Don't put words in my mouth, Michael, or think you understand what I might mean. I could parse your words just as easily however it's not relevant here.
Juan Williams, by presenting personal opinion in his role as a journalist, contracted to National Public Radio, violated the terms of his contract -- those details which have been reported -- as a journalist with NPR. How much simpler do you need it?
There was actually a very long and tiresome discussion about this on the BBC yesterday afternoon by media experts and journalists who are a lot more knowledgeable about this than you or I.
Seems to me that you're here throwing ideological stones trying to create an argument.
Michael Perz said:If by "violating the journalistic code of ethics" you really mean "appearing on the media outlet of the enemy" or "admitting to an incorrect opinion", then you're right. However, the ultimate determination whether or not his firing was justified lays in the terms of his contract with NPR - something nobody seems to be focusing on when presenting their opinions on this subject.
It's no secret that NPR often tilts left as do many of its listeners. I'd simply like to see how feverish the defenders of their action to fire Williams would be if this story had such a twist. It isn't as if anyone is focusing on the relevant details anyway.
Craig S. said:All right, Michael, I'll bite.
I'm probably your average NPR listener; I am an avid consumer of their news programming as well as their cultural programming and I support my local public radio station. What sort of ideological knot are you hoping I'll tie myself into?
Mr. Williams violated NPR's journalistic code of ethics, repeatedly, which is why he was sacked.
Michael Perz said:It's too bad that he wasn't represented by some journalists' union that contested the firing and turned this into a labor relations fiasco, because I would love to see the average NPR listener twist themselves into ideological knots trying to make sense of it all.
I didn't put words into your mouth and I know that the firing had to do with the terms of his contract (or rather what seems to not have been clarified by the contract). If I didn't I wouldn't have mentioned it in the first place. In spite of this, the opinions regarding the matter don't seem to focus on this detail as is evidenced by some of the comments in this very discussion. I don't think I'm the one throwing ideological stones.
Craig S. said:Don't put words in my mouth, Michael, or think you understand what I might mean. I could parse your words just as easily however it's not relevant here.
Juan Williams, by presenting personal opinion in his role as a journalist, contracted to National Public Radio, violated the terms of his contract -- those details which have been reported -- as a journalist with NPR. How much simpler do you need it?
There was actually a very long and tiresome discussion about this on the BBC yesterday afternoon by media experts and journalists who are a lot more knowledgeable about this than you or I.
Seems to me that you're here throwing ideological stones trying to create an argument.
Michael Perz said:If by "violating the journalistic code of ethics" you really mean "appearing on the media outlet of the enemy" or "admitting to an incorrect opinion", then you're right. However, the ultimate determination whether or not his firing was justified lays in the terms of his contract with NPR - something nobody seems to be focusing on when presenting their opinions on this subject.
It's no secret that NPR often tilts left as do many of its listeners. I'd simply like to see how feverish the defenders of their action to fire Williams would be if this story had such a twist. It isn't as if anyone is focusing on the relevant details anyway.
Craig S. said:All right, Michael, I'll bite.
I'm probably your average NPR listener; I am an avid consumer of their news programming as well as their cultural programming and I support my local public radio station. What sort of ideological knot are you hoping I'll tie myself into?
Mr. Williams violated NPR's journalistic code of ethics, repeatedly, which is why he was sacked.
Michael Perz said:It's too bad that he wasn't represented by some journalists' union that contested the firing and turned this into a labor relations fiasco, because I would love to see the average NPR listener twist themselves into ideological knots trying to make sense of it all.
Ladies and Gent,
I think it may be time to throw the TV out. I cut that cord 2 years ago and now I just smile when I hear silly conversations like this. Go live your life.
Ladies and Gent,
I think it may be time to throw the TV out. I cut that cord 2 years ago and now I just smile when I hear silly conversations like this. Go live your life.
I'm glad to see that most reply's to this post have been thoughtful opinion. I honestly believe that it is a thorny topic open to debate. There are two good sides to this story. Hope we can respect each others thoughts along the way.
Anyone else ever notice how people who listen to NPR think everyone else on the planet does too?
203 members
1 member
270 members
1 member
261 members