A lot has been written and said about NPR's firing of Juan Williams, so much so that I hadn't planned on writing anything at all.

But then today two things happened: One, I finally got to hear more of the back story from NPR. Two, I had a longtime friend declare she would no longer be supporting NPR because she felt they were intolerant.

So here I go. 

I'm a journalist. I've been one for, well, a long time. But every single publication I've worked for has had rules designed to maintain at least an illusion of neutrality. No campaign bumper stickers. No signs in your yard. No attending rallies or fundraisers unless you were on the job. 

Some papers felt that endorsements put unfair pressure on reporters - after all, most readers don't know that the paper's editorial board is generally in a completely different place in the building - and the hierarchy of the staff. The average work-a-day beat reporter has no idea and no input into who their paper endorses. But they still face the ridicule of readers who fall on the opposite side of the editorial board's stance.  

So some newspapers, on varying levels, try to make sure there's a modicum of objectivity. But more and more - especially on cable news networks - the line between journalist and commentator is blurred to the point of nonexistence.  Opinion is presented as earnest truth, and unless you plan on spending the bulk of your time fact checking while you watch Glenn Beck, news consumers generally become opinion consumers.

So when a news organization comes down on the side of ethics and demands its reporters and staff remain neutral,  it's sadly no longer the norm. It smacks of censorship to the general public, because it's completely alien as an idea. The thing is, it's what we should've been doing all along. We as a journalistic community allowed this to happen. It's incredibly sad, I think, that a news organization insisting on true objectivity is met with suspicion instead of welcomed as a relief from the conflicting and loud reports from either side of the divide.

NPR's stance on objectivity is not new. For instance, they have asked their correspondents to not attend rallies - even ones by satirists.  And according to NPR's report this morning, it seems their problems with Juan Williams were ongoing. They had moved him from reporter to commentator as his comments became less news and more opinion. They requested that Fox no longer identify him as an NPR commentator when he appeared - a reasonable request when you consider he was being paid by Fox to appear there. He wasn't on NPR's dime - he was on Fox's. On NPR, he was to present fact. On Fox, he was there for his opinions. Different hats, different titles.

After hearing the NPR report, and having a whole day to digest it and read other reactions, I realized that Juan Williams didn't get fired for saying something about Muslims. He got fired for saying something incendiary - sound bite or no - on a talk show with an incendiary host  while being identified as being with NPR. 

Where I work now, I had to sign an agreement that if I was representing or using my company's name, I had to behave in a way that would reflect well on the company. Most companies require that.   

The First Amendment guaranteed Juan Williams the right to say whatever he wanted. But what many forget is the fact that the First Amendment isn't an olly-olly-oxen-free. Free speech comes with responsibility, and with the knowledge that you can say what you want, but there may be consequences. And it certainly doesn't preclude your employer from requiring you to maintain certain standards when you use their name as your foot in the door, or your calling card.