The national news media faces a difficult task in finding a necessary balance between impartial journalism and journalistic opinion. One journalist's statements or actions can lead to serious repercussions for an entire news station or publication. Consequently, the knee-jerk response is to terminate the said controversial figure rather than face the potential fallout. We have seen this instinctive reaction during the past year with the public terminations of Octavia Nasr, Helen Thomas, Dr. Laura and Rick Sanchez. The most recent termination of NPR's Juan Williams for his comments about Muslims and brief suspension of MSNBC's Keith Olbermann for his Democratic campaign contributions call into question the national news media's marriage to impartial journalism. While some terminations are more justified than others, the national news media should reconsider current limits on journalistic expression. Professional journalists should have the right to express personal opinions they undoubtedly possess and any controversy from prejudiced statements should be a spring board for open discussion about diversity.
In the most recent termination controversy, NPR fired senior news analyst Williams Oct. 20 for expressing his personal fears on "The O'Reilly Factor" about people dressed in "Muslim garb" on airplanes. His termination ignited a maelstrom of controversy and public condemnation because of NPR's apparent censoring. The controversy initially erupted over Williams' response to Bill O'Reilly's claim that a "Muslim dilemma" exists in the United States. Williams agreed. "I mean, look, Bill, I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country. 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.
Williams had every right to express his thoughts and beliefs as he did on "The O'Reilly Factor." Likewise, NPR had the prerogative as an employer to terminate any staff member it deemed unfit. NPR justified the firing, stating that Williams statements "were inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR." Ergo, Williams is free to express his opinions - just not on NPR. Nevertheless, the penalty for these comments limits the freedom of journalistic expression and overshadows positive discourse that could emerge from prejudiced comments. There is no doubt that Williams' statements about Muslims were prejudiced and wrong; he formed a preconceived notion about an entire group of people based on the actions of a select few. But as human beings, journalists naturally possess personal opinions, so it is unrealistic for national media to demand complete impartiality or to expect interpersonal problems will not occur. When problems arise and statements are discriminatory, media outlets should condemn prejudiced sentiments and use the controversy to stimulate sensitivity about the problem at hand rather than save face by terminating their analysts.
Williams honestly expressed an individual sentiment - his concern about seeing Muslims on a plane - in a post 9/11 world. If anything, his termination shows that America needs to have a more open conversation about diversity. To better understand our multicultural society and counter intolerance, we must be free to discuss interpersonal problems and concerns without barrier. Though Williams' fear is illogical, it raises serious questions about rising Islamophobia and anti-Muslim sentiments in America; questions that should be addressed, not covered up. A recent TIME magazine poll found that 61 percent of Americans oppose the construction of Park51 - the proposed Islamic community center near Ground Zero - and 70 percent believe the project would be an "insult" to victims of the Sept. 11 attacks. America needs an uninhibited conversation about diversity. We need less of a "Get lost!" type of response when someone says something controversial and more of a "Why did you say that?" dialogue. Prejudice is driven by fear; we need to have a public conversation about why this fear exists so it can be rooted out. In the future, network decisions should solve rather than cover up interpersonal problems.
Perhaps we should heed John Stuart Mill's bold defense of free speech: "If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind." Discrimination and fear based on race, religion, sex or ethnicity indubitably persists in society. To solve these interpersonal problems, we must allow all thoughts to be heard, even those that do not fall in line with what is socially acceptable. It is only through discussion that the country can grow from its intolerance. Journalists have opinions and should be given the opportunity to be judged for their opinions. News media outlets should stop forcing impartiality on their news analysts and instead bear responsibility for fallout that occurs from discriminatory behavior.
Ashley Chappo's column appears Fridays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at a.chappo@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
ELJAZZAR: Celebrate U.Va.’s expansion into Northern Virginia
By Farah Eljazzar | 31 minutes agoThe Northern Virginia campus is indicative of a larger initiative and a larger imperative to expand into other underserved areas.
LETTER: It is critical to hold individual hazers accountable
By Todd Shelton | 1 hours agoBut while education is absolutely integral to hazing prevention, we must also hold individuals accountable for their hazing behavior.
ONIBUDO AND SAWAYA: Police, not students, were agents of chaos
By Naima Sawaya and Nathan Onibudo | 4 days agoSaturday, the state, not students nor protesters, brought violence to this campus.
