tv Media Buzz FOX News September 22, 2014 1:00am-2:01am PDT
well, that's it for now. this is mike huckabee from new york. good night and god bless. stay tuned for "justice with judge jeanine." glass. >>on buz ter >> on "the buzz beater," as president obama defends the airstrikes against isis an antiwar contingent is growing in the middle east warning that the terrorist threat is being oversold. >> let me start with what is on all of our mind, the angry push for war, another in the land of islam. here we go again with all the field mar shells urging us on, on the op-ed pages. >> others saying obama's plan cannot work with air power alone. >> the president knows that but he is afraid to tell the american people the truth. ground forces will have to
engage isis. >> are the antiwar commentators acting out of antiideology or sparking a healthy media debate? >> pundits on a crusade in the race of the race try fiasco and the benching of more players and the commission are saying he is sorry. >> what, exactly, does zero tolerance mean to the nfl? will the nfl, with its power, take the lead on the issue of domestic violence. >> if any of the victims is someone you loved would you be satisfied with the way the league handled the crisis? >> i am not satisfied from the get go. i made a mistake. >> are the media putting a whole league on trial for the transgression of a few. >> lousy reviews forç the new lineup of "the view." >> let me ask you about, you know. >> yeah. yeah. you can say it.
>> sarah palin. >> when did you want to just pop up? >> did rosie and nicolle wallace, can they make it work? >> this is "media buzz." >> the debate over isis too a new term when congress was sold he would recommended the use of ground troops against isis and pundits pounced on the contrast and some call it overflown by dempsey. >> the commander in chief is handcuffing military leaders and jeopardizing this mission in its entirety. >> can i point out how ridiculous the beltway press is? that is not a scandal. we have this notable and important thing in this country with the guys in uniforms no matter how many meadows and stars and fancy hats, they do
not get to decide whether or how the united states conducts a war. >> more voices in the media challenging the war strategy or flatout opposing it. >> just be totally clear, we are committing to a military conflict in iraq and syria that may involve united states troops on the ground and already involves a few just like you cannot be half pregnant there is no such thing as a little bit of war. >> and we have chief washington correspondent for fox news, editor at large of hot air and from national public radio, a fox news contributor. james, what do you make of the valve antiwar voices? >> the question that is properly raised, whether the voices that are repeatedly emitting an antiwar sentiment in response to the military operation announced by president obama are voices from which with respect to any
military operation we should expect to hear a hardy yes, including rachel who displayed an unyielding hostility to the mill that with references to medals and stars and 19 and fancy hats. chris matthews could be more hawkish than rachel or democrat necessary -- or bill maher but this is a disjoined way the administration has defined the threat. >> many of the people and there are others we could show, on the left and ordinarily would be supporters of president obama. >> they are torn. they are not in favor of jumping into the middle east again with a reflection of war wirery but
getting more hawkish as we see the horrors of isis and a reflection the president is reporting contradictions because there are major contradictions how the administration explains it and where they draw a line that is something we should discuss. >> many of the conservatives favor the direction which president obama is moving, toward military action but they are piling on the criticism it is not enough and he is not aggressive enough. >> and as a republican congress person said, we like the way the strategy goes but if it doesn't go line we can blame him or if it goes good we can say, what took so long? one of the thread it was, you said there were be no boots on the backgrounds and there are. dempsey said they could need more. the question is, we have a public that is for this. the war weary public fixed when
they saw the beheadings. >> because of the heavy media coverage of the isis threat which some think is overstated. >> it is hard to miss it on youtube. they are there. the media is holding the white house to what it calls a high standard, you say there is not a combat mission but there are 2,000 advisors there now. they will be armed. they will have boots on. they will be on the ground. they might be accompanying iraqi forces to the frontlines. does that mope they are engaged in combat? at what point is it too much of that for the american public. >> as our historian, james, how do you compare the media opposition to this war with the outright skepticism the press showed in being -- the passivity the press showed during the runup to iraq? >> there is a lot of mythology about the prewar period a decade
ago during the bush and cheney administration. one myth is the idea the press was passive. i was in the briefing room during the first bush term in the white house james brady briefing room alongside people like david gregory and the wees put to ari were proning about the weapons of mass destruction situation in iraq, the war intention, the occupation. if you go back and look at the transcripts and briefings you will see a very engaged press. >> but the overall tone and i wrote a lengthy story how the "washington post" a few voices that were skeptical of the strategy, they were delayed and buried and spiked but maybe that should tell us the debate, now,
is healthy. >> myth or not, there is react of the press corps to that standing narrative. >> the press meals they did not do their job. >> when a president as commander in chief and we have this line where we leave politics at the water edge the press is more likely to be more dutiful when the president is making the argument and being strong and the american people are moving with him. here you do not see the clarity and the strength of the message. a year ago in syria it felt like it was the press pushing for the action. that felt like a reflection of the same --. >> this time around the drumbeat was coming from the media with the president as a reluctant warrior but in 2002 and 2003 there was a sense if you opposed what was a strong drive for war by george w. bush you were unpatriotic. why see that now. >> it changed. having members beheaded on
camera is powerful. it changed things. i don't think the president would be doing this without the kind of expert he is getting from the public. a year ago he almost struck the syrian government, for a different reason, because bashar al-assad is still there. >> but a strategy is direct bid what the american people allow and this is merit but, there is a sense from the press when there is not this pitch that is clear and strong, there are more questions. >> i disagree. i think the president has talked a lot about this. he is out there and talking about it. >> but the strategy comes from public opinion opposed to a strategy to win. >> the reason they change -- the public was not clamoring for this but merely supporting. >> some of the media has been pushing for it.
as least with the commentators. >> you were someone who pressed the state department, why aren't you using the word "war," and on the question of ground troops there is condition fusion in the media or debate, are they impossible? unlikely? or inevitable? >> in any organization where there is a middle struck with one person at the top. like a triangle structure and the president is the figure in this administration, that lack of coherence on the mission, in terminology and the war aims, and even the percentography where it is carried out, that confusion emanates from the top. >> and fill the airwaves about not ruling out -- this is a
drumbeat, why isn't he listening to the generals? >> that is the question is. there is the quote, as well, people do not want to discount this is anyone in danger. they like the idea of the political line of no boots means there are no people on the ground and it is not the fact -- we should not discount that americans will be in danger regardless. that is what people are trying to understand. >> is the press correct to suggest that somehowed president is not doing the right thing? george w. bush fired a jensen shake would was gone when he said there were hundreds of thousands needed in iraq. >> there is reaction to the bush years but a genuine question where the strategy is coming from and why it was formed and wasn't formed because of public opinion or because of the generals. >> isis was a real threat and the assessment of isis changed from the jv team to a group that
took tremendous territory and a tremendous amount of money. >> finishing up, is it suspect, then, should the media raise all kinds of alarms that the president could differ? it is fine to raise this but it is important to put it in context because it has always happened. that has been the case throughout history. >> i agree the way she phrased it, it is right they have a right to differ and the president can make decision. alet the record reflect, howard kurtz likened george w. bush to abraham lincoln. >> we always read the best tweets at the end of the practice. are the media trying to damage the national football league over domestic violence? an extremely harsh "politico"
scott walker has given women the back of his hands. what people are doing is they're grabbing us by the hair and pulling us back. >> debbie wasserman schultz later apologized for those comments about wisconsin's governor. she's the subject of a very tough piece in politico saying the democrats and republicans have lost confidence in her. when you have anecdotes like wasserman schultz insisting that her wardrobe be paid for, which
she denies -- >> i think this is partly triggered by that comment she made about scott walker which truly was, even with the low bar of political rhetoric was really, really nasty. and i think undermined what is supposed to be her strength, which is to appeal to women voters. it turns that into something that worked for scott walker. i think that's where some of this is coming from. it happened every couple of years, that people get upset with debbie wasserman-schultz. we're getting rid of a woman in the dnc doesn't help that narrative. did this have a whiff of the white house or her critics using politico? >> there are a lot of critics and they all willingly cooperated. i think it was nine pages long. it was a hit piece with lots of sources from the cooperation that didn't like her.
does anybody in the country care about whether the dnc chairman is on the outs? this is a true inside the beltway story. it's a spec tack to see her credit side like this over and over again in print. she probably is on the way out. but i don't think there would have been a time when we would have seen this kind of piece, this long, this lengthy. most of thely, people don't like her. >> i think the chooe and immediate effect of which is to make it such that the person being recorded on across all media outlets thereafter is described in battle. i thought it was a fair ooçspie. if you look at the number of quotes in the piece, they are evenly distribute d between on the record quotes and blind
anonymous quotes. the actually lead says dws is combined washington insiders have lost confidence in her at a time when they need her most, period. there is no sourcing there. it should say critics say and it's not until the third and fourth graphs that you have that. >> i also don't like the leading anecdote is the wardrobe one which i think draws this line to the sarah palin story, she denied it. >> debbie was interested in the piece, there were no disparaging remarks, but on the other hand, the president can get rid of his dnc chairman at any time.
>> one other item before we go to break, new york's wnbc reported the other day that a federal probe found no evidence so far that chris christie knew in advance about the -- at the george washington bridge. brian williams described the story this way. >> the headlines here, however, the federal charges are now ruled out for chris christie and the affair that came to be known as bridgegate. >> ouch. nbc nightly news had to run a correction because the federal investigation is still ongoing. as christie has vindicated, i wonder if the mainstream media will devote as much attention to that as the drum beat of allegations. coming up, is nicole wallace any match for rosie o'donnell? and up next, the nfl's domestic abuse scandals, are the media just going overboard? h. h
>> moms with kids who making decisions about what the kids will do on sunday afternoon are making decisions it is not about people that rape women and beat the hell out of the their kids. >> what does it mean for fans whose dollars are so coveted by the nfl that make up an estimated 45 percent of the fan base? are fans and families and we as parents supposed for come parmentallize everything that is happening and separate a violent gale on the field from violent acts off the field as we wait on the answer to the central
question? what, exactly, does the nfl stand for? >> and now, a columnist, you wrote the nfl bashing is part of the media fake outrage industry, and the revulsion is general bit or deep-seated? >> it reach as point, all we heard this week was this being a tipping point for the nfl, and goodell cannot survive this and he needs to be terminated or should step down. i ski on sunday night, telecast last week, nbc, the features nfl game at three year high in terms of rating and an nbc poll that says mine in ten will not watch one minute less of the nfl so while they may be shocked and dismayed they could be dismayed neither not tuning out and, therefore, the nfl goes on and
up. >> i agree with you, the nfl is a jugger that it and it is not taking it down but you look at i stances involving the other players, include jonathan dwyer of the cardinals and head butting his wife, and from the carolina panthers convicted of cloaking and threatening a girlfriend and the minute my viking and the child abuse case, and peterson and suddenly these people are sidelined and not playing and what is interesting come natures on the networks with huge deals with the nfl, as does fox, they are talking about the violence and the behavior of the sponsors. >> it is opening the floodgates. personally, that is good because for too long the nfl has turn add blind eye to the criminal off field behavior of the players. they have invested millions in these guys and they want them on the field. >> have the media been guilty of, especially at national
level, not focusing on the fact you have people being convicted and they are on the field on sunday? >> some, yes, in part. the media has some parts, have scrutinized the nfl. espn does not get a lot of credit for their investigation because they have a $15 billion deal with the nfl. we however, they are the ones on friday who released this smoke gun story about would knew what and when with the ray rice video. the reason it has spurred so much outrage is because for years the nfl turn add lend eye to this behavior and now it has exploded in all of the graphic detail in the horrible video. >> and the espn story, to fill in people, it was an extraordinary deficit reporting that accused of way venezuela of coverup saying they knew in hours that there was an elevator video showing ray rice pumping his buy. >> great work by espn but they
are hit california -- hypocritical. i wrote about the united states women soccer goalie since bill clinton was president, winning two gold medicals the most 307 particular female athlete and on espn, on thursday night, there she is playing, why does that matter? she is on two counts of domestic abuse charges, one again hence teen nephew but she has a trial in november and continues to play and i don't hear a storm or espn doing stories on hope solo because she a woman? it is soccer? it is just as important and this is too much of a "this is an nfl problem," rather than an epidemic that happens across all industries and all genders. even soccer. >> i like football and were watching it and i grew up playing football in the street but it has been appalling what the nfl has done, not that we should hold the nfl to a higher standard but hold it to a decent
standard of behavior for players who do this kind of thing off the field. this is in longer a news story but it is a culture story and everyone in america is talking about this. >> exactly. everyone realizes the nfl has been irresponsible if how they have dealt with all of this. they have allowed these guys to continue to bring in millions in endorsements by making sure this stuff stays quiet and keep down the discussion about it and we are now engaged in a national debate on domestic violence. we also, child abuse. to think the nfl could not have gotten its hand on that video, it strains belief. if ray rice's attorney has it hours after it happened. >> and tmz. >> i have never seen the kind of hammering goodell took on the friday news conference. >> i have. i have. chris christie. in january. >> but he did not answer
questions. >> he deflected a lot. >> and obfuscated. that will spur more of these questions. he created more questions than answers. >> i meant in sports. >> joe, you are focusing on the excesses of the media and we are looking at excesses rather than the effort to hold them accountable. >> hold them accountable. i agree. no one is saying domestic violence or child abuse is not an help dick. -- epidemic, on sunday, at 1:00 o'clock, people will put that aside because they simply want their football, the media thinks we care more about character than we do when it cops to the sport and we are selfish and forget it from 1:00 o'clock today until 11 o'clock tonight. that is how it is. >> coming up, "the view" is back
"the view," kicked off. does it work? >> are you implying that obama doesn't love people? >> i think he loves you people. >> wow, wow, wow. >> what do you make of the new lineup? >> well, i think rosie has been on her best behavior for her. only been a week. we will see her become more strident and nicolle wallace is
still getting used to this situation, she will become more assertive and i am sure we will see some more fireworks, much hotter than what we saw there but i do think that everyone sort of needs to adjust and rosie will, you know, take the gloves off. >> rosie o'donnell. >> got to get the rosie's correct. >> sequels hardly ever work. it works with "god father," and "empire," and "batman," with the joke are otherwise, thousands others never work. rosie is the face of the show. being back there i do not feel the chemistry and nicolle wallace was an original pick, her or ann coulter and now i think coulter would be better bet because nicole wallace a sheep. we and that happened this week. i don't feel it this time around and i know the debut ratings were good at eight-year high and
i did not see ratings released since the debut but i have a feeling when we see the second and third day rating they will be right back where they were. >> that strikes me as a harsh description of the we smart nicolle wallace who work on the john mccain campaign. however, it is an unusual pick to take a mill operative and put that person on daytime tv. >> it is but they needed someone with credibility, someone who could give it back and nicolle wallace is a strong woman and very smart and knows what she is tag about. she will not get caught saying something wrong or stupid. actually, coulter i would have loved to have seen with rosie o'donnell, personally. i believe nicoll. will get used to.
>> certainly "the view" needed a conservative. >> thank you. clarification earlier i talk about general shinseki being forced out because of the credit u.s. iraq war out the term and people thought he was pushed into early requirement. a lot of anchors dancing around rihanna dropping the f bomb on-line but hannity says the republicans are failing to push a positive agenda. does the press care? midterm madness straight
as rens keep hounding president obama over the isis terrorist, is that drowning out issues that might help the democrat? it is true, one fox news says the gop isn't running on a positive agenda. >> i'm mad at republicans. they should say elect us and we'll do these five things? >> how are they supposed to speak to the mainstream media? how -- >> that's an excuse. i'm not buying that. >> joining us now, bob kusack and susan. does it matter if the media are covering a positive republican agenda in these midterms? >> absolutely. everyone has said, rightfully so, that republicans need to say, here is what we're going to
do because the public really has no idea. congress has a low approval rating. certainly i think the point that was just being made is a good one. you don't see a lot of stories written about what the republican agenda is going to be pup hear a lot about the negativity. but no one is talking about what their agenda is. i know from on capitol hill, press conference with reporters and i hear them talking about their agenda at the top of every press conference. but by the end of this press conference, the questions aren't about the agenda. the questions are about social security, fighting with the democrats, issues that are more interesting. >> so it sounds like they are talking about it a little bit. it gets through the media filter because it's so much more exciting to cover an attack by the president. >> the coverage is going to be about the president. this midterm is about the president. sometimes that's a good thing for the party and sometimes it's bad. >> even though this is a collection of local races, as we know? >> yes, that's true. but handy has a good point that they have to have a one-tu and the media should hold them
accountable. usually other parties in midterm elections have come up with a clear message. that's gotten a lot of coverage. maybe republicans are missing an opportunity to get that type of coverage because they don't have a clear message. >> the point i raised at the top about all the coverage deservedly so about isis and the military response, is that helping the republicans? >> well, the media coverage itself is -- i think, again, as you guys were talking about earlier in the show has been a little more negative for the democrats. because they are -- they put thsh big anti-war agenda. the media coverage fully helped their cause in 2006, 2008 with those big wave elections that brought into democrats with the house and the senate. now i think republicans have an opportunity through the media to put forward their message that, look, and i've heard them say this on thisser way out the door this week that this puts democrats in a tough spot. they campaigned against us and now they're voting in favor of it again. what are they going to tell their base? what is this going to say to their base who elected them to
keep them out of another war? >> there's a piece this week that says the cultural wars and the democrats have one. the dems using social media like same-sex marriage against the republicans. is that accurate? >> the mantra of bill clinton was it's the economy, stupid. the economy is not helping democrats around. democrats are saying, hey, we need to get our base out so that they have -- they throw these red meat issues out to their base and it gets them coverage. that provoked outrage. >> but what about issues like abortion and gun control which can cut both ways? gun control helps the republicans because they're more the party that doesn't want restrictions and president obama couldn't even get a vote on his effort after newtown. >> i think one of the key quotes in the story was from the southern baptist coalition represented, said that views are changing. and republicans are needing to go along with that. i think that is absolutely true. i think you're seeing that first
out on the campaign trail. look what happened earlier in these debates, you're seeing democrats steer away from talk about abortion, gay marriage, which clearly is becoming more acceptable. if you look at poll numbers, what's happening in the country, they know these are bad issues. for democrats to use it, really smart. i know from covering campaigns, talking to voters, women tell me, i'm on the fence, but i don't like republicanes and how they treat women. it really does work. >> we need to get to our scores. looking at the whole week in media coverage, would won the week? >> i think republicans won the week. why? because all the coverage was basically about the big votes on capitol hill and going after isis. who does that help? republicans. democrats did have some good news in certain senate races in kansas as well iowa. but republicans, because of isis, they won the week. >> i look at it in terms of the negative coverage. the coverage of the infighting at the top of the democratic national committee with debbie
wasserman-schultz. that was a lot of negative attention for democrats. shows they're having a problem at the helm. there was a biden gaffe. he does it all the time, takes up a lot of room in the media. >> president obama had a -- >> right. >> so you say republicans, as well? >> absolutely. interesting "new york times" story this morning saying democrats are trying to use a social security issue to their advantage. i haven't seen any media coverage of that because they're paying in their ads to do that. sthanks very much for joining us. after the break, meredith vieira with a very interesting story of being abused by her boyfriend. you've got to see this. >> and cnn on the coverage of the actress arrested for
>> i loved this guy. it started we would have a fight and he would grab my arm. then it went pushing me into the way. and then beyond that to take his hand and grabbing my face and saying, i could ruin your career if i wanted to and no one would watch you i was scared of him and scared if i tried to leave something worse could happen to me. part of it was guilt because when we would have a fight he would start crying and say i promise i won't do it again and i would feel like i contributed somehow do this and then the night that i shared an apartment and he threw me into a shower
naked in salting water and he three me outside into the hallway and we lived in an apartment building and i hid in the stairwell for two hours until he came again crying. so i promised i won't do this again. >> this was absolutely gripping and for someone as successful as meredith to tell such a gripping story about her past senators a power will message it happens to many women who are not well-known who are not actresses or stars or journalists and i thought, it was a power will television moment and why we let that run longer than we usually do. an actress was handcuffed for kissing her boyfriend in a car and complained the cops thought they could be a prostitute. but we took a skeptical approach and why she didn't just comply with the request. >> someone said there were lewd acts in the car. does it matter? i have to i.d. you.
>> some people may not understand why you would not just give him your i.d. and let them carry on your farewell and you on yours. >> a country that calls itself the land of the free and home of the braise, if i am in my amendment rights, my constitutional rights to say no unless you are charges me i will not give you my i.d. >> i had the same reaction when i heard about this, seriously, the cops handcuffed her for showing affection to her boyfriend? but i want to congratulate the reporter who said, why didn't you give the i.d. and that is what a journalist should do, asking again and again. that is what a journalist should do. >> allegations of plagiarism and how television dealt with how television dealt with rihanna giving the
by telling you where you can earn bonus cash back. and then those categories change every few months. one month it's the "gym"... next month it's movie theaters?! who buys that much popcorn? get the quicksilver card from capital one. it lets you call the shots. with quicksilver you earn unlimited 1.5% cash back on absolutely every purchase, everywhere.
now, isn't that how it should be? what's in your wallet? a cnn host has been accused of pledge plagiarism again. a website had made new allegations, some are minor but this is striking on the cnn program in 2011 he richard off language from a dutch documentary on the death of a russian whistleblower. >> on the 16th november, 2009, a russian lawyer died in a now
pre-trial detention. i. >> on the 16th of november, 2009, a russian lawyer died in a new detention center. >> his death feeled outrage among politicians. >> his death fueled outrage on the streets of now. >> the only crime was to uncover the largest tax fraud in russian history. >> he uncovered the largest tax fraud in russian history. >> cnn said they have the highest confidence and integrity of his work. he said that "these are all facts not someone else's writing or opinions or expression." he is a smart journalist but he should not lit anyone's language. >> now, the top tweets, is the media police against the nfl out
of control? >> this is a sex and violence sports story. >> could the media be on another mob-style witch hunt burning successful businesses at stake? >> another, the story you should do is focusing on the wrong target, good dole getting $44 million a year. >> media and sports both guilty. >> rihanna is famous including getting beat up by her boyfriend chris brown and during the ray rice uproar she was yanked from a game to have permission to use her song, again, this week and enjoy, some anchors are reading the obscene tweets and there are a couple of bad initials here. >> this morning rihanna told the networks to, well, f off. >> you pulled my thumb last week and now you want to slide it back in, no [ bleep ] you. >> you want to slide it back in.
[ bleep ] you. >> no [ bleep ] you. you are sad for penalizing me. >> she tweeted cbs, you pulled my songs and now want to slide it back in, no, [ bleep ] you. >> no mean bleep you. >> you are penalizing me for this. >> and bleep is becoming a common word on television. that is it for "media buzz," and we hope you like our facebook page where we post original contest and respond to director questions and put up videos. we are back here on sunday at 11 o'clock and 5:00 eastern. hope you join us for the latest >> it is monday september 22nd. the parents of hannah graham breaking their silence. >> this is every parent's worst nightmare. >> we have to find out what happened to hannah and make sure
it doesn't happen to anybody else. >> the arrest warrant and brand new evidence released by police. >> he saw isis coming. now former secretary of defense leon panetta is saying we are sayiisy paying the price for ad the president ignores. >> why is this guy dropping brand new iphone on the ground on purpose. "fox and friends first starts right now. ♪>> it is monday. you are watching "fox & friends first". i am heather childers. >> i am ainsley earhardt. thank you for start ing your
monday out with us. the man who last talked about hannah graham is in custody. what's the latest? >> the virginia state police are looking for jessie matthews. they have a warrant for his arrest charging him with reckless driving. over the weekend matthews who is oo person of interest. police want to hear from any one who might have seen this car last friday or saturday. police still know little about matthew's interaction with graham the night she disappeared. >> i believe jessie matthew was the last person she was seen with before she vanished off the face of the earth. it has been a week and we can't find her. somebody knows where she