Juan Williams
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2010-10-26/juan-williams
Juan Williams is a political commentator for Fox News and until last week he was also a news analyst for NPR. He joined NPR in 1999 as the daily host of Talk of The Nation, and in recent years he’s served as an NPR senior national correspondent. His comments on Fox's The O'Reilly Factor last week prompted a seemingly abrupt dismissal from NPR. Juan Williams talks about his career, his roles as news analyst and commentator, and his reaction to the recent controversy over his dismissal from NPR.
Guests
Juan Williams
FOX News political contributor, former NPR news analyst and author of "Enough."
Related Video
Fox News political contributor and former NPR news analyst Juan Williams discusses his feelings about NPP management and the way in which he was fired last week following remarks he made on Fox's "The O'Reilly Factor." Williams described his exchange with NPR senior vice president for news, Ellen Weiss, from whom he received the news of his dismissal: "I asked Ellen Weiss, 'Do you have a conscience?'...she was carrying out orders. This was an execution from her point of view, I guess:"
"I'm a big fan of radio and public radio," Fox News political contributor and former NPR news analyst Juan Williams said in response to Diane's question about whether he meant to attack all of NPR's programming in his recent criticisms of the organization. Williams draws a distinction between local stations' programming decisions and those made at the national level at NPR's headquarters:
Diane's Complete Interview With Juan Williams: Part 1
Diane's Complete Interview With Juan Williams: Part 2
Diane's Complete Interview With Juan Williams: Part 3
Diane's Complete Interview With Juan Williams: Part 4
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
NPR's handling of Juan Williams is hypocritical. It's the height of arrogance to believe NPR commentators and analysts do not display their own points of view and personal opinions. It is evident by the way questions are phrased, by tone and intonation, and by questions asked and left unasked.
I believe you need to listen to his comments again ...
I applaud you, Ms. Rehm, for having Mr. Williams on your show. You are a class act. Unfortunately, not so Mr. Williams. Yes, his termination by NPR was bungled. But terminating him was no mistake. Each media outlet has its own perspective, its own voice. That is the choice the public demands, the news demands. NPR's voice is more tempered than FOX's. It is not just about liberal or conservative but a matter of tone and conscience. Mr. Williams tried to straddle a divide between the very different voices of FOX and NPR, and his voice cracked. I think he is now where he belongs. I found his final comment (something to the effect of, "NPR's going to have to answer for this") childish, affirmative of why he was fired from NPR, and gauche considering it was in reply to Ms. Rehm's wishing him well and in light of her graciousness to have him on her show.
I am a sustaining member of my public radio station, KGOU, and I have been a tad bothered by what I sense is its kowtowing to the seeming pressure to behave like mainstream journalism. Sure, I need to know about tea party activity. But that has flooded NPR's airwaves as if there is not other news out there, less flashy, community organizers for example but more balanced. I feel like NPR is answering the bully (FOX) rather than leading the pack.
That said, NPR is still the best thing around. Keep at it!!!
If this is a comparison of Fox & NPR, the point is that (barring sensationalistic motives), Fox would NOT have given a fired journalist airtime to voice her/his perspectives. Diane, presumably with NPR's full awareness, gave opportunity for Juan to justly have his say. Otherwise, there is no real comparison. In general, NPR talk shows take an exploratory approach; Fox takes an expressly polemic one. In terms of a left slant, anyone who knows left thinking is continually reminded that while far right wing representatives can be found on most media outlets, true Left thinkers (think: Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Arundhati Roy, Naomi Klein, Edward Said, etc. etc.) are absent on ALL mainstream media outlets. I am left wing. For that perspective, I listen to Democracy Now & Pacifica to hear marginalized analysts and questions answered that NPR and other media outlets do not ask or dig into. For conservative perspectives, I talk with my cousins, listen to Perspectives with Curt Smith (on my local WXXI NPR station), and read blogs. I listen to NPR for its quality and reach of reporting, for its middle road and opportunity to hear a range of voices, as well as for its unparalleled skill at presenting human stories (This American Life, Speaking of Faith/On Being, etc). If there is a bias (& i believe that really there is NO journalism without some degree of bias), it would be that true journalism seeks open-minded and inclusive approaches in order to discover and report full stories for all peoples. NPR is alone in this category on radio. While Juan's firing is peeling back a layer that needs to be discussed & looked at, this is healthy (minus attacks on personal credibility/namecalling). The use of this incident by the Fox audience to try to cut public funding for NPR is cynical and predictable. Honest people see this for what it is.
I find it appalling that the "op-ed reporter" Jim "researched" and blatantly misrepresented Juan Williams' article--it is still on the Fox News site and is dated 7/21/10... He says things like "Since when did Glenn Beck become the czar of the White House?" and OPENLY expresses what actually happened and sympathizes with Sherrod and clearly is grateful that a full length tape was available, was APPALLED that like himself she was criticized for expressing her feelings--in her case expressing her racial reform, the peace she made and service she offered to the white farmers who were so hateful to her and harmful to her family...
I urge anyone who wants an objective look at Williams' work to actually look up this piece of work. It is appalling that someone would so blatantly misrepresent Williams when he REFUTED the junk Beck said.
I truly have been trying to understand why NPR decided now to break it's ties with Mr. Williams, after being a long time recognized conservative commentator with the organization. I was happy that Mrs. Rehm had the chance to ask Mr. Williams directly about how and why this had happened now. I understood that he still had very raw emotions about this althought I thought such emotions would have been subsumed by his professionalism. Mrs. Rehm as always conducted the interview with strong incisiveness but still with tact and respect. The worst and most disrespectful part of this interview was not captured on video. When Mrs. Rehm graciously thanked Mr. Williams for talking and giving his views he did not thank her for the opportunity, but only truculently said that he himself would just have to "get over it". At that point I realized that he had just hit the nail on the head. Thank you Mrs. Rehm for allowing Mr. Williams his time, even if he was unable to say those words himself. You bring things out of people that even they might not want to admit.
Touche
Michael in Washington
@expate, listen to the podcast again; the last thing he said after she wished him well was, to quote and not misinterpret, "Well, I have to get over what happened here..." his voice clearly still expressing sadness.
If a CEO of a high profile corporation like NPR, after 10 years working for them, took cheap shots at you insinuating you are psychotic/unstable to millions, you would feel gutted, too, and need time to recover from such a shocking blow, unless you are made of stone. You misrepresented him more than Glenn Beck does Obama, and I didn't think that was possible.
It was very disappointing that Juan Williams was not willing to acknowledge that his comments could be hurtful to some people besides fanning the passions of "Islamaphobia."He seemed a lot more interested in being right than showing compassion and understanding.His frequent reference to his "credentials"and his unwillingness to even consider another point of view were very disappointing coming from someone whom I have respected and admired for many years.So sad!!!
@MARK GRAFF
Hola!!!,
How do your thoughts and impressions on Juan Williams get conflated with racially charged stereotyping and anti-Latino hatred?
I suggest you return to "BEAR-LINE" and "sprechen sie douche" where's there's a rabid audience for this kind of dangerous dialog.
Adios!
PS-I suggest you relegate your "boning up" to the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, Beck, O'Reilly, et al...
Juan fills an important role at Faux news. He responds with reasonable counter arguments to Bill "bloody" Kristol's warmongering lies
You obviously sucked up the warmongers purposeful misrepresentation of what the Iranian President has said. Terri Gross repeats these misrepresentations knowingly. There is absolutely no NO evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. None. Yet Terri Gross, Scott Simon have referred to Irans nuclear program as a nuclear weapons program. They know what they are doing.
Many at NPR are assisting setting the stage for Israel's attack on Iran's nuclear sites. The Iranian President never ever said "Israel should be wiped off the map" He said "Zionism will vanish from the page of history" Go read the direct translation. Google Prof Juan Cole at Informed Comment.
Do you want our nation continuing to do Israel's bidding? Do you want there to be more dead people in Iran based on unsubstantiated claims? Bet you go to church on Sunday too.
Bull Diane did not ask fair questions at all. She was all about sticking up for NPR. Did not even open up the possibility that the way NPR fired Juan was done skillfully. At did not even open up to the possibility that NPR is selective in their enforcement of their alleged commitment to "journalistic standards and ethics" If that were the case for NPR they would call Terri Gross, Scott Simon, Neil Conan out when the allow guest to repeat unsubstantiated claims about Iran. And also repeat those false claims on their own.
If NPR were committed to "ethics and standards" they would refer to Israeli settlers as ILLEGAL. They would refer to the occupation as ILLEGAL. They would refer to Israeli soldiers on Palestinian lands protecting ILLEGAL Israeli settlers as ILLEGAL.
I thought Diane's interview was very lopsided.
Bingo! And as Juan pointed out NPR has a clear "orientation" Otherwise why absolutely no coverage of the Goldstone Report by Diane Rehm, Terri Gross, Neil Conan, Scott Simon etc. Not a whisper.
Also have you heard any of these folks even whisper about the UN Report about what really took place on the Gaza Flotilla and the execution of activist by Israeli soldiers. They shot an American in the head. This 19 year old had five bullets in his body. Israeli soldiers (terrorist in my book) shot these unarmed people in cold blood.
Did you hear Diane Rehm's producers etc touch this story? Did you hear Scott Simon touch this report? Terri Gross?
"orientation" is a polite way of saying that NPR is very biased on some issues. And silent totally silent on critical issues.
What makes you think Mara Liasson is a liberal. I have heard her on Fox and I highly doubt that she is.
I feel rather manipulated by the truncated conversation from O'Reilly's program that was aired on NPR. Having heard only the clip about Williams fearing for his life when he saw someone in "Muslim garb" on an airplane, I thought he'd abandoned all rational thinking and, frankly, that he was pandering to the Fox audience. Thanks to On the Media and this program, I've done a 180-degree turn on this. Williams, in his argument with O'Reilly, actually made a concerted --and admirable -- effort to bring clear thinking and fairness onto Fox's faux "fair and balanced" airwaves. He deserves accolades, not termination. I, for one, have always appreciated Williams' commentary on NPR (I never, never watch Fox). He is missed. This episode is unfortunate and a great loss for NPR. I hope Williams, however, will continue to make his clear-headed, intelligent points on Fox, where perhaps it is needed most.
In the meanwhile, I continue to support my local NPR station and appreciate its journalistic integrity and great reporting. I just wish the management in Washington were clearer-eyed when it came to Williams, whom it seems to have given serious short shrift.
________________
Read Old Mom, Young Child on Wordpress: omyc.wordpress.com
I'm not particularly a Juan William's fan but did appreciate that he wasn't afraid to speak his mind. Despite NPR offering further evidence of their clearly liberal bias, I'll continue to listen with my filtering process fully engaged. ALL stations have a bias to a degree. Unfortunately, the center-left has lost a valuable spokesperson on public radio.
Strident Right = Limbaugh, Hannity
Strident Left = Olberman, Maddow
Right = O'Reilly
Left = Matthews
Center Right = Scarborough
Center Left = (doesn't exist)
What is missing is context. Juan was admitting to a small bit of prejudice while trying to make a larger point. I applaud his honesty.
This episode illustrates that we can NEVER have an honest discussion about race in this country.
By being so politically correct and policing every phrase without benefit of context, the larger point was lost.
Very sad.
First, I hate to see any person lose a job in this uncertain economic climate so I am glad Mr. Williams is still employed. However, as a Muslim who wears a “Muslim garb” (i.e. a head scarf or hijab), I am deeply offended by his comments. I just keep hearing Mr. Williams reiterate that his comments were not bigotry, when he clearly stated his prejudice against a certain group of people because of the way they appear. From what I’ve heard, none of the persons that committed the terrible attacks via airplane were wearing a Muslim garb…so to me Mr. Williams’ careless comments have indirectly associated all that wear the Muslim garb with such heinous act. It’s truly offensive and unfair.
According to Mr. Williams, “common sense becomes racism when skin color becomes a formula for figuring out who is a danger to me”. He made this comment after a jewelry shop excluded admitting black men on the grounds that they were likely to rob the place. I like to say, Mr. Williams, opinionated comment becomes racism when certain clothing or the way you appear becomes a formula for figuring out who is a danger to me.
I have been a fan of Juan Williams for quite sometime. I have just finished viewing the Diane Rehm Interview and really feel extremely supportive of NPR. It is clear that the Islamaphobia that Juan is exhibiting has so permeated his views that he is clearly unaware of how bigoted the term Muslim Garb is. I am really not sure what he is talking about. What is Muslim garb - a beard? Is he talking about Middle Eastern Clothing or is it a sign they wear? Juan has an interesting body of work but he has let the fear mongering and disinformation regarding one of the most popular religions in the world cloud his view. This is not Journalism, his analysis of any issue regarding the muslim world would be tainted. In my view he has sacrificed his credibility for a pay check. Juan I wish you well in your new career.
Regardless of one's position regarding the firing of Mr. Williams, I am amazed at the ineptness of NPR management in handling the situation. This incompetent "management team" has done irreparable harm to the NPR organization. How do they keep their jobs?
I tuned in during Diane's interview with Juan Williams which I am sure most listeners appreciated.
First, I am a strong conservative who believe NPR should not receive Federal aid.
Second, I appreciate the position of NPR mgt. concerning the sensitivity of some groups when comments are made by individuals who work for NPR. But, found it curious Williams was fired one day after CAIR (Muslim advocacy group) called to complain. To his credit he did not bring this up during the interview. Whatever else, NPR lost a class act.
But, unanswered question remains, should employees and contractors not be allowed to state how they personally feel in any discussion on any issue? Not to me and perhaps in the future not to NPR.
Also, NPR needs to have a discussion at the highest mgt. level on the amount of latitude on air employees are given when discussing issues and seek out input from the staff.
Next, in the best interests of NPR the network should provide greater diversity of opinions. Most of the programs
I listen to are supportive of large govt, expansion of agencies, and grants and subsidiaries which come with them. Yet, this is not the view of a growing number of citizens who must feel out of step with NPR and often seek other media venues, dare I say Fox News, to get alternative opinions.
I suggest NPR look review their on air personalities to determine do have have differing opinions? Most probably are in agreement with much of the legislation which past
since the new Administration took office. This alone should
alert mgt changes must occur to include on air talent that is more representative of the American landscape, not merely targeted audiences which I presume NPR has. After all, the money received is from all taxpayers, not only the ones who agree on issues.
Regards,
Anthony Bruno
Cary, NC
ould they be allowed to air their opinion on major issues,
often
Diane It was important to hear Juan Williams explain himself. At first I thought he was doing himself some good. I did not end up feeling that way by the end of the show.
Juan Williams clearly has a bias. He talks about NPR’s “orientation” but not that of Fox news which has a much stronger right wing orientation than NPR has in either direction (being accused of both).
Being a good analyst does not depend on how many years of journalism experience one has-as Williams kept insisting. An analyst needs credibility in their personal conduct (which Williams does not accept) and to have a talent for insight, attempting to see things from different angles more neutrally and soberly after collecting the facts. Making Williams an analyst simply because he was so outspoken was a mistake. He is more suited, more comfortable, it seems, being a commentator than an analyst.
Perhaps too close to this now, it stands out that Williams is hurt and licking his wounds, refusing to accept responsibility for his dismissal. According to him, it was unfair and done to him- not of his doing. He is surprised, defensive and vindictive. He won’t forget the psychiatrist remark, bringing it up over and over again even after a public apology was made by Schiller. Yet he has no remorse for offending Muslims, which he clearly has. They should understand what he was trying to say. Williams, in his anger, even played the race card. Now he tells us he does not want to even talk to NPR management- not anyone there. At the end he said that he “has to get over it”. But I think he’ll go on into the sunset not knowing what he did that earned him his dismissal. He’ll join the others at Fox that denigrate NPR and want it’s funds cut..
Bottom line for me is that Williams was a gross mis-match for NPR from the get-go especially since he was working for Fox News prior to being hired by NPR ( which I did not know until it was pointed out yesterday on another NPR show).
I just listened to the episode of Bill O'Reilly ( on youtube) with Juan Williams plus another Fox analyst and I hear Williams saying the now famous lines. But the discussion that follows is so muddled and filled with each one talking over the other that the mitigating points are not really made by Juan. O'Reilly gets HIS point in and is also clearly putting Juan down for being a liberal from NPR. To me the discussion seemed to end sanctioning the anti-Muslim feelings.
I'm about as upset now as I was initially concerning the firing of Juan Williams, but for a lot of different reasons. IF npr is biased towards some "intelligentsia" then maybe we can be excused for our anger at the ineptitude of management in the actions and implications of the firing..? And how reactionary actions like this can cast a shadow on all npr affiliations and achievements that are outside the "news/political" rhetoric, somewhere in search of the real conversations.
But in this broadcast, I am also discouraged that Juan, in his freedom to offer any opion he himself chooses, didn't defend the greater effort of npr in the slightest. The most he said was he "liked radio". He worked there for "x" amount of years, and he doesn't promote them at all? Okay, so he's mad (I mean angry, not infected with rabies), and understandably so. But he doesn't even give an opinion on threats to Vivian's family? (I'm mad at her, but shame on those that wish harm upon others). If he deems open forum as important he claims he does, then his silence/diversion on some of these matters seem ponderous.
I'm not worried about Juan, as much as I am concerned that I "need" npr to ask the best questions, be the best forum, listen the best, and help us be the best listeners we can be.
Get out of this fox entanglement as soon as you can, but DON'T think that we don't desire truthfull commentary on these issues just because it's sensitive to some ears. Hell, Click and Clack have been annoying me for years and ain't no one fired them. ;)
I listened to Diane's interview with Juan and I really wish she would have pressed him even more on the differences between reporters, analysts and commentators, because I think that distinction is still not well understood, and I think even Juan Williams doesn't quite get it. I teach journalism in Prague and one lesson I always try to get across to my university students is that listeners, audiences and readers are not interested in what reporters think about something; instead, they are more interested in the proof (facts, quotes, sources) that the reporter presents in making a story. Journalism's motto is "show don't tell" (for a good reason). "Analysts" must play by the same set of rules of hiding their own opinions about something, but are temporarily freed from the burden of having to present facts, evidence and sources for every statement they make. Still, I think the mark of a good analyst is that at the end of an analysis, show or whatever, you still don't know how a person feels about something personally. A "commentator", on the other hand, is completely different. Commentators are free to reveal their own beliefs, feelings and biases ... The trouble is that Juan was an "analyst" on NPR and a "commentator" on Fox, and you can't have it both ways. Juan's firing was unfortunate, but I think it will be seen in retrospect as the best outcome for everyone concerned.
I really appreciated Diane's comment about how could reconciliation happen. Juan's comment was also correct in that they weren't willing to talk to him. As someone who puts her foot in her mouth often, I really think Npr should have talked to him. His comment merely exposed the fact that as a journalist, he doesn't know many Muslims. I really think Juan should do a piece on the Iraqui or Somali refugee communities around the country. They are a great group of people and it would help him and the American people to understand we are all the same. Violent radicals are violent radicals whether they are left or right.
My initial reaction to Juan Williams being fired was that NPR had made a mistake. I listened to the original broadcast on Fox, and I felt that Juan had expressed his personal opinion (perhaps in a provocative way without sufficiently clarifying himself... it actually just seemed to get worse as the show went on between him and O'Reilly), but that his comments didn't "cross the line" into demonstrating a racist perspective. After reviewing the Fox broadcast, I was of the opinion that he was treated unfairly in the aftermath of that incident.
However, hearing him clumsily defend himself on your show changed my attitude. I felt that he exhibited a bias in his perspective and inability to see past events in a neutral context. I think his "hubris" in this matter reveals that he is inappropriate as a journalist for NPR.
Ultimately, I guess Juan has landed where he belongs... Pulling in the big-bucks at Fox, pushing their agenda and P.O.V.
In any case, thanks Dianne for another excellent radio broadcast!
I think the real problem with the NPR/Juan Williams case is NPR's handling of the firring not the firring its self. Sure employees of NPR should be able to do what they want on their own time, that is, not connected to NPR. But the problem is that for at least the last three years Williams has been going on fox news as an NPR corresponding and NPR has been telling him that that is a breach of contract and he doesn't represent NPR's view when he does. NPR should have just come out and said we don't want our name connected with what was said we have spent years warning him and I think any one will agree this is more than enough so we are going to have to terminate his services. But instead they made some big deal about what he said as if just because Juan Williams worked for NPR he had no life outside of the company which should never be the case.
While I do believe Mr Williams was sincere in his comments, his "opinion" was regrettable. Any comment that legitimizes and perpetuates fear and hate to society should be frowned upon. There are those in our society whose fears all to often get expressed by violent means. Words are powerful. I think we should all go to a place where were adhered to: "If you can't say anything good, don't say anything at all."
JJ
Mansfield Texas
Totally agree!!! If credibility is key then he shouldn't have joined Fox News.