Skip to main content

tv   Media Buzz  FOX News  September 15, 2014 1:00am-2:01am PDT

1:00 am
washington at a rally for israel. get more information at rally for that's it for now. this is mike huckabee from new york, good night and god bless. stay tuned for on the buzz beater this sunday, with isis releasing another be heading video last night showing the murder of a british aid worker and with president obama now backing military action against these terrorists, are the media fueling a surge for public air strikes in iraq and syria and are many pundits beating the war drums? >> i can say with certainty that there is deep anger within the u.s. intelligence community because president obama was, indeed, warned about isis. if the situation gets worse, the president's legacy is doomed. >> are we ever going to say, you know what? i'm the commander in chief, got elected device, let's give it t. just like bush.
1:01 am
>> we'll examine the president reluctantly going to work. tmz with that chilling foot age with ray rice and its shameful leniency. >> we will pay for video, yes. we will pay for photos. everybody else does, too. what we will not pay for is an interview because then what you're doing so somebody is you're saying, hey, i'll lie a little bit and i'll pay you a little bit more. so we don't do that. but absolutely we will pay for video and photos. it's just that we're being a little more honest than you guys. >> why did it take a gossip site to get you guys booted from the league? and why is rice's wife now blaming her nightmare on the media? >> there was a backup plan. >> is that essentially it? >> shaes it. >> old heart and new heart. >> are the correspondents leading the witness?
1:02 am
they're leading the witness. i'm howard kurtz and this is ; a third gruesome murder video from isis, the killing of british hostage david haines after the earlier beheading of jushlgists burst on to our television greens yesterday. "the washington post" abc post showing more than two-thirds now backing usair strikes against isis in iraq and nearly two-thirds in syria. more than two-thirds i should have said in iraq. a sharp jump from just three weeks ago. the shift in public opinion coming just before president obama asked the network to cover a prime time address on isis, a speech that scrambled partisanship drawing some praise on the right, some criticism on the left. >> i can announce that america will lead a broad coalition to roll back this terrorist threat. >> i would say the only minor
1:03 am
surprise in this speech, he made a bold case for american interventionism at the end there about why it is that america has to be the one to do these fights, to lead these charges around the world. >> it's probably the most explicitly pro american speech he's ever made. >> this is what you call leading from behind, reversing himself and reversing course on a number of ways and going back, of course, without ever acknowledging it on things that he claimed to be true there. >> and i think here's the problem for the republicans. you've got to be very careful about criticizing a president at the time like this. >> so are much of the media getting their wish? the president going to war in all but name? joining us now, lauren ashburn. jim garrity, contributing editor on national review and author of the new novel "the lead agency" and dana millbank, columnist from "the washington post." we are not showing this video. i want to ask all of you whether
1:04 am
the television, by showing it again and again, is playing into the terrorist hands. >> of course it is. it is absolutely playing into the terrorist hands and we shouldn't be running it. i don't even want to see the picture of the executioner and the victim in an orange jumpsuit. i want to see the person who was actively doing their job, just a picture of that person. >> let's put out the picture of david haines and let's celebrate his life and his death. your thoughts and your thoughts on this question and showing th÷ video? >> i would say show it with a warning. because it is the truth and the public deserves to know what happened even when what happened is utterly awful and horrible and turns your stomach. >> john roberts said the white house chief of staff said one thug is a camera is terrorizing two nations. yes, but are we helping? >> i don't think we're helping the terrorists by showing it. i think we're showing the world, including the muslim world how barbaric they are. that said, i don't think they
1:05 am
should be offered up there on television while somebody is eating their breakfast. i think they should say look, if you want to see it, see it on our website, but here is a description of what they do. >> that is has the coverage of the earlier killings and the threat from isis,]aqw has it chd the political climate to the point that president obama perhaps felt compelled to give that speech on wednesday? >> absolutely. he would not be giving the speech without those videos. and this is a marked difference from 2003. when you had the administration, the hawk, wanting to go to war and the press saluting exactly what the president wanted. it was almost un-american to go against that war. now, in 2014, you have a reluctant pseudo warrior coming out and the press saying, hey, you need to do something. after this video last night that came out, people were already saying we need ground trooups troops. >> people meaning -- commentators on television. >> i think the coverage has been pretty appropriate, meaning it's been serious, it has been
1:06 am
in-depth, it focused a lot about the thursday night speech pretty much around the clock. i would say it is skeptical of achieving the objectives without being hostile. there has been a clear discussion of how evil isis is and what they are. but at the same time, not necessarily touting them as being 10 foot tall and monstr s monstrous. they are terrible, terrible people causing chaos wherever they go. these guys are two war-torn countries. >> i'll come back to this quin in a bit, but do you see the media here, much of the media beating the drums for war? >> no. i see the media reflecting what's going on in public and in turn reflecting what our leaders are saying. i think it's a healthy sign and a rare moment -- >> you don't see it the other way around where the constant coverage and the demand to do something is actually promptingñ forcing, influencing politicians to want to get on this bandwagon at the poll change? >> there may be something circular about it. but the important thing is, you've got opinion leaders on the left and the right, the left reluctantly saying yes, we're
1:07 am
going to have to do something about these guys and on the right saying do even more. so when the american public decides the right and left is hearing their opinion leaders, their thought leaders, it shows that we actually still can rally around something, whatever it is. now, give us a few weeks and we'll fall apart at the disagreement again. but for now, at least -- >> but you've raised the question about whether or not the media is on board because it's in their financial self-interest. >> yes, i've said that. i think they do. i think that media are hawks when it comes to this. just look at 1991 with general swar schwarzkopf. he's showing us these guided missiles and everyone is tuning in. it was the same thing at the beginning of the iraq war. >> war may be good for ratings at the beginning. when it turns into a long slog, as iraq did, it ends up being bad for ratings. i have to push back because i think that's suggesting journalists are unopera-pat ree
1:08 am
ottic. >> i'm not saying the producers are saying, i want war. let's put all these images out here. but i think intrinsically people know, if you're putting pictures up there, like this execution video, you are going to drive ratings. >> it's very simple. the alternative to say, well, two americans got beheaded, but let's not get too upset. this is something worth getting upset about. this is something worth -- ay÷ sense of national vengeance over. i saw earlier this morning tam tom harkin said, well, the saudis beheaded people all the time. why aren't we offended by that? because these people are beheading americans. >> then the question is always about tactics and can air strikes do the job. but, you know, on this question, dana, we in the press do thrive on tragedy. riots, earthquakes, war. that's when reporters make name for themselves. >> and there's always a tragedy,
1:09 am
riot, something else to cover. you can't really say journalists are doing anything in their financial interests these days because it's not all clear that we have any financial interest these days. to the extent we do, we would be running lots of photo galleries about kittenes and puppies and half naked people. that's what drives traffic. so i don't think this is a financial decision at all. i think we're reflecting more public opinion and public -- and opinion leaders rather than the other way around. >> i think that's dumbing down the american public to say that they just want cat videoes and naked people. and puppies, of course, puppies. mine is very cute. but i think it is a video, it is a type of video that people want to see. you want to know what is happening and why people are attacking americans. >> go online and see it and you can watch the whole thing. that's how i feel. i'm not arguing to see it. i'm arguing against seeing it because you can go and find it online. >> when you talk about skepticism and the coverage here, i'm seeing a bit more
1:10 am
skepticism than i did, for vz÷ example, in 2003 when the bush administration and the threat of the nonexistence wmds did galvanize the press and i think everybody in the media acknowledges that the tough questions were. and i'm seeing a number of them particularly in the "new york times," a number of pieces about where the coalition partners and are there moderate syrian rebels that we could harm. but not so much on tv and i'm wondering whether or not there's a little bit of cheerleading going on. >> journalists are always covering the last one. thinking back to 2007. bush announces the surge. the coverage of that was this is never going to work, it's adding more troops into the fire. lo and behold, the surge helped for a while. then president obama says week go to lead from behind, provide air support. some administration official says that and libya seems fine until september 11th, 2012, when
1:11 am
the ambassador gets killed. now we have a situation in which we've gone from being confident to being more skeptical, to being confident and now back to more skeptical again. now it's like, look, i think the coverage will acknowledge the possibility, look, maybe this is necessary. life requires us to do things that are hard and difficult and all that stuff. but not -- you don't sugar coat it, you don't say how easy it's going to be. out for blood and oil and all the usual crap we've heard. >> second paragraph of the "new york times," some officials and terrorism experts believe the actual danger posed by isis has been distorted in hours of television punditry and hours of television by politicians. fair point? >> i suppose, but i think that's largely peripheral to what's going on here. we're having this reaction because you had in the run up to this, you had a lot of people on the right, but even some people on the left saying the president is disengaged, he's not
1:12 am
interested, he's weak. he gave that speech and i think it threw people off balance a little because, wait a second, he sounded pretty strong there. so i think that muted some of the criticism on the right because after that it was kind of confused. it was one saying he's still not being strong enough, yet he's asking for too much money for z÷ it. i think it sort odd blunted the criticism there and that's why you're not getting a lot of pushback. >> i'm just saying things go wrong in wartime. pilots can get shot down and civilians can be killed accidentally and inadvertently, and i think we ought to be sober in the coverage of talking about why we need to go after these terroristes and at the same time this is not a risk-free enterprise. send me a tweet this hour. we like to get your messages and ahead, tmz's harvey levin and how he got ahold of the ray rice tape. when we come back, why isn't
1:13 am
the press pounding that question?
1:14 am
1:15 am
1:16 am
for weeks now, the media has had a white hot focus on u.s. military action against isis. but what about our elected leaders on capitol hill? >> does it congress believe in this new war or not? if it does, why won't it put its word on it? or are there members waiting to see how it turns out? >> jim garrity, why aren't more people demanding to know why leaders of both parties won't inis cyst on a vote on what amounts to more? >> you're seeing some folks who are not usually used to the spot
1:17 am
like, like tim cain, saying$u:a want a resolution to this. the president wants this authority and wants to define the war making authority as broadly as possible and insist technically the action against al qaeda -- >> i don't want to talk about legalities. i want to get into why the media are not pressing this point. >> probably because they're distracted by midterm elections and other stuff. this media has concluded this is a minor aspect of the story. others of us think it's a major part of the story because we have a president asserting powers that don't exit. >> but even beyond the constitutional debate, dana, as a matter of political accountability, why aren't we hearing more of these questions? >> in my writing, i'm not emphasizing the point simply because congress is broken and would have difficulty passing a resolution saying good morning. even if there's widespread support for this, it could easily get bottled up in parliamentary problems just like it did with syria the last time the president tried to leave it
1:18 am
in their lap, and that created an awful mess. so i think there's a good reason not to do it, but that may want be the overall media reason. it may be a distraction. >> you are grading on a low curve. why does the media shine a thousand spotlights on the white house and a few on capitol hill? >> if you look, that's always historically happened. the white house beat is much more prestigious than having the beat where you're covering congress, number one. number two, the president is at an all-time low in terms of his approval rating. you're going to get more coverage on that. congress, however, is even lower in his approval rating than people have given up. what is congress going to do? >> people may have given up and i don't think journalists have given up. every day we should be asking where is nancy pelosi and even though congress is functional as we all know. there's a bunch of people from the "new york times," including tom freedman and david brooks,
1:19 am
gene robinson, jerry sy of the "wall street journal," jeffrey goldburg of the atlantic. is this part of the to convincek?3m journalists priva? >> i understand the value of conversations being off the record. as long as you're getting enough on camera q&a and enough on the record interaction with the press, i don't have a particular problem with that. >> i think it's a terrible idea. he's been doing this for years and he never invites me. >> it's all about you, dana. >> it's too off message and i think he should just quit the whole thing. >> thanks for stopping by. ahead on media buzz, jay carney already defending his ex boss in his ex boss at cnn. but up next, how do they get donald sterling's tape to the bombshell race rice video? founder harvey levin in a moment.
1:20 am
1:21 am
1:22 am
1:23 am
tmz, the got to be website based in l.a. has beaten the mainstream media on a whole series of scoops. there was mel gibson's rant against the cops, michael richard's racist rant in a comedy club, the racist audio tape that forced done afrld sterling to sell the los angeles clippers and now the video of ray rice slugging his fiancee in a casino elevatorer that this week prompted the nfl to suspend him indefinitely. >> how is it that the nfl couldn't get their hands on this second tape, but a website called tmz could? >> well, i don't know how tmz or any other website gets their information. and we don't seek to get that information from sources that are not credible. >> well, it means that he is just full of bs.
1:24 am
>> what better time to talk to harvey levin, the founder of tmz, from los angeles. >> harvey levin, welcome. >> hi, howie, how are you doing? >> doing great. people look at thesegh stories from ray race going all the way back to mel gibson and they ask, how does tmz get this stuff? >> you know, it's so funny to me that people ask that question. we're a news operation. i mean, that's what you're supposed to do with the news operation is chase down stories. and it always kind of amuses me when people ask that question. isn't that what we're supposed to be doing? that is the job. >> right. but when you get these exclusives, do you think that it's helping to change the image people have of tmz as being a raunchy tabloid operation? >> look, i mean, we've been around for nine years. if you look at all the stories we've broken, there are stories literally that every news cast in america has put on their air. so i would take issue with the way you're describing it because, if that's the case, you
1:25 am
guys have been -- you guys have been spoon fed this stuff over at fox news as well as everywhere else for nine years and you've been taking all of our stories. so i guess i'll just rest on that. >> we all live in tmz's world now. i had a fox anchor ask me on the air, so, how much do you think tmz paid for those ray rice videos? i don't know if you paid in this case or not, but you've acknowledged the practice. are some sources primarily motivated by money? >> let's just get down to it. howie, you work for a news operation that pays for video, okay? let's just acknowledge that right now. fox news channel pays for video. and so does abc and so does nbc and so does cnn and so does every news operation in america. newspapers, too. when you use pictures and you use getty images, you pay for it. when you use splash video, you pay for it. when a stringer comes along and said they have -- >> but those are professionals.
1:26 am
>> no, they're not. there's a guy in my office that's funny -- wait a minute, are you telling me -- do you want to actually tell me that fox news channel and all the others haven't paid for 350e78 who come along and say i've got this great piece of individual joe? but they don't -- >> well but -- >> but fox and others don't pay for information and i know you have a different -- >> howie, you're changing the subject. i agree with you on information. i'm talking about video. you're not really arguing that you guys don't pay for video, right? you know you do. >> well, it's not -- >> and by the way, howie, let me just say, there's nothing wrong with it. you're in a business. fox news channel makes money. it's a profitable operation. tmz is a profitable operation. abc and nbc and cbs. the fact is, they're not charitable organizations. they make money the yes. >> and if somebody comes along and this is, look, i've got this video, i'd like you to pay for it, by paying for it, the video is still the video. who cares whether you pay money for it. you guys do it.
1:27 am
>> fox news doesn't pay six figures for a source. >> who said we did? >> i'm just throwing it out there. you can knock it down if you want. >> i'm throwing it right back at you. and by the way, you know the oldest joke in the books is once you pay, then it's just establishing your price, right? you know that. i mean, you know the specious argument this is. here is the deal. yes, we will pay for video. yes, we will pay for photos. everybody else does, too. what we will not pay for is an interview. anything we do -- and if you look at our record, look, we're right most of the time. and so we're not going to pay for interviews because then what you're doing to somebody is you're dohang, hey, i'll lie a little bit and i'll pay you action more. we don't do that. you about absolutely we will pay for videos and photos, it's just we're being a little more honest than you guys. >> okay. when roger goodell was asked initially about the second ray rice video, and as you know, the
1:28 am
ap has reported the league got this months ago, he described this organization as not credible and that ticked you off, didn't it? >> it didn't tick me off at all. i thought it was amusing. what he said was that we wanted to get this from credible sources and he was talking about, you know, that presumably we got this from -- it was casino video as opposed to from the police department. what he was doing, he was covering his butt and i'll tell you why. because he never went to the casino to get the video. he never even asked for it. and he came up with a bogus reason that he wasn't allowed to get it because of an investigation, which is not true. but the reality is, why do you think the commissioner changed his opinion and then decided to indefinitely suspend rice? why do you think that happened? because your video was accurate. there is no dispute about it. >> because, yeah, we put our video on the site and he used our video to suspend ray rice.
1:29 am
so the whole argument is bogus. >> do you think tmz sports has been successful in part because the sports media, perhaps, are not aggressive enough or are a little too cozy with the professional leagues they cover? >> i think it's -- you know, look, i will say there is a real parallel between sports and celebrity, that the same thing happened when we covered celebrity news, that all of the shows and magazines were so in bed with publicists that they weren't really doing an honest job. and i'm not saying that the sports people are not because i think the sports people have always been more aggressive than the celebrity -- the traditional celebrity media. but i think there are alliances that were formed, especially when games are shown on various networks and they have real business relationships. and it's difficult to maneuver a business relationship around journalism. when you're trying to do both at the same time. and i think that's the problem in the sports area and i think
1:30 am
there was an opening. >> harvey levin, thanks very much for joining us. >> okay, howie. >> more on the ray rice controversy just ahead. did the media initially go to easy on the baltimore ravens? and are they too quick to gloss over domestic violence in professional sports? christine brennen and david zurwick when we come back. back
1:31 am
1:32 am
1:33 am
1:34 am
howard kurtz. >> we already knew, thanks to the first video obtained by tmz, that ray rice had dragged his wife's unconscious body out of the elevator. that led to a pleasely two-game nfl sus spengdz for the baltimore ravens running back and this tepid reaction from coach john harbaugh. >> i stand behind ray. he's a heck of a guy. he's done everything right since. he makes mistakes, all right? >> heck of a guy. it wasn't until this week when
1:35 am
tmz object stained the second security video of rice punching himself in the face that the nfl was shamed into acting. the ravens dropped ray rice and commissioner suspending him indefinitely. rice says he told the nfl months ago that he had hit his fiancee. chris, you had a chance to sit down with roger goodell and you asked him about the second video. he said the nfl had asked for it repeatedly. how do you feel about that answer now? >> i guess i'll stick with it as what he told me until completely proven otherwise. we still don't know, for sure, what that ap report is. it sounds very damming to the nfl. but, you know, we don't know that roger goodell saw the video. my point is, and i asked him four different times, why did it take a second video inspect the first video should have been
1:36 am
enough. >> that's the exact question i had written down for you. we had already seen ray rice dragging his wife out of that elevator. should there have been more of a media uprising then? >> when the two-game suspension was oo announced, there was quite a tore end of criticism. that was the end of july. it took a month before roger goodell came up with that six-game suspension. but your question was about the media. that video has been available for months. i think for a lot of people covering the league, we thought the six-game suspension at the end of august sounded tough. now that we've seen the second video, six-game sentence doesn't sound like in you nearly enough. i'm not allowing the nfl or roger goodell off the hook. but the word domestic violence, the adjective is bad. it makes it sounds like it's between a husband and a wife in the conversation and we don't belong in the conversation. clearly, we do.
1:37 am
>> tmz, i read your column and it sounds like you've moved from being a critic to a supporter and whether or not harvey levin paid for the rice video. you're not sure you care any more. >> i do care. there are qualifications to this. but i think when you look at how we think of the landscape today, if had not plushed th epublish video, ray rice would be back at their practice facility and somebody would be holding a microphone -- because in is the way the press reported it. how great is it, ray, to be back? how great is it? tmz changed the world with that video. we would not have had that conversation, howie, about domestic violence that led the evening news two nights in a row this week. they did it. and here is what i'll say. if you pay for video today, first of all, understand the world we're in. everybody needs to monetize their digital space. they need their websites.
1:38 am
video drives traffic. you are going to pay for video, everybody is doing it. the networks do it, the cable channels do it, they sdwruft -- >> the difference between paying a licensing fee to a photo agency and paying 50, $100,000 whatever it is to somebody who is giving information. how did the media, especially in your city of baltimore, deal with rice and the ravens especially after that first video came out? >> i wrote back in february, god bless tmz. i got my head taken off. >> the team and the league. >> they were -- they let the team drive their coverage. i think you have to understand they need the city, and this isn't unique to baltimore. they are such powerful institutions, these nfl teams economically, that the local media to a large extent is involved. one of the sports directors at a local affiliate is the public address announcer at the ravens game. another one does the radio broadcasting got a super bowl
1:39 am
ring. they are part of this operation. they are almost extensions of the pr operation. >> on this ray rice controversy, do you feel that some in the media are treating it@as entertainment? >> certainly, yes, talking about driving ratings and clicks. i have to say it, we're here at fox, but "fox & friends," the other day the banter proves he should take the stairs. >> that was an unfortunate misstep. i was glad they came back and said we didn't mean to give the impression that we take this lightly. >> yeah, but they did. how can this come out of your mouth when you see the videos? journalistically, we're covering this story. i think you could make the case this is the biggest controversy ever to hit a u.s. pro sports league. >> but now we're starting to focus, belatedly, i would say, on other professional athletes using our similar incidents talking about men beating up
1:40 am
women. and you wrote the other day about greg hardy of the client panthers to play on sunday. explain about his case and would you have written about that if we weren't always focused on this topic because of ray rice? >> no and to david's point, we wouldn't be talking about this at all. so i guess thank you tmz, as bizarre as that sounds. but greg hardy, with the carolina panthers was found guilty by a bench judge basically slinging his ex-girlfriend around, hands around the throat trying to choke her. she said just kill me now. there are 911 tapes. it's horrible. it is definitely horrible. he has the loophole that allows him to play for the panthers today because he's appealing. of course, here the question is why is roger goodell on this? >> but where was the media outside the state of north carolina? i had not even heard of this case until this week. i want to move to janay rice because she's obviously been defendsing her now husband. no one knows the pain that the media and unwanted opinions from the public have caused my family
1:41 am
to take something away from the man i love. he has worked his butt off all his life just to gain ratings is horrific. if your intention was to hurt us, embarrass us, make us feel alone, take all happiness away, you have succeeded on so many levels. >> i have all sympathy for janay rice. this is how the media didn't cover this story. howie, look. society, professional journalists, every ethics coach says try to do no harm and doubly try to do no harm to victims. be careful with them. i think if you had suppressed this tape and kept it in the darkness, that is what the powers that be wanted. so sometimes people do get hurt in the process of bringing this out. >> no surprise that she did that. i understand. my question is will this actually be a deterrent for others to report it because
1:42 am
there goes the livelihood. but i feel nothing but sympathy for her, as well. >> we've run the video a number of times. a half dozen networks are saying they will use it sparingly. thanks very much. we'll have more on the ray rice uproar. a bit later when we look at female journalists speaking out on domestic violence. but coming up, jay carney with his discussion with john mccain.
1:43 am
1:44 am
1:45 am
1:46 am
the parade of former obama aides landing plum media jobs isn't letting up. three months after stepping down as white house press secretary, jay carney has joined cnn as a commentator. after his boss delivered that speech on isis, carney got into it with john mccain. >> you don't have the facts, mr. carney. that's the problem. >> senator, i understand you present the facts that you believe are true based on the facts -- >> no, sir 37. >> for a long time that we should leads troops into perpetuity. that's just not what this president believes. >> carney was a long time correspondent for "time" magazine. but the question he'll face like david axlerod, like dana preeno
1:47 am
john oliver is becoming quite the media critic "60 minutes." how does he often get the the per expect sound bites? could he be leading the witness? >> you have to hand it to him. >> yes, you do. he was off and running. >>> is to laugh at it. >> so it drives the price up. >> it drives the price up. >> you did everything together. >> we did everything together. >> he is the father of hot sauce. >> he is the father of hot sauce. >> all of them banned. >> all of 24e78 banned. >> with the crowd there. >> with the crowd there. >> it was almost a cake walk, actually. >> a cake walk? >> yes. >> to beat the system. >> to beat the system. >> to cheat 37. >> to cheat. >> now,wp try to get guests to speak in complete sentences. do the folks at "60 minutes" really do it that often?
1:48 am
after the break, our video verdict is up next.
1:49 am
1:50 am
1:51 am
time now for our video verdict. the day after ray rice was indicted for knocking out his kboif, she married him. that sparked, wake up janay. >> some female journalists are starting to speak out about their ownóçy experience with domestic violence. one of those is from kn. >> one day, we were in an argument and he took me and violently threw me against the wall. it knocked me out. he dragged me much like ray rice
1:52 am
dragged janay, so i could relate to that. when i told some of my friends about this incident, they couldn't believe that it happened because he was such a charming man. charming, and handsome and nice. >> kudos to carol for speaking out about this. she has a platform at the network and she's able to use that for good. and i think this was a he row wick thing for her to do. >> i'm not usually a fan of journalists personalizing things after a celebrity event. in this instance, i think it was a good thing. i think it's helping to educate the public and showcasing that this can happen to anybody. let's give it a score. >> i'm giving that a nine. >> and i'll go with eight. >> i think that what she did was very brave. >> it's hard to talk about, isn't it? >> it's very hard. it happened to me 25 years ago.
1:53 am
a boyfriend hit me in the face and i promptly left him and i've never spoken about it until right now because i didn't want to be perceived as a victim. >> but you're talking about it now. >> i'm talking about it now because i think it is very important to have an open and honest discussion about domestic violence and the women it happens to. even the women who don't report it. and especially, you know, when there's not a video. >> of course that's a distinction with a lot at let'ses. i'm glad we're talking about it. too many times the media thinks it's entertainment. rihanna was horrifying at first and then became a gossip story. i'm glad they took her off the entertainment bill of thursday's
1:54 am
nfl game. >> social media went crazy when this story happened and the hash tag #whyileft became viral. s just so unfair, but it really touched a nerve in society. >> right. no longer just on television. still to come, your best tweets and msnbc on why the senator won't make the lawmakers she's accusing of sexist behavior.
1:55 am
1:56 am
here's some of your top tweets. i asked skit bother you if tmz paid for the video of ray rice. john says, tmz has the right to pay and it's up front. steve, what bothers me even more is they released the video in section. i presume in order to reserve their time in the spotlight. tom walsh, yes, it bothers me. that evidence if criminal charges were filed. david robertson, what bothers me more is that the media have played the video a million times.
1:57 am
>> absolutely. just at the middle of the week, the networks came out and said we are going to stop or slow down the use of this. and i think that's a great idea. >> we've all seen it. gillibrand charged in a new book that there was sexist members there. one had called her porky and another had squeezed her stomach. we pressed her on this on just who these men are. >> why wouldn't you name names here? >> because the reason why i use these examples is to illustrate the broader point. >> but this is harassment. >> not for me. they're not my bosses. >> wouldn't you elevate the debate by naming names? >> no because then it's all about that individual. >> i think she's wrong in this instance because she's not a journalist and she doesn't have to reveal her sources to anybody. >> these are not sources. they're men touching her.
1:58 am
>> no. >> don't put it in the book then. >> she said it was to raise awareness. >> because these lawmakers have constituents that ought to know. >> i don't agree with that. she's got to have her own fight wts them in congress. it is not her place. >> she's certainly taking your advice. that's it for this edition of "media buzz." you can e-mail us all the time. we are back here next sunday, every sunday, 11:00 and 5:00 with the latest buzz. >> it isouçy÷ monday september 12014. triple trouble for the nfl. two scandals puts pressure europe on the league as ray rice
1:59 am
tries to get back in today. >> the president's no troops on the ground, will it work? john kerry's war of words with himself. and your next miss america crowned. she just made history. plus the performance everyone is talking about. "fox & friends first" starts right now. ♪ >> that song never gets old does it? >> isn't that a good one? >> we love it. >> it is still dark outside on the east coast. it is a monday morning. you are watching "fox & friends first". i am heather childers. >> i am ainsley earhardt.
2:00 am
>> ap p brand new week on tap. all eyes are on the nfl but not for the reason commissioner rog roger goodell would like. they are all under fire for domestic abuse charges. for more we turn to kelly wright who is standing by. what is the latest? >> the nfl abuse scandal involving ray rice and others is raising the heat on roger goodell. he is coming under intense criticism for angry fans out there. these banners calling for good dell to go are flying high over several nfl stadiums. a woman's advocacy group and fans accuse the nfl commissioner of knowing about the disturbing video of ray rice punching his then fiancee in the face. but protestors claim good dell was being too lenient with rice. >> dropped the ball hard on the ray rice situation. sd


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on