Conservatives, who have zero use for NPR in the first place, called this another example of an elitist liberal organization practicing smug political correctness. They also suggested NPR had been thirsting for an excuse to fire a guy who has another gig - at Fox News, where he often tilts more rightward.Such is the evenhanded remarks of the NY Daily News media columnist, David Hinckley, who is perhaps best know for his music/radio coverage. A lot better than the kneejerk remarks of the editors of the paper, showing their FOX sympathies. The paper still has various good points, but a center page with that, a guest columnist (worth reading, to be sure) and Charles Krauthammer does leave something to be desired.
That could be true. It's also true NPR could have voiced its displeasure without firing Williams.
Let's at least consider, however, the possibility that firing Williams was NPR's way to reassert its commitment to a radical mission: trying to maintain a civil alternative in today's raucous media.
Anyway, I wrote a lot about this -- see yesterday -- over at Slate. The responses were often depressing. Glenn Greenwald today does what Rachel Maddow did yesterday, use the blowback to focus on the anti-Muslim prejudice out there. Some of the responses reflected how this affects the ethos. Some found it outrageous to even suggest his remarks were "bigoted" (Random House being cited once to give it such an absolutist meaning to limit it to a select few) or at times even wrong at all. That is, to even suggest they were wrong. Pointing out that some find the remarks, not him as such, bigoted also lost some people. I was accused of calling him a bigot after saying he was not fired for being one.
And, of course, this was all some liberal plot by the NPR. As with the idea that singling out Muslim people for how they dress, Muslim garb "first and foremost" singling that they are Muslim (as compared to being one aspect of their being), and being afraid of them for being I guess too Muslim, is not "bigoted" at all, surely not, this is b.s. NPR, sorry if this ruins the framing, are not letting employees (not celebrity commentators) from going to the Stewart/Colbert rally. As DH notes, NPR is concerned about their image. It isn't just some liberal plot. Nor is keeping a brand pure "censorship" by NPR. Is hiring a Bill O'Reilly necessary for balance too? Ridicule the brand or not.
It is all depressing and it seems to get to me more these days. Firing him can be opposed. I don't really see it as a good thing. I don't think -- as DH notes -- what he said is so very horrible, especially as compared to a lot of other things. But, especially given his past actions* (contra those like the editors et. al. who seem to think this is a one-off, if I'm using that British term correctly), there is a reason to red flag what he said. Bill O'Reilly "is right" -- first thing out of his mouth -- after all, I'm not a bigot (Andrew Sullivan is right, that usually is not a good preface) and I fear Muslims. The later provisos (yes, I listened to the whole response) in effect make this defense more powerful, since it gives him validity. He isn't simply a tool, you see. Still, he does end up agreeing with BR about Muslims not being targeted after 9/11. The "you are right" to that ending sends a mixed message. You can interpret his words benignly, but then what is O'Reilly "right" about? Of course, again precedent helps here, the FOX enabling is why he is so useful to them. And, why the NPR has a reason to be concerned.
Another thing that bothers me is how many people don't really respond to what I say on such message boards. They provide an answer, but it isn't really responsive. They in effect state their opinion. They don't actually answer my argument. I often blockquote a comment, breaking it down, and respond to each part. This takes more time and is not always the easiest way to do things, but it is helpful and (ideally) forces me to focus on what is said. Also, I find that often the responses that don't do this don't really respond to what is said. I find it necessary to actually open up a new window and search past comments to reaffirm this. See, e.g., my discussion of "bigot" ... I go spend time commenting on this, how he isn't a BIGOT, but arguably said something bigoted (I provide a definition by Wikipedia etc.) ... and then am shamed (usually I'm above this sort of thing, apparently) for calling him a bigot. This leads to a level of stress usually left to sports.
Since I'm on the topic, need the get the navel gazing out of my system, it reminds me of a debate I had over some hot button topic. Someone in effect said that I was using facts that backed up how I saw things, my point of view. I noted in passing (tossing in something like "this could be") that this came off as a bit insulting. When I even hinted at bias or the like, the person's hackles got up. Calling the person on it got denials (no no, I'm not sensitive ... you are!). The person appeared truly surprised that I said that. Actually having a truly objective view of things (imperfect as that is given our biases) was not really possible. This is why s/he (I sort of assume, probably wrongly, many of these people are hes) wanted to know my beliefs. My beliefs were not really necessary to my mind since I was challenging a premise that did not go to beliefs per se. But, if objectivity, some common ground, is not possible, well, yeah. The road to perdition though.
If we can't fairly look at things and find some common ground -- with much room of disagreement -- to this extent, it's a big problem. Even when I agree with people on core matters, it is often troubling when a matter is dealt with unfairly. And, this includes looking things in a proper overall context. I personally find doing things in this way more productive and even enjoyable -- it is challenging and rewarding to look at things through someone else's eyes, often hanging them up on their own petards. It is also the road to true understanding. On that level, how helpful was the firing? Did it only worsen things on some level?
Hopefully, there is some good to it all, for the reasons cited in the opening as well as a window into other matters. One can hope.
---
* The whole discussion at the link is worthwhile. But, the link to NPR's response is particularly notable, in part to get an idea of the problem given its standards. This in response to some who said he was just being honest, so what's the problem:
NPR, like any mainstream news outlet, expects its journalists to be thoughtful and measured in everything they say. What Williams said was deeply offensive to Muslims and inflamed, rather than contributing positively, to an important debate about the role of Muslims in America.BTW, the NPR Ombudsman (person) saying this also was once attacked by Glenn Greenwald for supporting not using "torture" when discussing American actions. But, hey, the NPR is just a pro-left group here. It's so tiresome to deal with this b.s.
Williams was doing the kind of stereotyping in a public platform that is dangerous to a democracy. It puts people in categories, as types – not as individuals with much in common despite their differences.
I can only imagine how Williams, who has chronicled and championed the Civil Rights movement, would have reacted if another prominent journalist had said:
"But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see an African American male in Dashiki with a big Afro, I get worried. I get nervous."