Should we "defund" NPR?

[LuvOrlando]

I don't understand the reasoning behind de-funding an organization because of their staffing decisions. The government funds many organizations and gives tax exemptions to even more that I strongly disagree with. Should all churches lose their exemptions because of some of the horrible decisions the powers that be have made within their organizations? Should we defund Capitol Hill when a Senator fires a staffer? Should we defund schools when a violent action occurs on their grounds or when a teacher is fired? Just because the government is funding something does not mean that every decision has to be approved by tax-payers nor should the government have that kind of control over the organizations they fund.

But isn't there a big difference between tax exempt status and actually paying the bills? To my knowledge it is illegal for our government to in any way shape or form promote any ideology that's why our schools must be devoid of interference. Thay's why bribes and kickbacks are illegal. SO much of our legal system is built on the belief that no good comes from undue influence.

This would be different if the station were completely private but, even then, I think there might have been a wrongful termination. I don't think a person can be fired over beliefs no matter what they might be

Also, even if it's written into a contract of some kind one can't assume that contract is legal, if the contract itself contains illegal elements it is not binding or enforceable.

I really feel bad for the guy, I don't think Mr Williams deserved this.

 

[luvmy3]

I think that it is serious overkill to suggest completely pulling federal funding for an agency that does a lot of good for a lot of people just because management bungled a personnel matter. You investigate, you reprimand and if necessary remove some people who are not paying attention to civil rights laws when it comes to their personnel decisions, and you move on.

I do NOT think Juan Williams should have been fired for what he said, and FWIW, I'm as liberal I can be. I personally think his statement is bizarrely ironic for a black man, but that's neither here nor there in regard to the subject at hand. However, let's put the blame where it belongs: on his bosses. He was not at work when he said it; he was on his own time. They took what should have been a privately-dealt-with personnel matter and blew it to hell and back. If they felt that what he said reflected poorly on NPR, all that they needed to do was to issue a statement that said something like: "Mr. Williams' recent comments on the Program "The O'Reilly Factor" were solely his own, and reflected his personal opinions. His words do not reflect the policies or standards of National Public Radio and should not be interpreted as such."
End of issue as far as the public is concerned.

 

[OceanAnnie]

But isn't there a big difference between tax exempt status and actually paying the bills? To my knowledge it is illegal for our government to in any way shape or form promote any ideology that's why our schools must be devoid of interference. Thay's why bribes and kickbacks are illegal. SO much of our legal system is built on the belief that no good comes from undue influence.

This would be different if the station were completely private but, even then, I think there might have been a wrongful termination. I don't think a person can be fired over beliefs no matter what they might be

It was his feelings NPR officials fired him over. I do think he has a case for wrongful termination.

 

[padams]

Not on topic but I just wanted to mention I grew up with Juan Williams and had the worse mad crush on him as a kid.

He was VERY quiet and shy... and well, I'm NOT, so I just worshipped him from afar.

Too bad about the firing but hey, he got a good deal out of it, and a thread on the DIS. Not bad for a days work.

It's A Small World! (great, now that song is stuck in my head).


As for funding NPR, our government cannnot continue to spend so much money. Cuts have to be made somewhere. The money given to NPR isn't that great but lots of small cuts add up. I'd prefer NPR and Public television be cut. I understand the original purpose of public radio and tv but with the proliferation of cable, digital and other forms of media, that purpose is outdated. Since public radio and tv get most of their funding from foundations, grants and fundraising, let them be funded in that manner 100%.

 

[bettymae1121]

I work for a major medical organization that's in the press almost daily. If I did or said something that got tons of media attention that embarrased my employer, I'd be fired. It wouldn't matter if it was my "opionion" or not. Why is this any different?

 

[okeydokey]

No of course not.

 

[Sugardimples]

What % of their funding comes from the US gov't?
How many $$?

1% of their funding comes from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and 1% comes from the National Endowment for the Arts.

Individual stations get their own funding, but we're talking the parent organization here.

No, they should not lose their funding because of this. That opinion is so incredibly reactionary! (But entirely what I would expect!)

 

[DawnCt1]

And this would not be a political thread how?

How is it political? This is about a private entity, firing someone else because he appeared on another private entity. NPR receives some public funds however. Should we fund this? We certainly talk about school funding, how is this different?

 

[ndelaware]

In light of the recent firing of Juan Williams from National Public Radio, Should we withdraw taxpayer funding from that entity?

No. The firing of Juan Williams was justified. Judging someone on thier apperance is racism. Our government shouldn't be in the business of racism. A business FOX News obviously has no problem being in.

 

[LiberalPrincess]

But isn't there a big difference between tax exempt status and actually paying the bills? To my knowledge it is illegal for our government to in any way shape or form promote any ideology that's why our schools must be devoid of interference. Thay's why bribes and kickbacks are illegal. SO much of our legal system is built on the belief that no good comes from undue influence.

This would be different if the station were completely private but, even then, I think there might have been a wrongful termination. I don't think a person can be fired over beliefs no matter what they might be

Also, even if it's written into a contract of some kind one can't assume that contract is legal, if the contract itself contains illegal elements it is not binding or enforceable.

I really feel bad for the guy, I don't think Mr Williams deserved this.

Actually, no. Tax exempt status is de facto funding. And I don't feel bad for Juan Williams at all. He has had enormous trouble with crossing lines in the past, particularly in his years at the Post and the sexual harassment issues he had there while he was publicly defending Clarence Thomas (http://www.ajr.org/article.asp?id=1688). He was a hero of mine early on for his work on Eyes on the Prize. Since then, I have lost almost all of my respect for him. He was not fired for his beliefs. He was fired for voicing them in the most public of forums while he was paid under the guidelines prohibiting NPR journalists from participating in programs “that encourage punditry and speculation rather than fact-based analysis." In some jobs, that is not an issue. But, for the people at NPR they felt it compromised his ability to do his job with them. Do I agree? Not really, but I still feel not one iota of remorse for Juan Williams.

 

[MissFitt]

Very well said. While they are exempt from providing first amendment protections, they may have violated his contractual rights. If he wasn't allow to participate in opinions and punditry on other networks, as soon as they tolerated it, which has been at least for several years, they waived the right to fire him on those grounds. Secondly, they tolerate Maura Liasson's appearances on Fox. Nina Totenberg's commentary as well as Cokie Robert's over the years.
Worse yet, was the CEO, Vivian Schiller's suggestion that he should keep it between himself and his "psychiatrist". How slanderous.

As stated earlier, NPR has a policy in regard to what their reporters can or can't do. He had been warned by his employer numerous times that his "commentary" on Fox was in violation in his employment contract. He was rightly terminated not for expression his own opinion, but for violating the terms of his employment contract. Please point to where in any Employment Law treatise where it states that NPR waived their right to fire him because "they tolerated it".

Then you must be disgusted with most Americans because his feelings reflect those of the majority of Americans. In fact, the WSJ this morning has commentary by a Muslim American who feels exactly the way Juan Williams feels. He was not suggesting that they should be treated differently. He was expressing his sense of anxiety under those circumstances.

Do you realize that the WSJ is owned by the same corporation as Fox News? Not too biased...

You think it was ok he got fired for expressing an opinion?

I'm curious, how come you feel this way?

Again, he got terminated not for expressing his opinion but for violating terms of his employment contract. Apples and oranges.

 

[DawnCt1]

I work for a major medical organization that's in the press almost daily. If I did or said something that got tons of media attention that embarrased my employer, I'd be fired. It wouldn't matter if it was my "opionion" or not. Why is this any different?

Because they have tolerated outrageous opinions from the other side of the spectrum; one commentator suggesting that the world would be a better place with the disappearance of Christians via the "rapture". NPR received 40,000 complaints over that comment. juan Williams? 60 complaints.
Secondly they waived their right to fire him based on punditry because they have tolerated his appearance as a commentator and the appearance of others on other networks all along.

 

[bonnaroomama]

You all know NPR isn't just news, but a public radio service? My favorite shows are Car Talk, Fresh Air, This American Life and Wait Wait, Don't Tell Me.

This is educational, just like OETA. My husband and I depend on it and it is a big part of our lives. Why take that away from people, regardless of their decision?

Sheesh, people.

 

[DawnCt1]

As stated earlier, NPR has a policy in regard to what their reporters can or can't do. He had been warned by his employer numerous times that his "commentary" on Fox was in violation in his employment contract. He was rightly terminated not for expression his own opinion, but for violating the terms of his employment contract. Please point to where in any Employment Law treatise where it states that NPR waived their right to fire him because "they tolerated it".



Do you realize that the WSJ is owned by the same corporation as Fox News? Not too biased...



Again, he got terminated not for expressing his opinion but for violating terms of his employment contract. Apples and oranges.

The WSJ prints a variety of opinions. Meghyn Kelly, Fox News, an attorney who more than familiarized herself with the law, and quoted that law was quite eloquent in pointing it out.
Why have they not terminated the employment of others who have expressed opinions, often in a much more abrasive, offensive way?

 

[DawnCt1]

You all know NPR isn't just news, but a public radio service? My favorite shows are Car Talk, Fresh Air, This American Life and Wait Wait, Don't Tell Me.

This is educational, just like OETA. My husband and I depend on it and it is a big part of our lives. Why take that away from people, regardless of their decision?

Sheesh, people.

If these are shows that are so wonderful, let them compete in the private marketplace, fund themselves and continue to rely on public donations, not public funds provided by the taxpayer. Prior to this, I never felt we should fund NPR or Public television. If it can't support itself then it should go the way of the dodo bird. Its too bad that I never listen to NPR because now I don't have the opportunity to boycott it.

 

[DVC~OKW~96]

Not only should he have been fired (and no, funding should not be impacted by this decision) Fox News should be sanctioned for their role in this mess.

It is NOT acceptable for someone who has a role in the public trust to violate that trust in a public forum. If he's afraid of women in dark clothes and headscarves then he should simply keep his opinion to himself.

 

[luvmy3]

As stated earlier, NPR has a policy in regard to what their reporters can or can't do. He had been warned by his employer numerous times that his "commentary" on Fox was in violation in his employment contract. He was rightly terminated not for expression his own opinion, but for violating the terms of his employment contract. Please point to where in any Employment Law treatise where it states that NPR waived their right to fire him because "they tolerated it".



Do you realize that the WSJ is owned by the same corporation as Fox News? Not too biased...



Again, he got terminated not for expressing his opinion but for violating terms of his employment contract. Apples and oranges.

No, he got fired for his opinion plain and simple. He has been on FOX many many times before and a regular contributor there expressing his opinion yet never fired. What was different about this, other than his opinion didn't sit well with the powers that be at NPR?

 

[LiberalPrincess]

If these are shows that are so wonderful, let them compete in the private marketplace, fund themselves and continue to rely on public donations, not public funds provided by the taxpayer. Prior to this, I never felt we should fund NPR or Public television. If it can't support itself then it should go the way of the dodo bird.

So should public schools go the way of the dodo bird as well? How about parks and farms? I guess if entities can't support themselves, then they should just go away.

 

[DVC~OKW~96]

Because they have tolerated outrageous opinions from the other side of the spectrum; one commentator suggesting that the world would be a better place with the disappearance of Christians via the "rapture". NPR received 40,000 complaints over that comment. juan Williams? 60 complaints.
Secondly they waived their right to fire him based on punditry because they have tolerated his appearance as a commentator and the appearance of others on other networks all along.

You've stated you don't listen to NPR, so by default your information is second hand. Be careful who you "quote." The opportunity for being wrong increases exponentially without personal experience.

 

[luvmy3]

Not only should he have been fired (and no, funding should not be impacted by this decision) Fox News should be sanctioned for their role in this mess.It is NOT acceptable for someone who has a role in the public trust to violate that trust in a public forum. If he's afraid of women in dark clothes and headscarves then he should simply keep his opinion to himself.

really, thats just insane.