE CORRECT BUT IN A DISCOMBOBULATED BLIND VIEW ...ALL ARE WRONG!

SOH is a fine forum for our mutual hobby...the camaraderie that exists here ,with Sim Flying is a model for all.....like Little children we immerse our selves into a wold of play....all here are "Walter Mitty types,we probably come in many shapes ,sizes,colors....yet we are one...insulated from reality,we capture brief moments of FUN,and Pleasure..we Blovaite,in total anonymity, however in some bar,or hanger we have everything in common......now factor in other things,real things,things that really effect our lives..things like Politics ,religion,sports, things volitle!...to be sure an ignition will take place...and some who enjoy some others will now be pulled into the world of polarization,the Reds ,against the Greens,or as we know the blue against the grey....ad infintum!!..lots of ill will,with sad finallity.....When I was born Herbert Hoover was President...seen our country go thru many metophorsis..Young ,I would be out in the streets..proclamingI had the answers...of course no one did!!..WARS were not for sure!.so now I know what planes to fly ,where to go,whom I communicate with!..and its nice...many years of real Aviation now extended in the Sim world!!...never in my whole life this could ever be imegnied..we at home simulating flight...MINDBOGGLING,,,so this will play out,I fear however their will be other questions of the day,the Platform is in place now at SOH,a precident set now!, the megaphones are in place!..made up minds in overdrive! collisions will occur!!

What other question will be explored,?The National debt? high Unemployment? our kids future? social security? our place in the world? Muslim terrorists?,gays in the military? intergration???healthcare? aborotion?,Prayers in school? wall street? GM?The Green thing?foreign Trade,?..where do one start with these deep,wordly questions??? On SOH??? I think not,for if it did ,so too would SOH be not the place to be..If this is the pleasure of some,,then their are thousands of Bloggs to go to,and there Blovaite your heart out...."Some things in life are beyond Our Control!! Just my opinion ,I mean to offend no one!!... any way,these worldly things at alltude mean not much for the further away you are the clearer it is!!!!! ..So long!! Vin!!.. :wavey:

[Eoraptor1]

I still maintain the SOH is far and away the most civil forum where I've been a member. No one else is even close. I've had mail in my inbox that could have come right from Clive Barker Hellraiser movie. I've also been under viral attack, but never from here.

JAMES

PS In my last posting I should have said RIAA instead of ASCAP. My mistake.

[deathfromafar]

Since you didn't answer my question, I take your pronouncement on my "Inanity" to mean you didn't think about what I said, and didn't want to. I don't automatically accept the veracity of contemporary political rhetoric, as I believe it's primary function is to restrict inquiry, and that it does not serve this country. If that doesn't sit with you, well, I have this quirk; I insist upon my own identity. I'm not the first American to be disgusted with partisan politics. I drew my missive largely from a speech made by a gentleman of note. When I was in grade school, they told me he never told a lie. If you want specifics GO HERE: http://wilstar.com/holidays/farewell.htm

Furthermore, I didn't ask as to your mastery of percentages; I had already gathered from your pervious postings you were an educated man. I asked where the 95% figure came from, and with what criteria. What was the methodolgy other than opinion? I had thought you might be refering to a published media survey. If you find that line of questioning inane, there's very little I can do about it.

As for me, back when circumstances still allowed me to do such things, I freakish found myself in a number of executive skyboxes, old plantation houses, and hotel suites speaking with lobbyists and politicians, who due to my wearing the right piece of plastic, foolishly thought I was someone whose opinion might someday matter to them. [Music fans, I was once at an ASCAP reception with various members of Congress. I wouldn't have known, if I hadn't look into the gift basket] What those experiences did do was make me a deep skeptic as to what forensic analysts call "The Vocabulary of Motive" for which I do not apologize.

Good day to you, sir. I sincerely wish you and your family every good thing.

JAMES

James. good evening.

I did answer you on the second part of your "previous" post and if you took the time to study how I presented my explanation on how I came to such a figure, ie: it was non-scientific as I am sure you have already rightfully assumed. The first part of your previous post you now more clearly give indication of what you meant and where you were coming from but still, I prefer to not to go digging or sifting through any of that as there's no point in it.

Okay, since you have retorted, let me redirect and I hope I can clear the air for your or anyone else here where I actually stand. Personally I am no fan of partisan politics either and I have zero use for extreme leftists or rightists in this country. I figure if such extremes would sort out their differences elsewhere, the rest of us might get along better and get more done to actually fix the ills we all face. But be it as it may, this country has always had politics and always will have politics and contrary to what some believe or wish to believe, as Bill Clinton put it, politics are a "contact sport" nonetheless. But make no mistake, Freedom of Speech and Press is a Constitutional Right that should never be abated/suppressed even if you object to what one or many say. In the case of news media all being included, it's simple. If you don't like the content one way or another, tune it out and find one more of your liking where the content or control over it suits to taste.

In the case of Mr. Williams, this was a case of sneering personal politics on the part of the hierarchy of NPR, pure and simple and are left lacking in terms of good and equal standards.

[Eoraptor1]

James. good evening.

I did answer you on the second part of your "previous" post and if you took the time to study how I presented my explanation on how I came to such a figure, ie: it was non-scientific as I am sure you have already rightfully assumed. The first part of your previous post you now more clearly give indication of what you meant and where you were coming from but still, I prefer to not to go digging or sifting through any of that as there's no point in it.

Okay, since you have retorted, let me redirect and I hope I can clear the air for your or anyone else here where I actually stand. Personally I am no fan of partisan politics either and I have zero use for extreme leftists or rightists in this country. I figure if such extremes would sort out their differences elsewhere, the rest of us might get along better and get more done to actually fix the ills we all face. But be it as it may, this country has always had politics and always will have politics and contrary to what some believe or wish to believe, as Bill Clinton put it, politics are a "contact sport" nonetheless. But make no mistake, Freedom of Speech and Press is a Constitutional Right that should never be abated/suppressed even if you object to what one or many say. In the case of news media all being included, it's simple. If you don't like the content one way or another, tune it out and find one more of your liking where the content or control over it suits to taste.

In the case of Mr. Williams, this was a case of sneering personal politics on the part of the hierarchy of NPR, pure and simple and are left lacking in terms of good and equal standards.

Thank you very much for answering, DFA; your prompt and clear response was very much appreciated. Please keep yourself well.

JAMES

[TeaSea]

I would comment that my only personal issue with NPR releasing Mr. Williams is that NPR receives the backing and favor of the U.S. Government through both tax funds and priority on air wave licensing.

The problem with this type of resource allocation is that it will always be subject to scrutiny based on the political whims of the day. In that I am therefore diametrically opposed to spotlope's (well stated and articulated) contention that public funding for these types of broadcasts is a good thing. I don't think so, primarily because it will always bring into question the issue of a government "message" (if you will) that is to be broadcast to the American people through the use of their own funds and resources.

NPR has an agenda. I've no problem with that. What I have a problem with is the U.S. Government funding that agenda.

[hey_moe]

Sorry guys this never should have been allowed to go this far.