Fox News "Protects" Juan Williams, Hands Him $2 Million


Fox News Chief Executive Roger Ailes handed Williams a new three-year contract Thursday morning, in a deal that amounts to nearly $2 million, a considerable bump up from his previous salary, the Tribune Washington Bureau has learned. "Juan has been a staunch defender of liberal viewpoints since his tenure began at Fox News in 1997," Ailes said in a statement, adding a jab at NPR: Hes an honest man whose freedom of speech is protected by Fox News on a daily basis.

Heh. Maybe Fox News can "protect" me too. What does it take to get that kind of protection? Who do I have to offend?

Speaking for me only

< Thursday Afternoon Open Thread | Juan Williams: Cable Talk Shows Are Where He Belongs >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    How I hate this type of spin (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by MO Blue on Thu Oct 21, 2010 at 04:23:40 PM EST
    Juan has been a staunch defender of liberal viewpoints.....

    Please save us from a Fox news version of "a staunch defender of liberal viewpoints." They are hired to distort rather than defend liberal viewpoints.

    Give him $4 million for all I care, just stop calling him a liberal.

    I suppose that by today's (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 21, 2010 at 05:05:26 PM EST
    definitions, anyone who can work at NPR for longer than 12 months must be a liberal....having to dwell upon facts and all that.  In the olden days Juan would be someone who failed so huge in analytical discourse that he no longer had any credibility.  That was yesterday though.  Today is a new pay day.

    So...... (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Zorba on Thu Oct 21, 2010 at 06:05:28 PM EST
    What about Mara Liasson?  Will she be asking for her $2 million from Fox?  I would if I were her (and, no, I don't care for her at all).

    Liasson already rebuked by NPR (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by MO Blue on Thu Oct 21, 2010 at 06:25:56 PM EST
    Ombudsman for this comment on Fox.

    "I thought that woman actually asked a pretty legitimate question. Cash for Clunkers is like a mini-Katrina here," Mara Liasson said. "It's not good to start a government program and not be able to execute it."

    Another comment like this and she might be able to get $2 million out of Fox.


    Hahahaha! (none / 0) (#13)
    by Zorba on Thu Oct 21, 2010 at 06:31:43 PM EST
    Thanks for the link.

    How did this very shallow man (none / 0) (#23)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Oct 21, 2010 at 11:19:36 PM EST
    get a high-profile job at NPR to begin with? Or anywhere in journalism, for that matter?  Mara Liasson at least occasionallyo has a thought about something, but I've never heard anything you could characterize as a thought from Williams.

    Buwhahahahhahaha (5.00 / 0) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 21, 2010 at 04:55:45 PM EST
    Is it still bad form to screech out the word WHORE in the background?

    If it is, I won't even touch Whoremaster then.

    Just strike this from the record

    Well, before this happened, Juan Williams was (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by rhbrandon on Thu Oct 21, 2010 at 05:12:15 PM EST

    Now, he's paid for.


    I see once again (5.00 / 0) (#7)
    by robotalk on Thu Oct 21, 2010 at 05:20:58 PM EST
    I'm gonna have to work on my being shallow and ass-kissy skills.  Secrets for success this days.

    No, you have to be stupid, too. Required. (none / 0) (#8)
    by Angel on Thu Oct 21, 2010 at 05:23:34 PM EST
    If I was... (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 21, 2010 at 05:25:26 PM EST
    Alan Colmes I'd be ticked off right now.

    3 years 2 mil and he doesn't have to co-host with Hannity every night, only on occasion?  That ain't right:)

    Exactly what I was thinking ... (none / 0) (#16)
    by Yman on Thu Oct 21, 2010 at 08:05:01 PM EST
    ... when I read this.

    Colmes... (none / 0) (#18)
    by lentinel on Thu Oct 21, 2010 at 08:10:11 PM EST
    the petulant punching bag? That Colmes?

    Who knows (5.00 / 0) (#14)
    by lentinel on Thu Oct 21, 2010 at 06:45:05 PM EST
    what or whom NPR is protecting by forbidding any coverage of Jon Stewart's rally on October 30?

    I know I feel protected.

    Coverage? I heard Stewart say (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Cream City on Thu Oct 21, 2010 at 07:43:16 PM EST
    NPR (correctly) banned employee participation.

    But I was laughing a lot at that point, as Larry King's donation to the event was rolled out, that I may have misheard.  Link?


    Why (none / 0) (#17)
    by lentinel on Thu Oct 21, 2010 at 08:08:47 PM EST
    should NPR ban employee participation?

    What is political about this rally?

    And if it were political, what is the problem with providing coverage? (Not that it's necessary - Comedy Central is supposed to be broadcasting it.)

    Something feels fascist to me about controlling an employee's right to attend any public function that they might want to attend.

    What are they afraid of?

    Ever since NPR started taking corporate grants and government money, they haven't been the same. They lost their touch.
    They're perfect for the Bush-Obama era. Middle-of-the-road safe. Not ever confronting the government. A slight furrowing of the brow over slaughter in Iraq. Then on to more cheerful matters.

    What has happened to our country?


    Because (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Cream City on Thu Oct 21, 2010 at 08:26:28 PM EST
    that's part of the code of ethics of SPJ, adopted by major (and many other) media outlets.  Some journalists take it so far as to not vote.  

    And many have lost their jobs in journalism for violating the code, for participating in political events, for donating to candidates, etc.

    Professionals have codes of ethics -- lawyers, doctors, etc. -- and they know it going into the profession.  A family member of mine in law has not only the professional code but also the firm's practices to follow re politics.  Or they get out.  

    Now, if you want to get into the history of ethics codes, even specifically into the history of the ethics code in journalism, that's a far longer post (or look up SPJ and ethics and code and history, I bet).

    By the way, as a public employee, I also have have a lot of restrictions on my political activity.  If I don't like it, I switch to a private campus -- but many, of course, are restrictive in other ways.

    The outrage about this professional norm is so interesting here. Has anybody been in a profession that doesn't have a code of ethics?  No -- because a code of ethics is one of the criteria that defines a profession (to distinguish it from a trade, a craft, a job, etc.).


    NPR hasn't been (none / 0) (#20)
    by brodie on Thu Oct 21, 2010 at 08:28:36 PM EST
    the same since at least the Reagan admin when Mean Bob Dole and the GOP went after them for their alleged librul bias.  That came around the time the network experienced a near financial meltdown, so they added conservative/Beltway CW voices and took corp or foundation grants for stories.  

    It's been a rather tame, timid, noncontroversial mainstream news outlet since then, excepting some cultural coverage.  More or less tracking PBS.  Neither, iirc, were originally established to provide just more of the same of what the commercial outlets were offering, but that's been the case for both for years, decades even.  I stopped contributing to both back in the 80s.


    sanity (none / 0) (#21)
    by pyrrho on Thu Oct 21, 2010 at 08:56:52 PM EST
    is a known liberal concept.

    How have you been? (none / 0) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Oct 21, 2010 at 10:27:19 PM EST
    great (none / 0) (#25)
    by pyrrho on Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 12:06:51 AM EST
    except for checking out political blogs again.  yourself?

    It's NOT (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Oct 21, 2010 at 11:21:44 PM EST
    forbidding coverage.  It's forbidding participation or even observation by anyone who isn't part of whatever news coverage they're giving it.

    dont think it will work (none / 0) (#2)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Oct 21, 2010 at 04:29:01 PM EST
    you have to offend the right people.  or in this case the left people.

    He's offended a few left people (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Oct 21, 2010 at 04:45:11 PM EST
    over the years so that can't be it, I don't think.

    when you find out, (none / 0) (#11)
    by cpinva on Thu Oct 21, 2010 at 06:10:28 PM EST
    Who do I have to offend?

    let me know. heck, i'll happily offend anyone, for the right money.