i wasn't going to touch this issue, but this afternoon a column appeared in the washington post that rehearsed the positions being taken by all the usual populist rightwing talking heads on the fact that npr fired juan williams....and it has a transcript of williams' remarkably stupid interaction with bill o-reilly that got him fired.
it's just really clear from this how the right works at the moment:
Quote:
Sarah Palin, citing Juan Williams' firing, says it's time to 'defund' NPR
By Elizabeth Tenety
Sarah Palin is campaigning again, today calling out NPR for firing Juan Williams for his controversial comments on Muslims.
In a post to her Facebook page, Palin wrote that the taxpayer-subsidized radio network fired Williams "for merely speaking frankly about the very real threat this country faces from radical Islam."
We have to have an honest discussion about the jihadist threat. Are we not allowed to say that Muslim terrorists have killed thousands of Americans and continue to plot the deaths of thousands more? Are we not allowed to say that there are Muslim states that aid and abet these fanatics? Are we not allowed to even debate the role that radical Islam plays in inciting this violence?
If NPR is unable to tolerate an honest debate about an issue as important as Islamic terrorism, then it's time for "National Public Radio" to become "National Private Radio." It's time for Congress to defund this organization.
And now Bill O'Reilly, on whose program Williams made the comments, has also called for NPR to be de-funded, calling the radio outfit a "left wing outfit that wants [to advance] one opinion."
"I'm calling ... for the immediate suspension of every taxpayer dollar going into the National Public Radio outfit," O'Reilly said Thursday.
Newt Gingrich has also said that "US Congress should investigate NPR and consider cutting off their money."
Here's the clip from O'Reilly that got WIlliams fired:
WILLIAMS: "Well actually, I hate to say this to you because I don't want to get your ego going. But I think that political correctness can lead to some kind of paralysis where you don't address reality. I mean, look Bill, I'm not a bigot, you know the kinds of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country."
WILLIAMS: But when I get on a plane, I gotta tell ya, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they're identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.
WILLIAMS: Now I remember also that when that Times Square bomber was in court, I think this was just last week, he said "the war with Muslims -America's war with Muslims -is just beginning, the first drop of blood." I don't think there's any way to get away from these facts. But I think there are people who want to somehow remind us all us as President Bush did after 9/11: It's not a war against Islam. President Bush went to a mosque --
O'REILLY: Well there isn't any theology involved in this at all in this from my perspective Juan. But you live in the liberal precincts, you actually work for NPR, okay its not about, its about politics as I said. My analysis is that this Israel thing and that liberals feel that the United States is somehow guilty in the world of exploitation and backing the wrong side and it makes it easier for them to come up with this kind of crazy stuff that --well you can't really say that Muslims attacked us on 9/11. Well, what were they, Norwegians? I mean, come on.
WILLIAMS: Wait a second though, wait wait hold on. Well if you said Timothy McVeigh, the Atlanta bomber, these people who are protesting against homosexuality at military funerals, very obnoxious. You don't say first and foremost "we've got a problem with Christians," that's crazy.
O'REILLY: Well it's not at that level, it doesn't rise near to that level.
WILLIAMS: Correct, and when you said in the talking points memo a moment ago that there are good Muslims, I think that's a point. You don't want to be -I mean-
O'REILLY: But everybody knows that Juan. What are we in the 3rd grade here or what?
WILLIAMS: No, but you gotta be careful: This is what Barbara Walters was saying and you disagreed with it.
O'REILLY: "You gotta be careful," there, you just said it. "I gotta be careful." I have to qualify everything 50 times. You know what Juan? I'm not doing that anymore. I'm not doing it anymore.
WILLIAMS: So be yourself Bill, take responsibility.
O'REILLY: I will say Muslim terrorist but I'm not going to say "it's only a few. It's only a tiny bit." It's not Juan. It's whole nations: Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan. Whole nations.
WILLIAMS: True.
|
Under God: Sarah Palin, citing Juan Williams' firing, says it's time to 'defund' NPR - Elizabeth Tenety
i think this speaks for itself.
here's npr's weblink on this:
Juan Williams: My Words Were 'Not A Bigoted Statement' : The Two-Way : NPR
and here a washington post overview:
washingtonpost.com
it seems to me that there are several things that converge on this matter.
from conservative-land, the williams thing turns is another occasion to repeat its main identity politics memes, to renew the old "culture war" that has served them so well in displacing political speech away from statements about the world and onto statements made by conservatives about their version of the world as they prefer to imagine it exists.
but out in the wider world, it seems that this is being conflated with a free speech question.
is this one?
freedom of speech means you cannot be prosecuted for statements you make short of shouting fire in a theater.
it does not mean that there are no consequences to speech acts.
it simply means those consequences are not legal.
but there are news organizations which are conflicted. for example, you can read editorials in the washington post that argue npr acted too quickly.
this seems a guild response, like people are thinking that they could say something stupid at any point, just explode with pent-up stupid, and loose their jobs.
is that a freedom of speech matter?
what do you think?
is this an issue for you at all?