>> funding for overheard with evvn smith is provided in part by hillco partners, texas govvrnment affairs consultancy and its global health care consulting business unit, hillco health. and by the mattson mchale foundation in support of ppblic television. and also by mfi foundation, improving the quality of liff within our community. and also by the alice kleberg reynolds foundation and viewers like you. thank you. -> i'm evan smith. he's a veteran political years at the washington post and eleven years as a senior news analyst at nattooal pubbic radio. he's now a political analyst for fox news. his books include the best-seller eyes on the prize: america's civil rights years, 1954-1965 and the recently published muzzled the assault on hooest debate. he's juan williams. this is overheard.

♪ >> smith: juaa williams, wwlcome. >> williams: evan, good to be with you. >> smith: very nice to have you here and congratulations &->> williams: ttank you, sir. >> smith: could you tell us what happened that was the genesis of this? would the book have been written, although the point is a general point, not entirely about your own experience over the last few so, would you have written the book without what happened to you? because the point is a bigger point... >> williams: the point is a much bigger point, but let me just say that, as we're

hhre toddy. >> smith: yeah. >> williams: .it's about a year. >> smith: yeah. >> williams::.it's almost a year to date since this whole thinn exploded. >> smith: right. >> williams: and i must say i never thought i'd be in this situation. because as you were pointing out, the kind of books i've written and, you know, you would hope that you woold get attention for your wriiing or forryour journalism, and suddenly i found myself not being the storyttller, but being. >> smith: the story >> williams: .the subject of the story. &-but, would i have written it without that moment? probably not, but here's the other half of that ccin, that once it happened i suddenly found that i had so mucc to say. as you say, that's just the ooening chapter, the hook, youuknow being fired by npr for saying what is a genuine feeling, was not meant to be but then, i found myself in terms of the writing process producing a book that i.that's a very good book in myyopinion, but doinn so in about four months. and i don't think i could have done it if all of this

&-an antecedent.n as sort of >> smith: i want toohear the story from, from you, because of course we've heard the story from a lot of othhr people, but, but, in, in the book you do a really good job of ú&creating what happened. i forgot that what preceded this was actually, bill o'reilly on the view. >> williams: correct. and bill o'reilly on the view making the case that the mosque -- a mosque that &-manhattan wanted to locate near groond zero should not be put theee. because -- and this is what bill o'reilly says on the view, muslims attacked us on 9-11. that prompts wo of the co--osts of the vieww whoopi goodberg, joy behar to walk off the set, huge row, and then he says, oh, but i was talking about radical muslims. that gets in the papers the this was on a friday, saturday over the weekend, and on monday on his show on fox news, he as me as his lead guest and says to me, where'd i go wrong? what did i say that waa wrong? why re these people getting so upset? >> smith: right. >> williams: and my response to him was, look i'm not going to play politically correct games with you, you

are right. the people who attacked us on 9-11 were muslim and i. >> smith: well, factually what's, what's to be.what's to arguu with what he said? >> wiiliams: exactly, well, and i think it was importann to say so, that looo i'm not playing games with you. but then what i went on to say, and again this was part of what i thought was a debate,,in which i'm trying to build some rapport with bill o'reilly saying, i understand we're talking honestly with each other, but then i'm gging to go on to make a second point. in, in that spirit i say to him, look, i understand one that you are right, the people who attacked us were muslim. secondly, when i'm in airports, if i see people to this day dressed in muslim garb as i'm getting on a plane it makes me nervous, i get anxious about it. and then i went on to say, but we're a coontry of religious liberty. i wouldn't want anybody making judgments about y fellow christians based on timothy mcveigh or westboro baptist church, those people who engage in those offensive rants at military funerals. and then i go on to say, and that's why, you know what, we don't want to say things to do acts like burn the quran, that crazy minister

in florida.. >> smith: indeed driver's throatt which had happened shortly before in new york city. so, ittwas part of an honest converration in which he's then firing at me, and i'm firing back at him. but then, suddenly i found that my words were taken out of context and that the council on american islamic relations had labeled me a bigot, and was calling me to be fired. fact that i was workiig for fox, ncluding media matters, then launched their own media campaign against me. >> smith: well, and they had had it in for yoo for a long time before. >> williamm: right because of fox. -> smith: right. how darr yyu associate yourself with this non-news orgaaization. >> williams: well, in their in opinion non-nees. >> smith: in their opinion, right, yeah. >> williams: remember, and the obama whhte house at one point had launched this whole idea that it, fox is illegitimate news organization and shouldn't even have a seat in the white house ress corps. so there was a lot of factors at play, and suddenly they all coalesced like a lightning rod or a lightninn strike around me. >> smith: now, now, again, i hear what o'reilly said on the view, reminded of it in your book, aad i think, factually he's right.

>> williams: well, that's what i said to him. >> smith: there's nothing bigoted about whatto' reilly said. ú& williams: no. smith:of course it's true if you want to get more specific, that it was sooe muslims, or some.. >> williams: some radical muslims >> smith: .radical muslims. &-wronn.reality is, he's not >> williams: no, and, and, you can't have an honest conversation abbut terrorism in the country if you are so politically correct and believe, you, you are being seesitive as to not acknowledge reality. and, you know, this is not justta ppoblem of some folks on the view who think, oh i'm being sensitive to muslims and i'm trying to avoid stereotyping because mmst muslimm are not terrorists, obviously. >> smith: rightt obviously. >> williams: but this is a problem that extends even to something like the obama white house where you will get the president and the homeland security secretary refusing to use the term terrorism. and why do they do that evan? because they say, oh we don't want to encourage the idea, as george bush had promulgated it, that we're, war on terror, and some may hear global war on islam.

>> smith: against islam. >> wiiliams: or against muslims. so instead, they use this euphemism, man-made disasters. i think it's just, everybody is like, are they kidding? are you joking with me? man-made disasters?3 >> smith: and, and, and ttis is the emblem of the larger environment of correctness that you write about in this book where we're all so careful not to ay what we actually mean. or we're too caerful, we don't really say what we're thinking because we're worried that we might offend somebody or. >> williams: rightt >> smith: .some group, and that's, and that's it. do you, when you hear yourself tell the story of what you said, do you think, yeah i'd like to have that one acc? >> williams: no, in fact what i was. >> smith: would you say it differently if you could? ú& williims: no, but this is the thing,,i mean, it was so curious. let me just say on two fronts. one when iiwas being fired, the first thing that the head of npr news said when she got me on the phone was, what did you mean to say? and i said, i saii whht i meant to say, it was, that's what i meant to say. okay, the second part -- >> smith: her premise was, surely you didn't mean that. >> williams: right, she, youu3 know what she said then was, i don't detect any remorse,,3

ann i said remorre.? >> smithh for what >> williams: right exactly. so.so, okay and the second part of this in response to your question very directly is, given the business that we're in, writing, public ú&eaking, appearrng on tellvision, there are moments when i wake up in the middle of the night and think, i should have said that differently. or in the shower you think, this. if i'd provided more context that would have made it stronger, better, more.. >> smith: ight. >> williams: .easily understood. i have never had that moment about this. >> smith: well, in fact, s you've indicated, you did provideemore context. >> williams: that's what i think. >> smith: after the fact that people didn't ay attention to that. >> williams: no, no, no, not after the fact. in the coorse. >> smith: no, no i mean that. >> williams: .of that debate with bill o'reilly. >> smith: right, but my point is, you said what you said, then after youusaid what you said, onnthe same program you said other things. >> williams: correct, well, to me. >> smith: ann the other things are being ignored. >> williams: correct, it's, so it's part of the fabric of an argument and debate. in other words you might build from point a to point b, but it's all there at the time in real ttme,,in a live spprited debate, in an3 honest debate. >> smith: and if you take one piece out of it, of course it can be misunderstood or misconstrued. >> williimm: and it.and you know this, there's history of this -- i'm going to block on the namm, but you,

oh, shirley sherrod,,3 >> smith: at the department -f agriculture. >> williams: she, she hhd in the ourse of making a statement about,,really what was soot of a, an epiphany, that she initially says, you know, he wasn't going to be3 helpful to white farmers down in flor. n georgia i believe, where he, while she was working for agriculture. then she realizes, no ne is heeping this poor white farmer. and do you know what? we're all in the same situation and she goes on to have this moment of, sort of, revelation. well, someone takes the out of context aad then of course the white house, fearing that someone is going to attack them, about life. had this feeling they fire her before they even understand the entirety of this speech and the powerful redemptive spirit in which she's making this, you know, this admission. i mean it's just crazy, but to me, the larger oint s that in this atmosphere it gets hard, not only to talk and say what's on your mind, oh even to say he facts, which is muslims did attack us, and you know what, there's a real link between

radical islam and terrorism in the world, and for a journalist? how's a journalist supposed to ignore, you know what, terrorists, muslim terrorists, lopped off daniel pearl's head. >> smith: right. >> williams: you know what. radical muslimsskilled theo van gogh for making a women are treated. >> smith: right. >> williams: you know, and it's a reality. we still have a political now thaa is unbelievablee yet you can't have this conversation without someone saying, we hhve to bb careful, sensitive, i mean you know. >> smith: well, in fact the larger point ii that we have young men and women on behall of this country all over the world fighting to make possible thh kinds of freedoms that we're apparently not will to allow ourseeves to take advantage of. >> williams: right, but you know, this is the thing, it's just like to me, ttat we would actually.i guess it's politicallcorrectness, but we would actually somehow, give up our 3 and i just think that's crazy, because democracy and good deas and real solltions flow from honest,

spirited, sometimes even pointed debate. and i think if you don't have that debate then you ffnd yourself, you know, making badddecisions or not solving problems. and, and, and, and evan how many problems, in terms of government and our national identity at this moment, do we have from immigration, to budget ceilings, to gun control, that we don't have honest discussions about,ú you're not allowed. >> smith: not allowed to talk, you can't even talk to people you disagree with. >> williams: oh no, yyu're a bad guy, you're a bad republican if you talking to the democraas, bad democrat if you talk to the republicans. >> smith: alright, now let me turn this around. you worr for a network that many people believe is the architect of the. >> williams: yes. >> smithh .environnent that you''e describing. >> wwlliams: right. >> smith: right? so how do you square, what i know is yoor very sincere beliif xpressed in the book on the one hand with working for roger ailes and fox on the other. maybe you don't agree with the criticc of fox, that,3 thht it is the embodiment of the poisonous debate. >> williams: no i don't think it's the embodiment of the poi.i think it's a reflection of pooarized politics in the country and

i think part of that. >> smith: you think fox is a reflection and not a cause. >> williams: no, i, you know, look i think.-3 >> smith: that's like, she was ead when i got there, i mean. >> williams: well, what i'm sayinn to you is i think if you look at how politics ú&rks in the country, it works in terms of base, that you've got tooget your base out, you've got tt rally your base, you've got to excite your base. that's how politicians work in the ountry. now if you look at the way that the congressional districts have been gerrymandered. >> smith: right. >> williams: .they are gerrymandered in order to protect the elected position of people in congress. >> smith: absolutely true. &-thhs by carviig out a base. >> smith: right. >> williams: ok so this isú the way it works in media tto. >> smith: right. >> williams: you say, we know thaa if we cater to3 this base. >> smith: right. >> williams: they will watch, they will read, they will listen, they will come to our website. -e are going to cater to that base. -ow thhre's a thin line between catering and pandering. >> smith: right but it, but whether it's catering or pandering wouldn't you say, and i put msnbc ann fox in the same category. i don't want you to think i'm just picking on foo. >> williams: in fact i think, oh no, i think that msnbc in fact i think has patterned itself on fox and i would argue that they have more ideologues than fox does.

>> smith: i would love to have that conversation with you specifically. do you really think that's the case?3 >> williams: well, i just look at the lineup. we can starttat the lineup that begins, i believe at 5 or 6 o'clock, and you've got strong left wing. sharptonn ed shultz, chris matthews, rachel maddow, and lawrence o' donnell. >> williams: correct. smith:i can't name five on fox, sean hannity >> williams: go ahead, keep going. smith:bill o'reilly >> williams: keep going. &-van susteren. will you consider greta van susteren, you don't consider her in idealogue in the same way? >> williams: no. smith:you consider her to be more centrist than the people i named on msnbc? >> williams: i'll let you be the judge, but i don't think that anybody who.i mean clearly, again, she's oo fox but i don't think she's an ideologue. i just don't think that. i don't think shepard smith is an ideologue. i don't think bret baier is an ideologue. >> smith: you don't think brit hume? >> williams: brit hume, i think, is a very strong conservative, but again i don't put him in the same category that i would put sean hannity, no i do not. >> smith: you don't. >> williams: i think brit hume is quite a good journalist. done the work.t say, he'' brit hume's been around washington >> smith: right. >> williams: .-nows thh players, knows the dynamic. thhre's a different kind of

fox out of the roger ailes tradition, which is a lot of talk radio hosts. >> smith: right. >> williams: .who come and i.they're not.i would not3 label them as journalists. i would label brit hume as a very good journnlist. >> smith: do you consider chris matthews to be an ideologge? >> williams: yeah..3 >> smith: you do? >> williams: i do. >> smith: you put him in the >> williams: well, i think he's been around. you know his book hard baal i think is a classic but my feeling is that, so he's much more of an american politics. ideologue.arpton is an >> smith: right. >> williams::yeah. >> smith: i guess the point i'm making wiih fox and msnbc whether agree or disagree, as far as the number of people on one side or another, ren't they reaffirming the idea that the book that we all. >> williams: well, no, no, no. >> smith: .retreat to our partisan camps and e don't. >> williams: i think you asked me a different question.ú >> smith: yeah. >> williams: you asked me, do i think fox causes this and i said to you, i think fox is a refleetion. >> smith: reflection of it. >> williams: .and i expllined it to you smith:right. >> williams: i think that &-country is working and it's driving the conversation to extremes, and media reflects this because eyeballs, ear drums, are drawn pretty much to characters, to these very

strong dominant tv and radio personalities, who reeffirm preexisting opinions or political positions for the audience. >> smith: right. >> williams: and so, fox has takkn advantage of that aad it's taken them to the number one, and they obviously their production values the talent. they really have done it well. >> smith: yeah. >> williams: .but this in an important point, because they've also allowed me tt be there. i mean i'm not. >> smith: right. &-conservative, i mean, some people say, oh you're pretty conservative about family issues, church. >> smith: but you're a self >> williams: yes i am. are?mith: have been? >> williams: it's a fact. so here i am and nobody ii telling me what to say. >> smith: right. >> williams: so then the question becomes much as you had asked earlier, well, why are you there? aren't you legitimizing these people and all the crazy things they have to say? and my response is, i think somebody should enter the arena and takeethem on, and i think someone should say, take them on.

>> smith: and you don't feel -- you and mara liasssn from npr are often viewed as the token liberals. >> williams: could be. >> smith: right, you don't feel like, remember how they mock, hannity and colmes.o you know they would have, they would have alan colmes on just to say that they had a democrat on the air. you don't feel like you are being relegated to that, just so we can say we have a democrat, we have juan williams or mara liisson on status? >> williamss no, i mean i.thh question would be again, are you sooehow making legitimatt an illegitimate news organization. first and foreeost. >> smith: yeah. >> williams: .if they didn't have me, they'd still be the number one cable hannel, i don't think i'm the key to cable channel. >> smith: you, you, you, i want to ask you this question about fox then i'm going toomove on to the, to washington post and some other things. do you believe tte faii and balanced sllgan is appropriate or applicable to fox? do you believe that as a news organization? >> williams: yeah, but i think it's provocative, i think it is intended to antagonize their opponents. >> smith: but ii it accurate? >> williams: it's accurate ii you are talking about the news. >> smith: right. >> williams: .parr of the day. >> smith: so the bret baier, sort of the people who are not, as you say, not the ideologues but the news people. >> williams: yeah, ii you're talking about ed hhnry who just came over from cnn. >> smith: cnn indeed. >> williams: .the white houss correspondent.ú >> smith: or john hemmer. >> williams: or if you're talkiig about. >> smith: what's his name? bill hemmer

>> williams: bill hemmer, if you're talking about wendell goler at the state department. if you're alking about peopleewhooactually cover, i mean f you're alking about, you know, shannon bream at the supreme court. these people are high quality reporters. >> smith: they'rr real jourralists. >> williams: they're telling you what's going on. >> smith: yeah. >> williams: now you may get some of the anchors or hosts during the daytime who will ask questions from a conservative perspective, and you say well, isn't that slanted? ii's not, they're not asking crazy or illegitimate questions. it's fine. if you want to ask it from a conservative position, go. but you know what, notice the journalists are giving them facts back.3 >> smith: well, if you go over to msnbc you listen to tamron hall during theeday, she's asking questions from a liberallpoint of view. >> williams: well, all i'm saying, but that's the environment that we live in, in media today. ttese niche pockees in the way that, you know, the new york times editorial page is positioned versus.. >> smith: wall street journall right. >> wwlliams: .the way that the wall street jouunal editorial page is positioned. so do i think that the wall street journal and the new york times have created the polarization? no, but i do believe, much fox, that they are in this environment, hey, they feed

on this environment, and some might say that they benefit from this environment. i would say the politicians, &-the extremes, benefft from this environment. >> smith: no question. >> williams: and to my mind, -t's time to call it out, because it is deleterious, it's damaging, to honest dialogue in the country, damaginggin terms of seeking sslutions to the real3 prrblems that bedevil the country. it's why people have lost faith in american leadership on wall street, in washington, in the pews. people say you know whht, you guys aren't even dealing with it. you just want to make monee, protect your position.ú yyu're not actually about solving a problem for anybody but yourself. >> smith: right. let me ask you, i, hear all thaa, and i want to ask you if you feel like hank williams jr. going on fox and frrends, ann, i don't know that he directly compared obama and hitler. >> williams: he did. >> smith: he came real close if he didn't directly do it. i heard it.: that's the way >> smith: okay, so, is that an example? &-monday night football from doing the host, the

introduction, the music. >> williams: it's the songg >> smith: .before the song before the broadcast of the football game. is he a victim in the same way that you are a victim of this environment of political correctness or did that cross a line? >> williams: i think that crossed a line, and i'll tell you why. i don't think that presideet obama is hitler, okay. i ddn't think there is anything in any way remotely vaguely analogoos. to me it's outrageous, and econdly it shuts down conversation. it is simply meant to demean the president of the united states. let's take away whatever differences you may have with this president, i think that kind of languageeabout our -- the president offthe united states is ouurageous and i think that it is intended to absolutely shut down a conversation. he, i think he thought he -as being a funny guy, and i think he thought he was bbing a provocaaeur, and he was going to be rewardee for being so rude towards the president of the united and i -- here'' the thing. fox didn't fire him. abc fired him, and why did abc fire him? ú&ain, i think the answer is

their advertisers and their audience, they have people who are watching that program, monday night football, they have people advertising on that show that they feel could not or would not tolerate that3 association anymore. that if he's there, they3 wwre going to lose audience, they were going o lose same thing happened with limbaugh, same company actually, abc/espn, when he went after donovan mcnabb by sayingghe thought the only reason that people say he was a good quarterback is because he's black. i think for them, hey don't want football tt become so3 highly politicized that it's a program or one specific party or another. they want all americans at that table. >> smith: i think i know the answer to this, hhving ead the book, but did it.was therr any point at which ellen weiss or vivian scciller at npr or anybody at the network, the organization, say to you, we're concerned that our listeners, or our underwrittrs wiil not want to support us in an environment in which we have juan williams who said, i'm afraid -- you know, effectively, i'm afrrid of planee i mean did you get any.i'm

just wondering if there is any analogy at all between the two? >> williams: no, it's never said. >> smith: yeah. >> williams: now, there weree3 earlier conversations, some of which are recounted in the book, in which they say, when you are doing thh prime time, and again the distinction i made between, the, most of the day time hours when thhre is straight journalism goinggon versus the opinion page, the prime time hours on fox. you know, they had said, we don't want yoo to identify yourself as npr when you are on those shows. and i thought, well, his is pretty stupid, but okay, fine because i'm trying to accommodate, because i valued npr as a platform for journalismm and then later, then thee, then it was, we don't want you to write op eds. we speech. we want to approve ann book ú&ea you have. i'm thinking, what is goiig on here? and then it was, well, you can stay on staff, but then we have to control everything you say and write, or you, we'll give you a contract. i said okay, alright, because again, i love the npr audience. >> smiih: you wanted to be associated with the audiince. >> williams: right, okay. then i sign the contract immediately, less pay, and my role is diminished on the

air, and it becomes clear they're looking for a3 pretext to get rid of me. >> smith: rightt well, the washington.you were not working at the washington poot by the time this whole contra temps happennd is that correct? >> williams: no, no, no, no i was working at the washington post and fox simultaneously, i was finishing, this at the end of the 90s i was finishinn my thurgood marshall book.3 and then fox, so i was working at fox. npp then comes in and says we want you to be our afternoon talk show host, to do, talk of the nation, and i decided i would leave the post and join npr. >> smith: yeah, but my point is, so a year ago when all, when this happened, this, this, the, the basis for the bookk you were not employed at the washington post at the time. >> williams: no. >> smith: would the washington post have done to you had, it theeexact same circumstances had happened? >> williams: no, because, again, again i would have been an opinion journalist,,3 a columnist at the washington post is the analogous post, right? so i'm the news commentator for npr, i guess that's like being a columnist for the washington post. >> smith: yeah. >> williams: they do not say to their columnists, who are

speeches, you can't write books, you can't write other pieces. >> smith: or you can't say this thing specifically. >> williams: no there's no such thing. in fact when npr subsequent to the large contretemps over my firing, hired a law firm to come in and conduct aa independent investigation, they said, well, contractually you have the right to fire him but there is o such thing as some journalistic standard that he violated. and of course then that leads to ellen weiss either deciding she's leaving or being forced out >> smith: bbing forced to resign. >> williams: right. >> smith: do you feel yeaa later? >> williams: you know i feel lucky, and i tell you why, because i think that there ú&e lots of long knives, politics, but you are also aware therr can be some really sharp mean boardroom politics and corporate office politics, and i think that once this thing blew up on ellen weiss and vivian schiller, and then they had the board come in and say you are damaging the npr brand and it's going to hurt us with fundraising, and all

that, it's in fact invited the republicans in the house now to use this as a cause célèbre to arrue for defunding npr. once they realized the damage then all of the sudden, there were long knives between the two of them, and there were the interest of the people, of people of the oard who may have not liked them for one reason or another. so at that point then, it becomes a circular firing squad. and i, so for me tt say oh i feel vindicated, i feel so grateful that justice has been done, i actually, i know, you know, that's, that's corporate politics going on there. >> smith: yeah. >> williams: i don't, no one know, juan, we did something very wrong and crazy here and we apologize to you. >> smith::you have never been apologized to? >> williams: no in fact, you know -- >> smith: i know that at one point of reading in the book, at one point that ellen weiss said or vivian schiller tried to get you to have a conversation. >> williams: right, this was after she had said that anything juan williams said shoold be kept between him and his psychiatrist. as if to suggest, oh, and reporter, in passing, she says this in front of a miccophone in front of a tv

cameea, in front of a large &-i mean, it was intended as ú& ad hominem attack. >> williams: .to marginalize me to diminish again, to, to say, he is not to be takkn seriously, he's not a legitimate journalist, in fact, he is somewhat unstable, wink wink. >> smith: yeah. well, you seem pretty stable to me. you. >> smith: you're very welcome, you're very welcome. >> williams: by tte way you know people have said to me, so what if oo were seeing a psychiatrist, i say first of all i wasn't, but yyu're right i mean, i, the fact that someone goes into therapy. >> smith: right. >> williams: .doesn't mean operate in public life, or that they can't do their job. >> smmth: that's a whole other thing. >> williams: that's a whole other thing, but apparently sheeoffended a whole group of people she didn't even think about >> smith: yeah, intend to offend. >> williams: yeah exactly. >> smith: we're out of time. you knoo, this has been fantastic, i mean. >> williams: i appreciate that. >> smith: i mean, a great exploration of an important the bbsiness don't get to talk about with one another, and good luck with the book, and everything else you're doing. >> williams: evan thank for having me. &-much juan williams.ery [ applause ]

-> funding for overheard in part by hillco partners, texas government affairs consultancy and its ggobal health care consulting business unit, hillco health. and by the mattson mchale foundation in support of public television. and also by mfi foundation, llfe within ouu community. kleberg reynolds foundatton and viewers liie yoo. thank you.