This is a rush transcript from "Media Buzz," April 23, 2017. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
HOWARD KURTZ, HOST: On the Buzz Meter this Sunday, some media outlets start giving President Trump more grades with his first 100 days, even as he call the whole exercise ridiculous.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)
PETER WEHNER, ETHICS AND PUBLIC POLICY CENTER: This is an administration that is in covalent to Republican Party. I think the important thing to bear in mind that this is in trouble with the first 90 days of his presidency.
WOLF BLITZER, CNN: The reality though is that the president got incomplete on many of this that he promises.
MARTHA MACCALLUM, FOX NEWS: Is he frustrated?
SEAN SPICER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Well, I think on some issues he is. But on some issues he has made tremendous progress and I think when you look at whether his efforts to combat ISIS or establish America's place around the globe, he has made a huge progress.
(END VIDEO CLIPS)
KURTZ: How hard is the media pushing this 100 days benchmark and why is the New York Times asking will he talk himself into a war? Some of the pundits blaming the president's own financial situation for the delay on tax reform?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)
LAWRENCE O'DONNELL, MSNBC: What about legislation the massive tax cut when we don't know which of these provisions will mean how many millions to Donald Trump personally.
CHRIS MATTHEWS, MSNBC: How can he do tax reform when, he can't admit whether he pays taxes, if he does?
STEVE HAYES, THE WEEKLY STANDARD: But if the Republicans can't agree with a Republican in the White House about tax reform broadly, it will be a failure.
(END VIDEO CLIPS)
KURTZ: Are these media forecasts a bit premature? A murder video seen around the world on Facebook and a social media giant avoid being hijacked by criminals? How will the departure of Bill O'Reilly impact the network? We'll talk to his replacement Tucker Carlson. This is "MediaBuzz."
The media shifting into the first 100 days mode, the debate is taking shape on who is responsible for this journalistic ritual.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SHEPARD SMITH, FOX NEWS: What is the obsession with getting things done in the first 100 days? Where does that come from?
JAKE SHERMAN, POLITICO: The White House.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KURTZ: Is that true? President Trump firing back with this tweet: No matter how much I accomplish that during the ridiculous standard of the first 100 days, media will kill.
Joining us now to analyze the coverage, Gillian Turner, former White House aide in the past two administrations, Katie Pavlich the editor at Townhall.com and Mo Elleithee, executive director of Georgetown University Institute of Politics and a former DNC staffer -- all are Fox News contributors. Katie, President Trump says the media 100 days construct is arbitrary which it is, but the White House seems to be fully engaged holding meetings on branding the first 100 days. Is it just the media being ridiculous?
KATIE PAVLICH, TOWNHALL.COM: The president said he wants to run the federal government like a business. During the first month of President Trump's administration reporters were complaining about him doing too much. It was a neck breaking pace. There was too much to cover and the reporters were exhausted. Here we are approaching the first 100 days and he apparently hasn't done enough. He either hasn't done enough or he needs to do more.
KURTZ: Gillian, it goes back to FDR's days and it has become a ritual, but I believe the Trump team would say it this way, whether the White House officials participate or not, the media will have all these stories and web postings about this and it is unavoidable.
GILLIAN TURNER, FORMER NATIONAL SECY COUNCIL STAFFER: It's not a new benchmark. With two round numbers it makes sense from a rhetorical point of view. What we are seeing in these administration terms of the media is what I would call the weaponization of the first 100 days. The media has spent the last couple of months sort of sharpening their knives to a very fine point in order to whipped them out and kind of uses this benchmark against the president.
KURTZ: The president did talk about a 100-day action plan. What do you think about the media weaponizing this benchmark?
MO ELLEITHEE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF POLITICS: Everybody weaponizes everything. It's the age we live in. But I think the 100-day benchmark is a ridiculous one. When Donald Trump put out a 100-day contract with the voters? He put out a target on his own back. He said if I don't do everything on here, I'm open to criticism. If you look at that contract he made some moves on a lot of them, but fell short on a lot. He is trying to give himself a little bit of cover, because he felt short on some of his promises.
KURTZ: Let the record show mo agreed with President Trump on a ridiculous charge.
TURNER: That goes to the point of politics on the campaign trail during a heated campaign and trying to get people to vote based on promises and actual governance.
KURTZ: Eight years ago, coverage the new President Obama "Washington post" putting a bold stamp on the White House. He says Obama was instantly comfortable and boldness under pressure, a difference in tone there perhaps?
PAVLICH: Certainly a difference in tone. The New York Times is full of op-ed about the disastrous 100 days, saying the Trump administration is prosecuting minorities. In Washington, D.C. it's interesting to see what the definition of success is. Republicans and Democrats fall into the trap to say we passed something so we can say something has gone to the president's desk. The system was set up for gridlock so which the time something got to the president's desk it was fully debated. There is a lot the White House has done outside of congress that is a success whether its keystone or Neil Gorsuch, there is a list of things that could be considered successful.
KURTZ: Gillian, you worked for Barack Obama as well as George W. Bush. How would you compare the media's over all approach to Obama as opposed to Donald Trump?
TURNER: I would say that President Obama had the honeymoon period, part of that overlaps with the first 100 days. If I was going to break it down measure by measure. The first 100 days is the honeymoon day.
KURTZ: President Trump got a zero honeymoon.
TURNER: Maybe he got a couple of days there, right after the strike in Syria. He didn't even get a week of a honeymoon period.
KURTZ: Is there a benefit of the doubt toward president 44 and president 45?
ELLEITHEE: Within hours of his taking the oath of office the president was out there in a full-blown war with the media. A lot of it was instigated by him. Every single day since then he has gone after the media. So you say the media come up and say we are going to fact check this guy more aggressively.
KURTZ: He will say he was responding to unfair coverage and he needs to push back. He did it very successfully during the campaign.
ELLEITHEE: The president says something untrue, the media says that is not right, and he says, fake news. We are entering a vicious spiral. But at the end of the day the press has a job to do to call balls and strikes. When he is throwing balls they will call him on it.
PAVLICH: This idea that reporters are calling balls and strikes in this White House or that they call balls and strikes in the Obama administration is preposterous. The point is they are overwhelmingly bias and they were softer upon Obama than they are on Trump and they pushed stories and narratives on the first 100 days with Trump they didn't with Obama.
KURTZ: Liberal commentators saying over and over again tax reform can't happen, because Donald Trump won't release his taxes. They tie that to the progress or lack thereof on tax reform.
TURNER: The majority of Americans including myself believe that President Trump should release his tax returns for the sake of transparency. But to act like this is irrelevant to tax-reform for all Americans and economic growth is ridiculous. They are separate from each other. To say the only reason he would do tax reform is to benefit himself personally is also ridiculous. He is doing it because he wants the economy to grow at 6 percent, 7 percent.
KURTZ: The New York Times headlines. Trump's unreleased tax returns threaten another campaign promise, tax reform, but nothing has really change he still says he is under audit, that is why he is not releasing it, so is this media can be justified?
ELLEITHEE: Two issues. One, I agree, he needs to release his taxes. I don't think what he is going to do is driven exclusively. But I think the American people ought to know if their president is going to benefit from this office. But the second issue is the reason tax reform isn't happening right now is because Republicans can't agree on tax reform. You have Republicans on the hill saying this will be harder than healthcare reform. He hasn't been able to bring his own people together.
KURTZ: One of the hardest things to do in Washington because of special interests. Ok, so the big breaking news this morning is President Trump announcing a rally in Pennsylvania next Saturday night which happens to be the night of the White House correspondent dinner which he is not attending. Sticking it to the press just a little bit perhaps?
TURNER: I think so. And he is taking control of the narrative. He was able to do that with much more success in terms of helping to control or rein in the media narrative during the campaign. And I think part of his press team of and their whole M.O. is let's reminds people of how great that was.
(CROSSTALK)
ELLEITHEE: Completely predictable.
KURTZ: I also thought this would happen, something to take the attention away. They will just have to get over it. Remember to let us know what you think, Mediabuzz@Foxnews.com. Ahead Tucker Carlson on his new role as Fox lead of anchor on primetime, but when we comeback, the New York Times asks whether President Obama will talk us into a war.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KURTZ: President Trump having bombed Syria, and ISIS in Afghanistan, a New York Times news story posed this question, will the talk himself into a war. Gillian Turner When the Times says critics say, the biggest risk for Trump ending up in war, is the underlying message this is potentially a dangerous commander-in-chief?
TURNER: Yes. And the underlying message is this is a president who will sacrifice U.S. national security for politics. That is the message of the critics.
KURTZ: Which leads me to, is that fair given what he has done on the foreign policy and military front so far?
TURNER: I don't think based on his record during the first 100 days that is a fair assessment to make. He has not done the reckless military operations some in the media feared we would see. You also have to look at the coverage of the media. It's a little bit hypocritical. All the average about having him -- be this president who wants to take the counsel of the military, listen to his generals. These are all people who are going to serve as a moderating voice and actually dissuade him from preemptive military strikes.
KURTZ: It is fair Katie that publisher report on mixed messages on administration, you have Nikki Haley and Rex Tillerson talking tougher on Russia than the president does. When the president says risk of war, isn't there also a risk of inaction?
PAVLICH: They act like we are not at war already. They act like we are not under daily terrorist threats. They act like the Iranians haven't been overly aggressive for the past eight years, really especially in the last two years of the Obama administration. I find it interesting that President Trump is the one who appears on hinge, according to the media, when its North Korea who is saying they are going to shoot off a missile every week just to be provocative, this is the to South Korea and the United States. It's unfair and it's also inaccurate when it comes to the status of the world today. We are at war in a lot of these places. It may not be a traditional sense. But we have a daily threat of terrorism here at home.
KURTZ: Ironically Mo Elleithee the press portrayed Hillary Clinton as a moderate candidate who would not draw the U.S. into foreign interventions. But the jury is out.
ELLEITHEE: I think that is one of the things that gives people unease. We just don't know what is guiding him when it comes to national security and foreign policy. The military strikes in Syria, a lot of people felt like that was something that needed to happen. A lot of people are wondering what's next. Syria was launching military strikes from the same airfield the next day. What is next? We don't know what guides him in a lot of this stuff. Look how he has been talking about China. Want to go call it a currency manipulator. Then he says after talking to the president for 10 minutes I changed my mind on this.
KURTZ: He is also saying that he needs help with North Korea, and this is called diplomacy. North Korea came up. Let's talk about that Gillian, the president's tough talk with North Korea making if nuclear threats could be portrayed as risky, but the media with just a constant drum roll whether that escalates tensions or gives Kim Jong-un a platform to make his threats against the U.S.
TURNER: To turn on the television during those 24 to 48 hours you would think we were on the brink of a nuclear holocaust. The media was fear mongering, because people completely loss perspective. And forget that this is nothing new U.S.-North Korea dispute over there. The handling of their missile program, this is something that has been simmering and boiling for the last three years and the media has not been there covering this the way they should have and this comes as a surprise to people who aren't paying attention.
KURTZ: Media fear mongering?
PAVLICH: Absolutely, if you look at way they portray the North Korean regime as if they could hit the United States tomorrow. That is not the case. I think they are playing this up in an effort to make the president look like he is unhinged and incapable of handling the situation, even though he has this negotiation with China and taking care of the problem or at least addressing it in anyway.
KURTZ: Right and every president had difficulty with North Korea, they tried diplomacy and it's tough to deal with this regime. Interesting analysis, on that note, Mo Elleithee, Katie Pavlich, Gillian Turner, thanks very much for stopping by this Sunday. Ahead, why Facebook has a black eye over the posting of that horrible murder video, but up next, did you get a little tired of hearing about the special election in Georgia?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KURTZ: We have been so deluged with coverage of Special Election in Georgia. You think the fate of the Republican was at stake rather than the single house seat in the sixth congressional district.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ALI VELSHI, NBC NEWS: We begin with a special election going on right now in Georgia it's seen as a huge test for President Trump and the Republican Party.
MIKA BRZEZINSKI, MSNBC: Voters in Georgia, six congressional districts head to the polls this morning to cast their vote on a special election that is become a referendum on President Trump.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KURTZ: One of the Democrat Jon Ossoff running against several Republican captured just under half of the vote and was force into a runoff, the media made sweeping pronouncements.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ZACHARY WOLF: I don't think this any way to view the 48 percent that John Ossoff got as anything but a referendum on Trump.
GREG GUTFELD, FOX NEWS: Democrats failed to flip the sixth district in Georgia. To start that anti-Trump revolution that they wanted so badly at the ballot box.
HAYES: So it wasn't a flat win for the Democrats it was also, despite Sean Spicer spin pretty far from being lost.
JOHN AVLON: The fact that this is squeaker narrowly beating that 50 percent margin is not a good sign for Donald Trump in this suburban Republican district the Trump brand isn't selling.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KURTZ: This was overkill and I say that whether this previously obscured Ossoff won the race outright or got trounce. In how require wasn't a referendum on Trump. Was Trump a factor? Of course, but a special election involving local personalities is just that. For instance John Ossoff got 92,000 votes and doesn't even live in the district. What special elections do is give political reporters in withdrawal a chance to get on their play and do what they always crave which is covering campaign. The next special election is the crucial battle for a house seat in Montana. Next on "MediaBuzz," Fox News cuts its ties with Bill O'Reilly. We'll look at what happened at the impact on the network and later, Tucker Carlson, taking on the O'Reilly slot and his coverage of President Trump.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KURTZ: The lead story in the New York Times and The Washington Post: the ouster of the most prominent and dominant host in cable news.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We begin tonight with the bombshell announcement from Fox News that their biggest star is out.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Good evening, Bill O'Reilly who has dominated cable news ratings for years is out tonight.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Today, while Bill O'Reilly was enjoying an audience with the Pope, Fox fired the man with the biggest audience in cable television.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KURTZ: Fox and his pairing company 20th Century Fox cutting ties with Bill O'Reilly in the wake of announcing allegations of sexual harassment and inappropriate conduct. The company said, both sides agreed to part with the company, quote after a thorough and careful review of the allegations and O'Reilly said in a statement it's tremendously disheartening that we part ways due to completely unfounded claims. That is the unfortunate reality many of us in the public eye must live with today. Joining us now in New York, Joe Concha, media reporter for The Hill, and here with me Susan Ferrechio, chief congressional correspondent of the Washington Examiner, Joe, it was hard to imagine even a couple of weeks ago that Fox News would cut ties with Bill O'Reilly even though he dominated cable news ratings for 15 years. In the end did the company had much choice?
JOE CONCHA, THE HILL NEWSPAPER: They have no choice here Howie, because when 50 advertisers leave and it looks like they are not coming back, because media matters would shame those companies out of existence. From a business perspective, Fox had little choice. You saw them going after beck a few years ago. Advertisers fled and the show goes bye-bye. One point that wasn't explored is the fact that Fox conducted an internal investigation conducted by taken outside firm in the name transparency. We have entered media organizations do internal investigations and not allow outside investigations. The investigations were swift and the resignations were even swifter.
KURTZ: Susan you had the combination of that "New York Times" report talking about $13 million in settlements. Some paid by him and some paid by Fox Advertisers fleeing.
SUSAN FERRECHIO, THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER: He is ridden it a queue saying like this in the past, Bill O'Reilly has. And he is the number one rated cable show. He could have survived this without the concerted efforts of these outside groups and social media. The combination of that I think is what made this much more untenable than it was when he was first accused of this kind of thing.
KURTZ: Sexual harassment has been an issue on news.
FERRECHIO: And we have the exit of Roger, always Roger Aisles.
KURTZ: There is no question Fox News and bill O'Reilly parting ways is a big story. But the next day, the lead story in the "Washington post," here you have the "New York Times," two stories up here and a picture of O'Reilly meeting with the pope at the Vatican. Is there something about the way Fox is covered that magnified this event even further?
CONCHA: I'm willing to bet if Bill O'Reilly was a CNN or MSNBC host they wouldn't have covered it. The exercise in media outlets play together media bubble instead of the public interest, a mass shooting in Fresno where a guy -- racially motivated -- start firing at people and four people dead or a terror attack in Paris. Those didn't get 1/10 the coverage that the O'Reilly got.
KURTZ: Going back to Roger Ailes who was a force in politic and Republican politics. I think that was part of the appeal of the story. I believe the Murdoch family has been trying very hard to change the culture at this company, some of O'Reilly's allegations a decade old. So let's, look ahead on the new primetime lineup, Tucker Carlson, "The Five," but doesn't O'Reilly leave a hole?
FERRECHIO: There is a deep bench of talent. When Megyn Kelly left the ratings actually improved. My friend Greta left for MSNBC and they survived her departure. And the departure of Roger Ailes, people thought Fox would collapse if he left. So far things are going pretty well. Bill O'Reilly and Roger Ailes created the ratings empire that Fox has become that is quite durable and it can survive people coming and going.
KURTZ: Right, Megyn Kelly left for NBC, maybe if she stayed her ratings would be higher but it does kind of underscores, Joe that it is television, people come and people go and life goes on.
CONCHA: Think about what we were just nine months ago, Roger Ailes out. Your 7:00 p.m. host Greta Van Susteren gone. Your 9:00 p.m. host Megyn Kelly, NBC 8:00, Bill O'Reilly, highest rating for 15 years, no longer here. What that tells me is when you look at the ratings, for the last 15 weeks Fox has been number one not only over its cable competition, but all newcomers. That shows there is an exceptional brand of Fox news. the story that other networks don't cover, that fact that it offers an op-ed side of perspective and conservative side that other networks won't go near. That shows me, I said it once and I'll say it again, it doesn't rebuild, it simply reloads. I think Fox can survive this, but this will be their biggest challenge yet.
KURTZ: Fox News has a loyal audience that doesn't trust the mainstream media, but still every host, every show has to win over that audience?
FERRECHIO: That is right well Tucker has proven he was able to do it, "The Five" is very popular, moving to the primetime slot in not necessarily risky, and the big question is what will be the 5:00 p.m. show? We have no idea how that is going to look. The pattern has been people will stick to Fox News as long as Fox sticks to what it's doing. As the liberal activists try to target conservative voices, I think the hosts can be interchangeable.
KURTZ: I'll take exception to that with my own point of view. Joe Concha, Susan Ferrechio, thank you very much. Coming up, do the media reward anti- Trump stories? I will sit down with Tucker Carlson and later that Cleveland killer wasn't the first one to use Facebook to broadcast chilling acts of violence.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KURTZ: Tucker Carlson show moves to 8:00 p.m. Eastern tomorrow as I mentioned in the wake of Bill O'Reilly departures. We talked about his new challenge here in studio, but we began with the latest coverage of Donald Trump.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KURTZ: Tucker Carlson, welcome.
TUCKER CARLSON, FOX NEWS HOST: Hey Howie.
KURTZ: During the campaign most journalists had a dim view of Donald Trump. Do you think that the media's view has changed much?
CARLSON: I don't. And by the way I would say that before he received the nomination, a lot of reporters like Donald Trump found him amusing. He seemed less threatening. But the second he got nomination, they piled on. And I think they remained in that posture ever since, except when he threw hose cruise missiles at Syria. Most reporters have an expansion of foreign policy perspective, they like that, liberals like war and so they thought about it.
KURTZ: Check your twitter.
CARLSON: It's true.
KURTZ: I agree with that, but now that the initial glow has faded. The president is criticizing Trump on foreign policy.
CARLSON: But not on Russia. Remember, he subverted our democracy.
KURTZ: He?
CARLSON: Trump. He is going to be impeached. People are going to jail. As soon as the missile strike took place they dropped the narrative.
KURTZ: Do you think there are rewards within the media culture scoffing at Trump?
CARLSON: I think the press ought to have an aggressive posture toward anyone in power. But in this case they live in a world where not a single person they know voted for Trump. They have nothing in common with anyone who voted for Trump and they despise them. But they are still for pointless foreign wars.
KURTZ: Did you interview him in terms of his ability to articulate policy?
CARLSON: No, I have known him for almost 20 years. I interviewed a lot of people before and after they became president. And there is a huge change in the way they seem in person.
KURTZ: I had the same reaction. Let's talk about your show. Why can't you hold on to a time slot?
CARLSON: That is a lifelong problem.
(LAUGHTER)
KURTZ: All right so now that you will be the 8:00 anchor kicking off prime time. Do you envision any adjustments or will you be oriented towards the day's top stories?
CARLSON: We have been pretty on the news at 9:00. I think people will want to know what happened and how to understand it, and I think the primary way we explain that is by talking to people who disagree and debate, respectful debates, but tough debates. It can get intense, but hopefully always respectful. We'll continue doing that. We'll tweak the show in the coming months and years. But for now I don't think we'll make radical changes.
KURTZ: we have talked before about how you bounced around MSNBC and CNN before coming to Fox. Your new real estate reflects a remarkable turnaround for a pundit whose bow tie is behind him.
CARLSON: That is hilarious. I'm not especially self-aware. I don't read one word about myself ever under any circumstances. I don't want to become self-conscious. I want to be a happy person. I have children. I care what the people who love me think and the people I love. But there are tons of ups and downs. A lot of them are not your doing. Some of them are. Nothing surprises me and I'm grateful to have this. It's a great time slot it's one I have been watching for a long time. I'm glad to be here.
KURTZ: The New Yorker gave you some high praise. He has aimed his skepticism at the current administration. Donald Trump watches Fox. He said nice things about Fox. Is it important to you to be skeptical towards this president?
CARLSON: I'm skeptical towards everyone all the time with the possible exception of my wife. Skepticism is the heart of journalism. It doesn't mean hostility. It doesn't mean working out an agenda. It means not taking things as face value especially from people in power. That is the whole point. My complain with a lot of the press, not that they are true hard on Donald Trump but there are too easy on the people they agree with and they accept uncritically cliches and mindlessness. Breakfast is the most important meal of the day, really? Everyone says that.
KURTZ: There are fervent Trump fans who don't like any criticism of the president and I am sure that you have been running into that.
CARLSON: I haven't, actually. I think people who voted for Donald Trump want to see him succeed. They voted for the things he promised and for what he wasn't which is part of the group ruing the country. No one I met who voted for Trump thinks it's out of bounds to ask honest questions ever. This country was run by small group of people who didn't want to be questioned about what they were doing and would attack you if you did ask them what they were doing. I ask honest, direct, respectful non-hostile questions and real questions. I think people like it.
KURTZ: We'll be watching. Tucker Carlson, I appreciate it, great to see you.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KURTZ: Still to come, after that chilling murder posted on Facebook, can Mark Zuckerberg stop his platform from being exploited by criminals?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KURTZ: A manhunt in Cleveland for Steve Stephens who used Facebook to post the video of a horrifying video of a murder of a 74-year-old man. Creating a crisis on the social network that Mark Zuckerberg felt compelled to address.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARK ZUCKERBERG, CEO FACEBOOK: We have a lot more to do. We were reminded of that this week by the tragedy in Cleveland. Our hearts go out to the family and friends of Robert Goodwin Sr.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KURTZ: Steven killed himself three days later, but the debate over Facebook is still heating up. Joining us now, Shana Glenzer Technology Commentator here in Washington, welcome, it took two hours for Facebook to take down that murder video. Did Facebook blow it?
SHANA GLENZER, TECHNOLOGY COMMENTATOR: Not really. Yes it did take more than 2 hours for this video to come down, but only 23 minutes after this is reported to Facebook they disabled Stephens account and the video were gone. I would say that is fairly quick.
KURTZ: How requires a big sea of stuff for Facebook to police but it's not first time happened.
GLENZER: This isn't the first time we have seen videos upload on Facebook live. Some then streamed live video of a young boy being tortured for 30 minutes. Recently a gang rape was on. So awful videos being posted live and uploaded to Facebook.
KURTZ: You have hundreds of thousands of people look at this stuff. What does that tell us?
GLENZER: I argue there is a lot of responsibility that Facebook users bear here.
KURTZ: They are part of the problem.
GLENZER: They are part of the problem. This video was downloaded and spread all over the internet before Facebook was able to remove it. No one reported it for an hour and 45 minutes.
KURTZ: If people are actually sharing this stuff which is against Facebook rules, should they be penalized?
GLENZER: I think they should be kicked off of Facebook.
KURTZ: What it's willing to tolerate. Some of this in the Cleveland case is actually broadcast live on what's called Facebook live which is a year old. Anybody can broadcast anything if you have got a phone and a camera. Does that raise questions about Facebook live being subject to this kind of twisted abuse?
GLENZER: Yes, it does. It shows Facebook didn't follow the path all the way to the end on what could happen on its platform when they launch video and Facebook live. Hopefully in the future they will think about the past and how it can be used.
KURTZ: Would you agree this is by any stretch of the imagination a major P.R headache for Facebook. The Cleveland guy was called the Facebook killer in lots of television segments and headlines.
GLENZER: Yes, it's a giant headache for Facebook.
KURTZ: What could Facebook do differently and not just wait for people to report.
GLENZER: They can tune up the reporting stream to make it faster. And they have to look at artificial intelligence to quickly identify this (inaudible) and also to distinguish violence and from protests that are for the greater good.
KURTZ: I think Facebook needs to do a better job. Shana Glenzer, great to see you this Sunday, thanks very much for stopping by. Still to come the embarrassing truth between two different (inaudible) entries and a trick play involving the patriots visit to the White House.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KURTZ: Sunday's "New York Times" carried an op-ed attacking Israel's (inaudible) system of military occupation and the use of quote humiliating measures to break the spirit of prisoners. The author was identified as Marlon (inaudible), a Palestinian leader and parliamentarian but the shocking reality left out of the op-ed is he is serving five consecutive life sentences for murder stemming from his role in terrorist attacks that killed five people among other crimes. He mentioned his prison term but not what he was convicted of. The article failed to provide sufficient context. The man is a cold-blood terrorist. I don't see why the times gave him a platform at all.
The Huffington Post South African edition has yanked a piece proactively titled could it be times to deny white men to a franchise. The author claimed to be a student but who according to the website cannot be traced and appears not to exist. The scam was perpetrated by yet a white male. Marius Root quit his job and said he is sorry.
After the New England patriots went to the White House the "New York Times" tweeted out a shot of the visit and contrasted it when they went to the Obama White House. When President Trump tweeted the "Times" just got caught in a big lie. He is right. While fewer Patriots players showed up, the total contingent was just about the same. But Obama had them on the stairs but Trump had them seated out of camera range. Jason said bad tweet by me. I'm an idiot. It was my idea, my execution, my blunder, standing ovation for admitting a mistake.
That is it for this edition of "MediaBuzz," I'm Howard Kurtz. Thanks for watching. We hope you like our Facebook page. Check it out. Give us a like. Continue the conversation on twitter at Howard Kurtz. And let us know on how you think of the show. We'll see you back here next Sunday 11:00 Eastern with the latest buzz.
Content and Programming Copyright 2017 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2017 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.
Get all the stories you need-to-know from the most powerful name in news delivered first thing every morning to your inbox