Michael Graham Fired For Anti-Islam Comments
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Good Decisions, Media, ReligionHe called the religion of Islam a “terrorist organization”.
He would not back down.
He was canned.
I first wrote about Michael Graham and it sparked a firestorm of comments. At that time he had been suspended from his program for making what I thought were provably false claims, considering that Islam is a religious faith and terrorists are people who pervert that faith in order to get their way. True, the geo-political climate of Islamic nations do help breed terrorism, but is that the religion’s fault or the people who teach it?
In any event, I felt pretty alone in my condemnation of Graham’s comments then, but I feel a little bit more emboldened now. Why? Well, apparently he went much farther than I previously heard.
According to WMAL, Graham said “Islam is a terrorist organization” 23 times on his July 25 program. On the same show, he also said repeatedly that “moderate Muslims are those who only want to kill Jews” and that “the problem is not extremism. The problem is Islam.”
In a previous post in the past few days, I called for our readers to shun the fringe and tune out talk radio. From Rush Limbaugh to Randi Rhodes, both sides are now guilty in this charade. Vote with your silence and turn this garbage off.
In any event I’m glad WMAL tuned out Graham and took his platform away from him, although I fear that somebody will just give him another one to continue this ridiculous talk. Because if Michael Savage can stay on the air, anybody can.
(Source: Talk Show Host Graham Fired By WMAL Over Islam Remarks)
This entry was posted on Tuesday, August 23rd, 2005 and is filed under Good Decisions, Media, Religion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
August 23rd, 2005 at 10:29 am
Since when is Islam an organization at all, much less a terrorist one?
There are certainly organizations, including terrorist organizations, that claim to represent the whole of Islam, but that doesn’t make it so. Ironic indeed that Mr. Graham has apparently fallen for this bit of their propaganda.
August 23rd, 2005 at 12:24 pm
We in the west are so used to the perception of religion as a personal spiritual path to enlightenment, that it is wholely separate from civil governance. This is because our culture is rooted in Judeo-Christian ethic of our founding fathers; However, traditional Islam is rooted in a completely different mindset.
Mohammad was not like Buddha or Christ. He was more like Alexander the Great or Ghengis Khan. A conquistador who took over territory by militatry force and subjugated the people therin. He went from a simple merchant to the Sultan of Arabia in less than 15 years, created a nation (Dar al’Salam) and established Civic law, all of which He claimed was God’s will. Islam in its original form is both a religion and a government.
Mohammad told his apprentice, Abu Bakr, to wage war until all of the lands of the world (Dar al’Harb) were consolidated under Islamic rule. Islamic law covers everything from inheritance to taxes to dress and prayer. Non-believers must either be harshly subjugated or killed, references to assasination and torture of civilians can all be found in the Q’ran.
I think there needs to be a broader discussion about what traditional islam is, and voices like Michael Gram, Oriana Fallaci, and Irshad Manji who are critical of this religion should not be suppressed because of political correctness.
August 23rd, 2005 at 1:54 pm
Noodles, your points on Islam are well taken, but that still doesn’t equate to “Islam is a terrorist organization.” Nor has Michael Graham’s ability to express himself been suppressed. His employer didn’t like something stupid he said, and fired him. In a free market, it is the right of any employer to fire employees they don’t like. The First Amendment only protects Michael’s right to speak. It doesn’t guarantee him a job or a venue to speak from. I’m surprised and a little disappointed (though perhaps I shouldn’t be) to find a conservative commentator complaining like I would expect a liberal to complain, using the “I’m being repressed!” card.
August 23rd, 2005 at 2:40 pm
I never said that the station had no right to fire him. By all means I encourage them to fire the guy if he does not represent their values. Perhaps my remark about how his voice should not be suppressed did come off as a little too Andrew Sullivan-like. But my opinion is that The network should not have fired him, nor ABC should have fired Bill Mahar, ect..
The point is that we are all walking on eggshells when it comes to talking about Islam. Its better here than in Italy for example where Oriana Fallaci is going to trial for defamtion of Islam, or in sweden where a catholic priest got arrested for calling Mohammad a pedophile (Mohammad in fact did marry a six year old girl named Aisha and had sex with her at the age of eight).
If Nazis believed that Hitler was the prophet of God, should we restrain our criticism of Nazi ideology as the root of violence and hatred, because it would be considered a religion? I dont think the point of Graham’s comments was to imply that islam was a centralized organization like the catholic church; rather, that the religion, philosophy, ideology ect of Islam is historically rooted in violence and oppression, and that Islam itself provides the nourishment and motivation for terrorism. Whats wrong with that?
August 23rd, 2005 at 3:14 pm
This item concerns me less for the sake of Graham’s gross misunderstanding of Islam, than for what it says about freedom of speech in modern America.
Granted, your employer has the right to fire you for any number of expressions you can make. Men have been fired for having a little Confederate flag bumper sticker on their pick-up truck fenders.
But a radio talk show host, in however degraded a fashion, is a member of the media, the “press,” and his on-air statements, however foolish, are a part of the public discourse of the American people.
And in that arena, I do not wish any point of view, however foolish or incendiary, to be ruled out. I do not wish to muzzle creationists, for instance. I want them to be refuted.
Jefferson said the same thing in several different wordings throughout his life. One version of it goes like this: “We are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.”
But if you banish one point of view from the arena of rhetorical combat, you do not silence it. You drive it underground, where it can mutate and draw adherents from all those who say the game is rigged, the truth is forbidden.
Look at the great power that adheres to any word or idea or symbol that is forbidden — the old Confederate flag, once a soldier’s emblem of the army of 11 states, becomes a symbol for racists and rebels everywhere. The swastika, verboten in modern Germany, is what the thugs spray-paint on Jewish cemeteries.
Don’t silence Graham just because you can’t answer him. Learn enough to prove he’s wrong, then do it.
People march every day in America and overseas with posters that say “Bush is world’s number one terrorist” and “America is a terrorist nation.” Should those signs, just as outrageous, be taken from the hands that carry them?
August 23rd, 2005 at 4:06 pm
- In a free market, it is the right of any employer to fire employees they don’t like.
Brian, I agree with you: this isn’t a First Amendment issue, per se. Certainly not with respect to Graham’s freedom to speak his mind, irrespective of his employment status. The ACLU and “hate speech” laws have already neutralized the sort of free speech the First Amendment was intended to protect anyway. Check out the “speech codes” on any college campus. This is just another angle on that phenomenon.
The real issue here has been the two-faced inconsistency of Graham’s employer and, once again, the way events have been twisted and then presented to the public to turn this whole affair into an attack on Muslims and prop up CAIR’s credibility, which is zero.
WMAL had no problem with Graham’s statement until CAIR brought political pressure to bear. So it’s not that they didn’t like what he said. Later, they agreed to bring Graham back but after further pressure from CAIR, they balked. They let themselves be manipulated by CAIR. That’s their prerogative, right or wrong. All’s fair in love and advertising, and this ought to provide some clues as to what motivates large media organizations–even the ones which ostensibly support conservative voices like Graham’s.
But WMAL’s politically motivated betrayal sets an unwelcome precedent that can effectively stifle any real discussion of moderate Islam’s responsibility (let alone culpability, which arguably exists) with respect to bringing those terrorists in their midst under control. You know: the ones who use Islam’s sacred teachings to justify the murder of children?
Any further call for moderate Muslim action can now simply be met by political resistance from CAIR, ending the discussion. Moderate Islam is now free to sit the rest of this one out and let the West deal with the terrorists. In the end, this goes to Callimachus’ point. If Graham and any others who espouse his sentiments are wrong, they need to be engaged and, if possible, refuted–not muzzled. I wrote earlier: “Our collective, PC conditioning against addressing racial and ethnic issues head-on is going to bite us in the a$$ here.” After today, I am more convinced of this.
In light of Noodles’ points regarding Islam’s origins and history, and the fact that moderate Islam has utterly failed to help deal with the terrorists who use Islamic teachings to justify murder (Graham’s original point, BTW), Graham’s statements were not inaccurate. Inflammatory? Incendiary? Polarizing? You bet. Purposely so, if you read them in context (which few people have and which WaPo has purposely failed to provide). But provably false? Hardly:
http://tinyurl.com/dav7d
“But what is lost in most media accounts–and is never mentioned by CAIR–are the surrounding statements made by Mr. Graham, which put the thrust of his comments in an entirely different light.” [definitely read the whole thing]
CAIR denounced the actions of Michael Graham–who’s never killed anyone–in order to get him fired and “punish” him, but CAIR has consistently refused to denounce murderous Hamas. Or the murderous Hezbollah. They claim “It’s not our job to go around denouncing.” Yeah, right.
When Graham calls Islam a “terrorist organization”, first he’s supported, then he’s stabbed in the back and fired due to political pressure. OTOH, when Cindy Sheehan calls the President the “biggest terrorist in the world”, she gets a free pass. And applause. No “hate speech” there, I guess. Presidents aren’t a protected victim minority.
Double standards abound, it would seem. ;-)
Finally, it would be extremely interesting to see the “…moderate muslims…” quote *in context*. WaPo seems to have conveniently lost the source and others are mysteriously eager to parrot their copy without question. Since WMAL does not provide transcripts of their shows (see their FAQ), it would be interesting to learn where this quote comes from.
Interesting to some, anyway.
August 23rd, 2005 at 6:37 pm
I can see how you may think that, but respectfully, the real issue is Michael Graham and his incendiary rhetoric. If Graham would have said something like “Islam certainly isn’t helping matters any and I believe it’s up to the Islamic world to take a stand against these extremists and say ‘Not in our name’.” we wouldn’t be talking about this issue today.
Also, media outlets bow to all sorts of different pressures. They’re in this to make money, not to allow people to say whatever they want. Sometimes they don’t have the best guage on the situation, so it’s up to outside groups to put pressure on them, so the outlet’s talent will retract provably false statements. I wish this sort of thing happened more so people like Graham don’t think they have carte blanche to say whatever they think.
Guys, as I said in my post, I fully accept that the way Islam is taught doesn’t necessarily dissuade terrorism. But Graham’s comments were just ridiculous. And that Washington Times article only references ONE time he called it a terrorist organization in a column he wrote. I’d like to hear the actual show, since he apparently said it 25 times, according to the station.
Besides, that remark about moderate Muslims and Jews…well, that alone should have gotten him fired.
August 23rd, 2005 at 7:02 pm
Like it or not (and I don’t), talk radio is one of the topographies in the American media landscape where the “extremes” dwell. It’s the soapbox in Hyde Park; it’s not a place you turn to hear William F. Buckley discuss hermeneutics with C.P. Snow. So is the Internet.
Just as a hypothetical, what if Graham was an employee of a soap factory in Peoria (yeah, I know, they’re all in Mexico since NAFTA), and he wrote “Islam is a terrorist organization” 25 times on a blog. Should he be fired?
I would expect that a New York Times columnist (and his editor) might be justifiably fired for writing as Graham spoke.
One can say “I don’t like incendiary rhetoric,” but if you say “incendiary rhetoric ought never to be heard by anyone,” then perhaps it’s time to measure that against the ideal (not the legality) of freedom of thought.
August 23rd, 2005 at 10:13 pm
Indeed. But why not work to reverse that trend? I see WMAL’s move to fire an unapologetic Graham as a good move towards creating a healthier conversation. And, as you know, that’s one of Donklephant’s aims: to elevate the conversation about salvos, ad hominems and provably false statements.
I think most incendiary rhetoric is covered under the 1st amendment and I’ll fight to keep that right. But freedom of thought is not damaged by Graham’s firing. He believes what he believes and WMAL accepted his stance and told him he couldn’t work for them anymore as a political commentator.
And as far as the soap factory, if you work for a company you represent them in some way. If the factory has rules and regulations against blogging about religion, etc., then I would say yes, Graham should be fired in that case, especially if he knew about the regulations. People have been fired for blogging about MUCH less. The case of Mark Jen of Google comes to mind.
However, each situation is unique with its own set of specific circumstances. At that point it’s up to individual to either keep their mouth shut, get another job or take steps so that nobody can really prove who they are. I, for one, am glad you decided to go with the latter.
August 24th, 2005 at 4:00 am
There is no such thing as anonymity pn the Internet. Someone with enough motivation can find anything. And there are those who will gladly reveal. It’s only a matter of time. I know this. Freedom to use one’s voice to try to change the world is worth the cost. But if I disappear one day, you’ll know why.
August 24th, 2005 at 8:44 am
- …that alone should have gotten him fired.
Assuming (as too many seem anxious to assume) that’s what he actually said and, more importantly, that the apparent meaning of this sentence fragment holds in the context of the rest of the sentence and the rest of the context in which it was presented.
An unsourced, out-of-context sentence fragment does not a firing offense make.
August 24th, 2005 at 10:30 am
You can be anonymous on the internet Callimachus, but it definitely takes some doing. I’ve heard a lot of tips, but one is never mentioning where you work or throwing out a little misinformation to protect yourself.
But if you do disappear one day, I hope you reemerge with a new job, a more understanding employer and a stronger voice, because from your previous posts, the job you’re in right now seems less than ideal.
Goy, that’s a fair statement, so show me the context of the sentence and we’ll discuss it. I can’t find it, but given that his employers found it offensive, that’s good enough for me. We’re not living in a world where you can say anything you want and not feel the reprecussions.
However, I will also say that I did some more digging and this isn’t the first time Graham has been fired for making wild remarks. Does it prove out the Jew comment? No, but it certainly points to a trend of: open mouth, insert foot.
From the Wash Post
August 24th, 2005 at 12:28 pm
- …show me the context of the sentence and we’ll discuss it.
Sincerely, I would maintain that’s incumbent upon WaPo and/or WMAL, since the former is reporting that the latter is claiming it, but neither has provided a written transcript showing the context. Even worse, this claim emerges at a point in time where WMAL has a clear conflict of interest regarding the truth of the matter, due to their inconsistent treatment of the issue. At one time we had journalistic standards that would have precluded stuff like this being printed (and re-printed) with no accountability whatsoever. Not today I guess.
Either way, it seems like this statement would have been a gold mine for CAIR. So it’s more than a little confusing that it’s not listed on *their* site? Isn’t it.
- …that’s good enough for me.
Really? Wow. I’d submit that it’s even incumbent upon you, to a lesser extent, to verify the context. You’re using the sentence fragment in your post to make a point without actually vetting the source or context yourself. Isn’t this exactly the sort of thing cat-food-eating bloggers are chastized for by the ‘guardians of truth’ in the mainstream media? Then again, newspapers never lie or print Front Page “errors” with Back Page “corrections” for partisan purposes. Sheesh, what am I thinking…
- …given that his employers found it offensive, that’s good enough for me.
These would be the same employers who–according to CAIR themselves–initially stood behind Graham, insisting that his statements did not deserve disciplinary action, correct? WMAL didn’t indicate *they* “found it offensive” until CAIR’s campaign to punish Graham, at which point he was suspended. They then reached an agreement with Graham but subsequently balked and fired him after CAIR demanded he be fired. I find it simply fascinating that you don’t see the hypocrisy there.
BTW, just so we’re clear (again), no one’s claiming that Graham isn’t a loose cannon who makes incendiary comments to get people’s attention (at least I’m not), or that an employer doesn’t have the prerogative to hire and fire people in keeping with what they view as best for business. I don’t believe, however, that they should be congratulated for their hypocrisy.
Graham’s premise is that the structure and content of Islam is the primary enabler–some might go so far as to say the primary *motivator*, though I don’t–for Islamist terrorism. As long as people like bin Laden and organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas can point to the Qu’ran as justification for murder and driving Israelis into the sea, and “moderate” Muslims collectively cower or yawn in response, there will continue to be problems. That hardly equates to the strawman claim that “Muslims are bad people”. Plenty of folks see this and continue to call attention to it using terminology they believe will have the most efficacy in resolving the issue. Others use terminology that will ruffle the fewest feathers.
Muzzling Graham in order to prevent the issue from being discussed hasn’t changed any of that, all it’s done is temporarily swept him from his public soapbox (he goes to rightalk.com starting next week). Worse, it has prevented someone else *engaging* him with, “You’re WRONG, and here’s WHY…”. Worse still, it’s set a destructive precedent that insults the spirit of the First Amendment and gives organizations like CAIR a political mechanism to avoid probity and responsibility.
August 24th, 2005 at 1:05 pm
Respectfully, I’m not going to debate Graham’s premise with you again. We have different opinions about it and we’re not going to agree.
But to some of your other points about free speech and context…
Respectfully, if you bring up the point that it could be taken out of context, you should provide the proof that it isn’t. The honus is not on me to prove YOUR point. Evidently, WMAL didn’t think it was out of context, otherwise they wouldn’t have brought it up in the statement. Prove it false or don’t bring it up.
And as far as you saying that their treatment was inconsistent, I’ll just give you an example of what I face here on Donklephant. Sometimes, I can’t read every single post that gets published on the site because my schedule can sometimes be hectic. More often than I not I do read everything, but certain circumstances sometimes prevent me from doing so.
That’s why I have to rely on my fellow contributors to follow some very basic principles that I’ve outlined. Beyond that it’s simply a trust issue. I can see a situation where some at WMAL didn’t listen to Graham’s program every single day, and when CAIR cried foul, they went back, reviewed the tape, and found that their was indeed cause for Graham to be suspended.
And hey, if Graham feels he was wronged, he should sue for wrongful termination. It’s certainly in his rights as an American citizen. However, I still contend that a private entity can change their mind given public sentiment. I’m not saying this is what happened, nor am I saying that if it did happen that it’s consistent, but it is legally within their rights.
This situation actually upholds the 1st Amendment. Graham isn’t in jail. He simply lost his job. And groups like CAIR have every right, under the 1st Amendment, to protest Graham’s remarks and call for his dismissal. That’s the free flow of ideas. Again, paid speech isn’t free from recrimination, and that’s been proven out time and time again.
Let me give you an example. if I were to go into a sponsored forum (say my company’s blog) and write provably false remarks about certain search technology companies, the buzz around the blogosphere would most likely be negative and probably say something to the effect that I don’t know what I’m talking about. My bosses would probably be pretty angry with me and would possibly consider firing me. And if they did fir me, because I wrote something that was untrue and slanderous, they would have every right to do so since I represent their company.
The same is true for Graham since he represents WMAL. It’s up to their discretion, not Graham’s, about whether something is a fireable offense or not. And I don’t think any of us want to take this right away from employers, especially when we’re talking about a situation where all Graham had to do is apologize and move on.
Dan Rather did it. Why not Graham?
August 24th, 2005 at 2:52 pm
- you should provide the proof that it isn’t.
Come on Justin, now you’re just being silly. It isn’t even a *complete sentence* for heaven’s sake! No context is provided. No source is cited. It is the *epitome* of Out-Of-Context! QED.
- I can see a situation where…
Sure you can. And I can see any number of alternative situations. I can sympathize with your position as editor here, but the simple fact is that it’s not relevant in this case, as I’ll explain. CAIR *explicitly* claimed, and I quote,
“When contacted by CAIR, WMAL’s Program Director Randall Bloomquist said he stands behind Graham. He said that while WMAL would not permit the use of the “N-wordâ€Â? or anti-Semitic slurs, Graham’s remarks about Islam do not require disciplinary action.”
http://tinyurl.com/8jcap
Bloomquist–who has not been fired, to my knowledge–could not have made the above statement without reviewing the program content in question. CAIR’s statement indicates that he knew exactly what Graham had said when he expressed his support… unless he lied, or CAIR is lying, neither of which I find likely at all. So we have–at least according to the “injured party”–WMAL standing firmly behind Graham’s right to say what he said one day, and then suspending him without pay a few days later. Meet Hypocrisy.
In fact, the very article you cited has this:
“Officials at WMAL … had initially declined to take disciplinary action against Graham, ***defending his comments*** as part of the overheated rhetoric of talk radio. But that stance began to change as complaints about Graham’s remarks mounted.” [emphasis added]
So your hypothetical scenario flies in the face of the facts YOU selected. You read these things you link to, right?
What’s more, since we’re just blindly accepting what we find out there on the internet without vetting, there was plenty of support FOR Graham coming in to WMAL–some 15,000 phone calls to protest his suspension, IIRC.
http://tinyurl.com/99qcz
WaPo conveniently neglected to mention that minor detail as they tried to justify WMAL’s hypocrisy.
Let’s not get hung up on what’s “legally” acceptable here, OK? That’s just a journey down the path to another strawman. I’ve already clearly stated that WMAL is well within their legal *rights* to do what they did. You read that, right??
Likewise, this speaks to your odd statement that Graham isn’t in jail. Huh?? Again, since you took the time to quote it, you must have noticed that I clearly wrote the *spirit* of the First Amendment, not the letter of the law. Suppressing free speech, unless that speech comprises a clear and unequivocal incitement to violence, etc., (the classic yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater), is absolutely against the *spirit* of the First Amendment. In context, Graham’s statements were certainly incendiary, but he wasn’t inciting violence. He is not being accused of saying “let’s go shoot Muslims!!” or the like.
- …groups like CAIR have every right, under the 1st Amendment, to protest Graham’s remarks…
Non sequitur. As far as I read, no one has claimed any differently.
- …all Graham had to do is apologize and move on.
Why should he apologize for broadcasting his opinion–an opinion with which thousands of his listeners apparently agree!!?! One might more realistically note that all CAIR had to do was *demonstrate* how Islam is NOT a terrorist organization. They went to enormous lengths to shout him down, why not go to more positive lengths to engage and successfully dispute him? Unless, of course, they can’t.
August 24th, 2005 at 4:04 pm
Maybe I’m hopelessly out of touch after all, but part of me still expected the liberal “side,” or part of it, to stand up for the right of the individual to say what his reason leads him to believe, and not be squashed by a corporation for doing so.
August 24th, 2005 at 5:46 pm
First, read this article about the Graham suspension that was written on the day after the suspension, and about 4 days after the broadcast.
And yes, I will reassert that I do not believe that people are fully protected for “sponsored” talk. I don’t even think that’s any ideal we want to strive for because it has the potential to put way too much power into the hands of toxic employees. I will reassert this opinion time and time again throughout this response, because it speaks to a fundamental difference we seem to have.
To your points Callimachus, I am standing up for the right of the individual. He has the right to sue WMAL. However, I’ll never defend the right of an individual to have carte blanche over a media outlet’s image. If one of our contributors were to say the same things Graham said, I would seriously question their contribution to this site because statements like that speak incredibly poorly of this site and its content.
To your points goy, who is to intrepret the “spirit” of a law? And while I realize you agreed with me that WMAL was well within their rights, you then you go on to defend Graham and say the decision was wrong. I appreciate the difference there, but again, once somebody is sponsored, they give some of their rights (as a representative of that company) over to the corporation or corporations that sponsors them. That’s the law. I appreciate that you don’t agree, but I don’t think that’s a point we’re going to resolve.
And by the way, it seems like Graham help create his own mess by contacting the Washington Post. From the article I cited above:
A few more of your points and my responses:
-“Officials at WMAL … had initially declined to take disciplinary action against Graham, ***defending his comments*** as part of the overheated rhetoric of talk radio. But that stance began to change as complaints about Graham’s remarks mounted.� [emphasis added]
….You cite Randall Bloomquist, the WMAL Programming Director, as the person who defended Graham’s statements initially. This is true, but it was WMAL president/GM Chris Berry who suspended Graham. Does Berry have a higher position than Bloomquist? It appears so and if so it means he disagreed with Bloomquist and had the power to overrule him. So while your point is accurate, there are some outstanding facts that you might not have known.
-“So your hypothetical scenario flies in the face of the facts YOU selected. You read these things you link to, right?”
…..The point you brought up proves nothing except that WMAL changed their mind. Big deal. Corporations change their mind everyday, and as my new evidence suggests, the call came from somebody higher up than Bloomquist.
Also, please don’t question whether or not I read the article. Extend me some simple courtesy.
-“Let’s not get hung up on what’s “legallyâ€Â? acceptable here, OK?”
…..Simply put, the law IS the deciding factor, and like it or not that’s what I’m sticking to. As I stated above, you simply can’t take this power away from companies. That’s not to suggest that you have said the right should be taken away. Companies have to be able to fire somebody for saying things that don’t represent their interests.
-“Why should he apologize for broadcasting his opinion–an opinion with which thousands of his listeners apparently agree!!?!”
…..Why? Well, the biggest reason I can think of is if he wanted to keep his job. If he didn’t want to keep it, he didn’t need to apologize. Also, it doesn’t matter if thousands of listeners agreed with him. Again, you’re looking at the “spirit” of the law or what you feel it should be. WMAL paid Graham so WMAL had the ultimate option to fire him.
-“What’s more, since we’re just blindly accepting what we find out there on the internet without vetting, there was plenty of support FOR Graham coming in to WMAL–some 15,000 phone calls to protest his suspension, IIRC.”
….Blindly accepting? Excuse me goy, but you cited WorldNetDaily for your source, while I cited the Washington Post. There’s a massive credibility difference there.
And by the way, the WND is the same publication which called for the release of Clara Harris, after she ran over her philandering husband. And this editorial is from the editor and CEO of WorldNetDaily.
An excerpt:
But all that is secondary to the issue at hand. It doesn’t matter if 15,000 people did call into support Graham. It matters what the station managers deem appropriate to have on their station. You obviously don’t agree with me, but we won’t be able to resolve that issue.
August 24th, 2005 at 6:59 pm
- …who is to intrepret the “spiritâ€Â? of a law?
If it’s not as I described, I’d love to know what else it might be.
-…you then you go on to defend Graham and say the decision was wrong.
Er, no. In observing WMAL’s hypocrisy, I’m not defending Graham. I’ve tried to explain his premise, whether or not I agree with it as he expressed it. I’ve tried to point out that negative reactions to Graham are either partisan reflex or based almost entirely on out-of-context quotes provided by folks anxious to present his statements as something very different from his intent. That’s pretty well analyzed in the Mowbray/WaTimes link, above. And where did I write that the decision was “wrong”? It was a judgment call. I believe I wrote that the way the decision was handled was hypocritical, destructive of free speech and sets a dangerous precedent.
As for any “outstanding facts” that might excuse or explain WMAL’s inept and hypocritical handling of this issue, the only relevant fact is that Bloomquist acted as the representative of himself and his superiors all the way up the line when he responded to CAIR, regardless whether or not he actually consulted them, which I am quite confident he would have.
Rumors have begun, of course, and standard corporate precedent in cases like this bodes ill for him (there’s usually a scapegoat required), but I have yet to find anything concrete to indicate that he has since been countermanded, contradicted, reprimanded, suspended, fired or asked to apologize for *his* support of Graham. And even if/when I do, it will only provide additional evidence of WMAL’s ineptitude as a talk radio outfit, and one willing to bow to PC pressure at the first sign of trouble.
With respect to Graham initially contacting the WaPo–yes, I’m sure that WMAL wanted to sweep the entire incident under a rug internally and be done with it. That hardly makes Graham the architect of his own demise.
- …WMAL changed their mind. Big deal.
Changed their MIND?? Going from standing behind someone’s remarks to suspending him for those remarks is a change of *policy*, not just a change of mind. As I said: meet Hypocrisy. You say Tomato… ;-)
- …the biggest reason I can think of is if he wanted to keep his job.
Yes, and in the process abandon his principles, such as they are, and his ability to express his opinion–**which is precisely what he was hired by WMAL to do**! He made the right decision, given the facts to date.
- …you cited WorldNetDaily for your source,…
I’m glad you took the bait here. I deliberately picked WND. Why? Because in this specific case they directly attributed their quote to a verifiable source, which I went ahead and verified (Graham, by reading his site). WaPo neither attributed their claim to an accountable individual, nor did they present any contextual information that would support their use of the sentence fragment to cast aspersions on Graham. So there is absolutely no way to validate it. So much for “credibility differences,” eh?
- It doesn’t matter if 15,000 people did call into support Graham.
Sure it does, unless one changes the context, as you have here. WaPo used the negative response to Graham’s statements to imply that WMAL’s decision was “justified”. They conveniently neglected to mention the positive response to Graham’s statements which would have undercut same, showing its hypocrisy.
August 24th, 2005 at 7:51 pm
Fair enough. Let’s move on.
August 30th, 2006 at 1:17 pm
I love your blog im an avid reader of it. Please take a look at mine Athletes foot and let me know what you think