What about Mara Liasson?
October 21, 2010 10:31 am ET by Eric Boehlert
News that Juan Williams' contract with NPR was terminated over comments he made about Muslims while appearing on Fox News shines a spotlight on the radio network's evergreen controversy: Its continued affiliation with Fox News. Specifically, NPR's Mara Liasson and her long-running association with Fox News has often raised questions. This might be the proper time for NPR to finally address that thorny issue.
I'm not suggesting Liasson has said anything as offensive as Williams, or that she has that kind of track record while appearing on Fox. I'm just saying that if you look at NPR's code of ethics, there's simply no way Liasson should be making appearances on Fox.
Here's why [emphasis added]:
9. NPR journalists must get permission from the Vice President for their Division or their designee to appear on TV or other media. It is not necessary to get permission in each instance when the employee is a regular participant on an approved show. Permission for such appearances may be revoked if NPR determines such appearances are harmful to the reputation of NPR or the NPR participant.
10. 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. They should not participate in shows electronic forums, or blogs that encourage punditry and speculation rather than rather than fact-based analysis.
Also, the NPR ethics code, written "to protect the credibility of NPR's programming by ensuring high standards of honesty, integrity, impartiality and staff conduct," forbids NPR journalists from participating in appearances that "may appear to endorse the agenda of a group or organization."
Is there any independent viewer still watching Fox News today who thinks it does not endorse a political agenda? I mean, c'mon.
Last year, NPR executives reportedly approached Liasson about her continued appearance on Fox News and asked her to reconsider. But she balked at the request, claiming she appeared on Fox's serious news shows, so her affiliation was not a problem.
As I noted last year, her rationale just doesn't work:
Liasson is part of the Fox News family. Period. For instance, Liasson appears on the Fox News website as a "Fox News contributor," not as "Fox News contributor to the sorta/kinda serious shows." The only way she'd really be able to defend her continued alliance would be to argue that Fox News in its entirely (i.e. Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity) is a serious endeavor worthy of NPR's status. But if Liasson can't defend all of Fox News, then her half-pregnant approach (i.e. she's only employed by a tiny portion of Fox News) just doesn't fly.
Here's an easier way to look at NPR's Fox News dilemma: What if the august news outlet currently did not have an affiliation with Fox News but executives there, busy overseeing Beck's hate campaign as well as the channel's open campaigning for Republicans this fall, came courting and wanted to sign Liasson up as a contributor? Would NPR look at Fox News' programming today and decide it would help NPR's reputation to be associated with that?
Of course not.
So why does NPR continue an association that harms its reputation and runs counter to its own code of ethics?
To judge whether or not Williams' comments were offensive, replace the word, "Muslim," with "Jewish" or "Black." In IMHO, nobody would stand for someone's saying similar things about many other ethnic groups--so it's not okay to denigrate Moslems in that way.
"Muslim" is not an ethnicity. "Muslim" is an adherent of a religio-political ideology.
Idiots
Muslim is not a race.
It's a group or organization.
A better example would be to replace Muslim with other contemporary dangerous groups such as Hells Angels or MS-13.
To be fair, we could use Christian Knights. But Hollywood has recast them as fairy tale dragon slayers and they have lost their violent image.
I hate that bigot and KKK member Jesse Jackson.
Yeah we all know you hated him long ago. Can't have a Black man actually be vocal about being a victim or perceiving racism.
Anyway, Williams never claimed that his fears comported with the actual level of risk, just that they reflect a natural association of the sort we instinctively make.
Juan has been working with Fox for many years. It was his work with Fox that got him fired. How "aware" are you?
I guess political correctness only applies when the liberal left is offended!!! GET OVER IT!!!
Case closed.
So it's just astounding how all these MSM people-- ALL of them, seemingly-- are going out of their way to DEFEND the guy today !
Doesn't that tell us as much about them as it does about him....?
It is political correctness run amuck.
LOL. I think that flew over some people's heads here.
I see you've been reading Newsbusters today which is where you heard about the 15 year old Helms reference.
oh wait you said you have no problem with that so obviously you must believe like brian killmeade does that all terrorists are muslims right?
Good luck.
There's an old saying that's certainly true here " a camel never sees it's own hump".
your ignorance will do more to spread your islamist imperialism because you have NO CLUE about what the first amendment says.
you are the same villiage idiot who screamed when st carrie of prejean lost her crown for opening her mouth and said her rights were violated.....when they wern't!
ok so another troll who can't respond other than use 4th grade taunts. really upping the level of discourse.
Looks like you forgot to raise the "level of discourse" bar off the ground, comrade.
i would be a touch hypocritical to say that considering that i myself am white, and am overweight. and of course you purposely ignored the meaning i was getting at but you must because you seem to be unable to see things other than your own simple myopic view where everyone who disagrees with you is a communist.
ive seen posts above that do this well......
take what williams said and replace muslims with either, whites, jews, or blacks. guess what.....thats offensive and bigoted no matter what the color of skin or religious choice.
so try again if you like. it doesn't change the fact that your defending a bigoted statement. with 4th grade logic and insults
Think it is about time you put down the bong and the cheetos and craw out of your mother's basement. Since Obama can't seem to figure out how to create jobs, maybe you can find a star trek convention or a comicon to attend? I'm sure you can impress the 15 year old girls dressed up like manga with your proficiency in speaking wookie; that and your mastery of "the force" (and a 6 pack or two of Bud) may even get one of them to go to bed with you. Of course I am sure that is what you said all the other times, but hey, maybe this time you will get lucky.
Of course you could also try growing up and getting a life!
Think it is about time you put down the bong and the cheetos and craw out of your mother's basement. Since Obama can't seem to figure out how to create jobs, maybe you can find a star trek convention or a comicon to attend? I'm sure you can impress the 15 year old girls dressed up like manga with your proficiency in speaking wookie; that and your mastery of "the force" (and a 6 pack or two of Bud) may even get one of them to go to bed with you. Of course I am sure that is what you said all the other times, but hey, maybe this time you will get lucky.
Of course you could also try growing up and getting a life!
This coming from a guy named Judge 5.56?
She's concerned about the BEHAVIOR of people in a particular neighborhood.
That's NOT the same as being worried about someone because of the religion they were born into!
Worrying about someone because of their race, or their sex, or the color of their skin, or their religion is BIGOTED BEHAVIOR.
And it's okay to judge someone based upon their BEHAVIOR.
This is NOT rocket science!
Poor neighborhoods can be dangerous regardless of who lives there.
NPR'S CEO Vivian Schiller
Fox News: "...fair and balanced..."
Which organization behaves more closely with what they state?
Really? Well, if that's the case then buh-bye, Nina Totenburg:
On Jesse Helms: “I think he ought to be worried about what’s going on in the Good Lord’s mind, because if there is retributive justice, he’ll get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it.”
On Sam Alito: “I think that’s right. You know, they picked a woman, probably a nice woman, a woman you might hire if you were in a corporation but who had no constitutional law experience whatsoever and did things in successive weeks that each time made her look less and less qualified. And then, of course when she gets dinged, then we go back, as Ruth Marcus said, to some white guy.”
On the Bush administration: “People in administrations make short-term decisions, and I think the one to sort of go on the offensive publicly against Fox was not too bright. Now, the Bush White House did that, it just cut people dead, it froze them out, you know it froze whole institutions out, didn’t talk about it. It was much more like the Mob. When you talk about it, you diminish your influence.”
On the Tea Parties: “Well, you know, I don’t know whether this really has any legs are not. You have to remember that at almost any given time any cockamamie proposition in America will have at least 25 percent of those polled supporting it. It was a good stunt. Whether the stunt really is more than a stunt remains to be seen. Obviously there are people who don’t like paying taxes, among them, probably some people at this table and certainly a certain individual whom I share a bed with doesn’t like paying taxes at all.”
On the Bush tax cuts: “Well, there are some relatively minor tax cuts and fixes in the first part of the week and then came the big benefit for investors in capital gains and all of that. Now, you know, I would benefit from that. Probably everybody here would benefit from that, but I just think it’s immoral to do that, not to mention fiscally irresponsible, when you’re cutting people who have nothing — from children off of Medicaid and mothers who depend on childcare losing the childcare and can’t work. And then what do they do? Go back on welfare? I mean, it is, it’s, I just think it’s immoral.”
NPR and Fox News are exactly the same thing. Propaganda machines.
NPR and Fox News are exactly the same thing. Propaganda machines.
NPR has really tried to have it both ways - using Fox News essentially to provide free advertising for two of NPR's best voices while retaining the apparent basis for pulling the plug on them via the Code that NPR has clearly ignored in allowing them to work at Fox in the first place.
It seems pretty clear to me that NPR's "correct" response to discomfort with Williams's or Liasson's appearances on Fox would have been to invoke the code and deny them permission to appear there in the future, to make them choose between NPR bland and Fox News spice. I have no problem with NPR insisting on anything it can negotiate. But my suspicion is that NPR could not negotiate the kind of behavior it wishes, and so must use the nuclear option when someone goes too far from the reservation in their eyes.