"juan, gettin ugly. wonder if it will result in him severing ties, or mutual"
That was my note at the top of an email I sent back in September of 2007 to a colleague at NPR. In full disclosure, I am a former employee of NPR, let go in 2008 as part of the cancellation of three shows, including one I hosted. In the email, I'd forwarded a Washington Post column by Howard Kurtz dissecting a Fox/NPR/Juan Williams triad of recrimination. The headline: "NPR Rebuffs White House On Bush Talk -- Radio Network Wanted To Choose Its Interviewer." In Kurtz's words:
The White House reached out to National Public Radio over the weekend, offering analyst Juan Williams a presidential interview to mark yesterday's 50th anniversary of school desegregation in Little Rock. But NPR turned down the interview, and Williams's talk with Bush wound up in a very different media venue: Fox News. Williams said yesterday he was "stunned" by NPR's decision... Ellen Weiss, NPR's vice president for news, said she "felt strongly" that "the White House shouldn't be selecting the person."
This incident is more telling than the oft-dissected statement Williams made on Fox that Michelle Obama had "this Stokely Carmichael-in-a-designer-dress thing going." Juan Williams and NPR have been a mutual mismatch for years. In this volley, Williams -- with his reported new $2 million over 3 year contract with Fox -- is the clear winner; with Fox a close second; and NPR left holding the bag. It need not have been this way.
If NPR had such clear concerns over how Juan Williams fit into their organization, in the amorphous role of "news analyst," then they had an opportunity to let him go a long time ago. They could have decided he didn't fit their needs, and moved on in a less polarized time. But by firing him now, in this instance, after years of sitting uncomfortably with his dual roles on NPR and Fox, they made a few crucial errors. They chose to fire him for doing what he has done for years... be a hype man for Bill O'Reilly. Why now? And they also showed tone-deaf communication with member stations by firing Williams during a pledge drive season. I know to many that will sound like nit-picking, but the relationship between NPR and member stations has oft been strained, and the Williams matter does so more, as evidenced by station disclaimers like this one from WBUR.
Author and Atlantic Blogger Ta-Nehisi Coates wrote of Williams, "It's a dangerous, dangerous thing to make a living running your mouth." He was referring to the Carmichael/Obama statement. I would agree, and disagree. Having been both a news analyst and a reporter, I think it's dangerous and valuable to step up to the mic as an expert. I have been a pundit, but I always simultaneously did reporting. Recently, I've been going to Tea Party meetings and immigration rights meetings. Getting out in the field and actually talking to people is a wondrous thing. You learn we are not monolithic, any of us. But reporting has become devalued in the current media environment, which is struggling with revenue models. Far better, as a simple ratio of time-to-income earned, is simply to find a show that will have you on and do whatever you have to do to ingratiate yourself with the host.
Juan Williams pointedly said in his comments after the firing that he was the only black man on-air at NPR.... and not a reporter at that. Guest hosting on Fox, he also called himself a "loyal employee" of NPR, and implied the network was run by a "far-left mob." (If so, I didn't meet any in my four years at NPR. It's run by a Beltway cohort, perhaps, but not "far-left.") Do I think NPR fired him because he is black? No. Do I think NPR kept Williams on for years, as the relationship degraded, because he is a black man? Absolutely. Williams' presence on air was a fig-leaf for much broader and deeper diversity problems at the network. NPR needs to hire more black men in house on staff as part of adding diverse staff across many ethnicities and races. It also needs, broadly, a diversity upgrade that doesn't just focus on numbers, but on protocols for internal communication. Among the revelations in this incident is that the Vice President of News fired Williams by phone without giving him the opportunity to come into the office and discuss it.
After I was let go from hosting an African-American issues show at NPR, I walked away relatively quietly, though with a series of questions about how power was allocated and shared at the network, and whether diversity truly mattered to management. Although the focus right now is on whether NPR should be defunded (God no!), I would like to see a little more light shine on how NPR deals with diversity. It has a new diversity czar, Keith Woods, and I hope he is empowered to look at the issue broadly and respected by management.
I also hope that NPR continues to support its programming that does feature diverse voices, including Michel Martin's Tell Me More (which had a great, honest roundtable about Williams) and acquired/partner programming like the fantastic on-the-road/town-hall show State of the Re:Union by Al Letson.
This country needs NPR, now more than ever. But it needs an NPR and media, broadly, that are adventurous rather than expedient when it comes to reporting on a divided America, and cultivating the most diverse staff, and audience.
Farai Chideya is currently broadcasting public radio midterm election specials, reported in the field. You can find more information at PopandPolitics.com
Follow Farai Chideya on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@faraichideya
NPR's diversity issues are far different than Fox News diversity isses and quite frankly are not relevant to each other. Fox News actively seeks a minstrelesque aspect to it's coverage and use of blacks on its network. NPR on the other hand doesn't actively seek to restrict the role of blacks on its networks it just has not pursued diversity as actively as it should(being that they are a publicly funded institution).
Firing Juan Williams was the right thing to do in order to preserve the NPR's integrity to it's listeners who different in every way possible than Fox's viewers.
Knowing when to share your feelings is another case altogether....
Mr. Williams has been with Fox as a commentator since 1997. He joined NPR as an analyst in 2000. NPR chose to hire him, they were not forced to do it. They should have considered his status as a Fox commentator and looked for an analyst elsewhere. Instead, they hired him. When they did that, they inherited all of the baggage the Fox loads him with.
Williams has, over the years, had issues which should have raised a red flag to any potential employer. As far back as the 1980's, he had been disciplined for verbal sexual harassment by The Washingon Post.
What was NPR thinking!? My opinion was that they wanted to deflect some conservative criticism by hiring a Fox employee. It backfired.
In the end, as Ms. Chideya has stated, Williams and Fox are very happy with the resulting chaos, while NPR looks stupid. This entire mess smells of a Roger Ailes - Nixonian RatF*&er political move. NPR walked right into this by hiring an individual who demonstrated his lack of prudence by being a Fox employee in the first place!
http://muslimswearingthings.tumblr.com or you can get it from the Crook& Liars site http://crooksandliars.com/node?page=3
Really interesting pictures of people I did not know were Muslim (backetball players, hocky player, tennis players, models, writers, and a host of people from around the world.
View this site at the link above (that is if HP does not censor this posting).
btw... you are so FANNED!!
It would be in the best interests of the country to have free and open debate among candidates and sitting politicians, about the issues. That is something very rare these days. While not an NPR listener, I did watch (Madison) public television. When it came to political reporting, we saw the local public television station take a hard right turn in the 1980s. At the time, we had a governor who made the Tea Party look liberal! After being in office for a couple of years, we saw public television increasingly embrace conservative and right-wing ideology while routinely refusing to present opposing views. It was a very effective strategy for this governor, but the loss of open discussion, presenting both sides of the issues, was a tremendous loss for the public. Less importantly, it made our public television station -- and our public discussion -- quite boring.
That being said, I have no problem with NPR being a de facto arm of the DNC; I know what I'm getting when I tune in. Just don't call it diverse.
Juan has the right to say bigoted things but he doesn't have the right to get paid for it by NPR. Fox is a much better match for Juan. Fox likes Dems dissing Dems and Black People dissing Black People.
Shall we defund NPR. I think this is a reasonable question. If NPR is going to continue receiving any amount of tax payer dollars then it should at least conform to practicing what they preach. When Nina Totenberg wished “get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it.” why did they not fire her. Yes I know it was 1995 but let's get real now.
Let's get real here, the relationship with Juan and NPR is a example of what not to do. NPR allowed Juan to continue being on Fox with the condition that he not represent NPR when he was on FOX. With that being said he was not breaking any contractual agreement. If NPR now is saying he broke contractual agreements then they are at fault for letting Juan go Fox all those times. Juan has a strong case to sue NPR for their reason for firing him and for how they fired him.
As for diversity, seems like NPR has a PR problem with this too.