Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

That's nice, but the guy has been fired already. Try to keep up.

that doesn't answer my questions.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Penske 2.0

that doesn't answer my questions.

No, but it does explain why they're pointless.

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

No, but it does explain why they're pointless.

Depends on what Juan does. I hope you he goes for the throat. Just to run some attys fees for them.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

No, but it does explain why they're pointless.

Why are they pointless?* I think an EEOC claim is still viable for quite some time. I don't know necessarily if it'd prevail, but certainly he could make a race or age discrimination claim. (Bob Edwards, in my opinion, had a better case for the latter, but that's another story.) My organization certainly would have waited a day or two to review the issue before making any quick decisions to terminate the contract.

I know that NPR listeners have been annoyed with Williams for years now, and the corporation was probably very eager to get him the hell out of there. But it did seem very quick. OTOH, this is the same organization that first forbade its news staff from attending Jon Stewart's rally as attendees on the basis that it may be perceived as political and therefore the news staff would be showing bias. And after his statements on Fox, I don't think I'd ever want to hear his analysis on anything about Muslims again. Given the world we live in and the role he had at NPR as a news analyst, there is a high likelihood that his job would require him to analyze issues revolving around Muslims. His analysis would be suspect going forward. I think his termination was probably appropriate, but it probably was a little faster than I would have advised had anyone bothered to ask me.

*Disclosure, according to my bank statement, my last contribution to an NPR affiliate was six days ago, and after Planned Parenthood, it is the non-profit that gets the most frequent charitable contributions from me. I rely on NPR for most of my news.

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

Why are they pointless?* I think an EEOC claim is still viable for quite some time. I don't know necessarily if it'd prevail, but certainly he could make a race or age discrimination claim. (Bob Edwards, in my opinion, had a better case for the latter, but that's another story.) My organization certainly would have waited a day or two to review the issue before making any quick decisions to terminate the contract.

I know that NPR listeners have been annoyed with Williams for years now, and the corporation was probably very eager to get him the hell out of there. But it did seem very quick. OTOH, this is the same organization that first forbade its news staff from attending Jon Stewart's rally as attendees on the basis that it may be perceived as political and therefore the news staff would be showing bias. And after his statements on Fox, I don't think I'd ever want to hear his analysis on anything about Muslims again. Given the world we live in and the role he had at NPR as a news analyst, there is a high likelihood that his job would require him to analyze issues revolving around Muslims. His analysis would be suspect going forward. I think his termination was probably appropriate, but it probably was a little faster than I would have advised had anyone bothered to ask me.

Without commenting on the substantive reasons why he should/should not have been terminated, the employment law decision making analysis is spot on.

Translation: I have either run a business or working in an environment where I had some input in to the analysis of firing decisions. Unlike Ty.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Penske 2.0

Without commenting on the substantive reasons why he should/should not have been terminated, the employment law decision making analysis is spot on.

Translation: I have either run a business or working in an environment where I had some input in to the analysis of firing decisions. Unlike Ty.

Is your criticism that they didn't do a good job of firing him?

Or they that he should not have been fired.

If 1, 2.

If 2, who gives a shit? He's $2 million better off, and both NPR and Fox are improved.

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Is your criticism that they didn't do a good job of firing him?

Or they that he should not have been fired.

If 1, 2.

If 2, who gives a shit? He's $2 million better off, and both NPR and Fox are improved.

1 not 2. I don't listen/watch either of NPR or Fox with any regularity that I care. If CNN had fired him I might have been critical, as (i) I watch CNN and (b) to the limited extent I have seen Juan Williams in the last 20 years (i used to read him regularly back in the 80s/early 90s) I think his PoV is interesting.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Penske 2.0

Without commenting on the substantive reasons why he should/should not have been terminated, the employment law decision making analysis is spot on.

"They were looking for a reason to get rid of me because I appear on Fox News," Williams says.

How does this affect his discrimination claim?

eta: Williams also has this to say:

"They have used an honest statement of feeling as the basis for a charge of bigotry to create a basis for firing me. Well, now that I no longer work for NPR let me give you my opinion. This is an outrageous violation of journalistic standards and ethics by management that has no use for a diversity of opinion, ideas or a diversity of staff (I was the only black male on the air). This is evidence of one-party rule and one sided thinking at NPR that leads to enforced ideology, speech and writing. It leads to people, especially journalists, being sent to the gulag for raising the wrong questions and displaying independence of thought."

With his need to see himself as a victim (the gulag!), he'll fit right in with the conservatives at Fox.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

"They were looking for a reason to get rid of me because I appear on Fox News," Williams says.

How does this affect his discrimination claim?

eta: Williams also has this to say:



With his need to see himself as a victim (the gulag!), he'll fit right in with the conservatives at Fox.

Probably never occurred to him that he was as total shit replacement for Ray Saurez.

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

"They were looking for a reason to get rid of me because I appear on Fox News," Williams says.

How does this affect his discrimination claim?
.

If he was so disposed, I think the following is the more telling statement:

by management that has no use for a diversity of opinion, ideas or a diversity of staff (I was the only black male on the air).

If you think the first statement you cited would have any mitigating affect on the use of this second statement, you are again evidencing that you have not practiced before the EEOC.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

Why are they pointless?*

Because he has already been fired, so it's really besides the point now to talk about all of the things NPR could have considered before it acted.

I think an EEOC claim is still viable for quite some time. I don't know necessarily if it'd prevail, but certainly he could make a race or age discrimination claim. (Bob Edwards, in my opinion, had a better case for the latter, but that's another story.)

Ex ante, sure, but since they've fired him now it's far more instructive to talk about the actual facts ex post. I'm not aware of a shred of evidence that he was fired for his age or race.

I actually understand that people who are fired for good reasons can bring baseless claims against their former employers to extract a little money on their way out the door. That's ordinarily the sort of thing that Penske would complain about. In the way that he abandons those principles to take Williams' side against NPR, you can tell that Penske is truly a conservative at heart.

My organization certainly would have waited a day or two to review the issue before making any quick decisions to terminate the contract.

From the story I saw, it's clear that NPR's management has had issues with Williams' appearances elsewhere for a while, and believe that he has been doing things inconsistent with its standards. For that reason, I think it's silly to think that they overreacted quickly to this one incident. I think they've been considering their position for a while.

I know that NPR listeners have been annoyed with Williams for years now, and the corporation was probably very eager to get him the hell out of there.

I wasn't aware that listeners felt that way. I just thought he was insipid. But so is Cokie Roberts, so what can you do?

OTOH, this is the same organization that first forbade its news staff from attending Jon Stewart's rally as attendees on the basis that it may be perceived as political and therefore the news staff would be showing bias. And after his statements on Fox, I don't think I'd ever want to hear his analysis on anything about Muslims again. Given the world we live in and the role he had at NPR as a news analyst, there is a high likelihood that his job would require him to analyze issues revolving around Muslims. His analysis would be suspect going forward. I think his termination was probably appropriate, but it probably was a little faster than I would have advised had anyone bothered to ask me.

*Disclosure, according to my bank statement, my last contribution to an NPR affiliate was six days ago, and after Planned Parenthood, it is the non-profit that gets the most frequent charitable contributions from me. I rely on NPR for most of my news.

I think NPR saw a fundamental tension between the sorts of commentary he gave at Fox and the role they expected him to play at NPR. It wasn't long ago that they asked him to stop identifying himself with his NPR affiliation when he appeared at Fox. At the time I thought that was silly -- it was accurate, and if they didn't like it I thought they should be focus on what he said on their airwaves.

And now they have.

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Because he has already been fired, so it's really besides the point now to talk about all of the things NPR could have considered before it acted.



Ex ante, sure, but since they've fired him now it's far more instructive to talk about the actual facts ex post. I'm not aware of a shred of evidence that he was fired for his age or race.

I actually understand that people who are fired for good reasons can bring baseless claims against their former employers to extract a little money on their way out the door. That's ordinarily the sort of thing that Penske would complain about. In the way that he abandons those principles to take Williams' side against NPR, you can tell that Penske is truly a conservative at heart.



From the story I saw, it's clear that NPR's management has had issues with Williams' appearances elsewhere for a while, and believe that he has been doing things inconsistent with its standards. For that reason, I think it's silly to think that they overreacted quickly to this one incident. I think they've been considering their position for a while.



I wasn't aware that listeners felt that way. I just thought he was insipid. But so is Cokie Roberts, so what can you do?



I think NPR saw a fundamental tension between the sorts of commentary he gave at Fox and the role they expected him to play at NPR. It wasn't long ago that they asked him to stop identifying himself with his NPR affiliation when he appeared at Fox. At the time I thought that was silly -- it was accurate, and if they didn't like it I thought they should be focus on what he said on their airwaves.

And now they have.

Translation: I still don't get it.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Because he has already been fired, so it's really besides the point now to talk about all of the things NPR could have considered before it acted.

smh

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

Why are they pointless?* I think an EEOC claim is still viable for quite some time. I don't know necessarily if it'd prevail, but certainly he could make a race or age discrimination claim. (Bob Edwards, in my opinion, had a better case for the latter, but that's another story.) My organization certainly would have waited a day or two to review the issue before making any quick decisions to terminate the contract.

I know that NPR listeners have been annoyed with Williams for years now, and the corporation was probably very eager to get him the hell out of there. But it did seem very quick. OTOH, this is the same organization that first forbade its news staff from attending Jon Stewart's rally as attendees on the basis that it may be perceived as political and therefore the news staff would be showing bias. And after his statements on Fox, I don't think I'd ever want to hear his analysis on anything about Muslims again. Given the world we live in and the role he had at NPR as a news analyst, there is a high likelihood that his job would require him to analyze issues revolving around Muslims. His analysis would be suspect going forward. I think his termination was probably appropriate, but it probably was a little faster than I would have advised had anyone bothered to ask me.

*Disclosure, according to my bank statement, my last contribution to an NPR affiliate was six days ago, and after Planned Parenthood, it is the non-profit that gets the most frequent charitable contributions from me. I rely on NPR for most of my news.

I think it was stupid, and will now place NPR, something I listen to everyday, in the crosshairs of the right wing smear machine. NPR has been a little left over the years, but in an interesting, good way, and now they're going to be embroiled in a stupid controversy that's going to cause the station to edit out any hint of opinion. They'll become CNN. Start doing dumb pieces on Toby Keith to show their "fair and balanced" bona fides.

Oh, and the guy didn't deserve to be fired. It was a horrible overreaction to an absolutely harmless admission by a talking head trying to be as open as possible with his audience. Good for him that Fox turned around and handed him a $2mil contract.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

They'll become CNN. Start doing dumb pieces on Toby Keith to show their "fair and balanced" bona fides.

Let's not get carried away.

Oh, and the guy didn't deserve to be fired.

Not for that statement, no. For overall suckiness, yes.