There has been a lot of talk recently about NPR’s firing of Juan Williams. The Christian Science Monitor reports, “Williams is the latest entry in a growing list of journalists whose employment ended after trying to state their opinions quickly and plainly. They include CNN producer Octavia Nasr, for bemoaning the death of a Hezbollah cleric, CNN host Rick Sanchez for calling Jon Stewart a bigot, and longtime White House correspondent Helen Thomas for saying that Israel should ‘get the hell out of Palestine’.” Williams was reportedly fired for saying “…when I get on a plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they’re identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous” while appearing as a guest on Fox News.
Actually, according to NPR CEO Vivian Schiller; Williams’ was NOT an NPR employee; he was an independent contractor. “He’s not NPR staff. He’s an NPR analyst. We have a contract with him for analyst opinions to provide news analysis. He is not a columnist or commentator.”
Many people have claimed that Williams’ first amendment rights were violated by being fired for expressing an opinion. That brings up several interesting questions.
- Considering that NPR receives tax-payer funding, do they have a right to terminate someone for expressing an (unpopular) opinion?
- If Juan Williams’ rights were violated for being terminated by NPR, have my rights (and yours) been violated for not being employed by NPR?
- Though the better and more appropriate question is: should American taxpayers continue to subsidize public radio and television?
The National Taxpayers Union (the only union I’ve ever joined) has lobbied for an end to such subsidies. In June NTU sent a letter to Representative Doug Lamborn (R-CO) to show support for his legislation to end all funding for the quasi-governmental Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which partially funds NPR. The letter states, in part:
“While CPB is a private, non-profit organization that raises its own funds through many different outlets, taxpayers still bear the burden of approximately 13 percent of its total income. CPB received $420 million from taxpayer subsidies in 2010 alone, and that number is likely to grow considerably in the coming years. There is little doubt that public broadcasters disseminate useful information and quality programming, but taxpayers simply should not be responsible for funding a private entity that exists in a robust market serving consumers of many preferences and income levels.
Furthermore, it is unjustifiable that federal funding of the CPB has risen 26 percent over the past decade when the original purpose of that exercise has become virtually obsolete. Initially, the Public Broadcasting Act was created to institute taxpayer-backed public broadcasting in order to make telecommunications services available to all citizens. That is hardly a concern today as we find 99 percent of Americans in possession of a television and over 95 percent of them have access to the Internet.”
NTU shows why tax payers should not be forced to subsidize public radio and television. Considering that NPR receives tax-payer funding, do they have a right to terminate someone for expressing an (unpopular) opinion? Seeing that Williams was an independent contractor, he wasn’t “fired” rather his contract was canceled. Not knowing the details of his agreement with NPR, I don’t know if he has any legal recourse, but I would not say his rights were violated. Though that still leaves unanswered: If Juan Williams’ rights were violated for being terminated by NPR (which I don’t believe they were), have my rights (and yours) been violated for not being employed by NPR?