Use It Or Lose It

Public Radio: Use It or Lose It
Nicholas Johnson
The Gazette, April 9, 2022, p. 5A
I love radio. Always have. AM, shortwave, an amateur license, working for National Public Radio, and FCC.

Today’s NPR and Iowa Public Radio employees are the airwaves heroes in our civil war to save democracy.

Because 18-year-old Iowa Public Radio is currently celebrating its centennial, a little history is in order.

The first cross-Atlantic “wireless” transmission was 1901. Soon radio amateurs were building transmitters – as they have created communications innovations since. Launching communications satellites, bouncing signals off the moon, and making phone calls with hand-held radios long before your first smartphone.

Once their Morse Code gave way to the human voice the tussle began. Like Steve Martin’s Saturday Night Live routine, folks pointed to the talking box and asked, “What the hell is that?” Both the Navy and phone company fought for control.

Iowa’s President Herbert Hoover, as Secretary of Commerce 1921 to 1928, led the way, as homes with radios went from 300,000 to 10 million. Thirty stations became 618. The chaos of signal interference required regulation.
[Photo: wikimedia; accompanying text: "Photo of an American family in the 1920s listening to a crystal radio. From a 1922 advertisement for Freed-Eisemann radios in Radio World magazine. The small radio is on the table. Crystal sets work off the power received from radio waves, so they are not strong enough to power loudspeakers. Therefore the family members each wear earphones, the mother and father sharing a pair. Although this is obviously a professionally posed, promotional photo, it captures the excitement of the public at the first radio broadcasts, which were beginning about this time. Crystal sets like this were the most widely used type of radio until the 1920s, when they were slowly replaced by vacuum tube radios."]

Many nations responded with non-commercial-only, public (though not government) national broadcasting networks. Most famously, Britain’s BBC.

Congress called them “public airwaves,” but gave the FCC power to select and license private individuals’ use of them in “the public interest.” Hoover opposed “advertising chatter.” Even licensees urged “advertising in radio be absolutely prohibited.”

As commercialism took over radio, the push-back created “educational, non-commercial” stations. FCC’s first woman commissioner, Frieda Hennock, a Ukrainian, is credited with the reservation of educational TV channels. In 1945, the FCC reserved educational FM channels.

In 1911 engineering students and faculty at the University of Iowa got their “training school license,” 9YA, for their “wireless telegraph.” By 1916 free course material was broadcast in Morse Code. Later full licenses were granted for WHAA (1922) and WSUI (1925). By 1933 W9XK (later W9XUI) provided education via TV. WOI has similar history.

NPR began in 1971, and IPR in 2004 – the first step in a cutback in state support of Iowa’s university-licensed stations. This year the Board of Regents began the transfer of all broadcast licenses and property of university stations to IPR.

The Legislature no longer funds our universities to the extent it once did. (Now $389M less than 20 years ago, notwithstanding increasing costs.)

Meanwhile, the Golden Dome of Wisdom echoes with, “what have the universities done for us lately?”

Former UI President Sally Mason observed there are Iowans in “pockets where we may be less favorably viewed … a lot of them are west.” You think?

How sad the universities had an irreplaceable, invaluable statewide network of 26 stations – a public relations firm’s dream -- that could have told their story and won over legislators by helping small towns. University administrators, regents, legislators and governors failed to see its value.

It was “use it or lose it,” and now they’ve lost it. Happy Centennial.

Nicholas Johnson, a former FCC commissioner, lives in Iowa City. mailbox@nicholasjohnson.org

# # #
Sources
My amateur radio license. N0EAJ, Aug. 20, 2027, https://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/searchLicense.jsp

Working for NPR. Although I have never accepted payment from NPR, and thus would not be considered an "employee" in that sense, my involvement has included providing daily reports, and an hour-long special, regarding RAGBRAI, reports from presidential conventions on how the media covers conventions, and uncounted opinion pieces over the years.

History of radio, general. Erik Barnouw, three-volume “A History of Broadcasting in the United States.” A Tower of Babel (to 1933), vol. 1; The Golden Web (1933-1953), vol. 2; and The Image Empire (from 1953), vol. 3

“History of Radio,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_radio

Wireless in 1901. “Italian physicist and radio pioneer Guglielmo Marconi succeeds in sending the first radio transmission across the Atlantic Ocean …. The message–simply the Morse-code signal for the letter “s”–traveled more than 2,000 miles from Poldhu in Cornwall, England, to Newfoundland, Canada.” “First radio transmission sent across the Atlantic Ocean, December 12, 1901,” This Day in History, December 12,” History, Feb. 9, 2010, https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/marconi-sends-first-atlantic-wireless-transmission

Early amateurs. “The radio hobbyists, soon to be called radio amateurs, or ham operators, … were among the first to transform their hobby into the earliest broadcasting stations, and felt it was only proper they should be entrusted with radio’s future.[19] (Footnotes are to referenced sources in Nicholas Johnson, “Radio as Mysterious Miracle” in “The Origins and Future of Radio,” August 23, 2015, https://www.nicholasjohnson.org/writing/OriginsAndFutureOfRadio-150823.htm

Amateurs’ innovations. “Ham Radio History,” ARRL (American Radio Relay League), http://www.arrl.org/ham-radio-history

“The radio hobbyists, soon to be called radio amateurs, or ham operators, provided most of the early improvements in radio – as they continued to do with electronics generally throughout the Twentieth Century.[18] (Footnotes are to referenced sources in Nicholas Johnson, “Radio as Mysterious Miracle” in “The Origins and Future of Radio,” August 23, 2015, https://www.nicholasjohnson.org/writing/OriginsAndFutureOfRadio-150823.htm

Steve Martin’s routine. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-l5tpY6SXMc

Navy and phone company control. “There was little agreement as to what radio was, how it could be used, and who should control it. The Navy, having used and advanced radio technology during World War I, understandably saw radio as a form of military equipment properly controlled by them – with wireless telegraphy’s ability to provide rapid, where telegraph wires were not an option communication, between ships, and ship-to-shore.[15] Telegraph companies argued that anything called wireless telegraphy was obviously still telegraphy, and a private business inappropriate for military or other governmental operation.[16] Telephone companies, with comparable certainly, saw radio as an obvious extension of their businesses – and even more so once radio started to be used for broadcasting programming. After all, as early as the 1870s telephone companies in the U.S. and Europe were distributing music and other entertainment programming over telephone wires -- what we today might call cable radio.[17] The radio hobbyists, soon to be called radio amateurs, or ham operators, provided most of the early improvements in radio – as they continued to do with electronics generally throughout the Twentieth Century.[18] They were among the first to transform their hobby into the earliest broadcasting stations, and felt it was only proper they should be entrusted with radio’s future.[19] (Footnotes are to referenced sources in Nicholas Johnson, “Radio as Mysterious Miracle” in “The Origins and Future of Radio,” August 23, 2015, https://www.nicholasjohnson.org/writing/OriginsAndFutureOfRadio-150823.htm

Hoover, as Secretary of Commerce. “Secretary of Commerce (1921-1928” (5), “Radio regulation and air travel” (5.1), “Herbert Hoover,” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Hoover

“Hoover's tenure as Secretary of Commerce heavily influenced radio use in the United States. In the early and mid-1920s, Hoover's radio conferences played a key role in the organization, development, and regulation of radio broadcasting. Hoover also helped pass the Radio Act of 1927….” Id., “Radio regulation and air travel” (5.1)

“Secretary Hoover went ahead with at least a frequency allocation scheme to bring a little order out of chaos and signal interference.[25]” Footnote links to Erik Barnouw, A History of Broadcasting in the United States, vol. 1, pp. 121-22, in Nicholas Johnson, “The Origins and Future of Radio,” lecture transcript, August 23, 2015, https://www.nicholasjohnson.org/writing/OriginsAndFutureOfRadio-150823.htm

Homes with radios. “Between 1923 and 1929, the number of families with radios grew from 300,000 to 10 million,[109].” “Radio regulation and air travel” (5.1), “Herbert Hoover,” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Hoover

30 (1922) to 618 (1930) stations. “United States Broadcasting Station Totals[2],” chart in “Radio in the United States,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_in_the_United_States#cite_note-2

Signal interference -> regulation. “Secretary Hoover went ahead with at least a frequency allocation scheme to bring a little order out of chaos and signal interference.[25]” Footnote links to Erik Barnouw, A History of Broadcasting in the United States, vol. 1, pp. 121-22, in Nicholas Johnson, “The Origins and Future of Radio,” lecture transcript, August 23, 2015, https://www.nicholasjohnson.org/writing/OriginsAndFutureOfRadio-150823.htm

Other nations’ public networks. e.g., Sweden, Sveriges Radio AB (“The company – which was founded as AB Radiotjänst … on 21 March 1924 – made its first broadcast on 1 January 1925 ….”) Sveriges Radio, History, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sveriges_Radio

Japan, NHK (Nippon Hoso Kyokai) (“NHK's earliest forerunner was the Tokyo Broadcasting Station (東京放送局), founded in 1924 …. Tokyo Broadcasting Station … began radio broadcasts in 1925. The three stations merged under the first incarnation of NHK in August 1926.[6] NHK was modelled on the BBC ….”) NHK, History, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NHK#Radio_broadcasting

BBC. “The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) is the national broadcaster of the United Kingdom. Headquartered at Broadcasting House in London, it is the world's oldest national broadcaster, and the largest broadcaster in the world by number of employees ….” “BBC,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC

Congress and “public airwaves.” “It is the purpose of this chapter, among other things, to maintain the control of the United States over all the channels of radio transmission; and to provide for the use of such channels, but not the ownership thereof, by persons for limited periods of time, under licenses granted by Federal authority, and no such license shall be construed to create any right, beyond the terms, conditions, and periods of the license.” 47 U.S.C. Sec. 301

“The public interest.” “if the Commission, upon examination of such application and upon consideration of such other matters as the Commission may officially notice, shall find that public interest, convenience, and necessity would be served by the granting thereof, it shall grant such application.” 47 U.S.C. Sec. 309(a)

Hoover “advertising chatter.” Then-Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover's oft-quoted objection was, "It is inconceivable that we should allow so great a possibility for service [for news, for entertainment, for education] to be drowned in advertising chatter." Herbert Hoover, The Memoirs of Herbert Hoover: The Cabinet and the Presidency 140 (1952), quoted in Erik Barnouw, A Tower in Babel: A History of Broadcasting in the United States 96 (1966). (See, “Public Radio's Self-Inflicted Wounds,” FromDC2Iowa, Nov. 11, 2008, https://fromdc2iowa.blogspot.com/2008/11/public-radios-self-inflicted-wounds.html)

Licensees’ opposition to advertising. The licensees’ Recommendation III.E. provided, "It is recommended that direct advertising in radio broadcasting service be absolutely prohibited . . .." Report of Department of Commerce Conference on Radio Telephony, Rad. Serv. Bull., May 1, 1922. See Nicholas Johnson, "Forty Years of Wandering in the Wasteland," Federal Communications Law Journal, May 2003, p. 521, 527-28, n. 17, https://www.nicholasjohnson.org/writing/masmedia/55FCL521.html. (See, “Public Radio's Self-Inflicted Wounds,” FromDC2Iowa, Nov. 11, 2008, https://fromdc2iowa.blogspot.com/2008/11/public-radios-self-inflicted-wounds.html)

Frieda Hennock, first woman FCC. “Frieda Barkin Hennock (December 27, 1904–June 20, 1960) was the first female commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission and a central figure in the creation of an enduring system of educational television in the United States.” Frieda B. Hennock, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frieda_B._Hennock

Hennock Ukrainian. “Born in Kovel, then in the Russian Empire, now in Ukraine, the youngest of the eight children, she immigrated with her family to New York City in 1910 and became a US citizen in 1916 (in later life, she retained her fluency in Yiddish and continued to pray daily).[1]” Ibid.

Hennock educational TV. “Frieda Barkin Hennock, the woman credited with establishing educational television in the United States …. Returning to her work at the FCC, Hennock renewed her efforts on behalf of educational television. When the FCC's Sixth Report and Order was issued on April 11, 1952, it included 242 specific channel reservations for non-commercial television. Even though channels had been reserved for non-commercial use, Hennock realized that getting educational stations on the air was crucial in preserving those reservations…. Two years later [than 1953], when her term expired in mid-1955, over 50 non-commercial license applications had been filed and 12 stations were on the air.” “Hennock, Frieda B.,” Encyclopedia.com, https://www.encyclopedia.com/women/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/hennock-frieda-b-1904-1960

Reservation educational FM. “On May 24, 1940, the FCC had announced the establishment, effective January 1, 1941, of an FM radio band operating on 40 channels spanning 42–50 MHz, with the first five channels (42.1 to 42.9 MHz) reserved for educational stations ….” [1] “On June 27, 1945, the FCC announced the reassignment of the FM band to 80 channels from 88–106 MHz, which was soon expanded to 100 channels from 88–108 MHz.[6][7].” “List of the initial commercial FM station assignments issued by the Federal Communications Commission on October 31, 1940,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_initial_commercial_FM_station_assignments_issued_by_the_Federal_Communications_Commission_on_October_31,_1940

“Commercial broadcasting is licensed only on channels 221 through 300 (the upper 80 channels, frequencies between 92.1 and 107.9 MHz), with 200 through 220 (the lower 21 channels, frequencies between 87.9 and 91.9 MHz) reserved for non-commercial educational (NCE) broadcasting.” “FM broadcasting in the United States; History,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FM_broadcasting_in_the_United_States

“In 1945, in recognition of the differing needs of educators and commercial broadcasters, FCC policy had set aside 20 FM radio channels for educational use.” “Hennock, Frieda B.,” Encyclopedia.com, https://www.encyclopedia.com/women/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/hennock-frieda-b-1904-1960

UI’s 9YA license. David McCartney, “Old Gold: WSUI Radio Marks a Century on the Air,” Iowa Magazine, March 13, 2020, https://magazine.foriowa.org/story.php?ed=true&storyid=1930

“WSUI,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WSUI Google search: History of radio at University of Iowa

Morse Code education. “Wireless Education Latest Undertaking,” The State University of Iowa News Letter, vol. 2, no. 8, Nov. 18, 1916, http://wsui.info/historicArchives/lessonsByWireless-Nov%201916.pdf

“WSUI,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WSUI Google search: History of radio at University of Iowa

WHAA and WSUI. “WSUI,” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WSUI Google search: History of radio at University of Iowa

Educational TV. “WSUI,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WSUI

NPR origins. “WSUI,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WSUI

IPR origins. “Iowa Public Radio was created in 2004 by the Iowa Board of Regents ….” “Our History; About IPR,” Iowa Public Radio, https://www.iowapublicradio.org/about-ipr “Iowa Public Radio Final Report,” Bornstein and Associates, Nov. 2004, https://web.archive.org/web/20070925223230/http://www2.state.ia.us/regents/Meetings/DocketMemos/04Memos/dec04/FinalReport.pdf

Board of Regents transferring stations. Grant Gerlock, “Board of Regents Proposal Would Transfer Broadcast Licenses from Universities to Iowa Public Radio,” Iowa Public Radio,” Feb. 15, 2022, https://www.iowapublicradio.org/ipr-news/2022-02-15/board-of-regents-proposal-would-transfer-broadcast-licenses-from-universities-to-iowa-public-radio

Andrew Wind, “Board of Regents initiates asset transfer to Iowa Public Radio,” The Courier, Feb. 27, 2022, https://wcfcourier.com/news/local/education/board-of-regents-initiates-asset-transfer-to-iowa-public-radio/article_6a3615a8-3998-5549-8670-914047f6038c.html

Decline in legislature support. Adjusted for inflation, the $506M appropriation in 1999 would be $875M today. In fact, the 2022 appropriation was $486M -- $389M less than 20 years ago, notwithstanding the increases in costs. “This fiscal year’s allocation of just over $486 million is nearly $20 million less than the state gave to public universities in 1999 — not adjusted for inflation. To put that into scale: $100 in 1999 would have the same buying power as about $173 in 2022.” Katie Akin, “Proposed GOP budget for state universities is less than 20 years ago,” Iowa Capital Dispatch, March 27, 2022, https://iowacapitaldispatch.com/2022/03/27/proposed-gop-budget-for-state-universities-is-less-than-20-years-ago/

Sally Mason “less favorably viewed.” "U of I's Mason on Other Topics," Des Moines Register, February 11, 2013 (reproduced in, “Self Help for a Helpful University,” FromDC2Iowa, March 1, 2003, https://fromdc2iowa.blogspot.com/2013/03/self-help-for-helpful-university.html)

26 stations. “This statewide public radio network (a total of 26 stations) ….” “Our History; About IPR,” Iowa Public Radio, https://www.iowapublicradio.org/about-ipr

Things universities could have done. See, e.g., "Are the Iowa Universities' Stations No Longer 'Educational," April 2, 2013, https://fromdc2iowa.blogspot.com/2013/04/are-iowa-universities-stations-no.html (with embedded, “Public Universities Not Using Radio Well,” The Gazette, March 28, 2013, p. A5);
“Self Help for a Helpful University,” FromDC2Iowa, March 1, 2013, https://fromdc2iowa.blogspot.com/2013/03/self-help-for-helpful-university.html;
"War On Sabbaticals Casualty of Iowa Public Radio; Universities Should Use Their Stations to Tell Story," December 13, 2010, https://fromdc2iowa.blogspot.com/2010/12/war-on-sabbaticals-casualty-of-iowa.html;
“Public Radio's Self-Inflicted Wounds,” FromDC2Iowa, Nov. 11, 2008, https://fromdc2iowa.blogspot.com/2008/11/public-radios-self-inflicted-wounds.html

# # #

Tags: amateur radio, BBC, centennial, educational stations, FCC, Frieda Hennock, Herbert Hoover, Iowa, IPR, NPR, radio history, regents, Sally Mason, University of Iowa, WOI, WSUI

More on NPR and Juan Williams

October 29, 2010, 7:30 p.m.

Some (Hopefully) Final Thoughts
(bought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
On October 27 I wrote a column in the Press-Citizen about Juan Williams, fired a week earlier by NPR. It was primarily focused on my interpretation -- based on the total context of what he said -- of his intended meaning behind the line seized on by NPR as grounds for firing. (It was his confession that he sometimes feels "nervous" when he sees Muslims on a plane he's flying.) Nicholas Johnson, "NPR Botched Its Firing of Juan Williams," Iowa City Press-Citizen, October 27, 2010, p. A15. It followed one blog entry, Nicholas Johnson, "Unacceptable Remarks: Ex-NPR Juan Williams; What Words Warrant Firing?" October 22, 2010, and was embedded in a second, Nicholas Johnson, "NPR Botched Firing of Juan Williams; Sacked for Speech," October 27, 2010.

By tonight, it has triggered over 60 comments on the Press-Citizen's online publication of the column -- well above average for a Press-Citizen news story or opinion piece.

Normally I don't respond to comments, either on a newspaper's site or on these blog entries. But on this occasion it seemed appropriate to respond in the form of a summarization of some the points I made in the column as well as some that I did not -- due to the word limit, and the focus on the "meaning" of the words he uttered.

I agree that what Williams said, whether in or out of context, is subject to various reasonable interpretations. As quoted in the column, I simply thought that the most reasonable interpretation of everything he said, especially in the context of his challenging Bill O'Reilly's views, was that Williams was emphasizing the dangers of bigotry and prejudice, rather than arguing that all "Muslims" are rightly to be feared.

I also agree that Williams, like all of us, speaking extemporaneously, under pressure in a shouting match with Bill O'Reilly, did not speak in as organized, analytical, and literate a way -- with explanations and qualifiers -- as he would have when he was a Washington Post reporter with time to proof read, revise, and rewrite.

I disagree that Williams was expressing an "opinion," or that he was taking a position on a "controversial issue." The quote that seemingly got him fired was a confession of his feelings. One might lie about one's feelings, but a declaration of one's feelings is a statement of fact, true or false, not an "opinion." (An exception would be if one couldn't remember, or was unclear as to what their feelings were on a prior occasion, e.g., "I don't know for sure, but my opinion is that my feelings on that occasion were . . ." -- in which case the opinion would not be about the content of the feelings but rather about their existence.) Nor was it a "controversial issue." Whether it's appropriate to conduct full body x-ray scans of airline passengers is a controversial issue about which people can and do express diverse opinions. How Juan Williams feels when he boards may have started a controversy about his being fired, but it does not turn his internal, personal feelings, as such, into a controversial issue.

Given that Williams was working for Fox before, while, and after being hired by NPR originally, I agree that it is a bit disingenuous of its executives to now complain that when he works for Fox he becomes a part of its partisan shouting matches. It seems to me the concerns and complaints NPR executives were raising when firing him were not significantly different from what should have occurred to them when hiring him.

Therefore, I also agree that if NPR's displeasure with Williams' Fox affiliation has been an ongoing matter of concern over time it should have been dealt with long ago -- either by not hiring him in the first place, or some lesser punishment (such as a suspension), or if necessary firing him, but hopefully in a more low key way, and after talking to him face to face.

I agree that it is not only permissible, but highly desirable, that media organizations think through, and clarify for employees, the ethical standards they will enforce -- including when, where and by whom personal opinions are, and are not, acceptable from those whose job it is to do "straight news reporting." These concerns would also affect what is and is not acceptable in terms of potential influence, or conflicts of interest, from relations with significant others, financial investments, political, religious or ideological affiliations.

Working for dual, or more, employers raises at least potential problems that can be most cleanly dealt with by prohibiting them entirely -- as we've just seen in the case of Juan Williams. This is a challenge, however, now that America has moved from three TV networks and a half-dozen national newspapers to 500 TV channels and a nation of bloggers. I assume that NPR pays much less than Fox, not to mention ABC, CBS and NBC. If NPR would like to have the service of someone in that league, a high priced celebrity journalist may be willing to pick up the extra pocket change from appearances on NPR -- but would not be willing to work full time for NPR, on an NPR salary, with no opportunity to earn additional income elsewhere.

Finally, we have the additional problems raised by the new technology. Optavia Nasr was fired by CNN for a tweet. Helen Thomas' interview was recorded on a hand held amateur video camera. In the law of privacy we have something called "a reasonable expectation of privacy." Is there any venue remaining in which one might claim a reasonable expectation that one can freely express oneself without every offhand remark (in or out of context) risking the possibility of costing a job? Should employers take evolving technology into account, judging expression in some venues more serious than others?

These responses of mine do not exhaust all the possible replies to the issues raised in the Press-Citizen readers' comments. But they may, hopefully, help to explain my reactions to many of them.
_______________

* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself.
-- Nicholas Johnson
# # #

NPR Botched Firing of Juan Williams

October 27, 2010, 6:50 a.m.

And see the earlier, expanded, "Unacceptable Remarks: Ex-NPR Juan Williams; What Words Warrant Firing?" October 22, 2010, and subsequent "More on NPR and Juan Williams; Some (Hopefully) Final Thoughts," Oct. 29, 2010.

Sacked for Speech
(bought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
On October 27 the Iowa City Press-Citizen ran two columns related to NPR's firing of Juan Williams one week ago today. I wrote from one perspective. Shams Ghoneim, coordinator of the Muslim Public Affairs Council of Iowa, wrote from her perspective. Ms. Ghoneim is also a community member of the Press-Citizen's Editorial Board. Her column is reproduced following mine.

# # #
NPR botched its firing of Juan Williams
Nicholas Johnson
Iowa City Press-Citizen
October 27, 2010, p. A15
NPR fired Juan Williams.

They botched it.

Even NPR's own ombudsperson, under the headline "NPR's Firing of Juan Williams Was Poorly Handled," said of her organization, "a more deliberative approach might have enabled NPR to avoid what has turned into a public relations nightmare."

It's not the first time. NPR stirred up a comparable storm when it fired NPR pioneer Bob Edwards.

Fox TV immediately responded with a multi-million-dollar contract to keep Williams in grocery money. And the Congressional conservatives who never did like public broadcasting now want to eliminate NPR's funding.

NPR's CEO, Vivian Schiller, said Williams violated the rule that NPR employees should keep opinions to themselves, while offering her opinion that he should see his psychiatrist. (He has none.)

A number of persons were fired this year for a single utterance. Williams is only the latest in a long line that includes Tony Hayward, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, Octavia Nasr, Rick Sanchez, Laura Schlessinger and Helen Thomas.

Williams "offense" is most like that of Shirley Sherrod, fired by U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack. In a 40-minute speech explaining her evolution regarding race-based reactions, she confessed to an early one of her own (a white farmer; ultimately she saved his farm).

Williams was interviewed on Fox by Bill O'Reilly, who was making some statements about "Muslims." Williams, a prize-winning civil rights author and advocate, said, "there are people who want to somehow remind us . . . it's not a war against Islam." After Timothy McVeigh bombed the Oklahoma City federal building "you don't say first and foremost, we got a problem with Christians. That's crazy."

He warned, "Bill, here's a caution point. The other day in New York, some guy cuts a Muslim cabby's neck . . . or you think about the protest at the mosque near Ground Zero. ... We don't want in America, people to have their rights violated, to be attacked on the street, because they heard rhetoric from Bill O'Reilly and they act crazy."

In the course of taking on O'Reilly, he made his own Sherrod-like confession that, "when I get on the plane ... if I see people who are in Muslim garb and ... they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous."

It's not easy to have a "conversation" with Bill O'Reilly. But when Williams' confession is fairly evaluated in context, he was not saying "all Muslims are terrorists" anymore than Sherrod was saying all whites are unworthy. He, and she, meant just the opposite.

As Slate's William Saletan said, "Sometimes a confession of prejudice is part of a larger reflection on the perils of prejudice. That was true of Sherrod. And it's true of Williams."

Williams is saying in a country and age of suspicion and fear some people will respond emotionally as "worried and nervous" -- even when they know better intellectually, as he does. And that fact imposes an enhanced responsibility on those with microphones not to foment hate speech -- and actions.

The anxiety is not limited to Williams.

Jesse Jackson once said, "There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery -- then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved."

NPR forbids "news analysts" expressing "opinions" and taking "personal public positions on controversial issues." But Williams' report of his emotional feelings on planes is a statement of fact, not opinion or advocacy, and certainly doesn't involve a "controversial issue."

New media don't help. Nasr was fired for a tweet, Thomas over an amateur video. Now Williams for a well-intentioned extemporaneous remark during a shouting match with O'Reilly.

NPR and other institutions can hire, and fire, whomever they please. But there are consequences -- for them, their employees, and all who believe in fairness and a robust democratic dialogue.
_______________
Nicholas Johnson, a former FCC commissioner, teaches at the University of Iowa College of Law and maintains www.nicholasjohnson.org.
# # #
Addressing fear and xenophobia
Shams Ghoneim
Iowa City Press-Citizen
October 27, 2010, p. A15
Juan Williams, former NPR news analyst and now full-time Fox News political commentator, recently said that when he boards a plane and sees "people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, that they identify themselves first and most as Muslims, I get nervous and worried."

As a member of a minority community and an expert on the history of civil rights in the U.S., Williams should have known better than to publicly share both his ignorance and Islamo-phobia for profit and to create national controversy so close to the Nov. 2 election.

Ethical journalists should not mix their personal opinions with facts. And Williams -- in this most offensive and biased remark -- not only violated this journalistic code of conduct, but also used his public position to spread more prejudice and fear mongering against a minority religious community. Muslims in America have become a punching bag for right-wing commentators, public officials, fringe religious figures and even some elected officials.

This is not about freedom of speech. This is about journalistic ethics as well as the personal responsibility that go with this ethics. I feel compelled to ask, "What would Williams think if a white American were to say, 'Each time I get into a store or a plane, and I see a black man, I get nervous and worried?'"

Williams not only has offended millions of law-abiding American Muslims, but he also has demonstrated the worst kind of journalism. I personally think NPR was right to fire him for his bigoted statements alone. I'm disappointed that Williams chose to be in the company of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and others. And if he wants to be in the company of such admired journalists such as Bill Moyers, Thomas Friedman, Christiane Amanpour or Fareed Zakaria, then I think Williams needs to re-evaluate his conduct as well as his professional goals.

But the Muslim Public Affairs Council recently issued a statement that criticized the firing of Williams.

The council stated, "In the past few months, a number of high profile commentators and journalists -- including Rick Sanchez, Dr. Laura Schlesinger and Helen Thomas -- have been fired or quit due to offensive comments they made. These incidents have made it clear that more discussions need to take place addressing race, religion and American identity in the face of xenophobia and fear."
_______________
Shams Ghoneim is a community member of the Press-Citizen Editorial Board and the coordinator of the Muslim Public Affairs Council for Iowa.

# # #_______________

* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself.
-- Nicholas Johnson
# # #

Unacceptable Remarks: Ex-NPR Juan Williams

October 22, 2010, 8:00 p.m.

And see Nicholas Johnson's published column on the subject, embedded in Nicholas Johnson, "NPR Botched Firing of Juan Williams; Sacked for Speech," October 27, 2010, and the subsequent reply to Press-Citizen readers' comments in "More on NPR and Juan Williams; Some (Hopefully) Final Thoughts," Oct. 29, 2010.

What Words Warrant Firing?
(bought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
Juan Williams, a former Washington Post reporter and prize-winning book author, is employed by Fox News and, until Wednesday evening, October 20, 2010, by NPR as well.

See Brian Stelter, "NPR Fires Analyst Over Comments on Muslims," New York Times, Oct. 21, 2010, p. B2; Brian Stelter, "Two Takes at NPR and Fox on Juan Williams," New York Times, Oct. 22, 2010, p. B1; "RAW DATA: NPR Internal Memo on Juan Williams," FoxNews.com, October 21, 2010 (Fox News publication of alleged NPR President and CEO Vivian Schiller's internal memo regarding Williams' firing); Juan Williams, "I Was Fired for Telling the Truth," FoxNews.com, October 21, 2010; Alicia Shepard, "NPR's Firing of Juan Williams Was Poorly Handled," NPR Ombudsman, October 21, 2010.

His case would seem to bear more similarity to that of Shirley Sherrod and Octavia Nasr than Helen Thomas -- all of whom were also fired for a casual remark. That is to say, if one examines the entire transcript of the relevant portion of the Bill O’Reilly October 18, 2010, program on which Williams appeared, Williams was not criticizing, and certainly not condemning, all Muslims. In fact, if his blog comment is to be believed, he was doing exactly the opposite -– in the course of which, not incidentally, he was criticizing O’Reilly.

Williams statement was about himself, not Muslims. In the context of a discussion of the terrorists attack on the Twin Towers on 9/11, he conceded that even he felt a little nervousness when there were Muslims among the passengers on his plane. The point was, and is, as William Saletan put it in Slate.com, “Sometimes a confession of prejudice is part of a larger reflection on the perils of prejudice. That was true of Sherrod. And it's true of Williams.”

Moreover, given the totality of Williams remarks and writing, and that he continues to fly, it's clear that, intellectually, he has a fairly accurate benefit-cost sense of the mathematically insignificant risk of any plane he's on being blow up by Muslim terrorists.

Muslim extremists aside, there are individuals who have a fear of flying. They might be willing to concede that when they are on airplanes, like Williams, "I get worried; I get nervous" -- notwithstanding the fact that they, intellectually, know they are safer when flying on a commercial airline than when driving a car.

Since 9/11 the government has told Americans to be on alert, to report anything "suspicious." In calculating risks, irrational attitudes about race, religion and ethnicity may play a role in one's emotional response. None other than Jesse Jackson has said, "There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery -- then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved." Remarks at a meeting of Operation PUSH, Chicago, November 27, 1993, quoted in Mary A. Johnson, "Crime: New Frontier -- Jesse Jackson Calls It Top Civil-Rights Issue," Chicago Sun-Times, November 29, 1993, and in Stephan Themstrom and Abigail Themstrom, America in Black and White: One Nation, Indivisible (Simon & Schuster, 1999), p. 263. An African-American friend has told me of similar feelings when she is walking at night and followed by a number of African-American male teenagers.

Here's six minutes of video from the O'Reilly program in which Williams participated:



And here are some textual excerpts from the range of his comments on the show. It was his first response (to O’Reilly’s question, “So, where am I going wrong there, Juan?”) that has caused the furor. Williams replied:

I think you’re right. I think, look, political correctness [i.e., in this instance, a refusal to acknowledge the reality that a disproportionate share of the terrorists wishing, and practicing, harm to America claim to be doing so in the name of Islam] can lead to some kind of paralysis where you don’t address reality.

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.

Now, I remember also that when the Times Square bomber was at court, I think this was just last week. He said the war with Muslims, America’s war is just beginning, first drop of blood. I don’t think there’s any way to get away from these facts.

However, he immediately continued:

But I think there are people who want to somehow remind us all as President Bush did after 9/11, it’s not a war against Islam. President Bush went to a mosque –

. . . Wait a second though, wait, hold on, because if you said Timothy McVeigh, the Atlanta bomber, these people who are protesting against homosexuality at military funerals, very obnoxious, you don’t say first and foremost, we got a problem with Christians. That’s crazy.

. . . [Y]ou said in the talking points memo a moment ago that there are good Muslims, I think that’s a point, you know?

. . . But, Bill, here’s a caution point. The other day in New York, some guy cuts a Muslim cabby’s neck and says he’s attacking him or you think about the protest at the mosque near Ground Zero –

. . . I don’t know what is in that guy’s head. But I’m saying, we don’t want in America, people to have their rights violated to be attacked on the street because they heard a rhetoric from Bill O’Reilly and they act crazy. We’ve got to say to people as Bill was saying tonight, that guy is a nut.

After he was fired, Williams wrote in his blog:

Yesterday NPR fired me for telling the truth. The truth is that I worry when I am getting on an airplane and see people dressed in garb that identifies them first and foremost as Muslims.

This is not a bigoted statement. It is a statement of my feelings, my fears after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 by radical Muslims. In a debate with Bill O’Reilly I revealed my fears to set up the case for not making rash judgments about people of any faith. I pointed out that the Atlanta Olympic bomber -- as well as Timothy McVeigh and the people who protest against gay rights at military funerals -- are Christians but we journalists don’t identify them by their religion.

And I made it clear that all Americans have to be careful not to let fears lead to the violation of anyone’s constitutional rights, be it to build a mosque, carry the Koran or drive a New York cab without the fear of having your throat slashed. Bill and I argued after I said he has to take care in the way he talks about the 9/11 attacks so as not to provoke bigotry.

CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, called on NPR to “address the fact that one of its news analysts seems to believe that all airline passengers who are perceived to be Muslim can legitimately be viewed as security threats.” While that is one possible interpretation of what he said, it is at least equally possible to conclude that he said precisely the opposite; that is, that all “perceived to be Muslim cannot legitimately be viewed as security threats.”

One can observe that, like Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack’s impetuous response to the selected excerpt from Shirley Sherrod’s speech without first examining the entire videotape or transcript, NPR’s executives also weakened their case by lifting a portion of Williams’ comments without considering, or at least crediting, its meaning in context.

Or one might suggest, as David Brooks did in the case of Nasr, that if any punishment was warranted, a fixed-time suspension might have made more sense than a dismissal.

Or if, as NPR claimed, it was Williams’ dual role of news analyst for NPR and commentator for Fox that had been a troublesome conflict and violation of its rules for years, it might have been a better strategy to wait a few weeks and slip the dismissal smoothly under the radar on those grounds than to jump on the specific statement of his that was chosen as "cause." Of course, this was not the first time NPR mangled what could have been a smooth departure. (“The decision by National Public Radio to replace [Bob] Edwards as Morning Edition anchor [in 2004] was one of the year’s more peculiar media stories.” “2005 Annual Report – Radio Content Analysis: NPR’s Bob Edwards,” Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism, March 15, 2005.)

The NPR's own Ombudsperson seems to share some of my judgment about NPR's flawed process:

Williams . . . said he was told his contract was terminated without an opportunity to come into NPR and discuss the firing.

If he is correct, that’s too bad. I think NPR owed him a chance to explain himself.

I’m not privy to the why this announcement was so hastily made. NPR could have waited until his contract ran out, or possibly suspended him pending a review. Either way, a more deliberative approach might have enabled NPR to avoid what has turned into a public relations nightmare. Alicia Shepard, "NPR's Firing of Juan Williams Was Poorly Handled," NPR Ombudsman, October 21, 2010.

NPR CEO Vivian Schiller spoke to the Atlanta Press Club on October 21, 2010. Given her concern about her “news analysts” taking “personal public positions on controversial issues” because it “undermines their credibility,” and putting aside that Williams’ factual statement about his feelings while flying involved neither a “controversial issue” nor an "opinion," it is a mite ironic that NPR itself reports she was so quick to express her own opinion and “personal public position” that Juan Williams should have kept his feelings between himself and “his psychiatrist or his publicist.” Mark Memmott, "NPR CEO Apologizes for 'Psychiatrist' Remark," The Two-Way, NPR's News Blog, October 21, 2010.

Her kind of ad hominem outburst truly does "undermine credibility," suggests a motivation more of petulant personal pique than calm and balanced judment regarding NPR's best interests, and a lack of basic fairness and decency. It has undoubtedly contributed to, rather than ameliorated, what NPR's Ombudsperson has accurately characterized as a "public relations nightmare."

One suspects that NPR's objection was precipitated not so much by a violation of its "rules" for "news analysts" as for the content of Williams' remark (which was both taken out of context, and, as noted, was about his personal feelings of insecurity, not Muslims as such). One wonders if he would have been fired had he said, "Notwithstanding 9/11, when I get on a plane and see passengers dressed in Muslim garb, it makes me proud to be an American, and of the way we respect all people as individuals."

However, Williams was not fired because of his statements taken alone. He, like Octavia Nasr and Helen Thomas, is "a journalist" (most broadly defined). As such, a media employer has a legitimate interest in the public's perception of his absence of bias. Moreover, NPR has the legal right to fire him for any reason whatsoever (consistent with his contract). Nor is this a First Amendment case.

More significant in this instance, NPR certainly has a right to create its own rules regarding journalistic ethics, and preservation of the appearance of its reporters’ (what they call “news analysts”) impartiality. Having done so, it also has the right to investigate, judge, and impose penalties for the failure to comply with its rules.

NPR makes a distinction between what it calls "correspondents" (something similar to what are colloquially referred to as "reporters") and "news analysts." The latter presumably are supposed to interpret the news, tell the audience its significance, or perhaps provide "the back story." It is said that Williams "crossed the line" between "news analysis" and "opinion," or taking a "personal public position on controversial issues." But I can imagine that, at best, that "line" would sometimes be as blurred as the line downt the middle of the highway under a heavy morning fog.

Whether NPR's standards are too strict, ambiguous, difficult of administration, and were appropriately applied in this case are issues about which media owners, editors, journalists, media critics and academics will be debating for a considerable time to come.
_______________

* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself.
-- Nicholas Johnson
# # #