Your tax dollars (not) at work. From the WaPo:
The White House reached out to National Public Radio over the weekend, offering analyst Juan Williams a presidential interview to mark yesterday’s 50th anniversary of school desegregation in Little Rock.
But NPR turned down the interview, and Williams’s talk with Bush wound up in a very different media venue: Fox News.
Williams said yesterday he was “stunned” by NPR’s decision. “It makes no sense to me. President Bush has never given an interview in which he focused on race. . . . I was stunned by the decision to turn their backs on him and to turn their backs on me.”
Ellen Weiss, NPR’s vice president for news, said she “felt strongly” that “the White House shouldn’t be selecting the person.” She said NPR told Bush’s press secretary, Dana Perino, that “we’re grateful for the opportunity to talk to the president but we wanted to determine who did the interview.” When the White House said the offer could not be transferred to one of NPR’s program hosts, Weiss took a pass.
First things first: I think NPR has every right to decide which one of their reporters interviews the President — if NPR is the one reaching out for the interview. And the White House, in turn, can choose to accept of decline that request.
Beyond that, NPR made its choice — and for a tax payer-funded news outlet to turn down a Presidential interview seems rather poor form, not to mention speaks to a kind of arrogance that one can afford when competition doesn’t really factor into your bottom line equation. That it slighted Juan Williams — no Bush groupie, and a man whose previous work on race would have lent the interview a certain intellectual (if intellectually controversial) cache — was only icing on the cake.
Clearly, NPR felt that their ability to dictate the terms of a Presidential interview was more important than the interview (or the the topic) itself. Which is to say, NPR took its stand over who gets to control the narrative, and in the process, suggested (obliquely, but nevertheless) that Juan Williams wasn’t capable of doing the kind of interview that listeners of a publicly funded media outlet might find useful.
One wonders if NPR would have “passed” had Iranian President Ahmajustagigalo offered to grant them an interview, but only if Juan Williams was the one conducting it.
Perino said she called Williams with the offer Saturday because of the Little Rock anniversary and the racial controversy over charges of excessive prosecution in Jena, La.
“We thought this would be a good opportunity for the president to sit down with someone and have a broader conversation about race relations,” Perino said. “The president has talked with Juan before and we know him well. He’s active in trying to keep good relations with us. . . . We could have done a print interview, but I felt I wanted people to hear the president’s voice.”
Williams called his bosses, who expressed concern that the only interview Bush has granted NPR during his tenure was also with Williams, in January.
[…]
Williams is a one-time Washington Post reporter and editorial writer who has written such books as “Eyes on the Prize,” about the civil rights movement. In a Post op-ed column on Little Rock yesterday, he criticized a recent Supreme Court decision striking down two voluntary school integration plans as contributing to the isolation of poor and minority students.
Williams, who is sometimes criticized by liberal groups, dismissed the notion that he was picked as a sympathetic interviewer, saying he often challenges the administration on “Fox News Sunday.”
“I had worked at NPR’s direction to develop a relationship with the White House,” he said. “I have an expertise on race relations. . . . I thought the listeners of NPR lost a tremendous opportunity to hear the president in a rare interview on a very important subject.”
Well, developing a relationship with the White House was your first mistake, Juan.
Because unfortunately, these days the “adversarial” media takes that designation literally. It is not enough to ask tough, fair questions anymore. Instead, one has to have shown an open hostility toward the President to make his bones — or else risk being called an adminstration shill by the kinds of listeners NPR tends to cultivate.
More’s the pity.
(h/t Happyfeet)
Everyone loves the smell of their tax dollars burning…
Does this mean we can take the “Public” out of NPR?
I would think a “Public” radio network would want to have an exclusive interview with the President. Hmmm. Maybe they would – just not the President of the United States
If the White House had asked for specifically for one of their smarmy anchors by name to do an interview on matters of race, NPR would NOT have told them that the White House was in no position to dictate such terms, and that Juan Williams is far more qualified to do the interview besides. They completely dissed Juan, and sent a BIG signal about the kinds of proactivity and outreach they expect from their reporters.
He shall henceforth be known as The Apostate Juan Williams. All shall turn their faces from him and shall remove him from their favorites tab.
More fun with the ever-malleable concept of free speech from the left, albeit no one I’ve ever heard of:
How about if Chris Rock does the interview?
Is it too cynical to wonder but that bloggers who may be interested in getting calls from NPR producers may not be too excited about blogging this story? This seems kind of thin.
It’s simple really. NPR believes that the President is a fascist and that Juan Williams is a Tom.
The same idiots that tell me I’m a bush bot are the same ones who swallow NPR whole. Good for them, being what the claim me to be.
Oh and NPR hates black people!
Maybe if Jane Hamsher put Keith Olbermann in blackface, he could do the interview?
That’s alright, I’ll tape one of the good shows they have during sweeps month and I won’t pay $200.00 for the t-shirt. Idjits.
Oh, the humanities:
> How about if Chris Rock does the interview?
Oh, that wouldn’t work at all. Most people, including the Prez, would be wondering why Chris kept going on about tossed salad. And those of us who know, well… I think I just grossed myself out.
Does this mean we can take the “Public” out of NPR?
I’ve always replaced it with “Pretentious.” Works for me.
– I wish we could get a reforendum going to have both NPR and PBS removed from the public dole until they clean up their act. I didn’t have a problem back in the day when they presented interviews, and interviewers, that covered all points of view, and I thought it was a valuable resource, a public outlet where everyone got fair representation.
– I don’t want to put them out of business, just make the Left carry them on its own dime until they relearn the whole idea of “fair and balanced”, and jetisen the one size fits all ideology.
– Err-America could not be reached for comment…..
Welcome to the field, Juan.
Dumbass.
Are you saying blacks aren’t intelligent? I’m not listening to your rascist crap.
I, for one, admire NPR for it’s ideological purity. I mean, c’mon, once you’ve lost that you’re just another media whore. A media whore who accosts listeners for money to support her when her pimp, the US Gov’t., won’t put her up in nice digs like those other media whores like the NYT, WaPo, ABC, NBC, CBS, LAT…
No, Dan, he’s saying that Blacks who don’t lick the boots of their Leftist Saviours aren’t intelligent.
Anyway, enough of the crypto-racist milliwit.
NPR has been taking itself farther and farther left, to the point where it’s really nothing more that a narrowly ideological “propaganda club.” It certainly isn’t the kind of thing that needs tax subsidies, any more than “John Birch Radio” would be.
One of the reasons this has come about, of course, is that “the right” doesn’t believe in subsidizing radio, and “the left” does, so who do you think is going to man NPR?
Please rewrite to read, “to person NPR”.
Juan has been put in his place is all that was meant and usually I say “I think” or something like that but really I thought this time it was pretty clear and not at all crypto.
It’s a Malcolm X thing, you know?
Shame on NPR for refusing to help the White House control the narrative. If NPR is funded by the government, clearly they should agree to promulgate government propaganda.
Don’t you guys get it? NPR is a Rethuglicanazi noise machine! From the link Happyfeet provided, this comment:
Lately, I get hung-up upon ANY time I call the local NPR ‘board’
Submitted by Woody–Tokin Librul on Wed, 2007-09-26 10:42.
And one of the board ’jocks’ sent me a RABID e-mail in response to my daily calls to complain about NPR’s GOPuke stenography, (emphasis added) virtually shouting at me for my continued criticism.
So i’ve quit calling ’em.
These people are astounding…
I think Moops just called Juan Williams a White House shill and questioned his journalistic integrity.
As NPR did.
Making me wonder why they keep him on.
As, you know, a journalist of color…
Malcolm X be in de house.
Face it, Moops. The White House trusts Juan Williams to speak to the topic and to do so in a way they consider fair. They didn’t provide him with questions, so I’m not sure how his interviewing Bush can be considered “promulgating government propaganda”.
NPR wasn’t thrilled that they couldn’t decide who to send to have a sit down interview with the President. In deciding to pass, they turned down his invitation. As I wrote, this is their right. But it’s also a disservice to their listeners, and speaks to their own institutional arrogance.
Moops, why do you hate black people?
Terry Gross is on vacation, but we’re replaying her 1962 interview with civil rights pioneer, Martin Luther King.
Just another case of the left enforcing absolute ideological purity. Williams is usually typical lefty boilerplate but when he strays (as when he defended Clarence Thomas) they turn on him.
Any reform of NPR or PBS would be temporary. Any organization that does not have to compete and receives funding from the state will necessarily work to increase the power of the state to confiscate funds from its citizens.
> Making me wonder why they keep him on.
Because under the proper supervision, in the appropriate context, Juan can do a credible job.
> As, you know, a journalist of color…
Dear Juan… NPR no longer gives a damn about black people. The ‘progressives’ are courting the Hispanic vote now. It’s larger, growing, and has more money. Enjoy your political obsolescence.
I think Moops’ point is that, in order to prevent NPR from becoming a government propaganda outlet, it must never permit the President’s words to be broadcast on its airwaves, whether in his voice or when being quoted (accurately) by a reporter. ‘Cause, y’know, everything a President says is just government propaganda.
Unless he’s a Democrat, of course. Goes without saying, that part.
The White House wanted an interview that would present President Bush in the best possible light, presumably, and felt Juan Williams could do it. If anyone is suggesting he’s a shill, it’s the White House.
Yea, Juan, GMG is right. Plus, with the fact that so many Hispanics are illegal aliens, the victimization index just through the roof, man! Holla!
However, I believe that the Atlanta Constitution is still willing to shill for the peopleses of coloreses. Peace!
Not so. They were suggesting that they thought he’d be fair.
You and NPR are suggesting that he can’t help but show the administration in the best light possible.
So it is you that is calling Williams a shill.
At some point, you’re simply going to have to face that fact, Moops. OWN IT, MY BROTHER!
– Sure. Of course if Hillery, or any Democrat for that matter, were in the White House, then Moops and his braindead gaggle would be declaring that NPR was trying to stack the deck, and put their fearless leader in a bad light. Its to laugh.
– When slick Willey stunk up the oval office, you didn’t have a chance in hell of getting an interview until you passed the “I love Bill” test 100% with thw White House gustopo.
– The Lefturds are nothing if not consistant hypocrits.
“At some point, you’re simply going to have to face that fact”
Moops will do no such thing. Jeff, if you said the world was round, he’d wonder why you were just being a bigot-Bushbot, and then he’d join the Flat Earth Society as fast as he could.
BECAUSE OF THE REFLEXIVE OPPOSITIONISM!
Please. When a PR outfit says “fair”, they mean “likely to make my guy look good.” Don’t be naive.
Ol’ Juan, he jes’ can’t help hisself! All a-smilin’ and a-beamin’!
So thankful be he fo’ bein’ let inta da big White House!
Dance fo’ da Preznut, Tom!
Why would they approach NPR at all then, Moops? Even with a fair interview, there’s still an out of control intro from Steve Inskeep to frame the piece, and a segue straight into a damning Katrina retrospective.
Happyfeet: Oh! Oh! and then … then … IRAQ! QUAGMIRE! CIVIL WAR! WORSE DECISION EVAAAAAAAAH!
Maura Liasson will wrap up with the suitable head shaking and lip pursing. They’ll run it right before “The War.”
FOR THE HEADY SYMBOLISM!!
Jeff,
It helps to be an idiot. Just ask Moops.
Williams has excoriated Bush more times than I can count. The problem is that he’s got Bill Cosby syndrome. He’s discovered personal responsibility. Aside from that, he’s 99 and 3/4% devout leftist, but that just isn’t enough.
On another Williams related note, you should take a minute to see LaShawn Barber’s turn on CNN this morning. Get a load of Boyce Watkins. Perfessor Watkins, that is.
Just….wow.
[…] Come on in, Mr Rove. You old kidder, you!* Posted by Jeff G. @ 1:37 pm | Trackback Share […]
Presumably so they could give the President a nice veneer of chin-stroking earnestness as he and Williams exchanged bland platitudes. NPR’s the best when it comes to that sort of thing.
Ok, then its official. The party of the “Great caring tin-hat revolution” has now declared Williams “whitefaced”, and disowened him. Sharpton better watch his step, he being all friendly like, and discussin’ race stuff with O’Reilly and such.
Sho’ nuff! You ain’t a-gonna get to the bottom of da ‘race prollem’ by givin’ da microphone to no Unca Tom!
Really. I think what was needed was a fine, educated white person to do the questioning. So as to avoid the inevitable regression into banal platitudes.
Someone, you know — sharp.
PAGING PROFESSOR CARIC!
On second thought, Jeff’s right. The White House has no interest in controlling public perception of the President. Clearly this wasn’t a feel-good opportunity for a President who’s had some PR problems when it comes to race. I’m just a big racist and should listen to Pablo when he says that Williams is one of the good negroes.
moops:
NEGROIST!
Jeff never said that. Most people and institutions, in fact, have an interest in controlling public perception of themselves.
So what?
And what does that have to do with Juan Williams’ ability to do a fair interview?
Are you really suggesting that, say, unless the President was being interviewed by Keith Olbermann, we couldn’t really get to the bottom of where he stands — that in order to pressure someone on the truth of his convictions, you must find someone to do so whose hatred toward his subject is palpable?
Like I said, that seems to be taking the “adversarial press” bit a little far.
I think Dick Morris should interview Hillary Clinton on everything. Because, you know, baldfaced, blindingly outragious hatred is the only way to insure there be no blandy platitudes.
I bet Hil kicks his ass.
Moops,
Let’s grant that you’re correct in thinking the White House wants to do some PR work to help the President’s numbers. Let’s also grant that the White House figured Williams was just the man to help them do it.
There. Those points are granted to you, so you need not argue them further.
The concern here is that NPR through their actions, and you through your words, agree that Williams could not or would not do an interview up to NPR’s standards.
Given that NPR through their actions, and you through your words, have made it clear that Williams is a sub-par journalist, why do you think NPR continues to employ him? Turning it around, do you think Williams should continue to work for a management who obviously considers him unprofessional?
It’s true. Anyone who questions whether Williams is the best person to give the interview is a racist. ESPECIALLY if they never mentioned his race. Pretending Williams’ race is irrelevant is JUST HOW WE FOOL YOU! Plus it gives you a chance to do a hilarious minstrel routine. Bonus!
What!? Juan Williams is black???
Well this just changes everything!
Geez, it’s a damned shame we don’t have Steve Gilliard around anymore.
Whether that would be to do the Bush interview or to do the Sambo ‘shop of Williams, I’ll leave to the reader to decide.
53> Whoa! did Moops set you guys up.
Who asked that? You?
RACIST!!
– Yeh Moops. Good point. Why would anyone ever want to risk having an actual Black Journalist, one with solid crdentials and an author on the very subject of the proposed interview, do said interview. Boggles the mind why all these cretin thuglicans can’t understand that razor sharp logic, let me tell you.
– Just the same, if I was Juan I’d tell the “closet racists” or “Bush hating numbskulls” at NPR, whichever Hsu fits, to kiss my black ass.
Oh, is that what you were doing — “questioning” whether Williams was the best person to do the interview?
Sorry. Thought you were outright claiming that having him do the interview would result in chin-rubbing platitudes.
Because….
I forget. What’s the “because,” again? Is it that he can’t be trusted as a journalist? That he’s a Bush shill? That he’s cultivated a relationship with the White House not built on “BUSH IS JUST LIKE HITLER!” — and therefore his journalistic bona fides, as judged by the left, are dubious?
And don’t try to fool us with that “I never mentioned his race,” thing, either.
Everyone knows that “chin-rubbing platitudes” is just part of that racist code word thing.
DENIALIST!
FABULIST!
SAMBOIST!
Hey, this is kinda fun! Thanks, moops!
Moops is only interested in Moops and threadjacking.
Therefore, I’m issuing Major John’s request: Please do not engage the typing telephone pole (version 1.3).
Thatisall.
“It’s true. Anyone who questions whether Williams is the best person to give the interview is a racist. ESPECIALLY if they never mentioned his race.”
Because if you don’t mention it he isn’t black. On radio, anyway.
Kind of like that tree falling on deaf ears thing.
Thought you were outright claiming that having him do the interview would result in chin-rubbing platitudes.
Nope. I said that was a function of NPR, not Williams. Read more closely.
Everyone knows that “chin-rubbing platitudes†is just part of that racist code word thing.
Damn. You got me. How will I ever keep ’em on the democratic plantation with Citizen Journalists exposing me for a closet racist at every turn?
The Juan Williams/NPR kerfluffle? The result of the White House EVILEY trying to manage the message.
Nutcase heads of state seeking nukes showing up at Ivy League schools and sucking on chicken wings with the media? Dialog.
I’m gonna need some dramamine on this one.
from a trex post at firedog:
“The Republican coup at NPR”
Did this happen in the last thirty seconds or so?
I don’t see anything on the wire services.
Okay.
Good enough?
Well, actually I was kinda poking fun at the whole code words thing that the left likes to float whenever we evil “conservatives” begin our racist blather about a “color-blind Constitution”, so don’t take it personally.
Really. Everyone here knows you can’t help yourself.
From the horse’s mouth. Kinda underscores the point that NPR is more than a tad liberal if this douchebag can’t countenance any deviation from the orthodoxy, real or imagined.
– In the vein of the new Project manager presenting his program, and ending it with:
Project manager: “So as you can see I’m projecting finishing 3 months ahead of the original schedule. So when can we begin?”.
CEO: Well good. If you project finishing early then you will also be able to cut the total program cost. Have a new copy of the revised budget on my desk by tomorrow, and we’ll talk.”
– So fo’ Moop-mope and her/his/its merry band of koolaid drinkers, since you believe that NPR is a willing tool of the VRWC you won’t be donating anymore to that rabid partisan group. Is that correct? Of course since psuedo-intellectuals are notoriously cheap anyway, such a move would be redundent.
Ha. Not to be confused with the all-new 2008 Democrat microwit.
And silence ensued…
Moops, that was the hardest I laughed in weeks. Well, and Jeff.
When your filament broke, Moops, did it kinda flash up a little first?
Any honest reporting of Bush’s statements would be “promulgating government propaganda”. The correct interview would spend the entire time asking about Katrina and why Bush was against hate-crime laws. (Never mind that the most frequently cited case ended in the death penalty for most of those involved; the magical hate crime laws were NEEDED!)
So, basically, all the White House has to do to discredit a reporter in the eyes of the Left is request him to give an interview.
Eeeenteresting…
– JD – Maybe they’re going for picowits.
Pablo — “The problem is that he’s got Bill Cosby syndrome. He’s discovered personal responsibility. ” I don’t know if he’s discovered responsibility, but he’s always been capable of shame. Watch FNS anytime he says something stupid enough to set Hume off on him. The head goes down, the shoulders hunch up… it’s like watching the Later Nixon at a press conference…
I was going to go to nanowits, but Big Bang upstaged me!
Yeah, Juan Williams is a Bush stooge. Heh.
You know, the fun thing about this “ideological purity” thing the left has going on is that, by logical necessity, either we will end up with a hundred insular leftist factions who hate each other, or we will end up with two “real” leftists left, one of which will excommunicate the other.
Rob: DON’T GIVE AWAY THE PLAN, YOU FOOL!!!
That “hackworth” comment was quite…odd. I rather imagine he’ll be denouncing Mother Jones next as the ‘thuglican house organ!
GMG,
I’m referring to his eschewing the “black victimhood” meme and suggesting alternatives that might just (*gasp*) work. See Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America–and What We Can Do About It
That’s where he’s wandered off the plantation. He’s blasphemed the Church of Al and Jesse. Aside from that, he’s all moonbat, but apparently a little heresy is enough.
Merovign:
No, Dan, he’s saying that Blacks who don’t lick the boots of their Leftist Saviours aren’t intelligent.
It’s like B-Moe said so smashingly the other day, “A bigot expects stereotypical behavior; a progressive demands it.”
“Malcolm X be in de house.”
You know, I’m still pissed I missed Malcolm I through Malcolm IX. Unless it was a Spike Lee homage to Bill Cosby’s Leonard…
The air is getting cooler, the leaves are turning and it’s time to get the old Halloween decorations out. So I’m hanging nooses from every tree in my woods for the “Haunted Trail” fund raiser, and the next thing I know Al Sharpton’s all up in my grille and he wants to tho’ down. So now I’ve had to change all the dummies clothes to military uniforms and switch the name to “Torture Trail: Unconstitutional Detention Camp of Horrors”
Good argument, Jeff. Only a racist would say that an NPR interview would be an exchange of bland platitudes. As a political analyst you sure make a good creative writer.
You guys know where I can get my hands on some urine-soaked fake Korans?
If you come, be sure not to miss the “Abu Ghraib: Under New Management” display. Picture Bush and Cheney impersonators beating on an innocent terrorist with Nerf Scud Missiles.
**Caution! Not suitable for liberals with heart problems**.
Don’t forget the fake menstrual blood.
Moops is the typical kool-aid drinker, he doesn’t make sense to anyone except to the voices in his head.
I mean, I was trying arduously to follow his argument without any success until I realized he doesn’t have an argument, just bomb throwing. Then when Jeff catches him with his pants down he makes fun of, Jeff? WTF?
To fairly interview the president and accurately report the subject of the interview (i.e., to be unbiased and objective) makes you a shill?
I did not know that!
You provide the Korans, I can take care of the rest.
Though, taking them to the horse farm next door might not be offensive enough. I’ll check around for a pig farm.
“You provide the Korans, I can take care of the rest.”
Geez McGehee, for a minute I thought maybe you just drank a 23-pack of Little Kings and you were ready to do the honors.
….pig’ll do.
…and while we’re still on this obvious hijacking, I thought I’d do a “Zombie Border Patrol” section where the people have to crawl through a tunnel, and then someone hands them a rake or a shovel, they do a little landscaping and then the zombies strafe ’em with paint balls.
Too over the top?
Moops,
I’m still curious about your answers to my questions above (#52). My curiousity has nothing at all to do with Williams’ race, religion, sexual orientation or carnivorous/herbivorous preference. It has to do with his professionalism, his credibility, and his ability as a journalist. Ultimately, it’s about his professional reputation, and the impact that this affair is having/will have on it.
For NPR to decline an invitation from the White House so summarily is a tacit admission that they couldn’t trust Williams to do an adequate job of interviewing the President. They were so certain of this that they didn’t even talk to Williams about the offer. If NPR’s opinion of Williams’ ability is so low, why do they continue to employ him? And now that Williams has learned that his employers have no faith in his abilities, why would he stay on at NPR?
Well, the theme music is very soothing. Oh and the bitchin’ lattes and cruellars! Daniel Shorr hocking up hairballs is a minus, though.
I was stunned, truly stunned, last night to see an ad for a movie coming out on DVD. It was “Flight of the Living Dead”. I had never heard of that film while it was in theaters, if it ever was.
If I were Roger Ailes, I would at least insist Mara Liasson goes on record with an opinion or at least an acknowledgment of a controversy. How would she feel were NPR to do the same to her?
Actually, you don’t have to be a racist to say such things.
Of course, what you said was that an NPR interview between Juan Williams and George Bush would be an exchange of bland platitudes. Now, given that this post was about NPR’s apparent lack of faith in Williams — or, if you prefer, their desire to stick a thumb in the eye of the President for not letting them pick whom he offers to grant an interview — one can infer from your consistent contrarianism here that you find NPR’s argument persuasive.
The question is, why? Is it because you think Williams is a shill? And if so, why does NPR keep him on?
I don’t think you’re a racist, but then, I don’t know you. But I do find it disconcerting that NPR doesn’t think one of their reporters, who has written books on the so-called racial divide, isn’t qualified to conduct a presidential interview on the topic of race.
And I find it disconcerting, too, that in your eagerness to piss on the very idea that they’d do so, you managed to impugn Williams’ integrity yourself without so much as skipping a beat.
You’ve been trying to backpeddle ever since, but it isn’t fooling anyone.
Either admit your error or hang ’em up. Game’s been over for some time now.
Why would I waste all that prime piss on a Koran when Ted Turner lives just a few miles from here? Get enough pressure built up and I could reach him even on his ranch in Montana.
Let’s leave Rosie out of this.
Moops, ya coulda been a contender. If only you’d pointed out that Juan Williams is just a stupid, stupid man (he ain’t no Tomas Sowell, that’s for sure), and questioned why the White House would pick such a stupid journalist to interview the President, then you could have set up a real good ridicule. “Dumb and dumber on race in America” you could have named it. Unfortunately, you’re not quick to spot an opening like that. Maybe you’re even dumber than Juan Williams and he seems smart to you? Whatever, it’s too late now.
I often disagree strongly with Juan, but I will always appreciate that he wrote one of the greatest lines ever to appear in the WaPo. If you recall, during the Thomas hearings, a string of goofy Black men who graduated from Yale law school gave outrageous testimony against Anita Hill impugning her character. Juan wrote of their testimony:”It proves the saying that Yale law school has ruined more good Black brains than crack.”
I hate to notice, but of course NPR would be run by a secular Jewish liberal. “Hey, let’s all try to bring down the values that made this place welcome us!!””
I think it should at least be noted somewheres that near as I can tell, the Kurtz piece was the only MSM coverage of this aside from Fox News, who ultimately landed the interview. Ann Althouse was late to the story, but better late than never I guess.
Ann’s post generated 230+ comments btw, and Cap’n Ed scored 125+, so, without calling them out, it looks like a lot of bloggers and alt media just flat out dropped the ball.
It was a hugely missed opportunity to highlight some viscerally racist reaction on the left, not just the partisan biases of NPR’s news judgment.
I’m not not naming names out of some sort of nicety by the way, it’s the end of the month and I’m slammed is all. I think a look at who didn’t think this story worthy of comment and discussion would be interesting and valuable. The question I posed at #7 still seems valid to me:
For NPR’s part, by the way, they spent this morning excoriating Republicans for avoiding a discussion on… race.
http://www.npr*.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14793330
“I would think a “Public†radio network would want to have an exclusive interview with the President. Hmmm. Maybe they would – just not the President of the United States”
Sorry I’m late to the party, guys, but I noticed that no one here (Moops included) took the opportunity to point out that NPR has been requesting an interview (with one of their anchors) from the White House for seven years now with no luck. Now if the White House has consistently refused to provide NPR with the same opportunity it has provided to just about every other major broadcast outlet, and insists on picking a specific reporter for an interview, it would appear to me that the White House is the party declaring Juan Williams to be “safe” and it is that fact that has led to his description as a shill by most everyone else who piled on.
Given that this White House has made quite a reputation for itself as far as narrative control goes, stacking panels and filtering audiences while continuing to claim in bad faith that the president does not attempt to suppress disagreement, it is not unreasonable for NPR to believe that this selection of a specific interviewer is one more page from that same book. As such, they requested the latitude to choose how they, as an organization, are represented in the interview. The White House’s response was that they had no interest in allowing NPR, as an organization, to interview the president, a position consistent with their previous behavior.
Therefore, it seems to me that the only reason the White House asked NPR to broadcast the interview, instead of just asking Fox to broadcast it from the outset, was that they wanted to use NPR to accomplish their goal of good publicity for the president. NPR apparently decided that the trade-off wasn’t good enough to justify the use of their particular outlet by someone who has no shortage of broadcast outlets at his disposal.
What’s wrong with that? Williams would be right to question what NPR thinks of him, but he would do well to question equally vigorously why the White House regards him as safe, or at least safe for NPR, and I don’t mean to engage in an intentional fallacy here, but that much seems pretty clear.
You are saying that Juan is “safe”, which implies that the interviewer NPR would want to have on the piece is not safe. The White House approached NPR in good faith with a proposed interview that would minimize NPR’s ability to use the interview to press its own partisan agenda. NPR tellingly balked.
The story points that out, and I linked to the story.
And it’s immaterial. Like I said, they have every right to insist that they get to choose the interviewer and forum and topics. But Bush is under no obligation to enter into a situation he knows will be hostile (and let’s not pretend NPR would be aiming for some kind of dispassionate tone). Personally, I would like it better if he had given them an interview — but to my way of thinking, he treated them much like the NAACP: why grant them access after taking such shit from them?
None of which is the point. Here, they were finally offered a chance at access — using one of their own reporters (who, it happens, was particularly suited for the topic) — and they declined.
Their loss. And a slight against Williams.
Also GF, haven’t you noticed how absurdly frequently NPR stories include a note that “x did not return a phone call when we tried to contact him for this report”?
This is because people don’t trust them.
I think Bush has the right to decline any interview, but not to take umbrage when he’s subsequently tarred as a coward for doing so. It’s just an interview with NPR, it’s not like they were asking to conduct it in an open square in Baghdad over a pit of snakes. Call me crazy, but I would think that someone who claims to be qualified to lead the country ought to be able to handle a follow-up question. It’s not like the world didn’t know what will happen when Juan Williams interviewed Bush, he’d already done it once. His kid gloves were stapled on and stuffed with cotton. Perhaps NPR’s news director felt that Williams, for all his strengths as a reporter, was incapable of getting more than the usual boilerplate out of Bush, given the last interview he conducted. If you think that White House talking points are still news, then I guess NPR missed an opportunity to break some news. I can’t say as I agree.
This thing is being spun to obscure the fact that Bush doesn’t handle real questioning well. He gets flustered easily, he makes mistakes, he throws up armies of strawmen, and he just generally doesn’t comport himself like a leader. The White House press wing has learned to keep him in controlled situations, and they get all spiky when that gets pointed out, as it did in this situation, and they lash out with their usual blunt instrument, feigned indignation.
Can’t blame them, it apparently still works.
Gabriel is acting under the assumption that NPR is some kind of honest and unbiased news organization, from which POV his assertions make a kind of sense.
Problem is, as has been demonstrated by NPR for many years, the assumption is simply false.
NPR’s staff has, when given the opportunity, demonstrated that it is openly hostile to the administration and the principles by which it guides itself.
The Admin. wants to try, however, to reach NPR’s rather (IME) insular audience. This is tricky, but there is someone at NPR who, while not on the same page, at least hasn’t been a rude, boorish, actively-hostile, conspiracy-mongering cretin.
So they request him. Duh. NPR says “No, WE control the conversation!” The Admin says “No thanks, we’ve seen what happens when you control the conversation.” Your tax dollars at work. It seems that biting the hand that feeds you is in fact the religion of the new millenium.
Anyway, the press corps in general (and places like CNN and NPR in particular) have been hostile to this administration pretty much from the beginning. It’s sad that the administration has taken a defensive posture, but as calmly explaining the facts does no good at all, they evidently decided that lashing out at the spoiled brats was the greater of two evils.
Sorry for the stream-of-consciousness style, hurrying. :)
Okay Merovign, this (as seems to be a trend with you and me) isn’t going to go anywhere. You’re predicating your argument on the assertions that NPR is actively and predictably unethical and unreliable, and that the Bush administration hasn’t been disdainful of, hostile to, and crassly manipulative of the press since the day they took office, and also, it seems, that the Bush administration isn’t pathologically secretive.
These are the people, if you’ll recall, who declared that they had no knowledge of the AG’s impending resignation two days after they knew he was resigning. If established protocol is that it’s okay to lie to the press if they ask a question that you aren’t ready to answer, then yes, open hostility from said press is not only to be expected, but to be demanded by those who expect the press to do their job. Over here in my world, at least.
So I don’t think you and I disagree because we’re interpreting the same set of circumstances/facts in different manners, I think you and I disagree because you and I are in parallel but distinctly different universes. You might as well be arguing that the streets are paved with licorice. The poor widdle Bush administration is the innocent victim of the Big Bad Media? In the interest of politesse, I’ll characterize that as ever-so-slightly disingenuous. I won’t say that mine is the real world and yours is fake, because I don’t have sufficient perspective to perform that sort of metaphysical truth-squadding, but I will say that you and I are on different and only slightly overlapping planes.
Juan Williams created a historical document. NPR? NPR decided they’d hang at their lunch table with Amy Goodman and Daniel Schorr and Barbara Boxer and pals and say whatevah, negro.
Gabriel;
1) Yeah, the Admin has been so manipulative of the press that they can hardly get a word in edgewise past the constant and unremitting hostile, dishonest and manipulative carping from the press corps. Like you said, we live in different universes. In mine, there are literally thousands of examples of this manipulation, and I’m sure you’ve seen, or at least had the opportunity to see, hundreds of them at this site alone.
In yours, no doubt, the constant harping on the administration and the gentle caressing of its opponents, both foreign and domestic, is just what “balance” looks like.
2) To re-iterate – the press corps is openly hostile to THIS administration, but not to the Dem leadership, Ahmadinejad, Arafat (thankfully now dead), Hugo Chavez, or any other “powerful interests” whose closets are at least if not much more packed with skeletons than the current President.
If that isn’t perfectly damned clear, then you are in fact living in a different universe. Hope the weather’s nice there.
The funny thing is, I’m not even a Republican, I’ve just been driven into the Republican camp by the progressive insanity of the left for the last several years. It was funny at first, but now it’s just pathetic. I’m one of those people who used to say “there’s naught but a dime’s worth of difference between the two parties,” but the Dems lost their dime.
Oh, and if you’re going to call me disingenuous, you’d better prove I’m a liar or shut up, because I’m sick of the false accusations from your pathetic ideological cousins. I’d like to hear your take on the O’Reilly and Limbaugh kerfluffles of the last few days. I really would. It would help put things in focus.
I’ve never claimed the admin or Bush is perfect, or even close, I’m just responding to the constant whining bullshit from your side of the “aisle.” We’re never going to have an honest reconciliation or even cooperation across the divide while we have a press corps that is so pathetically dishonest and stupid.