Separating Fluff and Bull from Facts and Fiction “The NPR Fiasco and Individual Freedom”
October 26th 2010 13:50
In every media cycle there is a story that gives the public a chance to reflect, examine all the issues that come from a single statement and create a balanced discussion rather than automatically erupting in anger.
In the current election cycle, the issue in question had nothing to with getting Americans back to work again, preventing the next great disaster that would lead to the pollution of our oceans and had nothing to do with the current military conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The story of the day is a reflection on the turmoil happening within the hearts and minds of Americans as we try to balance respect of religion, our freedom of speech, freedom of press and the fundamental rights to individual beliefs no matter how much they may offend a man or woman’s religious belief, gender, sexual orientation or race.
Of all the things accomplished in the Women’s Rights and Civil Rights Movements none of these accomplishments included a mandate on American Citizens to change the way they think about their fellow man, woman and child.
Each and every American has the fundamental right to be religiously intolerant, racist, homophobic or insensitive.
On the greater view of society it is the Constitution that protects the American people by way of preventing the Federal government from being any of these things.
When it comes to the way we may feel about the things Bill O’Reilly and Juan Williams may have said about how uncomfortable they may feel in the presence of a Muslim; it is their right to feel this way much as it is the same right of a man or woman to say they feel uncomfortable in the presence of someone of a different race or sexual orientation.
What’s at issue is not the personal feelings of pundits nor is it the religious tension that is sweeping across America from intolerance surrounding Islam that is coming from the need to point fingers at an entire religion for the attack on 9/11.
What’s at issue is our right to freedom of speech and the role that government funded institutions should play in creating a line between supporting religious intolerance and allowing both sides to have their say on issues.
A line that was danced on by Juan Williams when an issue that was once expressed as respect oriented in regards to the construction of an Islamic Mosque in the same area that the World Trade Center once stood was publicly changed into a social conversation about the religion of Islam.
While it is the responsibility of every journalist working for a federally funded news entity to respect both sides of the issue and show understanding for the radicalism that exists in all religions it is also the responsibility for the federally funded media entity to not jump to conclusions in the termination of one of their employees for simply expressing their feelings outside of media broadcasts on that network.
A mess has been created and the wolves have come out of the woodwork with radical support of the freedoms that come with a double edged sword.
A double edged sword that is not respected by the same people who are rallying to have federal funds cut from National Public Radio because of this and many other instances in the past that have muddied up the non partisan duties of the media network.
For every "non partisan" action to correct a wrong in what is perceived as a political arena there will always be someone who feels the decision was slighted too far to the left or right.
When it comes to matters of religion, gender, race or sexual orientation there should be no left, right or anything in between but should be one clear voice that calls for balance and decisions that are made on principle.
Federally funded media entities should be held to a higher standard when it comes to these matters.
The Federal government does this for their employees and any institution accepting funds from the Federal Government should do this as well.
Today’s article is a response to the issue of Juan Williams firing by National Public Radio which sparked media coverage on multiple Broadcast, Radio and Internet news outlets.
In the current election cycle, the issue in question had nothing to with getting Americans back to work again, preventing the next great disaster that would lead to the pollution of our oceans and had nothing to do with the current military conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The story of the day is a reflection on the turmoil happening within the hearts and minds of Americans as we try to balance respect of religion, our freedom of speech, freedom of press and the fundamental rights to individual beliefs no matter how much they may offend a man or woman’s religious belief, gender, sexual orientation or race.
Of all the things accomplished in the Women’s Rights and Civil Rights Movements none of these accomplishments included a mandate on American Citizens to change the way they think about their fellow man, woman and child.
Each and every American has the fundamental right to be religiously intolerant, racist, homophobic or insensitive.
On the greater view of society it is the Constitution that protects the American people by way of preventing the Federal government from being any of these things.
When it comes to the way we may feel about the things Bill O’Reilly and Juan Williams may have said about how uncomfortable they may feel in the presence of a Muslim; it is their right to feel this way much as it is the same right of a man or woman to say they feel uncomfortable in the presence of someone of a different race or sexual orientation.
What’s at issue is not the personal feelings of pundits nor is it the religious tension that is sweeping across America from intolerance surrounding Islam that is coming from the need to point fingers at an entire religion for the attack on 9/11.
What’s at issue is our right to freedom of speech and the role that government funded institutions should play in creating a line between supporting religious intolerance and allowing both sides to have their say on issues.
A line that was danced on by Juan Williams when an issue that was once expressed as respect oriented in regards to the construction of an Islamic Mosque in the same area that the World Trade Center once stood was publicly changed into a social conversation about the religion of Islam.
While it is the responsibility of every journalist working for a federally funded news entity to respect both sides of the issue and show understanding for the radicalism that exists in all religions it is also the responsibility for the federally funded media entity to not jump to conclusions in the termination of one of their employees for simply expressing their feelings outside of media broadcasts on that network.
A mess has been created and the wolves have come out of the woodwork with radical support of the freedoms that come with a double edged sword.
A double edged sword that is not respected by the same people who are rallying to have federal funds cut from National Public Radio because of this and many other instances in the past that have muddied up the non partisan duties of the media network.
For every "non partisan" action to correct a wrong in what is perceived as a political arena there will always be someone who feels the decision was slighted too far to the left or right.
When it comes to matters of religion, gender, race or sexual orientation there should be no left, right or anything in between but should be one clear voice that calls for balance and decisions that are made on principle.
Federally funded media entities should be held to a higher standard when it comes to these matters.
The Federal government does this for their employees and any institution accepting funds from the Federal Government should do this as well.
Today’s article is a response to the issue of Juan Williams firing by National Public Radio which sparked media coverage on multiple Broadcast, Radio and Internet news outlets.
| 93 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
