24
Will Williams' firing affect fundraising?
Juan Williams
To view this content, Javascript must be enabled and Adobe Flash Player must be installed.
TEXT OF STORY
Kai Ryssdal: This next story comes with a disclaimer of sorts. You hear me make it every day. Marketplace is produced by American Public Media, not NPR. So we approach the Juan Williams story with no inside information. The longtime NPR news analyst was fired Wednesday night for violating NPR's ethics policies. For public radio stations, the timing and the ensuing backlash is less than ideal. A lot of them, as you may have been hearing on your station, are in the middle of their pledge drives.
Marketplace's Janet Babin reports.
Janet Babin: Juan Williams clarified his controversial remarks on "Good Morning America."
JUAN WILLIAMS: If I'm at the gate at an airport and I see people who are in Muslim garb, who are first and foremost identifying themselves as Muslims, in the aftermath of 9/11, I am taken aback, I have a moment of fear.
But many Muslim groups were outraged by the comments, and NPR took swift action to terminate Williams. That controversy led to another one: People upset by the firing threatened to withhold public radio contributions. And this is fall fundraising week.
In Austin, KUT'S general manager Stewart Vanderwilt says he's heard from about 50 listeners.
Stewart Vanderwilt: Some are expressing concern, some are seeking more information, in a few cases canceling their support, or informing us that they will not be contributing to the station.
The complaints didn't affect KUT's fundraising. But the Williams fallout could have other consequences. Some politicians have called for cuts in NPR's federal funding. Less than 2 percent of NPRs revenue comes indirectly from federal sources. Most funding comes from member stations. But at rural stations, federal funding can account for close to 40 percent of revenue.
Andy Brimmer is at crisis management firm Joele Frank, Wilkinson Brimmer Katcher.
Andy Brimmer: You don't pick a fight with someone who has a very large bully pulpit, and Juan Williams obviously has a very large bully pulpit.
Willams has reportedly signed a deal with Fox News for a figure large enough to fund the annual budgets of many public radio stations.
I'm Janet Babin for Marketplace.
Pages
If Juan Williams gets fired for the comments he made., Then NPR CEO Vivian Schiller, needs to go for hers, as does Nina Totenberg.Wishing Aids on Sen Jesse Helms ,is pretty hateful. Saying what most people feel is not racist.Implying someone needs a psychiatrist is slanderous and mean. CEO's don't behave like Miss Schiller. Taxpayers are not going to continue to fund NPR after this debacle.
I find it interesting that many here think that Juan Williams' comments were benign. At first glance, Mr. Williams' comments seem quite benign, perhaps because they are presented in contrast to O'Reilly's extreme rationales.
However, in of themselves, Juan Williams' comments are not much better. The basic premise and theme of his commentary was his fear of Muslims in "full garb" not being fully assimilated into American society, and therefore harboring extremist views. This is an irrational and prejudicial notion. It denies something about what is supposed to make America great, namely that America is a melting pot made up of several different cultures. Further, there are several reasons why someone may choose to dress in clothing from their ancestral land or culture. The apple pie, church-going, football loving version of Americans is not, and should not be, the only one out there.
Did Williams' statement help get him his Fox contract? Do the cynics out there think that was happenstance? Williams' statements, when taken in context, is not vociferously bigoted but the timing and placement of this incident cannot be easily ignored.
Juan was not fired to violating NPR's "code of ethics" or "journalistic standards" or any of the other lame excuses. He was fired for repeatedly appearing on FOX, considered high treason among liberals who refer to it as "Faux News". I've listened to Juan for years and he is definitely liberal, but apparently not liberal enough.
This troubles me because NPR stands for National Public Radio. PUBLIC means EVERYBODY. But there seems to be this sense of ownership by liberals. How so? You don't pay all the taxes. You aren't the only ones funding NPR through contributions. So why are there no conservative viewpoints allowed at NPR?
What it comes down to is this: Liberals have seized public property for their own private purposes and political agendas and that's not fair.
From what I've heard and read I would have to say that the question in Williams case is "How many of these inappropriate statements was NPR required to overlook before folks think it's reasonable to let him go?" Is it 2 or 4 or 6?
He should have been called in and offered the choice...NPR or Fox. I guarantee you if he had chosen Fox he wouldn't have a $2 million contract. Appearing on both is an impossibility. You cannot be on Fox 5 days a week, sit in for Bill O'Reilly and expect to have any credibility left as an objective news analyst. It's frightening to think so many people now think EVERYONE touching the news has a right to express their opinions on air. If NPR caves to demands from the right to become another conservative outlet then we are even deeper in this pit.
NY Times had an article yesterday that said many of the people who were calling into NPR to complain about Williams being fired said they were long time "viewers" and would not be "watching" anymore. (Obviously people who never "watched" in the first place and would never, ever donate.)
Yes, people are upset about this incident and had Palin and Huckabee not opened their mouths NPR would probably be severely damaged. But, when you start saying that a contractual dispute is a first amendment/censorship issue, it too upsets people.
I listen to NPR in the car but I have never pledged until this week and it was based directly on Palin's day long bashing of NPR on Twitter.
The thing is that Williams was an analyst. If he had said you should be afraid of Muslims, he would have been wrong, just like if Jackson had said you should be afraid of black on black crime he would have been biggoted. However, like Shirley Sherrod saying she did not want to help a white farmer but overcame that and did help him. Similarly, Williams said he had feelings but you could not put those on all Muslims. An analyst discusses impacts of news on people and society. This is an impact if it makes people uncomfortable. If he should be fired, there are oh so many others who should be fired. This is from the Prarie Home Companion to almost any of the analysis done on the air. This firing was as wrong as can be and shameful to NPR.
Yes, J. Perker, Jesse Jackson has made some comparably ridiculous statements, AND (let's not forget) Jesse Jackson is NOT the President (thank the goodness of the voting public for that!). It's those types of comments that sour voter's attitudes, and likewise, potentially sour NPRs financial supporters. And if Jesse Jackson made those comments while representing my company he would be fired as well.
Jeff Bheki commented that what Juan Williams said is like saying black people make him nervous and it is offensive. Jessee Jackson said in an interview ""There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery, then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved." And I guess he is an anti-black racist?
Pages
