l****z
发帖数: 29846 | 1 Hanson轰左派媒体NPR：如果中右的国民补贴一个离开补贴就无法生存的中左的媒体，
那么这个中左媒体至少应该避免发生在Williams身上的审查和谩骂
http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/fire-juan-williams-now%E2%80%94or-our-sneering-liberal-culture-in-a-nutshell/
The Juan Williams Firing — Or a Primer on Elite Liberal Thinking
There were lots of slants on NPR’s firing of news analyst Juan Williams
that reflect how surreal cultural liberalism has become. Let us walk through
ten of them.
1 ) NPR is in some part either publicly funded or relies on a public brand
to earn cash. Its charter is to promote the free exchange of ideas. That did
not happen. Mr. Williams simply reflected the common experience of many
Americans after 9/11 to tense up when someone in Islamic dress or otherwise
identifiable as a Muslim boards an airplane — and then quickly explained
why such an emotional reaction should not lead to prejudicial stereotyping.
For that opinion on another network he was fired. Note that for NPR to prove
that it is even-handed in censuring controversial speech it would long ago
have had to fire reporter Nina Totenberg for a long history of venomous
partisan slurs (e.g., hoping Sen. Jesse Helms and his grandkids might
contract AIDS). I think we can glimpse the operative NPR ideology: the
exalted ends justify the tawdry means. Williams, you see, unlike Totenberg,
is perceived as not working for liberal social justice and therefore
allowances can be made to get rid of him.
2 ) Note how the NPR CEO Vivian Schiller herself slanders Williams by
suggesting that he talk with “his psychiatrist”— and a subsequent brief
apology cleans up her mess. So digest this: the person who fired Williams
for supposedly inflammatory speech explains the firing by far worse
inflammatory ad hominem invective, made worse by McCarthyite allusions to
vague and unsubstantiated charges that Williams has a prior record of
incendiary speech. So Williams wakes up in the morning a respected
journalist and goes to sleep a few hours later with the burden of proving
that he is not a bigot, and not unhinged and not under medical care in the
eyes of his employer, and not guilty of a litany of additional but
unspecified crimes. All this comes from soft-spoken contemplative NPR, which
prides itself in being the antithesis of intolerant shock-jock right-wing
talk radio. Hypocrisy is again a force multiplier to ideological prejudice.
3 ) Supposedly intolerant hard-driving Fox News has no problem with liberal
Williams working for NPR; supposedly soft-spoken, inclusive NPR has a lot of
problems with Williams working for Fox. The asymmetry is quite astounding,
especially when we factor in the public/private angle. A private, for profit
company does not mind that Williams works for the public’s station whose
views are considered liberal; but the liberal public station most certainly
does care that Williams works for private conservative Fox news. Isn’t the
network that takes public money supposed to be the more tolerant? Is this a
reflection of audience taste and assumptions: Fox knows its viewers don’t
care whether liberal Williams works at a liberal network; NPR fears mightily
that its intolerant audience can’t stand anyone who is associated with Fox
? Yet, again, conservative citizens own or run Fox; we the people own NPR.
4 ) Note how CAIR, the Islamic advocacy group, pressures NPR on Williams’s
remarks, but gives a lifetime career achievement award to the anti-Semite
Helen Thomas, who calls for the destruction of Israel by having the Jews “
get the hell out of Palestine” and return to “Poland” and “Germany” (
gee, I wonder what happened to Jews in those two places once upon a time).
Wanting Jews gone from their homeland earns CAIR praise; discussing both
fears and prejudices after 9/11 is hate speech. Why would anyone give this
extremist organization any credence? Speaking of which…
5 ) Note the silence of the NAACP, which is usually the first to speak out
when some African-Americans are deemed railroaded. By its present vote here,
the organization simply gives a green light to go after African-Americans
tagged not entirely liberal (or does anyone think Williams would be in
trouble with NPR had he moonlighted at MSNBC or PBS?). Juan Williams becomes
the Clarence Thomas of journalism, or proof of the notion that the NAACP
has nothing really to do with race per se, but rather is concerned only with
racial issues to the degree they touch on massive state support for racial
identity, the publicly funded industry of racial grievance, and the
rationale for public atonement and reparation — in other words, the reason
to be of the NAACP. To the degree one is for all that, one is protected; to
the degree perhaps not, one is on their own. In today’s spoils system
climate, the NAACP would excuse the racial insincerity of a hard-left white
liberal statist (cf. the crude racial remarks of a Howard Dean, Harry Reid,
or Joe Biden), and equally ignore the ill-treatment of a prominent, but
middle-of-the-road African-American done an injustice. With Williams we have
a classic case of guilt by association: it was not what Williams said that
incurred the wrath of NPR and the silence of the NAACP, but where he said it
. (Note further that the NAACP is in the pre-election process of proclaiming
that the Tea Party is racist). |
|
