NPR got a bomb threat and the president of NPR has gotten threatening phone calls at her home, all over the Juan Williams firing. I’m not upset about this, for two reasons.
First, it goes without argument that employing terrorism is the only effective way to counter the terrorist and racist threat posed by the Williams firing.
Second, even liberals acknowledge that public broadcasting is full of racists, so the Williams firing is not an isolated incident. As PBS’ own ombudsman details, the liberal watchdog FAIR has issued a report which uncovers the rampant racism on display in Public Broadcasting. Here’s the ombudsman:
I do not know how FAIR arrived at the numbers the report contains, but it appears as if they have included every sound bite we used in the broadcast’s news summary. If not, I have no idea how they determined that we had President Obama as a “source” on the program 34 times in the two month period they studied or U.S. Coast Guard Admiral Retired Thad Allen on 17 times. Obviously the Gulf Oil Spill was a major story during the time of the FAIR study. So to have two of the leading point persons from the administration handling the spill — President Obama and Ret. Admiral Allen — appear frequently as sound bites on a national news program should come as no surprise.
It’s clearly PBS’ fault that the newsmakers in Washington are typically white and male, just as it’s NPR’s fault that they’re receiving bomb threats. In fact, the depths of the damage that Public Broadcasting has done to this nation have yet to be plumbed by either FOX or media watchdogs who produce 16 page special editions [pdf] focusing on the most important issue in media fairness today, PBS’ lack of commitment to diversity.
Dr. Schaden Freude
“For more on this developing story, please tune to Fox News for ‘Fair and Balanced’ reporting or analysis by any one of our blue-eyed blondes available 24/7.”
cleek
firsties!
Mwangangi
Stop posting, I need to sleep!
vtr
I have spent 25 years in the employ of local NPR stations. (FYI, NPR owns no stations, and is separate from PBS TV.) I have found over the years Juan Williams to be superficial and dull, both in his analysis and delivery. He was of secondary presence on the air. Can anyone explain to me why anyone would genuinely care enough about his firing by NPR to send a bomb threat?
Linda Featheringill
Oh, my. So much irony, sarcasm, snark, etc. so early in the morning.
Let’s see. NPR and threats. That is silly. There should be threats against CNN because three-quarters of their talking heads are still there.
Or against Yahoo News because anyone is still there.
Or against WaPo because 90% of their pundits are still there.
Or against NYT because their political reporting has degenerated to promulgating propaganda.
Bombing NPR is silly. Why don’t you just not watch it any more?
Linda Featheringill
@vtr:
I wonder if it has anything to do with Mr. Williams. Perhaps it has something to do with NPR being placed on a list of acceptable targets.
Are you familiar with the old English principle of “outlaw”?
Paris
If PBS is racist then shouldn’t Juan have quit in protest instead of whine that he lost his lower paying job and got a raise?
EndOfTheWorld
A friend who works the phones at Chicago public radio has had to field more than a couple death threats. Such wonderful people, these teabaggers. Faith, Hope, and Charity, everyone!
Odie Hugh Manatee
The right basically owns the airwaves and they won’t be happy until they absolutely control them.
Ok, even then they won’t be happy but that’s just the way they are wired.
Gromit
On “The Talk of the Nation”, one caller sounded like she was going to bust into tears over NPR’s treatment of Williams. I don’t get it either. I never cared for him as host and cared for him even less as a commentator, and I actually still like NPR, which I realize is somewhat out of fashion these days.
Winston Smith
Everyone at NPR should be thrown to the ground so Republican staffers can stomp on their heads.
Suffern Ace
@Odie Hugh Manatee: I’m thinking that’s about it. Remind the masses right before the election that “poltically correct” liberalism will criminalise the truth while damaging a competitive news source. It does bother me a bit since I’m pretty certain that certain elected Dems will fall over themselves in November to be shown as “tough on NPR”, just like they did over ACORN.
valdemar
Sounds like NPR is the US equivalent of the BBC in Britain, more or less. It’s the media organisation the right-wing corporate media love to hate, because it keeps deviating (often very tentatively) from the biased and sometimes downright crazy narrative these ‘proper’ journalists stick to.
cleek
@Linda Featheringill:
this.
wingnuts gotta hate, and NPR happened to wander into their line of sight.
El Cid
Many times FAIR does indeed over-reach, or rather seem to be forced into emphasizing fairly minor conclusions given that a study was launched.
However, it’s not all nonsense. Moving beyond questions of the diversity of the ethnicity and gender of guests invited on PBS’ NewsHour, the party affiliation of invited guests versus the time on screen, and, for those who think it not significant due to the nature of powerful decisionmakers, the corporate or high government spokesperson commentators — this isn’t about NPR — there are a few interesting conclusions.
Let’s say that that’s correct. That seems very much absurd to me, although there is this ridiculous convention in journalism & news broadcasting that the host’s tough questions makes up for the lack of such dissenting backgrounds of guests.
That is certainly entirely normal and mainstream, but it’s one of the reasons I am rarely interested in watching the program, since I can certainly get better coverage elsewhere. On the other hand, in form and in time spent, I know why people prefer to watch that show than the quick cut, shouty news broadcasts from the big 3 or CNN etc.
Other criticisms reflect concerns that FAIR would emphasize, and from their point of view should, but would not be that concerning to those considering their model to be major news broadcasting. There are reasons to prefer a more ‘diverse’ set of journalists and analysts to interview than just those from the largest corporate publications and broadcast shows — I know that I look for such perspectives, though not exclusively. I don’t watch it enough to have any opinions about the ethnic or other personal backgrounds of hosts or analysts or other staff.
I agree with PBS questioning the methodology of arriving at who spoke which soundbites and the lack of a diversity of backgrounds on various shows. NewsHour challenges FAIR directly on the diversity of its hosts and correspondents regarding their personal backgrounds, quite convincingly.
On the other hand, I agree that having on the powerful and significant government and corporate leaders and voices from the largest publications fails to present the entire spectrum of worthy analysis (i.e., ‘both sides’), particularly those challenging the mainstream consensus, and I would not agree with the suggestion that the hosts question these sources diligently and boldly.
For better or worse, that’s what I think the most significant criticism would be for NewsHour.
Ombudsman Getler agrees with this point.
El Tiburon
I hereby nominate this post for Dud of the Day.
Also, how dare FAIR use analysis and facts and observations to point how skewed our media, including the so-called liberal PBS and NPR is towards whitey.
Doesn’t FAIR understand they should respect how it is and STFU? And that itnis the black man’s fault he is not white?
mistermix
@El Cid: Take a solid look at that PDF I linked and tell me that the same (good) points that you make couldn’t be made with more economy of expression and at less overall expense.
@El Tiburon: And how dare PBS challenge the apparently laughably faulty method FAIR uses to count white vs black heads on the News Hour? PBS should just bow down to the obvious rightness and goodness of FAIR instead of dealing in facts and data.
beergoggles
I’m sorry, my poutrage at NPR has been maxed out. Once they provide Tony Perkins a platform to spew his bile, I can’t be bothered with them anymore.
El Tiburon
@mistermix:
Perhaps you know very little about FAIR, I don’t know. But yes, I would trust by the power of a 100 anything FAIR reports to what PBS reports. I certainly don’t have the time and desire to read a 16-page pdf file of this study, but I will bet you dollars to donuts FAIR is a lot more correct in their assessment than PBS is in their retorts.
And this:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=4186
ThresherK
I most recently heard the NPR ombud around Labor Day, on a local show (WNPR, CT). She all but said that NPR’s product is straight down the middle but is perceived as too liberal. (Note that this program was well before l’affaire JW, and didn’t include a single comment on him.)
Left unasked, and unanswered, is how NPR can change right-wingers’ perception of it without further debasing its output to even-more entrenched Beltway Inbred goodness, where everybody from Americans for Prosperity all the way over to “Even the liberal ‘New Republic’ ” never drops off the Rolodex.
Now, low-information consumers of low-information media are tuning in NPR for the first time, to destroy it, and NPR wants to know how to make them happy.
Hey, just put a mic in front of a TV tuned to Fox News.
Pongo
Obviously, this is what one would expect from the idiocracy of the right. However, NPR has not distinguished themselves in this debacle, either. When their president suggests at a televised press conference that the issues of the guy they just fired are ‘between him and his psychiatris’ that is going way over the line. It was petty and unprofessional and if we are going to point out when Fox misbehaves, it is only right to apply the same standard to other news organizations. I was disgusted with her for sinking to Fox-style mudslinging. Who knows, maybe she is auditioning for cushy Fox contract, as well?
Keith G
This is a test