Juan Williams Loses Job At NPR For Telling The Truth

[Ravi]

In what manner? NPR never argued he could not be on FOX. They just didn't want NPR's name attached to Mr. Williams. That was not violated. Further, it was a personal observation without reference to his employer in any way.

NPR is being uncovered for the giant sock puppet they are and will lose funding they claim is minimal. Since it amounts to little according to NPR, they won't mind the government pulling it.

Exactly...his personal observations as a pundit skew his credibility as a news analyst. He'd been warned before.

As for them losing their grants over it, lol...that would be government censorship that you "liberty" types are against.

I seriously doubt you have access to his employment contract or his emplyment records as to what he may or amy not have been warned about. Unless it comes from Juan, it is an actionable violation of his privacy. Spill away. A news analyst is always going to give his interpretation of the news event. That is why they are analysts and not news anchors.

How is not renewing a grant censorship? They are free to continue to speak however they choose. According to NPR, it represents only 1 to 3% of their budget. I don;t see how you are making a case here.

If you pull their grants because they fired someone, yes indeedy it is censorship.

 

[Immanuel]

In what manner? NPR never argued he could not be on FOX. They just didn't want NPR's name attached to Mr. Williams. That was not violated. Further, it was a personal observation without reference to his employer in any way.

NPR is being uncovered for the giant sock puppet they are and will lose funding they claim is minimal. Since it amounts to little according to NPR, they won't mind the government pulling it.

Exactly...his personal observations as a pundit skew his credibility as a news analyst. He'd been warned before.

As for them losing their grants over it, lol...that would be government censorship that you "liberty" types are against.

I seriously doubt you have access to his employment contract or his emplyment records as to what he may or amy not have been warned about. Unless it comes from Juan, it is an actionable violation of his privacy. Spill away. A news analyst is always going to give his interpretation of the news event. That is why they are analysts and not news anchors.

How is not renewing a grant censorship? They are free to continue to speak however they choose. According to NPR, it represents only 1 to 3% of their budget. I don;t see how you are making a case here.

Thanks, I was going to ask the same question.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

Exactly...his personal observations as a pundit skew his credibility as a news analyst. He'd been warned before.

As for them losing their grants over it, lol...that would be government censorship that you "liberty" types are against.

I seriously doubt you have access to his employment contract or his emplyment records as to what he may or amy not have been warned about. Unless it comes from Juan, it is an actionable violation of his privacy. Spill away. A news analyst is always going to give his interpretation of the news event. That is why they are analysts and not news anchors.

How is not renewing a grant censorship? They are free to continue to speak however they choose. According to NPR, it represents only 1 to 3% of their budget. I don;t see how you are making a case here.

If you pull their grants because they fired someone, yes indeedy it is censorship.

No it is not. No one is preventing them from having their say unless of course you mean they cannot continue to produce their programming without those grants and even then it is not censorship. They have no "right" to that funding. It is a gift (look up the word grant) from the government to assist in their programming.

We, the taxpayers, are under no obligation to continue said funding. Although, I highly doubt anyone in Washington would actually have the gonads to attempt to end funding of NPR.

Immie

 

[saveliberty]

Exactly...his personal observations as a pundit skew his credibility as a news analyst. He'd been warned before.

As for them losing their grants over it, lol...that would be government censorship that you "liberty" types are against.

I seriously doubt you have access to his employment contract or his emplyment records as to what he may or amy not have been warned about. Unless it comes from Juan, it is an actionable violation of his privacy. Spill away. A news analyst is always going to give his interpretation of the news event. That is why they are analysts and not news anchors.

How is not renewing a grant censorship? They are free to continue to speak however they choose. According to NPR, it represents only 1 to 3% of their budget. I don;t see how you are making a case here.

If you pull their grants because they fired someone, yes indeedy it is censorship.

Please explain. I think it is a free speech issue that NPR fails. The government has a responsibility to protect that speech. They also have a responsibility to use taxpayer dollars properly.

P.S. Grants also come with rules you must follow. I think it is very likely NPR violated them when they fired Juan.

 

[WillowTree]

Exactly...his personal observations as a pundit skew his credibility as a news analyst. He'd been warned before.

As for them losing their grants over it, lol...that would be government censorship that you "liberty" types are against.

I seriously doubt you have access to his employment contract or his emplyment records as to what he may or amy not have been warned about. Unless it comes from Juan, it is an actionable violation of his privacy. Spill away. A news analyst is always going to give his interpretation of the news event. That is why they are analysts and not news anchors.

How is not renewing a grant censorship? They are free to continue to speak however they choose. According to NPR, it represents only 1 to 3% of their budget. I don;t see how you are making a case here.

If you pull their grants because they fired someone, yes indeedy it is censorship.

So you agree they censored Juan when they fired him. Which makes it a free speech issue.

 

[saveliberty]

The paint will dry in a couple of hours Ravi. Until then, want me to throw you a magazine to your corner?

 

[Intense]

He violated his employment contract.

In what manner? NPR never argued he could not be on FOX. They just didn't want NPR's name attached to Mr. Williams. That was not violated. Further, it was a personal observation without reference to his employer in any way.

NPR is being uncovered for the giant sock puppet they are and will lose funding they claim is minimal. Since it amounts to little according to NPR, they won't mind the government pulling it.

Exactly...his personal observations as a pundit skew his credibility as a news analyst. He'd been warned before.

As for them losing their grants over it, lol...that would be government censorship that you "liberty" types are against.

Proof that Liberals eat their own when they fall out of lock step.

The pattern here is pack mentality. Anyone bring the Grey Poupon?????

Go Ravi!!!

Do you want a piece of Maura Liason too???

 

[Ravi]

LOL! Time will show me correct. Enjoy knowing that!

 

[Intense]

Exactly...his personal observations as a pundit skew his credibility as a news analyst. He'd been warned before.

As for them losing their grants over it, lol...that would be government censorship that you "liberty" types are against.

I seriously doubt you have access to his employment contract or his emplyment records as to what he may or amy not have been warned about. Unless it comes from Juan, it is an actionable violation of his privacy. Spill away. A news analyst is always going to give his interpretation of the news event. That is why they are analysts and not news anchors.

How is not renewing a grant censorship? They are free to continue to speak however they choose. According to NPR, it represents only 1 to 3% of their budget. I don;t see how you are making a case here.

If you pull their grants because they fired someone, yes indeedy it is censorship.

I say we pull the grants because they don't qualify for them. How's that.

 

[saveliberty]

LOL! Time will show me correct. Enjoy knowing that!

Not without a better argument than what has been presented so far. Gibbs damage control should be amusing. Maybe Obama can give a national speech on NPR to clear it all up.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I seriously doubt you have access to his employment contract or his emplyment records as to what he may or amy not have been warned about. Unless it comes from Juan, it is an actionable violation of his privacy. Spill away. A news analyst is always going to give his interpretation of the news event. That is why they are analysts and not news anchors.

How is not renewing a grant censorship? They are free to continue to speak however they choose. According to NPR, it represents only 1 to 3% of their budget. I don;t see how you are making a case here.

If you pull their grants because they fired someone, yes indeedy it is censorship.

Please explain. I think it is a free speech issue that NPR fails. The government has a responsibility to protect that speech. They also have a responsibility to use taxpayer dollars properly.

P.S. Grants also come with rules you must follow. I think it is very likely NPR violated them when they fired Juan.

You've seen his contract with NPR?

 

[Annie]

I seriously doubt you have access to his employment contract or his emplyment records as to what he may or amy not have been warned about. Unless it comes from Juan, it is an actionable violation of his privacy. Spill away. A news analyst is always going to give his interpretation of the news event. That is why they are analysts and not news anchors.

How is not renewing a grant censorship? They are free to continue to speak however they choose. According to NPR, it represents only 1 to 3% of their budget. I don;t see how you are making a case here.

If you pull their grants because they fired someone, yes indeedy it is censorship.

I say we pull the grants because they don't qualify for them. How's that.

The government should not be funding television, radio, or the 'arts.' Those who enjoy them should pay for them or encourage sponsors to do so.

 

[Intense]

LOL! Time will show me correct. Enjoy knowing that!

Ravi , You are always right.

You are more right than any one I know.

 

[saveliberty]

If you pull their grants because they fired someone, yes indeedy it is censorship.

Please explain. I think it is a free speech issue that NPR fails. The government has a responsibility to protect that speech. They also have a responsibility to use taxpayer dollars properly.

P.S. Grants also come with rules you must follow. I think it is very likely NPR violated them when they fired Juan.

You've seen his contract with NPR?

Thought you were clever didn't you?

I don't need to. NPR did not prevent him from appearing on Fox EVER. They only asked that NPR's name not be used. If NPR had the contract language, they would have just enforced it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

A defense would be:

1. He should get his job back.
2. He was wrongly discharged.
3. NPR needs to be punished in some fashion.
4. Who ever made the call to fire him should not be associated with NPR.

He violated his employment contract.

Does his employment contract state that he cannot practice his right to speak freely?

Is Juan Williams saying his contract was violated? He's the only one with standing to claim wrongdoing by NPR, which would only occur if they 'fired' him in violation of his contract.

 

[saveliberty]

LOL! Time will show me correct. Enjoy knowing that!

Ravi , You are always right.

You are more right than any one I know.

You need to know more people Intense.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Please explain. I think it is a free speech issue that NPR fails. The government has a responsibility to protect that speech. They also have a responsibility to use taxpayer dollars properly.

P.S. Grants also come with rules you must follow. I think it is very likely NPR violated them when they fired Juan.

You've seen his contract with NPR?

Thought you were clever didn't you?

I don't need to. NPR did not prevent him from appearing on Fox EVER. They only asked that NPR's name not be used. If NPR had the contract language, they would have just enforced it.

You don't need to see his contract in order to know they violated it? That is a seriously ignorant statement.

Question: Is Williams claiming they violated his contract?

 

[NYcarbineer]

If you pull their grants because they fired someone, yes indeedy it is censorship.

I say we pull the grants because they don't qualify for them. How's that.

The government should not be funding television, radio, or the 'arts.' Those who enjoy them should pay for them or encourage sponsors to do so.

The government funds broadcasting because the People, through their elected representatives, choose to fund broadcasting.

To say that the government should not fund broadcasting is to say that the People should not have the right to decide whether or not the government funds broadcasting.

 

[Valerie]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyQW5MrITME&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

 

[saveliberty]

You've seen his contract with NPR?

Thought you were clever didn't you?

I don't need to. NPR did not prevent him from appearing on Fox EVER. They only asked that NPR's name not be used. If NPR had the contract language, they would have just enforced it.

You don't need to see his contract in order to know they violated it. That is a seriously ignorant statement.

Question: Is Williams claiming they violated his contract?

I'm sure his attorney will be making that statement with the lawsuit. I see your down to personal insults by the second post. Keep holding on by your fingertips.