What do you think?
Rate this book
Muzzled: The Assault on Honest Debate
NEW YORK TIMES BESTSELLER • “Muzzled scores some righteous points about the need for an honest national dialogue.”—Los Angeles TimesIn Muzzled, Juan Williams uses his very public firing from NPR as a launching pad to discuss the countless ways in which honest debate in America is stifled. In today’s partisan world, where media provocateurs rule the airwaves and political correctness dictates what can and cannot be said with impunity, Williams shows how the honest exchange of ideas and the search for solutions and reasonable compromise is deliberately muzzled. Among the issues denied a full-throated discussion are racial profiling, the increased reliance on religious beliefs in debating American values and legislation, the nuances of an immigration policy gone awry, the uneasy balance between individual freedom and our desire for security against terrorism, and much more.Delivering a fierce, fresh look at the critical importance of an open airing of controversial issues, Williams argues that only by bringing such hot-button topics into the light of day can we hope to grapple with them, and exercise our cherished, hard-won right of free speech.
304 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 2011
29 people are currently reading
439 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 53 reviews
July 30, 2011
Juan Williams has hit it on the head in this book concerning the absence of debate in the face of Political Correctness. Both the far left and the Far right are walking hardened defensive walls and refusing to compromise on any point of contention. This leaves us in the unfortunate position of consistently waiting for our government to do something because nobody is willing to listen to what anybody else has to say, before automatically condemning it for the simple reason that a member of the "other" party is the one saying it. To many topics in today's political environment are "unmentionable" and so they do not get addressed. It is time that we stop acting like little children with our fingers in our ears while yelling "I can't hear You." Pull you fingers out of years, shut up, listen to what the other person has to say, and consider it before simply dismissing it.
August 13, 2011
In Muzzled, Juan Williams takes on the difficult task of exposing polarization within our society in an engaging and persuasive way. Williams was fired by NPR for being at philosophical and political odds with NPR management, with his comment about feeling uneasy about those in Muslim dress when traveling being the excuse for NPR to let him go, and then to demean him personally and publicly. Using that event as a springboard, Williams examines many topics within the public arena (9/11, taxation, health care, immigration, abortion, and talk radio to name several) where it has become nearly impossible to have an intelligent and honest public conversation without personal repercussions.
I say that the task is difficult for a couple of reasons. First, many people already know what Juan is writing about. Other authors have covered essentially the same territory. Yet the problems that Williams describe seem to be getting worse, not better. The book is timely and valuable.
Second, it is difficult to write a book like this without, in effect, taking sides, especially when presenting examples of the suppression of public debate. Williams is an honest, thoughtful, and intelligent analyst. Yet his opinions still color his presentation. He is provocative and maddening, sometimes within the span of a few sentences.
I was least pleased with Chapter 8 (The Provocateurs), devoted to media opinion programs in general and talk radio in particular. His descriptions of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck are unfair and the examples he uses are taken out of context or are interpreted simplistically - ironic in light of the subject of the book. I could cite many examples, but here is one. Williams quotes Rush as saying to a black caller "take the bone out of your nose and call me back." I researched that quote and discovered Rush said it to a caller he couldn't understand when he was working as an insult DJ in Pittsburgh in the early 70s at the beginning of his career. Rush since expressed remorse for that comment. By including it in the book, Williams implies that it represents who Rush Limbaugh is and what his national radio show has been about for over 23 years.
I thought Chapter 7 was among the best as Williams really tries to present a "fair and balanced" discussion of "The Abortion Wars". Yet even here, Williams gives me pause. He gets into the discussion of the place of religion in society today and through history. Some of his points are based on what some say is revisionist history that diminishes the role the Founders assumed for religion in society.
All in all, this is a good book on a timely topic. I recommend it. But read it closely. Williams' center-left foundation is often subtle but it is to be found throughout the book. And while I agree with his central thesis that nationally we are stuck in our various orthodoxies, I'm not sure how we move beyond that point. Perhaps it simply takes enough people of good will and character to say Enough!
I say that the task is difficult for a couple of reasons. First, many people already know what Juan is writing about. Other authors have covered essentially the same territory. Yet the problems that Williams describe seem to be getting worse, not better. The book is timely and valuable.
Second, it is difficult to write a book like this without, in effect, taking sides, especially when presenting examples of the suppression of public debate. Williams is an honest, thoughtful, and intelligent analyst. Yet his opinions still color his presentation. He is provocative and maddening, sometimes within the span of a few sentences.
I was least pleased with Chapter 8 (The Provocateurs), devoted to media opinion programs in general and talk radio in particular. His descriptions of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck are unfair and the examples he uses are taken out of context or are interpreted simplistically - ironic in light of the subject of the book. I could cite many examples, but here is one. Williams quotes Rush as saying to a black caller "take the bone out of your nose and call me back." I researched that quote and discovered Rush said it to a caller he couldn't understand when he was working as an insult DJ in Pittsburgh in the early 70s at the beginning of his career. Rush since expressed remorse for that comment. By including it in the book, Williams implies that it represents who Rush Limbaugh is and what his national radio show has been about for over 23 years.
I thought Chapter 7 was among the best as Williams really tries to present a "fair and balanced" discussion of "The Abortion Wars". Yet even here, Williams gives me pause. He gets into the discussion of the place of religion in society today and through history. Some of his points are based on what some say is revisionist history that diminishes the role the Founders assumed for religion in society.
All in all, this is a good book on a timely topic. I recommend it. But read it closely. Williams' center-left foundation is often subtle but it is to be found throughout the book. And while I agree with his central thesis that nationally we are stuck in our various orthodoxies, I'm not sure how we move beyond that point. Perhaps it simply takes enough people of good will and character to say Enough!
August 10, 2016
Muzzled is Juan Williams' report on his much-publicized firing from National Public Radio, apparently because he said it was hard not to see people getting on a plane "in Muslim garb" and not be concerned that they identified themselves so strongly with their religion. This, said Williams, is a natural reaction but we mustn't let it influence our view of moderate Muslims. This is a fairly frank statement and I think it reflects well on the reporter that he is aware of his own prejudices and consciously tries to avoid them. NPR didn't see it that way and fired him, abruptly, over the phone after many years on the air. His former boss then implied he was mentally unbalanced ("he should talk about that with his psychiatrist.") The resulting controversy was immense. That a medium that pays a man to talk about what he thinks should fire him for saying what he thinks (on another network and on another medium) seemed to many a symptom of "the assault on honest debate," as Williams puts it in his subtitle. An excellent, well-balanced, non-self-pitying book that deals with a great deal more than the author's own problem. Williams, by the way, landed on his feet with a long and lucrative contract with a TV channel.
2011 No 154
2011 No 154
Read
June 30, 2025I read this book for a class in college and don’t remember a single thing about it
September 10, 2015
I wanted to like this book, I really did. I have respect for Williams as a journalist and commentator even when I disagree with him. What NPR did to him was patently unfair, and that fact made me want to like this book even more. But I was disappointed.
First, something positive: Williams is a good writer. The text itself is clear and readable, which is more than can be said of much political commentary.
Nevertheless, I couldn't get past the first third of the book. Williams' thesis is that political correctness is rendering substantive debate on important issues obsolete. But he redefines "political correctness" so he can say that both sides of the political spectrum exercise it equally.
Merriam-Webster online defines politically correct as "conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated." Dictionary.com defines it as "marked by or adhering to a typically progressive orthodoxy on issues involving especially ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or ecology." The Free Dictionary online defines it as "conforming to a particular sociopolitical ideology or point of view, especially to a liberal point of view concerned with promoting tolerance and avoiding offense in matters of race, class, gender, and sexual orientation." But Williams seems to define it as using political lingo, slogans, talking points, etc. as a way of making opponents seem unreasonable. One example he gives is Republicans' inferences that people who opposed the Iraq war were unpatriotic. That isn't political correctness; that's sloganeering or political rhetoric or propaganda. Both sides certainly do engage in that. If Williams' thesis were that political rhetoric was hindering legitimate debate, he would be onto something and this book would make a lot more sense. But that isn't what he claims.
Another complaint I have is that Williams speaks in broad generalities, with very little specificity to back it up. I admit that this view may be influenced by the book I read immediately prior to this one, End of Discussion by Mary Katharine Ham and Guy Benson, which is teeming with specific examples. Ham and Benson's reference to and recommendation of Williams' book led me to believe that his was similarly specific. Perhaps that expectation was unfair. On the other hand, broad criticism without specifics is its own problem in political discourse, so I don't feel too badly for pointing it out.
Maybe the latter two-thirds of the book contains more specificity, or reverts to the generally accepted definitions of political correctness. If so, I certainly apologize to Mr. Williams. Unfortunately, I simply ran out of patience before I got that far.
First, something positive: Williams is a good writer. The text itself is clear and readable, which is more than can be said of much political commentary.
Nevertheless, I couldn't get past the first third of the book. Williams' thesis is that political correctness is rendering substantive debate on important issues obsolete. But he redefines "political correctness" so he can say that both sides of the political spectrum exercise it equally.
Merriam-Webster online defines politically correct as "conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated." Dictionary.com defines it as "marked by or adhering to a typically progressive orthodoxy on issues involving especially ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or ecology." The Free Dictionary online defines it as "conforming to a particular sociopolitical ideology or point of view, especially to a liberal point of view concerned with promoting tolerance and avoiding offense in matters of race, class, gender, and sexual orientation." But Williams seems to define it as using political lingo, slogans, talking points, etc. as a way of making opponents seem unreasonable. One example he gives is Republicans' inferences that people who opposed the Iraq war were unpatriotic. That isn't political correctness; that's sloganeering or political rhetoric or propaganda. Both sides certainly do engage in that. If Williams' thesis were that political rhetoric was hindering legitimate debate, he would be onto something and this book would make a lot more sense. But that isn't what he claims.
Another complaint I have is that Williams speaks in broad generalities, with very little specificity to back it up. I admit that this view may be influenced by the book I read immediately prior to this one, End of Discussion by Mary Katharine Ham and Guy Benson, which is teeming with specific examples. Ham and Benson's reference to and recommendation of Williams' book led me to believe that his was similarly specific. Perhaps that expectation was unfair. On the other hand, broad criticism without specifics is its own problem in political discourse, so I don't feel too badly for pointing it out.
Maybe the latter two-thirds of the book contains more specificity, or reverts to the generally accepted definitions of political correctness. If so, I certainly apologize to Mr. Williams. Unfortunately, I simply ran out of patience before I got that far.
July 13, 2023
Wow.
I had to keep checking his political affiliation because,
get this,
he sounds so much like the people I respect on other side in almost 78% of his opinions.
Maybe there is hope for unity after all? If all the problem personalities took a simultaneous sabbatical?
I had to keep checking his political affiliation because,
get this,
he sounds so much like the people I respect on other side in almost 78% of his opinions.
Maybe there is hope for unity after all? If all the problem personalities took a simultaneous sabbatical?
March 12, 2013
Juan Williams book is an interesting read. Most people would agree that he is right, that politics have become too partisan, and too negative. However, political moderatism has been losing ground. Mr. Williams explains why the moderate movement is failing, and how the political extremes are able to control the debate.
He also tells the story of how he was fired from NPR. While he generally liked most of the people he worked with. His disagreed with their leadership, in particular their insistance on having all their people share the same viewpoints. They had a problem with him associating with Fox News. He spends some time comparing Fox to NPR, with the main difference being at least Fox will expose viewers to people who disagree with the prevailing conservatism of the hosts.
Juan goes from there to say that debates have changed past the point of discussion, to trying to silence the other viewpoint. To try and get people fired if they don't agree with you, rather than talk to them. To make accusations against a person of differing viewpoints as such to get them to not advance an opposing viewpoint at all. So now all disucssions cease, and the least moderate people are the ones with control. Politicians can't get very far without money, and moderates have a very hard time raising money, and winning primaries within their own party.
Mr. Williams goes through a series of issues that have been taken over by a lack of serious debate. There aren't a whole lot of solutions proposed, but I think the average person reading the book can have some thoughtful ideas as to where things need to go if there is going to be an improvement.
He also tells the story of how he was fired from NPR. While he generally liked most of the people he worked with. His disagreed with their leadership, in particular their insistance on having all their people share the same viewpoints. They had a problem with him associating with Fox News. He spends some time comparing Fox to NPR, with the main difference being at least Fox will expose viewers to people who disagree with the prevailing conservatism of the hosts.
Juan goes from there to say that debates have changed past the point of discussion, to trying to silence the other viewpoint. To try and get people fired if they don't agree with you, rather than talk to them. To make accusations against a person of differing viewpoints as such to get them to not advance an opposing viewpoint at all. So now all disucssions cease, and the least moderate people are the ones with control. Politicians can't get very far without money, and moderates have a very hard time raising money, and winning primaries within their own party.
Mr. Williams goes through a series of issues that have been taken over by a lack of serious debate. There aren't a whole lot of solutions proposed, but I think the average person reading the book can have some thoughtful ideas as to where things need to go if there is going to be an improvement.
August 28, 2011
After hearing Juan Williams speak about his experience and his book on Q&A with Brian Lamb I knew that I wanted to read his book. I was not disappointed. In fact, I enjoyed it even more than I thought I would. I would recommend that everyone--no matter what his/her political persuasion is or whether one feels he should or should not have been fired from NPR--to read this book. The bottom line that I most appreciated was how important it is for us to start listening to each other, including those across the aisle, and have honest debates about the critical issues we are facing as a nation.
April 22, 2013
If you think political discussion in this country has become too much "us vs. them, if you're not with us you're against us" then you'll probably enjoy this book as a history on how we got here. Additionally, there are good examples of how both sides, Left and Right, aren't really doing anything about it, despite complaining about the other side. Unfortunately, this book is light on ways to improve national debate. Would recommend to anyone looking for information to help them pick a workplace politics fight.
August 10, 2016
Mr. Williams should have stopped after the first chapter; that would have made a great pamphlet. I managed to make it through the second chapter, but had to stop at this in the third:
"Impish, venting archpartisans have created a subculture of celebrity provocateurs who make outlandish statements to grab attention, entertain, and mock but rarely advance the nation’s critical debates."
Physician, heal thyself.
"Impish, venting archpartisans have created a subculture of celebrity provocateurs who make outlandish statements to grab attention, entertain, and mock but rarely advance the nation’s critical debates."
Physician, heal thyself.
April 27, 2012
This was clearly Mr. William's impassioned defense of his position on saying that he was scared of Muslims. While I ultimately think he was trying to discuss our biases by admitting to that-- and that is a good thing-- it clearly had an agenda of painting NPR as the "bad guys" and FOX as the "good guys" and Mr. Williams himself as the best guy who was just trying to keep everything "fair and balanced". Not sure what to make of it.
September 24, 2011
As the next presidential election is gearing up, I have been increasingly frustrated with the extreme polarization in modern politics. Juan Williams addresses how we got to this point in a balanced way. Yet, as I was reading, I wished the author offered more solutions rather than the same old, "let's all work together and compromise" mantra. That clearly isn't working. What's next?
September 4, 2024
Juan worked for NPR, made guest appearances on Bill O'Reilly's show and made a comment after 9/11 that he was scared when he saw certain people dressed in their cultural garb on planes.
NPR fired him. Both that woman and the CEO ended up resigning. But NPR tried shredding Juan's credibility. How dare he have thoughts and opinions and speak them aloud.
If Juan though his experience was bad, he needs to think about how the "left" like NPR treat people who have differening opinions/thoughts/experiences that do not align with theirs.
The book did not age well and I don't think Juan fully grasps the problems.
NPR fired him. Both that woman and the CEO ended up resigning. But NPR tried shredding Juan's credibility. How dare he have thoughts and opinions and speak them aloud.
If Juan though his experience was bad, he needs to think about how the "left" like NPR treat people who have differening opinions/thoughts/experiences that do not align with theirs.
The book did not age well and I don't think Juan fully grasps the problems.
October 23, 2018
Juan is too close to his own story to do it justice, but it gave him fresh insight to pervasive problems in modern political discourse. Interesting.
May 12, 2020
Super interesting debate about political correctness and freedom of speech. Highly recommend for journalists and political scientists
September 5, 2012
First, a disclaimer. I read an occasional book about politics, but am in no way a political junkie. That might be why I loved this book so much. Juan Williams always struck me as an inoffensive news analyst. He never ranted and raved, and I could usually understand his point of view even if I didn't agree with it. And NPR (when my radio could pick up a station) was often my station of choice. They had interesting programming, and I could do other things while I listened. My other disclaimer is, I line up more with the "conservative" label. Juan Williams has been placed on the spectrum (by someone!) as to the left of center.
When I heard that he had been fired from NPR over something he had said, and then over just what he had said, my respect for NPR plummeted. Of all the left-wing liberal mouthpieces out there, that they would get rid of their one sound commentator left me with an "I don't believe it!" feeling in the pit of my stomach. Doesn't NPR live for tolerance, diversity and all that jazz? If Williams were white, maybe, but he's a "person of color." Their action screamed hypocrisy.
Muzzled: The Assault on Honest Debate begins with the story behind his firing. The subsequent chapters deal with various ways our culture muzzles civil discourse and exchange of ideas. Williams clearly and accurately identifies the problem in America's political arena and media. Again, I didn't always agree with his analysis of the "why" or the "how" but he is fairly accurate. He recalled many incidents in the news and the halls of Congress that I had long forgotten.
Several reviewers I read stated he was short on solution. I think his solution is we should all just sit down and be polite and listen to each other. On one hand he is right, but the reality is (and he mentions this several times) that ratings of news shows decline without plenty of drama, name calling and general rancor. And, I honestly don't believe every problem is solved by meeting in the middle. Sometimes a person has to stand for something that appears extreme by the other side. He addresses the topic of political correctness to the point that he accuses the "conservatives" of using their own brand of pc. (I'm using quotation marks around the "politically correct" labels which I don't like nor relate to!) He labeled certain politicians "moderate" that I consider to the far side of left, for example. To him, moderate is good.
I would recommend this book to anyone of any political persuasion who is interested in the climate of America. I stopped watching television in 2000 (following the presidential election) because I couldn't get a clear report. Newscasters were telling me what I should do, who I should vote for, and what would happen to our country if a certain result was attained. This book was a breath of fresh air, because I realized I'm not the only person who feels disenchanted. Now to find someone I can talk about politics with, without having my head bit off!
When I heard that he had been fired from NPR over something he had said, and then over just what he had said, my respect for NPR plummeted. Of all the left-wing liberal mouthpieces out there, that they would get rid of their one sound commentator left me with an "I don't believe it!" feeling in the pit of my stomach. Doesn't NPR live for tolerance, diversity and all that jazz? If Williams were white, maybe, but he's a "person of color." Their action screamed hypocrisy.
Muzzled: The Assault on Honest Debate begins with the story behind his firing. The subsequent chapters deal with various ways our culture muzzles civil discourse and exchange of ideas. Williams clearly and accurately identifies the problem in America's political arena and media. Again, I didn't always agree with his analysis of the "why" or the "how" but he is fairly accurate. He recalled many incidents in the news and the halls of Congress that I had long forgotten.
Several reviewers I read stated he was short on solution. I think his solution is we should all just sit down and be polite and listen to each other. On one hand he is right, but the reality is (and he mentions this several times) that ratings of news shows decline without plenty of drama, name calling and general rancor. And, I honestly don't believe every problem is solved by meeting in the middle. Sometimes a person has to stand for something that appears extreme by the other side. He addresses the topic of political correctness to the point that he accuses the "conservatives" of using their own brand of pc. (I'm using quotation marks around the "politically correct" labels which I don't like nor relate to!) He labeled certain politicians "moderate" that I consider to the far side of left, for example. To him, moderate is good.
I would recommend this book to anyone of any political persuasion who is interested in the climate of America. I stopped watching television in 2000 (following the presidential election) because I couldn't get a clear report. Newscasters were telling me what I should do, who I should vote for, and what would happen to our country if a certain result was attained. This book was a breath of fresh air, because I realized I'm not the only person who feels disenchanted. Now to find someone I can talk about politics with, without having my head bit off!
August 17, 2011
I purchased this book because I wanted to get the real story behind NPR's firing of him and he does a very kind and reasoned review of what went on behind the scenes and how he feels about NPR, their staff, their management and their funding and I found that to be the strength of the book. He also does a very good job of detailing why the country seems to find itself in distinct political and social camps to the point of exclusion from and ridicule of each side by the other. I found this to be a very balanced review and it covers PC, Political Parties, Abortion, Entitlements etc. However, he offers no real solutions or path out except the old "Why can't we all just get along" - sing at the campfire and give each other Coke!! Sort of disappointing in that respect.
August 17, 2011
A bit repetitive at times but makes some quality points about the madness of our politically correct society. Everyone has to watch each word that they say or they are lambasted and in the case of Williams fired. If we truly believe in free speech and press then we need to allow expression of diverse opinions. It would be one thing if Williams was caught falsifying documents or skewing the facts. He was fired for offering an opinion- stating a fear, which he then qualified and explained.
I think he makes a persuasive case against his firing and an interesting point about the polarizing nature of modern day journalism. Worth a read for members of either party.
I think he makes a persuasive case against his firing and an interesting point about the polarizing nature of modern day journalism. Worth a read for members of either party.
October 26, 2011
I found this to be a very interesting and - at times scary - book. I've always liked and respected Juan, and it was interesting to hear his perspective on his firing from NPR and other current media issues. As a person with a BA in journalism I found a lot of what's in this book to be almost unbelievable ... but, unfortunately, not surprising.
Enjoyable, but not quite four stars due to some repetition that caused me to gloss over some parts.
Enjoyable, but not quite four stars due to some repetition that caused me to gloss over some parts.
October 12, 2011
Juan Williams was fired from NPR for speaking openly and truthfully. This book is the end result of that firing. Williams maintains that civilized debate has been forgotten in the fight for ratings. Both left and right have gone to extremes, shouting out and shutting down the other side. Politics has stalled out due to neither side willing to listen and work together. His key message, according to this book, is listen to the other side and respond with respect.
August 28, 2012
Since we don't have cable TV and I don't listen to NPR, I didn't know much about Juan Williams until engaging a friend in some political back and forth months ago. I like what he says about how so many topics are primed to explode with partisan battle with little room for finding solutions in the middle. Now if more hotheads would read this book and try to ratchet arguments down to actual discussions, progress could be made. Alas, that doesn't seem to be the way the world is going.
April 12, 2016
Well worth reading
Williams seems to understand that the "politically correct" pressure from either the right or the left is not just tact but a tactic used to intimidate the opposition and to open the door to extremism on any political or religious issue. His plea for open and honest discussion and/or debate is refreshing. His summary and review of recent and of current history is useful. This could be an excellent book for a book club or a discussion group
Williams seems to understand that the "politically correct" pressure from either the right or the left is not just tact but a tactic used to intimidate the opposition and to open the door to extremism on any political or religious issue. His plea for open and honest discussion and/or debate is refreshing. His summary and review of recent and of current history is useful. This could be an excellent book for a book club or a discussion group
July 11, 2011
Juan Williams has written a thought provoking account of his firing by NPR and the media storm that followed. This is a tough, hard look at the absence of honest debate on both sides. While I don't always agree with Williams, I found his arguments to be intelligent and fair. In this age of political correctness, Juan Williams' book is a breath of fresh air!
February 27, 2012
Good book--- wish I could give it 3 1/2 stars. Good read on a wise topic. I wish the last couple chapters could have been on how to become more active in trying to solve the problem of honest debate in this country
I liked reading about his story. He phrases it well to explain his side. Very interesting and sad for our country.
I liked reading about his story. He phrases it well to explain his side. Very interesting and sad for our country.
April 24, 2012
This is a well thought-out and excellently written book. I thought it took a bit longer to express the ideas than was necessary, but the subject matter was relevant and the anecdotes interesting. This book helped me understand better our first amendment and its affect within American society. I would suggest this to anyone with political interests or interest in the constitution.
November 15, 2012
"No one at Fox has ever told me what to say. The same, sadly cannot be said of NPR." - Journalist Juan Williams
I recommend this book for anyone who wants to gain a better understanding of the news outlets' attempt to control speech and thoughts here in the U. S. I have not been able to put the book down so far.
August 28, 2013
NPR ain't perfect and Juan Williams makes a solid case for that proposition. With that said, he loses me completely towards the end of the book when he recommends government defunding. That is the point that I yell sour grapes and wonder whether he was "better fit" for full-time work at Fox after all.
August 28, 2011
I have always known that Juan Williams is has the possibilities to be an awesome author..His personality just oozes it. Muzzled was a fantastic book on the attacks of first amendment rights from multiple outlets from politicians to the media..I will def. read more by him.
August 6, 2011
A clear, straight down the middle, analysis of public debate in America. Williams details why the extreme opinions control the National conversation and stifle moderate positions. This book is not a polemic, but a well reasoned call for everyone to engage with opposing points of view.
August 22, 2011
In light of Juan Williams firing by NPR, this is his retort on how free speech is being muzzled in America due to political correctness and the slant offered by many news operations. It is worth reading.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 53 reviews