Juan Williams firing, part 2
A few listeners and one ALL IN blog responder, asked that I tell you how I personally feel about the Juan Williams firing, particularly in light of my recent tenure on the NPR Board (which ended about a year ago).
From my first days on the NPR Board, I urged NPR management to give Juan (and other NPR news staff with similar “side gigs”) the following choice: NPR or FOX (or any other media entity that regularly employed them). If we base our reputation on adherence to a rigorous ethics code, if we agree that our relationship with our audiences is based on trust, then we must be scrupulous about how our news people appear in public, as well as on our airwaves. This should not be a big deal–it’s in the ethics code.
Sadly, this issue was not addressed by any of Vivian Schiller’s predecessors and has now been handled poorly by the current management. But the decision was correct.
Juan Williams had been warned on multiple occasions in the past that he could not be an NPR senior news analyst and express personal opinions on controversial topics on FOX.
Now, NPR must make it clear to all of its news staff what the policy is, and give fair warning that infringements of that policy may lead to serious consequences, including dismissal.
There’s another issue here that has troubled me from my early days on the Board. FOX has always positioned Juan Williams as the voice for the “liberal” perspective, at the same time it identified him as a senior news person with NPR. How can this possibly advance NPR’s efforts to provide the public with a trustworthy source of unbiased information? None of us are perfect, but the goal to be as objective and evenhanded as possible is always our aspiration.
Having said all this, I must tell you that NCPR plans to examine its own policies on news staff and opinion pieces. Analysis is different than opinion. Our plan is to address this issue thoroughly once we get through fundraiser week and the elections next week. I hope to bring several people from outside our staff to help us look as clearly as possible at the implications of all the news and news-related work we do.
If you haven’t already checked out my previous post on this matter, which included the official statement from NPR, you may see it here.
Coming up at 10 am today: ON POINT spends an hour on this subject. Brian and I will be “co-hosting” the fundraising portion of the hour, and I’m sure we’ll be discussing the issue in between asking for your support.
NPR limiting their “news staff” to only work for NPR will not increase my “trust” in them.
While I listen to NPR for the news – a car accident or fire – more important to me is the examination of the meaning of the news, of opinions, of analysis. I do like to hear various viewpoints and can even stand some yelling.
I don’t agree with NPR firing Juan Williams [or the way it was done].
I think it weakens the discussions I might hear on NPR.
The firing could contribute to limiting the discussions of the news that the public hears. Will commentators self-censor their views for fear of being fired?
The timing of this can only be seen as a reaction to the comments Juan Williams made on FOX. I do not agree that those comments justified firing him.
If NPR just presents the facts with no attempt at analysis from a variety of viewpoints I know they will lose one listener and probably many others also.
Bill Merna asks
“Will commentators self-censor their views for fear of being fired?”
There is a lot of misunderstanding about the various roles of journalists. And there is an increasing blurring of those roles in many newsrooms in broadcast and print. But it’s worth reviewing the categories here, because NPR is one of the news organizations that tries to keep those roles well-defined.
A reporter or correspondent basically reports what has happened without contibuting personal opinion about the matter. A reporter might quote the opinions of others, or cite popular opinion within a story, but their own views are kept out of the story.
A news analyst will talk about events and issues and relate them to other news stories, put them into context, and project what affect may result from events.
A commentator may talk about news, issues and events from their personal perspective. In fact, that is their primary role.
Juan Williams was under contract at NPR as a news analyst, not a commentator. Under contract to Fox News, he often acted as a commentator. And he was positioned at Fox as a “liberal” commentator. Both his commentator role at Fox and how his personal ideology was characterized there created a conflict with his role at NPR.
There is need for reporting and for analysis and for opinion. But the various roles under NPR’s ethical guidelines are kept separate.
Dale Hobson
NCPR Online
The rpoblem with Dales’ analysis is that is does not hold up. Cokie Roberts is lsted on the NPR site as a senior news analyst BUT she is PAID BY ABC News a political commentaor
Sorry – somthing happned when I was trying to leave this comment:
The problem with Dale’s (and Ellen’s ) analysis is that is does not hold up. Cokie Roberts is listed on the NPR site as a senior news analyst But she is also paid by ABC News to be a political commentator – weighing in wth her personal opinions on political matters is her job at ABC. Now, Cokie is still employed and Juan Williams isn’t. Thus, analysis and opinion are not separated under NPR’s ethical guidelines.
Also, Dale says a correspondent (like a reporter) is supposed to just report the facts. Nina Totenberg, NPR Legal Affairs Correspondent anyone? (She is als a regular on Inside Washington in which she shares the facts and her opinions). I have always liked Nina Totenburg, in part becuase I agree with her and because she has never kept her personal views out of her reporting.
Don’t we always know where Nina stands on things?
Ellen Rocco is probably right that there should be ethical guidelines that are actually upheld, but they are not.
Finally, NPR’s CEO made it clear that the firing was political and personal when she made the remark about his psychiatrist. Therein lies the problem for NPR. She made it very clear why he was fired and it had NOTHING to do with divided loyalties or journalistic integrity. Simply put she was offended by his opinion.
Sorry Dale, sorry Ellen. Your arguments don’t hold up.
Suzanne says:
“Cokie Roberts is lsted on NPR site as a senior news analyst BUT she is PAID BY ABC News a political commentor.”
That is exactly right, and a parallel situation to Juan Williams. Mara Liasson’s role at Fox and Nina Totenberg’s appearances on other networks also raise questions about NPR’s policy. It is pretty consistently applied in-house, but some news personnel have had wide latitude when appearing elsewhere. There has always been discomfort over this disparity, both within NPR and in the network of public radio stations.
Going forward, NPR will have to create a transparent, consistent and understandable policy in this regard. Parrallel conversations are going on in newsrooms throughout the system, including here at NCPR. To that extent, what can only be seen as a PR disaster for NPR will have a useful impact in the long run, both at the network and station levels.
Dale Hobson
NCPR Online
I get the impression that Nina Tottenberg and Mara Liasson are simply too senior to think the rules apply to them (and that’s obviously a mutual feeling from those who should enforce the rules). I read last week, for instance, that NPR executives sent all ‘news’ staff an email reminding them that they’re not allowed to participate in political rallies like Jon Stewart’s Rally to restore sanity.
Surely it does more damage to the NPR brand to have Liasson and Tottenburg doing what they do on cable networks with ‘NPR’ prominently displayed beneath them than for low-ranking employees to be part of an anonymous crowd at a rally.
I agree, Josh. And I’ve told NPR that I believe the policy must be clarified and applied consistently to ALL news staff at NPR. Again, here at NCPR, we plan to do our own internal soul-searching, policy-clarifications right after next week’s election coverage.
The Juan Williams firing was as poorly orchestrated an event as I have ever seen. Comparing comments, Nina Totenberg should have been gone long ago.
The NPR CEO made it clear in her treatment of the matter that it was personal. There was no plan, no thought, no timeline given to his firing. Just the first sign of a mis-step and you’re gone.
To be even handed (and cover its tracks), NPR should have sent a memo to all news staffers that double-dip and explained to them that as of such-and-such a date, NPR is no longer in the business of sharing its talent. It’s either us or them, and you have to make your decision by the deadline. Thereafter, you are either working for us or them.
Whether or not the public likes that, NPR, as an employer, has that right.
The Juan Williams execution was perfectly mishandled.
“NPR or FOX (or any other media entity that regularly employed them)”
Seems like a form of censorship to me? You can talk for us but not for them??
Why do you let your own reporters work for other media outlets?
We’ve been talking about this episode–and the issues it raises for NCPR as well as NPR–a lot since last week.
First, Cement, I agree with much of what you said. However, the decision was not personal. Conflicts between Juan’s Fox role and his NPR role were apparent within a couple of years of his joining the NPR staff (he started at Fox), which was years before Vivian Schiller was hired as CEO. I was elected to the NPR board a few years after Juan was hired by NPR. From the beginning, I was troubled–and regularly voiced my concerns–about the conflicting roles Juan played for the two entities. He was warned, at least two times in the past two years–possibly more times. But, I certainly would have brought him into headquarters and tried to figure out a way to make a separation more dignified and palatable for both parties. And, I most certainly would have given the choice that I think all news people at NPR should be given: NPR or FOX but not both as your employer.
Again, NPR must have a clear policy that is applied even-handedly and consistently to the work of all of its news personnel. No more exceptions.
Paul, I have no problem with news staff at NPR or NCPR appearing occasionally as a panelist or guest writer for other media entities. I do have a problem with any news staff person being employed by any other news organization. Our news staff can only answer to one master, if you will–guided by a stringent ethics code. And, any outside occasional work must be in the form of analysis (think round table discussion which does not get into personal opinion or calls to action on issues) and be compatible with the news person’s role as an impartial observer and reporter. (This is always aspirational–impartiality, that is–but if impartiality is totally ignored as a goal, there’s no hope for our business at all.)
The problem with all the above definitions on journalists (a term I hate – too sanctimonious) is that the lines are too narrow and open for interpretation.
No one can avoid their opinions. Even a reporter who just reports the news is injecting their opinion by deciding what to put in and what to leave out of a story. A reporter also injects opinion with what they lead with in the story. More opinion is inserted (usually by the editor) with the headline.
Try as anyone might, opinion is part of every news organization.
Only one thing is at issue with Williams. Is he wrong to say he feels uncomfortable when he sees people in Muslim clothing (whatever Muslim clothing is) getting on the same airplane he is boarding?
If you say what you feel and are telling the truth about what you feel, is this really an opinion? Are there correct opinions and incorrect opinions?
There might be something deeper here. Something we would rather not discuss.
To what extent are we capable of forming our own opinions without depending upon what another person’s opinion is?
I do not suddenly change my opinions because “some expert” has an opinion different from mine. This “expert” says this. That “well respected news analyst” says that.
I say, “So what?!”
If we can’t discuss our opinions, if we can’t say what we feel, then dialog comes to a screeching halt and we move into a form of dictatorship.
“And, any outside occasional work must be in the form of analysis (think round table discussion which does not get into personal opinion or calls to action on issues) and be compatible with the news person’s role as an impartial observer and reporter.” Ellen, come on. You can’t tell me that Brian Mann’s story a few years back in the Explorer (which I assume (hope) he was paid for) where he reported on the internal DEC strife (my word) regarding the Adirondack SLMP would fit this definition? BTW: I thought it was a good story. I know he probably took some heat for it.
Also, your comment regarding “one master” strikes me as kind of troubling.
All this carping is getting old. It’s a smokescreen to suggest that Williams was fired for confusing his role as correspondent w/ that of a pundit (which is the explanation given by Schiller, NPR CEO). A grain of truth but I’m not buying it.
I suggest like others have already that Williams was fired for his politically incorrect statements uttered on the network owned by the devil himself – R. Murdoch, who pushes the boundaries of acceptable “news”. It was his statements first and that he uttered them on Fox second that lead to his axing. I bet if he expressed his feelings about Muslims on Talk of the Nation or All Things Considered that the outcome would be quite different. Maybe a followup question would’ve been asked or he actually would have been called by his boss to clarify his comments. [Read, NPR is acceptable, FOX is not.] Nevertheless we should be honest here. If someone on the left gets too chummy with the likes of Bill O then at the next available mistake there will be consequences. It’s not that different with the right either – express some admiration for Obama or the Ds and you’ll be shown the door too. This is what happened to David Frum. Both sides of the ideological continuum like purity – purging Williams from NPR is part of the sorting- out process.
Ellen do you seriously believe that NPR doesn’t paint the news, its interviews, or etc. in a particular direction? It’s difficult if not impossible for any reporter to eliminate their political, ideological, partisan preferences from what they do, especially if they have firm convictions. If FOX identified Williams as the token liberal from NPR, maybe in this instance they were being accurate. More importantly, how different is it from the role NPR assigned to Williams as the token African American man writing stories say, about civil rights? As such he filled a desired position for the limousine liberals at NPR who are minus their token now. [I’m not demeaning the work of Williams at all, I think he’s talented but filled a role that can be interpreted as tokenism. Think about it, Cokie Roberts can argue for civil rights but better to have a black man do it – sounds more respectable. ]
Last, lets not fool ourselves into thinking that most people actually care about this.
ellen:
nicely articulated.
regarding 10:37 to ellen (which i submitted prematurely).
however the double-standard must be eliminated, i.e.. nina totenberg, cokie roberts.
and from a pr perspective, that kind of dismissal must be strategized.
juan’s firiing was executed by a knee jerk. schilller should have consulted first with ellen.