Skip to main content

tv   Media Buzz  FOX News  June 23, 2014 1:00am-2:01am PDT

1:00 am
i hope we will, too. and we'll all pray for their safe and prompt return. well, that's it for now. this is mike huckabee from new york. good night andororororororororo. have a great sunday. on the buzz beater this sunday, hillary clinton faces off with two fox anchors and we'll talk to brett behr and grat ta about their strategy for the sit-down. >> did you talk to secretary panetta that night? >> i talked with director petraeus. my own assessment careened from the video had something to do with it, the individual yao had nothing to do with it. >> did you talk about the video with president obama? >> but some conservatives are criticizing the interview as too soft. while liberal pundits say there was too much focus on benghazi. who is right? as the white house weighs military action in iraq, a media debate over who is entitled to
1:01 am
debate the war. >> hey, sunday show, hey, op-ed pages, hey, kablg news, hey, everybody, we know you are attempted to keep booking these yahoo!s on the subject, but if you keep turning to the people who were famously wrong about iraq to comment on iraq you at least will be laughed at and embarrassed that you did this and you will eventually have to apologize. >> should television really sideline the cheerleaders for george w. bush's invasion? supporters for president obama's withdraw and how is the press covering the current chaos? plus, a must twist in the washington redskins furry as some are refusing to mention the team's name. i'm howard kurtz and this is "media buzz." hillary clinton made two cable news stops on her book's last campaign tour first with
1:02 am
christian amanpour. >> are your competitive juices flowing for your chance to be the first female president of the united states? of america? >> you can see why she's an experienced journalist. of amer? >> you can see why she's an experienced journalist. of amer? >> you can see why she's an experienced journalist. >> then it was here in this studio where the former secretary of state sat down and brett and greta. >> angela merkel is very upset that we were bugging her phone. should she be? >> yes. that was absolutely uncalled for. >> at one point you write the obama campaign after john mccain selected sarah palin, that they called you to issue something that was dismissive of her and you said no. >> that's right. i did. i do believe sexism is still a problem. it's not just in politics, it's in journalism and business and all kinds of human endeavors in our country. >> but brett's decision to spend
1:03 am
a good chunk of his time drew flack from some anchors at msnbc. >> the first, count them, eight questions, eight questions were about benghazi. >> brett asked 15 total, 12 directly were about benghazi. if the fox professionals who picked up this can't lay a glove on glinton, how does is that going to be? >> joining us now, lauren ashburn, a fox news contributor and former usa today executive who hosts social buzz on the woikt. rick gronell and craig crawford, founder of the trail mix blog and a former columnist for cq. so it seems like brett and greta and fox are getting it from both sides, too hard or too soft is in the interview. >> and the is most surprising was negative discussion from conservatives going after both of them. we had some people who wrote
1:04 am
into our facebook page, mackenzy mark said the interviews with hillary were a joke, this is why i no longer join fox news. i couldn't agree with you more say david nathan vigor. fox has traded boxing gloves for mitt mittens. carol said, i think it was soft, it made her look good. >> let's put on the boxing gloves. >> i had a big advantage here, howie. >> many arthritics thought it was soft. >> i think there are a lot of hillary haters out there who wouldn't be happy unless she was waterboarded by interviewers. >> some headlines said brett hammered hillary clinton on benghazi. is that a fair characterization? well, look, the fact of the matter is hillary didn't answer the questions. what is brett supposed to do? he's trying to get answers. we have a woman who looks at the camera and absolutely just says whatever she wants. it's not based on fact other reality. she skirts all the issues. >> you don't think she answered
1:05 am
any of those benghazi questions? >> no. there are so many questions lingering. and she does a very good job because she was a 20-plus year politician. if you like politicians, you love hillary clinton. she is washington, d.c. in car nate. >> the decision to focus a good bit of time on benghazi, was that somewhat unfair or out of bounds? >> not at all. the problem was he didn't argue with her and call her names which people are so used to so they thought it was a soft interview. it was a win-win for both. i didn't see that she was brain damaged karl rove. i think they came across very intelligent and handled those questions quite well. her answer, that fog of war stuff, this is what the clintons have always done and they're good at. they explain away questions with reasonable sounding answers that average people find pretty easy to follow. >> i would just note that diane sawyer of abc spent several minutes on benghazi and i didn't
1:06 am
see people beating her up over that. nothing is unusual about this interview. it was two anchor format, two of them splitting the time. >> she was sort of ping-ponging. she was sitting right here where rick was and looking at brett and then looking at greta. >> it was almost a debate how they divided it up. >> right. i think greta in particular had a very conversational tone. that comes from having interviewed her all over the world, in afghanistan, war zones. greta has been around the block, as she likes to say, and has interviewed a lot of people. but what distinguished it were the questions she asked. she talked about sexism which hadn't been mentioned up to that point. she talked about richard holbrooke. she talked about the marine in mexico, which has been a cause of hers, trying to get this marine out and elicited a very interesting response from hillary clinton which is i would have been burning up the phone lines, i would have been sending in the envoys. she gave hymn hillary a chance
1:07 am
to distance herself from the obama administration. >> so do you think this added anything to our understanding of the situation? >> i think it added a little and it added to the fact na she's not willing to answer questions. she was wasn't interviewed for the report. she's never answered why that is the case. she said things like they could go anywhere and ask anyone. well, miss secretary, they tried to ask you and you weren't willing to sit for an interview. no one pushed her. >> so you didn't like her answer? >> no. >> the answer she was giving makes sense to a lot of people. it was the fog of war. she wasn't sure whether the video caused this or not. it could have gone either way in her mind. they were trying to find out. they were more focused on trying to protect the embassy. she made it clear that i think in an implicit way that she didn't agree with the argument -- >> let's come back to the fairness of the interview. i thought in the cnn interview
1:08 am
and in the fox interview hillary clinton seems seemed less defensive and more relaxed. >> she got better at it. >> so i can tell you bhsh walked out of here, she seemed pretty upbeat. therefore, did fox news, despite the criticism on the right and the left, treat her fairley in your view. >> i absolutely thought they treated her fairley. they did it kind of old school, which i'd like to see more of. by that, i mean asked factual questions, follow up with factual questions. don't interrupt. let people have their say. she didn't talk too much so they didn't have to interrupt her. it was the kind of civil interview i'd like to see more often on more channels. >> let's also remember that this was a highly negotiated interview. the clinton people do not want to do fox. this was their one chance. >> so why did they do it? >> good for her for doing it. >> they have to do one. so you have to jam pack everything into the one interview that you get because she's willing to do a lot more
1:09 am
interviews on other stations because it's easier. >> one place she didn't do an interview was msnbc which spent a lot of time defending her. >> i have a feeling she practiced for this a lot, too. i'd like to know who the stand-ins were for brett and greta. >> we'll hear from brett and greta a little later on the interview. but the day of the introduce was the day of the announcement that u.s. forces had captured ahmed katallah, a chief suspect in the benghazi attacks. that prompted some commentary on fox and some pushback on other channels. let's take a brief look. >> what a great thing to announce on an interview at fox news that the perpetrators had been brought to justice. it's all too neat and too cute. i always want to give the benefit of doubt to our authorities, but in this case, it feels too neat. >> they have lost their minds, whether it's the president
1:10 am
orchestrating this or hillary clinton orchestrating this, it's so bizarre. >> what do you make about these comments about the timing of the capture? >> the more outlandish the comments, the more the website res going to say, oh, my gosh, fox news said this and they may made this point. and it's funny, because the news didn't say that. those individual contributors said that and that happens a lot. it's happened to me, i'm sure it's happened to you, rick, where they said fox news says -- as if it's the official position of the network. >> right. and it's not fair to do that. >> "the washington post" had the information out the day before but held the release at the request of the administration. one guy is finally captured in the benghazi attacks as a suspect and turns it into something suspect. >> let's be very clear. the suspect was arrested on sunday. the president was in palm springs golfing on sunday. they waited until tuesday to make the announcement.
1:11 am
i think there's no question that they waited until the president got back to washington to make the announcement. >> okay. >> so it's not the same thing, howie, but packaging of the news has happened happens all the time. and you ask reporters and networks and outlets to hold the news. people just need to know that. i don't think that it's always suspicious. i think let's put that information out there that it's being packaged. >> at the same time, craig crawford, is it legitimate for people like james rosen, who is over at the state department questioning officials about this to say why did it take two years to capture katallah when several journalists were able to sit down and interview him -- >> well, hillary was asked about that on fox and pointed out they might know where he is, but they couldn't go in and get him like in pakistan unless we were supposed to invade the place. but the pick up on lauren's point, i so agree. when these crazy conspiracy-type theory res made, it's a discredit to everything else
1:12 am
that you want to say about it. it's accurate and legitimate. because then the other side can toss that out, that's the birthers talking or something. >> let's get a break right here. send me a tweet about our show at this hour. we'll read your best tweets at the end of the program. ahead, bret and greta weigh in on how they approached the interview. but first, some liberal pundits want to hoot the -- off the stage. we'll debate that, next. thank you daddy for defending our country.
1:13 am
1:14 am
1:15 am
as the media debate about what to do about the major cities in iraq, there are
1:16 am
cheerleaders for war. not everyone wants to hear from them. >> those idiots were ostracized, never heard from again because of how -- i'm kidding. and in this current crisis, the nud news media has rushed to get the band back together again. >> some anchors have been giving the pro war pundites and former bush officials a very hard time. >> apologies would be in order at this point from the new york conservatives who banged the war drums so disastrously, bill. >> hog wash. >> but time and time again, history has proven that you got it wrong, as well, in iraq sir. you said there was no doubt saddam husain had weapons of mass destruction. you said we would be greeted as liberators. what do us to those who said you were so wrong about the expense of so many? >> i fundamentally disagree, reagan. megan. you've got to go back and look at the track record. >> so this argument that we shouldn't even hear on television from people that
1:17 am
supported the war, new 2003 were a spokesman for the u.s. in ambassadors to the nation. your thoughts? >> i don't think liberals get it both ways. they don't get to say this current problem is all about the mistakes f can't hear from the people who are in charge at this time. you don't get to say it both ways. if we want to hold the people accountable who are currently in office, i'm all for that. i think there are a lot of bad decisions on going on right now. the liberals need to pick a side. hold the current people accountable or if it's a total 25 year ancient problem as "time" magazine says, we need to have the full breadth of the people who are in charge then and now on the issue. >> isn't it hard to bring them together as megan did with dick cheney? >> she handled it well. it's kind of like you set the house on fire and then you sue the fire department for not putting it out. it's okay to have them on and get their point of view.
1:18 am
but it's like a lawyer impeaching the court. you have to get that stuff out there, their background, you know, all the mistakes they made. >> do you agree with rick, that if the cheneys and wolfowitzs are going to be pressed about 2003, then obama officials need to be pressed about the way no residual force was left in 2011? >> i think that was asked in the president's press conference. it ought to be pressed more, i agree. and their answer is always about the protection agreement that ma l maliki wouldn't sign. i'd like to know how hard did they push to get that agreement which is they now say is the reason they got identity. >> political reporters are blurring the issues. there's one about whether or not we should have gone into iraq, which i believe we should have. the second part is the mishandling of building of the troops and trying to win. it's two different issues. don't blur them. >> even chris matthews on msnbc is praising megan kelly for her
1:19 am
handles of the former vice president. >> of course. because it's great television. television producers are going to book these people because it's great to see people say you had it wrong, you did this and you did that. and actually hear some blthbility. because people love to hear when people have made mistakes. >> beyond the blame game, talk about how the war is being covered now and the obstacles that they're facing as opposed to years past. >> 2003? right. >> 2003, '4, '5, '6, '7, '8. >> okay. you want to keep counting. i think we're seeing a lack of the heavyweights to go in. there's no military to protection them. the same thing happened in ukraine when putin decided that he was going to an ex crimea. reporters tried to go in, but there's no one to protect them and they were roughed up. in fairness, you have a number of newspaper reporters reporting from iraq, richard engle,
1:20 am
anderson cooper. but you're saying we're not seeing brian williams. >> that's true. and there are are no battle front lines. you don't quite know where to go with all this. the skirmishes may happen here and they're headed to this city and they're in mosul. it is blurred to send somebody into one place. >> there's a difference here. during the bush days, everything was about bush and it was "new york times" front page blamed bush. now it's the u.s. government or washington. today, "the washington post" has a front page outlook section where it says they're mistakes that washington has made. it's not barack obama. that's the difference. >> obama disowned iraq compared to bush. he wanted themselves in his perform. he's not the face of this. until now and going forward. >> sorry, craig. i've got to ask you about a war of words you got into this week where the "new york times," a
1:21 am
profile of your former boss, john bolden. and reporter jennifer steinhower wrote that you told her there would be no interview with bolden unless a republican lawmaker e-mailed on her behalf. >> beyond silly. the issue was always the "new york times" credibility. i said i'm not going to go to john and recommend you because i don't know you and i am suspect about your paper. she said, oh, no, i'm very credible. you should ask republican lawmakers. and i said get them to tell john, then, maybe that will help. it was a very simple 15-second comment and conversation and she somehow made it to be conditioned. she made a big mistake, i'm not john bolden's spokesman. she knew that. >> so the times stand by the story. we're hag happy you have to explain your side. >> i've never asked the times for a correction because who cares what they say? it means nothing. >> thank you very much for
1:22 am
stopping by today. when we come back, how about bre bret and greta prepare for the interview with hillary clinton? and why does washington nay sayers turn so
1:23 am
1:24 am
1:25 am
did president buobama durin his first term ever seriously disappoint you in any way? >> we had disagreements. president obama has called the irs scandal a phony scandal. is it a phony scandal? >> i think anytime the irs is involved for many people it's a real scandal. >> what was the journalistic strategy as hillary clinton came here to fox news? i sat down here with the host of on the record and the anchor of "special report" whose new book is a special heart, a journey of faith, courage and love. we're going to device the time perfectly evenly, just as you
1:26 am
did. >> we've learned that. >> so bret, let's start with the christ simple. some folks case you were too easy on hillary clinton and others saying you spent too much time on benghazi. >> the criticism is going to come no matter what on either side. i think we struck the right down and the right balance on getting answers. and we went over a lot of material. and the reason i focused on benghazi for those questions, one, we had the breaking news, so i started with katallah being captured. that obviously took up some time about miranda rights and that sort of things. and the other thing is laying out questions methodically about her role. and i don't think that had been done. when she answered that it was the thought of war and she was careening from the video had
1:27 am
everything to do with it to the video had nothing to do with it, it was pretty unique. she had not said that before. if she thought the video had nothing to do with it, in those early hours, it's pretty strange that a press release came out blaming the individual crow. >> greta, have you been getting beat up online over the interview? >> oh, yeah, but it comes with the territory. bret and i have been around the block enough and sometimes when you have a controversial guest, you're going to get it. there was no surprise. >> but what do you make of some conservatives saying this is a great love fest? i certainly didn't see it that way. you asked a lot of hard questions on a lot of different issues. but you're saying you can't please everybody. >> i wasn't attempting to please everybody. i was trying to get information from the viewers and trying to cover the topics. >> you have a more conversational style. was that in part delivered to try to get hillary clinton to loosen up a bit? >> for me, howie, it was just a regular interview. i've interviewed her probably eight times as secretary of state. bret and i have interviewed so
1:28 am
many people here at fox news, i really was -- a hundred percent of my goal was there was no strategy other than to get information. bret and i had to divide it up. the most complicated thing was how do you divide it up? it was very routine, at least for me. >> no, i agree. and the other challenge was the time and the time, you know, bouncing, you know, to get to that time. and splitting it up. >> never enough time. that's the problem. never enough time. look, this isn't a courtroom where you get to keep them up there for days and if you don't get a full answer, we have a judge instruct the witness to answer the question. you don't get that here. >> so, bret, you were the only man in the united states picked to join in these interviews. i'm sure that was an honor. >> the bbc, though. yeah. >> there was a lot of attention, how is fox news going to treat hillary clinton about the right tone to take and how aggressive to be? >> you know, i don't think it really factored in. we were not -- that's the tone we would have taken. i think both of us. and as greta said, she's
1:29 am
interviewed hillary clinton many times. this my first time. i wanted to lay out things in a methodical way. and there's not always going to be the -- it was two years ago moment. and i don't think in interviews trying to get news that somebody should plan to try to get somebody to that point. those things -- >> a lot of enterprise have these gotcha moments. isn't it true that and didn't you say that two years ago. >> that's a little bit almost entertainment. i think it's understandable, a little bit of our lives, bret and i both have daily shows. we had so much going on in our lives. we had to read a 600 page book and we had to divide it up and we didn't have unlimited time. there was no sort of grand strategy. it was to try to get information for the viewers. >> when you asked about everything from nsa surveillance to -- yeah. she and i don't read the fourth
1:30 am
amendment the same way. >> so the irs scandal, to the marine still being held in mexico, to sexism and sarah palin, weren't you hoping she would make some news? >> well southbou, she did. >> she did. >> i was curious what her answer was and i think the viewers are curious. even viewers that hate the -- may have ripped out skin off. there have been a few of those. bret and i have exchanged a couple, yeah. i might do a blog where i just read them. jimmy kimmel, he had a tweet -- >> maybe to a rap. a good rap every. >> so what's the measure of success? because this was a high profile interview, which she makes news, whether you elicit information, whether ought out without embarrassing yourself? what's the standard that you apply? >> i think the news part is what we're striving for. and i think she did that on a number of different fronts.
1:31 am
and the irs, the separation between hillary clinton and the administration was really astounding. i think some of greta's questions on a host of topics, the marine in mexico. when i asked her about the economy, right track, wrong track, and there's clearly this fine walk that hillary clinton is doing to be attractive to the left, but also distance herself from this administration. it's having problems. >> and i think another challenge for us is we work first. we had to be clever and find new ways to ask things because a lot of people who follow these interviews follow a lot of them. so we wanted to be a little bit different and offer something else up. >> bret, greta, thanks very much. >> thanks, howie. >> greta and bret predicted hillary clinton will be back at fox news. up next, the ratings are up
1:32 am
for the world cup. and later, mitt romney isn't running again. why won't america news
1:33 am
1:34 am
1:35 am
1:36 am
headquarters. now back for more on media buzz and howie. the controversy over the redskins name has been raging here in washington for years. now it's become a major media national issue fueled this week by a patent commission ruling stripping the team of some of its trademark protections for the logo. lefty and righty pundits have
1:37 am
lined up on both sides of this playing field with one msnbc anchor reporting that rarery read was going to say the name. >> an interesting case on the floor of the senate continue to go talk about an back to dan snyder. and i will warn people, he does use the name of the team. >> so you go ahead, you chief if you want. the stripping of trademark rights from the redskins. no one is safe when the protections of a constitutional republic are stripped away. >> joining us now from new york is joe concha and a lot of native americans are offended by the name, but how did it become another one of these media issues where the right is defending owner dan snyder and the left says the name is horribly offensive. >> no argument is safe from a lefty lsh righty argument. in their view, a minority group is being exploited by the
1:38 am
richest 1% in this case dan snyder. the right sees it as an issue because tez it as government overreach. so that's why we're seeing it as a lefty-righty argument and the media has jump odd this story. a lot of passions running high here. >> right. i personally think the government doesn't need to be involved in this. but the seattle times becoming the latest publication saying it's not going to use the name. isn't that a little pc? whether you agree or disagree, it's been the redskins for 70 years .right now it is still the redskins. >> since the great depression, the name redskins has been around. with the exception of pete king and "sports illustrated" and two guys from "the washington post" who have spoke out about the name and spoke out against it for decades, they were on board with this when it was based on their principals and not based on convenience when it wasn't fashionable. and for all this is sports writers and xhen taters and
1:39 am
whole publications that are tomg coming forward now when they've had bylines for years and saying we deem this as offense, i ask where the hell have you been on this issue and -- >> want to name a couple? >> yes. >> go ahead. >> no, i'm asking you. >> bob costas i have tremendous respect for, howie. it's been in broadcasting since 1974. nbz has covered the nfl for all those years. not until last year did mr. costas come out and say he found the name offensive. he's had a byline since '74. he could have spoke out about it way back when. only when the political winds shifted did he say, hey, guys, me, too. i don't want to be deemed as racist. >> and everybody has to take a stand now because it is being deemed controversy. >> let's met move you to the world cup. i thought most americans found soccerhorribly boring.
1:40 am
>> you are increasingly alone in that thought, howie. today's match, u.s./portugal, 6:00 p.m., will be watch by more americans than the nba finals and probably will double or even trip trillion nhl stanley cup finals which featured an la and new york market, rangers and kings. while soccer used to struggle in ratings, 2014 rating ves exploded. good news for espn and abc. what can you say? forgive me if i'm not excited when there's a 0-0 game. but i get a lot of kids play it and it's becoming more popular. but is soccer, or football as the rest of the world calls it, really arriving in the u.s. or is it every couple of years everybody watches the world cup and then they forget about it. >> everybody loves curling during the olympics. that seems to be the same thing with soccer. they love the world cup, love the stage, the events. but once the world cup goes away, mls, that's major league soccer, is getting better
1:41 am
ratings. but is it going to challenge football, basketball or hockey any time soon? probably not. but the world cup certainly is. >> joe concha, thanks for song by. >> thank you. after the break, the "new york times" goes way out of bounds with phil mickelson and what katie couric told me about her move to yahoo! her canceled talk show and her wedding.
1:42 am
1:43 am
1:44 am
test test
1:45 am
here are your buzz briefs. the "new york times" and washington post ran front pages articles on scott walker. he is part of an effort to illegally fund during his re-election. but no charges have been filed. two judges have ruled no laws were broken and the legal definitions here are fuzzy. is it news? absolutely. but would the papers have given this page one play if walker wasn't a republican eyeing a presidential run? i don't think so. walker is calling the media a willing accomplice of the left. nbc's chuck todd was pretty hard on swietser after the former governor apologized for saying dianne feinstein reminded him of a street walker. but todd had to add one very important detail. >> he sounded like a stereotype from the 80s talking about gaydar with eric cantor.
1:46 am
he has since tried to apoll dpiez. but there's sort of a bufoonary to him. >> in our press picks, this yeed ya fail, the "new york times" puts phil mickelson in the rough by reporting that he was under scrutiny in an insider trading investigation that involved carl eye kh ikahn. but the "new york times" reported this past week that the golfer did not trade stock in clorox, that the original sources had been wrong. that is a hooirchblg huuge miste bogey, if you will, that really damaged mickelson's reputation. i spoke with katie couric the other day about her new job at yahoo! and the exclusive interview she landed with john kerry. >> so you don't think this -- >> absolutely, unquestionably not. >> katie loved the luxury of a half hour online session saying
1:47 am
she would have gotten five minutes if she was still at the "today" show and 3:30 if she was at cbs news. she said she's proud of her day time talk show because she refused to dumb it down, but she couldn't come on to talk about it because she's getting married this weekend. fair enough. read my interview tomorrow on ahead on media buzz, the "today" show cleans up donald trump's mess. but first, glen glenn beck says the libbal media was right and
1:48 am
1:49 am
1:50 am
. time for our video verdict. this is a pet peeve of mine, when politicians insist they're not running for office.
1:51 am
>> mitt romney made it clear he won't make another run for the white house. but david gregory went this anyway on "meet the press." >> will you be a candidate in 2016, if you were drafted, if the conditions were right? would you consider another run? >> david, i'm not running for president. i said that so many times. >> 100% mitt romney will not -- even if drafted, will not be a candidate in 2016. >> i'm not running. talk of a draft is kind of silly. >> then he went on to ask again. i understand why he wanted to ask. >> why? >> because politicians often hide when it comes to things like this. >> he's not running. he's run twice. he has lost. if he was going to secretly plot another run for the white house -- >> i know, he wouldn't be giving up his donors. >> he wouldn't be breaking it on "meet the press." >> he's breaking it here. >> david gregory has plenty of company on this. i don't understand why that
1:52 am
question gets asked again and again. >> elizabeth warren about the same thing. i'm giving it a three. >> i'm giving it a two. >> ooh. glenn beck has always had opinions and always sure he was right. >> the founder of the blaze did something highly unusual the other day in reconsidering the iraq war. >> now, in spite of the things that i felt at the time when we went into war, liberals said we shouldn't get involved. they said we shouldn't get meyered in a foreign mess. we shouldn't nation build. let me lead with my mistakes. you were right. liberals, you were right, we shouldn't have. >> shocking, liberals, you were right. good for glenn beck for saying something like that, i think. >> glenn beck has said a lot of divisive things here in his career. like barack obama has a deep-seated dislike of white
1:53 am
people. and now saying that the left and right should come together, he's saying we should stay out of iraq. >> i think it's good for public discourse that he's had an evolution in his thinking and he's not afraid to say it. >> we'll continue to see if he continues with it. >> i give it an eight. >> i give it a six. jay carney as he leaves the white house, the donald slams one of his critics, but he mangled the facts. stay with us. h. h
1:54 am
1:55 am
here are your top tweets with your grades for hillary clinton's spots interviews. she filibustered every question and there was a lack of focus. willie davis, c for toughness of questions, a for finally showing an ounce of character, when interviewing a democrat. i give it a five on a scale of
1:56 am
ten, spend too much time on benghazi and not enough time on her policy views. this is one word, superb. respectful, but too soft. she was well rehearsed and there were no surprise or really tough questions. >> and we talked about that earlier. a lot of conservatives say it was simply too soft. >> and i'm going to respectfully disagree. >> me, too. in our press picks, this was over the line. donald trump punched back after a critic blair called the giant new trump sign on his skyscraper utterly out of character and grotesquely overscale. the donald ripped cayman on the "today" show. >> this has turned out to be a great piece of architecture, a great thing for chicago. i do great buildings. this was started by a third-grade architectural critic who i thought got fired. he was gone for a long period of time, most people thought he was fired.
1:57 am
>> cayman worked at the tribune for 20 years and never fired. jay carney wound up his tenure at the white house this week. >> when somebody's getting riled up, and filled with sometimes -- >> come on, jay. >> exactly. >> you didn't answer the question. >> and if they're really obnoxious, you get a little rattled and sort of engage. you finish the exchange of thinking. i won that. i killed. and then you look at it later on tv and you realize that nobody actually sees the whole exchange. they just see you wagging your finger or looking like a jerk. >> if the shoe fits. >> you're suggesting his analysis of his performance was correct? >> maybe. there were a lot of times that he really attacked reporters, especially at henry in a very personal way. one of the things he said when he left is that he enjoyed every
1:58 am
minute of his time there. even the minutes in the briefing room. i think that was a very polite way of lying. >> but jay carney has a point in that television reporters -- he's tangled with others -- they want to get something to show on television so he has to kind of fight back. >> the reporters want to look good by asking the tough questions. that's what they're going to show. >> jay carney goes to do something else where he doesn't have to get beat up. that's it for this edition of media buzz. we post our columns, and respond to your questions on video on our facebook page. >> it is monday june 23rd, 2014. a fox news alert. secretary of state john skkerry landing in iraq moments ago. can he do anything to stop the
1:59 am
advancing militants. >> new information on the threat to america. >> the irs boss heading back to capitol hill today. expect even more fireworks as brand new questions are looming like what about the agency that was hired to store those supposedly lost e-mails. automatic>> a hot air balloon crash lands right in the middle of a quiet street? how did that hal pulling? ksz fogsz allelu fox and friendt right now. >> good morning do you and your family this monday. you are watching "fox & friends first". >> i am ainsley earhardt. >> i am heather childers. moments ago john kerry landing in iraq where he will meet with the country's prime nin ster. >> this after 8 people are killed in twin blasts overnight. militants are ceasing even more cities. kelly wright is here now with
2:00 am
what we can expect from kerry's visit toot. >> secretary of state john kerry will meet with nouri al-maliki along with sunni leaders to take about ending the crisis in iraq urging them to come together to fight a common enemy. they arrive in iraq to advance the wave of violence in baghdad taking control of four more towns and three border crossings into syria and jordan. kerry will discuss u.s. actions underway to help iraq to help the threat from isis. this is about isis terrorist designs on the state ofiraq. no one should mistake what is happening or why. the united states is prepared as we have been in the past to help iraq be able to stand