I do not think it was right for the NPR to fire Juan Williams. Juan Williams was a reporter who was having a discussion with Bill O’ Reilly on the O’Reilly Factor, giving his honest opinion on how he feels towards a certain situation.
Even of Fox News, when Williams spoke about the NPR firing him, he stated that unfortunately, it was an honest experience, and when he sees a Muslim dressed in their garb, he gets nervous, and that of course he would have that initial moment of fear because of what happened on 911. It’s something that many people can relate to because of the tragic impact this incident had on our country and many people would feel being in the same situation as he was. He was not being a bigot; he was explaining his personal feelings towards a specific situation. As someone who defended bigotry, he was stating that it is just a reality, and something that cannot be ignored.
I think that there are fine lines between journalism and being a commentator. Williams was not reporting at this time, and the fact that he was being fired for giving his opinion on a certain situation was too harsh. I’m not sure what the details of his contract are, but to me, I find it hard to believe that he breached the terms of it. It would have been a different situation if he was reporting hard news at the time, because, it wouldn’t be considered true, ethical reporting, it would be his biased opinion towards a situation, and if that was the case, then he should have been examined. For commenting on this specific experience, I find that it was a harsh choice for the NPR to do, and should have been examined more carefully. Where is the line drawn between journalism and commentary? It seems like the rules have changed.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Journalism and NPR- by Hasime Ukperaj
Journalism and NPR
NPR's action to fire news analyst, Juan Williams was not justified correctly. Williams should not have been fired for the phrase he spoke of on the Bill O'Reilly Factor regarding being afraid of Muslims. Although his statement was moronic and should not have been maded public at all, a better justification for his actions would have been to sit down and talk to the vice president of NPR.
A news analyst is objective, they should analyzing the issue being brought before them and should not inject their personal views. The analyst has the responsibility to interpret the news and examine the different sides. A news commentator on the other hand is responsible for using his personal opinion in order to get other sides swayed in.
The rules have changed today in terms of the way different journalists handle themselves in different situations. The code of ethics limits journalists from refraining from use of public opinion, this however could be argued. In many instances there are various journalists that express public opinions on other shows than theirs, yet they do not get punished or fired for their actions. We need to take a closer look at why instances such as Williams' case are often forgoed by others.
written by Hasime Ukperaj
NPR's action to fire news analyst, Juan Williams was not justified correctly. Williams should not have been fired for the phrase he spoke of on the Bill O'Reilly Factor regarding being afraid of Muslims. Although his statement was moronic and should not have been maded public at all, a better justification for his actions would have been to sit down and talk to the vice president of NPR.
A news analyst is objective, they should analyzing the issue being brought before them and should not inject their personal views. The analyst has the responsibility to interpret the news and examine the different sides. A news commentator on the other hand is responsible for using his personal opinion in order to get other sides swayed in.
The rules have changed today in terms of the way different journalists handle themselves in different situations. The code of ethics limits journalists from refraining from use of public opinion, this however could be argued. In many instances there are various journalists that express public opinions on other shows than theirs, yet they do not get punished or fired for their actions. We need to take a closer look at why instances such as Williams' case are often forgoed by others.
written by Hasime Ukperaj
Journalism Today- C.Ferrante comments on NPR's decision to fire Juan Williams
I don’t believe NPR’s action to fire Juan Williams is justified. Juan Williams wasn’t acting as a journalist; he wasn’t reporting on a specific news story instead he was having an open discussion with television host Bill O’Reilly. After watching the video of Juan Williams on the O’Reilly Factor I did not feel that what Williams said was from a bigoted or unethical place. Instead, Williams was describing how he felt and later in the conversation even defended that Muslims shouldn’t be condemned to such stereotypes. Williams was acting as a commentator, he was simply expressing his opinion and feeling. NPR claims that he violated their “standards as well as values” but, he wasn’t acting as an NPR journalist- he was simply being himself –candid, blunt, and to the point.
I think the lines of journalism have been blurred. It has become extremely difficult to differentiate between a news journalist and a commentator because; most news organizations are not objective and many sway to one side or another when reporting the news. Even in the case of a news analyst and a news commentator it can be confusing to differentiate between the two. A news analyst is supposed to gather, examine, and then report on facts about a news story whereas, a commentator is suppose to give their opinions about the facts. But, it seems to be more common that the two have blended into one. I think news organizations need to make more of an effort to distinguish what is a news “entertainment” program and what is a hard news program.
written by Christina Ferrante
I think the lines of journalism have been blurred. It has become extremely difficult to differentiate between a news journalist and a commentator because; most news organizations are not objective and many sway to one side or another when reporting the news. Even in the case of a news analyst and a news commentator it can be confusing to differentiate between the two. A news analyst is supposed to gather, examine, and then report on facts about a news story whereas, a commentator is suppose to give their opinions about the facts. But, it seems to be more common that the two have blended into one. I think news organizations need to make more of an effort to distinguish what is a news “entertainment” program and what is a hard news program.
written by Christina Ferrante
Journalism vs. Entertainment
In modern media, questions of journalistic ethics can be bent or even ignored. Professional journalists have an obligation to provide objective coverage of a story to their readers free from bias AND personal opinion. The roles of journalist and performing artist are conflated in modern media. Such shows as “The Colbert Report” or “The O’Reilly Factor” both manipulate news headlines to make different statements about the news, not report the news itself. In effect, these “commentators” are artists, not journalists. The realm of artistic expression does not have any of the restrictions that new reporting does, and therefore, relieves the hosts of any ethical issues. The case of Juan Williams is not surprising, then; nor will it be the last. When a journalist, or a professional news analyst, appears to provide commentary on a headline, they are still under the role of ‘journalist,’ and must conform to ethical journalist standards. When a journalist appears on a purely entertainment show, they are recognized by the public watching that show as a journalist, despite their role reversal or practical function as a commentator in a “relaxed” setting. The public will hold journalists to an unfair standard, even on a program which may not have any standards at all.
The case revolving around Juan Williams is tragic, not because he was fired, but because it demonstrates that our society treats entertainers and journalists the same way. If his statements were taken in context, they would not have caused the controversy they had. As our class discussion revealed, there is little malice behind his statement. Loose lips sink ships, and unfortunately the boat went down for Juan Williams. NPR, whatever their reasoning behind his dismissal had been, fairly represented both aspects of his dismissal on their program, and The O’Reilly Factor provided a telling foil to NPR’s journalistic reporting on the event itself. Was it fair for NPR to fire him based on his statement the way they did? Was it wise for Williams, as a journalist, to appear on The O’Reilly Factor at all? Both of these questions have the same answer.
As a copy editor, I recognize that print material is a very different medium than the spoken word, and can therefore be manipulated to avoid unintentional mistakes such as Williams’. It is the responsibility of a copy editor to ensure that these crossed wires of journalism and entertainment are not represented in the (ideally) objective reporting of facts.
The case revolving around Juan Williams is tragic, not because he was fired, but because it demonstrates that our society treats entertainers and journalists the same way. If his statements were taken in context, they would not have caused the controversy they had. As our class discussion revealed, there is little malice behind his statement. Loose lips sink ships, and unfortunately the boat went down for Juan Williams. NPR, whatever their reasoning behind his dismissal had been, fairly represented both aspects of his dismissal on their program, and The O’Reilly Factor provided a telling foil to NPR’s journalistic reporting on the event itself. Was it fair for NPR to fire him based on his statement the way they did? Was it wise for Williams, as a journalist, to appear on The O’Reilly Factor at all? Both of these questions have the same answer.
As a copy editor, I recognize that print material is a very different medium than the spoken word, and can therefore be manipulated to avoid unintentional mistakes such as Williams’. It is the responsibility of a copy editor to ensure that these crossed wires of journalism and entertainment are not represented in the (ideally) objective reporting of facts.
Juan Williams
Is NPR's action to fire Williams justified? What is the difference between a news analyst and a news commentator? As copy-editor, your role is to identify and revise language that expresses bias.
How have the rules changed in journalism today? What is the conflict in the case mentioned above. What would you have done as the commentator? What would you have done as NPR in this case?
In order to completely for an opinion on whether or not Juan Williams firing was justified, you would have to review his contract and see if he breached any terms of that contract. However, based solely on his comments, it was not grounds to fire him. Williams strictly stated his own opinion and his comments were not connected to any news story or anyone else’s opinion. Williams only stated how he felt and did so in an educated manner without using offensive or crude terms.
A news analyst, such as Williams, is an individual that reports the news and has to do so accurately and objectively. A news commentator on the other hand, is someone that commentates on the news and has the ability to state their opinion on a certain topic since they are not the ones that are actually breaking the story. A news commentator is an individual that is solely employed to express their own feelings and allow others to express their feelings in an open forum.
Journalism is constantly changing. The conflict between Williams and NPR would not have happened in past years when there was not the abundance of news channels that there are now. Television is also changing the way journalism works and the avenues in which it is reported.
I believe that NPR had an ulterior behind the Williams firing. The rash comments that Don Imus made regarding the Rutgers Women’s Basketball team were far worse than Williams’s opinion on Muslims. If I was in NPR’s position I would have spoken directly with Williams instead of terminating him through email without giving him a chance to defend himself.
How have the rules changed in journalism today? What is the conflict in the case mentioned above. What would you have done as the commentator? What would you have done as NPR in this case?
In order to completely for an opinion on whether or not Juan Williams firing was justified, you would have to review his contract and see if he breached any terms of that contract. However, based solely on his comments, it was not grounds to fire him. Williams strictly stated his own opinion and his comments were not connected to any news story or anyone else’s opinion. Williams only stated how he felt and did so in an educated manner without using offensive or crude terms.
A news analyst, such as Williams, is an individual that reports the news and has to do so accurately and objectively. A news commentator on the other hand, is someone that commentates on the news and has the ability to state their opinion on a certain topic since they are not the ones that are actually breaking the story. A news commentator is an individual that is solely employed to express their own feelings and allow others to express their feelings in an open forum.
Journalism is constantly changing. The conflict between Williams and NPR would not have happened in past years when there was not the abundance of news channels that there are now. Television is also changing the way journalism works and the avenues in which it is reported.
I believe that NPR had an ulterior behind the Williams firing. The rash comments that Don Imus made regarding the Rutgers Women’s Basketball team were far worse than Williams’s opinion on Muslims. If I was in NPR’s position I would have spoken directly with Williams instead of terminating him through email without giving him a chance to defend himself.
Juan Williams Scandal reaction
Journalism today is constantly evolving. New forms of media have opened new doors and with it, new sets of challenges. Among the challenges is the changing landscape of ethics and objectivity.
The primary role of a journalist is to cover a story without showing bias or prejudice. Personal opinion, unless in an individual's column, is definitely frowned upon. The question, though, is what happens when a reporter crosses lines and acts as a commentator? Should they be held to the same standard as written journalists are? Should they be given more lee-way to express their own opinion? These are just some of the many points to consider.
In the case of Juan Williams, I believe he was unjustly fired. While he expressed his own opinion that he would feel nervous if he saw Muslims in traditional garb on a plane he was flying on, he did not say that all people should feel that way. He also did not indicate that those views were those of NPR. I can see how this may reflect negatively on NPR and cause some outcry, however, I do not believe they were just in their actions. If I were him, I would have done the same thing, though it is important to chose one's words wisely.
If I was NPR, I would have contacted Williams immediately following the comment to discuss it with him. I would not have waited 36 hours as O'Rielly indicated on his show. Being that Williams is a respected writer and, at the time, member of their staff, I would have treated with more courtesy and professionalism. If in fact there was a large out cry, I would have sat him down and issued him an ultimatum: Either apologize, resign, or be fired. This action could have allowed everyone to "save face" and the incident would have been over with instead of becoming bigger then it needed to be. NPR could have also issued a press release regarding the statement, after its discussion with Williams, as a disclaimer to what was said. There are many ways they could have went about this, but I believe they chose the wrong one.
The primary role of a journalist is to cover a story without showing bias or prejudice. Personal opinion, unless in an individual's column, is definitely frowned upon. The question, though, is what happens when a reporter crosses lines and acts as a commentator? Should they be held to the same standard as written journalists are? Should they be given more lee-way to express their own opinion? These are just some of the many points to consider.
In the case of Juan Williams, I believe he was unjustly fired. While he expressed his own opinion that he would feel nervous if he saw Muslims in traditional garb on a plane he was flying on, he did not say that all people should feel that way. He also did not indicate that those views were those of NPR. I can see how this may reflect negatively on NPR and cause some outcry, however, I do not believe they were just in their actions. If I were him, I would have done the same thing, though it is important to chose one's words wisely.
If I was NPR, I would have contacted Williams immediately following the comment to discuss it with him. I would not have waited 36 hours as O'Rielly indicated on his show. Being that Williams is a respected writer and, at the time, member of their staff, I would have treated with more courtesy and professionalism. If in fact there was a large out cry, I would have sat him down and issued him an ultimatum: Either apologize, resign, or be fired. This action could have allowed everyone to "save face" and the incident would have been over with instead of becoming bigger then it needed to be. NPR could have also issued a press release regarding the statement, after its discussion with Williams, as a disclaimer to what was said. There are many ways they could have went about this, but I believe they chose the wrong one.
Juan Williams
Based solely off the evidence that has been released I would not have fired Juan Williams for his comments made on Fox News. However, if my organization was liberal leaning I can see the conflict of interest NPR raises. I believe a short suspension and a public apology to anyone offended would have sufficed as fair punishment but firing is a little extreme. I do not listen to NPR that often -- so this may have already been a story -- but I think this was a perfect opportunity to expose an untapped topic that many Americans feel strongly about. Having Juan explain his position a little more and going out and doing a report on the topic would have been a nice follow up to the public apology.
I believe an analyst is somebody who delivers the facts, all of them, that provide two or maybe three sides to the story and let the viewer draw their own conclusion. A commentator has chosen one of those sides and now gives some facts but more inferences and opinions of why they feel that way. An analyst should never be proven wrong, a commentator can. That is the difference.
The rules have changed today because we are living in an ultra-sensitive politically correct era. I can't explain how the past used to be but presently any public speaker needs to think out every response they say, especially on topics that are known to raise emotions. The problem is now-a-days everything can can be clipped and edited for a biased person to make a point. Someone on television needs to choose their words carefully in order to avoid public ridicule.
As the commentator I would have not brought up this topic at all, I would have provided another example or just reworded the point in a different way.
I believe an analyst is somebody who delivers the facts, all of them, that provide two or maybe three sides to the story and let the viewer draw their own conclusion. A commentator has chosen one of those sides and now gives some facts but more inferences and opinions of why they feel that way. An analyst should never be proven wrong, a commentator can. That is the difference.
The rules have changed today because we are living in an ultra-sensitive politically correct era. I can't explain how the past used to be but presently any public speaker needs to think out every response they say, especially on topics that are known to raise emotions. The problem is now-a-days everything can can be clipped and edited for a biased person to make a point. Someone on television needs to choose their words carefully in order to avoid public ridicule.
As the commentator I would have not brought up this topic at all, I would have provided another example or just reworded the point in a different way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)