An Open Letter to Juan Williams (Etan Thomas)
Mr. Williams , let me first say that I have enjoyed reading your books, columns, and think that you used to do a lot of good work at NPR. Your book Enough, although there were aspects of it that I definitely disagreed with, was definitely a great read, and a book I would highly recommend. On one hand, I don't agree with your firing. I thought that the entire point of being on National Public Radio was that opinions were allowed to be expressed whether popular or not. I can make the argument that in a public forum we should be able to have dissenting views that bring about healthy dialogue without someone's 1st amendment right being censored. I could make the argument that in a setting where dissenting views are commonly expressed, you being fired for expressing an honest opinion (as long as that was the actual reason you were relieved of your duties) was unfair and is furthermore a lost opportunity to confront the kind of fears that leads to the formation of stereotypical views about Islam and Muslims.
But on the other hand, another argument could be made that by expressing negative stereotypes about a racial or religious group you are guilty of breaching the ethics of fairness which is a necessary ingredient to succeed in journalism. Thus their forced resignation or firing was the right action. The fact that you publicly expressed a bias, excludes you from being viewed as has having the credibility to be an impartial arbiter of news. And In firing you, NPR did not violate your First Amendment rights, but rather It asserted the fact that your views were inconsistent with the NPR brand of impartiality. Now, I know that this is not the first time that NPR has exhibited some brand of impartial reporting, but that argument could definitely be made.
For quick recap, just so I can make sure I have all of the facts straight. You were a National Public Radio "news analyst," appeared on Fox News Channel's The O'Reilly Factor to talk about Bill O'Reilly's recent remarks about Muslims on ABC's The View; the latter' show's co-hosts, Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg, had walked off the television set in protest. When asked what you thought about the incident, you responded: "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."
Honestly, I would expect something like that to fly out of the mouths of say Bill O Reilly (kudos to Whoopi Golberg and Joy Behar for walking out on him) or Sean Hannity, but to come from you was quite a surprise.
First of all, none of the 9-11 hijackers had on "Muslim Garb". They were all wearing regular clothing, and even if they weren't, are you really making the argument that there is a correlation between style of dress and criminal or terrorizing behavior? You expressed fear of people in a "Muslim garb." What exactly did you mean by "Muslim garb?" Besides the sheer idiocy of attempting to define "Muslim garb" your statement has also contributed to creating more fear about a group of Americans who are already negatively perceived and against whom hate crimes are on the rise.
Maybe you didn't see it like that. Maybe you didn't think you were actually contributing to bigotry by your statements, but you were. As Americans we can and should have vigorous debates. But bigotry simply has no place in a civilized society. Institutions like NPR, by trying to be impartial (whether they actually do or not), are attempting to build a firewall against this bigotry. Fox News on the other hand profits from fear-mongering. That's the base that they play to, and they are very successful at it. Why do you think they hired you so quickly? Because your statements fall right in line with their overall agenda. Why do you think that certain people came to your defense? Began actually protesting that your constitutional rights were being violated. Interestingly enough, these same people didn't come to the defense of Helen Thomas, Rick Sanchez or Octavia Nasr when they were fired for essentially the same guilt of making stereotypical and insensitive comments. But why do you think they embraced you and took your cause? Come on Mr. Williams, if people like Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, and Newt Gingrich are coming to your defense, doesn't that make you start to question yourself?
Second, for a black man to say something like that is absolutely amazing. How long have some white people made the statements that they clench their purses whenever a black man walks by them, or becomes terrified and uncomfortable if a black man gets on the elevator with them, and lets not even talk about the police. But how can a black man make a statement like every time he sees a person in Muslim garb on a plane he gets nervous? Now I now what you are probably going to say, and i did read the rest of the interview where you expressed that we cannot put all Muslims in the same boat etc. but unfortunately, the damage had already been done with your first statement.
Michael Moore made a very good point which I hope you heard. He wrote in his open letter to you...
...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."
It seems as though you have forgotten these principles. Of actually not judging someone because of the color of their skin. The nerve of you after everything that we have gone through in this country as black people dealing with this same type of ignorance and fear directed toward us for you to turn around and direct that ignorance to another group of people.
Finally, to make matters worse, you don't feel any remorse or embarrassment over your statement, but rather defend it and surprisingly Fox News as not being racist because they allow, in your words, "a black guy with a Hispanic name" to host O'Reilly's show. It made me think of an old Damon Wayans act where he described the difficult position that he along with many other prominent successful black men are currently put in. Wayans painted the picture of a white interviewer putting him on the spot saying,
"Now that your rich, and now that you have made all of this money, and we're not counting. I just want to ask you this question.... Is there racism in America"?
He described the reaction of the black man put on the spot as having thoughts of his paycheck dancing in his head as he replies....
"No suh.... If'n there is I ain't seen none"
Sadly, that comedic sketch has become reality for you.
Next page, 'In Defense of Juan Williams' (Laron Profit)
This isnt a Free Speech issue, its about journalistic standards.
Today, any good journalist has to correspond with Muslim guests (guess why?). NPR prides itself on having access to guests of all stripes. It doesnt matter whether the guest is Muslim, or Republican or whatever. NPR wants them to feel open and comfortable.
If it were really so lefty, why do so many rightwing politicians request to interview on NPR? Why are they always treated with respect, even when they dont deserve it?
If NPR were just a liberal mouthpiece, wouldnt people like DickArmey or KarlRove avoid it? But they participate with gusto. Why? Because the journalists at NPR are respectful. Eg, even if Terri Gross may think Rove is a blood-guzzling war monger, she would never say so..., NPR would fire her if she did.
Thats why Rove will give an interview to Gross, but not to, say, Maddow (who I adore) because Maddow is explicit about her feelings on him. But the "liberal" Terri Gross has already done several interviews with Rove... she can get him to sit with her because she maintains neutrality.
By contrast, Bill Orielly and Glenn beck routinely drive their guests away with their bigoted craziness.
Thats the difference. And it applies to Williams and his statements about Muslims as much to any other NPR contributor. It isnt that hard to understand.
http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowldc/helen-thomas-to-be-honored-by-american-arab-group_b24348
Her entire career should be viewed in perspective instead of her being judged by one poorly articulated comment:
http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reportsitem.aspx?id=100453
Etan Thomas eloquently detailed the parallels of Williams alongside Sanchez, Thomas and others. Williams got a raise because he fit in and promotes the stereotypical narratives FOX News broadcasts. I'm not going to feel sorry for Juan Williams because he said something stereotypical, bigoted, & ultimately hypocritical which lead to his dismissal.
I would love to get picked on the jury for that trial in superior court. If NPR is not already bankrupt from the loss of sponsorships caused by Vivian Schiller's incredibly stupid "psychiatrist or PR consultant" remark that amply demonstrates her bad intent in terminating Juan Williams' contract, NPR surely will be taken to the cleaners by Juan Williams' attorney.
etc etc-wonder if those same voices will now say the right and ethical thing to
do is to respond in like manner now that the Miller sound bite is in full swing-doubt
it, this sort of high moral rhetoric always seems to confine itself along party lines
and is indicative of the narrow and myopic absurdity of stamping a party banner on
one's head.
Lot of responsibility in staking a claim to moral high ground-it is slippery
slope that requires more than talk and selective application of the ethical tenets
to have credibility.
Party spin doctors are the real endangered species now-they are being
replaced en masse by the divisive faithful of the parties.
Interesting to watch the spin as this plays out but it leads me to think the
professional spin doctors as employed by candidates are becoming an endangered
species, replaced by the adoring and selectively forgiving party groupies. Not a Palin or
Miller fan-not a fan of double standards either.
Mr. Thomas and many others imply or directly call Fox News racist, is ludicrous. Because they attempt to treat everyone equally regardless of race some how becomes racist, is asinine. Now everyone will point to the Blank Panther coverage or the Mosque issue where Fox was more "animated" with the stories, as points of racism, and if that is what you consider racism then we're never going to resolve race as an issue.
Because you notice the color of someone doesn't make you racist, it's what you do with that information that make you racist. If you help a black man to get job because he is black is racist, just as if you did the same for a white man. If you get a black man a job, because he is the best person for that job then you are not racist. If you lower standards so minorities can compete, are you really helping? If you raise standards to prevent minorities for competing, then you have a problem.
So it's okay to have some bias as long as it's never expressed?
Or do you mean that no one with a bias has credibility?
Both readings are absurd. There isn't one amongst us that doesn't have some sort of bias.
I have absolutely no problem with what the Chicks said. I only have issue with where they said it.
Did they trademark their brand? They should. It's unique. Obviously different from what I consider impartiality. Thanks to Cokie Roberts et al.