This is a rush transcript from "Media Buzz," December 15, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
Howard Kurtz, host: On the Buzz Meter this Sunday, the media more polarized and divided than ever as the House Judiciary Committee votes along party lines to impeach President Trump and he keeps denouncing the charges as a hoax.
[BEGIN VIDEO CLIP]
Male Speaker: He got caught cheating. He's still trying to cheat. And we're impeaching the president because he's trying to cheat on the next election.
Laura Ingraham: Yeah, yeah, big surprise today that Jerry Nadler and his evil band of elves from House Judiciary voted to move articles of impeachment against the president.
Male Speaker: The only thing worse than a partisan impeachment is letting impeachable conduct go unchecked.
Greg Gutfeld: How delusional is it that they want a wider TV audience for this, right? That's why they postponed the impeachment. They think the solution for their idiocy is to get more people to watch their idiocy.
[END VIDEO CLIP]
Howard Kurtz: News outlets cherry-pick their preferred story lines as an inspector general finds serious mistakes and misconducts in the FBI launching of the Russia probe but no evidence the decisions were tainted by political bias.
[BEGIN VIDEO CLIP]
Male Speaker: Make no mistake. What the president has been telling you about the Russia probe being a hoax and a witch hunt is dead wrong.
Male Speaker: The stunning rebuttal of virtually everything that President Trump has said again and again for years about what he calls the Russia hoax.
Male Speaker: What we've got here in 434 pages without exception is a whitewash.
Sean Hannity: And we were right, President Trump was right, the attorney general Barr was right. Spying occurred. We told you. The mob didn't believe it but it's all true. So, this conspiracy theory that the president of the United States has been pushing for years was a total lie.
Tucker Carlson: The report was a disaster for the credibility of our bureaucratic class in Washington. But it's also a big, big problem for the American news media. They were exposed as liars and know-nothings.
[END VIDEO CLIP]
Howard Kurtz: Are media organizations just flat out taking sides? And why did CNN having covered every minute of the democratic hearings blow off the opening statements in Lindsey Graham's hearing? William Barr defends the president over the IG report and blames the irresponsible media for bad reporting. Does the attorney general deserve the denunciations he's getting from the press? I'm Howard Kurtz and this is MediaBuzz. After a long week of hearings and a final 14 hours of vitriolic debate, the House Judiciary Committee did on Friday what everyone on the planet was expecting, and approved two articles of impeachment, abuse of power and obstruction of Congress on a strictly party line vote.
[BEGIN VIDEO CLIP]
Adam Schiff: In article one of the resolution impeaching President Donald J. Trump for abusing his powers.
Female Speaker: Mr. Chairman, there are 23 aye's and 17 no's.
Adam Schiff: The article is agreed to.
Donald Trump: It's a scam. It's something that shouldn't be allowed. And it's a very bad thing for our country and you're trivializing impeachment. Look, not all of it, but much of the media is corrupt. These are bad people. They're sick people and they're corrupt.
[END VIDEO CLIP]
Howard Kurtz: Joining us now to analyze the coverage Ben Domenech, founder and publisher of The Federalist, Lisa Desjardins, correspondent for the PBS News Hour, and Jeanne Zaino who teaches media and government at Iona College. Ben, Donald Trump is now the -- only the fourth president in history to have impeachment charges sent to the House floor. For all of the saturation media coverage that has enveloped all of us, why does it feel less than historic?
Ben Domenech: It feels less than historic because I think the American people understand this is kind of baked in. They see that this is not going to result in the removal of the president and there's really no path to seeing that happen. There wasn't even --
Howard Kurtz: The suspense factor is gone.
Ben Domenech: There is no suspense to the story. We know the way it's going to end and the -- really the only question is is it a monopartisan affair in the Senate or is there bipartisanship on either side, you know, in terms of joining -- Democrats joining with Republicans to vote against removal. A Republican or two joining with the Democrats in order to support it and that takes all of the suspense out of the factor. If you know the way the movie ends, it's not really something you want to show up and see.
Howard Kurtz: I think that's well put. Jeanne, you heard the president refer to the corrupt and sick media, but has the one-party nature of impeachment, which was also largely true of the Clinton impeachment, has it blunted the impact of all of this nonstop coverage?
Jeanne Zaino: I think it has and I think it's -- you know, first of all the media environment is completely different today than it was in 1998 when we were just at the very beginning and infancy of cable and 24-hour news. Now you've got social media. You've got a president who can tweet 120 times in one day going over the heads of the media. So, you know, people don't have to pay attention to the news coverage in the way they may have for Nixon and the way they may have to a certain extent for Bill Clinton. So, I do think we're seeing a changed environment. I also think just back to what Ben was saying, I also think the charges themselves have lent to this idea that this is partisan because again, the Democrats are not charging him with a criminal violation or any violation of the law. Why? Because they don't want to take the time to go through the process. So, for political reasons they've shrunk this down and that has been a problem.
Howard Kurtz: Lisa, the New York Times today saying that Trump's stonewalling has left the House no choice joins a whole bunch of other editorial pages in endorsing impeachment, also Washington Post, L.A. Times, U.S.A. Today, Boston Globe, Philadelphia Inquirer, and my question is in this fragmented media universe, does that have much impact?
Lisa Desjardins: I wonder. You know, The Wall Street Journal went the other way, though, so they're not -- it's not, you know, uniform.
Howard Kurtz: Right.
Lisa Desjardins: Right. You know, I reported on that about the editorial pages. To me, the gauge I've been using to monitor for where is the public, what does this coverage do, and the audiences, the public audience in these impeachment hearings, I was there for all of them beginning back with the Intelligence hearings, there were larger crowds, especially when you saw someone like Gordon Sondland. There were long lines of people wanting to get in.
Howard Kurtz: You were there.
Lisa Desjardins: And I was there and I saw it this week almost no line. And so I kind of -- I don't know if it's part the holiday, part people have just sort of -- this is too much or it could be what you two are saying. There's no new information right now. People are not tuning in in public and it seems --
Howard Kurtz: I believe there's a whole lot of scandal fatigue stretching back two years or more.
Ben Domenech: One of the things that I wanted to point out about these editorials endorsing impeaching the president is to contrast those to the things that were being said during the Clinton impeachment. One of the big things that was cited in a lot of the editorials that were opposed to impeachment at the time, including by the New York Times, is the partisan nature of it. They said that it was going to be very damaging to have an almost totally partisan impeachment at the time. In fact, they used the word this would be debated about as an attempted coup in future years if this was something --
Howard Kurtz: I've heard that, yeah.
Ben Domenech: --- that went through. This is something that I think you see, you know, this time around endorsing impeachment they have far less qualms about it, but again, the monopartisan nature of this is a big deal. It sends the message to the American people, especially those who are supporters of the president, they're just trying to get him because he won the election. That's what this is all about.
Howard Kurtz: A lot of editorial pages have flipped. Of course, the two cases are not directly comparable, but also a lot of politicians have flipped in terms of their view but CNN, which covered every minute of the Adam Schiff hearings, every minute of the Jerry Nadler hearings, just blew off the beginning of the Senate judiciary hearing on the IG report. We'll talk about that next segment which means didn't cover a 42-minute opening statement by Lindsey Graham, Republican, and an 8-minute comments by Democrat Diane Feinstein. Does that just fuel complaints by the network detractors that it's unfair?
Jeanne Zaino: It does fuel complaints and we saw that on Twitter and elsewhere when CNN made that decision. MSNBC didn't do as much but to a certain extent was covering bits and parts. You know, the media is choosing what to focus on as they all have to, as you guys all have to in the media, but of course in this hyper environment it lends itself to the argument that their choices are made for partisan reasons and the one thing I would say and not to defend CNN, but there are also economic reasons for this. Viewership is down a bit on these hearings. You just mentioned -- Lisa just mentioned with the lines -- you know, viewership is down. So, these networks are making tough decisions. We've got to get people to watch so we can stay afloat. So, whether it's partisan or market-driven is a big question, in my mind.
Lisa Desjardins: I think I want to raise a broader concern here. And then [unintelligible] -- I mean, do something risky. But you know, I noticed, in your clips at the beginning, it was really, you know, CNN, MSNBC, Fox. You're also talking about CNN. We're talking about the same groups. That's actually a small portion of the news media.
Howard Kurtz: Sure.
Lisa Desjardins: You know? No one is talking about people like us, PBS, who really go to great lengths to try not to be partisan. There are other outlets: the nightly news. And I think part of the issue is, it's almost like a double iteration of there is very partisan media at times, and then we cover the media, looking only at that question of the partisan media, and not talking about those that are doing deeper thought, those -- there are some, like us, who led with the IG report on that day, instead of impeachment.
Jeanne Zaino: And can I just say?
Lisa Desjardins: Yeah.
Jeanne Zaino: In the context of that, PBS is not part of this market-driven media in the way these other outlets are.
Lisa Desjardins: Sure.
Jeanne Zaino: And that's why I raised that --
Lisa Desjardins: Yeah.
Jeanne Zaino: -- for that very reason.
Howard Kurtz: Right. That's a very --
[CROSSTALK]
Howard Kurtz: It's a very fair point. I would argue, however, that despite the limited audience, there's still millions of people. Cable news drives a lot of coverage. Let --
Lisa Desjardins: Actually, PBS -- I have to push back at that. People think we have such a small audience, but we have as big of an audience --
Howard Kurtz: No, no. I was talking about --
Lisa Desjardins: Okay. Just checking --
Howard Kurtz: -- the combined audience of CNN --
Lisa Desjardins: Oh, I got you.
Howard Kurtz: -- Fox --
Lisa Desjardins: Got you. Yeah.
Howard Kurtz: -- MSNBC, of course, at any one time -- can --
Lisa Desjardins: Yeah, yeah.
Howard Kurtz: -- be several million people. By the way, a Fox poll out today shows impeachment -- support for impeachment removal holding steady at 50 percent. A few other polls have it dipping to about 45 percent. It also raises the question of the impact of the coverage. Bill Barr, the Attorney General, spoke to MSNBC. He took issue with the IG report. We're going to get to that in a few moments. He said spying did occur. And then he said this:
[BEGIN VIDEO CLIP]
William Barr: I think our nation was turned on its head for three years, I think, based on a completely bogus narrative that was largely fanned and hyped by an irresponsible press.
[END VIDEO CLIP]
Howard Kurtz: What do you make, Ben, of the Attorney General taking that shot at the press, and also of the intense media criticism that he's just acting as Donald Trump's defense lawyer?
Ben Domenech: Look, I think that Attorney General Barr is correct, whether he was saying that as the Attorney General or not. This is an impeachment that is happening because it was fanned by the press, because we had a narrative about what went on within the Trump campaign, and then following it, one that was driven by people both inside and outside of government, including a lot of people who made that transition, from being part of the law enforcement and intel community over to being media-based commentators --
Howard Kurtz: Right.
Ben Domenech: -- people who are on these cable news channels. And just to Lisa's point, I would say, you can't underestimate how much that drives the influencers in Washington, as opposed to the broader American narrative about what's really going on.
Howard Kurtz: Jeanne, we're getting a little tight on time. But if it is spying -- to use Barr's words; use Trump's word -- when the FBI goes to a special court, however flawed the process -- and gets permission to conduct surveillance -- in this case, of Carter Page -- then every law enforcement investigation that uses court-approved surveillance is spying -- of criminals, of gangsters.
Jeanne Zaino: Yeah. And we can't underestimate how atrocious these 17 violations were. And every American, regardless of party, should be very concerned about what the report --
Howard Kurtz: We'll get into that. But what do you think of the use of the word --
Jeanne Zaino: But --
Howard Kurtz: -- "spying?" It wasn't, like, they didn't tell the court.
Jeanne Zaino: It wasn't like they didn't tell the court, but I think those violations are very real. And I wish Barr would let the Durham report speak for itself. I do not think he should be out publicly, at this time, talking about the IG report.
Howard Kurtz: So, you question the timing. I got about half --
Jeanne Zaino: Yeah.
Howard Kurtz: -- a minute, Lisa. So, Mitch McConnell getting absolutely hammered by the media for telling Sean Hannity that he is working closely with the White House counsel, and that their positions on how to handle a Senate trial will be the same. Is the surprise here that he said it out loud?
Lisa Desjardins: I don't think. I wasn't surprised. You know, I think Mitch McConnell is in a difficult position. And you see him trying to keep this contained, while still making sure the president knows he's an ally. So --
Howard Kurtz: Well, is that what's -- part of what's going on --
Lisa Desjardins: It was --
Howard Kurtz: -- is that he was --
Lisa Desjardins: I think so.
Howard Kurtz: -- broadcasting to an audience of one that "We got your back on the Senate trial?"
Lisa Desjardins: I think it's very possible, yes. And I think to say, you know, "Let's keep this calm. I know what I'm doing" kind of message that we've seen from him on other issues before.
Howard Kurtz: Right. Well, the majority leader was candid, no question, in that Hannity interview. Stick around. When we come back: are news outlets cherry-picking the evidence from the IG report we're talking about for ideological reasons? And later, Sean Spicer weighs in on the impeachment vote against his former boss.
[COMMERCIAL BREAK]
[BEGIN VIDEO CLIP]
Donald Trump: Before I ever even announced, they were spying. I was spied on. What they did to me was illegal. They spied on me. They spied on our campaign. [boos] Who would think that's possible?
[END VIDEO CLIP]
Howard Kurtz: President Trump has long argued that the FBI engaged in illegal spying as a pretext to launch the Russia investigation. But the report by DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz did not support that, finding no evidence that political bias by James Comey and other top FBI officials improperly influenced the probe. At the same time, the IG found serious mistakes, serious misconduct by the Bureau in seeking surveillance against Trump campaign aide Carter Page, and in handling the Steele dossier, including one instance of potentially criminal conduct. So, Ben, are most of the mainstream media -- especially liberal commentators -- excited about the no bias finding playing down or kind of ignoring the very serious findings about all of the FBI mistakes in this probe?
Ben Domenech: Of course they are, Howie. And to a degree, I think this whole conversation about motives doesn't really matter to me, if what they were doing was inappropriate from the get-go in so many different ways. I mean, to a certain extent, I don't care why you screwed up, whether it was a partisan, or whether you were duped, or whether you were just bad at your job.
Howard Kurtz: You're just a dummy -- [laughs] -- yeah.
Ben Domenech: It's still a screw-up, and it's a huge one, a monumental one that is going to increasingly affect the way that people view these types of investigations; not just under this president, but going forward, under future administrations. It's a huge blow. And the way that the media is covering up for a lot of people who were their sources in the past on this, who led them down wrong paths, is unfathomable to me.
Howard Kurtz: And so, the flip side of the question to you, Jeannie, which is, aren't many conservative commentators -- and the president himself -- playing down or ignoring the fact that the report doesn't confirm what we have heard for years from some of them -- what critics call conspiracy theories -- that Comey and McCabe and Strzok and Lisa Page cooked this up as a politically motivated effort to target Trump.
Jeanne Zaino: Yeah, it's an over-400-page report. You know, the media has got to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. You have to be able to say -- the top-line finding is exactly you mentioned, Howard, but underneath that, as Ben was just talking about, is a frightening violation of all of our civil liberties. I don't care if you're Republican, Democrat, or anywhere in between. When the FBI has a court that it ex parte goes to and is able to get warrants to surveil an American -- who, by the way, was working for the CIA -- to investigate whether they were conspiring with Russians -- 17 flagrant violations, and that is under-reported in the way it has been -- that's also deeply concerning, much more broadly than anything about Trump or 2016.
Howard Kurtz: I'll come back to that with you, but I want to ask Lisa, Donald Trump first charged in March of 2017 -- this is two months after he took office -- that “Barack Obama had my wires tapped at Trump Tower, and this was McCarthyism.†Is it the responsibility of the media to say, “Well, there -- some really bad stuff was done by the FBI, but it wasn't ordered by Obama, it wasn't at Trump Tower,†and so on?
Lisa Desjardins: Oh, absolutely. But I think this impeachment and the IG report present in a way the same dilemma for the media. These are two situations where there are very serious questions that we really need to look at, and they're questions about power and use of power by the people who run our country and who can change our lives. So, we need to look at those questions, but in both those cases, the dots aren't all connected. There are still questions that are unanswered. So, you have to present all of the facts so that viewers can take that in and look at it for themselves.
Howard Kurtz: Very good advice. Now, James Comey was on Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace. Very aggressive interview. Comey admitted, “I was wrong on a couple of points.†He was overconfident, he said he was sorry at one point, and he said Carter Page was treated unfairly. But he also said this.
[BEGIN VIDEO CLIP]
James Comey: The FBI is an honest, apolitical organization. Remember the reason; remember the spying; remember all of us going to jail. That was false information that your viewers and millions of others were given.
[END VIDEO CLIP]
Howard Kurtz: So, Comey is basically making the case, “Hey, I was falsely accused of some pretty serious stuff.â€
Ben Domenech: The way that he acted in that interview, I think, was pathetic. I think he was trying to squirrel his way out of the very serious things that happened on his watch under his responsibility, things that he should have paid a lot more attention to as the head of the FBI, and I think that no one has done more damage to the institution than James Comey did in that job.
Howard Kurtz: How about Chris Wallace's handling of the interview? I ask that because the president objected to Fox News even having Comey on.
Ben Domenech: Look, I understand the president objects to it, but I thought Chris's interview was excellent because it brought out some of the things that James Comey really does need to answer for, which is that he said all along this was totally aboveboard. We got it all right. You know, we were doing our honorable duty,and now we know that's just not the case.
Howard Kurtz: And, Jeanne, I don't want to sort of tar everybody with the same brush in terms of playing down the findings of FBI misconduct. So, New York Times the next day, big front-page story: Inspector accuses FBI of gross incompetence on handling of wiretap; a disturbing peek at U.S. surveillance. And it was -- the bureau was described as staggeringly dysfunctional. So, it's interesting because the left used to be the ones who were the most critical of FBI abuses, going back to J. Edgar Hoover and Martin Luther King.
Jeanne Zaino: Absolutely. And the creation of the FISA court to begin with. And, you know, Chris is -- Chris Wallace is a reporter; he's an anchor. He's supposed to be talking to everybody in the news. And The New York Times is absolutely right to headline with that, and that's both very positive things. There's great work being done in the media, but we need to get to, as Lisa was talking about, these abuses of power in our government, which is the media's job.
Howard Kurtz: All right, great discussion, everyone. Jeanne Zaino, Lisa Desjardins, Ben Domenech. We'll see you later. Ahead, an Atlanta paper says it's being unfairly slimed by the new Clint Eastwood movie on Richard Jewell. But up next, Chris Stirewalt on why televised hearings on big scandals are usually a bust.
[COMMERCIAL BREAK]
Howard Kurtz: The Trump impeachment hearings follow a long history of televised confrontations on Capitol Hill, stretching back to the censure of Joe McCarthy, but viewers saw an awful lot of sniping and squabbling, especially when Jerry Nadler postponed the actual vote last Thursday night.
[BEGIN VIDEO CLIP]
Jerry Nadler: The committee is in recess.
Doug Collins: Mr. Chair, you've just blown up schedules for everyone. So typical. This is the kangaroo court that we're talking about.
Male Speaker: This is outrageous.
Louie Gohmert: It's more Stalinesque than [unintelligible] --
Male Speaker: Unbelievable.
[END VIDEO CLIP]
Howard Kurtz: I sat down with Chris Stirewalt, Fox News digital politics editor.
[BEGIN VIDEO CLIP]
Howard Kurtz: Chris Stirewalt, welcome.
Chris Stirewalt: Always glad to be with you.
Howard Kurtz: Throughout these impeachment hearings, and the hearing with the Inspector General on the FBI, the press always says, Will this move public opinion? Will this move the needle? And afterwards it's like, well, no one changed any minds. What's the dynamic here?
Chris Stirewalt: So, one of the problems that we have in news, and we have had it since time immemorial, is that things that we predict for, schedule, plan -- politicians are the same way -- take on added importance. So, you know there's going to be a hearing. How many headlines can you think of in your career that you have read? Hill grilling today for a person? The showdown on the Hill today? Well, guess what? It almost invariably disappoints. It almost invariably is a dud because the expectations are so high, and the hearing can't deliver it.
Howard Kurtz: What about the hearings of the past, the ones that have passed into journalistic lore where there are these great showdowns and these great moments? Why did they have impact then, and now not so much?
Chris Stirewalt: Well, do you think America was sitting at home watching the Army-McCarthy hearings around the clock and tweeting about it, waiting for the moment? Do you think that when the Secretary of the Army said to Joe McCarthy, "At long last, sir, have you no sense of decency?" -- do you think people went, Ooh? No, they read it in the paper. Yeah, they may have seen it in the evening news, but it was contextualized in reporting. This was an important moment, and then it takes on something later on. It doesn't work if you just take it intravenously, and you just sit in front of the television. And by the way, everybody on that dais, every person talking, every person doing the questioning, knows that what they're aiming for in a soundbite-able moment. They're putting on a little speech and doing a performance, not getting to the truth.
Howard Kurtz: Well, I was going to ask you about that. Whether it's Jerry Nadler and Adam Schiff, or, on the Republican side, Doug Collins and Jim Jordan, it does seem like the speechifying and getting the viral clip often takes precedence over, actually, the grunt work of questioning the witnesses.
Chris Stirewalt: Do not tell our bosses that I said this, but cameras in Congress have been a failure. Look, there are special circumstances where you might want to have cameras in for something like the Army-McCarthy hearings, or as they did in Watergate, but the verdict of the past 40 years is that a televised Congress doesn't make the work product better. It actually affects the way the members of Congress do their work, because there is this performative element to it. How much better would hearings be if they were not preening for cameras and instead doing the work?
Howard Kurtz: Okay, well, I've covered dozens of congressional hearings, and they're not just partisan. They're tedious and repetitive. Maybe a few moments of drama. So why is everybody taking an eight-hour hearing, an 11-hour hearing if it's not exactly scintillating television?
Chris Stirewalt: Well, because it -- they're -- you want to do the right thing. You want to be journalistically appropriate. Okay. We're going to -- Howard Kurtz: Civic responsibility.
Chris Stirewalt: We're going to live up to our duty and here it is so take it away from the network so that they don't have any choice. Do the right thing, Congress, take television away.
Howard Kurtz: And that's a controversial position that I think is not going to be acted on. Chris Stirewalt, thanks very much for joining us.
Chris Stirewalt: You bet.
Howard Kurtz: Ahead, how much has impeachment -- the whole impeachment drama damaged the media's credibility? But first, Sean Spicer joins us on the coverage of the House committee's impeachment vote.
[COMMERCIAL BREAK]
Howard Kurtz: In the wake of the House Judiciary Committee's party line vote to impeach Donald Trump, joining us now is Sean Spicer, the former White House press secretary now senior advisor to the America First PAC and Sean, the president tweeted this weekend that it's hard to believe that Fox News would be interviewing "sleazebag Jim Comey" or Adam Schiff and then he said this, let's put it up, "Both Commie-Cast, MSNBC, and fake news CNN are watching their ratings tank. Fredo on CNN is dying." That's his insulting nickname for Chris Cuomo. "Don't know why Fox News wants to be more like them only pro-Trump Fox shows do well. The rest are nothing." You, as press secretary, do you believe that Fox News shouldn't interview prominent Democrats or should only run pro-Trump shows?
Sean Spicer: No. I think part of the reason that it's great that they did interview Jim Comey this morning is because you were able to expose him. I don't think he gets the same tough questions that he does when he goes on MSNBC or CNN and so frankly I think that if he doesn't go on Fox News or a couple of these, even Adam Schiff, that they can't expose him because they're going to get softball questions from not only CNN and MSNBC, but a lot of these networks as well and this happens on a lot of the other Sunday shows. So, I respectfully disagree because I think that being able to get these tough questions and have people like Jim Comey get questioned. Ben Domenech coming on earlier and I agree with him that it is allowed to crack through those talking points that he gives CNN and MSNBC and doesn't get any pushback on it.
Howard Kurtz: Yeah. It was a very strong interview by Chris Wallace and this is a news network and our job is to cover both sides. I know the president sometimes disagrees with that. Now I know as well that of course you strongly support the president who you work for but can you acknowledge that even if his dealings with the Ukraine were totally justified and even if, which can easily be argued, this doesn't rise to the level of impeachment, that the president's call with Vladimir Zelensky mentioning the Bidens wasn't to use his word, "perfect?"
Sean Spicer: I'm sorry. Say the que -- wasn't -- it was perfect or it wasn't? I know what he has said. Howard Kurtz: The president says perfect. I'm saying can you acknowledge or however else you may feel about this that it certainly wasn't a perfect phone call?
Sean Spicer: Well, clearly. I mean, with the controversy that's erupted but I think that the Democrats and most of the media has clearly taken this and decided what it was, not necessarily looked at the transcript. The president has gone above and beyond in terms of transparency and again, I think that there's a big difference between what he meant and what a lot of folks in the mainstream media and clearly on the left are trying to say he meant. I've encouraged people and I know the campaign has done the same, to actually read the transcript.
Howard Kurtz: Okay. So, look, clearly and we mentioned that this was true to a large extent also with Bill Clinton's impeachment. This is a one-party impeachment. No Republicans have signed onto it and probably will not. So, my question is do you think that most of the media coverage of these impeachment proceedings has been one-sided?
Sean Spicer: Oh, that's not even questionable. I think I watched some of the interviews that a lot of your colleagues at the other networks and even some of the reporters in terms of the print coverage of this and there's no question. They've already decided it. There's so many cases where reporters have left the role of being journalist and gone straight into opinion and there's several other Sunday shows that I've watched or read the transcript of over the last couple of weeks and it's clear that they have made it very clear what side of the aisle they're on. But let me just touch on something, Howie, that you said at the beginning. Here's what's really interesting. When it comes to the partisanship and you go back and you look at the comments of Jerry Nadler, you look at the comments of Adam Schiff, of Nancy Pelosi, talking about whether it's -- the current impeachment process or the impeachment process that occurred when their party was under attack during Bill Clinton's presidency and they've always talked about this idea of bipartisanship and yet what do we potentially have right now? You're right. There isn't one Republican that has signaled any intent of voting for impeachment. But there are a few Democrats who are talking about voting against impeachment. In fact, last night we have strong indications that one current Democratic member of Congress from New Jersey is going to flip parties.
Howard Kurtz: Right.
Sean Spicer: So, the interesting thing about this and this goes for the media as well, when it comes to a bipartisan effort, the bipartisan effort is actually against impeachment, not for it, and it has gotten no acknowledgement. I have seen over and over this commentary about how it's along party lines. Not true. We don't know that for certain and any indication that we have actually shows that it goes in the president's favor against impeachment not in the Democrats' favor --
Howard Kurtz: Okay.
Sean Spicer: --- and they're the ones who have put the line in the sand saying it needs to be bipartisan and it's actually the opposite of what they've said.
Howard Kurtz: That was Nancy Pelosi's previous position. I certainly would say it's predominantly along party lines but let me ask you this because New York Times had a piece the other day saying the president is discussing with his advisors whether to skip the 2020 general election debates because of his concern about the fairness of the moderators. Of course, haven't been chosen yet. Would you advise him to take such a drastic step?
Sean Spicer: Well, look, I think number one I -- his -- he did very well in the debates last cycle so I think no matter who the current Democrat nominee is going to end up or will be, I think he has an opportunity to really contrast his accomplishments and his policies and his agenda with their crazy left-wing socialist policies. So, I --
Howard Kurtz: Then why worry about the moderators?
Sean Spicer: --- saw how well he did last cycle and I -- I would tell him that he probably should. That being said, I think he is right and smart to challenge the current presidential commission on debates because the idea that these guys decide lock, stock, and barrel when they're going to debate, who the moderator is, and neither one of the campaigns and I would say this for both parties, but especially this president, he's shown time and time again that he isn't going to just play by the traditional rules. He should stand up for himself and for his campaign because he shouldn't just get left with deciding whoever they choose from the mainstream media is going to dictate this.
Howard Kurtz: All right.
Sean Spicer: We've seen over and over and over again how these debates can be crucial. I think he's smart for standing up for his -- for this point.
Howard Kurtz: All right. Well, we'll see how that plays out. Sean Spicer, appreciate your being here. Thanks very much.
Sean Spicer: You bet. Thanks, Howie.
Howard Kurtz: Coming up, a former top aide to Hillary Clinton responds as part of our fair and balanced coverage. And later, a big league botching on Times' person of the year.
[COMMERCIAL BREAK]
Howard Kurtz: And joining us now from New York, with an opposing point of view, is Philippe Reines, a former State Department official and confidante of Hillary Clinton. And Philippe, would you quarrel with the notion that many in the media are enthusiastic about impeachment and view the House Judiciary vote as a positive step?
Philippe Reines: Of course I would quarrel with it. I think, if anything, that they're confused by it -- which, you know, I've watched all three channels -- the three major cable channels over the last week. And two of them -- MSNBC and CNN -- have spent a lot of time grappling about how much time they should be spending on the actual vote and the accusations against Donald Trump versus covering the accusations against Hunter Biden. If you look at Fox, I don't think there's been a whole lot of breakdown between the merits of the impeachment argument versus going after Hunter Biden. And I think that makes a real difference. They've been unusually confused --
Philippe Reines: -- "they" being CNN and MSNBC.
Howard Kurtz: Interesting observation. So, the Washington Post reports that Nancy Pelosi and company are nervous, are worried that a half-dozen or more Democrats might defect when it comes to the impeachment vote this coming week, on the House floor. It doesn't seem that the media or your party -- and the president often says that the media are partners with the Democrats -- has been able to persuade this other half or 45 percent of the country that Donald Trump committed high crimes and misdemeanors. Everything seems stuck.
Philippe Reines: Well, you see, there are a couple of things that crack me up about that argument. First, if you go back to the beginning of this year, impeachment was stuck somewhere in the 30s. We are now at 50. And I believe, according to a Fox poll, 54 percent believe he should be impeached. So, this notion of the --
Howard Kurtz: Well, Fox actually says --
Philippe Reines: -- needle [unintelligible] --
Howard Kurtz: -- 50 percent. 50 percent. The same --
Philippe Reines: 50 percent --
Howard Kurtz: The same as in the last poll.
Philippe Reines: -- think he should be impeached and removed.
Howard Kurtz: And removed, yes.
Philippe Reines: 54 think he should be --
Howard Kurtz: I see.
Philippe Reines: -- impeached.
Howard Kurtz: Okay.
Philippe Reines: So, you know, of -- the idea that the needle is not moving is kind of comical, because it absolutely is. In terms of the media coverage, the media seems to be very bored by the actual substance of it. And what's exciting to them is this notion of -- two-fold. One, is the needle moving from minute to minute? And two, are there defectors? And the defector comment -- you know, yes, a Democrat is leaving. I'll tell you -- I'll give you a secret. Justin Amash was a Republican --
Howard Kurtz: [affirmative]
Philippe Reines: -- who left for the same reasons. And it doesn't matter. I believe that there's now 433 members of Congress -- because of Congressman Cummings' passing away, and because of Katie Hill. So, the magic number is 217. And Nancy Pelosi knows she has more than enough votes. So, again, I think the --
Howard Kurtz: Oh, I don't -- there's no question --
Philippe Reines: No -- I think -- but I think --
Howard Kurtz: -- about that.
Philippe Reines: -- I think there's any media drama about it is the media trying to instill some kind of excitement into something that's fundamentally pretty boring.
Howard Kurtz: Right. But I mean, I think it's been at around 50 percent, or a little bit less, for several weeks during, you know, saturation, non-stop -- 11 hours a day coverage of all these hearings, which just raises the question, why they're not having --
Philippe Reines: Well --
Howard Kurtz: -- more impact.
Philippe Reines: Well, but again, I go back to the point where two-thirds of the country didn't want this to happen. Majority now want it to happen. I'm not sure at what point there's a magic number that everyone says, "Okay. The country wants to have it." I think if, two weeks from now, it's at 55, Donald Trump and the Republicans will still be saying, "Well, it's only 55 percent." I don't think there's a number at which Donald Trump and the Republicans --
Howard Kurtz: [affirmative]
Philippe Reines: -- say, "Oh, okay. A lot want to have it."
Howard Kurtz: Right.
Philippe Reines: But the second point I would make is, you know, we're heading into the trial phase of this. And the House is a lively place, to put it politely. And you have these five minutes on, five minutes off, between the majority and the minority. And you have a lot of sparring, and not a lot to do. The trial is going to be -- as the Senate is -- a lot more dignified. My point is, if you look at the last two years, starting with the Mueller report, when there has been focus on the evidence, on the facts, they have not gone well for the president, in terms of polling. You're going to have a multi-week -- maybe one week, maybe two weeks, maybe five weeks -- of a trial where there are going to be House members, Democrats, functioning as managers who give up -- get up and make the case without a Jim Jordan yelling from his seat, without a Matt Gaetz yelling from his seat.
Howard Kurtz: It will be a very different scene, I know.
Philippe Reines: It's going to be very different. And you know, you don't know what does or doesn't move the needle. But --
Howard Kurtz: We're --
Philippe Reines: I'll tell you what -- the only needle that matters is 217 votes, and that needle is moving.
Howard Kurtz: Right. But then there's --
Philippe Reines: By --
Howard Kurtz: -- 67 votes in the Senate. We're short on time.
Philippe Reines: Yeah.
Howard Kurtz: So, I've got about half a minute here. As I mentioned with Sean Spicer, I mean, you went through the 2016 debates with Hillary Clinton. What do you make of The New York Times reporting the president is at least saying he may, out of concern about the moderators, skip the general election debates, which are always, you know, so crucial?
Philippe Reines: Yeah. I mean, I'm not surprised at all. I think, if anything, he wants to leave himself flexibility. You know, the whole point of the Commission is they set the number of debates and the location of the debates so much ahead of time, people can plan. That's sort of the opposite of what Donald Trump wants. Donald Trump wants the flexibility to only do one, only do two, only do three, or maybe do none. Now, what Sean said that I take issue with is --
Howard Kurtz: Just briefly.
Philippe Reines: -- that he did well in 2016. He did not do well in 2016. And if he had done well in 2016, he wouldn't be so worried about now. But the important thing to note about 2016 is that one of the three debates was moderated by a Fox host.
Howard Kurtz: That's Chris Wallace --
Philippe Reines: So, this is a bluff.
Howard Kurtz: -- the last debate. All right. Well, I --
Philippe Reines: [unintelligible] --
Howard Kurtz: -- thought you might take issue with Sean's point. But I've got to go.
Philippe Reines: Well, it's more -- it's Donald Trump's point; it's not Sean's point.
Howard Kurtz: AR.
Philippe Reines: Sean is being a dutiful soldier.
Howard Kurtz: [laughs] Philippe Reines, always good to see you. Thanks very much.
Philippe Reines: Thank you, Howie.
Howard Kurtz: After the break, Ben Domenech on the plummeting public trust in the media, and just about every other major institution.
[COMMERCIAL BREAK]
Howard Kurtz: Here's the overarching question. What impact is the impeachment drama having on trust in the media and other institutions? And we're back with The Federalist's Ben Domenech. You were -- you told the New York Times that for 50 years now, the steady degradation of trust in institutions and gatekeepers of American life has been an important trend, from media to politics to sports. Explain.
Ben Domenech: So, what we see when we look at the polling data over the course of the past half-century is that -- is declining trust in all sorts of institutions that have been central to Americans' existence as Americans, and that isn't limited to government incompetence of things of that nature. Rising distrust in big business, in the media, in the Congress, in churches --
Howard Kurtz: Wall Street and --
Ben Domenech: -- in Wall Street, and even in sports leagues to, you know, manage cheating or doping or the like. And what really does is it chips away at all these things that have made it possible for us to live a very unique existence as Americans. It's something that I think we all should be concerned about. And what I am most concerned about in this storyline is that the media is once again, just as they did at the end of the period of Robert Mueller's investigation, just as they did in terms of how much they got it wrong during the 2016 election, they're not having that level of introspection they ought to have about, “Why did we tell a story that was so incomplete for so long?â€
Howard Kurtz: Well, let me jump in, because the Washington Post had a blockbuster series this week, obtaining confidential documents about how three administrations -- the Bush administration, Obama, and Trump -- lied and misled about the Afghan war, where we've been now for 18 years. This wasn't the paper's opinion; this was interviews with top officials, all kinds of documents, and it got very little pickup.
Ben Domenech: It's a huge story, Howie, and it shouldn't -- I think most Americans are probably not that surprised that the government has been spinning this story about the Afghanistan war to them over the years. But it should be the biggest story that we're talking about, because we've spent a trillion dollars and lost more than 2,300 American lives in a war that we really don't know the purpose of anymore, and yet this story was not the one people were paying attention to. In fact, I consulted with Grabien, an internet service that tracks these sorts of things, and in the past four days -- Jake Tapper raised it this morning for the first time, but in the past four days, CNN did no segments on the Afghanistan papers, but they did do four different segments on this controversy that they were ginning about this Thanos meme that the president had -- his supporters had [unintelligible].
Howard Kurtz: Thanos is a Marvel comics villain, and it was a picture -- if we have it -- there's Donald Trump in Thanos garb. We've got less than a minute less; just 30 seconds left. Are too many of us in our bubbles, and is that what is causing people to retreat to their own storylines?
Ben Domenech: I do think that that's part of the problem, but it's only part of it. Really, I think that what is most important is that we start talking to our neighbors, prioritizing different things in our communities, and not get caught in the trap of looking at ourselves as kind of always being the victim, always being under assault.
Howard Kurtz: A trap it is indeed. Well put. Ben Domenech, great to see you this Sunday. Thanks so much. Still to come, a new film on falsely accused bomber Richard Jewell shows a female newspaper reporter sleeping with her source, and the paper says that's unfair.
[COMMERCIAL BREAK]
Howard Kurtz: Britt McHenry, a host at Fox Nation and an occasional guest on this program, has filed a sexual harassment suit against Fox News and Tyrus, whose real name is George Murdoch, and was to be a cohost of her online show. The suit alleges that he sent her sexually explicit messages and was at times hostile and aggressive, and she complained, she says in the suit, several times to Fox management, which assigned Tyrus to a different show. McHenry tweeting that "I'm standing up for myself, for women, and for what's right." A network spokesperson says, "As we have previously stated, Ms. McHenry's allegations have been fully investigated, and we are confident our actions will be deemed entirely appropriate in litigation." Tyrus denies those allegations, his attorney says, and plans to fight what he calls a smear campaign.
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution is crying foul over a Clint Eastwood film that recounts how the paper falsely fingered security guard Richard Jewell as responsible for the 1996 Olympic bombing.
[BEGIN VIDEO CLIP]
Female Speaker: Jewell fits the profile of the lone bomber. The frustrated white man who was a police wannabe who seeks to become a hero.
Male Speaker: [unintelligible]
Female Speaker: I report the facts.
Male Speaker: You've ruined this man's life.
[END VIDEO CLIP]
Howard Kurtz: The movie clearly implies that the late reporter Kathy Scruggs, played by Olivia Wilde, was sleeping with an FBI agent to get the story. The Constitution is demanding that Eastwood and Warner Brothers issue a statement admitting that some events were fictionalized and Warner Brothers called the newspaper's complaint baseless saying the film is based on a wide range of highly credible source material. Eastwood says the paper is probably trying to rationalize what it did. But look, accusing a woman of trading sex for scoops is absolutely insidious and if the filmmakers don't have the evidence to back that up, they should admit it's fiction. Time Magazine's pick as person of the year, 16-year-old climate activist Great Thunberg was controversial. President Trump also drew intense flack and front-page coverage for mocking her, saying she should work on her anger management problem and then his campaign thought it would be funny to superimpose Trump's head on the teenager's body. But the biggest loser here was The Washington Free Beacon which touted its big exclusive the night before that Time had picked the whistleblower. Ouch. Not much of an exclusive when it turns out not to be true.
And that is it for this edition of MediaBuzz. I'm Howard Kurtz. Check out my Media BuzzMeter podcast. We riff on the day's hottest stories. You can subscribe at Apple iTunes, Google Play, Foxnewspodcast.com, or on your Amazon device. We hope you also follow our Facebook page. We post my daily columns there. And let us know what you think about all of these issues that we've talked about here, impeachment, IG, whatever on Twitter @howardkurtz, I enjoy the back and forth. We're back here next Sunday morning 11 a.m. Eastern. We'll see you then with the latest buzz.
Content and Programming Copyright 2019 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 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 Fox News Network, LLC. 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