Jen Cupp
Leanna Dillon
Jennifer Davis
Kelly Burt
A. Brief History and Background
In October 2010, NPR fired Juan Williams, a longtime correspondent and political analyst for NPR. The firing came after controversial remarks Williams made on The O'Reilly Factor show on FOX News.
The bulk of the controversy centered around a statement Williams made in response to a polemic question by the show's host, Bill O'Reilly: "But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous," Williams said.
Later in the show Williams cautioned Americans to not think of all Muslims as extremists. However, NPR still fired him the following day for his original comment, which garnered strong criticism (both the comment and the firing).
Williams had become a liability to NPR, at least in the view of the station's executives, because of his repeated appearances (and comments) on FOX News, particularly its prime-time talk shows. NPR initially moved him from correspondent to analyst after he took distinct policy positions in comments on FOX News and in editorials for print news. NPR's management was worried about the credibility of Williams and its own reputation as a news source, given his "reporter by day, pundit by night" persona.
Williams's statement on The O'Reilly Factor was the final straw--NPR said these remarks were ultimately inconsistent with its editorial standards and practices, pointing to its code of ethics as reason enough to fire Williams.
NPR at first was fairly quiet about the ordeal, releasing a simple statement (and story) on the day it fired Williams explaining its decision based on its code of ethics. The Internet lit up with comments criticizing Williams and NPR. Some praised the firing; others denounced it. NPR did little to respond to these comments. The NPR ombudsman released a report later that day, concluding that NPR had mishandled the firing, but was justified in doing it.
B. Key Stakeholders
Internal:
* NPR employees
* NPR management, including CEO Vivian Schiller
* Shareholders
External:
* NPR listeners, viewers, and readers
* Government (as NPR was created by congressional passage of the Public Broadcasting Act)
* Related organizations Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting
* Competitors (local and national radio news programs)
* Fox News (acquired Juan Williams after his firing)
* Other media
C. Political, Social/Cultural, and Economic Factors
Political Factors:
The U.S. is deeply divided between liberal and conservative viewpoints. There is an election currently underway which will affect the leadership of the U.S. During election season, everything becomes politicized. NPR has been considered "left leaning" because of firing Juan Williams for expressing his fear about Muslims. Conservatives tend to view the firing as unfair, while many liberals view it as justified.
Social/Cultural Factors:
The firing took place during a time when the ground zero mosque was/is still being debated. "Islamophobia" is becoming a widespread trend, and the question of whether Muslims are to blame for 9/11 is on a lot of people's minds based on the media's agenda. Bill O'Reilly recently blamed Muslims for 9/11 while on "The View." American culture, through the media, is marking Muslims as villains. This isn't necessarily new, but continues to be a current trend. This is an issue that, like being liberal or conservative, divides people.
Economic Factors:
The U.S. is in an economic downturn. This has instilled fear in many people about many issues related to money. There are fears of job security, being able to pay bills, mortgages, rent, etc. Most people have less extra money and this conflict has created a situation where many people will no longer contribute to NPR because of the firing. People want someone to blame. It's easy to blame Muslims for the state the U.S. is in now. If Muslims are to blame for 9/11, then they are also to blame for the situation we are now in economically and for the war in Iraq.
D. Potential Solutions to the Problem
NPR could have approached this problem in the following different ways:
Instead of firing Juan Williams, NPR could have suspended him or waited until his contract ran out. Suspension would have shown that NPR does not agree with Williams's remarks about Muslims while still keeping him as an employee. Suspension may have also suggested that NPR was carefully planning a fair course of action and consequences for Juan Williams.
NPR could have also been more willing to discuss the situation with Williams instead of taking such immediate and severe action. Williams expressed his dissatisfaction with the lack of specificity NPR showed in explaining its decision. In an appearance on FOX News, Williams said he was told his contract was terminated without an opportunity to come into NPR and discuss the termination. It is important for any type of business to address firing an employee with consideration, disclosure, and respect.
Today, NPR can alleviate some PR pressure by giving out a detailed explanation of the circumstances that led to the firing of Juan Williams. Instead of only mentioning its ethics code, NPR could point out and state certain sections that it feels Williams violated, while reiterating to the public NPR's commitment to ethically sound journalism.
Questions:
1. In what ways was it appropriate and inappropriate for NPR to base the firing of Juan Williams on a violation of their ethics code without giving him a specific explanation of how his remarks crossed the line?
2. Do you think that NPR will lose a significant amount of funding because of either Williams's comment or because of how they handled the situation? Has your own perception of NPR changed?
3. In a recent interview with FOX News, where Williams is now a full time contributor, Williams offered a rebuttal to NPR's decision by saying: "And now they have used an honest statement of feeling as basis for a charge of bigotry to create a basis for firing me. Well, now that I no longer work for NPR let me give you my opinion. This is an outrageous violation of journalistic standards and ethics by management that has no use for a diversity of opinion, ideas or a diversity of staff (I was the only black male on the air). This is evidence of one-party rule and one sided thinking at NPR that leads to enforced ideology, speech and writing. It leads to people, especially journalists, being sent to the gulag for raising the wrong questions and displaying independence of thought." Do you agree with Williams? Is NPR hypocritical to fire Williams based on ethics, when he asserts that their own decision was unethical? What does his firing say, if anything, about the media and freedom of speech?
4. What kind of strategy do you think it is, if any, for FOX News to hire Juan Williams full time after the comments he made on its program, The O'Reilly Factor, and his subsequent firing from NPR?
1) The question this case poses for me is if NPR, along with a code of ethics, also has a laid-out set of consequences if someone violates that code or if this was just a rash decision on their part. I feel like companies need to stand by their codes of ethics, but I agree with the group’s suggestions that NPR should have talked to Juan Williams about what he said and the action they were taking as well as been more up front with the specific areas of the code of conduct that were violated. It was inappropriate for them to just fire him without giving him a specific explanation of how his remarks crossed the line.
ReplyDeleteEven though I don't fully agree with the manner NPR went about removing Williams, I don't feel as though it will lose any funding. If we consider NPR to be left-leaning, it wouldn't be surprising for its shareholders to have similar values and opinions. I'd assume the majority of funders didn't agree with William's comments and supported his removal. (Even if they didn't necessarily agree with how NPR went about doing it).
ReplyDeletePerhaps NPR used this incident as an excuse to have Williams removed. Williams has a right to his own opinions, but his choice to appear on FOX news probably irritated NPR. After all, wouldn't it could be seen as though he was supporting the 'competition.' Williams' comments may have been what NPR considered a legit reason for letting him go.
I support freedom of speech fully. Williams' commentary is his opinion, which he has a right to. However, the shareholders of NPR probably didn't agree, and his removal may have even been a strategic move on behalf of the NPR to keep its supports and funders. The majority of which probably have leftist values.
Sorry, my post was an answer to #2
ReplyDeleteHeather, I agree that I don’t think NPR will lose funding over the firing of Juan Williams. I can see them losing a few individual donations, but for the most part, I agree that it’s a left-leaning organization and its viewers would most likely hold the same views on the issue as NPR does. I also support freedom of speech, and I feel that his comments were very honest (Tim Wise has some good comments about this), even if I don’t totally agree with what he said. As an NPR listener and supporter, I don’t think they handled this situation well at all, but it’s not enough to make me quit listening.
ReplyDeleteResponse to Heather's post:
ReplyDeleteI agree with both of you that NPR will most likely not lose any funding. However, I tend to think that the decision to fire Williams was pretty uncalled for. He had been appearing on FOX news for a while and NPR had known about this for a while. When he was appearing on FOX he was not appearing as an NPR analyst, but as an individual. When he was speaking on FOX he was not representing the feelings of NPR and was stating a personal opinion. I do not necessarily agree with his opinion or his choice to share that opinion on national television but I think that he has a right to share his beliefs as an individual in his own free time due to freedom of speech.
Question #3:
ReplyDeleteI do tend to agree that NPR's decision to fire Williams was not ethical itself. I do not agree with what Williams said but I think that he had a right to say it if he feels that way. I think that NPR fired him based on something that he said as an individual and not an NPR employee. He was stating a personal opinion say "I feel this way" not "NPR feels this way" and was fired for this. It appears to me that NPR fired Williams because they thought that his comment would get negative feedback from NPR listeners, which I agree would be likely to happen. Even though NPR would probably get some negative feedback from Williams's comment made on FOX, they would simply have to reprimand Williams and engage in two-way communication with their listeners and ensure their publics that the comment was Williams's personal opinion and not the opinion of NPR seeing as it was not said on NPR's station and Williams was not appearing on FOX as an NPR employee, but as an individual. I think the company fired Williams for the rather selfish reason of fear of losing money and in turn threatened Williams's freedom of speech. This seems like a prime example of the elites in the news business limiting the freedom of speech of journalists when journalists have been put in place to speak the truth, no matter what that truth is.
Question # 3:
ReplyDeleteDue to NPR's apparent failure to follow and implement a good crisis management plan for employee termination, it's easy for Williams and stakeholders to shift blame in this situation to NPR.
As Coombs points out “A crisis can be considered a violation of societal norms/expectations" (p. 265).
In this case, NPR has violated American workplace conduct expectations. Typically, organizations follow stringent standards for employee reprimand and termination, in many cases to protect themselves from expensive litigation that could accompany a wrongful termination lawsuit. In this case, it seems they have a perfect justification for firing Williams, a breach of ethical code. However, they seemed to have skipped the societal norms for employee disputes. Usually, employees are warned about their bad behavior and given a chance to change it before they are fired. I agree with the case study authors - NPR should have publicly reprimanded Williams and then fired him if he continued to violate ethical codes.
Instead, their reputation took a major hit because they allowed Williams to be viewed as a victim, or a person “injured in some way by a crisis” (Coombs, SCCT, p. 264). If they’d carefully followed a termination plan and publicly shared this "plan," his posture as a victim would have diminished or disappeared.
In response to Cassi: I think both our comments are in essence critiques of NPR for not having appropriate crisis management plans. I agree with your comment that "it was inappropriate for (NPR) to just fire (Williams) without giving him a specific explanation of how his remarks crossed the line."
ReplyDeleteAccording to the situational crisis communication theory, this case could be classified as an "accidental cluster challenge crisis," in which stakeholders, in this case NPR listeners, claim an organization, in this case NPR, is operating in an inappropriate manner" (Coombs, SCCT, p. 265).
It could also be classified as "a victim cluster malevolence crisis," in which an external agent, in this case, Williams, causes damage to an organization, in this case, NPR (p. 265).
The corresponding crisis responsibility levels for these types of crises are moderate and low, respectively.
Long story short, if NPR would have expressed some level of compassion for Williams, and took clear steps to try to negotiate new behavior before firing him, they could have solved or even avoided this crisis.
In response to Kellie Barth's response on my post.
ReplyDeleteKellie, I like your interpretation of the situation. It gives a strong argument as to why NPR's decision to let Williams go was unjust, even with his comments being taken into consideration. If NPR had issue with his appearances on FOX, it should have brought it to light long ago. I also feel that his comments should have been something that NPR discussed with him instead of simply deciding to let him go. He could have appeared on NPR and talked about the reasoning behind his comments and issued an apology to any groups/individuals that may have been offended.
Question 2:
ReplyDeleteWilliams statement has several implications, which I find troubling. First, he claims that NPR has taken his comment, "an honest statement of feeling" and turned it into "a charge of bigotry". While I do tend to agree, that firing Williams (rather than disciplining him or otherwise) is a bit drastic, his comments do fit, to some degree, a case of bigotry. His comments exhibit intolerance and/or animosity towards those of differing beliefs. I don't think I would go so far as to call Williams a 'bigot' himself, but his comment is an unfortunate example of bigoted behavior. I am also unsure that his comment exemplified "independence of thought" as he suggests.
What I do find problematic about the situation, is Williams position: is he a journalist, an analyst, a consultant, or a contributor? And as such, what does his particular 'code of ethics' entail? According to the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics, "journalists should...Avoid stereotyping by race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, geography, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance or social status." It seems that Williams has probably violated this code. However, does his position with FOX vary from his position with NPR and if so, what does that mean for his 'code of ethics'? While freedom of speech is certainly of importance here, where does freedom of speech meet journalist ethics?
Response to Kellie Barth's comment:
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your comment that, NPR fired Williams for a comment made as an individual, not an NPR spokesperson. While his comments do reflect poorly on NPR, they do not reflect NPR's ideology, and Williams did not present them as such. Moreover, by keeping Williams on their staff, NPR would have an opportunity to explore his comments and discover a possible solution to feelings such as his, or at least garner public feedback.
Firing Williams seems to be the easy way out for NPR. Although his comments may be contrary to NPR's beliefs, they do provide an interesting platform for discussion--especially two-way discussion--with their various publics. A potential crisis management plan for NPR (if they kept Williams) would be to put him back on the air to defend his comments, which would definitely provide some interesting coverage.
4. I think Fox hired Williams after this incident to reinforce its claims of being a “fair and balanced” network. Since Fox has a reputation as a conservative network, hiring a liberal person will convince people that it is truly committed to providing unbiased information to the public. Secondly, Fox may have hired Juan Williams to create a reputation as a network which advocates First Amendment rights.
ReplyDeleteAccording to NY Daily News,
Chairman and CEO of Fox News Roger Ailes said, "Juan has been a staunch defender of liberal viewpoints since his tenure began at Fox News in 1997. He’s an honest man whose freedom of speech is protected by Fox News on a daily basis."
Thus, with this move, Fox wins favor in the eyes of those who were protesting William’s termination from NPR since it makes a statement about the network’s dedication to protecting freedom of expression.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteResponse to Kellie Barth’s post:
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree with Kellie on this point: “I think that NPR fired him based on something that he said as an individual and not an NPR employee. He was stating a personal opinion […] seeing as it was not said on NPR's station and Williams was not appearing on FOX as an NPR employee, but as an individual”, I think that NPR had the right to reprimand him since it was explicitly stated in its code of ethics that his behavior was unacceptable:
V. Outside work, freelancing, speaking engagements
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 fact-based analysis.
I do not think that firing Williams was the best option though, since it makes NPR look like it has no tolerance for free expression. Instead of thinking about how retaining Williams as an employee would have affected its image, NPR should have considered how firing him would affect its reputation.
Response to Question 1:
ReplyDeleteNPR’s decision to fire Juan Williams because of a violation of their code of ethics seems completely unjustified. After reading the NPR Code of Ethics it seems as though the main concern is that of conflicts of interest. Williams’ comments do not appear to be a violation of anything written in the code, which makes his termination seem unjust. Clearly, NPR has had trouble with Williams’ comments in the past, but there is no indication that any recourse has been taken until this point. Moreoever, Williams’ recent comments were not made on NPR programming or on behalf of NPR at all. While I agree that NPR should strongly uphold their code of ethics, it would have behooved NPR to reprimand Williams at the time of those incidents, not fire him after he eventually “crossed a line.” In the end, this situation does not play out well for NPR. Because their actions seem so extreme, it seems that they took this opportunity to relieve themselves from Williams’ who clearly does not agree with their political viewpoints.
Response to Heather's post
ReplyDeleteHeather, I do agree with you that NPR probably will not lose any kind of funding for this incident, especially because for all intents and purposes, Williams’ termination was legitimate. However, I think NPR’s reputation has suffered because of the Williams debacle which ultimately can be more harmful in the long run. Though I do not believe that NPR will lose listeners because of their decision, I think they have lost some credibility and the “upstanding and responsible” news organization they once were. Because the Williams incident was so highly publicized it seems as though NPR has become more of a media spectacle than an trusted media outlet.
Question 3:
ReplyDeleteI would have to say that I both agree and disagree with Williams' strong statement. I do not believe that he should have been fired without warning, but I also do believe that any comments that are publicly made and that are going to be televised around the world need to be very politically correct when you represent a certain organization. Obviously, it is very easy to let your tongue slip and somethings things come out of your mouth that you don't expect, but these things can be very heavily criticized. I'm not saying that I am happy with people having to censor what they say because someone's feelings might get hurt (I personally think that some people should get thicker skin) but that is just the way it is when you are talking to such a diverse audience.
I believe that the United States only has freedom of speech to a certain degree... When you consider the outrageous and frankly disgusting things that the Westboro Christian (or so they say) Church does and says and you compare them with the comment that Williams made... things seem a bit confusing. The Westboro Church of extremist picket at funerals and scream and mourning family members that their son or daughters are burning in hell and NOTHING can be done to stop them because of freedom of speech. Juan Williams makes a comment based upon his personal feelings and he is fired and is now considered to be a controversial public figure. This doesn't seem fair...
Response to KIRSTEN:
ReplyDeleteI agree that his comments were controversial and I also agree that they show intolerance, but I do think that his comment was blown out of proportion. It seems that Williams tried to do a bit of backpedaling after his comment by mentioning that he does not believe that all muslims are extremist. Frankly, I can honestly say that since 9/11 occurred I have taken approximately 30 times and on multiple occassions, the people I was flying with have mentioned something about terrorism, nervousness, or uncomfort at some level because there was a person wearing a turban on the same flight. I am absolutely not saying that it is OK to stereotype people who wear turbans at all... I am simply saying that a harsh impression was made on 9/11 and that impression is focused on muslim people and many muslim people wear turbans.