tv Media Buzz FOX News July 4, 2016 12:00am-1:01am PDT
independence day. see you next sunday.lllllllllll "mornings with maria." "media buzz" is next. this sunday before the fbi interviews hillary clinton, many media outlets down play or ignore bill clinton's troubling meeting with loretta lynch. why the investigation department is investigating his wife. it explodes like fireworks. >> it is unbelievable how tone deaf they are. >> bill clinton did something exceedingly inappropriate. >> this leads to conspiracy theories before hillary clinton is interviewed by the fbi, somehow this is bill clinton talking to loretta lynch of clearing hillary clinton of the e-mail investigation. >> did the press fumble the story that led to the attorney general's promise not to over
rule career prosecutors in the e-mail probe? a deep media divide over hillary clinton and benghazi with conservatives seizing and most networks, newspapers and pun dan pub dants treating it as no big deal. the long-awaited benghazi report. no bombshells about hillary clinton. the republicans long-awaited benghazi report found no new evidence of wrongdoing by hillary clinton. >> the benghazi report. details about what happened, is this the final word? tonight clinton says it's time to move on. >> what's the headline? >> really? >> i can pin it down into this sentence, $7 million to learn government is big and bulky. how about that? it doesn't bother her people died and let's say she has no ill intent. no malicious behavior. you would say my gosh, we messed up and people lost their lives. >> the details get lost in the
finger pointing. donald trump calls nbc dishonest reporting he hasn't forgiven the personal loss to his campaign and some proclaiming deep down trump doesn't want to be president. really? the investigation of fox news reporting more candidates on a presidential debate stage and the vote is totally partisan plus ted and i disagree whether your opinions on social media really matter compared to the high priest of journalism. i'm howard and this is "media buzz." ♪ ♪ media speculation kicked into high gear as hillary clinton went into a voluntary 3 isn3.5-hour interview at fbi he quarters after an anchor in phoenix broke the story that bill clinton had a half-hour meeting with loretta lynch
aboard her plane prompting the attorney general to defend herself at a news conference. >> i did see the president at the phoenix airport the other night as i was landing he was headed out and he came over and said hello and spoke to my husband and his self-and talked about his grandchildren and travels and things like that. >> over the next day and a half, fox news ran many segments on the private meeting. msnbc carried the least it was no story in the print editions of the new york times and "washington post" but after a justice department source leaked word lynch would not over rule the fbi and career prosecutors in the hillary clinton e-mail investigation, the media started playing up the story and sat down. >> what on earth -- [ laughter ] >> -- were you thinking? happened? >> well, i think that's the question of the day, isn't it? >> you would be well within your right to say get off my plane. what are you doing here?
do you regret not telling the former president of the united states to leave the premises? [ laughter ] >> so, well, look, i may have viewed it in a certain light and the fact that the meeting i had is casting a shadow over how people are going to view that work is something that i take seriously and deeply and painfully. >> joining us now to analyze the campaign coverage, political reporter for "the new york times" and amy holms at the "blaze" and penny lee a democratic strategist and commentator. before loretta lynch let it be known it will not over rule career prosecutors in this investigation, fox news covered this meeting on the plane a lot and msnbc and so did fox over play it or msnbc over play it? >> i think it's a pretty big story, which is where it ultimately ended up because especially in politics, perception is reality. so even if you did get on the
plane and maybe they did just as they claim talk about grandchildren and golf, the perception looks really, really bad and gets to very real issues including hillary clinton's problems with trustworthiness and the clintons playing by a separate set of rules. whether what happens did or did not happen, we don't know but it's troubling and that's why it is a big story. >> amy holms, it's standard practice to interview the subject of an investigation and high-profile probe like this. is this boosting media speculation on the ride that hillary clinton may be indicted? >> well, it's kind of cutting both ways. on the right that they are saying this meeting proves that fixed is in. that hillary clinton will not be indicted because of this cozy relationship and the fact clinton seemed to play by their rules and conservative commentators say bill clinton may have put his wife in a worse position because now if loretta lynch doesn't move forward, it looks like that tarmac summit may have influenced her
decision-making. >> that's what donald trump has been tweeting saying sources are saying, i think he's playing off media reports, no charges against crooked hillary, system totally rigged. if career prosecutors decide not to bring any charges against hillary clinton in this matter, does that mean people on your side will have to defend the notion that this was a rigged outcome or influence by politics? >> i don't think -- i think it's a no-win situation by hillary. you'll have conspiracy theories on both side. if she is indicted, people will say there is a biasness that they will go into the prosecutors or try to play the piece up a bit. if she isn't indicted, it was rigged, the system rigged against her. she's in a little bit of a no-win situation here because, you know, there have been some unforced errors and the situation what happened with the meeting with president clinton and the attorney general does not help this at all. >> unforced errors, diplomatic.
it was a disaster anyway you slice it. i used to cover the justice department and many hundreds of indictments and hard to know what prosecutors will do before they decide. they just finished interviewing hillary clinton and washington post says people familiar with the case say charges against clinton seem unlikely and the expectation is no charges announced in the next couple weeks, how can journalists be so sure when the chief person in this probe was just interviewed yesterday? >> yeah, i think what this probe especially we've seen it is very, very tricky and i don't think we'll officially know anything until we officially know anything, and that's a fair point and even if there is no charges, no indictment, one interesting thing is it's a bad issue for her. every second we spend talking about this, whether something does happen or does not happen is a bad day for -- >> is it a mistake for journalists to speculate or
quote sources, you know, it's different if you say i think so and so is going to win this campaign. you're talking about a criminal indictment. very few people that know aren't generally talking. is that a mistake? >> sure. speculation is absolutely a mistake. if someone has sources, that's a different thing. you know, a credible source but i guess the line you're saying between speculation sources is pretty blurry on something like this. >> right. so, you know, loretta lynch says, bill clinton says they wouldn't do it again and saying it's a mistake and talked about grandchildren and golf and nothing to do with pending criminal case. did journalists actually believe they may have discussed the case or is it just the appearance, the utter appearance of inpropriety that's the issue here? >> one of my frustrations with the main stream media, a pete peeve is the focus on optics and narrative and facts and conduct and in jonathan's question, why don't you kick him off rather
than why did you let him on? instead of reporting on so, ms. lynch, when were you informed the president would bop on by, knock on the door and see if you were home and did you at any point think you ought to tell intermediaries, please tell mr. president it would be inappropriate for me to meet at this time. a second thing the reports weren't pointing out is there is a second investigation and inpoy pryty there. >> the second probe was overshadowed. jonathan capeheart could have rolled over loretta lynch. i thought he asked a lot of good questions any journalist would want to ask. take rachel maddow on msnbc, i think she's really smart and does a good job. she did nothing after this story broke on wednesday, thursday. so this is all about viewing this through a partisan lens.
>> if you look at the msnbc as a whole, they did cover it and while they might have been a day late. >> a day late is huge. everybody -- >> but -- >> at the same time we don't know were they out there checking the sources or confirming what they knew -- >> no, no, no, no -- >> so whether or not -- >> everybody -- >> has an editor l choice. i would say she chose -- she should have covered it and mentioned it but that's an editorial decision she had. >> it was a bad editorial decision. by thursday night, it was on the evening newscast. everyone had to cover it once lynch said she wouldn't over rule -- >> but -- >> if it was a republican, it would have been different. >> there are many questions hannity has. i wish he would bring issues to life. that's an editorial choice when you get to evening programs. >> i still think bad judgment. let me move to the house
committee support on benghazi. he sat down with bret baier, here is part of that conversation. >> mr. chairman, i want to put up "the new york times" assessment of this, the headline reads house benghazi reports finds no new evidence. it is not alone in the headline and you're getting a lot of people saying there's no new evidence. >> well, "the new york times" made up their mind about a year ago when they call for our committee to be disbanded. >> congressman said he wasn't investigated. what do you think of the consensus, nothing new, old news, no smoking gun? >> i mean, i think they are sort of reporting the facts. there was no smoking gun. startlingly striking newnothing but i will say they also wrote in the times and other places that while there was no smoking gun, it was a pretty broad indictment or rebuke of the
defense department, the cia, the state department which hillary ran at the time. so i think there was certainly coverage of the negative aspects of that 800-page report even if the top line was accurately no smoking gun. >> that's a really important point because we had a very broad indictment of an administration but the political question was what new could we learn about hillary clinton personally but do you think the fact that there have been a half dozen other investigations of benghazi set a high bar -- >> and the fact she testified for 13 hours in front of the committee and had many questions asked or at least the opportunity to be asked to the star witness and the person that was supposed to be the subject, you also had the politicalization of it of mccarthy and others -- >> but now you have an 800-page report. >> there is no news not covered. coverage was appropriate. >> and the media framing too narrowly around hillary clinton
personally and what she did or didn't do and what could be died to her and not looking at the full picture of this house investigation. >> i think you could make that argument and certainly many on the right have that this is not only about the events on september 11th of 2012 but also hillary clinton's own conduct as secretary of state in pushing the libya invasion in the very first place that she had hoped that this would be her crown and glory and unfortunately more of a quagmire. >> yeah, the presumptive democratic nominee and subject of the house report and interviewed by the fbi and i won't speculate on what will happen but of course, we'll focus on this heavily in the press. when we come back, pundits immer immerse themself and did the fcc unfairly target fox news over its handling of a presidential debate?
speculation, trying to find out for instance who is on donald trump's short list? >> here is my question this time, are you being vetted? have you -- you have not submitted any information? >> no, nobody said would you will being to be considered? nobody said anything. >> a week ago he took a more serious turn when "the washington post" reported newt gingrich is being vetted and "the new york times" reported chris christie is among those being vetted as a possible running mate for donald trump. according to sources new jersey governor of course, the first big-name republican to back trump in a move that brought him more. joining us, reporter for the washington examiner and ashley
parker is still with us. sarah. so with these reports about these candidates being vetted, that's real reporting. we get into short lists and who is emerging and the front runner, reporters don't really know, do they? >> no, the stakes are a spectator sport for reporters. on clinton's side the conversations are taking place. you see the potential v.p.est doing events and media hits and sunday shows. on trump eastsid's side, we dona ton of insight because his potential candidates, people that want to get on the ticket are not doing things that typically give a little window of insight to reporters into his thinking. >> a little bit. newt gingrich for example did an interview where he kind of adopted donald trump's position on free trade in the past and newt has always been a very much for free trade without the reservation. don't campaigns during this process float trial balloons, try to gauge reaction, try to piece constituency groups and
people everyone knows are not going to get it. is the press used to some extend during this craziness? >> i would like to think the press is not used because to some extent, these people if they are getting vetted and turning over materials to a lawyer they are on the short list and very well could be a running mate and could be the vice president of the united states and that deserves some careful consideration and scrutiny. >> absolutely. >> you are certainly right that princess hillary clinton may very well choose a white man to be her running mate but will release a srt list with a woman, african american, hispanic and that's a message to the core constituent groups that i'm with you, and by the way, you need to turn out and vote for me and she does that through the media, right? >> all that is by design. so on the democratic side, senator tim kaine is said to be emerging as a front runner. all of a sudden politico reports
he accepted an $18,000 caribbean v vacation. this is vetting or could be something they don't want tim kaine to get to news outlets. >> i think the media is an important part for the vetting process for the campaigns. they use the media reaction as a tool to some degree to gauge how receptive the public will be to choices. for some aspects of a vp pick is to fill and address deficits in a candidate the media identifies that maybe donald trump needs someone who brings policy left to the table. that's something the media maybe has pointed out. to a certain extent, the media shapes the choice of the candidate. >> the press is still swooning over elizabeth warren. we told you about tryouts, the both wearing panel suits. i think she's a long shot but irresistible story when they are hugging out and there for what would be an all female ticket. >> sure, you know, if you talk
to hillary clinton aids, one thing she cares about other than filling the deficits which is an important role is chemistry. right? that's what you saw with elizabeth warren. what are they like together on the stump. how do they get along? >> or it could be what you said a moment earlier which is she represents the bernie sanders progressive wing and maybe this makes them happy and hillary clinton may have no intention. >> there is certainly that calculations but i remember in 2012 i covered mitt romney and he basically did trials and bring us different v.p. short lists and anyone covering him in washington closely could predict he would choose paul ryan because they have a great bro buddy comedy. >> reminds me of the aparen dis. in a few seconds, why do pun dents make predictions when we found out in a week or two anyway? >> it's part of the process. it's important for the media to kind of have that input because
for so many reasons, the vp is a pick to satisfy the media. >> wow. okay. got to make the media happy. sarah westwood, thanks, ashley, we'll see you later. i did participate in the v.p. candidate casino and played some bets. as well. ahead. ted and i debate whether the opinions of millions account for anything but up next, pundits putting donald trump on the couch and questioning his intent to be president. really.
>> he's not taking this seriously. he's not started spending his money like he promised to. he's not broaden his appeal like he said he's going to. does he really want to be president? >> rachel maddow questioning how some campaign spending is going to trump businesses said this. >> i mean, the expenses when you look at what the trump campaign is spending money on and spending time doing, it's more like a concert tour so the polite way to say this is it's a rocket. it's not designed to necessarily win the election. >> washington post editorial fred hyatt says maybe the republicans could declare trump the winner in cleveland and persuade him to go home. quote, it could work if many believed all along trump does not really want to be president. he wants to be elected sure, but does he want to be served and elected but does he want the prize? another washington post piece floating the theory trump whose
goal is to elect hillary clinton. okay. this is mostly speculative nonsense, mostly from fierce trump critics. i've known trump a long time and he's an extremely competitive guy who believes what he says and trump himself dismissed the idea. >> there's a lot of criticism for people saying your motivations are really about your brand. >> no, i don't care. i don't care about it. if it's about my brand, i wouldn't have done this. >> did he originally think he would get to the white house? he told me in the first interview the first chances of winning the gop were 15 to 20%. is he making mistakes that cause people to doubt his strategy, sure. the idea this is a branding exercise that trump is secretly trying to lose, well, the shrinks need to come up with a better theory. on media buzz, the hiring of corey lewandowski is so controversial there but the network has to grapple with it on the air but whether donald trump has changed position on a
donald j trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of muslims entering the united states until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on? >> intensified voting would apply only to quote terror countries. they are decided. all you have to do is look. he didn't say whether they would have to be muslim. trump no longer support as temporary ban on muslim immigrants. >> there is this reporting that we have of a change to donald trump's proposed muslim ban. how does this work? >> the news media is reporting the initial ban was against all muslims and that simply was not
the case. it was muslim immigration and mr. trump is clarifying his position as opposed to what the media has been reporting what it is. >> and we're back with the panel. ashley parker, you were on scotland trip with donald trump. did it seem his position was being clarified or evolving on that trip? >> i mean, his position at some point seemed to be evolving from whole to whole. he took us on a slow speed chase across his golf course and on the 13th and 14th hole he was asked some questions and he said one thing and on the 18th hole he did that interview that you just played. >> daily mail. >> the daily mail what he said this other thing and i remember we all got back to the clubhouse and reporters were trying to puzzle out. he had a mirky evolving position and it seemed to have evolved even further kind of between who would have been puts. >> do they train you to do this in journalism school, do you practice golf? >> we practice putts and swings.
>> is the press right to be confused on whether donald trump backed off or recalibrated on muslim immigrants or not? >> the president is completely right, of course. you played the clip where he said it's a total and complete shut down and he seems to be clarifying evolving his position. i think that the press criticism is there. >> and penny lee, is the pattern for the media where trump will slowly sort of change or modify position but never actually come out and say he's changed the original position? >> in fact, when he was evolving in between holes on the golf course, his own campaign sight had the absolute ban language on his website so you were having a contrast within his own campaign documents. >> what does the press do? everyone says? >> well, report the full story, there are questions whether or not this new position, the last statements are what he actually
believes or where it is. i think it's fair to talk about the whole mirkiness of where his position is. >> sorry to clarify for the segment and giving you what we know at this time. some people want more substance from donald trump and the media. he gives a major speech breaking with a long-standing republican party position on free trade but a one or two-day story. more important story than that? >> the one thing i'll say about the speech is it was a major speech on trade but trade since the day he got into the race has been along with immigration one of the major sort of pillars and tenants of his candidacy. >> sure. >> so he didn't necessarily -- his break generally kind of on a macro level is new but that's been going on for several months so -- >> except he's the presumptive nominee and chamber of commerce usually a reliable supporter of republican nominees sharply criticizing him.
>> one thing i'll say because in that speech you remember he got distracted by a plane that flew ahead and made a joke that might be a mexican plane attacking us and it's not bias of substance but a bias of script versus off script and one thing donald trump does all the time is he goes off script and that's kind of exciting and interesting and does generate attention that steps on his own message. >> so journalist will quote every republican and some will come and criticize trump and in my view undercover degree he is blowing off party orthodox and not the first time. >> i would agree with that. the press, they like to go with the shining object, which donald trump provides a lot of including remarks about the plane flying overhead than the hard work of digging into these policy issues in terms of trade and actually donald trump's position on that has evolved, as well, and it's evolved away from sort of a free trade position, typical free trade position with the republican party but i think
we see this in election after election, the press doesn't get into the policy white papers. >> the flip side for the press with trump having these big problems with gop leaders, mitch mcconnell, paul ryan, people in the convention in cleveland is he takes some moderate positions that appeal to democrats and it's been an undercovered story. >> you have seen it covered what is up is down and what is down is down. you'veconstituencies and whether or not can he play in states -- >> traditionally blue states. >> traditionally blue states. it is based on the trade issue. that is one which is kind of taking it in a different way and can he build and bring. it is being covered but in a different way. >> after nbc reported that there is no record of trump converting his personal loans to the campaign to donations he tweeted the very dishonest nbc refuses
to accept the fact that i have forgiven my $50 million loan to my campaign done deal. fair for nbc to report this and what do you make of trump once again fighting with a news organization? >> absolutely fair for nbc to report this. that is what journalism is. someone says something and then you check it out. right? you go to the source and -- >> doesn't mean he's not going to do it. it's not official yet. >> he said so far there is not paperwork, he could file up until that day. that's what they said how you would report a story and what he's doing is exactly typical of what he would do. he's shown he can very effectively go to war with the media whether banning "the washington post" without real repercussions or even just calling us disgusting slime in rallies. >> disgusting slime. been a tough campaign for all of us in the media. thanks very much for stopping by this sunday.
coming up, democratic members of the fcc say fox news broke the law in allowing more presidential candidates into a debate night. do they have a case? and we disagree whether quote the media created donald trump. p blah. >> this is an american army. >> we must attack. >> washington may be more than involved. ♪
the federal election commission deadlocks whether fox news broke the law by adding an under card section to the debate in cleveland. republican members blocked an effort by the democrats to punish fox for supposedly making an illegal corporate contribution to the seven candidates in the early evening debate. i sat down with gop commissioner lee goodman. what disturbed you about the acquisitions against fox news? >> i think it's dangerous. any time someone tries to use the power of the federal government to second guess, regulate and even punish newsroom editorial decisions about what news to cover and how to cover it. and that's the essence of this case. >> do you believe that your democratic colleagues were targeting fox news for perhaps political reasons? >> i don't make that allegation.
i think the more profound issue here is that all newsrooms now have to look over their shoulder to engage in editorial decisions about how many candidates they want to cover and what format. >> the fcc operates under a legal press exception that's supposed to protect journalists from government meddling. >> so here we have a statute that tells us we have no regulatory jurisdiction over news and news coverage and yet, the fec persists in trying to regulate and in this case, votes that came close to punishing fox news for engaging in news coverage. this is very troubling. free press rights are on thin ice at the federal election commission. >> joining us is susan, chief congressional correspondent for the washington examiner. big picture question, why should the federal government be involved in reviewing a network journalist position which candidates should appear on the debate stage?
>> the commissioner said there is exception for the press because they use editorial judgement as fox news did and done with all broadcast networks to decide who needs to be the debate stage with polling information or practical. can't have 20 people on the stage. the time fox news made the editorial decision to have an under card table and expand candidates who voters could watch on tv and make a decision. purely editorial decision and you have the federal government looking saying hey, we may levee a fine on you or punish you because this is an election issue aiding the candidates that's unfair. >> fine for people to criticize but government investigation with the 3-3 deadlock it seems partisan. lawyer for fox says it's partisan. what's your take? >> i've also heard lee goodman talk. let's face it, this is a bigger picture story. this is not the only time they tried to stick their hand in the editorial world is doing. they talked about regulating the
internet. they talked about doing things that would regulate campaign ads that are free, not paid for but out there for people to see. they want to get their hand in this and i think it has something to do with the fact conservative media has broken through on the overall control of the media by the left. and now conservatives are getting their say and i think it's making the democrats who are on these boards not just the fec but fcc uncomfortable and they are trying to figure outweighs to regulate it. >> cnn changed debate categories to allow carly fiorina in when she was the 11th candidate. not joining the raft of fec but didn't seem like a compelling reason to cast aside the press exception and say this was a contribution. of course, people should hear from all 17 at that time candidates running for president on the gop. >> you think it would be a benefit for all voters to see more candidates instead of shutting out seven and in this
case with cnn there was no complaint and that's why they didn't look at cnn but should have at least examined the whole and seen others did this, too. >> this started with a complaint from a skecure republican. fox faces a potentially massive fine with the value of the air time. does this send a chilling message to news organizations as far as future debates? >> a freezing message. i've been in the room when fox is planning debates because i've participated with fox news and if you know you're going to incur the raft, what wouldn't think twice how you decide. i'm not saying that's what fox news would do but these are smaller institutions that will never afford to take on the federal government the way fox news probably could have done. >> case ending in a deadlock. thanks for joining us. after the break, should the media ignore the voices of the masses who have a megaphone on facebook and twitter?
ted koeppel has learned the right to his strong opinions after a half century career with abc news. and one of those opinions is that he cavalierly dismisses social media. he clearly misses what he thinks is a golden age of television journalism. i have a great respect for ted, but my views are have very different. and this week we had a chance to debate at california state university. former defense secretary, cia chief, and congressman, leon panetta served as our moderator.
koppel saying, the proliferation of media outlets had hurt abc, nbc, and cbs and then broadened his indictment. >> that kind of constitution has led to the diminution of network news divisions, long before twitter came along. long before facebook came along. long before snapshots. snapchats? they keep throwing around the world democracy. there has been a democracization of communication in this country. more people, more individuals are are able to get into the dialogue. and we look upon that as though, because the word democracy is somehow attached to it, that it is necessarily a good thing. i think it's a disaster. we do not live in a democracy. we live in a republic. >> it sounds like you would
prefer the days when the megaphones were largely limited to these media organizations and that you feel like a lot of people out there aren't particularly informed and maybe shouldn't carry much weight. >> well, to a certain extent, that's correct. >> i tried to counter the notion that card-carrying journalist always know best. >> everybody in america now gets to be their own editor of the raw video, of what the politicians said and the reports, and pdf files are now available to everybody. you can compile your own magazine online. >> returns to the campaign and judy woodruff and i disagreed when panetta asked whether or not the media had created donald trump. i had says rallies had gotten too much free air time, but -- >> a lot of this was trump doing interviews, and yes, he should not have been able to call into the sunday shows. he should have had to show up on camera.
but, in those interviews, some of them, certainly not all of them, he was subjected to real journalistic questioning. i am very much in favor of that. i was able to interview him in his campaign five times and i did not give him an easy time. >> i have a different view. i think when you get almost $2 billion worth of free media coverage, it makes a difference. donald trump started out not being taken very seriously as a candidate. >> which was a mistake. >> that's true. in retrospect. but at the time, he was not taken seriously. he was a reality tv star, who had strong opinions. >> i'll give koppel the last word as why he relies on real journalists as opposed to millions of citizen journalists to deliver the facts. >> it's not that we are smarter than you are. we're not. when i say, "we," i mean journalists. it's just that you're engaged in being lawyers and doctors and carpeters and plumbers. you have work that occupies 10,
12, 18 hours of your day, every day. and what we as journalists used to do in this country, was spend our 10, 12, 16 ours a day covering the news. and trying to do it in as objective as a fashion as we could. >> the problem is that so many people have lost confidence in our ability to be objective, and thanks to social media, they can now be heard. the good, the bad, and the ugly. still to come, cnn now dogged by internal criticism from hiring donald trump's fired campaign manager and humiliation as he is now disavowing his new book.
acknowledged in an interview with the network's newest contributor. >> turns out not everybody is a fan of the decision. and i think that the crux of that criticism is that you never seemed to be a big fan of the press, or to have much respect for the press. >> i don't think that's true. i think what you have is if you look at the individuals i worked closely with on a day-to-day relationship, we had great relationships. i have great relationships with the media. look, i love everybody. i love you, right? >> but not a lot of love from columnists ripping cnn over the move. i don't blame lewandowski for seizing opportunity, but especially in light of his nondisclosure contract from trump, what kind of information are they getting. >> i think this is mr. trump's best speech of the presidential cycle, candidly. >> i think you get the idea, candidly. the supreme court, threw out the corruption conviction of bob mcdonnell. mcconnell's bribery convictions tossed. terry mcauliffe is the current
governor of virginia. on a scale of 1 to 10, naming the wrong guy, that's 11. the editor has apologized for an embarrassing editor. gay talese is disavowing his own book. "the voyeur's motel" relies heavily on the owner of a colorado hotel who says he secretly spied on guests for decades. that owner insists his tales are trues, but after property records showed an eight-year period where he didn't own the hotel, the 84-year-old talese is calling hymn certifiably unreliable and dishonorable. he said later that he's not totally disavowing the book. must have been some heated phone calls there with the publisher. that is it for this edition of "media buzz." i'm howard kurtz. we hope you like us on our facebook page, become part of the conversation. you can talk at me on
twitter @howardkurtz or write to us, firstname.lastname@example.org. we're back here next sunday. you know where to find us with the latest buzz. the clinton campaign in damage control mode trying to contain the fallout from hillary clinton's highly anticipated sitdown with the fbi. good evening. i'm laura ingle in for harris faulkner and this is "the fox report." the e-mail probe appears to be winding down following hillary clinton's three-hour interview with the fbi. the clinton camp acknowledging voters may have an issue trusting the presumptive democratic nominee in the wake of this and other scandals. supporters making the rounds on the sunday talk shows saying hillary clinton is ready to prove herself. >> she understands she's got to earn people's