A guest post by Frances Cerra Whittelsey, Extra! contributor and journalism scholar:
Whether or not Juan Williams is truly a liberal or just playing the role to give Fox an appearance of balance begs the question of whether his comment about fearing Muslims on airplanes justified his firing by NPR. Williams is waving the free speech flag to defend his “honest statement of feeling,” as he put it in a statement published online by Fox. He insists he has not shown himself to be a bigot by admitting that fear grips him when he sees Muslims in Muslim garb getting on an airplane with him.
As I teach in my media ethics class at Hofstra University, telling the truth is the highest value journalists can hold. But that virtue applies to reporting the truth about what we find out as reporters, having the courage to report the reality we perceive regardless of who might be offended or what it might cost us. But our opinions? Journalists are under no ethical obligation to tell their opinions at all, and news organizations like NPR actually require journalists to keep their opinions to themselves. NPR‘s ethics code states, “In appearing on TV or other media including electronic Web-based forums, NPR journalists should not express views they would not air in their role as an NPR journalist.” And that means, says the code, separating “our personal opinions—such as an individual’s religious beliefs or political ideology—from the subjects we are covering.”
Juan Williams
In fact, a journalist’s value to the public is in acting as the stand-in for people too busy with their other jobs and obligations to cover the news. It is a privilege that comes with an obligation to always be conscious of our special role, but Williams seems to have forgotten this. There was nothing reportorial about his statement about his fear. He apparently felt the need to voice his own fears in order to show Bill O’Reilly that he shared his gut mistrust of Muslims. Fine. But he cannot then defend his statement as journalistic truth-telling.
In addition, deciding if any behavior is ethical doesn’t stop with an expression of one’s values, noble or not. To understand an ethical dilemma, journalists need to sort out their loyalties, to ask how they arose and then to rank them in importance. Journalists also have ethical duties and one duty is to avoid conflicts of interest that cause the public to question our fairness. The Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics puts it plainly, urging journalists to “remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.”
NPR had already tried to distance itself from Williams before this incident by removing him as a staff employee. Williams accepted this arrangement, and now puts the onus on NPR for continuing to employ him at all. Williams himself might have considered his duty to NPR, as well as his loyalty to a long-term employer—before continuing his enthusiastic employment with Fox. He could have made a choice long ago between the two organizations, but did not. Where was his concern about his own integrity and his duty to the public?
Finally, Williams needs to take a hard look at his comment about his fear of Muslims. If you feel fear every time you see someone getting on a plane in Muslim garb, then you have an irrational prejudice. Your worry about Muslim terrorists has extended to all Muslims in the same way that Americans during World War II distrusted all Japanese. Furthermore, it is irrational to believe that a Muslim terrorist would board an airplane looking Muslim at all.
Williams is prejudiced against Muslims, and just can’t see it. It doesn’t matter that he went on to say that he’s against any statements that would incite violence against Muslims. He’s prejudiced and his comment offended Muslims.
And yes, in this country, he does have the right to express that prejudice. But he doesn’t have the right to turn around and accuse NPR of restricting his speech. His boss could have handled the firing better, but NPR had every right to fire him for having a conflict of interest and for ignoring his duties and loyalties to NPR and the public.
Is anybody in the media questioning the use of the term “Muslim garb”? What is Muslim garb? Or do they mean “Arab garb” – long, flowing white gowns, checkered read and white headwear? Does a Muslim from Indonesia wear the same garb as a native British Muslim? Do Afghani muslims dress like Nigerian Muslims.
This seems to indicate the stereotyping in the use of the word.
Where is the objectivity of this article or site? Everything I have seen and read somehow veers to the left.
Michael makes an excellent point here – how would you describe “Christian” or “Jewish” or “Hindu garb”?
Frances is of course right that a terrorist wouldn’t draw attention to himself by wearing anything that would raise suspicion, but I think she inadvertently buys into the stereotyping by using Williams’ phrase. It’s an object lesson in how deep the inculcation of such attitudes runs in our society, and how we have to keep alert for their presence in our own, isn’t it?
On the issue of separating a journalist’s values from her work, that’s a complicated matter, don’t you think?
How does advocacy journalism fit into that paradigm?
What’s an empirical belief and what’s an opinion?
How do you keep your values out of your work? Should you?
As I see it, a journalist goes where the facts lead, and lays them out for her audience. Those facts may conflict with her views, but she’s obligated to present them.
But I think she can still express those views, making it clear that they won’t interfere with her duty to present the truth to the best of her ability.
Still, as I said, it’s not a simple subject, at least to me, and I’d like to hear what other folks think, including Frances, Jim, Julie, Steve, Janine, Peter et al.
Frances explains my views very well. I agree wholeheartedly that Juan while representing NPR should not have described his fears so descriptively. Perhaps planes that he has been on have had Muslim pilots. Perhaps he has been served food by Muslim waiters, and perhaps food prepared by Muslims; Indonesian Muslims garb is not reflective of Muslims from other countries. South Indian Muslims do not look like some Arab Muslims, nor like Lebanese Muslims. Juan was speaking from a stereotypical impression . His comment, in fact, stereotyped American reporters for a vast number of Muslim viewers around the world. On top of that he embarrassed African American Muslims, though he seemed to have received support from non Muslim conservatives of all colors.
My earlier response to a CNN comment was that Juan now has to cancel any vacations he planned where he might run into Muslims ( who look like common folk Afghanis, Baluchis, Pathans and others –I guess Afghani President Karzai wouldn’t scare him). He cannot visit Marrakesh, Casablanca, Cairo, portions of London, Mumbai, Delhi and other such places for fear of having an apoplectic fit. There is a time and place when stupidity may be forgiven. What else is he afraid of? Still another reason why I never watch FOX.
NPR and PBS brands demand more sophisticated and thoughtful analysis than the very superficial “infotainment” silliness that passes for new on a commercial network like Fox. Juan Williams is no more a good fit for public broadcasting than Noam Chomsky would be for FOX. They wouldn’t “like” Chomsky and would never be willing to give him the necessary block of time to properly do his thing which is in-depth analysis. They only want the shouting 30 seconds of vituperation from their hosts and guests. That’s all this is about. NPR and PBS are entitled to protect their brands.
I second what David Hart just said….Why can’t the rest of the world be as smart as we are? Hey crusty folks…that was a moment of much need comic relief….We’re in deep doo doo….let’s all start to think what it is that we REALLY need….It’s certainly NOT the war between 2 Parties who don’t even deserve to exist anymore… Common Sense and Natural Law is what we need…start to use your brains folks…vote your Own Morals…not your Holy Anthropology Books or your Fears…..
In the context of two thousand years of history I suspect more people have been killed by Christians than by Muslims or the believers of any other mythology. Hopefully us non-believers will not have to wait another two thousand years for all superstitions to die out. All this killing in the name of an invisible “being” — what irony.
@tbvance
Reality showing its strong liberal bias again :(
Aside from the term “Muslim garb” or the use of the term “garb” to describe the *clothing* that modern people wear, Juan Williams comment has not been analyzed as much for the more significant and sinister equation that “Person wearing Muslim garb”=”person who identifies first and foremost as a Muslim”=a person who is possibly not identifying first and foremost as an American=this is a cause for concern=terrorism. Of course he went on to say there are “good Muslims”… in this equation the only “good Muslims” would be the (perceived) “Muslims” who do NOT wear “Muslim garb”, who do NOT identify (“first and foremost”?) as Muslims. So in other words, if you want to be a “good Muslim” then you will not wear “Muslim garb” and you will not “identify as a Muslim”. There are so many layers of assumptions and bigotry in this equation it is not even funny.
To my knowledge, not one person who has been implicated on an act of terrorism on US soil to date has done so while wearing “Muslim garb” either.
I appreciate this commentary even if it makes me uncomfortable. If the conditions NPR places on its staff are as the article above suggests, and I have no reason to believe otherwise, Williams did violate the agreement. Whether it was sufficient cause for firing is a separate question and one in which none of us outside NPR have enough evidence upon which to base an opnion worth hearing.
As for the discomfort, I think the observation that Williams is a bigot but doesn’t realize it hits close to home. In all honesty, I think that if most of us were being honest with ourselves and foregoing the need to bluster in self-righteous terms, many of us would recognize in ourselves that unbidden response that Williams was either honest – or thoughtless – enough to admit to on Fox.
I have found that those feelings have gradually disappeared over time as I have known, taught and worked with Muslims in varying garb. But prejudice is often not a rational, considered animal. Having been raised in a segregated South, I agree with a black classmate from seminary who suggested that we breathe racism in America. It’s an ongoing struggle to be aware of those unbidden feelings and return them to the fearful psychic sewer from which they emerged with as little repressive fear as possible.
I am sorry to see Juan Williams go this way from NPR much the same way I regretted Helen Thomas leaving reporting after blurting out a stupid comment that besmirched an otherwise respectable career. And yet, as Sister Helen Prejean of Dead Man Walking would say, surely none of us would like our entire life to be reduced to the worst thing we ever did.
I fully agree with Frances Whittelsey’s approval of NPR firing Juan Williams for valid journalistic reasons. So does the comment of Harry Coverston. But he makes the same gratuitous error as too many others about Helen Thomas’ comment that resulted in her leaving the Washington Press Corps top position. Her comment about complaining Israelis going back where they came from was not stupid. It honored her most respectable career. In no way did her telling the truth besmirch her. Coverston’s mistaken comment wrongly demeans an honorable journalist who told the tough truth.
George Beres in Eugene, Oregon
tbvance, you’re not getting it, are you? That truth has a notorious liberal bias, that is. Try Fox for it’s polar opposite. And Miss Butters, what the hell are you talkin’ about?
Being prejudiced doesn’t automatically make one a bigot. A bigot is a person who acts upon their prejudice.
Reading the NPR guidelines it was obvious Williams violated their code and should have been fired. (He had been warned several times before.) Sure the way it was done was bad but who hasn’t been given the shaft by their employer these days?
As for the reference to “Muslim garb” is a puzzler. There is no uniform so it suggests to me he was thinking of the kinds of clothing worn in the Middle East by Arabs or Sihks or maybe Indonesians. One’s prejudices don’t have to be correct in their ever all mistakes. It is really a knee-jerk simplistic “gut” response with little or no thought behind it. Where the generated fears of the amygdala are allowed to grow without the benefit of the sobering mitigation of the cerebrocortex. Just what the fear mongers and worshipers of the state and church controlled by a muscular Rambo-free trader God.
Having a “gut mistrust of all Muslims” is quite a different thing than being irrationally afraid during certain rare circumstances. Misrepresenting Williams’ feeling in that way certainly is not fair.
Also, while he was telling the “truth” about his feelings and not a “truth” about the outside world, you must distinguish between “giving your opinion” and “expressing your feeling.” He did not express his opinion that people should be afraid of Muslims ALL the time or even in the special circumstance he mentioned, if he did so that would overstep his role as an analyst. He did, in fact, state a fact in the interview (that, of course, potential terrorists wouldn’t dress thus), but it seems it is easier to ignore that.
And finally, if “a journalist’s value to the public is in acting as the stand-in for people” then he certainly did a good job; many people feel the same way he does. It seems as if the anger directed towards Williams is displaced embarrassment that he said that which should not be spoken by liberals, who are supposed to be tolerant and understanding and rational at all moments. The opposite, to admit your real feelings be they PC or not, ones that are kept deep inside, is not a characteristic of conservatives, it’s a characteristic of honest people.
“Furthermore, it is irrational to believe that a Muslim terrorist would board an airplane looking Muslim at all.”
Was it a heartfelt feeling? Or was it a sly attempt to curry favor with a prospective employer, one who undoubtedly will pay him more? Or was it an attempt to use the cover of liberalism to whip up anti-Muslim sentiment? As for his free speech rights, the First Amendment says “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” There is nothing in the Constitution that gives Juan Williams the right to a job at NPR. If he is being discriminated against, he has legal remedies that he can pursue. In my opinion, freedom of the press includes the right of press organizations to hire whom they choose, as long as they use valid criteria such as objectivity of reporting. It seems to me that both Fox and NPR have exercised their First Amendment rights properly in this case, much to the benefit of one Juan Williams. I hope I have been “tolerant, and rational, and understanding” enough!
Every employer limits or censors speech every day. It’s an arrangement we accept in exchange for a paycheck. Regardless of his honest opinions, Williams should have known better as a journalist. More on this topic on my own blog: http://www.whirledbulletin.blogspot.com/
jeff B
Great piece. Thank you Ms Whittlsey,
However, I feel that NPR implicitly daily violates its own ethics code by favoring guests and news sources that benefit the economic and political elite of the US or its allies. I recall hearing maybe one skeptical voice since 9/11 critical of the two current US occupations at root. Discussions are usually confined to military or strategic tactics. The “mission” is never questioned.
Finally , NPR while always touting its “independence” furtherviolates its mission statement by promoting the ad industry instead of taking a critical look at it. I could cite many examples but space does not allow
But one thinks of NPR as somewhat open and relatively free of
prejudice (whether or not this assumption is supported by the facts), Therefore, was an apology by Juan Williams never a viable possibility? Why are all sides so unyielding? Perhaps not exactly an apology but some kind of statement, which in
itself might have been thought provoking and worthwhile. At least give the man a chance, or was it given? The impression is that the sword did not hesitate before it struck Juan.
It is apparent that Juan was discussing opinion on Fox News. I’m not sure his role for NPR was one of a pure reporter, however, so I’m not sure the same code applies. He was a news analyst, and as such often discussed his opinion about the news as it was reported. Also, he wasn’t trying to hide his opinions as fact to mislead viewers / listeners, as far as I’m aware.
With regard to his comment, I know that Juan is aware of his prejudice. He understands that keeping these fears of others secret only makes them grow. He wasn’t being critical of Muslims, he was being critical of himself. His point was to open up discussion about the crux of the problem…fear. If you listen to the interview, he was not taking the side of those voicing anti-Muslim sentiments. He was arguing with them, while at the same time trying to understand the opposing point of view rather than create a polarized situation.
I think NPR made the wrong decision. I am an NPR member, and I respect the organization, but I disagree with this decision.
Many of them agree with you, I do not. Though NPR isn’t really Liberal. It is more of a neutral corporate supporter with just occasional Liberal commentators. No the same as having on Liberal reporters who would step on toes including their corporate sponsors to report the truth.
Many years ago, I lived next to an elderly couple who grew up in the deep south during the height of Jim Crow. The wife once told me she hated getting on public transportation whenever black people were on it because they scared her. She said she wasn’t being prejudice because that was how she felt. To me, she was a racist/bigot. I see no difference between her and Juan Williams. I’d like to hear his thoughts about a white person going on TV and saying the same thing my elderly neighbor said. I’m sure there are many people who belong to, or sympathize with, white supremest groups who would be more than happy to share their opinions about the way the feel in the presence of blacks. I suspect many are members of the Tea Party.
Prejudice is an irrational element that possibly haunts us all. Bigotry is entrenched prejudiced which can pop out at any time. I don’t know whether Juan Williams had ulterior motives, but he joins a long list of people who’ve had similar problems. Howard Cosell comes to mind, although I don’t remember him being fired. Jimmy “the Greek” and Rush Limbaugh were.
Dennis did you forget the president?”My grandmother was a typical white person…afraid of blacks”(remember that Gem)?.You can soon add him to your list of those who were fired.
You have freedom of speech to jump all over Mr. Williams, but he doesn’t have it to say what his opinion is? Does that really make sense to anyone? Oh I get it, we only have freedom of speech if it doesn’t hurt anyone’s feelings (unless they don’t agree with the masses) or if they agree with us. How cool is that. What a crock. Freedom of speech is just that, FREEDOM. Shut up and get over it. The man voiced his opinion. You don’t or do agree with it, voice yours and then agree that you agree or disagree with him and shut up. Try not to run it totally into the ground.