Talk:Juan Williams

Mary, I think it's a good plan of attack to put topical articles up. Remember to start with an encyclopaedic opening. See my first edit. 5 W's, (and an 'H'!) Aleta Curry 21:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Aleta! I was starting to make the same edits you did and noticed you had started editing so I did not save the changes. I agree with your edits as that's how I would have written it. I was trying to make the article sound more like an encyclopedia rather than a news story. If I were to write it as a news story it would have been:

Juan Williams was fired from his National Public Radio job after comments he made during a Fox News television show...blah, blah, blah. Love your edits and thank you! Mary Ash 21:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Ooh - sorry! Didn't mean to cross-edit! Did you get ye olde 'edit conflict!' message? Irritating, but can't be helped.

Looking at your 'newspaper copy' - yes, it's pithy, but do you see that that assumes the reader knows who he is in the first place? Also, think of a teenager in Calcutta reading your piece...what's Fox News? Should it be in brackets so they can read all about it?

Keep in mind that (in my view at least) an encyclopaedia should provide easy, informative reading for a person who has never heard of the subject before. The goal is to make people want to browse through its pages.

Aleta Curry 21:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Fox News is an organization that likes people to believe it is qualified to watch the chickens, possibly the turkeys as well? (bird turkeys, not politicians) Howard C. Berkowitz 00:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)r

This is true I think. In other countries very few people know about Fox News. It's either CNN or... CNN. (Chunbum Park 17:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC))

Indeed, even in the online CNN, compare the differences between the US and international editions. I have my preference set for international; it tends to give a better presentation. More often than not, when I do read CNN on U.S. politics, it's going back to a transcript cited by another publication, such as the Post or Times, or in expert commentary. Howard C. Berkowitz 18:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions

We need to create at least a brief National Public Radio article, and move some of the things that are more NPR than Williams there. The two articles, of course, should cross-link. Remember that there is also some topical involvement from George Soros.

This article might also link to Islamophobia.

Paragraphs 2 through 4 of the lede should move under the first heading, and the official correspondence under a 2nd level subhead. The whole NPR-Williams-Fox issue is not new, and should be documented before the firing. I'd hardly call Williams a little-known figure, but I'd also call nationwide fame a little strong. Howard C. Berkowitz 22:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

FDR properly called December 7, 1941, a day that will live in infamy. Does Williams really rise to that standard? (Incidentally, I'm deliberately not making content changes so I could later nominate as a Politics Editor). Howard C. Berkowitz 01:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

See recent additions to George Soros. Howard C. Berkowitz 01:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Howard I do believe the Williams story is significant especially so as both the liberal and conservative media called into question his firing. The firing also brings into question free speech too as Williams was fired after his Fox News interview, according to NPR. This is a timely article with plenty of questions.Mary Ash 02:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Free speech issues perhaps should be a subhead. In this case, the clearest First Amendment argument for freedom of the press applies to NPR and Fox, but not necessarily Williams. The courts, in general, have equated free speech of journalists to be expressed by the publishers. Williams is free to state his views, but many constitutional lawyers would argue he has no right to be supported by a publisher when he exercises that right. The First Amendment does not guarantee jobs.

Without judging whether his rights have been infringed, consider that it's far easier to publish today than in 1789. Given that he promptly got a contract with Fox, I wouldn't mind having my rights infringed briefly, if I then got a multimillion dollar contract to share my views through another sponsor.

It's not at all clear-cut from a Constitutional standpoint. Hypothetically, if Soros' contributions were contingent on firing Williams, something I personally doubt, was Soros expressing his free speech? Soros probably acted as an individual, but what about the corporate free speech in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission Howard C. Berkowitz 13:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I spliced some

I did my thing with the first paragraph! Didn't add or subtract, only moved around. It needs some more finesse. D. Matt Innis 22:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks everyone! Nice to see some collaboration at work. I had fun starting the article and I look forward to everyone helping out.Mary Ash 22:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Photo

I was thinking about emailing either NPR or Fox News for a mug shot. Any suggestions on how to write the photo request?Mary Ash 22:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I was just looking online for a PR shot, but couldn't find one real easy. You'd think they'd have headshots for us to use. D. Matt Innis 23:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

NPR probably did. I'll try to take a head shot off the TV tonight.Mary Ash 01:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Do we need to still get permission from a TV broadcast photo? D. Matt Innis 04:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know as I took the photo from a satellite broadcast. I'll google some and you might ask someone with more legal knowledge than I have. Mary Ash 04:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's a link to the US Copyright office: [1] I do believe the photo is OK to use as "fair use" as Citizendium is nonprofit and trying to offer educational materials. You'll have to get a legal opinion as I am not an attorney.Mary Ash 04:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Lead or led??

I do believe lead is the correct word not led. I did not make the change back to lead but what do you all think??. And here's the MW definition: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/leadMary Ash 23:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

whar are we talking about? There's lead, then there's lead, and lede, and of course, led. Which one are we using where? D. Matt Innis 23:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

...lead to his firing...Mary Ash 23:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

"Williams reached nationwide fame after his firing from National Public Radio (NPR) after comments he made on a Fox News television show that led to his firing on October 20, 2010."Mary Ash 23:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

See English irregular verbs. Léd is the past of lêad, but it sounds like léad, the metal, hence the confusion. Ro Thorpe 23:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict - but I had to leave it in because it's funny that Ro posted as I was writing it!) That's "led". The lĕd that is spelled "lead" is the heavy metal. But, ask Ro or Hayford, they'll know for sure. They have language computers for brains. D. Matt Innis 23:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll just add, because I'm time-wasting instead of editing, that I hate 'lede' substituted for 'lead' with the passion of a thousand fiery suns! I don't care that 'lead' could be lead, or lead, or lead! That's English for you...ewe...yew!! Aleta Curry 23:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I hate it too! Exterminate!! Ro Thorpe 23:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

That settles it, if *you* two feel that way, then I will no longer be swayed to write "lede" again! Of course, unless Hayford makes me :) D. Matt Innis 00:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Lede canot be transmuted into gold. Howard C. Berkowitz 00:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I used to hate it too, but someone here at CZ who used it (Prof. Jensen?) explained that U.S. newspaper editors began using it 30 or 40 years ago in order to avoid confusion in the re-write room. Editors were *always* referring to the first paragraph, or the first sentence, and yet "lead" and "led" etc. were also *very* common verbs and there was a lot of confusion. So someone, I forget who, invented the word "lede", which would specifically refer to only a single thing. Once I had this firmly in mind, and bearing in mind the needs of CZ, I reluctantly came to the conclusion that we should use it. After all, I'll bet that 50% of all drive-by edits are made to the lede paragraph -- anyone want to challenge me on that? And anything that makes comprehension easier is always a virtue. After all, we don't, in English, have an Academie Francaise trying (fruitlessly) to preserve the purity of our language. English has become the universal language it is because, mostly, it can change, mutate, and import from other sources better than any other language. Ro? Comments? Or, comment? Hayford Peirce 01:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

ah, dang. D. Matt Innis 02:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Good to know you used to hate it, Hayford. English spelling is complicated enough already, and "lede" is truly grotesque. Did Prof Jensen (or whoever) outline what that "lot of confusion" involved, I wonder? Ro Thorpe 02:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you mad? Someone invented a buzzword and therefore we should use it in an encyclopaedia even though it does not enjoy widespread usage, because we're easily confused, or lazy? Richard's a clever man, but he has a lot of strange ideas, this is one of 'em. It's ungainly and it obviously didn't catch on, since even American journalists refer to the 'lead paragraph'. I see no reason to rewrite the language, or to force a rewrite that didn't take the first time. Aleta Curry 03:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

(undent) the Venetian blind leading the... Howard C. Berkowitz 02:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Or something to do with the ink having lead in it, so the lead led to the lead being read red. D. Matt Innis 02:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

A newspaper is black and white and read all over. Back to Juan Williams? Howard C. Berkowitz 02:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Just as long as it isn't black and white and lead all over. Aleta Curry 03:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

(unindent one more time) Best just to take a look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lede_(news) Hayford Peirce 03:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

All I know is I'll take my editor's lead when he says "You better get that lede!"Mary Ash 03:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Aw, look, if even Wikipedians think it sucks...! Aleta Curry 03:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Definition, and Williams' history

At the moment, the definition says he came to public attention due to the firing. Not so! First, he's been a well-known political journalist for many years.

Not even the NPR-Fox issue is new; it had been a matter of conflict since he first started appearing on Fox, perhaps as a token liberal. Howard C. Berkowitz 02:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Howard I have now rewritten the sentence. Hopefully the dates are still correct but I will check for that too. Also, this reminds me of the old "What's that in the road A HEAD or AHEAD LOL!Mary Ash 02:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Now, that's just gross! :) D. Matt Innis 03:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Alternatively, you may be familiar with Tony Hillerman's series featuring a Navajo police officer. Early in his law enforcement career, he was trained on some new electronics. Given that he had been struggling to break a drug ring, he convinced an drug-sodden informant to wear a recorder, and sent him to a meeting.

Thus, he was the first to wire a head for a reservation. Howard C. Berkowitz 03:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

More resources

• NPR's Ombudsman says firing was mishandled; story addresses how this might motivate conservatives. [2]
• Williams' positioning and expectation problems, 2009 [3] (i.e., the conflict isn't new)

Howard C. Berkowitz 05:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Politics; calls for defunding

For background, I've started Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and will be creating National Public Radio and others. First, I should mention that the call to defund CPB, the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities is nothing new.

Second, I don't think Congress has the power to defund NPR. Public funds are received by the quasi-autonomous non-governmental organization of CPB, and then are disbursed to PBS, NPR, etc. The latter, while created by CPB, are separate nonprofit corporations that can receive individual and corporate contributions. CPB certainly influences them, but doesn't have total control, any more than NPR has total control over locally chartered public radio stations.

I think the political issues belong under the organization involved, with only a brief mention in this article. There probably should be a "core" public broadcasting article to discuss some of the political theory and legal aspects of government-supported broadcasting in all media.

Mary, I hope you will continue to take the lead in writing this, with collaboration from others. While I cleaned up some references (e.g., "citation" seems to work better than "cite web") -- I haven't made substantive changes and am trying to stay a non-author Politics Editor here. Howard C. Berkowitz 13:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Howard thanks for the edits. It is barely 0730 here and I am on my first cup of coffee while filling out my mail in voting ballot. I'll try to get to the article today, but I have breakfast to cook, clothes to wash, and plants to water. Plus I would like to spend some quality time with hubby dearest before he goes off to work next week never to be seen again :-) Mary Ash 14:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Wanted: "

There are orphaned closing inverted commas in section 1. Ro Thorpe 14:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC) - Fixed, thanks, James.